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).



  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    Finally, an acknowledgment of the point I have been trying in vain to make for over a dozen previous Post`s in which I have offended so many readers . I from the very beginning gave much praise for the 2012-2013 Kia Rio`s Sedan and "5" Hatchback relating to its styling, comfort, performance,and value. You get a hell of a bang for your buck in this Car. That said, with out quibbling over the numbers of its "in-city" few economy, be it 23, 24, 25, 26, or even 27 mpg, for a B-Segment Vehicle in the Sub-Compact Class, those numbers are simply (not) acceptable. Excusing those dismal numbers an attributing them to the vehicles better performing engine with its increased torque and HP is not satisfactory for many including myself. The car`s that you mention, Accord, Camry, Optima/Sonata, Mazda 6 are (not) Sub Compact, or Compact class vehicles. They are all designated "Intermediate" or "D" segment vehicles and the Optima/Hyundai are classified by the EPA as Full Size segment vehicles in the "E' Class! Considering the huge difference in both the weight and much larger and more powerful engines that those cars come with, some actually "exceed" the Kia Rio`s fuel economy in (every) driving situation be it City, Highway or "Mixed", and that is in real-time driving conditions, (not) on a dynamometer done in a testing Lab. There is one last (fact) that cannot be denied. The Kia Rio and its sibling the Hyundai Accent were designed and engineered and for that matter, marketed as being an "Economy" gas sipping car. No matter how one tries to excuse or apologize for its dismal 23-27 mpg city typical fuel usage, it fails miserably in that goal. To conclude otherwise is simple denial.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    Phil concluded his last comment by saying, "No matter how one tries to excuse or apologize for its dismal 23-27 mpg city typical fuel usage, it fails miserably in that goal. To conclude otherwise is simple denial. "

    He doesn't get it. Nobody in this thread was denying/apologizing for the numbers and/or making excuses. Why or how he came up with that conclusion boggles the mind. Go back and read how many times we acknowledged that flaw in the RIO. But everyone also did their best to tell him city mpg is only one factor out of many when evaluating a vehicle. Unlike Phil who repeatedly demonstrated major concerns about city only mpg in this thread, we keep that flaw in perspective. It's merely one negative which I think is far outweighed by the many positives in the RIO, especially the SX.

    Phil's city mpg number is 27 mpg which is only 10% less than the lab perfect 30 mpg number that no one will ever get. He repeatedly demonstrated laser like focus solely on those city mpg ratings. Meanwhile everyone else paid far more attention to the more typical combo and highway mileage mpg numbers. And our mpg numbers are significantly higher than his, which makes us wonder why his corresponding numbers are much lower.,

    In sum, the RIO has flaws just like any other vehicle. And we've been trying to tell Phil city mpg is clearly one of those flaws. However, for whatever reason, he doesn't seem to hear us when we acknowledge that point.

    But if you factor in the comfort, acceleration, high tech features, nimble handling, impressive styling, and highway performance, it's a fantastic vehicle for an economy class priced car. Despite falling short in city mpg, it does very well in highway and combo driving mpg. Please note the following point, most people will fall into that all important combo driving category, which makes the city only mpg rating far less important.

    Other than Phil's numbers, check out those very good highway and combo mpg ratings most users have posted in this thread. If you live in a city where all of your driving is stop and go, then maybe the RIO isn't for you. But if you're a typical driver who spends a fair amount of time riding on the highway (combo mpg), you'll love this car.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    edited September 2012
    agree, and also if its lots of of stop and go city traffic, then purchase the ISG option. :)
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Posts: 29
    edited September 2012
    Several posts ago phill1 said "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 . . ." I've had so many highway tanks near or over 40mpg that, clearly, it is achievable by drivers who chose to drive their new Rio conservatively. My last post was going to be my last regarding my Kia's MPG until I filled up last night after running around town to stores and appointments after our last trip. This tank was probably 75% highway and 25% mixed or city. The Rio's trip computer claimed 41.2 MPG, my GPS showed 38.9 with an average speed of 22 MPH. That's in the EPA's "city" test range (21.2). That's with ECO on, 32 psi in the tires, 2 people and 8 days of luggage for that highway portion. Just 2 clicks on the fillup. The car now has around 16k on the clock. Folks, that's fantastic mileage in anybody's book, including mine.

