[yiannos18]

I'm seeing a common theme here and it seems that logic is escaping everyone... to have fun in a car (full throttle starts, etc.) that requires the motor to work hard and for it to work hard, it needs energy. That energy is fuel, be it petrol (gasoline) or diesel.

Now think of it this way, you're off running at a fast pace and you get tired quickly. That's because you have used up most of your energy storage. However, this time you jog at a steady pace and find that you can go much further as you're using less energy.

Also for the bike riders out there..

Laying the power down up a hill, grinding away uses up a lot of energy and you find that you'll need to drop down gears to make it to the top.
Now do the same hill except you're spinning the cranks at a constant, easy rhythm. You will feel far more energetic at the top compared to grinding up due to the smaller energy consumption it took!

THE SAME APPLIES TO VEHICLES

no matter how efficient they claim the car to be, in order to have fun, ANY CAR will use up whatever its energy storage is very quickly. Plant the throttle in a 6 litre V12, use half a tank of fuel (bit of an over exaggeration but still). Plant the throttle in the little 1.6 litre GDi, use up a lot of fuel doing so.

So can everyone get this into their head: planting the throttle at any given moment, taking corners way too quickly and hard braking uses up more fuel than granny driving which can be seen as smooth and not very jerky.
Yes it may be boring but you get better efficiency, which is how these eco cars are marketed as.

Want spirited driving? Expect crap consumption. Any car. Even the Smart car.

--End Rant--

 

[jpdingle]

I'm sorry but did you really read those posts???
Those were fuel consumption using "GRANNY" style of driving.

 

[Racineur]

Listen. Some Rios have crappy fuel economy OK. Some others don't. This a proven fact. If you don't like that, not my problem. Ain't a junior here and don't drive like one. Drive the way you wish or want and accept crappy fuel economy if you want but I don't. My Rio have crappy fuel economy from day 1. Not your problem. Mine. So if you don't like posts the crappy fuel economy for Rio. Good. But I won't restrain myself from saying what I have to say to please anyone here. I stay polite and when I don't like the subject, I don't read it.

 

[yiannos18]

I'm sorry but did you really read those posts???
Those were fuel consumption using "GRANNY" style of driving.

you do know that traffic and hills do have a huge influence on consumption... I drive like a granny in peak hour traffic (approx. avg speed over the trip is 23km/h) and my fuel numbers are 10.3L/100. Drive like a granny on the freeway/use cruise control and I get 5.8L/100.

Even around home with some mega steep hills, I could have averaged 6.7L/100 around town then I hit the 4 hills before home and that goes up to 8.4L/100..

Moral of the story: official fuel figures were conducted in a lab with ideal conditions, something we, the consumer, cannot get every single time, no matter how hard we try.



If you want fuel efficient, ride a bike B) I generally average 0L/100k on petrol... water on the other hand...

 

[Racineur]

you do know that traffic and hills do have a huge influence on consumption... I drive like a granny in peak hour traffic (approx. avg speed over the trip is 23km/h) and my fuel numbers are 10.3L/100. Drive like a granny on the freeway/use cruise control and I get 5.8L/100.

Even around home with some mega steep hills, I could have averaged 6.7L/100 around town then I hit the 4 hills before home and that goes up to 8.4L/100..

Moral of the story: official fuel figures were conducted in a lab with ideal conditions, something we, the consumer, cannot get every single time, no matter how hard we try.



If you want fuel efficient, ride a bike B) I generally average 0L/100k on petrol... water on the other hand...

I know all that. My point: a few minutes ago I went through an old spreadsheet tracking FE of my Neon in 2008. It was between 7.9 and 9.1L/100 during september. Then my friends that drove Focus and Civic and likes did around 7.5L/100km. Focus (old model) a 2.0 L engine and Civic with a 1.8L. See where I'm going: 2012 Rio with its top notch tech 1.6 GDI engine does just a little better. To me, it should do a lot better than those "old technologies". In my book: bad marks for Kia since I have other cars of other eras to compare with.

 

[TJ85]

You shouldnt really put so much behind comparing cars from one era to another. Technology advancements is only one aspect of it; government regulations is another. Kia has to make these cars pass as many different countries regulations as it can to maximise user base and brand awareness.

What you may find on your Neon may not pass regulations today. Back in those days fuel economy was the driving force and making them more powerful than their previous gen. Now there is more focus on emissions and safety over a models previous generation. Times and market demand will dictate what you see in cars.

If you compare current Rio to the previous one it is an advancement. If you compare it to other cars across the other segments (Neon is classed as a C segment car while the Rio is B segment) it would be pretty easy to find something that can better the Rio.

Picking and choosing what you compare your Rio against will only lead to disappointment.

 

[brianl]

Listen. Some Rios have crappy fuel economy OK. Some others don't. This a proven fact.

