The Hyundai Elantra Touring and the Compact Mileage Problem

Justin Berkowitz
by Justin Berkowitz

Hyundai just released some pricing info and specs on the surprisingly decent looking Elantra “Touring,” which is essentially just a 5-door hatch version of the professionally mediocre Elantra sedan. What really sticks is the EPA fuel economy, rated at 23 city and either 30 or 31 highway with the manual or automatic, respectively. We’re still talking about a four-cylinder “compact” car here, and despite the weight of size and safety equipment, I am surprised. Hyundai’s own Sonata — with another 40 horses vs. the Elantra — has virtually the same EPA ratings. Sure, we like to trot out the Corvette as an example of a high mileage powerful car, but there are at least a dozen other examples of cars with way more power (and metal) than the Elantra touring and better fuel economy. My 2004 Honda Accord V6, which was a rather portly cruiser, returned 31 mpg on the highway. And yet, the Elantra isn’t unique. Saturn’s Astra, with a 1.8 liter engine, only musters 24/32. The Mazda3 is in the same league. Some of the more efficient cars in this segment can deliver 35 miles per gallon highway – cars like the Corolla, Focus, Civic, and Cobalt XFE. But solely from a fuel economy standpoint, I have a hard time justifying even these better ones, when their bigger counterparts like the Camry, Fusion, Accord, and Malibu offer reasonably close numbers, especially on the highway. It leaves me wondering why, when the Fusion gets 32 mpg highway from its four cylinder, we don’t have a Ford compact car with a gasoline engine that gets 38 mpg highway. But them’s the breaks.

Justin Berkowitz
Justin Berkowitz

Immensely bored law student. I've also got 3 dogs.

More by Justin Berkowitz

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 49 comments
  • Whuffo2 Whuffo2 on Dec 24, 2008

    Excuse me while I insert a little science into this discussion. Automotive "efficiency" is dominated by two things - slow speed acceleration and high speed steady state operation. At slow speeds and while accelerating you are bound by physics: F=MA (Force equals Mass times Acceleration). Mass is the weight of the car and if you want more acceleration or a higher mass then you need a lot more force (torque). At freeway speeds, aerodynamic drag becomes an issue. This is where "slippery" bodies can increase efficiency - but what's truly slippery doesn't have a lot in common with what looks good. You'll still need to use energy to move the mass over a distance and lots more to overcome drag. Modern internal combustion engines are about 20% efficient. That's better than it sounds; the theoretical maximum efficiency is only 37% and that's unattainable by any real engine. These are a simplified description of what the automotive engineers have to work with. In the real world they have to compromise to come up with designs that can be built and sold in sufficient numbers. Now, if you take the time to look up the weight of various production vehicles you might discover that there's not as much variance as you imagine. Big cars have lots of empty space inside, little cars not so much. But their mass doesn't differ by as much as you'd think. Twice as big isn't twice as heavy. And as far as aerodynamics goes, the optimum shape would be very close to the shape of a fish. Compare the profiles of your favorite vehicles to the shape of a fish and see what you think. If your car / truck / SUV was more fish shaped would you have bought it? Now if some company built a fish-shaped car that was low in mass and adequately spacious inside - equipping it with an average drivetrain would result in a car with very good gas mileage. But not as good as you'd like; real world physics says so. So if you want a car that gets over 50 miles per gallon, what you're looking for is a tiny, cheap shitbox. Think Geo Metro or Suzuki Swift. If you want good passenger space and protection then you'll pay for it at the pump. Personal experience: I've got a few cars around here. A '05 Chrysler Pacifica which gets 25 MPG highway mileage, a '02 Volkswagen Jetta which gets 24 MPG on the highway, and a '86 Pontiac Fiero V6 which gets 27 MPG on the highway. All those years and different designs and - well, the difference in mileage isn't exactly earthshaking. For extra credit, pin that Prius driver down and get him to tell you what his dash display says his mileage is while he's buzzing down the highway. If he's honest you'll find that he's not breaking the laws of physics either. Are improvements possible? Yes - but only small ones. There are real limits to the minimum weight of a car, the minimum aerodynamic drag it can have, and the maximum efficiency its engine can have. The automotive engineers have been working hard to get the most out of what they've got to work with for years. It's going to take huge changes in what we consider to be an acceptable vehicle before we can make significant improvements in efficiency. Want a 100 MPG car? Sure - if you'd like a one passenger plastic egg that has a zero to 60 time measured in minutes. No free lunch...

