Hondarulez
 |
|
2012 Civic (140hp): --/39, --/41
2011 Elantra (148hp): 29/40
2011 Chevy Cruze ECO (138hp): 26/37
2011 Mazda3 2.0 (148hp): 25/33
2011 Mitsubishi Lancer (148hp): 25/33
2011 Nissan Sentra (140hp): 27/34
2011 Toyota Corolla (132hp): 28/35
2011 VW Jetta 6AT (115hp): 23/29
2011 VW Jetta 5MT (115hp): 24/34
2012 Ford Focus (160hp): 26/37 (Ford is claiming that SFE model will get 40mpg hwy)
The numbers are from fueleconomy.gov. I'm using the BEST numbers available for each car (ie, if the AT model is more efficient, I will use the numbers from the AT model; and if the ECO model is more efficient, I will use those numbers).
The current Civic can do 0-60mph in 7.7s. I'd like to know what the new Civic can do considering it hasn't grown in size (and so I'd assume the weight gain should not be that big). Lancer is another relatively fast car, as it can do 0-60mph in 7.8s. Elantra 6AT takes 8.6s. The Jetta takes over 11 seconds.
|
$mooth
|
|
|
I'm curious if the Civic HF or Ford SFE will have different gearing. I think the Cruze ECO (like it's predecessor) has special fuel efficient gearing that seems to drive people crazy (many end up with worse FE since they have to push the engine so it wont upshift too quickly).
|
Hondarulez
|
|
|
That's the problem with a lot of those cars that claim they can do 40+mpg. There are ways to "cheat" in those EPA tests but how do these cars do in the real world is the real question. The problem is, most people only care about EPA ratings, not real world numbers.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Here is a great example:
Hyundai Elantra:
EPA: 29/40mpg
Real world with some aggressive driving: 26mpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_hyundai_elantra_limited-short_take_road_test
Acura TSX V6 5AT:
EPA: 18/27mpg
Real world with some aggressive driving: 28mpg
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q4/2010_acura_tsx_v6_vs._2011_buick_regal_cxl_turbo_2010_volkswagen_cc_2.0t_r-line-comparison_tests
|
carzak
|
|
|
The Cruze Eco is 28/42.
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
carzak wrote:
The Cruze Eco is 28/42.
|
The manual version, not the Auto, which is the numbers he was stating. Getting thoes #'s in manual only is not impressive to me.
So all in all, if these #'s are accrurate for the Focus, the Civic is top of the pack....still want to know the City #. I am hoping 30 to beat the Elantra. The Civic needs to beat it at something #'s wise, otherwise Hyundia's advertising about the *'s is proving true.
As far as the Car and Driver testing.....I wouldn't put to much faith in that. How many cars driven aggressivly are not going to get their #'s? Probably most of them. Let's judge it based on some real world, real drivers.
|
Colin
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
carzak wrote:
The Cruze Eco is 28/42.
|
The manual version, not the Auto, which is the numbers he was stating. Getting thoes #'s in manual only is not impressive to me.
So all in all, if these #'s are accrurate for the Focus, the Civic is top of the pack....still want to know the City #. I am hoping 30 to beat the Elantra. The Civic needs to beat it at something #'s wise, otherwise Hyundia's advertising about the *'s is proving true.
As far as the Car and Driver testing.....I wouldn't put to much faith in that. How many cars driven aggressivly are not going to get their #'s? Probably most of them. Let's judge it based on some real world, real drivers.
|
Here is a smallish sampling of Elantra drivers reporting their own mileage:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/hyundai/elantra
and some TSX guys (4 cylinder)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/acura/tsx/gas%20l4
|
Hondarulez
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
carzak wrote:
The Cruze Eco is 28/42.
|
The manual version, not the Auto, which is the numbers he was stating. Getting thoes #'s in manual only is not impressive to me.
So all in all, if these #'s are accrurate for the Focus, the Civic is top of the pack....still want to know the City #. I am hoping 30 to beat the Elantra. The Civic needs to beat it at something #'s wise, otherwise Hyundia's advertising about the *'s is proving true.
As far as the Car and Driver testing.....I wouldn't put to much faith in that. How many cars driven aggressivly are not going to get their #'s? Probably most of them. Let's judge it based on some real world, real drivers.
|
It's my bad. I said that I stated the best numbers for each car, but I missed the Cruze. So yes, the 6MT Cruze Eco is rated at 28/42mpg.
The Cruze LTZ 6AT can do 0-60mph in 8.9s according to C&D (old Civic 5MT did it in 7.7s).
Colin, those actualy mpg numbers for the Elantra are quite low given that it's rated at 29/40mpg.
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
Colin wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
carzak wrote:
The Cruze Eco is 28/42.
|
The manual version, not the Auto, which is the numbers he was stating. Getting thoes #'s in manual only is not impressive to me.
So all in all, if these #'s are accrurate for the Focus, the Civic is top of the pack....still want to know the City #. I am hoping 30 to beat the Elantra. The Civic needs to beat it at something #'s wise, otherwise Hyundia's advertising about the *'s is proving true.
As far as the Car and Driver testing.....I wouldn't put to much faith in that. How many cars driven aggressivly are not going to get their #'s? Probably most of them. Let's judge it based on some real world, real drivers.
|
Here is a smallish sampling of Elantra drivers reporting their own mileage:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/hyundai/elantra
and some TSX guys (4 cylinder)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/acura/tsx/gas%20l4
|
Why compare the 200hp TSX to the 148hp Elantra???
how about comparing it to the 140hp Civic?
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic/gas%20l4
|
Blue_Sky_surfer
|
|
So, according to this: http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic/2010
2010 Honda Civic AT&MT: 31.0 mpg
http://www.fuelly.com/car/hyundai/elantra/2011
2011 Hyundai Elantra AT&MT: 32.0 mpg
|
Colin
|
|
98EX4cyl wrote:
Why compare the 200hp TSX to the 148hp Elantra???
|
|
Colin
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
Colin, those actualy mpg numbers for the Elantra are quite low given that it's rated at 29/40mpg.
|
So to sumarize EPA vs. real world (as user reported)
2011 Elantra EPA is 29/40 mpg
Users report ave. 32 mpg by small sample of 7 users (by Blue_Sky_surfer)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/hyundai/elantra/2011
2010 Civic EPA 25/36 (best is auto)
Users report ave. 31 mpg, based on 46 users (again by Blue_Sky_surfer)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic/2010
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
Colin wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
Colin, those actualy mpg numbers for the Elantra are quite low given that it's rated at 29/40mpg.
|
So to sumarize EPA vs. real world (as user reported)
2011 Elantra EPA is 29/40 mpg
Users report ave. 32 mpg by small sample of 7 users (by Blue_Sky_surfer)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/hyundai/elantra/2011
2010 Civic EPA 25/36 (best is auto)
Users report ave. 31 mpg, based on 46 users (again by Blue_Sky_surfer)
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic/2010
|
That's a better comparison. Now if Honda truly improves mpg by 10% for the 2012 Civic that would add 3mpg to the existing real world average of 31 for 34. Believe when I see it but that would soundly surpass the Elantra.
|
|
|
| |
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
