Yeah, unless you Canadians get some special gas, I don't know how your Tourings can achieve 32 MPG (8.7L-100km) city and 43 MPG (6.5L-100km) highway when U.S. Tourings only get 23 MPG (10L-100km) city and 30 MPG (8L-100km) highway. Somebody isn't telling the truth or screwed up the conversion.

 

I got the fuel economy from the brouchure and from the window sticker.

Teebs, how many KM's to you get per tank?

According to the Fuel Mileage they get in the US, it's identical to my 2001 Sentra. I should at least get the same fuel economy I did with my Sentra but I am not. Like a mentioned before, I used to get close to 500 km per tank with the sentra and I haven't yet hit 500 km with my touring and it has an 11 L bigger tank. What gives?

 

Again, it's a heavier car and you don't drive it the way they do in tests that determine the fuel economy ESTIMATE. The heavier the car the lower the economy will drop. Drive a light car hard and it will only be slightly lower than the estimate. Drive a heavier car hard and it will drop lower.

Like I sad before, if you aren't happy with the economy, driver slower. If you don't want to drive slower don't complain abot the fuel economy.

 

I would like to point out that there are some differences between the US and Canadian Elantra Tourings; those sold in the US are predominately made in the US, whereas those sold in Canada are shipped in from Korea. Some features that are standard on the base model in the US (like ESC) are only available on higher-end models in Canada (for 2010, was only available on the GLS and GLS Sport models).

However, much of the differences in results are caused by differences in the test procedures. From the 2010 ecoENERGY Fuel Consumption Guide (http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportatio...guide-2010.pdf), page 10:

The Fuel Consumption Guide linked above details the basic test procedure for vehicles: the tests occur on a two-wheel dynamometer, with various "factors" artificially applied to the result to generate the economy rating.

In short, the results are only really valid when comparing two different vehicles that have undergone the same testing procedure. It's not useful for comparing against what you see in the real-world, nor is it valid for comparisons with results using different testing methods.

(Because of some of the artificial nature of the testing, what they really should do is normalize the value against some fixed scale (like 0 - 100), and then publish a relative "score" value. Publishing a L/100km in such an artificial environment seems somewhat dishonest to me. The 2010 guide lists the Automatic Elantra Touring as doing 8.7L/100km city, and 6.5L/100km highway. I haven't been manually calculating the fuel efficiency of my ET, but it's computer calculates my overall efficiency as about 9.5L/100km, which seems more "real world" based on figures I've seen others posting).

Yaz.

 

And there you have it. Testing procedures vary.

 

Nope, ALL Tourings for North America are made in Korea. Hyundai's Alabama plant ONLY makes Sonatas and Santa Fes. So no difference in manufacturing. Some trim level differences, but that's it.

http://www.hmmausa.com/vehicles.aspx

Which is similar to the test conducted by the EPA in the States, the only difference being how they artificially apply different "factors".

So basically the numbers are of no use whatsoever? The US numbers seem to be a fairly accurate representation of what this car is capable of, and the NRC numbers are a pipe dream ..... completely out to lunch. Which is quite apparent if you compare the Touring numbers with the Elantra sedan (a lighter vehicle with an identical powertrain). I'm currently getting about 11L/100km in the city, and about 8.5-9L on the highway, which considering my driving style, falls in line with the US numbers...and I've not yet managed to break 500km on one tank. On paper at least, the Touring should have been fairly similar the 98 Corolla which I traded in for it. In reality, not so much.

Or better yet, they should do some real world testing instead of running the car on a dyno, where they can basically cook the numbers afterwards. And yes all this is a tad dishonest. So who can you blame? The government for publishing the results of an obviously flawed test. Or the car company for prominently using those numbers in their advertising? Realistically, this is what we seem to be stuck with, so consumers REALLY need to do their homework, and not take the "official" numbers at face value....

 

I haven't read every post in this thread but I thought I'd share my results.
At 15,000km on my 2010 ET with the 5 speed manual gearbox I get the following:
City: 650-670km/tank, or about 7.7-8.2L/100km. When I get this the trip computer will read approximately 7.2L/100km
Highway: 850-910km/tank, or about 5.7-6.1L/100km. When I get this the trip computer will read approximately 5.3-5.5L/100km

The trip computer is somewhat optimistic, but at least it is repeatable so I can tell from it rather accurately what I will find when I do the calculations later.
When driving around town I typically shift at 2500RPM-2700RPM until 3rd gear, then ~2200RPM into 4th and 5th. On the highway I don't tailgate at all and typically hold 5-10% over the speed limit (usually a 70/30 split of 90km/hr and 110km/hr speed limits).

I generally drive with 1 passenger in the rear seat + a baby seat (and baby) in the back, and ~50lbs of junk in the hatch at all times.

 

Nova Resource:

I don't mean to be a pain but wouldn't the fuel mileage numbers reflect the size and weight of the vehicle? So if the Touring is bigger and heavier then the Sentra, then the fuel mileage numbers should be higher. According to the US estimated values, the Touring and the 2001 Sentra are identical in fuel economy. I would assume because of this, I would get equal fuel economy as the 2001 Sentra by driving the two vehicles the same. But it's not even close. If it was a bit different, I wouldn't be complaining, but I am using 10 - 15 L more gas a tank then I did with my Sentra. That's what I don't get. I just thought that the advances in fuel economy over 10 years cancelled out the size and weight of the Touring.

Zero10 is getting double the KM's per tank then I am but he has manual transmission and is keeping his RPM's low. I hover around 3000 RPM on the highway exactly the same RPM's I was getting with the Sentra. So I can see why Zero10 is getting better mileage than me, but I still don't really understand why I am loosing over 10 L of gas to the Sentra.

 

You didn't read what I said. Yes, if both cars were driven just like they drive them in the tests, they would get the same economy. But those tests are not done the way real people actually drive. So when you drive them at higher speeds and accelerate harder, the fuel economy on the heavier car will be affected greater than the lighter car.

 

In my 2011 I get 8.7L/100km city/hiway combo including winter warm-up. This is respectable. There were some tranny and engine tweaks done on the 2011s to save gas.