Sorry, it is not a proven fact. Just because people are reporting wildly different mileage numbers does not prove that some Rios have crappy fuel economy. These people also most likely have wildly different driving styles and/or commuting 'styles' (ie, highway, or stop and go). If you wanted to prove something, you would need to gather said Rio's and have the _same_ driver drive over the _exact_ same route, same amount of time stoped, etc, and then compare the results.

While some may genuinely have something 'wrong' with their Rio's, most are overlooking the most likely cause of statistical anomalies - the human. It's easy to blame the machine.

I also keep seeing references to driving like a 'granny'. Don't bother, you're probably making things worse. Accelerate to your target speed using relatively wide throttle openings to minimize pumping losses.

I'll say it again - the numbers on the monroney sticker are for comparing vehicles, you shouldn't expect to get them day-to-day, unless your commute matches the EPA test. The US numbers are more realistic than the Canadian ones, but still more or less pie-in-the-sky numbers. The highway portion of the US test lasts about 12 minutes, 10 miles, with an average speed of 48mph - does that sound like anyones commute?

 

[Mysticality]

My '07 Rio did 7.5L/100km average.
1.4ltr petrol, 5spd manual, 1.2tonne total weight.
Thats not much engine for a lot of car.

My '12 Octavia vRS TDI runs 6L/100km average.
2ltr turbo-diesel, 6spd manual, 1.5tonne total weight.
Thats a lot of torque for relatively not much car.

My Octy gets better economy because, to get anywhere, I don't have to put my foot down to work it harder.

Here, watch this. It will honestly explain EVERYTHING.

You buy a Rio and expect it to have excellent fuel consumption SIMPLY because its got a relatively small engine.
If you put the boot in, the SMALL engine will need to do a LOT of WORK to get the relatively HEAVY car moving, thus equalling MORE FUEL USED.

If you want pure economy in the city, get a hybrid.
If you want pure economy on the highway, get a diesel.
If you want a small car that'll give you good numbers if you drive it nicely (NOT grannying it, NOT giving it too much boot, just driving normally) then get a petrol Rio.

 

[Tony Flags]

I see the whole thing differently. I consistently average 7.5 L / 100 Km, according to the car gauges. Tracking it separately I get 8.0 L / 100 Km. So, am I surprised I'm not close to book values? Yes. But I always compare it to my previous car. 55 L tank @ $75 - $80 vs. 43 L tank @ never more than $50. I do 90% highway but always in traffic. I get more distance from my Rio than my previous car. So, I just drive the car never worrying about these numbers, really. I just focus on my fuel / money savings compared to my old car. So, in that context, I'm extremely pleased. And I don't drive like a grandma.

 

[rdrfronty]

I know all that. My point: a few minutes ago I went through an old spreadsheet tracking FE of my Neon in 2008. It was between 7.9 and 9.1L/100 during september. Then my friends that drove Focus and Civic and likes did around 7.5L/100km. Focus (old model) a 2.0 L engine and Civic with a 1.8L. See where I'm going: 2012 Rio with its top notch tech 1.6 GDI engine does just a little better. To me, it should do a lot better than those "old technologies". In my book: bad marks for Kia since I have other cars of other eras to compare with.

A note about that though is the power of the older engines vs the 1.6l rio. I did have to guess for the years so I could be slightly of, but you should get my point.
2.0L Ford Focus (2008)- 140hp
1.8L Honda Civix (2008)- 140hp
2.0L Dodge Neon (2005)- 132hp
1.6L Kia Rio (2012)- 138hp
My point is that it really doesn't matter what displacement a engine has, it's all about the power produced. We get basically the same power as most 1.8-2.0L engines in the past decade had. Now compare our engine to most 1.5-1.6L engines in the past and you will see we usually have 20-40 more hp than they had.
An engine generally needs the same amount of fuel to make the same amount of power regardless of the displacement needed to obtain those numbers. Sure there are some engines slightly more efficient than others, but its usually small numbers. And I personally feel getting the horsepower and fuel economy we get is evidence that our 1.6L is a one of those slightly advanced engines.

 

[OzSLS]

not sure there's really any need to go off like that OP, it's not really a big deal.

our Rio has only just got its best economy figures now it's hit 10,000KM - it was a noticable improvement almost instantly..

I've said it before and i'll say it again - if you want to get more accurate economy figures, use an iPhone ap like Road Trip - your economy gauge will almost always lie in favour of economy. Ours averages 7.85 with mostly harsh peak hour and a few highway trips according to Road Trip, but the car says around half a litre or more better than that. Worst i've ever seen the car read was when it was brand new, 9.9 and best was on a highway trip at 5.7 but since that figure the car has freed up a lot more.

Either way who cares? If you want to feel fuel pain, come and drive my Ford V8 in peak hour. The figures our Rio puts out are sensational. We don't drive it easy, either.

