Kia Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
2011 KIA Rondo,7 pass,2.4L
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
My 2011, 7 passenger Rondo with 7,900kms should be ideal BUT issues include sagging rear suspension that under half payload affects steering, headlight aiming and some scraping in driveway approaches and exits even when using extra caution, used plus a BIG one for me is the 20% higher than specified fuel consumption.

I have submitted consumption data to KIA Canada to access the compensation program for RIO's and others where KIA compensates those owners for as little as 8 to 10% shortfall in consumption. KIA Canada and dealer refuse to consider Rondo fuel issues. My testing is for highway driving only at average speeds of less than 95kms/hr and under conducted over 500 kms or more (about 10 times the testing length of the manufacturer and includes summer and fall trips - both warm weather and with only 3 passengers)

On a concrete floor and unloaded, the vehicle sits at rest about 1 full inch lower in the rear. Most small cars sit about 1 inch higher than level when unloaded to allow for about half load at the level position.
 

·
Registered
2012 Optima SX Tech/Premium; 2008 Rondo EX V6 7-seater
Joined
·
255 Posts
I think you can add spacers to the springs to raise the ride height.

Or, maybe swap out for stiffer springs, but then I'm not sure about that, it might be wrong to change the spring rate so I'd feel safer with spacers.
 

·
Registered
former owner of a 2016 Soul SX 2.0L - Caribbean Blue
Joined
·
8,540 Posts
if your getting 8-10% shortfall of the EPA figures for highway, then that's realistic, its just an estimate for comparison purposes its not a guarantee. That's why it states "your mileage will vary"
I had a 2.4L Rondo for four years was very pleased with the mileage it got.
 

·
Registered
2014 White Rondo LX Auto 5 Seat, 2009 Titanium Silver Rondo EX-V6 Luxury 7 Seat
Joined
·
55 Posts
The Canadian government fuel consumption numbers are calculated using a test procedure that is ultra conservative and resembles very few actual drivers's driving habits. Consequently, the average driver will miss those numbers by 10-20%. The U.S. government numbers are calculated using a test procedure that much more closely emulates the average actual drivers's driving habits. Consequently, those numbers are typically much closer to what an average driver can achieve. For my V6 Rondos the Canadian numbers are 25 city and 37 highway. The U.S. numbers are 18 city and 26 highway. Converting the U.S. numbers to Imperial yields 21.60 city and 31.20 highway. That's nearly 15% less than what the Canadian government lists. If I don't go over 3000 rpm in the city, I have no problem achieving 22 mpg Imperial which slightly exceeds the U.S. number. At 115 km/hr on the highway, I get 32 mpg Imperial regularly which again slightly exceeds the U.S. number. At 20% under the Canadian goverment number, you're not doing quite as well as expected but you're not way off reality and some of that may be related to carrying more weight in the car, driving habits, etc. From my understanding, the Hyundai/Kia mpg miss and consequent reimbursement of customers was based on U.S. goverment mpg numbers. Too bad about the springs but that should be remedied under warranty. You're not the first one with that problem. I've seen that before on this forum. Don't hesitate to change dealers if you're not getting satisfaction with one. A lot of issues seem to be at the discretion of the particular dealer so you can have the same issue handled completely differently from one dealer to another. Here in Calgary, I had one that couldn't get anything right so I moved on to another and this one hasn't got anything wrong so far.
 

·
Registered
former owner of a 2016 Soul SX 2.0L - Caribbean Blue
Joined
·
8,540 Posts
yes I agree the US figures converted to metric are the most realistic and a much better guide. However, on my .08 Rondo with the 2.4L I did on the odd occasion exceed the Transport Canada rating of 38 mpg (Imperial) for the highway. I once did a 15,000 km trip over six weeks and my overall average for the whole trip was 35 mpg (Imperial) so very pleased considering all the variations in driving conditions I did on the trip.
 

·
Registered
2010 Subaru Impreza 2.5i Premium 5-door, *old* 2009 Kia Rondo LX 4cyl 2.4L
Joined
·
492 Posts
Not to point out the obvious, but the Rondo isn't even on the list of affected vehicles for a reason. Mileage estimates are just that, estimates. They are not hard numbers, and can vary based on lots of driving factors (temperature, terrain, wind speed, maintenance, etc, etc). If I am easy on the gas, I can do 22mpg (US) and have even done 35mpg (US) on the highway (~70F, 55-60mph steady). I have also done 18mpg on a tank of all city driving, and 25mpg is "normal" for typical highway cruising (30F-100F, 80-85mph).
 

