Ask the Car People.SM


2012 Kia Rio5: Real Time Fuel Economy (MPG).

157 messages,  Last post on Jan 08, 2013 at 10:55 AM

You are in the Kia Rio Forum.

What is this discussion about? Kia Rio, Sedan, Wagon

Messages Page 5 of 17

#35 of 157 Re: 40+mpg [skeptic101] by phill1

Jul 09, 2012 (6:06 am)

Replying to: skeptic101 (Jul 08, 2012 7:17 pm)
skeptic101. I know my disappointment with my Fuel Economy with my 2012 Kia Rio5 is (not) uncommon. I have spoken to other owners at my Kia Dealer as well as different Service Writers and Mechanics and it (is) an issue. Many have said that it requires at (least) 6000 or more driven and after your (first) oil change your (may) see some improvement. Well, I have over 6000 driven have had my first oil change and the MPG is still disappointing. All these tips of proper tire inflation, keeping the trunk empty of un-necessary items that increases weight, (I) installed a "Donut" Spare Tires and Jack Kit and through away the toy air-compressor and can of tire sealant that came with the Car, is that) my problem) I don`t think so. My 2011 Ford Fiesta has a spare tire and jack and it`s 41 -43 mpg on the highway has never been compromised. Proper tire inflation, driving 5 MPG (under) the speed limit to achieve a few extra miles per gallon fuel economy won`t work depending on where you live. Try driving in South Florida on either the Florida Turnpike or I95 and see what happens to you if you drive slower then 75/80 mph. You`ll be driven off the road! Speaking of the "Active-Eco_ switch, I have a 2012 Kia Rio5 (LX) with the Automatic Transmission and optional Power Package containing the PW and PL with remote key fob. NO "active-eco" in any (LX) trim models. I see that they are finally including it in their 2013 Model run probably due to the miserable fuel economy complaints. I don`t know nor care what gas I put in my vehicle E10 or otherwise. You purchase whatever gasoline that is available in the area of the Country where you live. Often, you don`t have any choice and even if you did, would it make sense driving all over town looking for a gas station that has the specific blend of gasoline that you prefer? You complaint about the "Cup-Holders" made me laugh. Obviously, you have either a (EX) or (SX) model Rio. The base model (LX) has sufficient cup holders but "NO ARMREST with Storage Box". I just spend several hundreds of dollars retrofitting my (LX) vehicle by having an OEM Armrest w/Storage Box installed which by the way requires a replacement of the (entire) Center Console from the rear of the front seat all the way to the dashboard. Kia requires you to purchase all the required parts piece by piece as well. 10 Parts with a retail price of many hundreds of dollars. Fortunately, I had mine purchased from a seller on Ebay for only $170 which included shipping from Korea which itself costed about $80 for Air Freight. Getting back to the 2012 Kia Rio5 fuel economy, its lousy period. Still, I like the car, comfortable, affordable, great styling and looks and very practical with its storage possibilities and 5th door hatch, but compared to my 2011 Ford Fiesta SE Hatchback, the Kia Rio is (no) gas sipper. I know owners of new Kia Forte`s and Optima`s that are getting almost the same mpg or even better with larger vehicles and bigger engines, whats that all about?

#36 of 157 Acceptable but not up to EPA... by csandste

Jul 09, 2012 (3:00 pm)

Having had other HyunKias in the past didn't expect it to be. Put 2200+ miles on the car in the first week with a trip to South Dakota for a highschool reunion and Northern Minnesota for a family get together. Heavily to road, but some mileage in St. Louis as well as the Twin Cities. Running speed limit of 65-75, air on, 100 degree plus temperatures until I hit northern Minnesota. Tried to run Top Tier gas where possible, QuikTrip or Shell in Missouri. Holiday in Minnesota.
 
Average: 33.00 mpg.
Worst: 22.67
Best 37.89
 
I'm sure that if I jumped directly on freeway, stuck to 65 mph and wasn't constantly running the air conditioning (113 degrees when I bought the car), I could hit 40-- but not in the real world. Moved from an 05 Malibu Maxx which could deliver 30+ in highway driving. Think this does about five better, OTOH-- I think it's remarkably composed on the highway for a sub compact.
 
 Had two cars until last year-- got rid of an 07 Optima which didn't do as well around town as the Maxx, even though it had the four cylinder engine. The non-OHV GM 3.5 was a pretty good engine-- daughter's driving it now.
 
