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).

2456789

Comments

  • 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.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    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?
  • aurorabdsaurorabds Posts: 4
    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.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    Let me know if the change of both the Speakers as well as the Radio improved the sound quality. I have spoken to several other 2012 Kia Rio5 owners with the (standard) Radio`s equipped in both the (LX) and (EX) Trim lines and everyone agrees, they all sound like an old 1970`s Japanese Transistor Radio.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    What I agree with is that I too appreciate all the (positive) attributes you mentioned and the overall satisfaction of the 2012 Kia Rio5. I however, "disagree" that the (combined) 33 MPG average for its fuel economy is acceptable for a B-Segment vehicle. Please re-read my Post of the Fuel Economy I get with my other vehicle, a 2011 Ford Fiesta SE hatchback with the same size 4 cyl engine (without) GDI and 6 speed automatic transmission. Why should the Ford Fiesta get 33/35 mpg City and 41/43 MPH Highway compared to the Kia Rio5? It may appear the (average) is only and extra 5 MPG, but I know I fill up the tank on my Rio more often then I do in my Fiesta regardless of the combination of driving that I do.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Phil said, "I however, "disagree" that the (combined) 33 MPG average for its fuel economy is acceptable for a B-Segment vehicle"

    Phil's entitled to his opinion but that EPA 33 mpg Combined Rating is available and known to all RIO buyers before they purchase the car. I saw it and knew before signing the contract that's the maximum I would get. I also knew that nobody gets the actual EPA numbers. My goal was to be reasonably close and I am, because I'm getting between 31-32 mpg in combined mileage driving.

    I'm realistic and understand that I rarely spend a lot of time on the highway, probably around 45-50%. One of these days I'm going to fill up the tank and go for a long drive on the Interstate to see if I can get that magical 40 mpg number.

    So unlike Phil, I'm pleased with my miles per gallon, and overall, I flat out love my 2012 RIO SX. I'm amazed that an economy car has so much going for it, an aerodynamic sleek look, cool technology, brisk acceleration, nimble handling, lots of comfort, backup camera, outside mirrors that fold in, UVO Voice controlled entertainment and phone Calls. Best of all, it costs me next to nothing when I fill up the tank.

    Like any car, it also has a few minor flaws. But overall, I recommend the RIO SX model highly and think you would be making a mistake if you fail to put in on the list of cars you want to test drive.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    My Friend; I don`t want to get into a pissing contest with you over (our) 2012 Kia Rio5`s! You claim that (seldom) does the EPA Fuel Economy Numbers ever hold up and almost never get achieved in (real time) driving. I agree! However, my 2011 Ford Fiesta SE Hatchback, again with the same size 1.6 ltr engine (without GDI) and a 6 speed automatic Transmission had even (lower) EPA estimates and still delivered "HIGHER" 33/35 City and 41/43 mpg highway numbers. If Ford could do it, why not Kia? I very much like my 2012 Kia Rio5 (but) no matter how you want to frame the argument, a much heavier, more powerful, Ford Focus (with GDI) gets better fuel economy then the Kia Rio, does that make sense to you? Again, I`ve been a Hyundai and Kia owner for 2 decades, I like their vehicles and they have with out a doubt, the Industry`s BEST Warranty. Sorry to offend you and I did`nt mean to tarnish your love affair with your new Kia Rio5. I`m (not) Bashing anything, but I stand on the fact that I and most other 2012 Kia Rio owners feel that the Gas Mileage was misrepresented, period!
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Phil said, "a much heavier, more powerful, Ford Focus (with GDI) gets better fuel economy then the Kia Rio, does that make sense to you?"

    Yes it does. My buddy and I each took a 2011 Ford Focus for test drives and both of us were stunned by the horrible acceleration of the new Focus. I had a 2002 Focus for ten years which I liked a lot but it was horrible on the highway because I couldn't pass a mini-van with it. In fact, it was dangerous when attempting to pass on a two lane highway.

    I was really looking forward to buying the new Focus but I was emotionally crushed when I saw what Ford did with their automatic transmission to get that high mpg number. What good is high mileage if you don't have the power to accelerate and/or pass other cars on the Interstate?

    If you don't believe me, check out this NY Times article:

    http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/reviewing-the-ford-focus/
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Phil, everyone's entitled to their opinion. The fact that you disagree with me on the RIO means nothing in my life and it certainly doesn't in any way tarnish how I feel about the car. The only opinion that matters with the RIO I purchased is mine.

    Phil said, "I stand on the fact that I and most other 2012 Kia Rio owners feel that the Gas Mileage was misrepresented, period! "

    The above statement is the crux of our disagreement. It's hard to imagine how or why Phil uses the word misrepresented. The EPA Combined mileage rating for the 2012 RIO is 33 mpg. Phil, is that true or false?

