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).

1246789

Comments

  • skeptic101skeptic101 Posts: 29
    You're talking about the Idle Stop and Go (ISG). No confusion, the Kia web site lists the Active ECO System as a stand alone option or included in the Power Package for the 2013 LX. They've obviously made a running change.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    Obviously! Lets see if they also make a change in the future and offer a "stand alone option" of adding the Armrest with Storage Box to the Center Console on the "LX" Model or offering the Daytime Running Lights (DRL`s) as an option choice like Chrysler has done for years on its entire fleet of vehicles.
  • csandstecsandste Posts: 1,866
    Put 5300 miles on this in the first two months, so there's several long trips. Actual mileage-- approximately 2 mpg less than trip computer.

    Average 31.57 mpg
    Worst 21.66
    Best 37.99
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    Without trying to stir up a hornets nest of ire, I have just over 7000 miles on my 2012 Kia Rio5 LX with automatic transmission. I feel by now that the engine should be "broken in". I get a consistent 27 mpg city and 33 mpg highway. For a Sub Compact B-Segment Vehicle, sorry its not acceptable, period. Still think the car is attractive, comfortable, and affordable (to purchase). One usually purchases this size vehicle expecting superior fuel economy and the 2012-2013 Kia Rio fails that test! Active "ECO", what a hoot!
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    It's been my experience that many people confuse mixed mileage (33 mpg EPA) with Highway. If you fill up adjacent to the Interstate, drive X number of miles on the Interstate, exit and immediately fill up the tank, that's highway driving. But most people don't spend 100% of their time on the highway.

    For example, if you drive 10 miles to the highway, stay on the interstate for 40 miles, and then drive another 10 miles of stop and go to your destination, that is NOT highway mileage. That is mixed mileage as in 40 highway and 20 miles of stop & go driving.

    With my 2012 Rio 5 SX, I'm consistently getting the following results:

    City Only: 24-25 mpg
    Highway Only: 37-38 mpg
    Mixed: 31-32 mpg
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    I know we have had this discussion before and I understand exactly what your point is. That said, perhaps if I drove at a steady speed of 55 mph on the Florida Turnpike or I95 I could improve my "highway" mpg average by a few mpg. I`d rather not get run off the road though when everyone else is driving between 75 and 80 mph. I for the life of me still cant rationalize why my other vehicle, my 2011 Ford Fiesta with the same i.6 ltr 4 cyl engine (without) GDI gets 33-35 mpg city and 41-43 mpg highway no matter how I drive or what speed I`m doing and with the air conditioning always on? They are (both) Sub Compact B-Segment vehicles and should achieve "similar" fuel economy. Their size and weight is comparable, why not their fuel economy? If your satisfied with 24-25 mpg "City Only", I have nothing else to contribute! You would get the same or better with a Kia Forte or Kia Optima! Something is very wrong with the average typical fuel economy (most) 2012-2013 Kia Rio owners are experiencing. I don`t know how many other owners you have spoken to, but I have approached over a half dozen in shopping center parking lots as well as at my Kia Dealership and they all report, "They love the car, but are (very) disappointed with the fuel economy both city, highway, or combined. Time for Kia and (Hyundai) to go back to the drawing board and figure out what they need to do to make a fuel efficient sub-compact B-segment Car.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    People are mesmerized by that 40 mpg marketing blitz and actually expect to see that so I think that's why they're disappointed. Let me make a few quick points.

    1. The RIO is a fantastic economy car, I think it's best in class. I love my car.
    2. Yes I am disappointed with city mileage. I didn't expect 30 but I figured 27 mpg would be nice.
    3. I'm very pleased with my mixed mileage which is close to the 33 mpg EPA rating.
    4. I'm OK with my 37-38 highway mpg results. But next month I'm going on a 1,400 mile journey (round trip) which will be all highway and I'm eager to see my mileage results.
    5. EPA tests are not conducted in the real world. Did you know they're done in a lab? Anyone who expects to match their ratings is setting themselves up for disappointment.