    The EPA's city estimate of 30 MPG (which is clearly displayed on the car's sticker) doesn't seem that far off from many driver's experience. Your mileage is different, I get it. I'm very satisfied with the car's MPG as are others. It seems the only people in denial are those who can't acknowledge that other people's experiences and expectations are just as valid as their own. So, phill1, can we give it a rest? Please?
  • I've been watching this thread for months. I had given some major thought about buying a '12 Rio5 after hearing about the great fuel mileage. Most of my driving is open highway with little city driving. I needed a car with outstanding open road mileage. Once I started to do my homework on investigating the mileage claims I found out Kia's estimates were a little on the inflated side. I'm not one to make an impulse buy like some people who watch and believe the commercials on TV or those big bold dealer ads in the paper.

    The arguments on this thread have been good to watch and even laugh at sometimes. I have to give Phil full credit. He contributed a ton to this thread and I admire him for it. He brought out the truth about the false mileage claims by Kia. Some may not want to believe him and just argue the point. But, he's right.

    I've still not got my Kia Rio5. I decided to hold off. I've been looking very closely at the Ford Fiesta. Maybe I'll just wait another year. I'll end by saying the truth is out about Kia and their false claims with the MPG. Take a look at todays {11-5-12} USA Today. Kia got a big slap in the face with their MPG not being accurate. Looks like they may cost them to pay out some money to owners. Not bashing Kia and I still may get one once they tell the truth about their mileage and can make a Rio with a true 40 mpg.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    edited November 2012
    Oh No, .....Say it`s (not) so! OMG! Both Hyundai and Kia are (now) finally admitting that they have grossly over exaggerated their EPA Fuel Economy Estimates for most of their entire "Fleet" of Vehicles Including of course their 2012 and 2013 Kia Rio and Rio5`s. Kia`s "Soul" gets the prize of having its Fuel Economy Estimates overstated by a mere 6 MPG which makes its Rio model look good. I promised never to Post another comment on this "Board" on this matter so that my Friend "btatr" and I could end the pissing contest once and for all, but just like in Korea, home of our beloved Vehicles, occasionally a few shots are exchanged along the "DMZ". The article today published in the Nov 5 , 2012 USA Today Newspaper exposed the scam that HKAG, Hyundai/Kia Automotive Group used to inflate its Fuel Economy Estimates on a wide range of its Models including its 2012/2013 Kia Rio line, its B-Segment-Sub Compact gas sipper that they (now) admit is a bit thirstier then they first stated. I`m totally "Shocked"! Guess I`ll be off to my local Kia Dealership and have my Vehicles VIN # and mileage documented so I can get my (windfall) 15% Gasoline Rebate processed. I`m sure its going to be a huge cheque! Perhaps "btatr" will inform me what Charity he would like me to send my funds to in his behalf. No need to end your love affair with your beloved Kia Rio5 SX and file for divorce. I`m still keeping my Kia Rio5 because other then its dismal fuel efficiency, I still (like) the car. My only advice to "randall12" is if you like the looks, performance, comfort, and value of the 2012/2013 Kia Rio/ Rio5 and can except its mediocre Fuel Consumption, go ahead, pull the trigger and buy it. I`m sure you will enjoy the Car. It still provides a lot of bang for your buck and is fun to drive. If your looking for a B-Segment/Sub Compact Car that gets (outstanding) MPG, I`d suggest giving the Ford Fiesta another look too. I just returned from a 475 mile trip to Georgia this weekend (each way) and got between 41-42 MPG, Highway driving at 75-80 MPH with A/C on! I`m sure you will be happy choosing either Vehicle. It took almost a year but I`m finally vindicated by todays edition of USA Today and the admission by both Kia and Hyundai admitting that their EPA Fuel Economy Labels will now be (lowered) to reflect a more realistic expectation.PS: I wonder if Ford Motors will expect its Buyers of its 2011 to 2013 Fiesta to send back an adjustment of 15% for the unexpected superior MPG that they incorrectly (under-estimated) with its EPA Fuel Economy Ratings?
