Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

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

245

Comments

  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    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 Member 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 Administrator Posts: 11,142
    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 /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 319
    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 Member 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
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Skeptic:

    Thanks for adding that valuable information to the discussion. I also saw that MotorWeek report on the KIA you referred to where they got 38 mpg in their mixed driving route.

    Motorweek is highly regarded and part of PBS [Public Broadcasting System]. I'm sure people can find their review online.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    Just to be clear, I only claimed that 40 MPG was certainly "doable" since I achieved 42 on one trip and 43 on another, computed with my Garmin GPS's trip computer. I disclosed earlier that those trips were 99% Interstate at 5 MPH under the speed limit locked into the car's cruise control.

    The EPA is just a score keeper. I'm sure all the manufacturers now tweak their car's transmission shift points and final drive ratios to achieve the highest mileage possible on the EPA's highway cycle. You might notice that most of these high mileage car's automatic transmissions learn the driver's driving style over some number of miles and adjusts the shift points to suit the driver. I drive in a very gentle way that I'm sure leaves my Rio's shift points as delivered (optimal for EPA highway cycle). So, 40+ is doable in the new Rio but, as with any car, "your mileage may vary".
  • dchevdchev Member Posts: 38
    I have the same opinion about 2012 Kia Rio SX as Phill.
    Excellent built car; however, gas millage is bad. I do not shoot for 40MPG, but just in achieving 30MPG. I drive 50/50 city/highway and my gas millage is in 25-29 MPG range. If this is acceptable for some people, it is not for me!
    I switched to synthetic oil and this seemed to helped a little bit....but it is still under 30MPG.
    When we talk about average gas millage of 25-29 MPG, it comes to mind owning cars as Huyndai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord...which are much larger vehicles. I chose The Rio because of its size and sticker gas millage! My advise to potential Rio owners is to think about it when they buy this car-a very well built car which does not deliver good gas millage!
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    I've seen posts from dchev in other forums and have my doubts about his legitimacy. I suspect he uses multiple IDs in those forums to bad mouth KIAs. But let's put that aside for now.

    1. Motorweek, the highly respected Public TV evaluator of cars got 38 mpg in their mixed use test.

    2. Skeptic wrote, " I was disappointed 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.

    3. I posted my real world combined driving numbers which are between 31-32 mpg which isn't too far off from the EPA combined rating of 33 mpg.

    Do your own research and try to find people who are objective and fair in their assessment. As for me, I admit that I love my RIO SX. Everybody who rides with me can't say enough good things about the car which is amazing for an economy class vehicle.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    I no longer have a "Dog in this fight" and I`d rather not argue the point with either Motor Week, which by the way, I contacted and questioned the numbers that they reported, nor do I wish to instigate (btatr). I agree with him whole heartedly, everyone is entitled to their own "Opinion", just not their own "Facts". It appears that Motor Week, stands by their report and replied to me stating the vehicle they tested was not a (ringer) provided by Kia to achieve the outstanding results that they documented. I personally feel that using the EPA figure of estimated 33 MPG average of (mixed) driving is realistic, most folks that choose to by a smaller Sub-Compact/B-Segment Vehicle are looking for even better fuel economy. I have to admit, if (averaging) the mixed driving and achieving the 33 MPG is the target, Kia did deliver. My complaint is that my other vehicle, a 2011 Ford Fiesta SE Hatchback, which (I) feel I can use as a similar Class Car both in weight,size, and engine displacement can get a constant 33-35 MPG City and 41/43 MPG Highway under any and every driving condition, the Kia Rio5 should be delivering similar results which it does not. Almost every Fiesta owner I have spoken with and almost every posting I have read from other Fiesta Owners report excellent fuel economy while a (majority) of 2012 Kia Rio owners that I have spoken to and the majority that have posted their own results have usually commented on somewhat disappointing numbers. I (like) my 2012 Kia Rio5, but if I could get the same miles per gallon in a larger, heavier, more powerful Car, I might have chosen something else.
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    I can't crawl into the mind and/or motivation of Dchev but I am glad he went to Motorweek and verified their results. If you're unfamiliar with Motorweek, they have a stellar reputation and have been reviewing cars for PBS (Public Broadcasting System) for as long as I can remember. I have to admit that I don't come close to their figure but I'm please with my 31-32 mpg combined rating which sometimes is slightly higher. Obviously it depends upon the ratio of city to highway driving.

