2026 Hyundai Elantra Review, Pricing, and Specs
Hyundai is seemingly out to please everyone with its 2026 Elantra line. The base sedan is underwhelming from a driving perspective, but it's reasonably well equipped and affordable. Those in want of better fuel economy can get it with an optional and smooth-running hybrid powertrain, while those in need of better performance can turn to the turbocharged N Line model.
While the Elantra's sucked-in sides and compact-car classification might lead you to believe it's short on interior space, it's not. The cabin is roomy, and its controls and infotainment setups are close at hand and easy to use.
Expert Tip: If you have $35,000 to spare, the 286-hp Elantra N (reviewed separately) is the gem of the range, at least for enthusiasts.
What's New for 2026?
Most model-year changes for the Hyundai Elantra aren't worth mentioning, but a new SEL Sport Premium trim replaces the SEL Convenience trim for 2026.
Pricing and Which One to Buy
The price of the 2026 Hyundai Elantra is expected to start around $23,500 and go up to $31,500 depending on the trim and options.
SE
$23,500 (est)
SEL Sport
$25,000 (est)
Hybrid Blue
$27,000 (est)
SEL Sport Premium
$28,000 (est)
Limited
$28,500 (est)
Hybrid SEL Sport
$29,000 (est)
N Line
$30,500 (est)
Hybrid Limited
$31,500 (est) 0 $10k $20k $30k $40k $50k
If you're looking at the nonturbo, nonhybrid Elantra lineup, the new-for-2026 SEL Sport Premium is a good option. We expect it to improve on lesser trims with stop-and-go adaptive cruise control, heated front seats, a 60/40 split-folding rear seat, and a dual-screen infotainment setup. That said, we wouldn't try to talk you out of a hybrid or N Line Elantra.
Engine, Transmission, and Performance
Engines: 147-hp 2.0-liter four-cylinder, 201-hp turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder (N Line), 1.6-liter four-cylinder with one electric motor, 139 hp combined (hybrid)
147-hp 2.0-liter four-cylinder, 201-hp turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder (N Line), 1.6-liter four-cylinder with one electric motor, 139 hp combined (hybrid) Transmissions: continuously variable automatic (CVT), 7-speed dual-clutch automatic (N Line), 6-speed dual-clutch automatic (hybrid)
continuously variable automatic (CVT), 7-speed dual-clutch automatic (N Line), 6-speed dual-clutch automatic (hybrid) Drivetrain: front-wheel drive
The Elantra can be had with a variety of powertrains, from an unexciting 147-hp naturally aspirated four-cylinder to a peppier 201-hp turbo four to a fuel-sipping 139-hp hybrid. (There's also the 286-hp Elantra N, but we cover that model separately.)
Of these three powertrains, the turbocharged option unsurprisingly offers the best performance. It's available exclusively in the Elantra N Line, which impressed us early on with its compliant ride, communicative steering, solid body control, and good front-end bite. We can't say the same for the nonturbo Elantra. In our comparison test of compact sedans, it felt unsettled by minor road bumps and exhibited too much body roll, structural vibration, and brake-pedal sponginess for our taste.
We found the hybrid model satisfying to drive, though. Unlike other hybrid cars, which usually feature CVTs, this one has a dual-clutch automatic that actually shifts gears and, in doing so, helps to keep engine droning to a minimum.
0–60-MPH Times
C/D 60-mph Tests: 8.1 seconds (nonhybrid), 8.4 seconds (hybrid)
8.1 seconds (nonhybrid), 8.4 seconds (hybrid) C/D-Estimated 60-mph Time: 6.5 seconds (N Line)
In Comparison: In our testing, the naturally aspirated nonhybrid Elantra hit 60 mph in 8.1 seconds, while the hybrid needed 8.4 seconds. We haven't had an opportunity to test the turbocharged Elantra N Line, but we expect to clock it around 6.5 seconds, which would put it in line with the Honda Civic Si but behind the Volkswagen Jetta GLI.
View Photos
Hyundai
Fuel Economy and Real-World MPG
C/D 75-mph Highway Fuel-Economy Tests : 38 mpg (nonhybrid), 48 mpg (hybrid)
38 mpg (nonhybrid), 48 mpg (hybrid) EPA City Ratings : 28-51 mpg
28-51 mpg EPA Highway Ratings: 35-58 mpg
The EPA hasn't released fuel-economy information for the 2026 Hyundai Elantra yet, but the car's ratings shouldn't change. The 2025 hybrid model earns estimates as high as 51 mpg city and 58 mpg highway, though non-Blue trims come in at 49 and 52 mpg, respectively. On our 75-mph highway fuel-economy route, the Elantra Hybrid Limited couldn't match that, instead seeing 48 mpg.
