Kia Rondo Real World MPG



  • yorkanuckyorkanuck Member Posts: 1
    I just completed a 450 mile round trip through mountain country, so there was a lot a climbing in 4th gear up to about 4000 ft. I averaged 29.1 mpg (imperial gallon) or 24.4 mpg (US gallon). To be fair, the Rondo only had just over 400 miles on it at the start, so it's not broken in yet. Those 400 miles were largely city driving over a 3 week period and it seemed to me that I could see the gas gauge dropping during that time. I didn't measure consumption then, as it was so new, but I will be checking it now, after the highway trip.
  • ramblinmoramblinmo Member Posts: 38
    Average has been around 26 during the winter without many highway trips. The recent warm weather and 100 plus mile trips have been better. One was 33mpg and just now filled up with 10 gallons @ 299 miles.(29.9 mpg) 3 adults 60 miles per hour average speed, moderate acceleration, no AC use.
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    ......and my crazy mpg swings are still happening.

    2 tanks ago, 30 mpg combined city/hwy.
    The last tank, 22 mpg for the same combined city/hwy driving.

    I guess the mystery (as to why, after some fill-ups, I can go 75 miles before the needle budges, while after other fill-ups, I can only go 20 miles before needle movement) continues---despite consistently never manually topping off.

    Well, at least I notice that the variation in needle-moving always alternates, i.e. I never have 2 "extreme fill-ups" occur back-to-back (nor have 2 "sub-extreme fill-ups" occur back-to-back).

    And I guess the good news is that my average mpg is just fine, possibly inching up a bit now that the car has over 7700 miles.
  • ramblinmoramblinmo Member Posts: 38
    Low 23.56 mpg (50 mph wind gusts all day)
    High 31.61 mpg

    5 tank fills above 30 MPG

    Trip average 27.31

    184.9 gallons of gas 5,050 miles (average cost per gallon $4.07)

    AC running 70% of the time

    Average speed highway 70 mph
    Trip average speed would be really low due to numerous low speed explorations of national parks in Utah and California. Plus twisty mountain roads and scenic byways.

    700 pounds combined weight of gear and people.

    07 EX, 4 cylinder 5 seater now with 27,000 miles on the clock.

    Time to buy new tires, the Michelins are getting dangerous. 5/32" tread before I left on the trip. Luckily we had zero rain to drive in.
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    ...with what I'd get with my LX I-4 on such longer heavy-hwy'ed trips,
  • uzvuzv Member Posts: 8
    Just spoke to my friend, who drove from Toronto to Boston.
    At 75 mph he got about 25 mpg.

    Does anybody have reliable info at what hwy speed Rondo has the BEST mpg
    and what is that best mpg ?
  • jayshizzlejayshizzle Member Posts: 3
    Rondo's best MPG is around 50 MPH. Of course, no one drives that slow. I've had opportunities to drive some wide open country roads at ~50 to 55 MPH for extended times and have gotten ~30 to 32 MPG (6 cyl.). 4 cyl models should do 2 or 3 better.

    My Rondo (which is a 6 cylinder):
    City - 17 MPG
    50MPH Highway - 31 MPG
    65MPH Highway - 27 MPG
    75MPH Highway - 23 MPG
  • uzvuzv Member Posts: 8
    Thanks for input.

    My friend's Rondo is 6 cyl and his mpg corresponds to yours.
    Next year 4 cyl will have 175hp - it's interesting what MPG it will have.

    There is gauge for $170 ( that shows a lot of things
    incl REAL time (with 1-2 sec delay) MPG.
    It also reads Engine Light codes and allows to clear them - I have it and it works
    as advertised.
  • palkopalko Member Posts: 16
    I recently rented a 2007 kia rondo 2.7L v-6 ( no 2008's were availiable) for a trip to the beach. It had 28000 miles on it , and it felt like warped rotors up front on hard braking. I averaged 23 mpg with 50-50 city /highway driving. The highway driving was 70-75 mph. I'm thinking of buying a 2008 rondo, but am torn between the 2.4L 4 cyl and the 2.7L v-6. Does anyone out there have any real world mlieage and experience with the 2008 rondo's?..thanks.... :shades: palko
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    ....but my 2007 Rondo with the I-4 engine would have most likely have gotten around 26 mpg with the kind of driving you described.

