Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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



  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    that's different to my Soul as it uses the highbeam bulb only at half power. here's a photo of the Canadian LX+ auto

  • On my SX, that light is replaced with a strip of white LED's that activate when you turn on the parking or headlights.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    edited January 2012
    cbmorton; The U.S. version 2012 Kia Rio 5 does in fact have that opening at the bottom of the Headlamp Cluster where a bulb (Canadian) DRL goes,however unfortunately it is empty with no bulb or wiring. I was considering an aftermarket DRL Kit and have it installed however I`m afraid if anything went wrong with any electrical component, Kia would not cover the labor or repairs under its new vehicle warranty and allege that the problem was caused by the non Kia part. I can live without the Cruise Control,the Fog Lights, the Daytime Running Lights, but I (must) eventually find an aftermarket center console with armrest and storage. My 2011 Ford Fiesta did not have one, (they do for the 2012 Model) and I secured a OEM quality aftermarket unit manufactured by Boomerang Industries. They have yet to decide to design and market one yet for the 2012 Kia Rio5 "LX" U.S. version that does not have one. I simply could not justify paying an extra $800 to upgrade to the "EX" Model to get the Armrest. The other additional "EX" equipment that comes standard was not important to me.
  • I drive 80% highway, 20,000 miles per year. I just bought a 2012 Rio5 EX for the gas mileage. My problem is the trip computer shows an average of 35.5 MPG (quite acceptable), but my actual is only 31.5 - not impressive. If the trip computer was accurate, I may not have chosen the vehicle. Anyone else having a similar issue?

    Also, My rear speakers fade in and out, which I'm getting fixed during my 1,000 mile oil change.

    As a side note, I do have the Eco button, and I will try to keep it off for my next mileage calculation.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    You would consider 35.5 MPG (quite acceptable) for a vehicle that was touted to get 40 MPG Highway according to both the Manufacturer and EPA ratings? I`ve driven my 2012 Kia Rio5 LX that comes (without) the Active Eco switch almost 3000 miles so far and the gas milage both City and Highway is to say the least, Un-Acceptable period! All that hype about a new 1.6 ltr engine with GDI and my old 2006 Kia Rio5 without GDI and a 4 speed automatic transmission got better fuel economy. My 2011 Ford Fiesta SE hatchback (without GDI) has produced consistent 35 MPG City and 41-43 MPG Highway since day one! As far as the radio and speakers in the new 2012 Kia Rio5, without a doubt, the worst sound of any car I have ever owned and I`ve owned dozens. Sharp looking vehicle, good performance, but terrible fuel economy and a $10 portable radio would sound better. Shame on Kia, bet they make some serious changes for the 2013 Model including putting in a folding armrest in the LX Model like they have on their Canadian vehicles. Even the 2012 Hyundai Accent GS Hatchback (U.S.) version has a fold-up armrest as my old 2006 Kia Rio5 had as well.
  • elamins1elamins1 Posts: 1
    I just purchased a 2012 Rio Lx and I have to say I dont know if my gauges are malfunctioning already or the gas mileage is way off. I set a trip meter went about 18 miles and with the eco on my fuel range dropped by 35 miles! I understand its a fuel range but it seems like it drops about 2 miles for every mile driven.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    Are you talking about the "Active Eco" switch? Unless you have a 2012 Canadian Kia Rio5 LX, the U.S. spec vehicle has (no) such "Active Eco" Button. Only the EX and SX Trim Lines have it. If you referring to Economy as in MPG, your gauges are (not) malfunctioning. I get about 30 MPG City with my 2012 Kia Rio5 LX with Automatic Transmission and (maybe) squeeze about 33/34 MPG with strictly Highway driving. The 40 MPG Highway EPA estimates are way off.
  • acausalacausal Posts: 1
    I am on my first tank. The car came with around 330 miles already on it. I guess compared to my earlier vehicle, I really enjoy it. I'm not sure if I trust the read-out, but it is consistently showing around 40 mpg for highway driving at approximately 70-75 mph... actually slightly over, for me. I feather-foot, and don't drive at all aggressively. I drive about 95% highway miles, as I work as a courier.

    I really doubt they'd do one big fat lie like this. But I don't know. I don't really feel like running the tank completely out from full to gauge exactly how many miles I'm able to do.

    At 60 mph I was able to see 45+mpg on the read-out. Do I trust it? I think it's within 4-5 mpg, at least. If I could squeeze 30+ mpg out of a 2003 Malibu with a V6 and nearly 500 lbs heavier, there's no way this can't do better.

    I see a lot of people complaining about mpg. I'm confused. Maybe sometime I'll drive until I run out of gas, and have a gas can on me to go to the nearest station to fill, just to see for sure.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    I`m rather confused by your Post? Why would you have to drive the vehicle from full until near empty to get an accurate calculation on what your fuel consumption is? Would`nt using a calculator and using the miles driven and gallons of fuel consumed do the same? Who by the way,who is complaining about poor fuel economy with the Ford Fiesta? There maybe other issues but Fuel Economy is certainly not one of them. Perhaps your getting confused reading previous posts complaining about quite disappointing fuel economy with the new 2012 Kia Rio that (I) posted on this Blog but whether you use the Ford Fiesta`s on board computer to estimate your mpg or do the calculation using miles driven by gas used, I`m sure you will verify that in deed, the EPA fuel economy numbers that were given for the Fiesta are actually (lower) then what most people actually experience. Where have you seen that lately with any other vehicle?
  • kobokokoboko Posts: 34
    If your rear speakers are fading in and out, then you probably have your system on surround. I initially thought that i had bad rear speakers also, till i turned surround off, and then all 4 worked fine. They are not the best speakers, but OK for an economy car. The front speakers are decent enough though.
  • kobokokoboko Posts: 34
    On my 2012 Rio LX (manual), I am averaging 33 mpg with 100% city driving (a lot of stop and go), & I am on my 3rd gas tank. It actually seems to be improving and after a few thousand miles (after break-in) I feel it might average 35 for city driving which is great. Its my first Korean car (other cars are all Japanese), and so far I am very impressed. I believe the 6-speed manual gets out the true personality of this 138hp GDI motor!
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    In regards to the terrible "Sound System" in the 2012 Kia Rio5, I did take your (tip) and checked my Unit and it was in fact set by the Factory on "Surround Sound". After going into the Radio`s menu, I turned "Surround" OFF and it (did) improve the sound quality quite a bit, not great mind you, but much better. Odd, I just rented at Alamo this past week end a 2012 Chrysler 200 Sedan with the standard AM/FM Single CD Radio and Sound System. It was without a doubt the best of (any) I have ever heard as standard equipment.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Posts: 29
    edited July 2012
    Just my 2 cents: First, I have always achieved better highway MPG than the EPA estimate on every vehicle I've owned over the last 6 years. I do stay at 5 MPH under the speed limit. I was dissapointed with my 2012 Rio5's MPG at first, but about 4k I got one tank that gave me 42 MPG! On another trip at 6k I only got 38 MPG outbound, but got 43 over the same route on the return. After a lot of thinking, I believe the local gas is E10, but the gas on the return trips came from stations in rural areas. That might be some of the difference. The EPA uses E10 for their estimates. We're really happy with the car. Only complaints are the automatic transmission going in and out of lockup climbing certain hills and, (hate to admit this) crummy cupholders.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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?
  • csandstecsandste Posts: 1,866
    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.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Posts: 29
    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".
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Posts: 29
    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.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.