  • Menno Menno on Dec 24, 2008

    If we really wanted better gas mileage, we would petition Peugeot to purchase a recently disused car plant in the states and ask them to tool up the Peugeot 404 sedan and station wagon. Just as it was built from 1960 through 1975 (through 1980 in Argentina, through 1989 in Nigeria). Of course, we'd have to "make do" without power steering (it's not that bad given the car's weight, though); without power windows (crank it yerself!). They'd have to add a/c given the US climate. Plenty of room for 5 adults (7 in the stretched station wagon). 1.6 litre fuel injected slant four hemi engine - or - slightly larger diesel engine. Optional ZF automatic (OK they could add a couple of gears in that; maybe 5 or 6 instead of 3). Use a five speed stick instead of four speed as the original, as well (but leave it on the column!). Oh yeah, bring back the Pininfarina cabriolet and coupe' as well! (Actually, all of the 404's were designed by Pininfarina). The car weighed 2300 pounds and yet was considered a family sized car in virtually all the rest of the world except the USA, Canada and maybe Australia. OK back to reality. I just got a flier from the local Hyundai dealer. Lease a new Sonata for $199 a month ($1000 down, 1000 miles a month, 27 months) - or - lease a new Elantra for $198 a month (same terms). Now, given that the MPG difference is quite small, and given the fact that on my daily 17 mile commute, only 3 miles or so is in town (where the difference in MPG is more marked, giving the Elantra the advantage) - I'd take the Sonata. Plus the Sonata is built in Montgomery, Alabama (not assembled from kits but manufactured) and this obviously helps the US economy. Come next summer, all else being equal, we'll lease another Sonata. BTW our '07 Sonata (four cyl. four cog automatic) obtained 32.2 mpg overall on a 5000 mile trip to the Canadian Rockies, mostly at 70 mph; obviously much of it at 8000' altitudes or more; some city driving; some WOT highway merging. Overall, VERY good real world MPG, I thought. 70% of the driving was with E10, 30% without; there was a 6% reduction in MPG while using E10. This is a significantly better "coping with E10" than my Prius which is now getting 37 mpg instead of the usual 44 mpg winter mileage, solely due to E10 being the only fuel I can now buy in my area. Given that fact, when (not if) gas prices start their inevitable march "upward", I'm going to be brooming the Prius. My stomach can't take watching a consistent 20% reduction in MPG due to 10% ethanol polluting the fuel. Given that "global warming" is so obviously a farce, and that we can scarcely get around northern Michigan for all the snow and cold and crappy roads not plowed/looked after well, I strongly suspect that I'll be getting a Subaru to replace the Prius. However, we plan to rent whatever car we next plan to get to have a look at real world MPG (obviously on E10) before handing over the money. Obviously, the "powers that be" have decided that we'll have E10 whether it wastes fuel (and obviously increases oil imports and food prices) or not. Damn fools. I want my country back.

  • Shaker Shaker on Dec 24, 2008

    The Elantra Touring is 2-300 lbs "porkier" than the standard Elantra (dropping the city mileage by 1-2 MPG) and the mini-wagon shape probably raises drag coefficient (dropping highway mileage). The "sportier" (stiffer) suspension and sportier tires probably raise rolling reistance a bit also. All of this lowered efficiency, but they retain the good (but aging) 2.0 Beta four, which is not as efficient as the Honda/Toyota offerings, probably to hit the price point. The car is probably just a bit too big for the 138HP and 130-ish torque mustered up by the little mill. This would be an excellent little (big) car with a newer direct-injected four, and a taller highway gear, but the "downturn" may not see that happen for a while.

  • Boredlawstudent Boredlawstudent on Dec 24, 2008

    The Elantra has another problem: it just got hit with a Marginal side impact and Adequate rear impact ratings from IIHS. Pretty piss poor.

Next