    This past weekend I went for a drive of 73 miles up to the mountains and got 37.6 mpg. On that trip the first 11 miles were in town while the last 62 miles were all highway with no traffic. As I was driving my mpg kept going up on the computer so I don't know if I continued on if it would have gone higher. And in case you're wondering, I did not base my mpg on the computer which was slightly higher, at close to 39 mpg. I always check mpg the old fashioned way.

    After reaching the mountains I immediately filled up and calculated mpg for my 73 miles. However, after driving in the mountains for a period of time, mpg dropped significantly. The RIO's 1.6 Liter Engine had to work very hard climbing those mountains.
  • aurorabdsaurorabds Member Posts: 4
    My problem is, as previously stated, my computer mileage is 8-9% higher than n my actual. If you're getting 37 MPG computer, my guess is you're only getting 34 REAL MPG when you do the math.
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    aurorabds, thanks for providing your feedback but I don't think you carefully read what I wrote. The KIA computer said I was getting close to 39 mpg but after I filled up the tank and calculated mpg the old fashioned way, it was 37.6 mpg for the trip.

    It's safe to assume the trip computer is almost always slightly higher than your actual mpg. There's probably some logical, mathematical reason for that but I don't know what it is. I constantly monitor mpg the old fashioned way and never once got a real life figure that was higher than the computer number.

    The example I gave in my previous post was fairly typical. The computer mpg was hovering close to 39 mpg while my actual mileage was 37.6. Would you be kind enough to do the math and give us the exact percentage the computer was off? Thanks!
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    I don't know this guy and hope he doesn't mind but I thought his post in another KIA forum was interesting. Judge for yourself but it sounds almost identical to the results Skeptic described earlier in this thread.

    "Made a trip to laughlin NV from LA. filled up right off the freeway, did 43mpg all the way to laughlin. Trip back did 37mpg, this included some city driving in laughling which isnt much. YES! i did fill up on arizona side!

    Normal days i get 25-28 mpg, all city driving no highway. red lights for miles!!!"
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    I don't understand; what "facts" are you disputing?
  • dchevdchev Member Posts: 38
    edited July 2012
    I did a trip of 100 miles today on the Interstate....and my millage was 38MPG by the computer of the car. This means that actual gas millage is something like 36-37 MPG-Interstate gas millage. I can say that I am satisfied with this gas millage.
    Then, I fill up the tank and drove just in city....and got 27.5MPG.....which is actual 26MPG... Not really satisfied with this number...:( (but I guess) I have to live with that!
    On the other hand, Rio's ride is excellent:), so must say that I really enjoyed my car!
    Cheers!
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    City stop and go driving is a killer for any car other than a hybrid.

    1. When you're stopped at red light or for traffic, you're getting zero mpg.

    2. When you accelerate you're burning fuel at a very high rate.

    I get around 25 mpg during city only driving, sometimes slightly less which is a good 5 miles less than the EPA rating. So the RIO excels on the highway but city driving could be better. On the other hand, I think EPA city ratings are way off.

    My 2002 Focus, which got 30 mpg on the highway like clockwork, would get a paltry 17-18 mpg in city only driving, despite a much higher EPA rating of 25 mpg. In light of that, I'm getting about 7-8 more mpg from my KIA ,which is a a huge improvement over the Focus, I'll take it!
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    Guess Ford did their (homework) when they developed their Fiesta for its introduction to North America. Of course they had several years to work on it since it was manufactured previously for the European Market. Gas milage for that 2002 Focus was pretty dismal, I agree. I owned a 2001 Focus Wagon and I think if I recall, my vehicle got significantly better fuel economy then yours did. In fairness though, comparing the technology of a 2002 era vehicle with one a decade later in 2012 is like comparing apples with oranges. Other then they were both vehicles made of steel, designed to carry passengers and rode on rubber tires, they had little else in common. I personally think it more relevant comparing what similar size and weight vehicles achieve in fuel economy built either the same year or certainly no more then a few years apart. Comparing gas milage of a Hyundai Accent/Kia Rio vs same year Ford Fiesta make better sense to me. It would be like comparing your 2002 Ford Focus with the fuel economy and performance of its newer 2012/2013 sibling. Not a fair comparison, I think. I guess I should stop complaining about (my) disappointment with my own 2012 Kia Rio5`s gas milage. Even (I) am getting slightly better in city mpg here in hot/humid South FL where the traffic is nearly always stop and go, traffic lights are long and never co-ordinated. and the air conditioning is engaged constantly, all the time. Still, be it 25 mpg or 28 mpg in City driving, stop and go with idling, its not where it should be for a Sub-Compact/B-Segment vehicle that is relatively light weight and has but a 1.6 ltr. engine (with GDI). Explain to me how Motorweek then was able to squeeze the unbelievable mpg numbers they reported? Their (lowest) mpg was better then my (highest) mpg that I get tossing out the "average" mixed use or best highway mpg they achieved on the Race Track Oval? I`m still a sceptic despite the fine reputation they maintain. I`m sure Kia (and Hyundai) will "tweek" their Accents and Rios over the next year or two and bump up their mpg numbers.
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    As usual, you misunderstood my point. Although I agree that comparing a 2002 model with a 2012 is apples to oranges, that wasn't why I talked about the difference in city fuel economy. I was merely trying to say that even though the RIO falls a little short in city driving mpg, I'm pleased because it's still a 7-8 mpg jump from my 02 Focus in the city.

