Hyundai/Kia Fuel consumption overstated

[Aleks]

Not really surprising.

http://www.autos.ca/general-news/hyundai-and-kia-fuel-ratings-were-incorrect/

http://i46.tinypic.com/t6x8qf.jpg

[Xtrema]

People has been complaining about real world fuel consumption for Koreans for years.

I think Honda is the only one that's close to advertised.

[heavyD]

Ford also overstates. Their 4 & 6 cylinder ecoboost estimates aren't even close to real world.

[corsvette]

I think Their HP an TQ claims are overstated as well. This mirrors comments I've read on most Hyundai/Kia products, they dont perform as well as the numbers suggest.

They will do most anything to appear to have class leading product.

[Kloubek]

Not really massive changes. I'm sure if you were to put a lot of vehicles through extensive testing they wouldn't meet the same numbers in the real world.

I've always taken stated ratings with a grain of salt.

[Tik-Tok]

I loved Dodge's billboards for the Dart as well... "Up to 59 MPG!" :facepalm:

Yeah, the good old factory tests with a stationary car, not real world EPA numbers.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Not really massive changes. I'm sure if you were to put a lot of vehicles through extensive testing they wouldn't meet the same numbers in the real world.

I've always taken stated ratings with a grain of salt.

EPA numbers are actually pretty easy to meet in the real world.

A lot of people shop based on the 40mpg stickers Hyundai bragged about. Independed comparos proved something was wrong with that and this admission just confirms it.


Originally posted by Tik-Tok
I loved Dodge's billboards for the Dart as well... "Up to 59 MPG!" :facepalm:

Yeah, the good old factory tests with a stationary car, not real world EPA numbers.

Canadian ratings are garbage. Combined with use of imperial figures just serves to confuse people. EPA ratings are more reality based.

[nobb]

Well this finally confirms what I've suspected all along. I wish my Genesis Coupe was up there...I wonder if the EPA just forgot to test it?

What's funny was when I bought my GC from Crowfoot Hyundai they put a big 52 MPG sticker on one of their GCs.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by nobb

What's funny was when I bought my GC from Crowfoot Hyundai they put a big 52 MPG sticker on one of their GCs.

Just like the Dart's advertisements, that's the CAFE number, and not real world. I used to think it was illegal to advertise that number, but I guess if you have a little asterisk beside it, you can do anything, lol.

[benyl]

So glad I drive a V8. lol

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
I loved Dodge's billboards for the Dart as well... "Up to 59 MPG!" :facepalm:


That "Up to" BS marketing line should be banned for any advertisement.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by corsvette
I think Their HP an TQ claims are overstated as well. This mirrors comments I've read on most Hyundai/Kia products, they dont perform as well as the numbers suggest.

They will do most anything to appear to have class leading product.

:werd: My fiance and I are looking at the Kia Sportage SX-Turbo and the new Hyundai Santa Fe Turbo which are rated at ~270HP and I was left scratching my head as to how the 0-60 time of those cars can be nearly 2 seconds slower than the new Ford Escape Turbo (240HP) considering all have similar curb weights and AWD (yes I know that there is more to a 0-60 than just weight and power but none the less its puzzling).

[Gripenfelter]

DailyTech - Hyundai, Kia Busted for Overstating Fuel Economy Claims after EPA Probe (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=29095)


Millions to be paid out to owners over misleading claims

Back in December of 2011, Consumer Watchdog called on the EPA to investigate Hyundai over its fuel economy claims. According to Consumer Watchdog, Hyundai claimed that its Elantra was good for 29 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on highway. The problem the organization had with the claims is that it received a higher than usual number of complaints that real-world mileage was in the mid-20 mpg range.

The EPA did investigate Hyundai for misleading mileage claims as well as Kia, and changes in fuel economy estimates are coming as a result of the investigation. Both Kia and Hyundai will be lowering the fuel economy estimates on the majority of their 2012 to 2013 models after EPA testing discovered discrepancies between its data and the company's data.

