[missourimule]

Have just completed a spreadsheet reflecting the fuel tank mileage for each tank plus cumulative fuel mileage, total fuel burned; total paid out, etc., for 5,622 miles; about 70% city and the rest highway. The numbers are as follows:

25.265 mpg average
34.035 highest mpg attained
18.743 lowest mpg attained
220.086 gallons total
$715.74 total cost
$3.2520924 average cost per gallon
Range of gasoline cost per mile:
9.5 cents per mile lowest
19.4 cents per mile highest

 

[Goose]

Good to know - thanks for posting. At 1,800 miles on my odo, I have yet to see ~34 MPG.

 

[arinesmith]

Don't worry Goose, took mine 3000 miles and first real oil change to break it in.
I average 33mpg on my daily commute. Get upto 37mpg with a tail wind.

 

[haydenks]

Sounds very similar to my 2010 Koup Forte SX w/5spd auto! I have about 4k on mine.

 

[Iam Broke]

Two tanks on my 2.4 Auto Koup and saw 33+ on both tanks but my commute is 95% highway.

 

[boostedscooby]

my commute is also about 95% high way . I do very little city driving . I have manage between 35 and 37 mpg . I try to time my traffic lights as much as possible. I also roll to a traffic light instead of slamming my brakes . I try to travel at least 4 or more car lengths between me and the car in front of me. People need to learn how to drive efficiently. I have 8500 miles my car

 

[arinesmith]

I drive 10 miles in city and 70 hwy round trip. Seeing right around 32. (Just started using Feully.com to track, and this tank was more city) Amazing how much the city kills my mpg. When I hit the base, I can have 37mpg, and just the 4 miles across base to get to work, I can be down to 33. (that's just after fillup with trip reset and all the driving is interstate/hwy until the gate.

 

[missourimule]

After 6,353 miles I am now getting an overall average of 25.53 mpg. It is climbing slowly but incrementally. However, I have seldom done pure freeway mileage with cruise on so that undoubtedly explains some of the figures. Latest fill-up with 288 miles netted 26.06 mpg. The highest fill-up to date was 4/14/11 @34.03 mpg. However, the next tank with almost entirely city driving was only 18.83 mpg. I may at some future date try to see if there is any gain with synthetic oil but past experience did not reflect any appreciable difference.

 

[tyzall1584]

I have been getting about 26-27 mpg. I slow about a 1mpg increase doing the stock sri mod. Easy on the stop and go helps as well. One thing I have always wondered how people judge their city and hwy %...is it time based or mileage based? i spend about half my time commuting through the city but its only about 2-3 miles but the highway trip is about 8 miles or so.

 

[Florida Cracker]

2011 FortyFiveSX

I have the 2011 Forte5 SX AT and it's 3 months old.

I use the GasBook app on my iPhone to track prices and log purchases.
After 4039 miles
average mpg 25.63
159.1 gallons
15 cents/mile
$605.75 total fuel
$6.51/day
average price paid per gallon $3.82

If I were estimate hwy versus city miles I drive, I'd say I'm 50/50.

 

[missourimule]

I have the 2011 Forte5 SX AT and it's 3 months old.

I use the GasBook app on my iPhone to track prices and log purchases.
After 4039 miles
average mpg 25.63
159.1 gallons
15 cents/mile
$605.75 total fuel
$6.51/day
average price paid per gallon $3.82

If I were estimate hwy versus city miles I drive, I'd say I'm 50/50.

Looks like your fuel mileage is almost identical to mine. Mine was 25.53 mpg over 6300 miles. That's only 1/10 of a mpg difference. Well within the margin of error. Now if we could only get pure gasoline it would go to about 26.3 mpg. We can thank the bought and paid for politicians who crammed this ethanol scam down our throats for that debacle.

 

[missourimule]

My fuel mileage is now up to a cumulative 25.63 mpg. In pure highway driving it is a schooch over 30 mpg. Around town it will probably be about 20 mpg. This in part is due to this ethanol scam. What appears on the window is not what you will get as the 10% ethanol mix is going to yield only 97% of pure gasoline that the EPA uses for their testing. I really doubt I will ever get more than about 26 mpg overall. And I know how to squeeze the last drop of gas out of driving but it isn't there. The fact is that the 2.4 engine is just not going to yield the fuel mileage of the 2.0 engine.

Which brings up the dichotomy that in order to get the options it is required to get the SX which comes only with the 2.4. If I had my druthers I would go with the 2.0 engine. I drove a new LX the other day and it had plenty of power and I would bet it would best the 2.4 by a good 5 mpg. But that is not in the cards.

The EX would be OK except it cannot be ordered with the leather steering wheel, nor the telescoping steering wheel. And the SX handles better although I could easily live with the 16" wheels and tires and softer ride.

It was my impression that the 2.0 engine was the same in all lines. That evidently is not the case. I was looking at the HP and torque for the 2.0 in the Elantra touring and that engine yields substantially less power than the 2.0 in the Forte. I have read somewhere that these engines are not the same engines. Don't know the particulars. Perhaps someone can speak to this subject. The 2.4 is exactly the same engine was I had in my 2008 and 2009 Sonatas and they weighed 350 pounds more and got better fuel economy. Go figure. Obviously the new GDI engine would yield a couple more mpg but it currently unavailable in the Forte.

