Kia Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Kia Rio 2013 S 1.4
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
G'day mates:

I just bought my Rio 2013 last week and still running with the petrol from the dealer.
I was wondering which type of fuel are you using and how it feels. 91, 95?
which one gives best value?


My Rio is a 5 doors 1.4 S. Simple, nice and effective. (all you already know it's good looking :cool: )
 

·
Registered
Cerato S Hatch Auto
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
According to contributor OzSLS, his Rio goes better on 95 although it's supposed to run on 91, but he reckons that 91 results in pinging noises from the engine.

Provided yours goes OK on 91, there would be no benefit from running 95, although you do see some reports of better mileage on 95. I did get the best ever consumption in our Cerato when I tried 98 (Shell V-Power), but that was only an improvement of 2 MPG and not economically worthwhile.

Our Mazda 6 is supposed to require 95, and I experimented with different proportions of 91 and 98. It was OK at 95 and 94, but rattled a bit under acceleration once I got down to 93. I now normally fill with equal amounts of 91 and 98 (Octane=94.5), and that actually saves a few cents per litre compared to pump-delivered 95.

Good luck with your Rio. Our Cerato hatch has been excellent.
 

·
Registered
Kia 2015 Sportage Platinum diesel and 2013 Rio 3 door SLS
Joined
·
593 Posts
My wife uses only 91 in her Rio SLS, but I have snuck in a top-up tank of 95 on occasion, as I believe it has better fuel system cleaning properties - could be wrong. Does it improve the performance? Don't know, as I don't get the chance to drive it very often. But not too many complaints from the main driver, so my life remains pretty happy.

Run a couple of tanks of 95 through yours if you wish, and do the sums yourself - that's the best way to determine what works best for YOU. Running 95 won't cause you any grief. Just don't expect a miracle improvement in performance as it just won't be there - specially in a 1.4.

Let us know how you get on.
 

·
Premium Member
'12 Rio SLS, '13 XR6 Turbo, '15 XR8 S/C
Joined
·
995 Posts
as Wry said, my SLS pings on 91, quite badly in fact. I was on a 1000KM road trip over the weekend and due to being in the country i could only get 91 at one point. I can let it go sometimes if it's on the highway and not many hills, as it doesn't ping much but when i got back to Melbourne, it was very hot and while going up suburban hills (i have a lot here) it was pinging like a dog. Putting more 95 in tonight.

I get better economy figures (about 1L/100 better) on 95/98, i have documented the actual worked out figures since Sep/12. The exhaust is quieter, and the car has better throttle response.

If yours runs fine on 91, run it on 91. Mine, along with a few others i've read about does not like 91 which is a pain. Yours is the gamma 1.4 though so it's a different barrel of fish, they're quite different motors.

Welcome to Kia Forums, enjoy.
 

·
Registered
Kia Rio 2013 S 1.4
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
thanks for replying. All information is always good.
I'm going try with 95 first, for a month probably, and after that 91 for the same time.
I'm a bit concern about the 91 resulting in pinging noises from the engine, it should not happen.
With the 1.4 there is no much extra power to play around, so if the relation between power, km/price is good, 95 will be, otherwise I will save the money for a beer.

Any other experience always welcome
 

·
Registered
Kia Rio 2013 S 1.4
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
as Wry said, my SLS pings on 91, quite badly in fact. I was on a 1000KM road trip over the weekend and due to being in the country i could only get 91 at one point. I can let it go sometimes if it's on the highway and not many hills, as it doesn't ping much but when i got back to Melbourne, it was very hot and while going up suburban hills (i have a lot here) it was pinging like a dog. Putting more 95 in tonight.

I get better economy figures (about 1L/100 better) on 95/98, i have documented the actual worked out figures since Sep/12. The exhaust is quieter, and the car has better throttle response.

If yours runs fine on 91, run it on 91. Mine, along with a few others i've read about does not like 91 which is a pain. Yours is the gamma 1.4 though so it's a different barrel of fish, they're quite different motors.

Welcome to Kia Forums, enjoy.
thinking about the ping effect, the 1.6 have 11:1 compression ratio and the 1.4 10.5:1, so not too much difference, even when the 1.6 engine is DI and therefore it handles the compression differently.
Is it yours manual or auto? if manual, do you change the gears in 2.000 rpm as the computer suggest or a bit higher ?
I found myself the 2.000 rpm is a bit low and don't unleash the engine power, that could bring the ping effect on low octane fuel.
 