Elantras with the 2.0-liter four-cylinder have estimates ranging from 30 to 32 mpg city and 39 to 41 mpg highway, likely due to wheel size, though our tested Limited model fell short of that, returning 38 mpg on the highway loop.
Elantra N notwithstanding, the turbocharged N Line is the least efficient of this range, but its 28-mpg city and 35-mpg highway scores aren't bad. For more information about the Elantra's fuel economy, visit the EPA's website.
Interior, Comfort, and Cargo
First Row: The Elantra's cabin isn't as (literally or figuratively) edgy as its exterior, but it's stylish and functional, if laden with hard plastics. It's also driver-focused, with screens and buttons angled to the left and a grab handle along the right side of the console that physically separates the passenger from the controls.
Second Row: Passenger space is generous throughout the cabin, with adult-friendly outboard seats front and rear.
Cargo Capacity: The Elantra's cargo hold is very usable, and was able to fit six carry-on suitcases behind the rear seats in our testing.
View Photos
Hyundai
Infotainment and Connectivity
Infotainment: 8.0-inch touchscreen (standard), 10.3-inch touchscreen (optional)
8.0-inch touchscreen (standard), 10.3-inch touchscreen (optional) Connectivity: Bluetooth, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility (wireless connectivity varies by trim)
Bluetooth, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility (wireless connectivity varies by trim) Audio Systems: 6-speaker stereo (standard), 8-speaker Bose stereo (optional)
The SE and SEL Sport models feature a 4.2-inch cluster display in front of the driver and an 8.0-inch touchscreen atop the center stack, while higher-end trims get dual 10.3-inch screens, one for instrumentation and the other for infotainment. Oddly, the latter setup requires a wired connection for Apple CarPlay and Android Auto functions, whereas the 8.0-inch unit supports wireless smartphone mirroring, but at least the 10.3-incher has satellite radio.
The audio system varies by trim, with Limited and N Line models receiving an eight-speaker Bose stereo and all others getting a six-speaker setup.
Safety and Driver-Assistance Features
Several desirable driver-assistance features like blind-spot monitoring and forward-collision-avoidance tech come standard, but shoppers will have to choose a mid- or high-level trim for adaptive cruise control.
Standard Safety Features: automated emergency braking, lane-departure warning, lane-keeping assist
automated emergency braking, lane-departure warning, lane-keeping assist Optional Safety Features: adaptive cruise control, lane-centering assist
For information about the Elantra's crash-test results, visit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) websites.
Warranty and Maintenance Coverage
Elantra owners can rest easy with Hyundai's legendary 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty. They also receive three years of scheduled service at no cost, which is a nice perk.
Limited Warranty: five years or 60,000 miles
five years or 60,000 miles Powertrain Warranty: 10 years or 100,000 miles
10 years or 100,000 miles Complimentary Maintenance: three years or 36,000 miles
C/D Test Results and Specs
We test every vehicle we can. Data in the chart below may be for a different model year if the model remained unchanged from when we last tested it.
Specifications
Specifications
2021 Hyundai Elantra Limited
Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $26,455/$26,610
Options: carpeted floor mats, $155
ENGINE
DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 122 in3, 1999 cm3
Power: 147 hp @ 6200 rpm
Torque: 132 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
TRANSMISSION
continuously variable automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/torsion beam
Brakes, F/R: 11.0-in vented disc/10.3-in disc
Tires: Kumho Majesty Solus
225/45R-17 91W M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.1 in
Length: 184.1 in
Width: 71.9 in
Height: 55.7 in
Passenger Volume: 100 ft3
Trunk Volume: 14 ft3
Curb Weight: 2895 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.1 sec
1/4-Mile: 16.3 sec @ 88 mph
100 mph: 22.1 sec
120 mph: 37.5 sec
Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 8.5 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.1 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.5 sec
Top Speed (mfr's claim): 124 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 175 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.88 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 35 mpg
75-mph Highway Driving: 38 mpg
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 35/31/41 mpg
-
2021 Hyundai Elantra Hybrid Limited
Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
PRICE
Base/As Tested: $29,105/$29,260
Options: carpeted floor mats, $155
POWERTRAIN
DOHC 16-valve Atkinson-cycle 2.0-liter inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection, 104 hp, 109 lb-ft + AC motor, 43 hp, 125 lb-ft (combined output: 139 hp, 195 lb-ft; 1.32-kWh lithium-ion battery pack)
Transmission: 6-speed dual-clutch automatic
CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: struts/multilink; Brakes, F/R: 11.0-in vented disc/10.3-in disc; Tires: Hankook Kinergy GT 225/45R-17 91W M+S
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 107.1 in
Length: 184.1 in
Width: 71.9 in
Height: 55.7 in
Passenger Volume: 100 ft3
Trunk Volume: 14 ft3
Curb Weight: 3088 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 8.4 sec
1/4-Mile: 16.5 sec @ 85 mph
100 mph: 24.4 sec
Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 9.0 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 4.7 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 6.2 sec
Top Speed (gov ltd): 116 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 171 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.85 g
C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 40 mpg
75-mph Highway Driving: 48 mpg
Highway Range: 520 mi
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
Combined/City/Highway: 50/49/52 mpg
C/D TESTING EXPLAINED
More Features and Specs
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
11 minutes ago
- Washington Post
35 Union Pacific train cars derail near Texas town, no injuries reported
GORDON, Texas — Thirty-five cars of a Union Pacific train derailed Tuesday afternoon near a small Texas town, officials said. No injuries were reported and no evacuations have been ordered following the afternoon derailment, Union Pacific spokeswoman Robynn Tysver said.