    If you are leaning toward the I-4, and can wait, think about getting a 2009. The 2009 I-4 apparently will come with 13 more horsepower and equal if not better mpg than the 2007 or 2008.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Member Posts: 600
    I have the 2.4L and currently over 13,000km on it, I've tracked my mileage for every fill up and its varied from a low of 26mpg (imperial) (only happened once in the dead of winter under very bad conditions) to a high of 39mpg (this has happened a couple of times, recently on my last fill up which was the longest time between fills - nearly 600km and the low fuel light had not come on). My general runaround mileage is around the 32-33mpg. (I should add that I live in the country)

    I did notice that once the vehicle had gone around 7,000 - 8,000km the mileage seemed to improve.

    2008 Rondo EX 2.4L
    Ontario, Canada
  • palkopalko Member Posts: 16
    Thanks for your reply. Does your i-4 have enough horsepower to accelerate adequately in the higher speeds of 50-75 mph? Also how did you get info about the 2009 rondo? I called the KIA consumer center and they couldn't provide me any info. Thanks..palko
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    The Car&Driver September issue says that the Rondo will get the same increase in hp on its 2.4L engine as the 2009 Optima will get (162 + 13 = 175) via a refined Theta engine.

    What is or isn't adequate acceleration is a very subjective measure. I have realized a little more get-up-and-go at all speeds in my Rondo I-4 by adding a K&N air filter, to the point that I am very satisfied with its acceleration.

    If there's one thing I have learned through my 58 years on this earth (with 50 of them being a "car guy") it's that car manufacturers and their dealers are often the last to learn of --and to dispense-- info on future models.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Member Posts: 600
    I totally agree with your comments, I find the acceleration on my 2.4L more than adequate and I've accelerated from 110kmph up to 130kmph with 4 adults on board and luggage without any problem, but like you say its subjective as it all depends on what you are used to and what you expect.
    In my case, all I know is that out performed my previous vehicle with a 2.8L V-6 under all circumstances (and that vehicle was lighter), so that was plenty good enough for me - to someone else it may not be enough.
    Most of my years of owning a car (45 years so far) that the vast majority of them have been four cylinders and this one is one of the best - quiet, smooth and lots of power and very good on gas and it sounds like it could be even better for 2009.

    2008 Rondo EX, 2.4L
    Ontario, Canada
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    Newest EPA mpg estimates for the 2009 Rondo show an increase in mpg over 2008 Rondo (27 vs. 26 hwy and 20 vs.19 city). Small but documented change, arguably coming from I-4 engine refinements.
  • fazeriderfazerider Member Posts: 3
    In July I hired a new 2.4L Rondo for a week. I've just worked out the fuel consumption for that period during which I covered a shade under 3000 miles through the Cascades and Rocky Mountains. It came to a creditable 29mpg, to put that in perspective: it was very lightly loaded, it was largely at steady speeds of around 70mph and I used the air conditioning as little as possible.
    I normally drive much smaller cars with a manual transmission so the Rondo felt unresponsive by comparison. There is plenty of power there, I'm just not used to having to wait for it to make it's way through a torque converter and then for the gearbox to realise it ought to change down.
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    I presume by new you meant 2008 (not sure the 2009 are around yet)? The last longish trip with our Rondo only did about 27 as I recall.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Member Posts: 600
    "normally drive much smaller cars with a manual transmission so the Rondo felt unresponsive by comparison".

