Last post on Dec 05, 2013 at 7:58 AM
You are in the Kia Rio
What is this discussion about?
Kia Rio, Sedan, Wagon
#106 of 242 Re: KIA RIO: More than Just Fuel Economy [btatr]
Sep 02, 2012 (12:50 pm)
I knew when I first responded to the Post by csandste #94 I was once again opening "pandoras box". I should have known better. Its "Ground Hog Day" all over again. We had this discussion a month or two ago and I will let you have the (last word). I`m bored and more interested in figuring out who to pick in my NFL Football Pool with the point spread then continuing this (lame) game of tit for tat. I will concede that your emotional love affair with your Kia Rio5 SX is so strong, facts alone mean nothing. Its like I insulted your Spouse or Children. If your happy with your Car, fine! If Fuel Economy is not a major priority for you and a major reason your purchased this small B-segment vehicle, you Sir, are in the minority, I`m sure. I only stated that if getting anywhere between 23 mpg to my magnificent 27 mpg in this Sub Compact vehicle is acceptable to you, I`m happy for you. If I posted any "facts" that were in err, I truly apologize. I choose not to live in total denial that this vehicle was marketed to be a fuel efficient car which it is (not). EPA figures which you still explain are done (in the Lab) and not in real-time conditions still does not change the dynamics one bit. I`m not sure of how many other 2012-2013 Kia Rio owners you have discussed Fuel Economy with but I`m sure if you did, the vast majority would have shared their disappointment. Like the last time, I`m out, my Dog is (not) in this fight and I wish your Love Affair with your Car lasts forever and that your have nothing but joy in future miles ahead. I hope you too will someday achieve (my) marvelous 27 MPG City as well. Cheers!
#107 of 242 Skeptic101's RIO Mileage
Sep 02, 2012 (1:52 pm)
Highway: 42 mpg
Mixed: 32- 36 mpg
Hmmmmmmmmmm, very interesting. Better than my mileage and vastly different from Phils' bizarre mileage numbers which has nothing in common with anything I've seen from anyone else. We don't know why Phil posts such unusual numbers.
Thanks for the interesting post.
#108 of 242 RIO SX: Far More Than EPA Numbers
Sep 02, 2012 (2:29 pm)
It's unfortunate that we have one forum member who accuses me of ignoring facts when I'm analyzing everything about the RIO. His sole focus is on the EPA lab numbers. Why he ignores all of the other outstanding attributes of the vehicle can only be answered by him.
When I make a decision to buy a car, EPA mpg ratings are only one of a myriad of variables which impact my decision. I'm not obsessed with fuel economy because there are many other factors which are more important to me such as safety, comfort, reliability, handling, looks, warranty, etc.
His posted mpg numbers are also somewhat bizarre and makes me wonder how he arrives at those totals. Please see the totals I've posted and check out skeptic101's results above which I think are much closer to what you can expect.
My main concern is an analysis of the RIO and why I shower praise on my car. Observations on my SX model:
(A) Extremely comfortable
(B) Nimble Handling
(C) Brisk Acceleration, ability to pass other cars on the Interstate
(D) Lots of high tech goodies such as a rear view camera, heated outside folding mirrors, LED Running and Brake Lights
(E) Voice controlled satellite radio and telephone calls
(F) Excellent 6 speed Automatic Transmission
(G) Numerous safety bags
(H)Traction and Electronic Stability Control
(I) Decent storage capacity with the seats folded down
(J) Ultra cool, sleek look which receives praise from many I've spoken with
(K) Nifty looking low profile aluminum wheels/tires
(L) Zero Problems in over 6,000 miles
With all that going for my RIO SX, the last thing I'm concerned about is the fact that I'm getting slightly less than the EPA rated miles per gallon. I'm doing well on the highway, pretty good in combo driving, and less than satisfactory in the city. But overall this is one fantastic economy car.
And if all that I described above isn't enough, it has a 5 year/60,000 mile bumper to bumper and a 10 year/100,000 mile power train warranty.
#109 of 242 Most Recent RIO Mileage Report
Sep 06, 2012 (6:14 am)
Yesterday I went on a 111 mile trip and tried my best to accurately calculate the type of miles. My notes showed 75 miles on an Interstate and 36 stop & go, mainly a divided highway with lots of traffic and red lights. Those numbers are not precise but approximately 2/3 of the trip was on the Interstate and about 1/3 was stop and go.
