Hyundai, Kia. The cars that keep on giving
- Thread starter f1mauro
- Start date
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
As much as I appreciate the engineer's attempts, real world driving data is more important to me than theoretical numbers which will never be achieved.
The Fiat 500 averaged 6.9l/100k in 2012 and 6.5l/100k in 2011: http://www.fuelly.com/car/fiat/500
The Honda Odyssey averaged 9.9l/100k in 2000, but was thrown off due to bad data. If you look at 2001 and 2002 you will see 11.8 and 11.9 respectively. http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/odyssey
Therefore, no matter what the engineers reported for those years, I would expect to use 6.5l to 7.5l /100k for the fiat and 12 to 12.5l/100k for the Honda.
For the past 2.5 years I have had a Toyota Echo and I have tracked 80 fill ups covering over 40000km and I average 7.08l/100k as I do at least 50% city driving. Now look at the averages for the echo and you will see: 2003: 6.7, 2004: 6.3, and 2005: 6.6 -- all only slightly less than my real world data, but easily justifiable due to my city driving.
You guys aint real scientists. You're only mickey mouse people playing with numberz
Sent from my tablet using my paws
Not sure how useful those wide ranges are to indicate anything meaningful. Consider that the average discrepancy of Hyundai/Kia's errors was 0.3 l/100km. Their worst offender was off by 0.6 l/100km.
But even if we accept those ranges you came up with, then there are still 60% of drivers who would find that your conclusion doesn't represent their "real world" experience in the case of the Fiat. Honda drivers would be even further off, about 85% would be outside your predicted range. That's because the results reported by individuals are so spread out across the spectrum, as opposed to forming a natural bell curve, that they can't be deemed reliable.
Not that I'm surprised, this is what I'd expect from a non-existant testing methodology.
Even if the EPA numbers don't represent "real world conditions", at least every automaker should follow the exact same protocol when determining fuel economy numbers.
Also, the EPA figures help determine every automakers "Corporate Average Fuel Economy" aka CAFE, look it up, I'm not going to get into the long winded explanation of this. Hyundais fudging the numbers actually increased their CAFE rating. This is significant.
On the buyers end, at least he gets an accurate representation knowing that between models and brands, an identical method of testing was employed regardless of whether they personally achieve the EPA mileage figures or not in the real world,
Hyundai deliberately fudging the numbers is simply misleading to buyers to gain a competitive advantage when they have none. Who knows what other craftiness and deception they employed in the construction and/or advertising of their products?
Wait a minute? didn't they bs the hp claims on their engines once?
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/hyundai_settlement.html
:laughing3:
Also, the EPA figures help determine every automakers "Corporate Average Fuel Economy" aka CAFE, look it up, I'm not going to get into the long winded explanation of this. Hyundais fudging the numbers actually increased their CAFE rating. This is significant.
On the buyers end, at least he gets an accurate representation knowing that between models and brands, an identical method of testing was employed regardless of whether they personally achieve the EPA mileage figures or not in the real world,
Hyundai deliberately fudging the numbers is simply misleading to buyers to gain a competitive advantage when they have none. Who knows what other craftiness and deception they employed in the construction and/or advertising of their products?
Wait a minute? didn't they bs the hp claims on their engines once?
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/hyundai_settlement.html
:laughing3:
Last edited:
Fastar, you are right; it's for comparison only. Nobody would be complaining if they did their test and gave a rating of 23 smidlets, compared to the other company's car only getting up to 21 smidlets. The problem is people think they can get a car which will achieve the test numbers, and it's not designed that way.
The part I quoted. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
It's all about the hat, dewd.
They are supposed to. The EPA testing protocol is extremely detailed and it is supposed to be the same for everyone. Hyundai failed to do something in the prescribed manner (whether this was intentional or accidental will probably never be known) and they're paying for it now.
The real problem is that the EPA test procedure dates back to the 1970's and bears little resemblance to how people actually drive. The acceleration in the test procedure is extremely gentle and speeds are low (average speed for the EPA highway test is 48 mph). They have added some more tests with more aggressive driving and higher speeds, which are supposed to be taken into account for 2012, but the official test procedure is still the one being used for CAFE and emissions.
