Howdy, Stranger!

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





Kia Sedona Gas Mileage

123578

Comments

  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    We are really getting into our version of Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First" routine, and I'm not sure which of us is Abbot and which is Costello.

    The wide open throttle (WOT) performance of a normally aspirated (NA) engine is lower at higher altitude because when the air is less dense the engine ingests a lower mass of air per intake stroke.

    But we are not concerned in this forum with performance (like the shortest 0 to 60 time), but rather we are asking about fuel consumption per unit distance to cruise at a given constant speed on level ground.

    I'm no engineer, and so I am taking the simplifying approach of assuming that together all the sensors (MAP, MAF, knock, oxygen, etc.) and the ECM of a modern engine keep the air-fuel mixture constant at the optimum ratio from sea level up to considerable altitude when the vehicle is cruising on level ground at some reasonable speed, like 70 mph.

    Basic carbutetted engines can't do that but Sedonas can.

    See"At high elevations our engines are getting less air, so they need less fuel to maintain the proper air/fuel ratio. Generally you would go down one main jet size for every 1750 to 2000 feet of elevation you go up (info for Mikuni carbs). If you normally run a 160 main jet at sea level you would drop down to a 140 at 4000 feet. Something else goes down as you go up in elevation is horsepower. You can figure on losing about 3% or your power for every 1000 feet you go up. At 4000 feet your power will be down about 12%-even though you rejetted!"

    But the reason that the hp is less is that less air and less fuel is burned in the engine. Fuel is not being wasted. It is as if the vehicle had a smaller engine (i.e. lower hp) and this has no effect if the hp actually being developed to cruise on level ground is much less than the max the engine can develop.

    My idea is this: Assume it takes 30 hp to drive a Sedona on level ground at 70 mph at sea level. I think it only takes 26 hp to drive the Sedona at 70 mph at 5300 ft altitude, because the aerodynamic resistance is less due to the less dense air. The engine will burn less fuel to develop 26 hp than to develop 30 hp so the Sedona gets higher mpg at 5300 ft.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 971
    OK, here's my take.
    My car is sluggish at higher altitudes because the motor makes less horsepower at any given throttle opening or engine RPM. The reason for that is less dense fuel/air mixture in the motor. The acceleration disadvantage due to decreased horsepower exceeds any acceleration advantage that might result from lower air resitance.
    If my car gets better fuel economy up there it is because the engine is doing less work, at higher constant speeds due mostly due to less wind resistance, and during acceleration chiefly because of less power being produced due to less fuel in the motor.
    On my trips at higher elevation, I usually must drive up and down mountains. So any high altitude fuel economy increase is usually overshadowed by the engine working extra hard going up. So, overall, my high altitude fuel economy is worse than on the flat lower elevations where my house is.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    Sounds good to me.
  • lavrishevolavrishevo Posts: 312
    Just purchased my 06 Sedona (07 will not be here for months) yesterday and I was a little worried on fuel mileage. One think to note is that I am here in Puerto Rico, air conditioning all the time and lots of hills. Also never really go over 65 mph on the highways here. So far I am getting pretty good MPG, average of around 18 and less then 100 miles. I think the trick is keeping the engine under 2500 rpms and you will save a lot of gas. Don't have a led foot and the need to start off like a bat out of hell and you will improve your fuel economy greatly.

    One note on break in. All engines are now broken in at the factories so when you get you engine it has already gone through a process to help seal the rings and bearings properly. This does not mean not to take it easy for a while but whole break in idea of the past does not apply to modern engines.

    Very happy with the van so far, only two days but it rides and drives great.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    I wish I wasn't the only one posting fuel economy numbers lately...

    Our 2006 EX has been around 21.5 mpg the past couple tanks. This is approx 50/50 mix of highway driving (70-75mph) and non-snarled 'city' driving, i.e. some stoplights but lots of 50-60mph cruising.

