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

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

135

Comments

  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    edited September 2012
    btatr: If your infatuation with your new Kia Rio is such that your satisfied with your 24-25 MPG City or my 27 MPG City, fine. You never addressed all my other points that I think were valid. Please explain to me why Kia`s superior 5 year 60 K Bumper to Bumper warranty and 10 year 100K drivetrain warranty have anything to do with fuel economy? Are you saying, thats a (given) trade off one should expect? Best you re-read my entire previous Post and digest the "facts" that I presented, not merely my opinion. Do you think that my old 2006 Kia Rio5 should have gotten the same or better fuel economy then my new 2012 improved version? I`m not "Bashing" Kia or Hyundai. I have owned (4) of their vehicles. On the other hand, I refuse to be a cheerleader for HKAG when they obviously missed the mark with dismal fuel economy on the smallest car offering in their fleet. Funny, its like both of us are participating in a court room trial with one of us being the prosecution and the other lawyer for the defendant. The facts are simply the facts. 23, 24, 25, or even my fabulous 27 mpg City is (not) satisfactory for a Sub-Compact car, period! I rest (my) case.
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    First, there's a lot more to a car than just fuel economy. Second, you don't have the power to tell others what they can or cannot include in their posts. Third, obviously you didn't read what I wrote earlier when I said I was disappointed with city mileage. But I'm pleased with highway and combo driving results.

    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.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    I knew when I first responded to the Post by csandste #94 I was once again opening "pandoras box". I should have known better. Its "Ground Hog Day" all over again. We had this discussion a month or two ago and I will let you have the (last word). I`m bored and more interested in figuring out who to pick in my NFL Football Pool with the point spread then continuing this (lame) game of [non-permissible content removed] for tat. I will concede that your emotional love affair with your Kia Rio5 SX is so strong, facts alone mean nothing. Its like I insulted your Spouse or Children. If your happy with your Car, fine! If Fuel Economy is not a major priority for you and a major reason your purchased this small B-segment vehicle, you Sir, are in the minority, I`m sure. I only stated that if getting anywhere between 23 mpg to my magnificent 27 mpg in this Sub Compact vehicle is acceptable to you, I`m happy for you. If I posted any "facts" that were in err, I truly apologize. I choose not to live in total denial that this vehicle was marketed to be a fuel efficient car which it is (not). EPA figures which you still explain or done (in the Lab) and not in real-time conditions still does not change the dynamics one bit. I`m not sure of how many other 2012-2013 Kia Rio owners you have discussed Fuel Economy with but I`m sure if you did, the vast majority would have shared their disappointment. Like the last time, I`m out, my Dog is (not) in this fight and I wish your Love Affair with your Car lasts forever and that your have nothing but joy in future miles ahead. I hope you too will someday achieve (my) marvelous 27 MPG City as well. Cheers!
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    edited September 2012
    Wow, are you two still at it? Well, we've had another tank fill that returned 42 mpg according to the pump receipt and the GPS trip computer. That's with a passenger and luggage. It looks like 42 is going to be my car's best. As I've reported before, I'm not a "hyper-miler" but I do drive conservatively. My cars usually get 50k miles on their front tires (I don't rotate). We're retired and live in an urban setting (two traffic lights). We go into "town" once or twice a week for appointments and shopping. Now that we have 13k+ on the clock we average 32 to 36 mpg "mixed driving" according to the car's trip computer. That's at least 10 mpg better than we got with our PT Cruiser and I couldn't be happier. I've always exceeded the EPA's mileage estimates with every car I've owned. Obviously Hyundai/Kia duplicated the EPA's test "routes" in their own lab and tweaked this car's engine management computer to get that magical 40 mpg for bragging rights. Even with the ECO mode "on" the car adjusts the auto transmission shift points over every 100 miles or so to suit the drivers style. The ECO mode makes the transmission upshift earlier and smooths out the accelerator's sensitivity. Obviously nobody duplicates the EPA's test "route" day after day (unless you're a Hyundai engineer in a test lab). Most people probably drive in a way that makes the car adjust the transmission's shift points to occur later. Most people use E-10 gas (10% alcohol), the EPA uses E-0. So, "your mileage may differ" from both the EPA's and mine.

