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
#100 of 242 Re: I'm Always Driving Fast [btatr]
Sep 02, 2012 (8:01 am)
btatr: I knew full well I would get your predictable response to my Post. Like I stated before, I`m not attempting to alienate the "Love" affair you have with your Kia Rio. I merely (like) my car so my infatuation is a bit more reserved. I respect your opinion I as hope you respect mine. f your "mixed" driving MPG is sufficient for you, fine. You never addressed my 2 points though. First, why does my Ford Fiesta with a similar 1.6 ltr 4 cyl engine (without) GDI get 33-35 mpg city and 41-43 mpg highway consistently yet my Kia Rio gets no where near the same fuel economy under the same driving conditions? Secondly, do you take issue with my premise that a majority of Car buyers would expect a small sub-compact B-segment vehicle would get the same or (worse) gas mileage then a larger, more spacious and powerful Compact or Intermediate size car? No,matter how you would like to frame the argument that one should not expect EPA fuel economy figures to normally be reached,in that I do agree. However, explain if you will how Ford was apply to "surpass" the EPA fuel economy estimates with its Fiesta? The fact is, Kia dropped the ball in regards to its new 2012-2013 Kia Rio`s fuel economy. Yes, the engine and transmission is smooth and brisk, the vehicle is stylish and comfortable, priced right too, but when my old 2006 Kia Rio5 with a antiquated 1.6 ltr (non) GDI engine with a primitive 4 speed automatic transmission got the same or superior fuel economy, something is wrong. No amount of dwelling on the (average) mpg of "mixed" driving can change the above mentioned "facts",sorry. All the "Love" in the world cannot gloss over your dismal 24-25 mpg "city only" fuel economy for a Sub-Compact Car!
#101 of 242 Ford Fiesta
Sep 02, 2012 (9:37 am)
Before I respond let me say I think the Ford Fiesta is a terrific economy class car but it's a little short on horsepower, torque, and storage capacity. Overall, I think Ford did a terrific job. Oh by the way, it also falls short in terms of it's factory warranty versus KIA.
Phil asked why there's such a difference between fuel economy in his Fiesta versus his RIO.
I can't answer that question any more than I can figure out why Phil's RIO mpg is so different than mine and other people, who get even better mileage than me. The only possible guess is the fact that the Fiesta has less horsepower and torque than the RIO but the following paragraph adds far more confusion to his question.
Phil said, "I get a consistent 27 mpg city and 33 mpg highway" with his RIO while my results are 25 mpg in the city and 37-38 mpg on the highway, possibly higher. I'll have a much better idea on that highway number after my 1,400 mile trip next month which will be all Interstate Driving. I suspect that I'll get close to 40 mpg but we'll see in October.
My city mpg is less than Phil's but my highway mileage is much better. Why?
#102 of 242 Re: Ford Fiesta [btatr]
Sep 02, 2012 (9:30 am)
btatr: If your infatuation with your new Kia Rio is such that your satisfied with your 24-25 MPG City or my 27 MPG City, fine. You never addressed all my other points that I think were valid. Please explain to me why Kia`s superior 5 year 60 K Bumper to Bumper warranty and 10 year 100K drivetrain warranty have anything to do with fuel economy? Are you saying, thats a (given) trade off one should expect? Best you re-read my entire previous Post and digest the "facts" that I presented, not merely my opinion. Do you think that my old 2006 Kia Rio5 should have gotten the same or better fuel economy then my new 2012 improved version? I`m not "Bashing" Kia or Hyundai. I have owned (4) of their vehicles. On the other hand, I refuse to be a cheerleader for HKAG when they obviously missed the mark with dismal fuel economy on the smallest car offering in their fleet. Funny, its like both of us are participating in a court room trial with one of us being the prosecution and the other lawyer for the defendant. The facts are simply the facts. 23, 24, 25, or even my fabulous 27 mpg City is (not) satisfactory for a Sub-Compact car, period! I rest (my) case.
#103 of 242 KIA RIO: More than Just Fuel Economy
Sep 02, 2012 (9:55 am)
First, there's a lot more to a car than just fuel economy. Second, you don't have the power to tell others what they can or cannot include in their posts. Third, obviously you didn't read what I wrote earlier when I said I was disappointed with city mileage. But I'm pleased with highway and combo driving results.
My RIO SX has over 6,000 miles and there hasn't been one single problem. That's amazing! It's tons of fun to drive, it's comfortable, everyone raves about the car, and I love my little high tech gadgets. The fact that I don't match EPA numbers is not a major issue for me but you seem incapable of understanding that. All of the other reasons for purchasing the RIO SX were and are far more important to me.
For whatever reason, you seem obsessed with those RIO EPA ratings which are created in a lab. I truly don't understand that singular focus when there are so many other variables which factor into the decision to buy a particular vehicle.
Phil, until you can come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why your RIO mpg numbers are so different from mine, all of your other numbers are meaningless.
#104 of 242 Re: KIA RIO: More than Just Fuel Economy [btatr]
Sep 02, 2012 (12:47 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 or 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!
Sep 02, 2012 (12:52 pm)
Wow, are you two still at it? Well, we've had another tank fill that returned 42 mpg according to the pump receipt and the GPS trip computer. That's with a passenger and luggage. It looks like 42 is going to be my car's best. As I've reported before, I'm not a "hyper-miler" but I do drive conservatively. My cars usually get 50k miles on their front tires (I don't rotate). We're retired and live in an urban setting (two traffic lights). We go into "town" once or twice a week for appointments and shopping. Now that we have 13k+ on the clock we average 32 to 36 mpg "mixed driving" according to the car's trip computer. That's at least 10 mpg better than we got with our PT Cruiser and I couldn't be happier. I've always exceeded the EPA's mileage estimates with every car I've owned. Obviously Hyundai/Kia duplicated the EPA's test "routes" in their own lab and tweaked this car's engine management computer to get that magical 40 mpg for bragging rights. Even with the ECO mode "on" the car adjusts the auto transmission shift points over every 100 miles or so to suit the drivers style. The ECO mode makes the transmission upshift earlier and smooths out the accelerator's sensitivity. Obviously nobody duplicates the EPA's test "route" day after day (unless you're a Hyundai engineer in a test lab). Most people probably drive in a way that makes the car adjust the transmission's shift points to occur later. Most people use E-10 gas (10% alcohol), the EPA uses E-0. So, "your mileage may differ" from both the EPA's and mine.
Regarding that Fiesta. I've heard so much about that car I decided to read up on it. Most people love their gas mileage and handling but hate the "clunky" automatic shifted, dual clutch manual transmission. Ford dealers offer a re-flash of the transmission control that smooths out and delays the shifts, but mileage suffers. For some reason it can't be re-flashed back if you decide you're unhappy with the gas mileage. After reading about the Fiesta I'm even happier with our choice of the Rio5 EX. It was its looks that first piqued my interest. When I looked at the high-tech technology, content and warranty, I was sold.
As was my brother-in-law. He bought a 2013 EX as a commuter (35 miles each way, mostly at or near 70 mph) and he's getting 34 mpg according to the car's trip computer with less than 2k on the clock. That's better than I got when ours was new!
BTW, I've been driving for over 50 years and have well over 1m miles behind the wheel. I have never had to change a tire. I've always carried a cheap 12v air pump since they became available and have used it only twice. I'd rather have the extra hidden trunk space than a temporary spare. I have, however, thrown a camshaft timing belt and had one slip a notch, both causing tows to the dealer so I appreciate the chain driven camshafts on the Hyundai/Kia engines.
So, great car, great value, flaky mileage for some drivers.
#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.