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited November 2012
    I said this a million times in this thread, fuel economy was just one of many reasons I bought the RIO 5 SX. I never expected 40 mpg and was pleased with my real world numbers which were posted throughout this thread......................... The RIO is a fantastic small car for many reasons. It is roomy, has brisk acceleration, nimble handling, fantastic looks, UVO, LED running and brake lights. The side mirrors also have LED lighting. Those very same side mirrors are electronically heated and fold in with the push of a button when parking in tight spaces such as a shopping mall. The RIO SX also has a REAR VIEW CAMERA which turns out to be extremely helpful. ..........................I just went on 3 very long trips and it was extremely comfortable. While on the highway, I usually drove 75 mph and often inadvertently went over 80 mph because the engine is so quiet that I never realized how fast I was actually driving............... Phil is obsessed with fuel economy, but for me, as I consistently stated, it was only one of many variables that made this decision a no brainer. And if all that isn't enough, AFTER ONE YEAR I HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED A SINGLE PROBLEM. How nice is that? ............................................................................ Everyone has to decide what their priorities are. If you think like me and appreciate all of the outstanding features listed above, you will fall in love with this car. If you're number one priority is fuel economy, then maybe you should choose another brand.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    A reporter would like to speak to Hyundai and Kia owners who agree or disagree with the latest controversy over MPG. If you own a Hyundai or a Kia and would like to speak to a reporter about your experience with your car's fuel economy, please send your daytime and evening contact info to no later than Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 8 a.m. PT/11 a.m. ET.
  • ...phill1, i for one have been missing you. you came to mind the moment i saw the usa today article. in fact, i wondered if you had been the one hectoring the epa...keep posting, your insights and facts are invaluable to those of us still sitting on the kia/fiesta fence... the back and forth, a welcome dash of spice to the forum...
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited November 2012
    Hey Dilon, I think you should get off the fence and buy a Fiesta. If you go with the Fiesta, you will get an inferior manufacturer's warranty vs the best one in the industry from KIA, less storage capacity and interior room, less horsepower and torque, but a very good car that looks a lot like the RIO.
  • Phil, again my hat goes off to you sir. It's in depth debate on forums like these where you find the real truth. Be it any vehicle. I've lurked in the shadows of this thread since it was created and I always appreciated your valued input. I love the looks of the Rio5, but I don't like the fact of HKAG, Hyundai/Kia Automotive Group mis-advertising this and they always knew the real truth but did not disclose it. Shame on them.

    2 or 3 mpg may not be a issue to some people; however, it adds up over time with a 70 mile round trip commute each day to work and back. I'm located in South Central Florida. So, all my driving is flat and straight with A/C most of the time. I follow the posted mileage reports over at and it's interesting to see some of the results. So, in my case with the miles I travel to work and back those few mpg's Kia lied about would cost me some nice cash over time.

    Mediocre fuel consumption is something I cannot tolerate when it's advertised at 40mpg. I really do think deep down Hyundai and Kia has a good thing going. Maybe this exposure will cause HKAG to do some R&D tweaking to get the little GDI engine to obtain the "Real Stated 40 MPG Mark". I know the '13 Rio isn't changed, but there is hope for the '14 to be the real deal. I'm leaning more towards the Fiesta at this time, but I'll hold off a little longer to see what Kia does in the near future.