Associated Press
41 minutes ago
- Associated Press
35 Union Pacific train cars derail near Texas town, no injuries reported
GORDON, Texas (AP) — Thirty-five cars of a Union Pacific train derailed Tuesday afternoon near a small Texas town, officials said. No injuries were reported and no evacuations have been ordered following the afternoon derailment, Union Pacific spokeswoman Robynn Tysver said. News footage showed multiple train cars piled on top of one another on the railroad track located in a rural area. A grass fire and smoke could be seen beside the derailment site. The emergency services district said the derailment was being treated as a hazardous material situation. But it was not immediately known what the derailed train cars were carrying. The derailment occurred around 2 p.m. just east of the town of Gordon, Tysver said. Gordon is located about 65 miles (105 kilometers) southwest of Fort Worth. None of the railroad cars were leaking their contents, according to a post on social media by the Palo Pinto County Emergency Services District 1. 'Crews are on scene, mitigating the damage and hazards. Fire officials are proceeding with caution (at) the scene,' the emergency services district said in a statement. The Palo Pinto Fire Department was working to contain a grass fire, Tysver said. 'Union Pacific crews are en route,' Tysver added.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Impossible position' cited by truck manufacturers in lawsuit against California
Truck manufacturers are 'in an impossible position' under the California Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) mandate, and several of them have asked a federal court to get them out of it. In a lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of California, Daimler Truck (OTC: DTRUY), PACCAR (NASDAQ: PCAR), Volvo Group North America and International Motors (owned by Volkswagen), the companies are asking the court to immediately halt the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from enforcing the ACT against them, using the 'impossible' term to describe their predicament. In the summary of that position, the manufacturers spell out the squeeze that many people in the industry saw coming as soon as the federal government, following this past spring's Congressional action and a Presidential approval of that action, invalidated the waiver granted by the Environmental Protection Agency to CARB that allowed the ACT and other California regulations to proceed. Groundwork for squeeze laid in 2023 The road to that squeeze began when the companies' trade group, the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), signed the Clean Truck Partnership (CTP) in 2023 that gave the manufacturers more leeway to meet the ACT requirements in exchange for greater alignment between California and EPA rules. That deal also included restrictions on what the engine manufacturers could do to challenge the ACT going forward. On one side of the squeeze is California, insisting that the federal action to overturn the waivers is illegal and that the engine manufacturers must abide by the rules of the CTP. (California has filed suit against the federal action, with its key argument being that EPA waivers are not subject to the Congressional Review Act that Congress used to overturn them. The engine manufacturers' lawsuit says there is a conference on the California suit September 16 and that nothing else has occurred with it since the state filed the suit. ) On the other side is the federal government, which the lawsuit says sent a letter August 7 to a Daimler executive, Sean Waters, telling him that signatories to the CTP must 'cease and desist your compliance with both the Clean Truck Partnership and its preempted state vehicle emissions regulations.' The letter was sent by Adam R.F. Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice, and is an attachment in the engine manufacturers' lawsuit. The lawsuit says the engine manufacturers, along with the EMA, 'sought clarification from CARB regarding OEMs' legal obligations under the Clean Truck Partnership and CARB's underlying emission standards,noting that the Clean Truck Partnership's requirements were invalid for several reasons, including that they were preempted under the Clean Air Act.' CARB has not responded to that request, according to the lawsuit. California seen as threatening action But the lawsuit points to a Manufacturers Advisory Correspondence issued by CARB on May 23 that says the engine makers 'must continue to follow CARB's preempted standards, including the certification requirement, to ensure 'lawful' sales of vehicles and engines in California.' That was followed by an executive order from Gov. Newsom that, the lawsuit says, threatened the manufacturers with 'unfavorable regulatory treatment, as well as exclusion from government purchase and incentive programs,' if the companies didn't adhere to the ACT mandates. CARB has made some changes in the ACT since the preemption. In a July 24 press release that announced the changes, CARB chair Liane Randolph was quoted as saying that they provided 'flexibility.' But she also referred to 'commitments made in the Clean Truck Partnership.' EMA signaled