The gentle acceleration and low speeds seem to favour hybrid powertrains (and don't be mistaken ... powertrain engineers "design to the test" - they'll design the vehicle so that it can stay electric-only within the EPA test procedure as much as possible). I've driven a Prius, and when I'm driving it, the engine is running. For some reason, the test puts modern diesel powertrains at a disadvantage ... possibly because they are putting so little load on the engine that the engine has to deliberately burn extra fuel to keep the catalyst warmed up ... this is not a problem when I'm driving.
Red_Liner740
Well-known member
Meh, all i know is, that 3 years ago i radically changed how i drive my car, since then i' drastically beat the EPA numbers on ANY car i drive.
you want better numbers? Adjust the big nut behind the wheel.
you want better numbers? Adjust the big nut behind the wheel.
If you can match or beat the 28mpg hwy that's stated on the window sticker (I kept it) of my F-150, I'll GIVE IT TO YOU.
Downhill with following wind?
Was that a US sticker or a Transport Canada sticker?
The Transport Canada consumption figures are more unrealistic than the US figures. The US implemented a "fudge factor" starting in 2008, arbitrarily reducing the numbers shown on those stickers. Transport Canada did not.
On the other hand ... from www.fueleconomy.gov (I selected the option to give L/100 km that I am more familiar with)
2006 VW Jetta TDI, manual. They say 7.8 city 6.4 highway. Users report 5.6 L/100 km and that is very close to my own experience. The only way mine ever uses as much as 7.8 L/100 km is if I'm towing my trailer with bikes on it ...
Was that a US sticker or a Transport Canada sticker?
The Transport Canada consumption figures are more unrealistic than the US figures. The US implemented a "fudge factor" starting in 2008, arbitrarily reducing the numbers shown on those stickers. Transport Canada did not.
On the other hand ... from www.fueleconomy.gov (I selected the option to give L/100 km that I am more familiar with)
2006 VW Jetta TDI, manual. They say 7.8 city 6.4 highway. Users report 5.6 L/100 km and that is very close to my own experience. The only way mine ever uses as much as 7.8 L/100 km is if I'm towing my trailer with bikes on it ...
Over a cliff with the engine off, possibly (I'll do this test one day).
It's the large window sticker that comes on all new vehicles which indicates all options / standard equipment / pricing / "EnerGUIDE" / etc. - "Vehicle Description / description De Vehicule" (I have it in front of me now).
(From the factory - there are "USA" & "CDN" specific paperwork / window stickers).
This load I bought (4.6V8 ) claims 14.9L/100km or 19mi/gal City & 10.2L/100km / 28mi/gal Highway.
I track it on fuelly.com: http://www.fuelly.com/driver/axe55/f150
I can't even get (claimed) city milage on the highway.
The 'milage calculator' in the 'info' system is showing 17+L/100kms.
When it was a week old, I swapped the stock exhaust (SI/SO) for a Magnaflow SI/DO which is supposed to help
.
It's the large window sticker that comes on all new vehicles which indicates all options / standard equipment / pricing / "EnerGUIDE" / etc. - "Vehicle Description / description De Vehicule" (I have it in front of me now).
(From the factory - there are "USA" & "CDN" specific paperwork / window stickers).
This load I bought (4.6V8 ) claims 14.9L/100km or 19mi/gal City & 10.2L/100km / 28mi/gal Highway.
I track it on fuelly.com: http://www.fuelly.com/driver/axe55/f150
I can't even get (claimed) city milage on the highway.
The 'milage calculator' in the 'info' system is showing 17+L/100kms.
When it was a week old, I swapped the stock exhaust (SI/SO) for a Magnaflow SI/DO which is supposed to help
.
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
You mean the part where I suggested that the people that are testing the cars for fuel consumption, horsepower, torque, etc, are likely mechanical engineers and not scientists of some sort?
Hey, I could be wrong, maybe they have PhDs in Dynocology or something...
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
I try to hyper-mile sometimes, but I find a few situations in a big city were it is tough to do, such as:
1. Lets say you are going to turn right on to a busy road from a small road (no light). Your destination is 500m or less up the busy road on the opposite side. Traffic is heavy and steady -- how do you get across while not going over 2000 rpm? For me, I would wait for a gap in the right most lane, enter that lane, accelerate until I am going the speed of traffic, and merge left for two lanes until I can turn left at my destination.
