fuel consumption - Page 7 - Kia Forum
User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
#61 (permalink) Old 11-27-2012, 08:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North Essex
Posts: 335
Drives: 09 Pro-Ceed 1.4 ZR7
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Default

I know what you mean Ceed3 but when im sitting at 80 in top the engine is at 4k so theres still something like 2.5k to go to the redline so in the case of the Ceed i dont think the "Revving its nuts off" applies.

I think the main problem with the 1.4 is that all its power lies up near the redline and you have to spin the engine to get to it.The main bulk of the horses seem to live above 4k. Coincidentally, 4k seems to be the sort of area where the fuel consumption seems to drop off too, something to do with the CVVT perhaps? And then of course detuning it from the 109hp that i have to the 89hp it seems to come with now doesnt really help either!

Gearing can make a huge difference to how a vehicle feels. Ive lowered the gearing on my bike to make it accelerate better as a hypothetical top speed of 170+ is all but irrelevant. Its lowered the top speed by something like 10MPH but its much more fun to use, all for £20 for a new rear sprocket. Shame its not so cheap and easy to to change the final drive ratio on a car!
AyJay is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 (permalink) Old 11-27-2012, 02:58 PM
Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 647
Drives: Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyJay View Post
And then of course detuning it from the 109hp that i have to the 89hp it seems to come with now doesnt really help either!
The change was odd because the torque and power of the "90" engine don't tie up. The original "109" engine had 101ft-lb@5K, which corresponds to 95bhp. The power continues to rise to 109bhp@6k, which makes sense.

The spec on the "90" engine didn't show a corresponding change in torque. So it is in the curious position of developing more power at 5k than at the "maximum" point of 6K.

The current engine still shows 101ft-lb but 98bhp@5.5K. So adjusting for the rev difference, they have more or less returned it to the original spec. (109 x 5.5/6 = 99).

So much for numbers on the spec sheets.
Ace Demon is offline  
#63 (permalink) Old 12-07-2012, 06:56 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dundee Scotland
Posts: 64
Drives: KIA C'eed SW2 ecodynamic
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Default

Hey all, back again. I have had my replacement C'eed SW2 eco dynamic since September now. I am loving it. I have had the stereotypical cruise control issues and ISG issues of the C'eed. Arnold Clark of Dundee has been great about attending to the issues. However, they did a flash update for the cruise control, and I noticed several issues after; 1) not that I need it, but the shift indication on the dash only shows when to shift to a higher gear, the down shift indication disappeared 2) I noted when I first took delivery of the car, the mph on the speedometer at which shifting was indicated e.g. 3rd gear was at 21-22mph, 4th gr was at 32-33mph, 5th gear was42-43mph, and 6th gear was 48+- mph. I always drove it carefully as I was interested in what mpg I could squeak out of it. Before the flash , I was consistently getting 45-49 in town even with Dundee being hilly, and highway ( sorry dual carriage) was 57-62 depending on load and terrain mixed driving was 49-52. This was all figured out by gallons versus miles not the dash estimation, though that was always within 1+- of accuracy. Now the shift indication is telling me to change at 18mph for 3rd, 29-30 for 4th, 40 for 5th and 44 for 6th, and it feels sluggish if I follow this. I know I can change when I want, but does the computer tuning still affect the economy. I have tried doing both and I still see the loss of economy. I have used 7 tanks of fuel since the flash and am now averaging 34-36 in town and have not been able to get above 43 mixed driving and 47 on long open road drives and the dash estimation is always 5+- higher than actual now. The computer used to estimate my tank would take me 693 miles before needing to fill up and was fairly accurate = 59+- mpg, now it is estimating 460 miles for a tank. That is roughly 39+- mpg now. What a hit in the wallet as I use a tank +- a month, and that is roughly a 5.2 gallon difference of usage now=+- 32.00 more to run the car each month. Have a service call scheduled next week, but has anybody else had this issue. This also happened in the 1st C'eed that I turned back in in Sept(due to other issues)