·
Registered
2013 KIA Rio SLi, 2007 FORD Falcon BF XR6
Joined
·
26 Posts
OZSLS: If your car pings on 91, why didn't you get the engine repaired/replaced under warranty?
 

·
Registered
Cerato S Hatch Auto
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
Especially with a new engine, I'd keep the RPM a lot higher than 2000; if you are changing up at 2000, that means the RPM would drop to about 1500. Handbook for most KIAs suggests keeping between 2000 and 4000 during the break-in period.

I actually used 98/91 mix during the break-in period in the Cerato "just to be sure", and also because Shell were running a Promo on V-Power. Most pumps will deliver 2 shots of fuel in the one transaction.

And no, I'm not suggesting that you be obsessive about the break-in period; just be careful and don't stress the engine, keeping an eye on oil and coolant level. One of my cars (not KIA) had a suggested break-in max. of 4000 RPM, but that was 175 km/h in 6th. :mellow:
 

·
Premium Member
'12 Rio SLS, '13 XR6 Turbo, '15 XR8 S/C
Joined
·
995 Posts
OZSLS: If your car pings on 91, why didn't you get the engine repaired/replaced under warranty?
you think i haven't tried to get it repaired bud? haha It will be a simple matter of timing most likely but it runs flawlessly on 95. My dealer 'can't replicate the issue' as i'm running it on 95. I'm not willing to destroy my engine for them to diagnose it then tell me there are 'no codes' so they can't do anything. This is not the first car i've bought. Warranties are not a simple matter.
 

·
Premium Member
'12 Rio SLS, '13 XR6 Turbo, '15 XR8 S/C
Joined
·
995 Posts
thinking about the ping effect, the 1.6 have 11:1 compression ratio and the 1.4 10.5:1, so not too much difference, even when the 1.6 engine is DI and therefore it handles the compression differently.
Is it yours manual or auto? if manual, do you change the gears in 2.000 rpm as the computer suggest or a bit higher ?
I found myself the 2.000 rpm is a bit low and don't unleash the engine power, that could bring the ping effect on low octane fuel.
yeah the compression isn't much different, but no i do not change gears under 2000 most of the time.. the computer is way off :p - it's a 6 speed manual
 

·
Registered
Kia 2015 Sportage Platinum diesel and 2013 Rio 3 door SLS
Joined
·
593 Posts
Wife's SLS is auto, but no pinging on 91 - just an occasional dead spot accelerating from 30-40 kmh.
 

·
Registered
2013 KIA Rio SLi, 2007 FORD Falcon BF XR6
Joined
·
26 Posts
you think i haven't tried to get it repaired bud? haha It will be a simple matter of timing most likely but it runs flawlessly on 95. My dealer 'can't replicate the issue' as i'm running it on 95. I'm not willing to destroy my engine for them to diagnose it then tell me there are 'no codes' so they can't do anything. This is not the first car i've bought. Warranties are not a simple matter.
I understand - warranties are easy to give but PITA to get anything repaired under them sometimes.

If you destroy your engine - they can then give you a new one :huh:
 

·
Premium Member
'12 Rio SLS, '13 XR6 Turbo, '15 XR8 S/C
Joined
·
995 Posts
I understand - warranties are easy to give but PITA to get anything repaired under them sometimes.

If you destroy your engine - they can then give you a new one :huh:
indeed they can but i have too much mechanical sympathy to do it - it's a catch 22
 

·
Registered
Cerato S Hatch Auto
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
Is it yours manual or auto? if manual, do you change the gears in 2,000 rpm as the computer suggest or a bit higher ?
I found myself the 2,000 rpm is a bit low and don't unleash the engine power, that could bring the ping effect on low octane fuel.
Smaller engines are built for higher RPM. I've had a number of 1.0 to 1.5 cars over the years, and having never spared the revs, didn't experience early engine failure. Most recently, I had a 1.5 Mazda 2 and since it was a "work" car, I let it rip from day one. Never used a drop of oil and performed well.

Driving with an older friend in his Hyundai Getz 5-speed manual, I noticed that he was changing gears at extraordinarily low RPM, in the belief that he was preventing undue engine wear. Part of the problem was his early driving experiences in "the bush" using motoring antiques, where 2000 RPM would only be seen on a day of extreme exuberance. He had no idea what RPM he was doing at highway speed (probably only about 3000 RPM). A spin in the Mazda 2 was an eye-opener for him; another ride in my high performance Nissan was a significant motoring experience as well.
 

