Veloster Forum banner
240K views 859 replies 310 participants last post by  Ricky-D 
#1 ·
Veloster owners, feel free to post your real world mpgs here. The Veloster is rated 28 city, 40 hwy. It's interesting to see if the Veloster is better or worse than those numbers.
 
#755 ·
Two fillups so far. Veloster Auto Base w/style & tech packages. 90% city driving with stoplights about every mile or two. Hilly driving primarily downhill going to work and uphill returning 15 miles each way. Driving light on the pedal with occasional moderate hard accelleration (once or twice per 15 miles). A/C off.

Fillup #1: Trip computer 36.5 mpg, Calculated 35.5
Fillup #2: Trip computer 36.2 mpg, Calculated 35.5
 
#757 ·
I bought my Veloster 10/20/12. I was in New Jersey when Sandy hit. I had no traffic and drove home on I-287 after the storm. 287 is smooth, flat and has concrete soundguards that are great at cutting down crosswind. I got about 38 per gallon, but could not get any more. I only had about 650 miles on the car at the time. Regular fuel, except during the gas shortage and all they had was premium.

About a week later I get the news about the MPG adjustment. It's still great gas mileage compared to the 2006 Impala. I'll take their money too :)
 
#758 ·
You're lucky you didn't get stuck here for the aftermath for the gas shortage and ration lines. I drive 287 for 110 miles a day and I'm able to get more than 40mpg on the dash if I cruise around 65 but that's risky b/c people cut me off let and right at that speed. If you drive 75mph and above like normal commuters do, you'll never get close to 40
 
#761 · (Edited)
Hi, Community... here comes my very first post.

So does the type of gas, or even which brand/distributor have anything to do with MPGs? I've been using MPG tracker (on iPhone) for the last 5 fill-ups and I've gotten 27.17 MPG (most recent), 27.59 MPG, 27.99 MPG & 28.32 MPG (back in early October). I've religiously filled up @ Costco with regular unleaded.

My husband has been mainly filling up at a different supplier, except the 2 most recent fill-ups...when he went to Costco. His MPGs seem to be down slightly, he uses FuelLog for Android, and has got 25.56 MPG, 26.67 MPG, 25.50 MPG, 26.67 MPG & 27.07 MPG. However, there are a whole host of other variables... his is a 2013 VT/6-speed, mine a 2012 NA, DCT. Perhaps we can't really compare because they aren't exactly apples to apples. But it does still make me wonder.

Another question I have is that I've been using the ECO coach for the last two fill-ups with no noticeable difference in MPGs . Any thoughts? Or is that for a different thread?
 
#762 · (Edited)
Took a trip to Palm Springs, CA today. Car has about 3100 miles on it. Manual, tech and style package with continental DWS tires. Filled the tank up before I left and inflated tires to 32psi. Sunny day, not much wind most of it level driving though there were some hills. Had the A/C on for part of the way. Set cruise at posted limits 65 and 70. Returned and went to the gas station to fill the tank. The gas gauge was at half. I put 249.9 miles on the car and it took 5.88 gallons. MPG of 42.5 I could not believe it. Mostly I do city driving. My salesman had said to wait that the engine is "Tight" and takes some miles before it opens up and starts delivering good mileage. I was skeptical. Obviously he was right. I am thrilled. I may have to keep the gas station receipt.
 
#763 ·
OK so I have a NAV 6MT. I live in the Puget Sound area and have a ~80 mile round trip commute four days a week. I've driven her over the mountains to Leavenworth and out to the Sound and all over... The Dash system says I've been getting about 3mpg better than I have in reality but here are my numbers so far:
Avg fuel economy of 35.04 with a best of 37 and a worst just under 33. I tend to granny her since I'm used to a sports car and this is a grocery getter but my girl drives an old jeep and thinks the NAV is fast/fun so she beats up on her a little...

FWIW- I calculate mine with the Mileage android app. Pretty simple/easy to use.



OdometerMilesGallonsMPG
2455.9390
62237711.03434.1671
97435210.11234.8101
12252516.80936.863
15743499.76635.7362
18602868.62133.1748
225239211.01735.5814
2633NA3.779NA
27154639.30635.384
310038510.437.0192
34543549.69736.5061
383638211.62532.8602
41142788.08134.4017
447936510.17635.8687
47432647.80333.8331
50663239.36434.4938


Sad part: my $1500 Saturn with ~186k miles on her gets almost exactly the same mileage... 15 years and .4mpg is the best bump they can make?
And don't start on the modern cars are heavier crap as the Saturn's curb weight is almost identical. Oh well. The V doesn't drink oil or look like crap so she's a healthy upgrade even if her MPG isn't impressive.
 
#766 ·
It probably wasn't a faulty algorithm. It's probably a faulty input- My guess is inaccurate reading of the fuel metering.
And it is cheating. That's why they're paying out a lot of money and there is a class action lawsuit forming.
Sorry but the overly optimistic average MPG reading on the dash has zilch to do with their faulty EPA testing routine. It's also worth mentioning that not everyone is stuck with this AVG display, other regions have a more accurate instant MPG reading but they appear to have thought the US folks couldn't deal with it. ;)
 
#769 ·
I know the Canadian VT has an instant MPG readout (I don't remember if the NA did though). I was able to tell during a test drive that I wouldn't be able to hit the MPG numbers the way I was driving...any little blip of the throttle killed the MPG's (actually, raised the L/100kms).