 

[Racineur]

not sure there's really any need to go off like that OP, it's not really a big deal.

our Rio has only just got its best economy figures now it's hit 10,000KM - it was a noticable improvement almost instantly..

I've said it before and i'll say it again - if you want to get more accurate economy figures, use an iPhone ap like Road Trip - your economy gauge will almost always lie in favour of economy. Ours averages 7.85 with mostly harsh peak hour and a few highway trips according to Road Trip, but the car says around half a litre or more better than that. Worst i've ever seen the car read was when it was brand new, 9.9 and best was on a highway trip at 5.7 but since that figure the car has freed up a lot more.

Either way who cares? If you want to feel fuel pain, come and drive my Ford V8 in peak hour. The figures our Rio puts out are sensational. We don't drive it easy, either.

Ah that OP...

 

[ELI 10]

HP not CC

A note about that though is the power of the older engines vs the 1.6l rio. I did have to guess for the years so I could be slightly of, but you should get my point.
2.0L Ford Focus (2008)- 140hp
1.8L Honda Civix (2008)- 140hp
2.0L Dodge Neon (2005)- 132hp
1.6L Kia Rio (2012)- 138hp
My point is that it really doesn't matter what displacement a engine has, it's all about the power produced. We get basically the same power as most 1.8-2.0L engines in the past decade had. Now compare our engine to most 1.5-1.6L engines in the past and you will see we usually have 20-40 more hp than they had.
An engine generally needs the same amount of fuel to make the same amount of power regardless of the displacement needed to obtain those numbers. Sure there are some engines slightly more efficient than others, but its usually small numbers. And I personally feel getting the horsepower and fuel economy we get is evidence that our 1.6L is a one of those slightly advanced engines.

RD - You hit the nail on the head! I couldn't have said it better myself...

 

[cwc_woo]

I get just over 10L/100km. It sucks when compared to the advertised figure. However, I know why I get that. I drive about 10 mins to and from work and on the way home, the first thing that happens is I go up some long hill. Probably will have slightly better numbers if that hill was just before reaching home, but unfortunately, it's the first part of the commute. So, with the 10L number I'm getting, I know it's not the best, but I understand why, hence I don't complain...cause, I also drive with ECO off, and manual mode almost all the time.

I used ECO and auto mode before but it's no fun and I get marginally better economy so I just said forget it, I'll try to have as much fun as I can with this slushbox until I can get myself my own car again and it is actually quite fun.

I found the ECO mode makes the engine bog cause it shifts so early that the RPMs are around 1.2K which I think makes the car work harder cause it's labouring.

Bottom line, I get better fuel economy than my wife's Rav4 and I actually get to have some fun, so I'm happy with it.

 

[LA-Foal]

When I just got the Rio the first fill showed 8.1l/100km but over time it got better and right now the mix of stop and go as we'll as highway brings me to 6.6l/100km. This number I was not able to reach with my old Civic although I have to admit that back then I was driving more aggressively. On the other hand now I have 138hp compared to 106hp before.

I'm now at 15,000km and I can't complain about the fuel economy anymore.

 

[OzSLS]

I get just over 10L/100km. It sucks when compared to the advertised figure. However, I know why I get that. I drive about 10 mins to and from work and on the way home, the first thing that happens is I go up some long hill. Probably will have slightly better numbers if that hill was just before reaching home, but unfortunately, it's the first part of the commute. So, with the 10L number I'm getting, I know it's not the best, but I understand why, hence I don't complain...cause, I also drive with ECO off, and manual mode almost all the time.

I used ECO and auto mode before but it's no fun and I get marginally better economy so I just said forget it, I'll try to have as much fun as I can with this slushbox until I can get myself my own car again and it is actually quite fun.

I found the ECO mode makes the engine bog cause it shifts so early that the RPMs are around 1.2K which I think makes the car work harder cause it's labouring.

Bottom line, I get better fuel economy than my wife's Rav4 and I actually get to have some fun, so I'm happy with it.

yeah cold start rich mode + a big hill = mega thirsty Rio!

 

[TheBiolysis]

Well from my own calculations I get about 30.8 and it's nice.

 

[Wry 'Cuda]

Maybe the forum should agree on "standard" test conditions for determining fuel consumption:

e.g. Gentle Highway test: Constant 100km/h (corrected speed) over a known distance of at least 400km and record actual litres of fuel used. Ignore trip computer read-out.

I find that this gives a useful benchmark figure, and my style of city driving returns very close to 2/3 the economy of the gentle highway result, no matter what car I'm testing.

 

[OzSLS]

the wife just got back from Bendigo, contry vic after resetting the average consumption, and doing about 130KM of 110, 100 and some 80 roadwork zones, the car said 5.5L/100

nobbad.

the actual will be higher than that but it looks good to me.

 

[TheBiolysis]

I'm also 60 miles from the 600 mile break-in period so I'll post up some numbers after that.