I think your expectations are a little too high. The 2012 Accent auto hatchback is rated 30 city / 40 highway; you are getting 33 mpg in combined city/highway driving; and you are disappointed with that mileage? You are right in the estimated range for combined driving.

 

I'm disappointed with the mileage too. Mine averages about 28 mpg combined. Under ideal conditions it will get 35 to 37. The MPG computer is consistently 2 MPG off. If it says 30 MPG, then you're really getting 28 MPG.

I had a 1988 Honda CRX 5 speed that got 38-42 mpg at high interstate speeds. This Hundai gets about 34 at the same speeds. I was expecting some 40+ mpg's, but its not gonna do it.

 

Im extremely happy with my mileage. I treat it like a game where I keep the little MPG computer above 40mpg as much as I can. Driving gentle, coasting a lot etc. has gotten me above 50mpg on a 22 mile commute. I consistently achieve above 40mpg in town.

 

Really? Wasn't it you that said just 4 months ago in this very thread:
--------------------

Honda CRX hatchback = 1.6L, manual trans, 2 passenger, 2174 pounds
Accent GLS sedan = 1.6L, automatic, 5 passenger, 2463 pounds

Sorry but it's Physics 101: more weight = less fuel economy. Plus the Accent has a automatic vs manual and a larger sedan body that is less aerodynamic and heavier.

 

Driving over 2000 rpm is inefficient.

If I can keep the car at or below 2k rpm, then i get much better fuel economy.

When I drive 75mph (every day on the way to work), I get about 260-270 miles on the trip before my fuel light comes on. That's about 32-34mpg (average, not the real-time mpg).

This week I've been driving more conservatively, between 60 and 65mph and I have 285 miles with some more to go before my fuel light comes on.

It's all about keeping it under 2000rpm.

Anyway, I thought all accents came with a 1.6L engine, not a 1.8L??? Technically, the accent should get more mileage if it has a 1.8L as the elantra is rated 30/40 with a 1.8L and it is much heavier than the accent.

 

You are correct. That was a typo on my part. Thanks, I have corrected my post.

 

I'm pretty much getting 39.8 mpg, I drive around trip 210 miles with driving through a small town for 10 miles... 65mph to 40 mph in town. and the occasionally blasting by slow cars!!! drive it like u stole it!!!!

Plus I'm running AMSOIL 5W20 synthetic oil.. have 11000 miles on accent !!!

 

Nova,
It goes against my better judgement to disagree with a moderator because I'd like to avoid being banned and I'd really like to be able to provide input here.

I haven't been dishonest because I said I'm disappointed with the mileage now. And all the old posts you mentioned are spot-on. If you'll read them carefully you'll notice that all the mileages I mentioned were at specific, deliberate test speeds. Generally lower speeds than I drive. Indeed, at low, steady state speeds this car may still be really impressive. Notwithstanding, one of the problems I mentioned in latter posts is the fact that the MPG computer is inaccurate. So all the data in those really old posts are overly enthusiastic. I didn't know this at the time. I now know that the MPG computer is consistantly 2 MPG enthusiastic in the average range of 28-35 mpg. It may be worse at higher mileages.
The reason I'm disappointed is the fact that if this car is driven "normally" then it does not get exceptionally high mileages. This is a disappointment considering that this car is supposed to be the best there is on the market for mileage (for normal gasoline engined cars.) All the mileages I've recorded in the past, on my old cars, were under normal driving conditons, without particular care given to improve the mileage.
The old Honda CRX I had was the 1.5L, not the 1.6. It consistently out-did its EPA fuel economy rating. Also, in my experiences all the old economy type cars I had would out-do the EPA rating. But not this new Hyundai.
And to add to my disappointment, The old EPA ratings were more enthusiastic than the new, lower EPA ratings that this new Hyundai is rated at.
I could drive that old worn out CRX with a kinda heavy foot and it would still out-do the EPA ratings. I really don't lean on the Hyundai too much, and it still can't really quite match its EPA rating of 30/40. I've always just driven my cars and never really paid close attention to driving easy to improve the MPG.
That being said, according to the MPG computer, this Hyundai IS capable of some really impressive numbers if you can drive like a grandma. But is the MPG computer right? I think it would still get some really good numbers even with the inaccuracy of the MPG computer. I guess the old CRX would have been even more impressive if I drove it like a grandma too.
On the CRX vs. Accent specs... yes the CRX is lighter, but the steady-state highway figures I mentioned are not dramatically affected by the few hundred pounds of extra weight. And to be fair, the Accent does have a lock-up torque converter and ALOT taller gearing. It also has low rolling resistance tires. The old CRX didn't. I'm pretty sure the coefficient of drag is less on the new Hyundai than the old boxy CRX. Aerodynamics has come to the forefront in the last several years to improve mileage. Also, the accent has direct fuel injection, variable valve timing, a variable length intake manifold, an 11:1 compression ratio, and a 6 speed transmission. And most significantly, 23 years to improve.
I was expecting the new Accent to at least match the old CRX, but it doesn't really seem to do it. Its also worth noting that my CRX was the regular model, not the HF ("high fuel economy") model.

 

The computer is an estimate. There's no way it can be 100% accurate.

Second, how long ago did you have your CRX? Todays gasoline has 10% ethanol which LOWERS fuel economy. I'll bet your '89 CRX was driven on 100% gasoline.

 

The old EPA ratings were actually inaccurate compared to today ratings. They changed in 2007. You will notice the drop in mileage in the Civics going from 2006 to 2008. The 2007 model is rated at 40mpg highway, but the 2008 is rated at 34mpg (or 36 iirc) even though it has the same engine, transmission, etc.

People used to complain a lot on how cars didn't meet the EPA rating more so than they do now but mainly on the heavier SUVs, etc. Back then the EPA rating didn't matter that much because gas was cheap and SUVs and heavier sedans were the hottest selling cars.

I hope you're not basing all of this off of the real-time MPG, which actually calculates the real-time MPG every 2-seconds, so not 100% real-time...

The avg. MPG meter on the dashboard is based off of distance/gas, but even the manual says that can be inaccurate if not reset properly.