    21.5 mpg seems like a decent result considering the 18 city / 25 highway ratings. I think we'd be pretty close to 25 mpg in straight highway driving in the 70-75 mph neighborhood. Hope to test it out on a longer trip one of these days...
  • fishbreathfishbreath Posts: 58
    2006 LX 6000 miles and I'm getting 18 -19 mpg Not really city driving but small towns and 2 lane roads and hilly.
  • 11b33t11b33t Posts: 51
    Brand new 2007 EX w/>270 miles. Topped off today w/11 gal and averaged out 17.7 mpg city driving w/AC running. Wife's car but I get to do the maintenance stuff! :confuse:
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 971
    that's 3 mpg better than my 2004
  • jbradley2jbradley2 Posts: 2
    Is there any known problems with the Sedona and low gas mileage? We own a '06 and we're getting 10 mpg in the city and 12 on the highway. Taken it to dealership twice and both times they have tried to convince me there is nothing wrong with it. It's a V6! You can't tell me it's normal to get equivalent gas mileage with a freaking Dodge Viper!
    Kia Sedona=Very bad purchase!!!!!!!
  • yep, that is about what I get with my 2005, dealership told me to wait until about 12,000 mi. Then it was out of the curtisy warrenty, or something like that. Basiclly we got hosed. worse yet, every 5-7 thousand miles I have to change the brake pads. They say it is the way I drive it. Hmmmm, all my other cars seem to take 20-25 thousand miles before they need to be changed.
  • jbradley2jbradley2 Posts: 2
    Well, I've got a little over 22,000 miles and they tell me there is nothing wrong with it. I'm taking it in tomorrow and I'm demanding a courtesy car and they can have the van until they figure out what the problem is or put in a new engine.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 971
    10/12 city/highway really stinks!
    How many miles are on your van? Do you calculate MPG for every fill-up and keep a running average too?
    You need to do 3 or more fill-ups consecutively to get a good average.
  • jfee77jfee77 Posts: 1
    After about 500 miles our EX gets 24.5 highway, and 16 city. Here is the bad part, my wife drives the van to and from work everyday in rush hour traffic in Philly about 9 miles each way. 12-13 rush hour mileage. Overall not unexpected for 4700lb. vehicle. Great van for the price!
  • rrowe2047rrowe2047 Posts: 2
    We bought our very first new auto EVER, and chose the 2007 Kia Sedona. I want to say the buying experience was wonderful. Much less pressure that any place I have ever been to. We got the EX model with all the bells and whistles. I could go on and on and on about what a great van I think this is...except it is WAY overshadowed by the terrible gas mileage we are getting. I can't seem to get more than 13 MPG. I have tried everything....watching my driving patterns......using the 5 speed and shifting all the time (a royal pain if you ask me!) Last week I thought, fine, I will fill up and drive like the safest most perfect driver ever. I was the person who you probably whipped around last week if you were behind me.....drove 5 miles below the speedlimit......basically let the car accelerate itself when the light turned green....never let the track get over 2000.....anything I could think of.......and got 15 mpg. All that work, driving like no one on earth really does....for an extra 2 MPG. We had an appt. and took it in today. Got the bad news....nothing wrong with it. On top of that, the mechanic was very condesending....telling me that yes, it does state 18-25, but that at the bottom of the window sticker it does say 15. I told him I would be doing somersaults down my street if I were getting 15 at this point! He pointed out different driving habits mean different gas milage.....I just wanted to say...yes I am a woman, but that does not mean I am stupid. I explained my experiment that only got me up to 15, and he just said Um hum. I went to this from a Chrysler T&C van, and I was getting 18 with it...driving the same way I do now. So..now my object is to see how many people out there are having this problem. It seems to me if it is widespread, something should be done. So I guess the bottam line is, although I love the van, my most important option would be good gas milage, and I would have rather gotten an Odysey with less options, and better gas milage. Luckily, my husband has a Taurus that seats 6 so we can use it most of the time to save on gas. Kinda sucks though that I have this brand new van that we can't afford to drive!
  • I have had the same problem with my kia sedona (2005) I can't get it over 15.5 mpg. I told my wife that if I wanted this kinda of gas milage I should have gotten a ford mustang. :mad: :mad:
  • rrowe2047rrowe2047 Posts: 2
    I KNOW! It would have opened the field a bit for me also! We could have looked at some SUV's or something. Not that I want one, but like you said....if I wanted this kind of gas mileage.......
    One time I looked at the average I was getting at the moment (on the console) and it said 10! I am seriously considering making up a bumper sticker that says "Kia Sedona.....Fun van....terrible gas mileage" Just to get the word out!
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 971
    Your mpg may improve later. How many miles do you have on it? Have you done everything (maintenance-wise) the dealer suggested for improved mileage?
    How long a trip have you taken in the van at constant highway speeds?
    It's rated close to the same as competitors by EPA now. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Minivan2007.shtml
  • stevenfjlstevenfjl Posts: 5
    Don't count on improved gas mileage over time. Today's engines are finely honed and don't require a standard break-in for mileage. What you get in the beginning is about what you can expect over the long haul. Sometimes the mileage goes up a little and sometimes down. But, it will likely stay about the same as the first tank of gas in mileage. I'm getting 7 MPG City with my 2006 Sedona EX. It's been that way since day one. Highway mileage is fine, at 28 MPG. If I did mostly highway driving then it wouldn't be so bad, but the majority of my driving is city so I only get about 170+/- miles between fill-ups of 15 to 17 Gallons. Overall I get about 11 MPG. I could have bought that army surplus tank I always dreamed of owning if I wanted poor gas mileage. At one time, I had a 1973 Chevy pick-up truck with a 4-barrel big block V8 engine with a dead cylinder that got better mileage than this thing.
  • joe131joe131 Posts: 971
    Unless your Sedona is in need of repair, or unless the driving circumstances are very different, I don't believe a '73 big block pickup with or without a dead cylinder would get better fuel economy. Something is screwy.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    This was a mix of highway and 'rural' (not as much stopping as city) driving. The 20.5 mpg is MY calculation; the trip computer showed about 0.5 mpg less than that which is pretty decent accuracy. Also, the trip computer shows around 24.0 mpg for my 45-mile commute which is 70-80% highway.
Sign In or Register to comment.