[eye30]

South Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia said Friday they will reimburse car owners in the United States and Canada for having exaggerated the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.

The announcement came after the US Environmental Protection Agency said it had discovered inflated gasoline economy numbers on a wide range of Hyundai and Kia models in an investigation sparked by consumer complaints.


After first testing a Hyundai Elantra and finding a discrepancy, the EPA expanded the tests to more models from both manufacturers.



http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific_business/view/1235008/1/.html

[Dazzler]

  Wow, that is a revelation with ongoing ramifications for Hyundai, Kia and other manufacturers. (and what an administrative nightmare)  open to rorting 

Will it stretch to other markets? I suspect figures for some other brands as well! 

[richie_bl]

Just ran accross this: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/hyundai-kia-apologize-overstating-fuel-economy-several-vehicle-models-1C6835970?ocid=msnhp&pos=7

[constipated]

Given the Elantra is involved, I wonder if the same is true here. Could be that the government does it's own testing here in Australia so not applicable.

[Dazzler]

Thanks Rich, there is another thread about this matter posted a bit earlier (we may have to roll them together) 

[constipated]

For a moment I thought this wouldn't apply to Australia as I thought the Government did its own testing. However reading the factsheet from the Green Vehicle Guide website ( http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/StaticContent/file/2010%20Fuel%20Consumption%20Label.pdf)  it appears that even here, the figures on the fuel consumption labels are done in manufacturers' labs which are subject to Government audits. So still possible to rort the system.

I can't wait to see how this affects other markets.

Myself I have found it hard to achieve the urban fuel economy figures for my diesel i30. I note the average speed during the urban cycle is 19km/h and the fuel economy they achieve is 5.3 L/100km. I get a calculated figure of 5.7-5.8 with more freeway driving included and average speed of 37km/h. Something a bit fishy in all of this. Higher average speed should mean lower consumption.

[Just Rick]

I have found the deisel to be very economical, but driving under normal conditions(or what I consider normal)can not reach anywhere near their figures,to get anywhere near their figures for the Hwy cycle,I would have to drive round at about 70 KPH everywhere (stuff that)I can be patient,but not that patient.
going from memory combined Hwy/City cycle is 4.7 per 100,I am getting regularly 5.7 to 6.1 I'm happy with that.

[mjt57]

Yeah, just look at the thread that I started on the topic of fuel usage. 15,000 km on the clock and I'm still seeing figures between 6.0 and 7.0 l/100 km. The only time that I see it dip into the 5s is on freeway trips. Even then, it's high fives.

Still better than my Tribute's 15l/100 km...

[Surferdude]

My son, who's visiting from Canada at the moment tells me Ford have already been in trouble for the same thing in North America.

[Phil №❶]

This has all been covered before. The figures quoted are generally unattainable by normal driving (with a few notable exceptions), they are supposed to provide a "level" playing field for car testing.

Testing should be removed from the manufacturer, and carried out on a random new vehicle by an independent authority.

ANCAP perform crash testing as an independent group of organisations, providing credible, highly regarded results, why not fuel economy as well before they crash the cars. 

[2i30s]

and now we know why its so hard to even get close to their fuel consumption figures,schemer's. 

[mjt57]

Back in the early 90s they had two methods of determining a vehicle's fuel usage, Highway and City Cycles. Then, and I don't know when, they changed the methodology to supposedly make it "more accurate". However, as it was back in 93 when I bought my VN Commodore with a claimed 30 mpg highway cycle, I could best get low 20s.

Today, we have this more "accurate" method and it seems that it's still a mythical one.

[eye30]

Think of a number, any number.

Does it seem reasonable?

No.

Ok.  That number will do....................

and now we know why its so hard to even get close to their fuel consumption figures,schemer's. 

I've said before I can get figures near the published. Currently near the end of a tank of maybe 50/50 driving showing 4.3 l/100k and 49 km/h average speed. The relatively high average speed probably says it all but given easy conditions 4.0 l/100k can be achieved. So how are Hyundai (and the rest of them) cheating on this?

I mean if it's possible it's possible and that's all they are saying. They are not saying that you will get it - too many other variables. 

[Phil №❶]

This has all been covered before. The figures quoted are generally unattainable by normal driving (with a few notable exceptions),

I had you in mind when I wrote this, Pip. 

[2i30s]

I'm 99% sure they get the fuel consumption figures with an engine bolted to a frame in an engine testing room, and get the overall consumption figures that way.