    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.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    I knew when I first responded to the Post by csandste #94 I was once again opening "pandoras box". I should have known better. Its "Ground Hog Day" all over again. We had this discussion a month or two ago and I will let you have the (last word). I`m bored and more interested in figuring out who to pick in my NFL Football Pool with the point spread then continuing this (lame) game of [non-permissible content removed] for tat. I will concede that your emotional love affair with your Kia Rio5 SX is so strong, facts alone mean nothing. Its like I insulted your Spouse or Children. If your happy with your Car, fine! If Fuel Economy is not a major priority for you and a major reason your purchased this small B-segment vehicle, you Sir, are in the minority, I`m sure. I only stated that if getting anywhere between 23 mpg to my magnificent 27 mpg in this Sub Compact vehicle is acceptable to you, I`m happy for you. If I posted any "facts" that were in err, I truly apologize. I choose not to live in total denial that this vehicle was marketed to be a fuel efficient car which it is (not). EPA figures which you still explain are done (in the Lab) and not in real-time conditions still does not change the dynamics one bit. I`m not sure of how many other 2012-2013 Kia Rio owners you have discussed Fuel Economy with but I`m sure if you did, the vast majority would have shared their disappointment. Like the last time, I`m out, my Dog is (not) in this fight and I wish your Love Affair with your Car lasts forever and that your have nothing but joy in future miles ahead. I hope you too will someday achieve (my) marvelous 27 MPG City as well. Cheers!
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    Highway: 42 mpg
    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.
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    It's unfortunate that we have one forum member who accuses me of ignoring facts when I'm analyzing everything about the RIO. His sole focus is on the EPA lab numbers. Why he ignores all of the other outstanding attributes of the vehicle can only be answered by him.

    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.
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    Yesterday I went on a 111 mile trip and tried my best to accurately calculate the type of miles. My notes showed 75 miles on an Interstate and 36 stop & go, mainly a divided highway with lots of traffic and red lights. Those numbers are not precise but approximately 2/3 of the trip was on the Interstate and about 1/3 was stop and go.

    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.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    I'm headed for the Rockies next week. I want to compare the difference between E-10 and E-15 gas, and I-70 through Kansas will let me compare different cruising speeds. The only time I check the MPG with my GPS's trip computer is when we're on a trip. I forget to check the car's trip computer before I shut it down to fill up. When I start it back up the car's computer has automatically reset to 0. I'm going to try to remember this time to check it when I pull in to see what the difference is. 5% is quite a lot more than I would have expected. I know my odometer is off by 1%. Here's an interesting link for people who care and have the time:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#United_States
  • dchevdchev Member Posts: 38
    I too have 2012 Kia Rio5 SX.
    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!
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    Once again, not using my better judgement, I`d like to respond to "dchev" without an "un-named individual" becoming overly defensive and releasing the attack Dogs out for yet another bite. If you waiting on improved fuel economy to occur with your 2012 Kia Rio when it has 7000 or miles driven, it just ain`t going to happen. Seems the sweet spot for Kia`s little "Gas-Sipper" is between 23 and 26 mpg in City driving with myself setting an all time record of often getting 27 mpg on a vehicle that has just over 7000 on it. I think the use of the vehicles A/C should (not) account for a 10% reduction in fuel economy either. If you had the windows down in hot weather, the extra wind drag would account for even a larger drop in fuel economy. Despite my criticism of the typical fuel economy that the Kia Rio delivers, City, Highway, and even "Mixed", it is an attractive, affordable, comfortable, peppy, fun Car to drive. It, like its sibling cousin, the 2012-2013 Hyundai Accent just don`t deliver the Fuel Economy numbers that a Vehicle in the Sub-Compact/B-Segment Class should be expected to achieve outside of the EPA Lab that provided these (estimates). I`m fully aware that they are (only) estimates and often times and perhaps, most of the time they do fall short of the Window Sticker`s estimations in real time driving conditions. That said, I know for a fact that from (my) experience, occasionally a Vehicle (will) not only meet those numbers but actually (exceed) them. I`m sure that HKAG is fully aware of this shortcoming and it will be addressed by the 2014 Model Year run. By changing transmission or front axle gear ratios, a loss of a bit of performance will for a majority of buyers be a small price to pay to achieve the fuel economy (most) would expect in a Car in this particular segment. Other then that, for the most part, they did a fine job. I might add, they also might consider adding as standard equipment Daytime Running Lights across the entire fleet for US destined vehicles like 90% of other manufacturers, foreign and domestic, already have. They don`t have to necessarily be the fancy LED type that are equipped on the SX series but a lower wattage traditional (pilot) lamp included in the Headlamp Cluster. For the added minimal cost of the electrical module, a safety devise that already is mandatory in Canada and most of Europe would (for most) be appreciated.
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    Dchev, I think you are on target when you mentioned horsepower and torque. I believe the RIO is best in class in terms of torque and HP which I think is an excellent trade off for slightly lower fuel economy in the city. I would hate to give up that power we currently have for an extra 1 or 2 mpg.

    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.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    dchev: I too would gladly give up "1 or 2" mpg for improved performance and drivability, how about "8" to 10" mpg, feel the same way? Like I posted numerous times, why a 2011 Ford Fiesta with its pathetic clunky automatic transmission and its grossly (underpowered) NON-GDI 1.6 ltr engine has delivered a constant 33 to 35 mpg (city) from Day 1! Others, that shall remain nameless, have reported the Kia Rio delivering between "23 to 25" mpg city. Luckily, I`m very fortunate to average 27 mpg city. Using the Rio`s "23-25" mpg city versus the Fiesta`s "33-35" mpg city seems that there is a (10 mpg) difference and (not) merely a 1-2 mpg difference. Maybe I never learned arithmetic properly or some folks are using, lets say, "fuzzy math".
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    Phil said, "Maybe I never learned arithmetic properly...". That could be because he's the only one I see getting such bizarre highway only mpg from his RIO. In light of that, why should we believe his mpg numbers for his beloved Ford Fiesta?