    Phil, I wish you the best on getting back any refunds for fuel you spent on your Kia. Make sure you get your info in asap. Thanks again for your valued input for all to see...
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    Randall, I have the same advice for you I gave Dillon. I think you should buy a Fiesta. If you go with the Fiesta, you will get an inferior manufacturer's warranty vs the best one in the industry from KIA, less storage capacity and interior room, less horsepower and torque, but a very good car that looks a lot like the RIO. ................................................................................- .

    If you carefully followed Phil's threads as you claim, you would have known his numbers didn't add up. The EPA lab tests are one thing but real world driving is another. I know what kind of mileage I actually get in real world driving and I've read messages from others who get better mpg than I do. Phil's alleged mpg doesn't jive with their reports and was very different from what I consistently got in my experience . If you rely upon Phil as your guide to the KIA RIO I think you're making a mistake.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    btatr; Funny, after countless comments and Postings on this thread, you (still) remain so "defensive" about your ridiculous attachment and "love affair" with your Kia Rio5 SX. Your certainly allowed to be Kia`s Cheerleader but how many times must I remind you, its just a damn CAR, got it? Its not your Wife, Child, or your beloved floppy eared Dog that your obligated to be so protective of. I guess you must have overlooked the comment that I made where I stated that I still (liked) my 2012 Kia Rio5 despite the fact that a fuel efficient B-Segment / Sub Compact car it is (not). All its other attributes that your in (love) with, I pretty much agree with. I too like Kia/Hyundai`s 5 year 60K bumper to bumper Warranty. This is my third Kia/Hyundai vehicle that I`ve owned but (none) were purchased strictly because of the superior Warranty. By the way, "btatr, if you think that the 2012/2013 Kia Rio5 looks even remotely like a Ford Fiesta Hatchback, its time for an Eye Examination. Other then the fact that they both have 5 doors, run on 4 tires, (the Fiesta actually having an Emergency Spare Tire too instead of a mini-toy air compressor and can of tire sealant goo), they don`t look similar at all. Perhaps your confused and meant that the 2012/2013 Hyundai Accent Hatchback looks a lot like the Ford Fiesta Hatchback. Thats exactly why I purchased the Kia Rio instead of the Hyundai Accent so I would`nt have two look alike vehicles parked in my Garage. I know you won`t be stopping by (your) Kia Dealership to claim your rebate funds for the admitted misleading false Fuel Economy scam but I will. Perhaps I will send the cheque to the "Ford Foundation" that helps fund NPR and Public Television. The same Media that broadcast on "Auto Week" that the 2012 Kia Rio5 that they tested got better fuel economy then a Hybrid and even (they) admitted they could`nt figure out how or why they got the results that they reported. As I suspected, they probably were loaned the same Vehicle that was used to support the EPA Fuel Economy estimates before the Car was launched.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    You enjoy insulting people but have a hard time keeping your facts correct. I merely pointed out for the nth time that I'm very different than you. For me, fuel economy is only one factor out of many when deciding which car to buy. I listed a wide array of nifty features which I like in my RIO which would make me a buyer even without the excellent fuel economy. And unlike you, I'm pleased with my mpg ratings because I never expected those fantasy EPA numbers.

    But instead of acknowledging my opinions and/or expressing your own, you can't resist throwing in childish insults. What can I say Phil other than this would be a much better thread if you would resist doing such.

    As for looks, I went out for fast food earlier this week and a Fiesta (same color as mine) was parked next to my car. I initially thought it was mine, but then I stepped back and realized it's a nice looking vehicle but not nearly as sharp looking as my RIO.