    As for Motorweek's results, I have to agree. Somebody must have confused highway with their mixed mileage circuit

    Back to something more important. the RIO SX is a fantastic vehicle for an economy car on so many levels. Everyone who sees it and/or rides with me praises the car to no end. I'm not big on looks, but even I have to acknowledge the SX is one sleek, aerodynamic car. And I especially love the low profile tires/wheels.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    edited July 2012
    I agree with everything you said, (But) although once again, (I`m) probably misunderstanding your point. I also find my 2012 Kia Rio5,attractive, sleek, aerodynamic,comfortable, fairly peppy for it (class), and last but not least, fun to drive! I personally cannot describe an "economy" Car that gets mediocre (at best) fuel consumption as "Fantastic". One of the main attributes of purchasing an "economy" car is to get superior MPG even in its own segment, which again without beating my point to death, (I) feel the 2012 Kia Rio5 falls short. Maybe its because I also took offense to Mitt Romney`s description of Paul Ryan`s Budget Plan as being "Marvelous", a bit over the top too. I`m glad you enjoy the stiffer/sportier ride the SX Model gets with its HD suspension and low profile tire/wheels. I drove (all) three Models and again, I personally enjoyed the softer more comfortable ride of both the LX and EX. Probably because I`m older and retired, and have long forgotten the feel of driving my "new" 1967 Corvette StingRay Convertible, back in the day. Guess thats why they make Cars in different Models so that they can appeal to most everyones individual preference be it with Color or Equipment. Enjoy your new Kia Rio5 SX and get back in the future and we can see if (either) of our vehicles improve their fuel efficiency with additional miles driven. I doubt it, but one never knows, does one? Cheers!
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    I'm also an older guy and this car makes me feel younger. Suspension is a personal thing. I don't want a rough ride and I don't in any way find the SX ride stiff. The RIO is not a sports car so the SX package, including the low profile wheels/tires, gives me better handling and a more secure feel for the road. But once again, there's no right or wrong here, it's personal taste.

    Phil, I agreed with much of what you said in your last post except for fuel economy. I'm very pleased with the 31-32 mpg I get in combined driving. As I mentioned several times, I had no illusion that I would match the EPA mileage rating, but combined driving is pretty close.

    In addition, on my last highway trip I got 37.6 mpg, which is also relatively close to the EPA highway rating, so I'm not complaining. Since I never expected 40 mpg, getting close to 38 is fine in my book.