Last edited by wizypuss; 12-07-2012 at 06:59 PM. Reason: spelling
wizypuss is offline  
#64 (permalink) Old 12-14-2012, 08:00 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dundee Scotland
Posts: 64
Drives: KIA C'eed SW2 ecodynamic
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Default

Had the car in for service yesterday. KIA mechanic admitted there is an issue with the shifting, but could not find any faults on the computer diagnostic. They have contacted KIA tech, and are waiting for them to call back.
wizypuss is offline  
#65 (permalink) Old 12-22-2012, 03:11 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Default

I've had a 1.6 Diesel ceed with ISG for a month now but the only thing I'm sure about is the cost of the fuel I've purchased. The mileage reading is 878 miles but that assumes the odometer is accurate. The fuel usage is said to be 61.8 MPG but that assumes the computer calculations are accurate. The amount of fuel purchased is 58.1 litres but that assumes the diesel pumps are accurate. And I don't know how much fuel the dealer put in the car when I bought it. And I have'nt checked tyre pressures.

The point I'm making is that there are too many uncertainties to calculate an accurate MPG figure. I have 15 years of detailed records for the five cars I have owned in that period. I record the amount, cost and odometer reading at the date of purchase - without exception. What I can say is that a 1.9 diesel Touran ran at 57.23 mpg IF EVERYTHING WAS ACCURATE over a 3 year period. A 1.8 petrol Zafira did 41.42 mpg IF EVERYTHING WAS ACCURATE. But the only thing I can guarantee is the amount I spent!!

There is one run I do twice a week and have done so for 8 years. According to different odometers it varies between 35.1 and 37.3 miles. The worst was a Vectra and the best a Touran.
I can also say that consumption is around 5% better from May to September (and I think I know why).

So when you speak about fuel usage excuse me if I take your figures, good or bad, with a hefty dose of salt. The only way you can be reasonably sure is by measuring usage over several thousand miles and varying conditions. Even brim to brim means nothing if you do not eliminate weather conditions and fuel temperature at the time of purches (oh, and tyre temperature and pressure).
bob72 is offline  
#66 (permalink) Old 12-22-2012, 06:55 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dundee Scotland
Posts: 64
Drives: KIA C'eed SW2 ecodynamic
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob72 View Post
I've had a 1.6 Diesel ceed with ISG for a month now but the only thing I'm sure about is the cost of the fuel I've purchased. The mileage reading is 878 miles but that assumes the odometer is accurate. The fuel usage is said to be 61.8 MPG but that assumes the computer calculations are accurate. The amount of fuel purchased is 58.1 litres but that assumes the diesel pumps are accurate. And I don't know how much fuel the dealer put in the car when I bought it. And I have'nt checked tyre pressures.

The point I'm making is that there are too many uncertainties to calculate an accurate MPG figure. I have 15 years of detailed records for the five cars I have owned in that period. I record the amount, cost and odometer reading at the date of purchase - without exception. What I can say is that a 1.9 diesel Touran ran at 57.23 mpg IF EVERYTHING WAS ACCURATE over a 3 year period. A 1.8 petrol Zafira did 41.42 mpg IF EVERYTHING WAS ACCURATE. But the only thing I can guarantee is the amount I spent!!

There is one run I do twice a week and have done so for 8 years. According to different odometers it varies between 35.1 and 37.3 miles. The worst was a Vectra and the best a Touran.
I can also say that consumption is around 5% better from May to September (and I think I know why).

So when you speak about fuel usage excuse me if I take your figures, good or bad, with a hefty dose of salt. The only way you can be reasonably sure is by measuring usage over several thousand miles and varying conditions. Even brim to brim means nothing if you do not eliminate weather conditions and fuel temperature at the time of purches (oh, and tyre temperature and pressure).
I know what you are saying. MY fuel consumption is over 4000 miles since September. I can be generous and say that the colder weather, winter fuel viscosity, the different starting temperatures of the tires and the running of the A/C to demist at the beginning of the journey, may take 4-5 miles per gallon off the average. I travel the same routes every day, and even giving for slightly heavier traffic here and there for the 8miles to work in Dundee; it does not account for the drastic drop in mpg, nor does it account for the change in rpm that the computer is indicating as gear change points, or the loss of the downshift indicator. I have also taken the most recent figures and am now down to high 20's low 30's. All the variables and assumptions that you mentioned will not account for this drastic a change and constant drastic decrease in mpg. yes, the methods we use are not 100% accurate, but will stay pretty constant +- a few mpg. I am not one of those who expect 67mpg as stated, I am realistic and understand that real deriving conditions are different. However, when I go from mid 40's &50's in town( which I thought was fantastic) to high 20's &low 30's...there is an issue, especially since it started immediately after a computer update.
Still waiting on KIA TECH to call.
wizypuss is offline  
#67 (permalink) Old 12-22-2012, 07:54 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Default