    did you not try the steptronic feature?
  • fazeriderfazerider Member Posts: 3
    Yes, by "new" I just meant it only had 7 miles on the clock when I picked it up from Hertz.
  • fazeriderfazerider Member Posts: 3
    After getting caught out by the cars' slow response when trying to accelerate away from junctions into gaps in the traffic, I did start using the sequential shift... rather liked it too.
    I think I might have used it that way most of the time if I'd not had such a tiring distance to cover. (And if I was used to changing gear with my right hand!)
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    Almost 1200 hwy miles this past week along the coasts No. and So. Carolina in my 2007 Rondo LX I-4 with 11,900 miles on her. Average mpg overall: 28.4.
  • techman41973techman41973 Member Posts: 83
    I have a friend who owns a 2007 Kia Rondo (6 cylinder). Him and his wife get around 16mpg in mixed city/hwy and on a recent highway trip the best they got was 19mpg. The car has about 4000 miles and the dealer hasn't been very helpfull.
    I noticed a few others complaining about horrendous MPG. Has anyone found a resolution to this problem? Thanks
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    700 more miles on long hwy trip to/from Raleigh, NC to Aberdeen, MD. Gas mileage for entire trip just shy of 28.7 mpg. Includes some city driving in Baltimore. Car (2007 LX I-4) has 13,000 miles on her now........
  • tsm280ztsm280z Member Posts: 30
    I too am getting horrendous gas mileage. Bought a new 07 EX V6 in March 08.
    At first got high teens in city & low 20's highway. Figured the car wasn't broken in and it would improve over time. Well now I'm lucky if I get 15 mpg in the city (don't know how much the cold weather affects mpg). Most of my driving is city.
    Does Kia have a "driver habits learning curve"? ... once had a car that would adapt to your driving habits and your mileage would be effected.
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    and run two doses through two consecutive tanks. I have found the Rondo engine especially sensitive to carbon buildup. I am running Techron thru a tankfull every 2000 miles; my mpg spikes up each time. I have the I-4, and consistently get 28 mpg on straight interstate trips. Down to 20 in winter urban driving.....
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    Now at 15,300 miles on the odometer on the '07 Rondo LX I-4. Am consistently getting 24 mpg on my all-purpose (suburban driving) tankfuls. I do believe that running synthetic oil in the crankcase and using the K&N cotton/oil treated air filter helps in that regard. Long sustained hwy trip tankfuls get 28 mpg.
  • bgwbgw Member Posts: 116
    We bought our 07 EX V6 in August 07, and now it has 25,000 km. We are still getting 33 mpg Imperial on the highway (at 110 km/hr) with 2 adults, 2 kids, a load of cargo and running on studded winter tires. I am mighty pleased with that, considering our 98 Legacy AWD wagon with a 5 sp manual could only ever manage 32 mpg in the same conditions.
    Around town, which is largely rural, our V6 Rondo gets 24-25 mpg Imperial.
    Overall, I am delighted with this fuel economy.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    If case other owners may be interested, be advised that I have set up categories for Rondo owners to post their fuel economy results at

    I just posted results for the first fill up since purchasing my '08 Rondo V-6 last week(25.2 mpg). Note that registration at the site is required before results may be posted. However, registration is free....and simple.

    I've set up I-4 and V-6 categories on the site for contributors to post results for '07-'09 Rondos. After registration it only takes a minute to login and post your results for each tank. The input fields include:

    Volume of fuel (in U.S.gallons, imperial gallons, or liters)
    Price (in a variety of world currencies)
    Distance traveled (miles or km)
    Fuel type (regular, mid-grade, premium, diesel, etc.)

    I've been posting results obtained with my '05 Mazda3i (2.0 L manual transmission) since purchasing it in March of '05. Note that my car's results are the ones posted for Chesterfield, VA

    As a registered contributor you can keep track of your car's overall average as well as averages based on all contributors.

    I'm hoping other owners will consider posting their Rondo's fuel economy results for comparison at this site. So please take a look.