Hyundai and Kia admitted to overstating the estimated fuel economy on window stickers of about 900,000 vehicles sold since late 2010. The two automakers will reportedly spend millions of dollars to compensate owners for faulty claims of economy.

Hyundai will also have to retract its widely used claim that it leads the industry with four vehicle models able to get 40 mpg on the highway. That statement will be retracted because estimated highway economy on the 2013 Accent, Veloster, and Elantra are being reduced to below 40 mpg.

Some of the biggest losers include the Hyundai Accent and the all-new, redesigned 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe. The Accent saw its 30/40/33 (city/highway/combined) rating drop to 28/37/31. The Santa Fe Sport (2WD) saw a huge drop in its highway rating, going from 21/31/25 (city/highway/combined) to 20/27/23.

Many of the mileage adjustments take Hyundai models from being class leaders to either middle-of-the-pack or lower.

On the Kia side of things, the Soul took the biggest hit as it saw its highway numbers drop by 6 mpg (35 mpg highway to 29 mpg highway).

Overstating fuel efficiency is a significant blunder by the two car companies because gas prices are up, and many people are shopping based on fuel economy claims by the manufacturer. The EPA notes that window sticker values have previously been reduced on only two vehicles sense 2000, so that makes Hyundai’s folly even more egregious.

"Given the importance of fuel efficiency to all of us, we're extremely sorry about these errors," said Hyundai Motor America President and CEO John Krafcik. "We're going to make this right."

Krafcik blamed the inaccurate fuel efficiency claims on "procedural errors" in the fuel-economy testing methodology the company used. Hyundai-Kia's combined fleetwide fuel economy average declined from 27 MPG to 26 mpg for the 2012 model year working out to about a 3% reduction.

Krafcik added, "We've identified the source of the discrepancies between our prior testing method and the EPA's recommended approach."

Sources: Detroit News, Hyundai, Kia

[DeleriousZ]

I miss the late 80's early 90's where cars were severely underrated.

"300ps" = 320whp lol.

[MGCM]

At least they have the balls to admit it and payout for it.......Hyundai/Kia was first..........who is next? Anyone think Hyundai/Kia will be the only ones to do this?(the payout)

[corsvette]

Originally posted by MGCM
At least they have the balls to admit it and payout for it.......Hyundai/Kia was first..........who is next? Anyone think Hyundai/Kia will be the only ones to do this?(the payout)

I think there are a TON of Hyundai/Kia owners out there unhappy with their fuel economy, and it caused this review of their numbers. Last year I was helping a friend decide on a new small car, nearly every Elantra owner review complained about fuel economy, while others (such as the Cruze eco) had few complaints. I also found VW owners seem to get better than VW's estimates.

Face it, This was a great way to lure buyers. So many people buying baised on Hyun/Kia best in class economy claims, they probably never thought it would bite them in the ass.

[revelations]

Im sure the Koreans knew this would happen ... they likely calculated that the increase in sales would make up for any class action lawsuit.

Not the first time the auto industry has done this ... and wont be the last :dunno:

[corsvette]

Originally posted by corsvette
I think Their HP an TQ claims are overstated as well. This mirrors comments I've read on most Hyundai/Kia products, they dont perform as well as the numbers suggest.

They will do most anything to appear to have class leading product.

I guess they've been busted before for false HP claims.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20121106/BLOG06/121109909/hyundai-has-been-busted-over-performance-claims-before?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[flipstah]

Originally posted by revelations
Im sure the Koreans knew this would happen ... they likely calculated that the increase in sales would make up for any class action lawsuit.

Not the first time the auto industry has done this ... and wont be the last :dunno:

It's like the Pinto issue all over again, except less explosive.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Originally posted by corsvette


I think there are a TON of Hyundai/Kia owners out there unhappy with their fuel economy, and it caused this review of their numbers. Last year I was helping a friend decide on a new small car, nearly every Elantra owner review complained about fuel economy, while others (such as the Cruze eco) had few complaints. I also found VW owners seem to get better than VW's estimates.

Face it, This was a great way to lure buyers. So many people buying baised on Hyun/Kia best in class economy claims, they probably never thought it would bite them in the ass.