·
Registered
2015 Kia Pro_cee'd GT Tech
Joined
·
85 Posts
My 1.6L SLI has nearly hit 20000km and I have mostly used 95RON.

Last couple of months I have been putting in 98RON and just hit my first sub 6L/100km tank. Thats from a proper calculator rather than the trip computer. Had been noticing improvement with the 98RON.

I did 564km from full and filled up with 33L. Came out @ 5.9L/100km. Thats with 80% highway and 20% suburban/short driving.

Pretty happy.

NB* Saw a study on today tonight recently where they used 4 i30's with different fuel types to see how far they could go on a tank. I know there are still variables but the 98RON came out best followed by E10, 91 and 95.

Well I wont use E10 and 91 so 98 it is :)
 

·
Registered
Cerato S Hatch Auto
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
I did a fuel test on a recent "Mum & Dad Holiday" and used various octane fuels for highway running at 100km/hr:

91: 7.95, 7.87, 7.94 Av.7.91 litres/100km
95: 7.91, 7.82, 7.86 Av.7.86
98: 7.94, 8.04, 7.74 Av.7.92

Car was Nissan Maxima 2.5 (only requires 91); 50 to 60 litres each fill; accurate odometer. Clearly, there was no advantage in using other than 91 octane.
 

·
Premium Member
'12 Rio SLS, '13 XR6 Turbo, '15 XR8 S/C
Joined
·
995 Posts
yes indeed, but the point of higher octane is if your engine is tunes for 91, and is going to see any benefit from it, it will take a lot of tanks to show if at all, 10+ basically. The issue with my Rio is it gets instant benefits from premium unleaded, it shows instant improvement in economy, exhaust note, throttle feel and so on, and of course stops the pinging up hills. This indicates in my case that ours is tuned for 95+ for some stupid reason. Whether by accident or not, only cars that are tuned for a certain fuel will show an instant improvement!
 

·
Registered
Kia Rio 2013 S 1.4
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
91: 7.95, 7.87, 7.94 Av.7.91 litres/100km
95: 7.91, 7.82, 7.86 Av.7.86
98: 7.94, 8.04, 7.74 Av.7.92

Car was Nissan Maxima 2.5 (only requires 91); 50 to 60 litres each fill; accurate odometer. Clearly, there was no advantage in using other than 91 octane.
Metragnome; said:
NB* Saw a study on today tonight recently where they used 4 i30's with different fuel types to see how far they could go on a tank. I know there are still variables but the 98RON came out best followed by E10, 91 and 95.

Well I wont use E10 and 91 so 98 it is
It's strange as some test gives better results with 95 , 91 , 98 (like Wry'Cuda) and other point to 98, 91,95 (like today tonight).
The results are almost inverse. Different variables of course, including an i30 and a Rio.
My first refuel tank (as I picked up my car less then 2 weeks ago :D ) was with 95, so far I'm doing 6.9l/100km as per the car's computer.
 

·
Registered
Cerato S Hatch Auto
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
As anyone with experience with statistics will acknowledge, my results show that there is no significant difference between fuels for my particular car. The test covered about 6000 km of careful driving and excluded any tanks of fuel involving city use. There's only about 0.5% difference between the overall results, and the only figure that sticks out is that the best consumption was obtained on one occasion with 98.

This "negative result" is still useful, as there has been some discussion about the possibility of improved economy when using higher than specified octane. The theory is that the ECM will adapt itself to whatever fuel is used, although it has been reported that high octane fuels have a higher energy density (but not much higher), possibly explaining why 98 octane will sometimes give a better consumption figure when everything is just right.

Obviously, OzSLS is concerned with other issues besides fuel economy.
 

·
Premium Member
'12 Rio SLS, '13 XR6 Turbo, '15 XR8 S/C
Joined
·
995 Posts
i just wish my fuel economy was more consistent - Example:

256KM of suburban driving returned 9.86L/100 average which was terrible for no reason
361KM of pure Melbourne CBD driving returned 8.58L/100

Makes zero sense. Ambient conditions were the same, except the CBD driving was far worse obviously.

At least it's generally always good on the highway.. Got an average of 6.86L/100 on my 1000KM country jaunt last weekend which included a lot of sweeping hills and having fun.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top