    The only area where I agree with you about mpg is city driving.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    btatr: My friend, I`m glad we reached some common ground if not consensus on a lot of our 2012 Kia Rio5`s attributes. I will humbly agree to disagree on our major difference of opinion in regards to the Fuel Economy of this vehicle. So be it. I see that in the new 2013 Kia Rio, they made very few changes across all 3 Trim Lines LX, EX, and SX. A Luggage under-floor tray and net besides the Luggage area cover that we (both) have is now standard on both EX and SX Models but not on the Base LX. The Base LX for 2013 now gets the "Active-Eco" Switch and electronics, partially do to my (bitching) to Kia that they should have included it in the 2012 LX Line since Hyundai had it as standard equipment on its 2012 Accent in all trim levels. Still no Armrest with Storage Box on the Center Console for the LX, a major disappointment for me that I corrected by having purchased all the necessary OEM Parts and having it installed afterwards. Still no Spare Tire and Jack assembly in the trunk but I took care of that by purchasing a 15`` Emergency Spare Donut and Jack Assembly off a 2008 Kia Rio5 on Ebay and tossing the toy air-compressor and can of tire sealant foam into the trash. A lot of good that nifty kit would be if one suffered a sidewall tire cut or failure. Oh, two new paint colors added, Aurora Black replaces Midnight Black, and Midnight Sapphire is newly added for the Sedans only. The SX also gets for 2013 a Steering- wheel-mounted paddle shifter. Everything else looks like a carry over from the 2012 run as expected. Enjoy your weekend. I`m planning on doing some serious BBQ myself, and I don`t mean Hot Dogs and Hamburgers. Between the Pork Shoulders, Beef Brisket, Ribs and Poultry, I`m doing enough to appease my neighbors from complaining about the (smoke) by feeding most of them to gain their patience. Cheers
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,142
    Save some brisket! If I leave now, i can be there in about, oh... 28 hours.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited July 2012
    Phil said about the 2013 model, "A Luggage under-floor tray....."

    Wow! When I bought the RIO I was disappointed because it didn't have the under floor tray that our KIA Forte SX has. Believe me Phil, that doesn't sound like much, but it's a nifty addition. Why? Because it increases storage significantly and helps organize everything into its own compartment.

    I wonder if 2012 owners can purchase that tray? I'll have to ask at the KIA owner's website.


    By the way, as much as I love my RIO, the Forte SX model is even better and a hidden gem in the automobile market. But you wouldn't like it because fuel economy isn't a major plus. The SX model has a killer 2.4 Liter engine that is soooooooooooo fast. It's like the big brother of the RIO with more storage and interior room. They even look alike.

    As for the spare, at first I wasn't happy and somewhat apprehensive. But then I thought about it and realized in over 40 years of driving, I never had a flat on the road that disabled my car. Yes I had nails in tires and several slow leaks which required repair and/or replacing the tire, but never a total flat on the road.

    Besides, doesn't KIA provide FREE roadside assistance the first 5 years?
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    kristie; The Briskets and Shoulders are going in the "Pit" around 6:00pm tomorrow and will probably come off between 4:00 and 6:00pm Sun. The Ribs and Poultry will go in around Noon time Sunday along with Louisiana Bouidan Sausage and a few Texas Beef Links too. See you around 7:00 pm Sunday. If you run a bit late, just like Tom Bodeit from Motel 6, I`ll leave the light on for you. Depending where you coming from, bring a few Cases of Craft Micro-Brewed Beer with you.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    Any parts that are now coming on the 2013 Kia Rio`s are available through the Parts Department. After they shoot you a price, you might want to check on Ebay with some of the Korean Resellers that advertise on there. I have bought a ton of Kia Rio5 OEM factory Accessories for a fraction of the cost at the U.S. Kia Dealers, including the cost of Air Postage shipping parts, from Korea and arriving in 7 to 10 days with no problems at all. I know you seldom have a tire side wall blow out, (but) I personally don`t want to wait hours for a Tow Truck hauling me away whether or not Kia Road Service pays for it or AAA. Its just a aggravation I would rather avoid.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    The readers on here might be interested in this Edmunds article on real world MPG.

    http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/heres-why-real-world-mpg-doesnt-match-epa-ra- tings.html