I'm not disagreeing that you should investigate a sudden and noticeable change. What I'm trying to say is that measurement of MPG cannot be a short term exercise and proper records need to be kept. Simply brimming the tank for a week or so will tell you nothing unless you can eliminate all the other variables. What if it coincides with a spell of particularly bad or cold weather or a change in the type of journey you are used to doing?

What I will do personally is run my records for another month and then start making changes one at a time. My first change will be to increase the tyre pressures for around a month to see what happens.

Another thing I do not do is to fill the tank unless a long run is in prospect. A full tank will weigh as much as a small passenger. Keep the weight down!
bob72 is offline  
#68 (permalink) Old 12-23-2012, 04:58 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dundee Scotland
Posts: 64
Drives: KIA C'eed SW2 ecodynamic
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob72 View Post
I'm not disagreeing that you should investigate a sudden and noticeable change. What I'm trying to say is that measurement of MPG cannot be a short term exercise and proper records need to be kept. Simply brimming the tank for a week or so will tell you nothing unless you can eliminate all the other variables. What if it coincides with a spell of particularly bad or cold weather or a change in the type of journey you are used to doing?

What I will do personally is run my records for another month and then start making changes one at a time. My first change will be to increase the tyre pressures for around a month to see what happens.

Another thing I do not do is to fill the tank unless a long run is in prospect. A full tank will weigh as much as a small passenger. Keep the weight down!
I see where you are coming from. I agree there can be changes, and your theory would apply to someone who has a small change in MPG. However, in my case,most of the variables have been maintained in the same manner. I have always brimmed up, and yes, following your logic, I understand the initial mpg of a full tank could be lower and then increase as the amount of fuel in the tank decreases. I record my tire pressure every 4 days, as my ceed is very sensitive to the pressure difference and crowns of the roads and pulls to the left if the tire pressure is not maintained. The mechanics cannot explain why options on the dash have been removed,nor why the shift rpm has been changed. Meanwhile, the only weight change in the vehicle is the ever increasing number of £'s disappearing in order to keep the C'eed on the road.Hope they figure it out soon.
wizypuss is offline  
#69 (permalink) Old 12-23-2012, 08:18 AM
Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 647
Drives: Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob72 View Post
The point I'm making is that there are too many uncertainties to calculate an accurate MPG figure. I have 15 years of detailed records for the five cars I have owned in that period.
The only variable is the car's odometer. The other elements you mention apply to all cars. (Yes it is annoying when people report unfeasibly good or bad results because of their selective sampling method.)

Quote:
There is one run I do twice a week and have done so for 8 years. According to different odometers it varies between 35.1 and 37.3 miles. The worst was a Vectra and the best a Touran.
Can you expand your definition of best & worst? I read it as suggesting the Vectra gave the lowest mileage and therefore worst consumption. Since you know the difference you could easily normalise your results.
Ace Demon is offline  
#70 (permalink) Old 12-23-2012, 08:35 AM
Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 647
Drives: Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizypuss View Post
I record my tire pressure every 4 days, as my ceed is very sensitive to the pressure difference and crowns of the roads and pulls to the left if the tire pressure is not maintained.
4 days seems somewhat ott...

Rather than maintaining pressure across an axle have you tried setting an imbalance? It's what oval racers do.
Ace Demon is offline  
Reply

  Kia Forum > KIA Models > Kia Cee'd Forum


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On