last month, in a comment to CARB during the process that led to the changes, that it was unhappy with the situation it faced. It was the first public declaration of its views since the federal action set the grounds for the current dispute. Given the pushes coming at them from two sides, according to the lawsuit, 'the OEMs are subject to two sovereigns whose regulatory requirements are irreconcilable and who are openly hostile to one another. Each wields a hammer to enforce its will on industry, leaving OEMs—who simply seek to sell heavy-duty trucks in compliance with the law—unable to plan with the necessary certainty and clarity where their products need to be certified for sale and by which regulatory authority.' But it is only one side of the divide that is the target of the lawsuit: California. 'California has taken the position that Congress's waiver-disapproval resolutions were 'reckless, politically motivated, and illegal attacks on California' (citing wording in a Newsom press release) and has made clear that it will continue to attempt to enforce the requirements included in Advanced Clean Trucks, Omnibus Low NOx and Advanced Clean Cars II.' For the trucking industry, a softening of the California Omnibus Low NOx rule and aligning it with federal law was a key part of the deal. The federal waivers that allowed the ACT to proceed also permitted the Omnibus NOX rule (which tightened rules on emissions of nitrogen oxide) and the Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which affects passenger vehicles. CTP didn't impact ZEV rules One thing that didn't change under the CTP: the ACT schedule for truck manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) into the state. But the lawsuit notes that another conundrum the engine manufacturers have is that the matching mandate to buy ZEVs that was built into the now largely defunct Advanced Clean Fleets rule has disappeared, with CARB killing the rule when it didn't think it was getting an EPA waiver for it. 'In other words, CARB has removed the buy-side requirement corresponding to the sales mandates imposed on manufacturers by Advanced Clean Trucks, thereby making manufacturer compliance with Advanced Clean Trucks even more challenging,' the lawsuit says. The engine manufacturers 'urgently need clarity regarding the law and emission standards that apply to its vehicles and engines for model year 2026,' the suit says. 'To adequately plan product production and allocation, Plaintiff OEMs must know which vehicles they are authorized to sell, and where, well in advance of the start of a model year on January 1.' The legal charges in the lawsuit are that California, with the waivers gone, is violating the preemption provisions of the Clean Air Act that prohibit a state–absent a waiver–from creating stricter standards than in the act. It also challenges a provision in the CTP–which the EMA signed–that prohibited challenges to steps CARB might have taken in connection with the partnership.'Government officials cannot, without violating the First Amendment, require their citizens to follow unlawful standards,' the suit says. The suit also says the CTP violates various California state regulations. The manufacturers are seeking court injunctions that would bar the state from enforcing 'or attempting to enforce' not only the ACT but other regulations that the state had approved and sought–and in most cases–received a waiver from the EPA. That includes the Advanced Clean Fleets rule, which was withdrawn before a waiver decision was made by EPA. A spokeswoman for CARB declined comment, citing the pending litigation. Groups make their voices heard But other comments came rapidly. The Clean Freight Coalition is a group of carriers and other trucking related businesses that has mostly pushed back against some emission technologies while backing others. Its executive director (and former FMCSA administrator) Jim Mullen said the group 'commends the truck OEMs for bringing this lawsuit against CARB.' 'It is an absolute disgrace that this action is necessary.' CARB is holding the trucking industry hostage by its refusal to acknowledge the obvious: that the actions by Congress and the President nullified the CTP. ' On the other side of the divide, Craig Segall, former deputy executive officer and assistant CARB chief counsel, asked whether the manufacturers 'have any idea how to sell their own products?' 'Imagine being a truck company, working for years towards an agreement with the world's fourth largest economy that helps you sell electric trucks and finance infrastructure despite federal uncertainty… and then burning your regulators and destroying shareholder value by blowing up that agreement,' he said in a prepared statement. 'Red flags abound.' More articles by John Kingston First legal steps taken, this time by WSTA, to untangle the legal knot of the Clean Truck Partnership In brief comments, Trimble CEO introduces new product for matching capacity with shippers Truck sales in the second quarter might have been the worst performing metric of all The post 'Impossible position' cited by truck manufacturers in lawsuit against California appeared first on FreightWaves. Sign in to access your portfolio