    I claimed earlier that the EPA used E-10 gas for their tests, but this article says they use E-0. Since I use E-15 through Kansas occasionally I can attest that the amount of alcohol in the gas makes a big difference in MPG. Not mentioned in the article is that most modern automatics slowly adjust shift points based on the driver's driving style. The factories set the delivered shift points for optimal MPG over the EPA's Highway, City and Combined test "routes". Most people don't duplicate that same route in their daily drives and probably don't duplicate the EPA's "driver" action either (it's a computer). Since the manufacturers know the EPA's exact test "route", in addition to shift points they are also able to program the car's camshaft timing for optimal MPG over the test routes and, in the case of the Accent/Rio twins, include a driver controlled switch (ECO) that makes the transmission upshift sooner and smooths out the car's accelerator action (it's all controlled by the car's computer). The point of all this is that the "ringer" here is the car. Since I drive more gently than most drivers, I've been able to exceed the EPA's estimates with every car I have owned. My neighbor's smart alec kid told me if I drove any slower they would give me a parking ticket (ha ha). Using our car's trip computers I can susally beat my wife's mileage by about 20%. At 7k I'm now averaging 35 MPG using the Rio's trip computer (probably 75% rural, 25% city). That beats the heck out of my old PT Cruiser's 25 MPG average over the same mixed roads. I haven't compared the GPS's computed MPG with the Rio's trip computer, but the Rio's trip odometer is off by only 1% higher with its new tires inflated to 35 PSI. I love the Rio's looks, value and practicality, but I miss my old Cruiser.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    Well, like I posted before, it was nice on Kia`s part to finally (include) the Active-Eco feature now added to its Kia Rio`s in their "LX" Models for the 2013 Run since they (did not) in the 2012 Model Year. I`m not too surprised that they were more interested in saving a few bucks where they could. Same thing both Hyundai and KIa did by replacing the Emergency Spare Tire and Jack Assembly in the Trunk with a mini air-compressor and can of tire sealant goo. I know they claim it was to save weight to improve Fuel Economy. Odd that in Canada, their vehicles still get the traditional spare tire (donut) set up. Must be Canadians aren`t much concerned with their gas mileage, eh? The weight issue is ridiculous anyway, a Bag of groceries in the trunk and a case of Beer would also have the same (drastic effect). In Australia, the Kia Rio`s comes with a "Full Size" Spare Tire"! Car manufacturers market cars and equip them depending on the Market they are being sold in and the demand that most Buyers insist on. Americans, as usual, just go along with whatever the Auto Manufacturers decide , smile, and gleefully drive their new car home. Even in Canada, their food items are made differently then here in the U.S. Pick up a package of Cookies, or other baked products. On the label if it says Chocolate, it contains Chocolate. In the U.S. the same product will state, "Chocolate Flavored" and reading the fine print you will always read that the product contains Chocolate Flavoring using "artificial" Chocolate Flavoring, (not) real Chocolate. The Ethanol infusion of a minimum of 10% added to Gasoline in most parts of the Country is just an excuse to continue giant subsides to Big Agriculture to keep the price of Corn high regardless of growing conditions and the size of the crop. If the Goverment were truly concerned with being energy independent and reducing pollution, converting all motor vehicles to Natural Gas (Propane) which the U.S. and Canada have an endless supply would have happened years ago.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    The belief that the Canadian Rio has a temporary spare is not true. They are equipped with the 12v inflator and tire sealant like the US models. GM is also doing this. Additionally, the Active ECO switch is not standard on the 2013 LX. It remains an option just like the 2012 LX. However, the 2013 LX does now have an armrest.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    edited July 2012
    Skeptic101; Absolutely wrong on (2) issues and partially wrong on the (3rd). First, the 2012 Kia Rio LX even ordering it with the optional "Power Package", PW/PL/ and Remote Key Fob, which I have, (did not) have the Active Eco either as standard equipment or as an option, period! It is now available on the 2013 Kia Rio5 in the LX Trim if ordered with the automatic transmission as standard (this) year. The Center Console with Armrest and Storage Box is (not) available in the 2013 Kia Rio5 "LX" either as Standard equipment nor is it available as an option, period! You may be confusing U.S. Spec Kia Rio5`s and Canadian Spec Kia Rio5`s! Lastly, true, not all Kia`s or Hyundai`s come with the spare tire and jack in Canada. It all depends on the Model and Trim level. Even the stripped down Canadian Kia Rio5 LX base model without a/c has the center console with armrest and storage box (and) fog lights. U.S. and Canada get two very different vehicles.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    Just going by information from Kia. Content of the LX Power Package includes power windows, power door locks, remote and "Active ECO System". Canadian Rio's standard equipment (all models) includes "Tire Mobility Kit". I heard (just rumor) the dealers will be getting a compact spare wheel, tire and jack kit they can order or stock. I gave some bad information on the arm rest. It is still not available on the US LX, just the Canadian. BTW, AutoGuide.com got 37 MPG on their road test. MPGomatic.com got 34 combined, 43 Interstate.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    edited July 2012
    skeptic101: All 2013 Kia Rio`s and Rio5`s in "LX" Trim now come with the Active-Eco regardless if the car is equipped with the optional Power Package or not. I was at my local Kia Dealership Friday and I can confirm that I saw several Base Model LX`s with crank up windows and no power door locks and they all had the Active Eco. As I posted earlier, I solved the issue of the Armrest with Storage Box in the Center Console for my "LX"by having all (9) pieces that compose the necessary parts plus the needed hardware which I purchased from an Ebay Seller who shipped everything to me Air Freight from Korea for only $190, a fraction of what these individual parts would have costed purchased at any Kia Dealer here in the U.S. They were all genuine OEM Kia Parts made by MOBIS, the parts manufacturer for both Kia and Hyundai. Its a bit of a tricky installation but if one is a skilled DIYS individual and have the necessary tools,you could perhaps avoid the Dealership install. I chose having my Kia Dealers service department do it for me at the cost of 1 hours labor. In regards to the (missing) spare tire and jack, when they do become available as an after market kit from your Kia Dealer, it will cost several hundred dollars. Again, visit a local Junk Yard (or) simply go once again, back on Ebay Motors (parts) and type in the spare tire size (donut) and jack assembly your looking for and you can get everything, likely brand new or even new and never been used for about $100. All 2006 thru 2008 Kia Rio`s had 15`` wheels and tires and I`m sure other years had them as well. If you happen to have the 2012 or 2013 Kia "SX" with the 17`` wheels, it may be a bit more difficult or perhaps impossible to find these from an older model Kia Rio`s because this (might) be the first year that Kia put 17`` wheels and tires on any of its Rio`s. Funny, that Kia Canada has even the Fog Lights and Armrest with storage box center console on there lowest trim model "LX" that has no A/C. When you move up to a Canadian Spec "LX+", you get the A/C PW,PL, Remote Key Fob, etc. Check Kia Canada web site and see how their Kia`s are configured differently then U.S. Kia`s and even have different colors to choose from. One edge for me is that in the U.S. Kia offers (beige) cloth interior, which I prefer, especially depending on the exterior paint color. In Canada, only (black) is available. Also, since Canadian Law requires (all) vehicle to have DRL`s, daytime running lights, the LX, LX+, both have the non-LED DRL`s in their head lamp cluster. In the U.S. they only put them on the "SX" with LED illumination. Hyundai on the other hand puts non-led`s DRL`s on all their Sonata and Elantra`s but failed to put them on their Accents. Go figure?
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    The Active ECO System is available as a stand alone option on the 2013 LX but it's still listed as an option. With what you've seen on your dealer's lot it makes me wonder if it is now a "mandatory option". In other words, Kia is adding it to every car they ship to address complaints of low MPG, but is listing it as an option on the LX to keep the advertised price low. Lots of manufacturers do that kind of stuff.