We had a VW Passat Bluemotion rental in Europe last month and we managed to get 4.5L/100km on the motorway cruising at 120-150km/h depending, I was amazed!

[treg50]

Originally posted by MGCM
At least they have the balls to admit it and payout for it.......Hyundai/Kia was first..........who is next? Anyone think Hyundai/Kia will be the only ones to do this?(the payout)
Hahaha, give me a break, they have "balls"? These Korean makers have balls for saying, "Yes... you caught me"?? FUCK THEM. If they could have avoided the truth being found out they would and they would never have admitted it. Balls would have been to self-admit this to the world and own up to it, kind of like a 'voluntary recall' that's admitting it, that's having balls.

Pirating, copyright infringement, blatant copying of other auto makers styling, lying about fuel ratings, lying about HP numbers --- such a shame about Korean autos, especially for the buyers/owners. It's like a corporational psychological disorder.

[R-Audi]

At the end of the day I could really care less about a small correction on fuel economy. Unless you are driving in a circle and never moving the gas you will never be able to replicate those numbers anyways.

My Wife and I just got a new 2013 Santa Fe 2.0T and so far its been great. First highway trip we got ~600km to the tank, not taking it easy, and I dont believe it was in Eco mode. (Car currently has 900km total.. so not even broken in)

[Aleks]

Originally posted by R-Audi
At the end of the day I could really care less about a small correction on fuel economy. Unless you are driving in a circle and never moving the gas you will never be able to replicate those numbers anyways.

My Wife and I just got a new 2013 Santa Fe 2.0T and so far its been great. First highway trip we got ~600km to the tank, not taking it easy, and I dont believe it was in Eco mode. (Car currently has 900km total.. so not even broken in)

If you can't replicate 21mpg combined in the Santa Fe 2.0T then what's the point of making small turbo engines vs big old V6s?

I agree that the corrections are nothing huge but still it looks very bad on Hyundai that they made a "mistake" with pretty much all of their fuel certifications.

[R-Audi]

Originally posted by Aleks


If you can't replicate 21mpg combined in the Santa Fe 2.0T then what's the point of making small turbo engines vs big old V6s?

I agree that the corrections are nothing huge but still it looks very bad on Hyundai that they made a "mistake" with pretty much all of their fuel certifications.


From my understanding mileage typically gets better once the car is fully broken in.. so until then I am happy with getting fairly close.

21mpg should be ~571km/tank... Our first tank was on par to get around 550km so thats not bad. Also worth noting that rarely if EVER will we drive the car to the point where we are empty..so chances are I will never really know the true mileage, not to mention the driving habits needed to match the numbers given by the manufacturer. (Those numbers are achieved on a test track, not every day streets)

The 2.0T 4 cylinders are also lighter then the V6's... so they should handle better.

[lilmira]

Start with a full tank. Zero your trip meter. Whatever volume you put in to fill it up again next time will be the volume you used. That's how I keep track of my gas mileage. Effect of heavy traffic and snow days is quite noticeable. Then there is the oddball of the quality of gas, just that one tank will give you a number that is a bit off from the average.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by lilmira
Start with a full tank. Zero your trip meter. Whatever volume you put in to fill it up again next time will be the volume you used. That's how I keep track of my gas mileage. Effect of heavy traffic and snow days is quite noticeable. Then there is the oddball of the quality of gas, just that one tank will give you a number that is a bit off from the average.

Yup, that's what I do. Good ol' math.

[R-Audi]

Worth noting, Hyundai (I assume Kia as well) are reimbursing owners of the affected cars for the difference in milage via a pre paid gas card! I dont know all the details, but you are able to make claims for the life of the vehicle.... and recommend doing so every 20,000km.

[ercchry]

https://hyundaifuelconsumption.ca/

what a crock...

they claim the way canada calculates fuel consumption differs from the states, so instead of converting the chart in the first post... you get a whole new set of numbers :rolleyes:

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by lilmira
Start with a full tank. Zero your trip meter. Whatever volume you put in to fill it up again next time will be the volume you used. That's how I keep track of my gas mileage. Effect of heavy traffic and snow days is quite noticeable. Then there is the oddball of the quality of gas, just that one tank will give you a number that is a bit off from the average.

the problem is that different gas pumps will turn off at different times, so your estimate of fuel used will vary too. that could cause your number to be off average too.