  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    #1 324.0 miles / 12.857 gal = 25.20 mpg
    #2 343.8 miles / 12.894 gal = 26.66 mpg

    Noted: the car's low fuel light came on right before the first fill up, but had not come on last night. Strangely, the tank swallowed slightly more fuel last night though.

    May have a few more miles driven on the expressway for the last tank, but still would estimate less than 20% highway miles. Avoided short trips (say less than 10 miles) for the most part.

    Not bad I'd say
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    ...typically gets from that kind of driving. Consider yourself blessed. Or being a damn good hyperdriver.......

    If it's like mine, expect your Rondo tank to vary often between overfilling and underfilling, resulting in wide fluctuations in mpg. For example, for a tankful spent on my usually "suburban" driving, I recorded 32 mpg---a mix of overfilling that tank at the start, and then underfilling upon refueling. The next tank mpg computation---for the same sort of miles driven--- was 20.0 mpg, likely the result of that earlier underfilling and then an over-refilling. Happens to me frequent enough to notice.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    I did not use many "hypermiling" techniques on the last tank and in fact I used the manumatic feature a lot to hold the lower gears and allow the engine to spin up to 3-3.5k rpm before selecting a higher gear when accelerating during the initial 600-mile break-in period. Of course, when striving to achieve maximum fuel economy I normally strive to get in high gear quickly in order to keep rpm low as low as possible w/o lugging the engine.

    However I have been using light pressure on the throttle and braking gently, both of which are techniques that will generally contribute to superior fuel economy results. Planning to avoid short trips as much as possible also can pay fuel economy dividends based on my experience.

    Of course with the initial 600 mile break-in period behind us I've now turned the Rondo over to the wife. So I would be (pleasantly) surprised if she manages to match my preliminary results, for she tends to have a considerably heavier foot when driving than I do, and she also tends to make far more short trips (often unnecessarily i.m.o.).

    We'll see...
  • go59go59 Member Posts: 9
    FWIW I recently completed a trip from Portland, OR to L.A. & back, while towing a Starcraft tent trailer. Total milage was 2354.5 using 113.1 gallons for an average of 20.8 MPG. This was with our 08 EX V6. While driving around L.A. (without the trailer the trip computer indicated around 27 MPG.

    In my normal commute (mostly suburban - no freeway) I get around 20 MPG. By comparison the Voyager the Rondo replaced averaged 17 on the same route.

    - Greg -
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    After doing nearly all of the driving during the initial 600-mile break-in period, I turned our Rondo back over to the wife a while back.

    A few days ago I got in it again and was disappointed to see the gas gauge was already nudging the 1/2-tank mark with only around 145 miles registering on the trip odometer. Since I had driven the car around 12 miles after filling it up last, this wife had apparently driven the car around 130 miles since then. Contrastingly I managed to drive ~325 & 345 miles for the first two tanks despite using the sport shift feature regularly to keep engine rpm between 2 and 4k rpm as recommended in the owners manual.

    After driving the car to work and back for the last few days I stopped to fill up yesterday after 280.2 miles. The tank swallowed 12.115 gallons for an average of 23.13 mpg.

    My guess is the car may have only averaged around 17-18 mpg over the ~130 miles driven by my wife, where I probably averaged 28-29 mpg over the other ~150 miles driven. Of course, my one-way commute IS much longer than hers @ around 25 miles vs 3 miles, and longer trips do tend to provide improved mpg results compared to short ones. However, I'm also confident that differences in our driving styles contributed to the reduced results as well.