    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.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    We've made it to Colorado. A few surprises. The best mileage I saw on the Rio's trip computer was 43.4 over 343.3 miles (GPS). The tank fill (2 clicks) was 8.4 gallons. That's 40.9 mpg actual, a surprising (for me) 6% difference. Instead of taking I-70 across we took US 60/400/50. While most of the best tank was with the cruise set on 65 (GPS), the average speed was only 57mph. There were a few stop lights and small towns with limits of 35mph along the way, but I wouldn't have thought they would make that much difference. All that was with driver, passenger and 8 days of luggage in the back (50 lbs for me, 150 lbs for wifey).

    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.
  • phill1phill1 Member Posts: 319
    I tried my best not to get your (ire) by not referring to your name. Unfortunately, I see my attempt was all in vain. I refuse to get (baited) into another "pissing" contest with you over (your) refusal to finally admit that the 2012/2013 Kia Rio "CITY" fuel economy is absolutely terrible and no matter how hard your try to be an apologist for the fact that you admittedly only get 23-25 mpg in City driving is inexcusable for a B-Segment/Sub Compact class vehicle, Case Closed! Even if (my) Highway numbers reached 35 mpg, that alone should compensate for the 23-25 mpg city that you admit (your) vehicle produces? I`m happy for you then. Getting back to (my) Fiesta, since you obviously doubt the accuracy of the numbers I constantly Post on my Vehicles fuel economy. Do some research on the internet, ask some Ford Fiesta owners and see what the general consensus is! Except for a (very) few Kia Rio owners who have Posted somewhat better numbers either here or that anomaly that even "Auto Week" can`t even explain, best you start talking to other 2012/2013 Kia Rio owners in your local area or at your Kia Dealership and see how "pleased" they are with "NOT" the vehicle itself but its horrible city mpg and mediocre mixed and highway numbers. If you did the same, asking random Ford Fiesta owners or chatted with folks that own one at a Ford Dealership, see how many are not blown away with the fuel economy of (their) Fiesta be it city, highway or mixed driving conditions. Like I told you before you became so overly defensive about your 2012 Kia Rio5 SX, its only a damn car, not your spouse or children. Secondly, your certainly entitled to your own "opinion" but not your own facts! I truly apologize to "dchev" for getting baited in one last time for renewing this ridiculous dialogue seeing you attempting to sugar coat your admitted 23-25 mpg city fuel economy. My math skills might not be as good as yours but don`t insult (anyones) intelligence by stating that forfeiting 8-10 mpg in city driving conditions is the same as forfeiting the 1-2 mpg as you suggest for the glorious fun and excitement one experiences driving a Kia Rio over a Ford Fiesta. They are (both) excellent small cars, one having superior fuel economy in the city as well as the highway, the other is like watching the Fuel Gage descend so quickly in city driving you would think there was a hole in the gas tank! Looking forward (once) again for your rebuttal that I promise (other) readers I will (NOT) respond too. They say its futile to argue about Religion and Politics since its unlikely to change ones beliefs or position. You have proven the same should be said about discussing anything to do with "btatr`s" beloved 2012 Kia Rio5 SX. I sincerely hope your "love affair" with your vehicle lasts as long as your ownership.
    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!
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    Thanks Skeptic for posting those interesting mpg numbers for your RIO. Your results are pretty much in synch with others I've read about on the Internet.

    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.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    Back from Colorado. Best tank was 40.5 (GPS) with average speed of 56 mph. That was with cruise set on 65 and small towns at 35 and maybe 6 stop lights. The Rio's trip computer showed 42.5 so that was a little better (5%). I'm still surprised at that much difference.

    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.
  • btatrbtatr Member Posts: 75
    edited September 2012
    "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 "

    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.
  • dchevdchev Member Posts: 38
    Each car has some type of trade off. I like everything about my car, but gas millage in city. I agree with Phill that 23-27 MPG is low gas millage for this size of a car. Usually, you get these numbers from cars like Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Kia Optima, Huyndai Sonata, Mazda 6....
    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!
  • phill1phill1 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 600
    edited September 2012
    agree, and also if its lots of of stop and go city traffic, then purchase the ISG option. :)
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member 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?
  • randall12randall12 Member Posts: 2
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Guest Posts: 52,454
    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 pr@edmunds.com no later than Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 8 a.m. PT/11 a.m. ET.
  • dillon76dillon76 Member Posts: 1
    ...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 Member 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.
  • randall12randall12 Member Posts: 2
    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 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...
  • btatrbtatr Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Administrator Posts: 11,145
    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.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member 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 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.
  • phill1phill1 Member 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 Member 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 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..
  • phill1phill1 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • skeptic101skeptic101 Member Posts: 29
    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 Member 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.