[R-Audi]

Why is it a crock if the Canadian standards are different?

[ercchry]

Originally posted by R-Audi
Why is it a crock if the Canadian standards are different?

they claim it was due to a one of their tests being off... which results in a difference of ~40% in reimbursement between canada and the states on the same car

[lilmira]

Originally posted by FixedGear


the problem is that different gas pumps will turn off at different times, so your estimate of fuel used will vary too. that could cause your number to be off average too.

You are saying that the volume of gas we are paying for is only an estimate? I thought they are supposed to be calibrated, WTH?

[schocker]

Originally posted by ercchry


they claim it was due to a one of their tests being off... which results in a difference of ~40% in reimbursement between canada and the states on the same car
Canadian and EPA tests are not the same though. It makes sense as the canadian fuel economy ratings are always that much higher than the EPA ones, probably hit what hyundai/kia quoted :rofl:

[ercchry]

Originally posted by schocker

Canadian and EPA tests are not the same though. It makes sense as the canadian fuel economy ratings are always that much higher than the EPA ones, probably hit what hyundai/kia quoted :rofl:

yeah the only thing that makes sense is how heavily we weigh the test they screwed up vs the states... what i dont get though is when i went to buy my car how they can sell me on "oh it gets 31mpg" when thats the epa rating :confused:

[R-Audi]

Looking at the 2013 Santa Fe 2.0T AWD (an example that hits close to home..)


If Ive done my math correctly.. and assuming 65L tank/17 G tank


US:
Old:
20MPG---544km/tank

Updated:
19MPG---517km/tank

Change: 28km/tank

CAN:
Old:
10.4L/100km---625km/tank

Updated:
11L/100km---591km/tank

Change of 34km/Tank


Pretty Obvious that the tests are different.. I couldnt tell you what those differences are, but if they tell you the numbers in Gallons or Miles, its pretty obvious that they are quoting the US tests.

At the end of the day, having 34 km less (or 28km on the US tests) isnt that big of a deal... seeing that in my car I can see up to 150km less per tank depending on how its driven

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by lilmira


You are saying that the volume of gas we are paying for is only an estimate? I thought they are supposed to be calibrated, WTH?

No, I'm not saying that the volume of gas you pay for is an estimate. Instead, I'm saying that the automatic stops on the pumps vary, which invalidates your assumption that what you fill is what you burned since the last fill. This adds error to your MPG estimate.

[schocker]

Originally posted by FixedGear
No, I'm not saying that the volume of gas you pay for is an estimate. Instead, I'm saying that the automatic stops on the pumps vary, which invalidates your assumption that what you fill is what you burned since the last fill. This adds error to your MPG estimate.
That would be so small it would not matter :dunno:

Canadian tests also use imperial gallons 4.546 L vs US Gallons at 3.785 L
For example Ram states that the new Ram 1500 w/ the V6 engine gets 25 mpg city and 36 mpg highway. Roughly 21/30 US mpg while the EPA says 17/25 which would be much more accurate. All of the canadian mpg values thrown around in advertising are all very misleading.

[lilmira]

Originally posted by FixedGear


No, I'm not saying that the volume of gas you pay for is an estimate. Instead, I'm saying that the automatic stops on the pumps vary, which invalidates your assumption that what you fill is what you burned since the last fill. This adds error to your MPG estimate.

I see. I doubt it would be more than a litre. Like I said, the numbers are usually within the ball park other than seasonal change and traffic condition.

[FixedGear]

yea maybe - but sometimes I swear I can pump like 3 more gallons in my tank after the pump tried to turn itself off :rofl:

[SOAB]

thats cause there is always room in the tank for more, although it is there for expansion and evaporation.

if you want to calculate fuel economy, use your trip meter and the amount of fuel purchased, not "when the fuel pump clicks".