    As I've stated several times in the past, almost nobody spends 100% of their driving time on the highway. And that's the one and only time a driver can expect to come close to or match that 40 mpg figure as some have per other forums. Most of us combine stop and go with highway so our real world target is the 33 mpg mixed rating. I'm consistently getting between 31-32 mpg so I'm pleased because I never expected to match the 33 mpg EPA number.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    I should mention that I grew up in a major northeast city so being in a rush is part of my DNA. As a result, when the light turns green I always accelerate briskly. On the interstate, I drive around 75 mph. However, the RIO engine is so silky smooth on the highway, that I'm often doing 80 mph and don't even realize until I check the speedometer.

    Therefore, keep my driving habits in perspective when checking my mpg. Once again,

    City Only: 24-25 mpg
    Highway Only: 37-38 mpg
    Combined: 31-32 mpg
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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!
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    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?
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    edited September 2012
    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.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    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.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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 [non-permissible content removed] 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!
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Posts: 29
    edited September 2012
    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.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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 [non-permissible content removed] 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!
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    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.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    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.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    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.
  • 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:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#United_States
  • dchevdchev Posts: 38
    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!
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    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.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    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".
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    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.
  • We've made it to Colorado. A few surprises. The best mileage I saw on the Rio's trip computer was 43.4 over 343.3 miles (GPS). The tank fill (2 clicks) was 8.4 gallons. That's 40.9 mpg actual, a surprising (for me) 6% difference. Instead of taking I-70 across we took US 60/400/50. While most of the best tank was with the cruise set on 65 (GPS), the average speed was only 57mph. There were a few stop lights and small towns with limits of 35mph along the way, but I wouldn't have thought they would make that much difference. All that was with driver, passenger and 8 days of luggage in the back (50 lbs for me, 150 lbs for wifey).

    Most surprising was the MPG at different cruising speeds On one super flat straight stretch of several miles, 65 mph showed 41 mpg real time on the Rio's trip computer. Slowing to 60 showed 45 mpg, but slowing to 55 showed just 46 mpg. Not much difference between 55 and 60, but a lot between 60 and 65. Temperature was in the 80s so A/C was on the whole way. We also had an inverter running my wife's laptop PC most of the way.

    BTW, the worst tank was 35.7. That included some running around during an overnight stay and passing a few tractor trailers on some 2 lane sections.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 315
    I tried my best not to get your (ire) by not referring to your name. Unfortunately, I see my attempt was all in vain. I refuse to get (baited) into another "pissing" contest with you over (your) refusal to finally admit that the 2012/2013 Kia Rio "CITY" fuel economy is absolutely terrible and no matter how hard your try to be an apologist for the fact that you admittedly only get 23-25 mpg in City driving is inexcusable for a B-Segment/Sub Compact class vehicle, Case Closed! Even if (my) Highway numbers reached 35 mpg, that alone should compensate for the 23-25 mpg city that you admit (your) vehicle produces? I`m happy for you then. Getting back to (my) Fiesta, since you obviously doubt the accuracy of the numbers I constantly Post on my Vehicles fuel economy. Do some research on the internet, ask some Ford Fiesta owners and see what the general consensus is! Except for a (very) few Kia Rio owners who have Posted somewhat better numbers either here or that anomaly that even "Auto Week" can`t even explain, best you start talking to other 2012/2013 Kia Rio owners in your local area or at your Kia Dealership and see how "pleased" they are with "NOT" the vehicle itself but its horrible city mpg and mediocre mixed and highway numbers. If you did the same, asking random Ford Fiesta owners or chatted with folks that own one at a Ford Dealership, see how many are not blown away with the fuel economy of (their) Fiesta be it city, highway or mixed driving conditions. Like I told you before you became so overly defensive about your 2012 Kia Rio5 SX, its only a damn car, not your spouse or children. Secondly, your certainly entitled to your own "opinion" but not your own facts! I truly apologize to "dchev" for getting baited in one last time for renewing this ridiculous dialogue seeing you attempting to sugar coat your admitted 23-25 mpg city fuel economy. My math skills might not be as good as yours but don`t insult (anyones) intelligence by stating that forfeiting 8-10 mpg in city driving conditions is the same as forfeiting the 1-2 mpg as you suggest for the glorious fun and excitement one experiences driving a Kia Rio over a Ford Fiesta. They are (both) excellent small cars, one having superior fuel economy in the city as well as the highway, the other is like watching the Fuel Gage descend so quickly in city driving you would think there was a hole in the gas tank! Looking forward (once) again for your rebuttal that I promise (other) readers I will (NOT) respond too. They say its futile to argue about Religion and Politics since its unlikely to change ones beliefs or position. You have proven the same should be said about discussing anything to do with "btatr`s" beloved 2012 Kia Rio5 SX. I sincerely hope your "love affair" with your vehicle lasts as long as your ownership.
    PS: Just a clarification FYI, my Ford Fiesta is (not) my beloved, for (me) those terms of endearment are reserved for my Woman and my 2 Golden Retrievers, not an inanimate object such as a Car!
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    Thanks Skeptic for posting those interesting mpg numbers for your RIO. Your results are pretty much in synch with others I've read about on the Internet.

