Ditched Automatic Means MPG Boost for Hyundai Accent, Elantra
For the 2020 model year, Hyundai’s subcompact Accent and compact Elantra ditch their six-speed automatics in favor of a continuously variable unit — a move that’s not likely to elicit too many cries of protest.
Honestly, given the models’ modest torque figures, a traditional slushbox hardly amounts to motoring bliss, and drivers stand to gain faster manual shifts with a CVT. They also stand to gain a significant bump in fuel economy.
For 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency rates the CVT-equipped Accent sedan at 33 mpg city, 41 mpg highway, and 36 mpg combined. Who needs a pricier hybrid? Compare these figures (first noticed by The Car Connection) to that of last year’s model, which carries a 28 city/38 highway/32 combined figure.
Interestingly, fuel economy rises for the manual transmission model, too, though not as noticeably. The three-pedal Accent’s MPG rating rises to 29 city/39 highway/33 combined for 2020, up from 2019’s 28/37/31. We’re waiting for word from Hyundai as to the reason for the improvement. While Hyundai has a family of “Smartstream” four-cylinders in the works, we weren’t aware that the 2020 Accent stood to gain one of these units.
Hyundai’s Smartstream engines boost fuel economy by optimizing thermal efficiency; a member of this family appears in the front-drive Venue crossover revealed at the New York Auto show.
As for the Elantra, ditching the six-speed auto spells a combined improvement of 2 mpg in models equipped with the 2.0-liter four-cylinder. Maximum combined fuel economy rises to 35 mpg in the Elantra SE, with other CVT-equipped 2.0L models rated at 34 mpg.
Currently, the EPA’s roster of tested 2020 Elantras is meager, with no word on the thirstiness of the Elantra GT or manual-transmission models.
Join the conversation
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Kwik_Shift Knobs, buttons and even sliders would be good.
- Syke Son of a Chevrolet dealer back then, grew up in the showroom. To this day, I cannot get the appeal of the '57 Chevy, must less it being the poster car of the rock and roll Fifties. The '55 was gorgeous, the '56 wasn't hurt too badly by the dealer-demanded restyle (full width grilles were in style, and the '55 didn't have one, so the dealers panicked), but the '57? A bad attempt to keep up with Ford and Plymouth, redeemed only by the continuation of the Tri-Five build quality (exceptional for it's day) while the '57 Ford and Plymouth turned out to be rust buckets.$35,000? No. Freaking. Way.Oh, by the way, that was the year Ford outsold Chevy for the first time since pre-WWII. Style was everything back then. As the son of the Ford dealer (in my grade school class) was more than happy to remind me constantly.All was redeemed by 1958. Even if the '58's weren't as well built as a Tri-Fives.
- Pianoboy57 Green is my favorite color but I never owned an actual green car. Then I got a Subaru Outback in Wilderness green.
- SCE to AUX Will Toyota be building a Superfiller network to support its vast fleet of FCVs?Didn't think so.
- MaintenanceCosts I have an irrational weakness for Biarritz and d'Elegance packages of this era and the button tufted seats that came with them. We're sort of getting back there with the current quilted leather fad, but only sort of.
I just spent the week with a 2019 Malibu LT and it's new CVT as a rental. What was remarkable was how unremarkable this drive train was in every day use. With the throttle pinned it simulates a normal automatic with revs up to about 5600 RPM and then down 500 and then back up to 5600 RPM. In normal driving it was surprisingly refined. I stop watched timed this car at 8 seconds 0-60 which was for me adequate but could be better and another 15-20 horses would work wonders here. MPG was 33.4 overall combined which I thought was quite good. I ran a 100 mile all highway jaunt at 73 MPH and the readout stayed around 41 MPG besting the EPA's rather low 36. Overall this one wasn't bad as far as CVT's go but reliability would be suspect until this new unit proves itself.
I am curious are the CVT transmissions lighter than an automatic with gears? If so could that be part of the reason they are more efficient and less expensive--less parts?