    I've had my ScanGauge II connected to our Rondo for a few days and based on what I've observed so far, if you have even a moderately heavy foot you're not likely to be very happy w/the mpg results you may be seeing w/your Rondo V6. I've already seen how my Rondo's instantaneous mpg readings can plummet when more than slight pressure is placed on the throttle. Still, when cruising at steady speeds on level ground it also looks like 30+ or even 40+ mpg results may be possible if you're willing to limit cruising speeds to 60 mph or less. Although I'd don't know how accurate the ScanGauge's readings may be yet since I haven't used it long enough to determine and enter an error adjustment factor, for the past two days at least the computer has calculated 29-30+ averages for my daily trips back and forth to work. While these results do reflect my somewhat conservative driving technique, I haven't used any hard-core hypermiling techniques to obtain them.
    I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to drive the car on a longer trip before long to see what she may be capable of. However, based on what I've observed w/my SG I won't be getting my hopes up that my wife may do much better mpg-wise when driving our Rondo than she has with our larger, heavier, older and slightly more powerful '98 Toyota Sienna V-6 (3.0L w/4 speed atx). :(

    One other thing I've noticed when using my ScanGauge is that the Rondo's speedometer may be around 3 mpg optimistic @ an indicated 60 mpg. With the Rondo's speedometer needle aligned on 60 mph my ScanGauge only registers 57 mph. Contrastingly, when connected to my Mazda3 the ScanGauge has always registered the same as the car's speedometer. I've also determined that engine speeds in top gear are ~ 2,000 rpm at 55 mph, or ~ 2,150 rpm @ 60 mph. Not bad, but I'd be happier if the final drive ratio was higher so the engine would only turn around 1,800-1,900 rpm @ 60 mph. To me first seems to be geared lower than necessary which makes the car overly sensitive to throttle inputs when starting off. When I stepped down on it for the first time the other day it also quickly became clear that wheelspin can be induced easily at low speeds even when the car is already in motion.

    Has anyone else determined the Rondo's speedometer may be about 5% (3/60) optimistic?

    I've also observed that by 40 mph transmission will shift to 5th gear and the torque converter will lock up. As this occurs the instantaneous mpg readings rise significantly. So by making an effort to accelerate gently & smoothly up to 40 mph, followed by immediately reducing pressure on the throttle you should be able to improve your mpg results with your Rondo V6

    Although I was expecting this might be true, the significant jumps of 7 -10+ mpg in instantaneous fuel economy readings displayed by the ScanGauge after the shift to 5th gear was even greater than I would have predicted.

    I've also been pleasantly surprised by how smoothly and efficiently the car's cruise control seems to operate. Unlike the one in my Mazda3, when I set the cruise control in the Rondo the throttle inputs seem to be quite steady with a minimum amount of up and down adjustments. Contrastingly, when I set the cruise in my Mazda3 (which has a manual transmission) the ScanGauge's TPS (throttle position sensor) readings clearly show the throttle is being tweaked up and down almost constantly. As a result I'll probably make use the cruise control regularly when driving the Rondo and will recommend that my wife who tends to have what I'd call a "spastic" right foot do the same.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    416.4 miles / 14.094 gallons = 29.54 mpg.

    I drove 42.7 miles after the low fuel light came on and would estimate I had about 1.5-1.7 gallons left in reserve (15.8 - 14.1) by the time I finally stopped to fill up.

    This tank was 100% commuting miles over the past week @ ~ 55 miles/day. Note: I'm a tax accountant and have been working 7 days/week for a while now. :sick:

    About 50% freeway w/the rest on rural & suburban roads and highways.

    Morning temperatures ranged from around freezing up to the low 50's. No hard-core hypermiling, just steady driving @ conservative speeds w/gentle acceleration for the most part. Observed and used the instantaneous mpg, tps (throttle position sensor) and LOD (engine load) readings from my SG (ScanGauge II) to try and drive more efficiently.

    I'm pretty confident that the car is capable of averaging in the mid-30's on a trip at moderate speeds limited to 60 - 65 mph. However, based on what I've observed with the SG it's also pretty clear that making short trips, especially in cold weather and driving w/a heavy foot will cause the average mpg results to drop significantly.

    Have to say was pleasantly surprised by how quick my V6 Rondo is when I finally decided to step on it last night after passing the 1,300 mile point!