·
Registered
09 Rondo lx 4 cyl 2008 Corolla,2001 Taurus,1960 Chrysler imperial,1967 Chrysler imperial
Joined
·
71 Posts
Mileage estimates are just that, estimates. They are not hard numbers, and can vary based on lots of driving factors (temperature, terrain, wind speed, maintenance, etc, etc). If I am easy on the gas, I can do 22mpg (US) and have even done 35mpg (US) on the highway (~70F, 55-60mph steady). I have also done 18mpg on a tank of all city driving, and 25mpg is "normal" for typical highway cruising (30F-100F, 80-85mph).
As the owner of a 2009 Rondo that is fast approaching 60,000 miles I would say this mirrors my mpg also(though i would have to push mine to come close to 35mpg)
With that being said my personal opinion is that my Rondo just plain doesn't like highway speeds over 65. Be it gearing, because its a 4 cyl ,whatever it doesn't do well mpg -wise at highway speeds.
Having to take multiple 200 mile road trips this past fall I found myself driving my 2001 Taurus instead of my Rondo. I took the Taurus initially because it rides a bit smoother and is quieter than my Rondo at 65-70 mph. But I was also surprised to discover my Taurus with its 3.0 V-6 would consistently return better gas mileage .
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
79 Posts
The points about the government reports or 'estimates' are exactly correct, what did you think would happen when you operate the vehicle outside of the tested or 'stock' range of variables? If you put more weight in the car or tow something, mileage goes down, if you change the tires, size, air pressure etc, the mileage goes down, if you drive erratically, speed, do anything different than they did in their testing, your mileage will vary from what they reported. Even driving in different temperatures, snow, mud, rain, anything different from what they tested that one vehicle from will change the mileage you get in your car, that's the reality of it. Everyone thinks that every single car will get exactly what they claim in a commercial or a gov report on mileage, but it just isn't so. Everything you do with that car will make your mileage vary, weather, driving style, what you're loading into it, what roads you drive on, how many red lights you hit on your travels, how quickly you take off at green lights, how many times you change lanes, did you have your air pressure set at the correct psi on the tires, what was in the gas you bought, has the alignment been thrown off from hitting potholes already? Was it windy, snowy, cold, hot, rainy on the trips you took in the car? Every single thing affects the gas mileage, so you've got to expect to sometimes be dead on what they said, sometimes you'll be 5% lower, sometimes 10% lower, sometimes 20% lower, that's life, that's what happens with cars. Now if it's only getting 50km per full tank, then that's an issue for sure, other than something major like that, you're just getting 'average fuel consumption based on driving in the real world' unfortunately.
 

·
Registered
former owner of a 2016 Soul SX 2.0L - Caribbean Blue
Joined
·
8,540 Posts
well said, Johnny 77, too bad many people don't realize this or can't seem to accept it.
 

·
Registered
Current: 2007 Kia Rondo LX I4. Former: 2006 Kia Spectra5
Joined
·
226 Posts
The saggy rear end is common to Rondos. Unfortunately there are not any options that I know of for aftermarket springs. And only 1 option for aftermarket shocks.
 

·
Registered
2012 Optima SX Tech/Premium; 2008 Rondo EX V6 7-seater
Joined
·
255 Posts
Now if it's only getting 50km per full tank, then that's an issue for sure, other than something major like that, you're just getting 'average fuel consumption based on driving in the real world' unfortunately.
Yes, perhaps it would be helpful to get an idea of how you are driving your car?

Personally, when I accelerate from a light, I find that I can get away with 2000 rpms (mine is a 2008 V6 engine) to accelerate gently up to speed. However, that's typically a bit slower than other people around me. If I wanted to keep up with them, I'd probably use 3000 rpms. But that burns extra fuel, and only saves about 3 seconds, if anything.

I mean what's the point of zooming off the line when the light turns green, just to hit the next red light and have to wait?