I think it's because the engines are so small that they are "twitchy" and want to rev really high. I test drove a 2013 Lancer SE-AWC, it has a 2.4L, 168HP engine w/CVT, but was able to hit 5 L/100 km at 100km/h (the VT was sitting around 7 L/100 km). This is assuming the readouts on both cars are in fact accurate though.
 
#768 ·
I have posted my MPG already but I had a thought yesterday about the Eco Driving Information screen...

Obviously the AVG MPG display is wrong as many know already, I am assuming that the ECO Driving Information is as well, but has anyone tested this?

I did a quick calculation after my fillup the other day and noticed that the Eco Driving Information screen was lower than the Average MPG Readout.

I just took the average of the 20 minute drive that the ECO showed and compared to my AVG display and the ECO was was lower (possibly more accurate)

Has anyone done this for the entire tank by keeping a record of all of the Eco Driving Information averages? (obviously it won't be completely accurate because the ECO has the 50 MPG max but would still be interesting to see how much closer it is)
 
#770 ·
the turbo motors are naturally going to be a LOT more thirsty at higher throttles- any engine is. Modern GDI engines are going to have much more "peaky" consumption graphs than port-injected NA motors. The high-revving just helps make up for displacement. You generally don't need both.
My ex and I bought a Toyota Rav4 and the V6 was only about 3mpg worse than the 4-cyl because gentle driving didn't require the big engine to actually DO much. I'd wager these cars work similarly.
 
#774 ·
[mod tiara]
Please carry on the discussion about the MPG credits and inaccuracies program over in the thread for it so that we don't drift too far OT here.
As mentioned, this is NOT the thread to discuss the EPA/mileage discrepency issues, those posts were moved to a more appropriate thread.

Just a reminder that the goal of this thread is to discuss real world MPG results, pen and paper with manual calculations, and how you got there if you're boasting or complaining.[/mod tiara]
 
#775 ·
I am very displeased with my 2013 Veloster Turbo MT milage. The sticker said 38 highway and I have not had one tank over 31 since buying the car in July 2012. I commute and purchased the car based on the fuel ratings for highway use. I have tried regular and premium and get the same milage. Hyundai is now trying to buy me off with this 2 to 3 milage difference offer. I would have not bought this car if I would have known the difference would be this large. Going from 38 down to 30 is a big. Also I would like to add that the computers average is very different from my calculations; it says I'm getting 35.6 on average. Hyunai says this is the real milage of the car but it does not jive with tank to fillups verses miles driven.
 
#776 ·
There are MPG threads in the turbo forums where folks are pretty clear they can come right up to the listed specs, if you're getting that low there's either a technical issue with the car that can be identified, or you're having too much fun pressing down on the gas pedal. The one thing an 8 mpg HWY difference isn't and that's Hyundai's fault, it's almost always the driver.

I'll ask the question we always do, so how fast were you going on the highway? if it's over 60 that's where your mpg went, EPA tests for HWY average 48 MPH with only a burst to 60. (I know, nothing ruins a good rant better than facts)
 
#779 ·
No one's ranting here, I base it on the FACT that I drove a Toyota Celica GT for years on the same commute and averaged 32 to 33 MPG, and it's a 93 with 275K miles. It's poor when a 2013 auto that weights less and even has an extra gear for highway driving get 2 mpg less. You have to remember that the Veloster talk from Hyundai was as much about MPG as it was about performance. I'm adding my 2 cents worth so others can compare.
 
#781 ·
RE: Real World MPGs

I have a 2013 with approx 8000 miles on it , not happy with the gas milage at all , best to date is 236 miles ( this was one bar , with less than 30 miles to go ) with normal driving containing 50% city / 50 % highway , Its a turbo with the auto trans ** Complained to the dealership they said wait for the break in period and I'd see a difference ... REALLY NOW ... then the idiot sales guy says if I use the ECO button I'll get 7 more miles a gallon ,, BULLSHIT , car runs like **** with that on and gets worse gas mileage
 
#784 ·
I have 24k on my 2012 veloster and drive 99% city. I have been averaging 28-29 mpg and if I completely emty the gas tank I would get 360 on a tank. This works for me because when I hade my genesis coupe I averaged 18 mpg and was lucky to get 300 miles on a 17 gallon gas tank where as I get just as many miles on a 13 gallon tank with the veloster.
 
#787 ·
I'm still in the middle of the run in period, which means no eco mode and trying to keep the revs between 2000 rpm and 4000 rpm so this is not a very telling value, but I got 25.6 mpg from my first full tank of 98RON fuel. This is calculated by hand from how many kms I did and how much fuel went in to the tank. The on board computer claimed 26.7 mpg. Most of my driving has been urban and as the official consumption figure (urban, EU-norm) is 29.4 mpg, I'm not too disappointed in the result. I'll continue the run in period for the next full tank of gas, but after that I'll probably get values I can compare with my ex-Scirocco's consumption figures.
 
#789 ·
The best ive gotten so far was 7.2L/100km which is 32-33 MPG range. This was a mix of highway (110km -68 mph) and city (69km - 37 mph). However I do not trust the calculations based on when I fill the car it will jump up to 20 from 7 or 8 and takes a few KM's to drop to a normal rate..... I figured the dash calculation would factor spent fuel vs odometer unless the fuel level sensor sucks and assumes a full tank each time.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top