Kia's tend to get better with time. Didn't expect to hit 40 mpg, so not really too disappointed.
 
Mileage entered on Android app to two decimal places.

#37 of 157 Re: 40+mpg [phill1] by skeptic101

Jul 09, 2012 (4:10 pm)

Replying to: phill1 (Jul 09, 2012 6:06 am)
Oh well, 40+ sure beats the 28-30 I got from my PT Cruiser or my wife's Honda CR-V. Regarding the E10, I was just speculating on the 5 MPG difference over the same route. The 43 MPG tank was from 50 miles north of Tampa in TS Debbie to Chattanooga. Maybe I had a strong tail wind. I always find a truck that's sticking to the same -5 MPH. I stay about 1/4 mile in front or behind and never have a problem. I'm retired so there's no place I have to be "on time".

#38 of 157 Re: Acceptable but not up to EPA... [csandste] by phill1

Jul 10, 2012 (6:33 am)

Replying to: csandste (Jul 09, 2012 3:00 pm)
I live in South FL and my air conditioning is (always) on, thats a given. My complaint and disappointment with my 2012 Kia Rio5 fuel economy is based on 2 observations. First, my old 2006 Kia Rio5 that did not have a new state of the art 1.6 ltr engine with "GDI" and a 6 speed automatic transmission but instead an old design 1.6 ltr. engine with a 4 speed automatic transmission got the same or better gas mileage. Second, I also own a 2011 Ford Fiesta SE hatchback also with a 1.6 ltr. engine without "GDI" and a 6 speed automatic transmission and it has achieved from "Day 1" a constant 33/35 mpg city and 41/43 mpg highways with no effort whatsoever to drive carefully and nor with a light foot. How was Ford able to produce a vehicle that far "exceeds" its EPA Fuel Economy Numbers, (most Fiesta owners report similar results) yet the new Kia Rio cannot come anywhere close to achieving their projected numbers, and the Fiesta has a "Spare Tire" and Jack Kit in the trunk adding extra weight? I`m not totally unhappy with my 2012 Kia Rio5, it does handle quite well, its roomy, comfortable, has adequate pick up and performance, attractive and priced affordably. It just does not get the fuel economy that it was advertised to get. It might achieve the 30 mpg city at some time but I`m sure the 40 mpg rating it was given, it ain`t going to happen. Should have known anyway, when its sibling vehicle, the 2012 Hyundai Accent was given the same EPA Fuel Economy numbers as its larger, heavier and more powerful, 2012 Hyundai Elantra, (larger engine "without" GDI), it was obvious that both these vehicles could not produce the same fuel economy.

#39 of 157 Re: Acceptable but not up to EPA... [phill1] by skeptic101

Jul 10, 2012 (7:34 am)

Replying to: phill1 (Jul 10, 2012 6:33 am)
My trips are with a passenger and luggage for 2, a/c always on. Since I'm averaging between 38 and 43 MPG (according to my Garmin trip computer), 40 seems doable. I believe the Fiesta has a 6 speed dual-clutch automatic which helps with the mileage. The Rio has a "sealed for life" automatic with a 100,000 warranty. We'll see how that works out. It also has a chain driven camshaft instead of the usual belt. Having thrown a belt years ago I prefer the chain drive. And the Direct Injection that you mention should give the best MPG and sounds really cool when standing in front of it while it's idling. Maybe you could talk the dealer into running some diagnostics on yours for free.

#40 of 157 Re: Acceptable but not up to EPA... [skeptic101] by phill1

Jul 10, 2012 (9:55 am)