2. Lets say you are entering a highway (like the Gardiner around Jameson) where the merge lane is short and the traffic is heavy. How do you get up to the speed of traffic and merge with a short merge lane while hyper-miling?
3. Lets say you are driving on Hurontario between Eglinton and the Queensway where you have about 50 traffic lights in a 5km stretch and none of them are timed -- all are on induction loops, so you often get a green light on one just for the next light 100m up turns red. How do you avoid having to come to a complete stop and accelerating from zero many times in this situation?
I know how I approached these when I drove a truck -- for 1. and 2. I just accelerated as I could (slowly) and went where I wanted to. However, in a truck people gave me more space and allowed for slower speeds without honking or getting into a rage. With scenario 3 there was nothing I could do but take another route if possible -- not unless I wanted to change gears a million times in 5km.
Red_Liner740
Well-known member
Driving like a grandmother actually DOESNT help you.
Every engine has a BFSC = Brake Specific fuel consumption. In laymans terms...the optimum RPM and throttle position where the fuel is consumed in most efficient way. Usually its 80% throttle around the peak torque RPM. Yea you read that right....heavy throttle at between 2.5 to 4K is what my Civic likes, as do most cars. Think of it this way....with you babying the throttle you're keeping the throttle plate closed creating a large vacuum pump out of your engine. The power stroke is working against the intake stroke. The cylinder is going down but the vacuum created by it is pulling the cylinder back up. Not an efficient system. Thats why everyone is switching to Direct Injection, also why Diesels are so damn efficient. No throttle plate to create a vacuum and rob the engine of power.
Anywho, back to your examples...In most cases i accelerate fairly hard, get up to speed if not faster and throw the car in neutral....coast for as long as possible and slow as possible without pissing other people off. You want to get to the top gear as fast as possible and stay there.
The absolute most you will gain while hyper milling in the city is by driving as if you have no brakes....for instance....500m up ahead the light is red, you know that the red light wont be on much longer...if you maintain your speed you will hit the back of the waiting pack of cars and have to stop and accelerate again. Break NOW to a slower speed and coast the rest...with enough practice you will learn to time it so you will maintain speed and catch up to the back of the pack as they reach cruise velocity. Voila, you maintained momentum and used only a small amount of extra fuel to return to cruise speed.
I would seriously invest in an MPG meter. I have UltraGuage and its great. http://www.ultra-gauge.com/ultragauge/index.htm Hooks up to your OBD2 port and depending on the car you can have 20+ parameters to choose from. Instantenous MPG, Trip MPG, Distance to Empty, Fuel level, Coolant temp, Gallons per hour, Oil temp, O2 sensor trim, intake temp, oil temp, TPS position, you name it. It also doubles as CEL code reader and can clear codes as well.
One thing that the Ultraguage showed me is just how much fuel the engine burns to maintaing its RPM. Heres my Civics example. On a hot day my gallons per hour while idling and engine hot will be in the 0.15 g/h area. Thats to maintain a 800rpm idle. To maintain a 3000 RPM in neutral, so nothing but spinning the engine and input shaft of the tranny it takes 1 gallon an hour burn rate!!! to triple the engine speed takes more than 6 times the fuel! Where does this information become useful? You know those long hills where if you stay in gear you almost let go of the gas to maintain the speed? Steep enough hill and you actually start to engine brake...well, That little gas pedal holding you're doing is sending fuel to maintain the RPM, nothing more as the cars momentum is propelling it down the hill. Throw it in neutral and watch that MPG go from 40's to 300's!! Long enough hill and you can turn off the engine. My SIR has electric power assist so i dont loose power steering and the vacuum booster has enough vacuum in reserve for a few brake times.
Damn, i wrote another novel.....
Every engine has a BFSC = Brake Specific fuel consumption. In laymans terms...the optimum RPM and throttle position where the fuel is consumed in most efficient way. Usually its 80% throttle around the peak torque RPM. Yea you read that right....heavy throttle at between 2.5 to 4K is what my Civic likes, as do most cars. Think of it this way....with you babying the throttle you're keeping the throttle plate closed creating a large vacuum pump out of your engine. The power stroke is working against the intake stroke. The cylinder is going down but the vacuum created by it is pulling the cylinder back up. Not an efficient system. Thats why everyone is switching to Direct Injection, also why Diesels are so damn efficient. No throttle plate to create a vacuum and rob the engine of power.