That is combined mileage with twice as much on the Interstate versus stop & go. Although the trip computer reported 36.8 mpg the actual number was 34.9 mpg. Therefore the RIO computer was almost 2 mpg higher than the actual number I calculated. But overall I was very pleased.
Next month I'm going on a 700 mile journey which will be almost all interstate, so I'm eager to find out how that goes. I just read a message in another KIA forum where the driver said he got 42 mpg on his most recent trip. I don't expect to get that much. I anticipate exceeding my normal highway mileage rating of 37-38 mpg. Who knows, I might actually reach the EPA 40 mpg rating. We'll see.
#110 of 242 Re: Most Recent RIO Mileage Report [btatr]
Sep 06, 2012 (11:02 am)
I'm headed for the Rockies next week. I want to compare the difference between E-10 and E-15 gas, and I-70 through Kansas will let me compare different cruising speeds. The only time I check the MPG with my GPS's trip computer is when we're on a trip. I forget to check the car's trip computer before I shut it down to fill up. When I start it back up the car's computer has automatically reset to 0. I'm going to try to remember this time to check it when I pull in to see what the difference is. 5% is quite a lot more than I would have expected. I know my odometer is off by 1%. Here's an interesting link for people who care and have the time:
#111 of 242 It is a good car.
Sep 08, 2012 (12:40 am)
I too have 2012 Kia Rio5 SX.
It is not a perfect car; however, there is no perfect car. I used to have Toyotas - Corolla, Solara, Matrix, Prius....and gas millage was always excellent.
On the other hand, I did not like cheap interior in most Toyotas, excluding the Solara. There are always trade offs with different cars.
Kia Rio is a nice little car. I love all tech futures that btatr mentioned above, but I still can believe how low city gas millage is. I get mostly 25-26 MPG; however, I always drive with A/C; most of my trips are short in the city, so engine is not warmed up enough, and I believe the car still have only 3000 miles on it. I think that gas millage will get a little bit better with engine braking in in the next 5-10K miles.
I just did a trip from Charlotte, NC to North Carolina mountains and back, which was 340 miles. I managed to do it with one tank of gas, with computer showing me 39 MPG....After I calculated manually, I come up with a 35.6 MPG...not bad considering that I used A/C thru out the whole time. If you say that gas millage suffers 10% by using A/C...this will mean that I got 39 MPG...which is almost 40 MPG. Considering that my speed was 75-80MPG, which is another drag to fuel economy, I can say that I am very happy.
City Millage.....well I have to live with it, but I am happy with my little car.
I believe that Toyota, Honda, Ford and other makes (not Huyndai/Kia) have their engines with less horse power because of gas millage. If you look at all 1.5 and 1.6 engines, you will notice that the once with 105-115 horse power have better gas millage in city. This is the reason, I guess, they chose to leave them with less power..... Of course, this is a speculation on my side; however, these are the facts.
Enjoy your cars guys!
#112 of 242 Re: It is a good car. [dchev]
Sep 08, 2012 (6:55 am)
Once again, not using my better judgement, I`d like to respond to "dchev" without an "un-named individual" becoming overly defensive and releasing the attack Dogs out for yet another bite. If you waiting on improved fuel economy to occur with your 2012 Kia Rio when it has 7000 or miles driven, it just ain`t going to happen. Seems the sweet spot for Kia`s little "Gas-Sipper" is between 23 and 26 mpg in City driving with myself setting an all time record of often getting 27 mpg on a vehicle that has just over 7000 on it. I think the use of the vehicles A/C should (not) account for a 10% reduction in fuel economy either. If you had the windows down in hot weather, the extra wind drag would account for even a larger drop in fuel economy. Despite my criticism of the typical fuel economy that the Kia Rio delivers, City, Highway, and even "Mixed", it is an attractive, affordable, comfortable, peppy, fun Car to drive. It, like its sibling cousin, the 2012-2013 Hyundai Accent just don`t deliver the Fuel Economy numbers that a Vehicle in the Sub-Compact/B-Segment Class should be expected to achieve outside of the EPA Lab that provided these (estimates). I`m fully aware that they are (only) estimates and often times and perhaps, most of the time they do fall short of the Window Sticker`s estimations in real time driving conditions. That said, I know for a fact that from (my) experience, occasionally a Vehicle (will) not only meet those numbers but actually (exceed) them. I`m sure that HKAG is fully aware of this shortcoming and it will be addressed by the 2014 Model Year run. By changing transmission or front axle gear ratios, a loss of a bit of performance will for a majority of buyers be a small price to pay to achieve the fuel economy (most) would expect in a Car in this particular segment. Other then that, for the most part, they did a fine job. I might add, they also might consider adding as standard equipment Daytime Running Lights across the entire fleet for US destined vehicles like 90% of other manufacturers, foreign and domestic, already have. They don`t have to necessarily be the fancy LED type that are equipped on the SX series but a lower wattage traditional (pilot) lamp included in the Headlamp Cluster. For the added minimal cost of the electrical module, a safety devise that already is mandatory in Canada and most of Europe would (for most) be appreciated.