    This has nothing to do with MPG, but I've read that the only difference on the non-LED DRLs is a jumper added to a circuit board during manufacture of the Canadian bound cars.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    On the MSRP of (3) of the 2013 Base Model Rio5 (LX), there was no add on or listed mention of a (mandatory) option of Active Eco. Kia originally planned to include the Active-Eco as standard equipment only on the LX ordered with the optional Power Package. They obviously changed there mind and its now included even in the base stripped down models too. The only add on option listed with these (3) 2013 Kia Rio5`s was the optional floor mats adding $95 to the MSRP, other then the freight/delivery charge always listed at the bottom of the sticker. I would like to have the DRL`s added to my American Spec Kia but the dealer does not have any listing for either the module or the necessary circuit board that might be needed. I might check with a Kia Dealer next time I`m in Montreal and have them look up what might be needed in their Canadian Parts system, bit I suspect that it would not be a simple plug in installation. I have seen after market universal DRL Kits on the Web but I would`nt chance having one installed and have it blamed for damaging the electrical system and possibly voiding my new car warranty. On my 2011 Ford Fiesta (U.S.) spec vehicle, the Ford Dealer was able to activate the DRL`s using the smart junction box and the IDS Programmer which took about 10 minutes.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    Perhaps your confusing the optional "ECO" Package that includes the Active Eco (plus) Stop and Go Technology with the just the standard Active Eco which (now) comes on all Kia Rio`s regardless of Trim Level at no extra cost (including) the "LX". The "ECO" Package now available for 2013 is an option (only) available on the "EX" Trim Models exclusively.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member 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 Member Posts: 319
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 319
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 319
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 319
    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 Member 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?
Sign In or Register to comment.