    I haven't looked into it yet but if KIA is offering some kind of cash rebate, I will put it in my bank account.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    edited November 2012
    Oooops, guess I did it again as Brittney Spears used to say. I indeed re-read carefully (everything) that I stated and I guess its time for me (once again) to offer you an apology for "insulting" your (opinion). Perhaps your "optics" don`t need correction however if you happen to come across a Hyundai Dealership I`m sure you would have to agree that the 2012/2013 Hyundai Accent Hatchback has a much more Ford Fiesta Hatchback resemblance then the 2012/2013 Kia Rio5 Hatchback. I do however feel that you accepting cash back from Kia for its misrepresenting accurate Fuel Economy MPG numbers would not be fair or honest since in (your) opinion you feel that Kia was not guilty of any wrong doing and all in all your quite satisfied with Rio`s fuel economy or at the very least, its other positive attributes far exceeds its failure to be the fuel efficient vehicle that it was marketed as. I`m looking forward to hearing from the "HOST" Steve and discuss in further detail (my) disappointment in the Kia Rio`s (realtime) MPG. Needless to say, I have discussed the matter at length with Kia Headquarters in California.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    Still have to throw in the childish insults? Why? Do you get some kick out of that?

    Once again you put words in my mouth for about the 25th time. That's another one of your bad habits. I never said KIA wasn't guilty of misrepresenting MPG numbers because obviously they admitted such. You don't read carefully but I stated that I didn't care about the EPA ratings and was pleased with my real world MPG numbers. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? That is not the equivalent of saying KIA wasn't guilty of wrong doing. Got it yet?

    KIA's going to pay a large financial penalty for misrepresenting their numbers but I'm betting they happen to be the first in line of other manufacturers who will follow suit.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    Your undoubtedly right that other Auto Manufacturers will be be looked at very carefully by the EPA in regards to falsifying Fuel Economy Estimates on their Vehicles too, that is unless Mitt Romney wins the Presidency today and eliminates the EPA along with Fuel Efficiency and Pollution Standards as well. One manufacturer, "Ford" probably will be sited and plea guilty for "under-estimating" its EPA Fuel Efficiency MPG Estimates on its Fiesta Model since it actually delivers (better) Fuel Economy then EPA MPG Label indicates.
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    Phil, are you talking about the Mitt Romney who changes his positions on issues weekly and tells one lie after another?

    I'm guessing you're old enough to remember America before the EPA when cars using leaded fuels were destroying the air in urban areas. Smog was so thick you could barely see in cities like LA.

    If that wasn't bad enough, our rivers and streams were seriously polluted by big companies who literally used them to dump toxic waste. The last thing America needs is to do away with the EPA.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    'btatr", Please, correct me if I`m wrong but do we (both) actually agree on something? Yes, I`m quite old enough to remember those "Good Old Days" of leaded Gasoline and Urban Pollution spewed by Cars running with not even a PCV valve. I don`t want to go on a Political rant "off topic" but a Romney win today will return America back to the Fifties. Mitt even looks a bit like Ward Cleaver, Leave it to Beaver`s TV Dad! I used to live in Massachusetts before relocating to South Florida and know exactly what a two-faced, flip-flopper Romney is. A Human Weather Vane that changes position on every issue and policy depending from which direction the Political Winds are blowing from. Whatever you want to hear, let him clear his throat, grab a breath of air, and he will tell you whatever you want to hear. Being a Yellow Dog Massachusetts Liberal Democrat and damn proud of it, if Romney & Ryan win today in our "Post Racial" America, the Nation will get what it deserves. Women (especially) will soon suffer the consequences. Too bad Canada does`nt have a Province in the Tropics that could support Palm Trees! Polls close at 7:00 PM here in Florida as if it matters. Gov Rick Scott and Senator Marco Rubio have assured Florida`s Electoral Votes to Romney regardless of what the actual Vote count really is. Remember 2000 and 2004? Where is former Secretary of State Katherine Harris? Still sweeping up the "hanging chads"?
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,042
    Anyone who posts a personal comment in this discussion is subject to having his/her participation restricted. I've had enough, and so have all of the other readers in this discussion. NO MORE personal comments. NONE.