    I'm getting between 31-32 mpg in Combined Driving. How in the world could anyone claim that's a misrepresentation?

    I repeat, those who are looking to get 40 mpg are deceiving themselves and aren't being honest. The only way you're going to get close to that figure is driving 100% of the time on the highway. And as I stated earlier in this thread, almost nobody does that. Most people combine city stop & go driving with trips on the highway. That means they should be looking at the EPA COMBINED MILEAGE rating of 33 mpg.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Posts: 29
    I don't think my car is the odd one. FrugalDriver.com reports combined averages in the upper 30 MPG range. Using frugal driving techniques, they were able to push the Rio up to the mid-40 mark, with their best effort yielding 44.7 mpg for highway cruising. MotorWeek.org acheived 38 MPG in their "mixed loop", and those folks aren't considered light foots. As they say, "your mileage may vary".
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    I`m sorry, I apologize. I did`nt mean to offend you or hurt your feelings. I don`t have a "Dog" in this fight since I have owned almost as many Hyundai/Kia`s as I have Fords. They are (both) excellent Car Manufacturer`s. The Ford Focus, in case you did`nt realize is a C-Segment Vehicle and (not) a B-Segment Sub Compact Car! True, my 2011 Ford Fiesta with its dual clutch Automatic Transmission sometimes is a bit (jerky) at low speeds, no where as (smooth) as the Kia Rio,however, its (IMO) a small inconvenience considering the superior Fuel Economy. Enjoy your new 2012 Kia Rio5, I`ll continue to enjoy mine as well, (sans) Fuel Economy. Like I posted earlier, my previous 2006 Kia Rio5 with its old 1.6 engine and ancient technology got (better) Gas Milage then my new 2012 Model, kindly explain that logic? Hope you sell a ton of Rio`s. You have to be their "best" Cheerleader. Kia owes you a few Oil Changes, LOL
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    Phil:

    What makes you think you hurt my feelings or offended me? The fact that we disagree is nothing more than that, two different opinions. Debating with you on this issue is kind of fun, I'm not the least bit upset or offended.

    I'm a cheerleader for the RIO SX only because I love the car. If I didn't like it, and/or if it was a disappointment, I would be the first person to trash it on these forums. There's nothing better than honesty.

    But I do agree that KIA should offer me several free oil changes. Will you please write to the company at their owner's website and make that suggestion for me?

    Thanks
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,913
    I applaud all of you for disagreeing agreeably. Across all of our MPG discussions, this one is the most polite, non-personal of the bunch. In some others, we see members attack each other based on various MPG claims & complaints. It's so nice to see this group having an actual conversation.

    I know it can be frustrating to not achieve MPG claims, but I do think it's great that you're helping each other instead of tearing each other down.

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    In summation, I will end (my) participation on this (thread) by simply stating, I`m certainly not alone in my opinion that the Kia 2012 Kia Rio much like its Corporate Sibling, The 2012 Hyundai Accent are both (nice) Sub-Compact Cars that produce mediocre if not "dismal" Fuel Economy. Even the Accents larger Cousin, The Elantra, heavier, larger Engine, "No GDI", and it still gets the identical EPA Fuel Ratings of 30 mpg city and 40 mpg highway? A bit unusual would you say? Lastly, I`m not sure if it was a "Typo" or not, but your reference to a "2011" Ford Focus, was it the older previous generation Focus you were talking about or the newer 2012 Focus with its totally new 4 cyl engine with (GDI) and the Dual Clutch"6 speed Automatic Transmission"? If it was the older Focus that you were speaking about, its (not) a fair comparison. I had a 2012 Ford Focus SE Hatchback as a Rental Car in St Louis, MO this past year and (I) found it had excellent pick up and performance and got excellent Fuel Economy. I like my Ford Focus and I like my Kia Rio5. I usually keep my vehicle` s between 4 to 5 years so I tend not to get too attached to them. More of an "affair" then a marriage or a romance. I think Kia did a (good) job designing probably the most comfortable and attractive Car in its B-Segment Class. Perhaps within a few Model Years, they will tweak it to being a truly "Great" car. When Shaq O`Neil makes a pitch for the Buick LaCrosse that got an EPA rating of 40 mpg highway, I`m sure (that) was a huge stretch on the those figures as well. I also know that depending on driving habits and road conditions everyones mpg will be different. I do dispute the notion that anyone in a 2012 Kia Rio5 is getting 40 mpg or over unless they have a 50 mpg tailwind pushing them along on the Salt Lake Flats Proving Ground. Figures thrown around in most Car Magazines (testing) are suspect regardless of Make or Manufacturer because of influence of Advertising revenues with the exception of Consumer Reports that runs no ads. In closing, enjoy your new ride!
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Phil made some good points in this debate but completely ignored the primary argument I made from the beginning. Almost nobody drives 100% of the time, or even close to that percentage, on the highway. Therefore, instead of using the mythical 40 mpg rating as a goal, an honest and realistic individual would use the EPA RIO's Combined Driving 33 mpg rating.