#113 of 242 It is a good car. [dchev]
Sep 09, 2012 (5:24 am)
Dchev, I think you are on target when you mentioned horsepower and torque. I believe the RIO is best in class in terms of torque and HP which I think is an excellent trade off for slightly lower fuel economy in the city. I would hate to give up that power we currently have for an extra 1 or 2 mpg.
I had a 2002 Ford Focus [very good car] that was geared for maximum fuel economy so acceleration was atrocious. I couldn't pass anyone on the highway and the engine would virtually die when driving in the mountains. Unlike the Focus, my RIO SX has brisk acceleration and I can pass cars on the highway with ease. In fact, the RIO cruises along at 75 mph with the engine barely working hard.
As for A/C, I think you over estimated the impact. I would guess it's about a 5% penalty but driving with the windows open would probably give you a 10% penalty. Driving with the windows open is just as bad as stop & go traffic for fuel economy.
#114 of 242 Re: It is a good car. [phill1]
Sep 09, 2012 (6:46 am)
dchev: I too would gladly give up "1 or 2" mpg for improved performance and drivability, how about "8" to 10" mpg, feel the same way? Like I posted numerous times, why a 2011 Ford Fiesta with its pathetic clunky automatic transmission and its grossly (underpowered) NON-GDI 1.6 ltr engine has delivered a constant 33 to 35 mpg (city) from Day 1! Others, that shall remain nameless, have reported the Kia Rio delivering between "23 to 25" mpg city. Luckily, I`m very fortunate to average 27 mpg city. Using the Rio`s "23-25" mpg city versus the Fiesta`s "33-35" mpg city seems that there is a (10 mpg) difference and (not) merely a 1-2 mpg difference. Maybe I never learned arithmetic properly or some folks are using, lets say, "fuzzy math".
#115 of 242 Phil's Arithmetic???
Sep 09, 2012 (9:27 am)
Phil said, "Maybe I never learned arithmetic properly...". That could be because he's the only one I see getting such bizarre highway only mpg from his RIO. In light of that, why should we believe his mpg numbers for his beloved Ford Fiesta?
My numbers are pretty consistent, and even less then what most people are reporting. As a reminder, I'm getting the following mpg from my RIO SX:
City Only: 24-45 mpg
Highway Only: 37-38 mpg
Combined: 31-32 mpg
Except for my city mileage, both highway and combined are fairly close to the EPA ratings and about what I expected. Only city mpg disappoints. As mentioned above, except for Phil, most people are reporting the same or even better mileage than I am.
But when it comes to Phil, his highway numbers are so far off from everyone else it makes you wonder how he's calculating them. Why are those highway numbers so low when compared with others? Either his math is way off or I suspect he's mixing in a fair amount of stop and go driving, but classifying them as highway only.
Phil said, " I feel by now that the engine should be "broken in". I get a consistent 27 mpg city and 33 mpg highway.
33 mpg highway? How? Why? I get almost that much in mixed driving. Some people are reporting highway only mileage as high as 42 mpg, which is 9 mpg higher than Phil's unusual results.
Earlier this week I went on a 111 mile trip (2/3 highway, 1/3 stop and go) and my results were 34.9 mpg. And that was with a fair amount of traffic and red lights on a divided highway. Yet that combo mileage trip was almost 2 mpg better than Phil's strange 33 mpg highway only numbers.