    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Starting yesterday evening and finishing this morning, I too have read this entire thread. And I agree, randall12. IMO, few other threads have covered so many details that allows a reader to interpret what their mpg will be if they buy this Rio5. Each reader knows their particular driving style and area. There is city...(with a population of 30 or 40000) and relatively spread out infrastructure...and then there is CITY, with 7 or 8 million plus and due to the congestion, more and more lanes crowded into less and less real estate. This creates more and more streetlights. Streetlights create more 0 mpg stats than even crawling speeds on those crowded freeways.

    Then..we have 'highway' areas, that..again..are spread out with lots of room and relatively few streetlights between 'towns' and then we have in rural settings, whereby going to town on a rural two-lane road and the total number of stops you make from the time you back out of your driveway to get to that highway is 3. (as an example) This type of area is highway, and is a more relaxed highway drive (usually) and while there will be the odd slowdown for others making a left in front of you, or even a possible pass (which really sucks the avg mpg down...even ONE relatively aggressive pass on a 40 mile one way trip) it at least doesn't have the higher more aggressive speeds that a freeway has. The freeway, once out in the open, may not have the slowdowns or stops, but those higher speeds does suck more fuel mile in and mile out due to wind resistance etc.There are literally tons of variables, and I think this thread has been able to allow a relatively astute reader a fairly good and accurate idea how to interpret what hi or her mpg will be with this car. The only thing that wasn't covered though was sub-zero temp driving and the huge impact that and short trips has on overall averages.

    Phil, if you see this, please reply with a link to where you chat more about the Fiesta and its jerky shifting dual clutch auto. While I have been boycotting Ford for the last 20 plus years, I have to now admit I need to at least rule out the Fiesta. I have huge reservations about (all) dual-clutch transmissions. I do not care about jerkiness in the lower gears. What I do care about is their potential longevity and their ability to perform in extreme cold temps (I have similar reservations about CVT's in that regard too) and the cost to replace clutch packs, or solenoids or deal with failed wiring connections or circuit boards/chips for the many micro-processors involved to make such a trans work. I know we can't chat about it here but just send me in the right direction and I would like to ask your opinion in further detail as I suspect you may know a fair bit about these dual clutch systems that Ford uses.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    Out of fear of being banned for life, stones and beheaded, I make this Post (strictly) in Reply to the inquiry of gimmestdtranny, (only). As I`m sure you realize, Kia has (now) reduced its fraudulent EPA Fuel Estimates regarding its 2012-2013 Kia Rio and Rio5 vehicles by "4" MPG Highway ratings of 40 mpg are (now) listed at 36 mpg, and city #`s have been reduced as well Oh My! The question you presented in wanting more information in regards to (my) experience of my 2011 Ford Fiesta SE hatchback with its 1.6 lte (non) GDI engine coupled with its dual clutch 6 speed automatic transmission is based solely on (my) experience. I pre-ordered my Fiesta including Sun Roof in Mar of 2010 and took delivery July 20, 2010. I have driven it almost 30 months and have 27K mileage. Even considering my vehicle was a early production model, I have had "ZERO" issue`s whatsoever, period. This car has (never) produced less then 33/35 mpg in heavy stop and go city driving with the A/C engaged all the time here in South FL. Highway fuel economy at speeds of 75 mph + maintain at between 41-43 mpg, always! The jerky, clunky occasional movement that happens once in a while (only) at low speeds, to (me) is a small price to pay for this hybrid quality fuel economy. I can`t speak for Cold Weather issues with the Ford Fiesta since neither I nor my Car travel North of Central FL. Getting back to my 2012 Kia Rio5, I still enjoy the Car, very comfortable, plenty of power, excellent handling, great braking, good looks, lousy fuel economy, period, especially for a small car in the B-Segment/Sub Compact field.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Ok thanks, I'll try to find some more detailed specific feedback regarding potential longevity issues/costs on some Fiesta threads. There must be some that touch on this here on Edmunds.

