Kia Rio MPG

motorguy

scaredofdebt wrote: »

I believe they do the test on a rolling road, so it's false as the car doesn't actually move anywhere



Surely the test should be representative of "real life" as that's what most people have?

:rotfl:

It has to be repeatable by all manufacturers in test conditions hence why its done like it is. Should always be taken with a pinch of salt and really only used in comparison with other cars figures to see if its 'more economical' or 'less economical'.

Only if you do very long, steady runs and are quite anal about it will you better the manufacturers figure by much. Sadly, thats me....

motorguy

scaredofdebt wrote: »

I used to have a Mondeo 2.0 TDCi and commuted 150 miles per day in it, averaging 54 MPG. Fuel pump went at 203k miles and it had possibly damaged the injectors so that was time to get rid.

I now drive a 17 year old Pug 306 D and drive slightly fewer miles, but I don't really notice the difference, it's a bit noisier and there's no cruise control but no worries. Average 54 MPG in it........

I used to run a 1.2 petrol Nova when I was younger, that managed 220k miles before it was too expensive to repair. That did get thrashed as I was young and a bit silly back then, hardly ever got a service either. Maybe they don't make 'em like they used to?

If you have a good old car then its definitely worth hanging onto. I *though* i might have had with the Fiat Marea but the floor was rotten on it, so i got rid.

I guess as a car reaches its twilight years, then a big bill will ultimately put it off the road. Todays cars with high pressure injectors, DPFs, DMFs, etc, etc, its going to be easy to be hit with a £1000 repair bill, and if a car is only worth £700 then its going to most likely get scrapped. Lots of 407 peugeots are going that way already. The oldest of them are down to around the £1,000 mark, but are prone to DMF failure and electric issues, so for some people it has been more cost effective to scrap them. I think my local scrappie was paying around £600-700 for a 407 recently.

Gloomendoom

OP ask on this forum...

http://www.kiaownersclub.co.uk/forum/rio-2011_forum32.html

Ultrasonic

Tiexen wrote: »

According to Honest John its 57.5 mpg average

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/kia/rio-2011

This first reply in this thread essentially answered the question but seems to be being ignored for some reason? That Rio won't get anything like 88 mpg. For starters that is the extra-urban fuel economy figure which in case there is confusion is NOT representative of the motorway driving I'm guessing you have in mind scaredofdebt? The average speed of the extra urban test cycle is 39 mph. Have a look at the 'Fuel consumption figures explanined' link on the following website for a decent overview:

http://www.audi.co.uk/owners-area/tutorials.html#

bodgerx

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Hi,

I'm considering the Kia Rio '1' 1.1 CRDi 74bhp 6-speed manual ISG (from the manufacturers website) as it claims to average 88 MPG.

I do around 25-30k miles per year and this would save me in the region of £180 in fuel alone.

1. Is this figure any where near realistic? Any owners out there can verify it? I am going to take one for an extended test drive soon to see what I can get out of it.

2. If I buy a nearly new one, does the warranty still apply?

I know it's a small car for the miles I do but I've driven much worse!

Current car is starting to get into the realms of needing expensive repairs so I think it's time to get rid.

Cheers

Saves you 180 per year over what?

That is a small sum for a large mileage.

Stick with what you have.

50Twuncle

flyingscotno1 wrote: »

It's not false advertising. The car can no doubt do this figure but only in certain conditions which aren't reflective of real life. However all cars are tested to the same EU approved test.

They test them on a rolling road indoors so no hills or traffic lights) - they disconnect all of the ancilliaries - they use "special" fuel - The whole thing is a con - You will never get anywhere near the "manufacturers" figures on any car !
It's about time that "manufacturers" figures were banned by law - and real life figures used instead.

Come on Martin Lewis - there's a worthwhile campaign for you to start.....

Gloomendoom

50Twuncle wrote: »

They test them on a rolling road indoors so no hills or traffic lights) - they disconnect all of the ancilliaries - they use "special" fuel - The whole thing is a con - You will never get anywhere near the "manufacturers" figures on any car !
It's about time that "manufacturers" figures were banned by law - and real life figures used instead.

Come on Martin Lewis - there's a worthwhile campaign for you to start.....

Alternatively, not doing any research before you buy a car could be be banned by law. That would leave the official figures available for those of us who like to compare cars based on a common benchmark.

Ultrasonic

50Twuncle wrote: »

They test them on a rolling road indoors so no hills or traffic lights) - they disconnect all of the ancilliaries - they use "special" fuel - The whole thing is a con - You will never get anywhere near the "manufacturers" figures on any car !
It's about time that "manufacturers" figures were banned by law - and real life figures used instead.

1) You need some form of standardised test, and a rolling road indoors is the only way I can think of to achieved standard conditions. The hill point is an interesing one though.
2) As you'll note from the video I posted above, the test cycles do include stops, the fact there is no physical traffic light present is irrelevant.
3) Disconnecting ancilliaries I do think should not be allowed, but running the test with things like AC switched off makes sense.

The current test results are not representative of real world driving, and the gulf between published and real world fuel economy is growing. So I totally agree with you that finding a way to make the standard tests more representative would definitely be a good thing, but doing away with standardised tests completely is definitely not the answer.

In the meantime sites like Honest John's Real MPG and Fuelly.com offer very useful additional data for consumers that are prepared to do a little research before buying.

Mankysteve

flyingscotno1 wrote: »

It's not false advertising. The car can no doubt do this figure but only in certain conditions which aren't reflective of real life. However all cars are tested to the same EU approved test.

Aye don't use the figures to work out real life millage, its just a tool to help you choose between cars.

Exemplar

We have an Audi A1 TDi 1.6. My wife goes from Newark to Nottingham every day on the A46 (dual carriageway). We get a real MPG of 65 and 88 (yes 88).