Kia Rio MPG

scaredofdebt

50Twuncle wrote: »

The Suzuki Swift is available for under £9k brand new !!
If you want keyless entry/ starting, Cruise Control, Climate and Bluetooth audio - it will cost £10,500

Is that the diesel?

Exemplar

motorguy wrote: »

Well clearly it didnt !!!!ing work or i'd have been able to see it?

Perhaps in the time you took there to try to be a smart !!!! you could have fixed it?

Yes I'm struggling with that one. not sure what's gone on there..

50Twuncle

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Is that the diesel?

No - petrol & it achieves 55mpg (true average)
Remember VAT " free' across the range!

scaredofdebt

Any good?

Nope.

I can see the image by cutting and pasting the URL into my browser though:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9tcbre0wrjt299/A1.JPG

Mankysteve

50Twuncle wrote: »

They even disconnect alternators/fans to run the tests - that cannot be right.........obviously they run without aircon on.
At the very least - they should actually drive the cars on a road (beit an airfield or whatever) - I think that they should also actually drive the cars on a mixture of public highways/country lanes/motorways etc - with stop starts, hills etc thrown in.
They should be forced to provide real life MPG figures from real life tests.....

Problem with that is that they'll find ways to even more bodge the figures. You won't have as accurate comparable figures as there would be such variation in the figures will be useless to compare between vehicles.


Yes disconnected alternators and running special oil is wrong and they shouldn't be allowed. Maybe a solution is to any interdependent test on a the same rolling road, but standardization is the solution

Ultrasonic

scaredofdebt wrote: »

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9tcbre0wrjt299/A1.JPG

Thanks, we can now all see this exciting picture .

As many others have said, the big unknown is how much the trip computer is overestimating mpg.

alcott33uk - if you really want to know how your car is performing, the old fashioned brim-to-brim method remains the most accurate way to determine mpg. Best results will be achieved over a full tank range, and using the same pump to refill on subsequent fill-ups. Your trip computer may well be pretty accurate, but you'll never know till you check. (If you want to post photos in future, Photobucket works.)

FWIW I'm not actually convinced that short trip displayed mpg figures are less accurate than full tanks, but they are less meaningful. If you do the same short trip a number of times you can get significantly different results (I do on my 9 mile daily commute). I put this down primarily to variations in how you drive (due mostly to traffic differences), and weather conditions. It's not obvious to me why the displayed mpg should be less accurate for short trips, but it's impossible to test accurately so we'll never know!

scaredofdebt

Right, back from a couple of test drives.

1. Hyundai i20 1.1 CRDi - This was a brand new car with just delivery mileage, I achieved 77 MPG on the 20 mile drive I did according to the on board computer, so probably more like 75 MPG.

Still pretty good, the drive was mainly dual carriageway, undulating with me sticking to 55-60MPH with some town driving at the end.

2. Skoda Fabia 1.6D SE (Not the Greenline) - this was a demonstrator that was a 62 plate but not sure the mileage, forgot to check!

I achieved 85 MPG in that over the exact same "course" I used for the Hyundai, the bigger engine seemed to be more efficient at the higher speeds but not quite so good around town, but as most of my mileage is on the motorway it's clear cut which I'd go for.

Weather was damp and about 13 degrees Celcius.

I have heard that diesel engines get more efficient once they've had a few thousand miles under their belt so perhaps a bit unfair on the Hyundai, is this correct or urban myth?

Dealer reckons the Skoda Fabia Greenline is only better if you do a lot of town driving and the more powerful engine would be even better on motorways for MPG - I tested the 105 HP version.

I'm still considering the Kia Rio and Suzuki Swift and will arrange test drives in due course.

Hyundai was a nice car but the Fabia just that bit more refined (although from the outside the Skoda engine is quite agricultural!)

On both tests I had to lug the salesman around with me so an extra 80 KG of ballast!

scaredofdebt

They won't let me take the car for a test drive of any great distance so the brimming the tanks method isn't viable unfortunately as it was my preferred method.

I know on board computers are not 100% accurate.

Research on various web sites backs up the Fabia's MPG figures being better than the i20s however, despite the manufacturers claimed figures - I am simply trying to make as informed a decision as is possible.

Ultrasonic

scaredofdebt wrote: »

They won't let me take the car for a test drive of any great distance so the brimming the tanks method isn't viable unfortunately as it was my preferred method.

I'm not surprised to be honest. Whilst brimming is the only reasonable way to a true mpg figure it isn't practical when testing a vehicle so I'm not really sure why I suggested it .

Research on various web sites backs up the Fabia's MPG figures being better than the i20s however, despite the manufacturers claimed figures - I am simply trying to make as informed a decision as is possible.

That's about all you can do, as well as driving cars to see which you like! Oh, and a bit of research on reliability is a good idea too.

Ultrasonic

Oops, missed your earlier post!

Dealer reckons the Skoda Fabia Greenline is only better if you do a lot of town driving and the more powerful engine would be even better on motorways for MPG...

Hmmm...I'm trying to decide if I think I believe that last bit. I don't think I do. Yes the smaller engine will be running at higher load at a given speed than the larger engine, but check out the BSFC plots for typical engines and you'll see they are more efficient at higher load, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. My bet is that the Greenline would still be more economical. Unless, just possibly, the cars are geared significantly differently, but I doubt they are.

There is of course a big power difference between the two models though, so from a driving point of view you may prefer the bigger, more powerful engine . It would definitely be better for overtaking, particlularly if it's hilly. (I spent many years driving an underpowered car...)

As you're trying to be informed, do some research into the reliability of the two engines. A few extra mpg from something that may fail expensively is not worth it.