    FWIW, I don't mind occasional clunky, as long as it has longevity potential. Aside from possible other better gearing/tuning, one of the reasons the Fiesta is getting those very impressive numbers (mpg-wise) is that apparently the dual clutch auto has no more parasitic losses than a perhaps the initial launch to movement in 1st from a stop. There must still be a torquer converter of sorts. Hydraulics, while having more parasitic losses through their very nature of design, have certainly proven themselves in terms of relative longevity potential. (Not counting the ones that are known to be problematic of course).
    These dual-clutch units however don't have the same number of miles under their belt to prove their potential.

    Which just occurred to me...I should probably try to search for my questions on a European Fiesta forum since this tech has been used there before here in America. (not counting farm tractors) The only stories (horror type) I have read so far were of certain VW units, that had failed servos etc and instead of replacing a single part, were engineered to have to have the entire pack-part replaced and costs were north of $5k. :( Sorta like having to buy a whole new circuit board for your TV, when really the only component that failed was a $3.27 capacitor..
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    Well, exactly how long do you plan on keeping this Ford Fiesta if you (do) purchase it? If its going to be a "till death do you part" purchase, perhaps more research would be prudent. I usually keep my (2) vehicles for between 6 and 7 years. All my previous Hyundai and Kia purchases, I just ran out the factory 5 year and 60K Warranty and hoped for the best. I got stuck with my 2006 Kia Rio5 after the Warranty expired with a couple of several hundred dollar repairs for electronic module replacements, ( 2 different separate coils) that failed. One failed under warranty and was no cost. Unlike the "old days" where there was (one), if you have a 4 cyl engine, your now have (4). If you decide on a Ford Fiesta and plan to keep it forever, I`d suggest purchasing "online" from a Ford Internet reseller an extended Ford Extended Warranty Plan, "ESP" They are deeply discounted, honored by Ford anywhere in the US and Canada Dealerships, you can choose a zero, $50 or $100 deductible and your worries are over for as many years and miles as you want to purchase. They will even pro-rate and refund funds for un-used time and milage if you decide to sell or trade the Car before the warranty expires. ONLY if you have the misfortune of having your Ford vehicle registered in the State of Florida must you pay full MSRP and not shop for a heavily discounted rate. I must confess, I do like my Fiesta but all in all, if its fuel economy was not so pitiful with the 2012-2013 Kia Rio5, I prefer the new Rio for comfort, performance, looks, and its warranty. That said, I have been a loyal Ford buyer for years and being a Shareholder, have bought them below invoice through Ford`s "X" Purchase Plan with zero Dealer Fees. Happy shopping.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Thanks for idea of ESP. Usually I am a ney-sayer when it comes to having to pay for extended warranties. Except that recently I learned that unlike less than a decade ago, the need for an EW when buying a new TV is greater than ever now. I have had personal experience in a negative way with this one..Samsung..welcome to the boycott list for 'renting' me a TV. I say renting because the costs involved in only 3.5 years of ownership in order to repair a well known part failure capacitor that they decided they would not cover just for me :(

    My problem with deciding what new tech to go with, is directly related to my warranties (in recent past and predicted future) running out due to time, not miles/kms). One reason for this is miles ridden on the bike in summer months are miles not put on the car. In fact I usually ride more kms per year than I drive. It's about a 2/3rd ratio.
    That said, if I had an ultra low fuel user..(my new plan) I know I will drive more in the winter. I literally drive less due to fuel costs..and the fact that I don't like the comfort, noise, ride and quite a few other things about my present ride.

