Howdy, Stranger!

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

Kia Forte Real World MPG



  • I just got a 2013 Forte 5 and I am not pleased to say the least. I am not a crazy driver, I do not drive 80 MPH. At worst, I drive 70 MPH which, in Canada, is 110 KM per hour. I am getting approximately 350 KM per 45 litre tank of fuel. Frankly, this sucks. Kia advertises 6.9 litres per 100km. You can do the math and see I am nowhere near that.

    As well, with all due respect, I think driving the car at 55 to reset the software is rather Hokey. No car should ever have to do that. I will give it a try but if this is what I have to do, then, the technology is poor.

    I have previously owned 6 Hondas and thought I would give KIA a try. I think I made a huge mistake.

    As well, in Canada, it comes with a 5 year warranty. I am thinking, "hey pretty good since Honda only has a 3 year warranty". I now find that in the US, the same car comes with a 10 year warranty. I have a really bad taste in my mouth right now.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    edited June 2013
    we are missing information here, we don't know which engine you have or transmission. How many kilometers do you have on the vehicle, how many tank fulls have you done to check the fuel economy? Where are you located? What kind of driving were you doing on this 350 km fill you stated? Not sure where you are getting the 6.9l/100 km figure from.

    Never heard of this driving at 55 mph to reset the software?

    Your right about Kia with a 10 year/100k mile power-train warranty in the US. The balance of the vehicle warranty is the same as Canada. However, the Honda warranty in the US is the same as the warranty in Canada, still 3 years/ 36,000 miles or 5 years/60k miles on the power train.

    I'm on my second KIA and no problems with the with the fuel economy, but I never expect to get the advertised rating on full tanks as that is simply a guide to compare one vehicle with another under the same control laboratory conditions. US EPA figures changes to metric would be closer to realistic driving, but can still vary which is what they say in all advertised figures. If you get within 10-20% of the advertised figure you are doing pretty good. - tings.html

    I am located in Canada and drive a Soul with a 2.0L engine, I can get well over 500 km and use much less than 45 litres to do it. (recent fill did 533 km and used 40.3 litres which equals 7.6L/100 km.
  • People suggested to wait until over 5000 km. (3000 miles) to let the engine break in.
    OK, I am now over 5000 km and am still getting a maximum of 450 KM (280 miles) per tankful.
    An above post states to get better mileage, lower your speed. 55 MPH would deliver 44 MPG.
    Unfortunately, if you drive 55 MPH in Toronto, you will get run over and it becomes unsafe.
    Reality is the speed limit is 100 km (62 miles) per hour and, like everyone else, average drivers go around 115 km (70 miles) per hour.

    Under my driving conditions, of which I consider to be real city life conditions, I am only getting 23 mpg. HORRIBLE for a car that was sold as Kia' CIVIC equivalent in their car line. It is no where near a CIVIC of which I have been RELIABLY getting 33 - 35 miles per gallon (550 - 600 km per tankful) no matter what speed I drive.

    I wish someone from KIA would read this and comment.
  • manu6manu6 Posts: 2
    I agree with bummer.

    City driving in Toronto leads to 450 km per 46 litres (a full tank is actually 52 litres but I fill up as soon as the indicator turns on).

    The funny thing is. as opposed to what is claimed about engine break in by a number of people, I could reach 550 km with 46 litres when my car was under 3000km. After that mileage got lower.

    I get a better mileage with highway driving. This summer I reached once 610 km for 46 litres, but it was 100% highway and pretty much constant speed (around 120km/h).

    (2011 Kia forte 5, 22000 km)
  • gregoryveegregoryvee Posts: 1
    edited June 2014

    I have a 2012 Kia Forte EX. Bought it new in April, 2012. I too have city MPG ratings that are abysmal when compared to the 26 MPG city advertised on the sticker whether I use 87 or 93 octane gasoline and even when driving the car very gently around the city. I do get close to the advertised 36 MPG highway (and sometimes even as high as 40 MPG) but the overall AVERAGE has been coming in at 26 MPG when I expected it to average 32 MPG since my driving is that expected 50/50 split of city and highway miles.

    At 15,000 miles per year and gas in the Chicago area now at ~$4.00 per gallon this means I'm spending about $430 per year more for gas (~$36 per month) than I expected to be spending. NOT COOL, KIA.

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,890
    Just leased a 2016 Forte5 LX with the 2.0L 173 hp engine. I've driven about 120 miles so far, mix of city/highway, and averaging 33 mpg, which is the EPA highway rating so I'm OK with that. If this car is like Elantras and a Rio I had, the mpg will improve over the first 15k miles or so. Oh, and I turned the Active Eco off as I didn't find it helped mpg much on my Rio5 (which I leased before this car) but it does dull the pickup of the car.

    Does anyone else have a Forte/Forte5 with this engine and the 6AT? What are you getting for fuel economy?
Sign In or Register to comment.