Replying to: skeptic101 (Jul 10, 2012 7:34 am)
No need to run "diagnostic" tests at the Kia Dealer, the car runs fine! I have spoken to several other 2012 Kia Rio owners locally and my vehicle is achieving similar MPG as theirs are. It is what it is. The Ford Fiesta with its (dual clutch) automatic transmission that occasionally (is) a bit jerky and not very smooth shifting at low speeds is a small inconvenience for its superior MPG in my opinion. I personally have never kept a vehicle much past 60K or 70K, so I`m really not too concerned with reliability after I`ve traded it in. The items you mentioned, cool sounding GDI, sealed Automatic Transmission are nice. The (big) plus in the chain driven timing belt that avoids the need to replace the typical (non-chain) type belt to avoid blowing the engine after 60,000 miles. Perhaps since my "LX" Model Kia Rio5 with its automatic transmission is (not) equipped with the amazing, "Active-Eco" control switch, that might account for its lackluster fuel economy. I doubt it though since I`ve discussed the issue with owners of both "EX" and "SX" models that claim, the Active-Eco does`ant account for any significant difference. Maybe those that purchase the 2013 "EX" models with the optional Stop and Go technology will experience improved gas mileage but for the hefty added cost, it will require many years and a lot of miles driven to recoup the savings. Odd, that for the 2013 Model Year run, Kia is now putting the "Active-Eco" switch on all of its automatic transmission "LX" trim vehicles that come with the "Power Package" containing the PW and PL with remote Key Fob which the 2012 Kia Rio`s did not have. Personally, I would rather have seen them put in as standard equipment the Armrest with Storage Box Center Console instead. Even my old 2006 Kia Rio5 had a damn folding driver side Armrest. If one does not need or never uses Cruise Control or does not need or use Bluetooth Technology, the twin A-Pillar Tweeter Speakers which hardly adds anything to the sub-par Audio System, or can appreciate the premium "deluxe" Cloth Interior (huh), or the (plastic) Chrome radiator grill surround which will eventually peel or discolor, why must you pay an extra $900 to simply get an Armrest? Damn, I almost forgot the most important feature missing on the "LX" Model, the front door (padded) armrests.

#41 of 157 RIO SX Best In Class - Check Combined MPG by btatr

Jul 11, 2012 (9:13 am)

Replying to: phill1 (Jul 10, 2012 9:55 am)
I have a 2012 RIO SX and I'm very pleased with everything, including fuel economy. I'll get back to that in a minute but I want to report my car is 7 months old and I haven't yet found a single problem. Thank you KIA. I love the brisk acceleration, handling, comfort, powerful A/C, LED running/brake/mirror lights, and my back up camera.
 
I loaded up almost 1gb of mp3s onto my jukebox and I thoroughly enjoy UVO and Sirius Satellite radio.
 
As for fuel economy, I think most people are confused and/or they're fooling themselves. How many of us actually spend 100% of our time driving on the highway? Very few, most of us COMBINE highway and city driving, and the latter kills fuel economy. Therefore, instead of that ideal 40 mpg highway number, KIA owners should focus on the EPA Combined Mileage rating which is 33 mpg.
 
My car consistently gets between 31 and 32 mpg in COMBINED driving so I'm happy. I recommend turning off the ECO button in city or hilly/mountainous driving as you will benefit with improved acceleration and better fuel economy. The only time I use ECO mode is on a flat highway. Remember, focus on that EPA 33 mpg Combined Rating.

#42 of 157 Re: RIO SX Best In Class - Check Combined MPG [btatr] by phill1

Jul 11, 2012 (7:47 am)

Replying to: btatr (Jul 11, 2012 9:13 am)
I agree with basically everything you posted concerning your 2012 Kia Rio5 (SX). EXCEPT the sup-par Fuel Economy. As I previously posted, my 2011 Ford Fiesta SE Hatchback also with a 1.6 ltr 4 cyl engine (without) GDI and a 6 speed automatic transmission always produces between 33-35 mpg city and 41-43 mpg highway. Two similar size vehicles with similar weight, one performs with fuel economy comparable to a Hybrid (The Ford Fiesta) the other the Kia Rio5 has the fuel economy of a full side compact or intermediate size vehicle. Everything else I agree with! Since my (LX) did not come with the "Active Eco" feature, I don`t have to shut mine off.

#43 of 157 RIO SX Best In Class - Check Combined MPG by btatr

Jul 11, 2012 (8:53 am)

Phil:
 
I'm glad you agree with my overall assessment of the 2012 RIO SX model. However, I'm not quite sure what you disagree with. Hopefully you can clarify.
 
Do you disagree that the RIO EPA Combined rating is 33 mpg?
 
Do you disagree with my combined mileage results of 31-32 mpg?
 
Do you disagree with my comment that very few people spend 100% of the time on the highway and should use the EPA COMBINED rating as their guide?

#44 of 157 Re: 2012 Kia Rio5: Real Time Fuel Economy (MPG). [koboko] by aurorabds

Jul 11, 2012 (9:05 am)

Replying to: koboko (May 15, 2012 6:10 pm)
No, I checked out all the settings. The dealer replaced the speakers, which i doubted would work. Now they have a new radio on order. I'll let you know.

Messages Page 5 of 17

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement