Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
My RIO SX has over 6,000 miles and there hasn't been one single problem. That's amazing! It's tons of fun to drive, it's comfortable, everyone raves about the car, and I love my little high tech gadgets. The fact that I don't match EPA numbers is not a major issue for me but you seem incapable of understanding that. All of the other reasons for purchasing the RIO SX were and are far more important to me.
For whatever reason, you seem obsessed with those RIO EPA ratings which are created in a lab. I truly don't understand that singular focus when there are so many other variables which factor into the decision to buy a particular vehicle.
Phil, until you can come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why your RIO mpg numbers are so different from mine, all of your other numbers are meaningless.
Regarding that Fiesta. I've heard so much about that car I decided to read up on it. Most people love their gas mileage and handling but hate the "clunky" automatic shifted, dual clutch manual transmission. Ford dealers offer a re-flash of the transmission control that smooths out and delays the shifts, but mileage suffers. For some reason it can't be re-flashed back if you decide you're unhappy with the gas mileage. After reading about the Fiesta I'm even happier with our choice of the Rio5 EX. It was its looks that first piqued my interest. When I looked at the high-tech technology, content and warranty, I was sold.
As was my brother-in-law. He bought a 2013 EX as a commuter (35 miles each way, mostly at or near 70 mph) and he's getting 34 mpg according to the car's trip computer with less than 2k on the clock. That's better than I got when ours was new!
BTW, I've been driving for over 50 years and have well over 1m miles behind the wheel. I have never had to change a tire. I've always carried a cheap 12v air pump since they became available and have used it only twice. I'd rather have the extra hidden trunk space than a temporary spare. I have, however, thrown a camshaft timing belt and had one slip a notch, both causing tows to the dealer so I appreciate the chain driven camshafts on the Hyundai/Kia engines.
So, great car, great value, flaky mileage for some drivers.
Mixed: 32- 36 mpg
Hmmmmmmmmmm, very interesting. Better than my mileage and vastly different from Phils' bizarre mileage numbers which has nothing in common with anything I've seen from anyone else. We don't know why Phil posts such unusual numbers.
Thanks for the interesting post.
When I make a decision to buy a car, EPA mpg ratings are only one of a myriad of variables which impact my decision. I'm not obsessed with fuel economy because there are many other factors which are more important to me such as safety, comfort, reliability, handling, looks, warranty, etc.
His posted mpg numbers are also somewhat bizarre and makes me wonder how he arrives at those totals. Please see the totals I've posted and check out skeptic101's results above which I think are much closer to what you can expect.
My main concern is an analysis of the RIO and why I shower praise on my car. Observations on my SX model:
(A) Extremely comfortable
(B) Nimble Handling
(C) Brisk Acceleration, ability to pass other cars on the Interstate
(D) Lots of high tech goodies such as a rear view camera, heated outside folding mirrors, LED Running and Brake Lights
(E) Voice controlled satellite radio and telephone calls
(F) Excellent 6 speed Automatic Transmission
(G) Numerous safety bags
(H)Traction and Electronic Stability Control
(I) Decent storage capacity with the seats folded down
(J) Ultra cool, sleek look which receives praise from many I've spoken with
(K) Nifty looking low profile aluminum wheels/tires
(L) Zero Problems in over 6,000 miles
With all that going for my RIO SX, the last thing I'm concerned about is the fact that I'm getting slightly less than the EPA rated miles per gallon. I'm doing well on the highway, pretty good in combo driving, and less than satisfactory in the city. But overall this is one fantastic economy car.
And if all that I described above isn't enough, it has a 5 year/60,000 mile bumper to bumper and a 10 year/100,000 mile power train warranty.
That is combined mileage with twice as much on the Interstate versus stop & go. Although the trip computer reported 36.8 mpg the actual number was 34.9 mpg. Therefore the RIO computer was almost 2 mpg higher than the actual number I calculated. But overall I was very pleased.
Next month I'm going on a 700 mile journey which will be almost all interstate, so I'm eager to find out how that goes. I just read a message in another KIA forum where the driver said he got 42 mpg on his most recent trip. I don't expect to get that much. I anticipate exceeding my normal highway mileage rating of 37-38 mpg. Who knows, I might actually reach the EPA 40 mpg rating. We'll see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#United_States
It is not a perfect car; however, there is no perfect car. I used to have Toyotas - Corolla, Solara, Matrix, Prius....and gas millage was always excellent.
On the other hand, I did not like cheap interior in most Toyotas, excluding the Solara. There are always trade offs with different cars.
Kia Rio is a nice little car. I love all tech futures that btatr mentioned above, but I still can believe how low city gas millage is. I get mostly 25-26 MPG; however, I always drive with A/C; most of my trips are short in the city, so engine is not warmed up enough, and I believe the car still have only 3000 miles on it. I think that gas millage will get a little bit better with engine braking in in the next 5-10K miles.
I just did a trip from Charlotte, NC to North Carolina mountains and back, which was 340 miles. I managed to do it with one tank of gas, with computer showing me 39 MPG....After I calculated manually, I come up with a 35.6 MPG...not bad considering that I used A/C thru out the whole time. If you say that gas millage suffers 10% by using A/C...this will mean that I got 39 MPG...which is almost 40 MPG. Considering that my speed was 75-80MPG, which is another drag to fuel economy, I can say that I am very happy.
City Millage.....well I have to live with it, but I am happy with my little car.
I believe that Toyota, Honda, Ford and other makes (not Huyndai/Kia) have their engines with less horse power because of gas millage. If you look at all 1.5 and 1.6 engines, you will notice that the once with 105-115 horse power have better gas millage in city. This is the reason, I guess, they chose to leave them with less power..... Of course, this is a speculation on my side; however, these are the facts.
Enjoy your cars guys!
I had a 2002 Ford Focus [very good car] that was geared for maximum fuel economy so acceleration was atrocious. I couldn't pass anyone on the highway and the engine would virtually die when driving in the mountains. Unlike the Focus, my RIO SX has brisk acceleration and I can pass cars on the highway with ease. In fact, the RIO cruises along at 75 mph with the engine barely working hard.
As for A/C, I think you over estimated the impact. I would guess it's about a 5% penalty but driving with the windows open would probably give you a 10% penalty. Driving with the windows open is just as bad as stop & go traffic for fuel economy.
My numbers are pretty consistent, and even less then what most people are reporting. As a reminder, I'm getting the following mpg from my RIO SX:
City Only: 24-45 mpg
Highway Only: 37-38 mpg
Combined: 31-32 mpg
Except for my city mileage, both highway and combined are fairly close to the EPA ratings and about what I expected. Only city mpg disappoints. As mentioned above, except for Phil, most people are reporting the same or even better mileage than I am.
But when it comes to Phil, his highway numbers are so far off from everyone else it makes you wonder how he's calculating them. Why are those highway numbers so low when compared with others? Either his math is way off or I suspect he's mixing in a fair amount of stop and go driving, but classifying them as highway only.
Phil said, " I feel by now that the engine should be "broken in". I get a consistent 27 mpg city and 33 mpg highway.
33 mpg highway? How? Why? I get almost that much in mixed driving. Some people are reporting highway only mileage as high as 42 mpg, which is 9 mpg higher than Phil's unusual results.
Earlier this week I went on a 111 mile trip (2/3 highway, 1/3 stop and go) and my results were 34.9 mpg. And that was with a fair amount of traffic and red lights on a divided highway. Yet that combo mileage trip was almost 2 mpg better than Phil's strange 33 mpg highway only numbers.
Most surprising was the MPG at different cruising speeds On one super flat straight stretch of several miles, 65 mph showed 41 mpg real time on the Rio's trip computer. Slowing to 60 showed 45 mpg, but slowing to 55 showed just 46 mpg. Not much difference between 55 and 60, but a lot between 60 and 65. Temperature was in the 80s so A/C was on the whole way. We also had an inverter running my wife's laptop PC most of the way.
BTW, the worst tank was 35.7. That included some running around during an overnight stay and passing a few tractor trailers on some 2 lane sections.
PS: Just a clarification FYI, my Ford Fiesta is (not) my beloved, for (me) those terms of endearment are reserved for my Woman and my 2 Golden Retrievers, not an inanimate object such as a Car!
As I mentioned previously, at some point in October I'm going on a 1,400 mile round trip which will be almost all Interstate. This will be the first time I take my SX on a truly extended journey. Most of my highway trips have been between 75 and 120 miles, which may not be enough for an accurate reading.
I'm really interested in knowing if my highway only 37-38 mpg numbers will also get up over 40 mpg. I wouldn't be surprised if I reach your 40.9 highway mpg number but I'm not expecting to do such.
And yes I agree that stop and go driving, even a relatively small percentage hurts mpg big time. But in return we have class leading power on the highway.
Of note was a fill of 85 octane E-10 in Colorado Springs (6,000 ft.). Lots of running around town with this fill and a trip up to Cripple Creek (9,500 ft.). I refilled back on the prairie as soon as I could get 87 octane again. That fill showed 26.9 average MPG on the Rio's trip computer (average speed of 24 MPH). Figuring a 5% difference that's 25.5 mpg. That's how much difference altitude (and mostly city driving) makes. No surprise for those who have lived there.
Got an oil change while we were out there and at my wife's insistence had the tire pressures lowered from 35 to 32 psi. That did lower the noise and vibration over expansion joints and rough pavement, but probably contributes to the lower mileage we got on the return trip. With my old car a 2 MPG difference between going and returning was common.
As with any car this small, it requires a little more planning when packing for a long trip and those low rolling resistance tires are hard. Colorado likes gravel and tar road resurfacing and the highway noise leaves this car's radio useless there. Overall, we're very happy with our choice. Friends in Colorado were impressed with the car's looks and content for $15k. For me the MPG is great and was the primary reason we initially looked at the car. Looks, content, warranty and price were the sellers.
BTW, I asked the service tech in Colorado if anyone had complained about their actual MPG. He said they had not sold that many Rios, but had not heard any complaints about MPG on any Kia.
You have a very smart wife. Most experts recommend driving with the recommended tire pressure. In fact, studies have shown very little or no benefit from raising tire pressure. In your case, you had more noise and vibration. In addition, running @ 32 psi should extend the life of the tires.
My SX RIO is ten months old and I'm convinced it's a fabulous car. Just like any other vehicle, there are some things I don't like or would change, but overall, it is definitely a fantastic vehicle for an economy class car.
I certainly think that the reason for this gas millage is higher horse power of the engine.
Lower city gas millage is the trade off of this car; however, everything else on the car makes it up fo it.
Enjoy your car guys, and do not look at your city gas millage! There are many more things more important in life!
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.
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?
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.
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 www.fuelly.com 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Then..we have 'highway' areas, that..again..are spread out with lots of room and relatively few streetlights between 'towns' and then we have HIGHWAY...as 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.
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 manual....save 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..
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.
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
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.