There is a lot to gain by being gentle with the gas pedal when you are accelerating, because you'll eventually get up to speed just like everyone else.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
79 Posts
One good way to look at your driving vs fuel consumption etc is to imagine yourself walking down a hallway. Would you open a door, and walk through it and sprint down the hallway for 5 seconds, and then start walking? Would you do this several times if you had to walk a good 1/4 mile through a store or mall? That's how people drive, they sprint off the green light, get up to 60km/hour (what ever that is in mph lol) and then start cruising, almost like a game sometimes, to get across the intersection faster than the guy beside them. This type of driving behavior only does a few things, wastes gas, puts unnecessary strain on your engine and transmission (over time) stresses you and everyone around you out, and after all this, does not get you to your destination any faster in the end, after all that speeding and racing, changing lanes erratically, it saves you literally minutes, and only a few, if that.

Is saving 2-3 minutes off your commute worth spending $50 extra or more per month on the fuel you're wasting? Is it worth taking years off the life of your car, and wearing engine parts and transmission parts out, making costly repairs creep up much sooner than you expected? Speeding, fast acceleration off green lights and changing lanes every 2 seconds only makes you 'feel' like you're getting there faster, like you're getting something accomplished, but in reality, you are absolutely not.

So the next time you find yourself peeling out off a green light, think of yourself walking down a hallway, going through a doorway and sprinting down the hall for 4-5 seconds then walking, going around a corner and sprinting again for 4-5 seconds, walking for a minute, stopping, then sprinting off again for 3-4 seconds ... does this sound like something you would do if you were walking, in real life? Most likely, it's not lol!!!

(Think of the silly walking, running, walking, running game that Johnny Cash and his brother do in the movie 'walk the line' when they're kids, walking down the country road to go fishing etc .... silly, right? Kind of childish, right? lol)
 

·
Registered
former owner of a 2016 Soul SX 2.0L - Caribbean Blue
Joined
·
8,540 Posts
Your comment reminded me that I have a friend that has a tendency to pump the gas while driving, he thinks he's not doing it but when you ride with him you can feel this slight surge all the time - not a smooth ride! Haven't ridden in his vehicle with him for a few years so I wonder if he's got over it. I would imagine that it would have some effect on his gas mileage, he says its not great (its a Toyota Highlander) - mmmmm!!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
79 Posts
Hey there 'King Fatty' ... I appologize, I didn't see that question about how I drive, what RPM's are being hit/met when driving conservatively etc.

I noticed the other night, when I drove calmly, accelerated off the stop/stand still and drove along, the RPMs were hitting just over or around 2000rpm between most shifts. I was only looking because I wanted to try and get the manual shifting down (doing it myself) similar to what the car does itself when it's controlling the shifting etc. I noticed that most of the shifts changed at around 2000rpm. Sometimes it's right at 2000rpm and sometimes it's up around 2500 depending on how hard I hit the gas (not hard, but how quickly I get the car to move etc while still driving calmly etc).

The car will move pretty good when I get on the gas pretty strongly, like up around 3000 - 4000 rpm but, quite obviously, the benefits are not there when you're sucking down a full tank and only going 300kms lol!

Everyday I pull up to the lights and the guy next to me is driving a civic, or Acura, or a big old Dodge pick up, and these guys are just flooring it off the light, and 'beating me' to the next red light lol!!! I guess they won the 'race' but it's more funny to me when I pull up slowly, calmly, RIGHT beside them at the next red light, and we're still waiting at the same time, right beside each other once again, waiting for the green light to change lol. Funny thing is, I use the same amount of fuel per week/per pay, and it's never a shock, but they must be scratching their heads and wondering why it's costing them $400 - $500 - $600 per month on fuel, when they only drive around town .... could it have something to do with flooring it off the light like they're in the Toronto Indy maybe?? Nah, that couldn't be it, right? lol
 

·
Registered
2007 Rondo EX 4cyl. 5 pass.
Joined
·
510 Posts
My 2011, 7 passenger Rondo with 7,900kms should be ideal BUT issues include sagging rear suspension that under half payload affects steering, headlight aiming and some scraping in driveway approaches and exits even when using extra caution, used plus a BIG one for me is the 20% higher than specified fuel consumption.