    The v-6 Rondo would leave a Mazda5 sucking dust imo.

  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    ...but I must say that you are getting mileage that I suspect VERY FEW RONDO OWNERS (I-4 or V-6) ARE GETTING, no matter how they drive the car.

    I have an '07 LX 2.4L I-4, and I MIGHT get 29 mpg on a tankful---IF the tank is overly full to begin with; IF I'm not driving into a head wind or over hilly terrain; IF all miles are straight highway miles; IF I'm especially easy on the throttle; IF I don't go over about 68 mph. And I have the I-4, estimated to do a tad better than the V-6.

    As for your saying "the car is capable of averaging in the mid-30's on a trip at moderate speeds limited to 60 - 65 mph," I'd say sure---maybe if your car is a one-off anomoly, i.e., it's the only V-6 Rondo ever made that can reach those efficiencies.

    If I sound like I'm unhappy with my mpg, I'm not at all. My normal tankful gets 24-25 mpg (mixed driving) and my all-highway driving gets about 29 mpg tops. For a car as un-aerodynamic and as heavy as the Rondo, that's pretty damn good.

    As for the cruise control, the CC on my car is way overactive. Downshifts all the time instead of easing up to set speed. If I want better mpg, I don't engage it.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    After reading many of the posts to this thread I realize many owners aren't seeing 29+ mpg tanks w/their Rondos. I'd also admit that I had to drive very conservatively to average over 29.5 mpg for the last tank. But my results do show it's possible to manage better than the EPA highway rating for the Rondo if you're willing to modify your driving habits for better efficiency.

    In all honesty I'll be pleasantly surprised if my wife manages to average over 20 mpg when she starts doing most of the driving in our Rondo. After April 15th is history and I can get my life back, I'll be able to work on cleaning and fixing up her '98 Toyota Sienna before advertising it for sale. Until then, the wife says she'd rather continue driving her old van most of the time. I think she's worried about the kids or her doing something to stain, scratch or otherwise damage the new one!

    Based on what I've seen on my sg, very small differences in throttle pressure can make a significant difference in the car's instantaneous mpg readings. So unless you have and use something like a sg or if you have an EX equipped with a mileage computer you may not be aware of how sensitive the car is to how much pressure is placed on the throttle.

    The v-6 model is definitely not a mpg monster-but if you have the tools and are willing to modify how you drive it can produce respectable results imo.

    Note that I've managed to average 6.6 mpg above the EPA highway estimate @ 32 mpg for my '05 Mazda 3i (2.0L w/5-speed manual). Over 61k+ miles I've averaged 38.6 mpg with that car. Since most Mazda3 owners apparently have not been as successful, I'm probably a more conservative driver than most. The fact that I have a fairly lengthy commute has also helped since I rarely end up taking short trips-and in my experience in general the longer the trip, the better the mpg.

    Lastly, I'll point out that I've been very careful to follow the manufacturer's break-in recommendations over the first and the second 600 miles. Whether or not this may have made a measurable difference in how efficient our Rondo turns out to be remains to be seen. Some Kia owners have claimed it can take several thousand miles before Kia's engines may fully loosen up and realize their best fuel economy results.

    We'll see.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    Over the first 2,252 miles our Kia's fuel economy has averaged 24.8 mpg.
    (2,252.2 miles/90.783 gal). Not great, but not so bad either imo.

    Although I'd still like for her to do better, so far results for the last two tanks in which my wife did all the driving did not calculate below 20 mpg as I had predicted. Instead she was able to average 21.3 & 23.6 mpg in mostly suburban driving conditions.

    I'll be driving the family to the Outer Banks of N.C. for a week's stay on the Saturday before Memorial Day and hope to average 30+ mpg over the 400+ mile drive round trip.