    I asked Phil if the EPA Combination Rating is 33 mpg and he refused to answered that question. He ignored the real world rating by the EPA and stated KIA was somehow deceiving buyers. Phil was intent on using the highway rating as the only goal, and in my opinion, that is a flawed approach.

    If you're honest with yourself and utilize 33 mpg as the reference point, you will find that in addition to being a fabulous economy car on so many levels, the RIO SX comes pretty close to that more realistic goal.

    But don't listen to me, test drive one and judge for yourself. And if you decide to buy a RIO SX, unlike Phil, be pragmatic, don't pretend you spend 100% of your time on the highway. If you expect a fantasy performance from your car, you will be setting yourself up for disappointment. Have fun with your new RIO and appreciate how much you get for such a low price.
  • aurorabdsaurorabds Posts: 4
    My original comment was that my computer mileage does not match my actual, which is about 9% less. I'd be satisfied if i was getting 35 mpg, but since my commute is 80% highway I'd expect more than the actual 32 MPG that I get on a regular basis.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Hi Aurorabds:

    I would guess nobody's mileage matches the computer. I think it's fair to say the computer mpg is a little too high, it certainly is in my RIO.

    I'm not trying to sound too negative but that 32 mpg sounds about right if your in town/city portion involves lots of stopping and accelerating. Keep in mind, when you're sitting in traffic and/or at a red light, your getting zero miles per gallon.

    When I was commuting to my job, my approximate ratio was similar and my results were just slightly higher, between 33 and 34 mpg, usually closer to 33. Remember, stop and go driving, even at a 20 to 25% ratio kills fuel economy.

    Even though I think your 32 mpg numbers sounds fairly close to where it should be, here are some questions.

    1. When you're on the highway, is it relatively flat or very hilly?

    2. When you're on the highway, is there rush hour traffic? In other words, even though you're on the Interstate, are you experiencing times when traffic slows and you go into a semi or actual stop & go mode ?

    3. Are your windows open or is your A/C on regularly?

    4. Have you checked the air pressure in your tires? I ask that because some dealers never checked the pressure during their initial prep. I believe KIAs ship with more than 40 lbs in each tire and that isn't good. In addition, if one of your tires is improperly inflated, that can hurt fuel economy.

    Just some thoughts, but as I stated earlier, that 20 to 25% of Stop & Go driving can put a real hurt on fuel economy which translates into what the EPA describes as Combination Driving. With the RIO, expect 33 mpg.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Hi Kirstie:

    I truly appreciate your positive comments. I hate it when people attack others because not only is it rude, it detracts from the reason we're here. I think everyone should be free to express their opinions without being afraid of others coming after them.

    I always try to keep the conversation focused on the issues. We disagree all the time so I don't understand why some people get offended and/or feel the need to attack others who have different opinions. What's the point of going to a discussion forum if you expect everyone to agree with you?

    We accomplish a lot more if we can honestly express our opinions and discuss the issues in a courteous, civil manner.

    Thanks again Kirstie.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    Correction: I need to correct (2) errors in my final Post on this thread. For the record, I mistakenly stated that I liked (both) my "Focus" and my "Rio". I meant to say my "Fiesta" instead, also I incorrectly mentioned Shaq O`Neils ad for the 2012 Buick Lacrosse pitching an EPA rating of 40 mpg Highway, it was 36 mpg highway, still grossly overstated. Once again, I sincerely apologize for being discourteous and not obviously Posting in a civil manner. If anything I mentioned was considered an attack either (both) of you are way too sensitive or easily offended by someone else`s opinion. Wishing both "btatr" and "Kirstie" much (joy) with your new Kia Rio5`s be they LX, EX, and of course the SX. Odd that I`ve been tagged a "Bully" when both my Dogs are Golden Retrievers, not Pitt Bulls, go figure.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Phil:

    Will you please read exactly what was written? Nobody accused you of attacking anyone. In fact Kirstie thanked your for being courteous. If there were any attacks, it happened only in your mind.

    I still don't know why you kept apologizing for offending me or hurting my feelings when I told you that never happened. Once again, please avoid making up your own version of reality and carefully read what others write.

    Just as I asked you to acknowledge the KIA EPA Combined mileage rating is 33 mpg, I'm also challenging you to point out where anyone accused you of being discourteous or attacking me. It never happened!

    It was the same with the EPA KIA 33 mpg combined driving rating, you never acknowledged that factual information. I don't understand why.

    Thank You
Sign In or Register to comment.