    As I mentioned previously, at some point in October I'm going on a 1,400 mile round trip which will be almost all Interstate. This will be the first time I take my SX on a truly extended journey. Most of my highway trips have been between 75 and 120 miles, which may not be enough for an accurate reading.

    I'm really interested in knowing if my highway only 37-38 mpg numbers will also get up over 40 mpg. I wouldn't be surprised if I reach your 40.9 highway mpg number but I'm not expecting to do such.

    And yes I agree that stop and go driving, even a relatively small percentage hurts mpg big time. But in return we have class leading power on the highway.
  • Back from Colorado. Best tank was 40.5 (GPS) with average speed of 56 mph. That was with cruise set on 65 and small towns at 35 and maybe 6 stop lights. The Rio's trip computer showed 42.5 so that was a little better (5%). I'm still surprised at that much difference.

    Of note was a fill of 85 octane E-10 in Colorado Springs (6,000 ft.). Lots of running around town with this fill and a trip up to Cripple Creek (9,500 ft.). I refilled back on the prairie as soon as I could get 87 octane again. That fill showed 26.9 average MPG on the Rio's trip computer (average speed of 24 MPH). Figuring a 5% difference that's 25.5 mpg. That's how much difference altitude (and mostly city driving) makes. No surprise for those who have lived there.

    Got an oil change while we were out there and at my wife's insistence had the tire pressures lowered from 35 to 32 psi. That did lower the noise and vibration over expansion joints and rough pavement, but probably contributes to the lower mileage we got on the return trip. With my old car a 2 MPG difference between going and returning was common.

    As with any car this small, it requires a little more planning when packing for a long trip and those low rolling resistance tires are hard. Colorado likes gravel and tar road resurfacing and the highway noise leaves this car's radio useless there. Overall, we're very happy with our choice. Friends in Colorado were impressed with the car's looks and content for $15k. For me the MPG is great and was the primary reason we initially looked at the car. Looks, content, warranty and price were the sellers.

    BTW, I asked the service tech in Colorado if anyone had complained about their actual MPG. He said they had not sold that many Rios, but had not heard any complaints about MPG on any Kia.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    "at my wife's insistence had the tire pressures lowered from 35 to 32 psi. That did lower the noise and vibration over expansion joints "

    You have a very smart wife. Most experts recommend driving with the recommended tire pressure. In fact, studies have shown very little or no benefit from raising tire pressure. In your case, you had more noise and vibration. In addition, running @ 32 psi should extend the life of the tires.

    My SX RIO is ten months old and I'm convinced it's a fabulous car. Just like any other vehicle, there are some things I don't like or would change, but overall, it is definitely a fantastic vehicle for an economy class car.
  • dchevdchev Posts: 38
    Each car has some type of trade off. I like everything about my car, but gas millage in city. I agree with Phill that 23-27 MPG is low gas millage for this size of a car. Usually, you get these numbers from cars like Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Kia Optima, Huyndai Sonata, Mazda 6....
    I certainly think that the reason for this gas millage is higher horse power of the engine.
    Lower city gas millage is the trade off of this car; however, everything else on the car makes it up fo it.
    Enjoy your car guys, and do not look at your city gas millage! :) There are many more things more important in life!
Sign In or Register to comment.