Anywho, back to your examples...In most cases i accelerate fairly hard, get up to speed if not faster and throw the car in neutral....coast for as long as possible and slow as possible without pissing other people off. You want to get to the top gear as fast as possible and stay there.
The absolute most you will gain while hyper milling in the city is by driving as if you have no brakes....for instance....500m up ahead the light is red, you know that the red light wont be on much longer...if you maintain your speed you will hit the back of the waiting pack of cars and have to stop and accelerate again. Break NOW to a slower speed and coast the rest...with enough practice you will learn to time it so you will maintain speed and catch up to the back of the pack as they reach cruise velocity. Voila, you maintained momentum and used only a small amount of extra fuel to return to cruise speed.
I would seriously invest in an MPG meter. I have UltraGuage and its great. http://www.ultra-gauge.com/ultragauge/index.htm Hooks up to your OBD2 port and depending on the car you can have 20+ parameters to choose from. Instantenous MPG, Trip MPG, Distance to Empty, Fuel level, Coolant temp, Gallons per hour, Oil temp, O2 sensor trim, intake temp, oil temp, TPS position, you name it. It also doubles as CEL code reader and can clear codes as well.
One thing that the Ultraguage showed me is just how much fuel the engine burns to maintaing its RPM. Heres my Civics example. On a hot day my gallons per hour while idling and engine hot will be in the 0.15 g/h area. Thats to maintain a 800rpm idle. To maintain a 3000 RPM in neutral, so nothing but spinning the engine and input shaft of the tranny it takes 1 gallon an hour burn rate!!! to triple the engine speed takes more than 6 times the fuel! Where does this information become useful? You know those long hills where if you stay in gear you almost let go of the gas to maintain the speed? Steep enough hill and you actually start to engine brake...well, That little gas pedal holding you're doing is sending fuel to maintain the RPM, nothing more as the cars momentum is propelling it down the hill. Throw it in neutral and watch that MPG go from 40's to 300's!! Long enough hill and you can turn off the engine. My SIR has electric power assist so i dont loose power steering and the vacuum booster has enough vacuum in reserve for a few brake times.
Damn, i wrote another novel.....
Lawsuit time!
This thing is far from over.....
http://www.leftlanenews.com/hyundai-kia-face-federal-lawsuit-over-wrong-fuel-economy-ratings.html
BTW, in addition to reporting proper mileage figures, they really need to keep their quality consistent as well......
"This fuel economy flap comes on the heels of the latest reliability ratings from Consumer Reports, which said most Hyundai and Kia models have “average” reliability. The Kia brand is ranked 10th overall in the 2012 Annual Auto Reliability Survey, while Hyundai came in ranked 17th out of 28 brands ranked. A middling performance at best. On top of that, this past summer J.D. Power and Associates’ latest Initial Quality Study ranked both brands below the industry average for quality, though the three-year J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study has Hyundai above average (with Kia below average)."
This thing is far from over.....
http://www.leftlanenews.com/hyundai-kia-face-federal-lawsuit-over-wrong-fuel-economy-ratings.html
BTW, in addition to reporting proper mileage figures, they really need to keep their quality consistent as well......
"This fuel economy flap comes on the heels of the latest reliability ratings from Consumer Reports, which said most Hyundai and Kia models have “average” reliability. The Kia brand is ranked 10th overall in the 2012 Annual Auto Reliability Survey, while Hyundai came in ranked 17th out of 28 brands ranked. A middling performance at best. On top of that, this past summer J.D. Power and Associates’ latest Initial Quality Study ranked both brands below the industry average for quality, though the three-year J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study has Hyundai above average (with Kia below average)."
Last edited:
I just came back from the dealership. I will be compensated. The dude didn't say much. According to the calculations on their site. I'm getting $37 for 8,600km driven so far. They will ship u a gas card and u have to make a claim every year because they need to know how much kms are driven.
They only compensate for 20k km per year max
Do you think one group is more qualified to provide accurate numbers? Also, what's the difference between a scientist and an engineer in this role?
