Kia Rio MPG

gilbert_and_sullivan

You have to use some common sense when comparing fuel consumptions, not only with the official figures, but also with independant sites like Honestjohns fuel comparisons.

Very few owners of cars like the one the OP is considering will be using them as motorway cruisers, most will be commute and shopping trolleys, hence the usuage leads to heavy fuel consumption, worse than official.

Cars such as Volvo S60 Diesels for example are giving better than officials figures...because they are motorway cruisers.

The reason so many people can't get good fuel is not only their usage but also how they drive, if the car is constantly driven unsympathetically high revs low gears right up to hazards/junctions and then last minute braked...typical unprofessional driver abuse...then they will drink fuel.
If the driver keeps the top speed down in order to not shift air, lets the car glide whenever possible and most importantly maintains progress at all times, then good fuel efficiency follows, its not rocket science, the best designs in the world can't give good efficiency if theres an idiot behind the wheel.

Driven properly at or below 70mph on long journeys i have no doubt the little Kia the OP wants will return over 70mpg, driven at speeds of 80+ thrashed through the gears and rushing up to things then braking harshly at the last moment (90+% of modern drivers) will see it down to mid 50's easily.

Not surprised in the least by the lady Audi driver (above) getting such good fuel figures, 55mph cruise engine is probably doing around 1500 rpm, shifting very little air and top gear all the way.
Why drive any faster on a regular commute?, you get there no faster and it costs.

scaredofdebt

bodgerx wrote: »

Saves you 180 per year over what?

That is a small sum for a large mileage.

Stick with what you have.

The potential saving is £180 PER MONTH and £200 if you factor in the tax saving (RFL).

scaredofdebt

Ultrasonic wrote: »

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#

I've heard other people stating they've been getting 69 MPG and the dealer says I should get within 10% or so of the published figures. Of course he's biased but I am testing it myself next week so we shall see.

scaredofdebt

50Twuncle wrote: »

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.

I've exceeded the manufacturers figures on both the last two cars I owned, although I suspect the way they work the figures out nowadays is different and more artificial.

Ultrasonic

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

Very few owners of cars like the one the OP is considering will be using them as motorway cruisers, most will be commute and shopping trolleys, hence the usuage leads to heavy fuel consumption, worse than official.

Good point.

Why drive any faster on a regular commute?, you get there no faster and it costs.

That is obviously not true! Accelerating to a higher top speed only to then brake harder when you catch up a slower moving car in front won't get you there faster, but if you're cruising along a dual carriageway at below the speed of most traffic (as in this case) you will clearly take longer to get where you're going. Whether travel time or mpg is more important is a personal decision on behalf of each driver. I drive on motorways at 60 mph, 70 mph or 80 mph depending on time considerations.

Ultrasonic

scaredofdebt wrote: »

I've heard other people stating they've been getting 69 MPG and the dealer says I should get within 10% or so of the published figures. Of course he's biased but I am testing it myself next week so we shall see.

Obviously don't believe a word the dealer says. He won't be giving you a refund if it turns out you don't get 79 mpg.

When testing it yourself do a brim to brim test, DO NOT trust the trip computer mpg. My car is an extreme example but my trip computer reads 19% high (and most are high by at least 5%). There is an adjustment in the car ECU to change calibration, mine is either unusually screwy or an unscrupulous dealer deliberately set it to be so.

The further you drive the more accurate the brim to brim result will be.

I believe people getting 69 mpg by the way, but as 88 mpg is the extra urban official figure there is no way you will get that with normal driving. If you cruise along at 45 mph you could well do though.

scaredofdebt

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Good point.

That is obviously not true! Accelerating to a higher top speed only to then brake harder when you catch up a slower moving car in front won't you there faster, but if you're cruising along a dual carriageway at below the speed of most traffic (as in this case) you will clearly take longer to get where you're going. Whether travel time or mpg is more important is a personal decision on behalf of each driver. I drive on motorways at 60 mph, 70 mph or 80 mph depending on time considerations.

I tested this out on my old commute, 150 miles in total daily, mostly motorway.

Going "flat out" I could rarely get over 80 mph due to the amount of traffic and it cost me £3 a day more in fuel to get to work an average of 8 minutes early. £3 isn't worth 8 minutes to me so I used to stick the cruise control on and stick to around 60 mph which was the general flow in the "slow" lane.

Obviously if your commute isn't so busy the time saved will be greater.

scaredofdebt

Ultrasonic wrote: »

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/audi/a1-2010/16-tdi

Thanks for the Honest John link, I should probably consider the Hyundai i20 2009 1.1 CRDi now as that is better MPG according to those real life figures!

Or even the Suzuki Swift 2010 1.3 DDiS, may need a couple more test drives to compare.

Is there a way to list cars by their real life MPG so I can see which one is best, I can't seem to find that option.

Ultrasonic

scaredofdebt wrote: »

I've exceeded the manufacturers figures on both the last two cars I owned, although I suspect the way they work the figures out nowadays is different and more artificial.

This report may be of interest:

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EU_fuelconsumption2_workingpaper_2012.pdf

Ultrasonic

scaredofdebt wrote: »

I tested this out on my old commute, 150 miles in total daily, mostly motorway.

Going "flat out" I could rarely get over 80 mph due to the amount of traffic and it cost me £3 a day more in fuel to get to work an average of 8 minutes early. £3 isn't worth 8 minutes to me so I used to stick the cruise control on and stick to around 60 mph which was the general flow in the "slow" lane.

Obviously if your commute isn't so busy the time saved will be greater.

Don't get me wrong, I drive slower and more economically on my daily commute, but I do realise it takes me longer as a result . Your 8 minutes added to each commute means you're spending an extra 128 hours per year in your car (assuming you commute 5 days a week for 48 weeks). It's time I and many others would be weighing up as much if not more than money.