On a concrete floor and unloaded, the vehicle sits at rest about 1 full inch lower in the rear. Most small cars sit about 1 inch higher than level when unloaded to allow for about half load at the level position.
I have to agree with the others that FE is going to be an impossible argument to win. Good mileage is almost impossible to get with this car. The US EPA numbers are realistic, but mediocre at best. The ethanol fuel we get now makes it worse as well.
I would fight for the springs, though. I'm not sure where you are measuring from, but the car should sit level empty. If I measure the bottom sill, where the jacking points are, to the ground, mine is about 5-8 mm higher at the rear, empty, and about 10 mm lower, loaded. The KGIS website lists standard ride height specs, but not where to measure them at, which is pretty useless. The dealer should know though, and be able to check it for you. I also agree that you should try a different dealer, if yours won't help you. If your springs are sagging, it will through your wheel alignment out and that will hurt mileage as well and cause tire problems down the road. Good luck.
 

·
Registered
2007 KIA Carens 2l CRDi Automatic LS. KIA Picanto 1.1 LX
Joined
·
229 Posts
Hey.
I had a problem with my rear springs at a very early stage of ownership and noted it on here, but was quickly poo poo'd by another forum user as to why I was bothered about a drop of 3/4" on one side. The dealer was next to useless and I ended up having a face to face discussion with the then manager.
I bought a set of progressive springs from Holland, in fact they are being fitted in the next couple of weeks along with gearbox oil change and parking brake adjustment ( I've got a bit of time off work).
As for MPG , here in the UK I have a diesel 2L Auto , although I can achieve 55 mph ( onboard computer) at @ 55-60 mph on a run , as soon as you start hitting those hills or overtake or slow then recover your speed, the mph just drops. I also tend to drive up to 2000 steadily in each gear. I have also noticed that the mpg is worse when cruise control is on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Simply put, Rondo numbers suck.

I understand there is no true test against the gov't figures but simply put, the Rondo sucks when it comes to gas consumption. Or at least mine and my co-worker's does.

I drive a 2011 Rondo EX Premium which consistently fails to get 400 km per 60 litres (249 miles per 15.85 gallons) highway or city driving. My coworker's experience with same model is same results.

That is so far off the specs, it's simply unfair. I keep the rpm's between 2-3 and have tested both in manual and auto and very little change.

So...
 

·
Registered
former owner of a 2016 Soul SX 2.0L - Caribbean Blue
Joined
·
8,540 Posts
I understand there is no true test against the gov't figures but simply put, the Rondo sucks when it comes to gas consumption. Or at least mine and my co-worker's does.

I drive a 2011 Rondo EX Premium which consistently fails to get 400 km per 60 litres (249 miles per 15.85 gallons) highway or city driving. My coworker's experience with same model is same results.

That is so far off the specs, it's simply unfair. I keep the rpm's between 2-3 and have tested both in manual and auto and very little change.

So...
based on your comment how are you figuring out your fuel consumption, because 60 litres is the capacity of the tank not what you drive before you fill it up. The 2.4L '08 Rondo EX I had for four years, I found got great mileage. When I first bought it I tracked the mileage on every tank full for the first 14 months but the most I could every put in the tank was 52.7 litres and that was below the E. The worst I got during the time frame (winter and bad conditions) was 11.8 and the best was 7.0. I stopped checking it on each tank full as I was more than satisfied with its fuel economy, the only time I tested it was on long trips just to see how it was doing. I once did a six week, nearly 15,000 km trip and my overall average for the whole trip was 8.1 which I was extremely pleased.
 

·
Registered
Current: 2007 Kia Rondo LX I4. Former: 2006 Kia Spectra5
Joined
·
226 Posts
I get around 22mpg US in my normal mixed driving. On highway trips 25-28 US. I feel sorry for the folks that have subpar mileage but mine is pretty much what I expected. I tracked all my fill ups for 2+ years, the link is in my signature
 

·
Registered
07 rondo ex-v6 7seat, leather,sunroof.infinity 10 spkr audio,09 honda fit sport 5sp.
Joined
·
125 Posts
I understand there is no true test against the gov't figures but simply put, the Rondo sucks when it comes to gas consumption. Or at least mine and my co-worker's does.

I drive a 2011 Rondo EX Premium which consistently fails to get 400 km per 60 litres (249 miles per 15.85 gallons) highway or city driving. My coworker's experience with same model is same results.

That is so far off the specs, it's simply unfair. I keep the rpm's between 2-3 and have tested both in manual and auto and very little change.

So...
I get roughly what you say you get per tank from new-03/07.About 250-280 miles per tank no change for 6yrs.NOTHING YOU CAN DO WITH THIS V6.:eek:
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top