    We'll see...
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    For the first 14K miles on my 07 LX I-4 Rondo, my "general mix driving" tankfuls would average about 23-24 mpg. I'm over 17K miles now, and over the last 3K miles, the car's mpg seems to have improved substantively. For example, the mpg of my last 6 tankfuls have been 28, 26, 27, 24, 26, and 28, for a 26.5 average mpg. These readings include at least 1, if not 2, trips per tankful to go to downtown Raleigh with me, my wife, and 500 lbs of musical gear aboard, double parking, and then finding metro parking on city streets or in garages there. None of the tankfuls were of the straight interstate highway sort. I'm a little eager to go on a long interstate hwy trip so as to see what the car will do mpg-wise.
  • tsm280ztsm280z Member Posts: 30
    I agree there must be a long break-in period. My 07 EX-V-6 would average between 13-17 mpg (mostly city driving). At first I added ZMax to the gas & oil ... maybe improved mileage by 1 mpg. Then threw in a K&N air filter ... maybe improved mileage by 1 mpg. Still really disappointed. I too had a Scan Gauge (smoothsailin).
    Noticed the wild swings in mpg with the slight touch of the accelerator pedal.
    Put the SG in my other 2 cars and there was not that wild swing.
    But now, at 9,000 miles my mileage has substantially improved and is still getting better ... 21-22 mpg ... not as good as others on this post (keeping in mind this is mostly city driving). I also noticed the brand of gas has made a difference. Whenever I use Sunoco the mileage would drop ... Exxon/Mobil it would improve.
    Not sure why since I thought most major brands were similar in their additives.
  • stewpidasostewpidaso Member Posts: 45
    mixed city/highway brand new first tank 22.3MPG
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    The fuel efficiency of these engines seems to be very sensitive to throttle input. You can get respectible mileage with one if you drive smoothly and carefully, but dip into the throttle much and all bets are off.

    My wife has driven the car for the last three tanks which averaged in the 21 mpg range twice and in the 23 mpg range once. Mostly around town driving, but also included at least two over-100 mile round-trips to visit her parents and one sister. I know that the last tank average was in the 21 mpg range even though she had made a 170+ mile round-trip with mostly highway miles. So to me 21 mpg with a half-tank or more driven on the highway is awfully disappointing, However since I've never seen less than 25 mpg and one tank over 29 mpg in our Rondo when I did all the driving, I know it's capable of delivering respectible mileage. In other words, it's not just the car's fault. In this case I chalk it up to a driver who has a spastic foot (ie one who constantly works the throttle instead of maintaining steady pressure), refuses to use the cruise control and has no clue about what it means to conserve momentum!

    Bad driving habits can be hard to break-especially when the driver gets "an attitude" any time suggestions are offered by their significant other for how making a few changes could improve their mpg results..

    Case in point: Yesterday afternoon after work I was enjoying a pleasant evening outside sitting in our swing in the front yard. My wife drives up in the Rondo, stops in the driveway then sits in the car w/the engine running for several minutes before finally cutting off the engine and exiting the car. Why? My guess would be that she was playing around with her new toy (a GPS) and was just sitting in the car w/the engine running and the ac engaged while she did so. Of course she could just as easily cut off the engine, opened the windows and tinkered with the GPS without wasting gas. An obvious choice to me...but not to her.

    Of course had I pointed out that mpg is ZERO and fuel is being wasted when the car is stationary w/the engine running I doubt her reaction would have been positive or something to the effect of..."Thanks for the suggestion honey. I had not considered this!"

    Instead, I probably would have been told to make my own dinner. :mad:

    So I just kept my mouth shut and enjoyed a nice dinner! :shades:

    What's a guy to do....
  • tsm280ztsm280z Member Posts: 30
    We must be married to the same woman!
  • fastandpissofffastandpissoff Member Posts: 1
    i have 08 v6 getting between 22-26 mix city/highway dependant on road conditions wtih the a/c on
    . I used regular gas and kept my tire psi around 38.found it work best on the kumho tires it cam with.
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    About what I would expect from your Rondo. My 07 LX I-4 is averaging about 24-28 mpg (US) for mixed driving.