    So when it comes to dependability/reliability per $ spent, I need to decide what is long-term dependable/ $'s spent initially and over the life of ownership.
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    I repeat, I (never) purchase EW. Televisions are too inexpensive and if you get 5 to 7 years out of a new LCD or LED Unit, one is ready for a new improved one anyway. I would (never) purchase an aftermarket Vehicle EW from anyone, other then the original manufacturer. I have had excellent experience with (4) prior Ford ESP Plans on different Ford vehicles. Like I stated earlier, as long as you don`t live or have your car registered in the State of Florida, several Ford Dealers on line offer huge discounted Plans. If you do purchase a Ford product and plan on keeping it beyond 3 years and 36K, its a no-brainer. Good luck!
  • btatrbtatr Posts: 75
    edited January 2013
    My 5 door SX model is 13 months old. I'm afraid to say this, but I haven't had a single problem. FYI, my girlfriend has a 2011 KIA Forte SX with one minor problem in 2 years. You can't ask for more and it's great knowing if a problem ever pops up, we have the best warranty in the industry.

    I know there are some forum members who are obsessed with fuel economy, but for me, that's only one of several factors to consider when purchasing a vehicle. I'm going to update my latest fuel economy numbers at the end of this message, but for now, here's why I love my car.

    The RIO SX is very roomy, extremely comfortable, especially on long trips, it accelerates briskly, and has tight, nimble handling (not sports car handling). I love the LED lights in the front, rear, and on the side view mirrors (which fold in with the touch of a button). The car is sleek, aerodynamic, and constantly receives praise from others who come up to me and tell me how great it looks. I'm surprised to say that I'm addicted to my backup camera and UVO (Sirius Satellite Radio and the Jukebox).

    Latest fuel economy figures after I moved to a new state with different driving conditions.

    Highway Only: 36-37 mpg

    City Only: 24-25 mpg

    Combined Driving: 30-31 mpg
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    I know you were waiting for me to (bite) at you Post but its 2013 and as one of my New Years Resolutions I know I can keep, I will not engage in disputing your delight with 24-25 mpg City in a Vehicle, the smallest in Kia`s Fleet. How an intelligent person can simply dismiss dismal/terrible/poor fuel economy as just (One) of several factors that should be weighted in the consideration of purchasing a Sub-Compact/B-Segment Car. Hopefully Kia has reimbursed you handsomely with their Fuel Rebate Program in addition you you "Religious" devotion to their embarrassing gas guzzling Rio`s, that get basically the same Fuel Economy as their Full Size Optima. Happy New Year and Happy Motoring.
  • We have about 18k on the clock and we're averaging around 38 mpg in our mostly rural setting. That's 10 mpg better than the PT Cruiser it replaced so we're happy with the mileage. No problems at all and every thing is still tight. Surprisingly, those dinky little tires (EX) are showing no wear.

    Pros: Looks, mileage, rattle free, "glove" box that holds 13" laptop, price, warranty, one-touch turn signals.
    Cons: Cup holders, no DRL (EX), and, after 10 hours on the Interstate, electric steering and hard seats.

    For my gear head friends I like pointing out the direct injection, chain drive camshafts and sealed for life transmission.

    In spite of all the hullabaloo about the EPA mileage estimates, we're very happy with our mileage. :)
  • phill1phill1 Posts: 319
    skeptic101: I guess averaging 38 mpg would be acceptable too me but I never get to 34 mpg especially driving at speeds of 70 -75 mph. You going from the PT Cruiser Gas Hog, the Kia looks relatively good, huh? You did fail to mention what your (city) mpg is. Mine is about 25-26. Odd that to cover the extra expense of having the best extended bumper to bumper warrantee in the business HKAK Group, Hyundia/Kia deleted the Daytime Running Lights from all of its Models with the exception of the fancy LED DRL`s on its SX line. Hyundai puts them on their entire fleet with the exception of the Accent while its Elantra and Sonata get them. If you look closely into your headlamp assembly you will see the extra hole where the (pilot/drl) lamp goes on Canadian and foreign market vehicles. I find the seats comfortable, I (do) like the electric steering and find its drivability to be very good. Too bad that with a state of the art 6 speed automatic transmission, a high tech 1.6 ltr engine with GDI and it can`t achieve respectable fuel economy for a car in its segment.
Sign In or Register to comment.