In any event, if someone has an SX expect to top out between 25.5 and 26 mpg. And that's all you are going to get unless you always drive with a tailwind at your back. So if anyone believes they are going to get the posted mpg figures on the sticker, you won't. Ain't gonna happen.

The other option would be to get an Elantra with the new 1.8 GDI engine and it will get you 40 mpg. I saw a fully loaded Limited the other day for $20,800 with leather. But I preferred the practicality of the Forte, personally speaking.

Thoughts?

One final thought. Appears the safe range on a tank is right at 350 miles. I wouldn't push my luck beyond this. I was down to 1/16 of a tank and it was 2.5 gallons to go and the mileage was 305 miles since last fill-up.

 

[Walpole5]

The Elantra uses the same engine as the old Kia Spectra. I had a 2005 Spectra and I found that engine to be decent, but no better. I could never top 30mpg with it, even on the highway.

I have been tracking mileage on my car and have found the trip computer to be consistently low on the MPG. I'm waiting until I have filled up 10 times to get a real feel for the numbers, but based on 5 tanks, my computer reads about 1 to 1.5 mpg low. I do mixed driving, but am averaging about 29 mpg. I will get 32 or 33 on the highway. About what I expected.

The Elantra is nice, but it does have less power than the 2.4 and I wonder how realistic the 40mpg is. I too like the hatchback versatility.

 

[wbw]

I've got a '10 SX sedan with 5spd auto and approx. 16,000 miles on the car. I average 27 to 28 with a 50/50 mix of city and hiway. For straight hiway driving I get 37 to 38 mpg. Very impressive. And that's figuring it out the old fashioned way (math). No guessing or computer.

 

[missourimule]

The Elantra uses the same engine as the old Kia Spectra. I had a 2005 Spectra and I found that engine to be decent, but no better. I could never top 30mpg with it, even on the highway.

I have been tracking mileage on my car and have found the trip computer to be consistently low on the MPG. I'm waiting until I have filled up 10 times to get a real feel for the numbers, but based on 5 tanks, my computer reads about 1 to 1.5 mpg low. I do mixed driving, but am averaging about 29 mpg. I will get 32 or 33 on the highway. About what I expected.

The Elantra is nice, but it does have less power than the 2.4 and I wonder how realistic the 40mpg is. I too like the hatchback versatility.

The new Elantra uses a 1.8 GDI engine. I'm sure that is an entirely different engine. As I said there is a lot of confusion about the engines used in Kia and Hyundai. I had thought the 2.0 in the Elantra Touring was the same engine as in the Forte.

The Forte 2.0 is rated at 156 hp and 144 lb-ft of torque.

The Elantra Touring 2.0 is rated at 138 horsepower. No torque ratings are provided in their brochure.

The new Elantra 1.8 engine is rated at 148 horsepower and 131 lb-ft torque. The EPA numbers are 29 and 40 and 33 combined.

 

[Walpole5]

The Elantra Touring uses the same engine as the old Spectra. One reason I didn't look at it. Surprising that Kia/Hyundia have so many different engines.

I rented a Dodge Journey for a week and it has the same engine as my SX. But, in a 5000lb car with a 4 speed automatic, it was horrible.

 

[missourimule]

The Elantra Touring uses the same engine as the old Spectra. One reason I didn't look at it. Surprising that Kia/Hyundia have so many different engines.

I rented a Dodge Journey for a week and it has the same engine as my SX. But, in a 5000lb car with a 4 speed automatic, it was horrible.

I could accept that the Touring uses the Spectra engine but I'm certain that the smooth as glass 2.0 engine in the Forte is a different engine. The specs are also different. I think the Touring was ruined by the poor engine and the four speed transmission. (and it is going to be redesigned like the Forte 5 door) That's why I didn't buy it although I thought the car was otherwise brilliantly conceived and well executed. That's why I bought the Kia Forte 5 door. With the 2.4 and six speed auto, it was a no-brainer. I really wish they could make options an "a la carte" arrangement so we could get exactly what we needed.

If I were to get another SX I would like to choose the 2.0 engine if possible or if not, the new 2.4. GDI engine in the Sonata/Optima. But I don't see that in the future although I haven't seen the 2012 models yet.

Not familiar with the Dodge Journey. Yes, I would imagine a 5,000 pound car would be too much for a 2.4 engine. That's really a stupid combination. Do these guys ever drive their cars?

 

[Tebore]

The Chrysler variant "World engine" is the worse of the 3. I'm talking Non-boost versions.

They are the most unrefined version. Hyundai/Kia has probably the best version then mitsu. Hyundai has given it GDI to give it the best power and best NVH.

The 2.0 in the Touring and In the Soul is a beta engine.

 

[wade_randolph]

I only have about 1300 miles on my SX 5 door and I think the highest mpg I've had (per tank) is around 20. Normally it hovers between 18 and 19, but I drive 100% city. Still, that's a long stretch from the advertised 23. At what point did your engine start to "break in?" AKA, how long before I should start to panic and become blindly enraged?

 

[haydenks]

1300 miles is not enough to get an accurate picture of what your mpg will be. I've got 5k on my 2010 SX Auto & am just starting to get a consistent 24 - 25 mpg in town. Road mileage averages in the mid-30's.
A surprising discovery is that having the a/c on doesn't seem to sap any mpg! Also, the 2.4 engine handles the extra load without a wimper!

Hope this helps!