Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: elantragt Mar 19 2014, 02:16 PM

You'd think the powers that be in Korea would learn from past lessons. The over estimating mileage claim crap has been going on for well over a decade. Even lawsuit settlements can't stop them. It's like they're an addict and can't stop. They know it's not good for them and illegal but they still do it. Damn.

In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, Hyundai overstated the mileage on the upcoming Sonata to the media in Korea. While the overestimate wasn't huge, it's just a very curious to say the least.

Read more http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hyundai-overstated-mileage-revamped-sedan-22936608.

They need a good beotch slap!

Posted by: RPW00Mirage Mar 19 2014, 03:04 PM

the sad thing is, that alot of folks CAN get the mileage stated.

Posted by: Bobzilla Mar 19 2014, 03:19 PM

Quoted for accuracy. If people could understand that THEY are the #1, #2 and #3 reason mileage varies, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Posted by: elantragt Mar 19 2014, 03:32 PM

I think you guys are missing my point. No doubt high real world MPG numbers are attainable. I'm not talking about that.

Hyundai does tend to publish numbers that are a bit on the high side. Even with HP at times. Remember the Beta II exaggeration?

I just thought it might be better for them to quote figures that are slightly lower than their testing shows. Instead, this makes them look like "cheaters" again to a degree.

Posted by: Bobzilla Mar 19 2014, 03:39 PM

Yep. 4hp on the early BetaII's. Such a huge number. Less than 3%. You'll get a larger variance on identical engines on engine stands than that.

I think our point (making the assumption here, but it is at least mine) Their numbers aren't out of line with what the cars can, and do achieve in the real world. A 5-10% change in fuel economy is nothing in the real world. Temp, driving surface, tire pressure, altitude, precipitation, humidity.... all those can make larger differences than anything they are printing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: People need to suck it up and take some personal responsibility for their lives and stop looking for a fucking scapegoat to blame it on.

Posted by: elantragt Mar 19 2014, 03:42 PM

Actually it was 5. Stated 140, actual 135.

Posted by: FurunoFan Mar 19 2014, 05:25 PM

Overstatement leads to more overstatements then you have fake stats like we use to have years ago when it is only obtainable in best conditions. (like going downhill with a tailwind BOTH ways) They know better and I would not blame the consumer because he never gets a tailwind and downhill going to work. How about understating for once and impress everyone.

Posted by: trololololo Mar 19 2014, 05:39 PM

u guys do know that when converting from korean miles and korean horses into murrican hoes powah and quarter miles...

tings tend to get rost in transration

Posted by: Red Elantra GT Mar 19 2014, 08:29 PM

Hey-I had a '99 Accent with HP rating more than reality. With the Elantra, Hyundai was trying to get ointo the "40 MPG" wagon along with other manufacturers. The bit them in the *ss.

Posted by: slowgls Mar 19 2014, 08:32 PM

I want my 4hp back!!!!!

Posted by: elantragt Mar 19 2014, 09:23 PM

Dude you have an XD2 and all your 138 advertised horses. You never lost squat. Just sayin...

I actually bought my '02 GT based on it being 140HP and I was bummed it only had 135.

Posted by: trololololo Mar 19 2014, 09:41 PM

i was bummed too..reason we didnt get the protege 5

well one of reasons... elantra was loaded

Posted by: Bobzilla Mar 20 2014, 07:28 AM

No offense meant here, but if you bought it because of advertised numbers and not because it drove better, had better options and was just a better car, then you deserve every ounce of disappointment you get from that. SEriously.. There wasn't another car in 02 that was as good as the Elantra in any way. It had better midrange, better ride, better ergo, better interior than any other car in the segment at the time. I know, because I drove them all.

Posted by: trololololo Mar 20 2014, 09:25 AM

we couldnt be dissapointed? i mean i said it was loaded and more numbers persuaded me
definitely best car for buck hands down in 02...

. protege5 was cool but coulda been faster and better appointed... i didnt drive the Se-r in 02... but they were going for $2k more than GT... dont tell me you drove that and elantra was better.. midrAnge Qr25de blows away Beta

Posted by: elantragt Mar 20 2014, 09:35 AM

I'm with ya Ed.

GodBob doesn't like the silly ramblings of us mere mortals.

When I was car shopping in '02, there was no doubt the Protege was a better driver's car. But at a higher price. I was somewhat underwhelmed with the handling of the GT and the 5-speed was lacking, but... the value you got, the warranty and the 140HP is what sold me on the car. And remember, I was someone who thought Hyundai was crap back in the day.

Posted by: Bobzilla Mar 20 2014, 10:26 AM

I took the job with Hyundai because I just knew they were crap and I'd always have a job because their stuff was junk.

The protege had better handling, but the drivetrain was anemic and the interior was just uber-cheap. The Civic was mediocre build quality but a horrific engine and NVh that would have made a model T owner shudder. The cavalier had a good drivetrain, but the interior was typical GM econobox shit. Fukus? Just no. Neon? Think "Fukus, but worse". Toyota Corol.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I'm sorry... what was I saying? LAncer? Ummmmm no. mediocre drivetrain reminded me of the Honda, but with a wierder interior layout.

As far as exterior styling... the XD's skyline-esque hood/headlight lines and clean lines were nicer than the rest. The big 3's choices were already looking dated (even though the Focus was a year old). Protege looked fine, but it felt smaller than the rest.

I put a lot of time lookingfor the right car and in the end, the Elantra was, hands down, the best vehicle in the price range we were looking.

not all of us were looking ine upper teens pricerange. I was in the bottom basement, 12-14k range new. A 14k Sentra was some base 1.8 pile of fuck.

Posted by: trololololo Mar 20 2014, 10:42 AM

i see u didnt test the beetle!!! lol

1.8 isnt even considered in reality... yeah z24 was way to pricey...

elantra gt was just an amazing value...

but seriously.... 5hp less was dissappointing

Posted by: RPW00Mirage Mar 20 2014, 12:15 PM

strongly agree.



due to smiles per hour, i dont even break 30mpg in the turbo

Posted by: Bobzilla Mar 20 2014, 02:39 PM

Sorry Ed, I have standards. I considered a Jetta, but at $6k more right off the bat, and the issues that are specific to VAG, they didn't even get a second look from me.

Posted by: slows gurl Mar 20 2014, 06:59 PM

Way to be blunt Bob, haha

Posted by: elantraelite Jul 21 2014, 07:35 AM

In 2005 I thought the Elantra was ahead of the crowd. look at most small cars from 2000 to 2005 and you'll find the XD Elantra is only now starting to look a bit small.

I love the handling of my XD, it has been fun to drive, the Beta engine is rock solid and honestly think if you bought a car because of how it looked on paper then missing a few HP shouldn't be a problem in the real world.

My XD constantly delivers an average fuel consumption of 7.5 ... the sticker said 8.2

On the other hand my diesel i30 wagon gets 5.5 and sticker says 4.7

Our new GD gets 5.0 and the sticker says 4.5 - the difference between the U engine in the FD and U2 in the GD is like chalk and cheese.... sorry OT bad!