    I am continuing to be very pleased with the car since purchase in Oct. 2007. Never back to the dealer for anything (knocking on wood here). Outside of the cruise control which I do not like (drops down in gear too easily/often and hurts MPG), the car has been one of the very best of the 25 or so cars I've ever owned.
  • 93949394 Member Posts: 74
    My Canadian 09 Rondo EX i-4 will show 100kph when my GPS says 97kph.
    Off by 3%

    The odometer is dead on though, i tested for 15KM (about 10 miles) and it was in sync with the GPS disance travel info all the way.
    2016 eSoul - All Electric - Zero Emission
  • conwelpicconwelpic Member Posts: 600
    I have recently returned from a 14,733 km (9,155 mile) trip across the northern states and back across Canada to our place in Ontario. We traveled over a lot of varying terrain from steep grades to 75 mph interstates, from sea level to eleven thousand feet. I generally filled the tank up between the 500 - 600 km mark (and sometimes well over 600), so they are not short runs and therefore a lot of variety of driving in that time period. Also experience temperatures over 100 F, so a lot of times the a/c was on almost all the time (it worked great).

    My overall average for the whole trip was 35.3 mpg to the Canadian gallon or 29.4 mpg US. The lowest mileage I got was 31.6 mpg CDn (26.3 mpg US) and the best was 40.4 mpg CDN (33.5 mpg US).

    Overall very pleased with the mpg and the car was flawless throughout the whole trip.

    Canadian EX, 2008, 2.4L
  • 93949394 Member Posts: 74
    09 Rondo EX I4 purchased on August 2, Vancouver, BC

    1st tank: 19mpg (12.5L/100KM) - 100% City

    Return trip to Oregon coast:
    2nd tank: 30mpg (7.9Lpk) - 100% Hwy
    3rd tank: 25mpg (9.4Lpk) - 100% Hwy.....why so bad compare to 2nd tank
    4th tank: 31mpg (7.5Lpk) - 100% Hwy

    i noticed that the FE varies from tank to tank even though in similar weather and driving condtions, i wonder i may NOT be filling the tank 100%, possibly due to the tilting degree of the platform at the pump? anyone else has that problem?

    after that i made a return trip to Calgary, Alberta and averaged:
    5-8th tanks: 29.5mpg (8Lpk) through the mountains.

    9-10th tanks: 19mpg (12.5Lpk) - 100% City

    now at 3000 miles (5000km), hope FE will improve, especially for the City, because i'm not too impressed with 19mpg, my much bigger minivan is getting 17.5mpg.
    2016 eSoul - All Electric - Zero Emission
  • telesavetelesave Member Posts: 5
    I've been happy with the rondo, but always unhappy with the FE too!
    i also only get a little bit better FE than my much larger sienna minivan.

    (i have a 2007 rondo with 40k)
  • garnermikegarnermike Member Posts: 72
    I have a 2 year old LX I4 with 21K miles. Your fuel mileage is very close to what I was getting until I passed the 15K miles odometer mark. At about that mark, my 100% city mpg improved to 21 mpg, and my 100% hwy mpg improved to 29 mpg. My mixed driving is now consistently 24-26 mpg.

    But that 24-26 mpg calculation is an average based across several tanksfuls. I have since Day One gotten wide swings in individual tankful mpg computations. 17 mpg on some tankfuls; well over 30 mpg on others. I am convinced that the car never gets that bad -- or that good -- mpg. I have no idea why the car will sometimes take on more fuel or less fuel when filling up, such that I might go 50 miles before the fule gauge needle budges, or just 15 miles before it budges.

    I described this all to a Kia technician. He said that it's probably a bad fuel tank level relay gismo. I nevered bothered to have it fixed, because I believe that, over a number of tankfuls, I'm getting an accurate estimate of my mpg.
Sign In or Register to comment.