Kia Rio MPG

ballyblack

It would definitely be better for overtaking,

and in my opinion safer

Nothing as scary as trying to overtake in an underpowered car

scaredofdebt

Done that, Skoda comes out well for reliability as does the Kia/Hyundai (same engine) so not enough difference to be a major factor. Although my mechanic reckons the Skoda will probably not be quite as reliable but cheaper to repair (maarginally) so overall it should average itself out.

However, if I go the Skoda route I would probably get nearly new as there's lots of choice for the 1-2 year old car, less depreciation but less warranty too.

Both salesmen were pretty amazed by the MPG figures I achieved, but they may be biased.



I may ring another Skoda dealer to see if they can get a Greenline for me to try as the dealer I visited today couldn't get hold of one apparently.

Ultrasonic

ballyblack wrote: »

and in my opinion safer

Nothing as scary as trying to overtake in an underpowered car

The trick of course is to only overtake when you know you have enough time to do so safely, but waiting for such an occasion can get very frustrating...

Ultrasonic

I just had a nose on the Briskoda forum for Greenline II info, and came across this thread which may be of interest:

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/286295-fabia-greenline-ii-top-tips-prior-to-ordering/

You've probably found the forum already, but if not it's probably worth a look.

(As we've been discussing indicated vs real mpg figures I note post 6 of the above link says:

I averaged 72mpg (real, not from the car display) over the 20k miles from new. (car display was quoting 85-88mpg)

)

scaredofdebt

Interesting, so the computer is 15-20% optimistic then, pretty poor really.

Still, 70 MPG plus is easily enough to justify the cost for me, considering my car is not going to last much longer doing 25-30k per annum!

Anyway, testing the Suzuki Swift tomorrow, see what that's like.

Ultrasonic

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Interesting, so the computer is 15-20% optimistic then, pretty poor really.

I expect it will vary from car to car, rather than all Greenline II cars doing this. And it's not clear from what I quoted how representative the 85-88 mpg figures are across the whole 20k range (I'd expect a greater range than that due to weather variations!) But it does give an idea at least that differences as big as this are possible on modern cars.

As you say 72 mpg is still good though, and with your driving you could well do better .

motorguy

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Interesting, so the computer is 15-20% optimistic then, pretty poor really.

Still, 70 MPG plus is easily enough to justify the cost for me, considering my car is not going to last much longer doing 25-30k per annum!

Anyway, testing the Suzuki Swift tomorrow, see what that's like.

15-20% inaccuracy surprises me.

My 2012 golf has about a 3% inaccuracy in the trip computer, as did my 2010 Passat Bluemotion, as did my last VW that i kept for any length of time before that - a 1999 Passat 1.9 TDI 11BHP.

ALL were just about 3% out.

You'd imagine the trip computers would also probably be based on the same technology across the VAG range.

If mine were 20% out i'd be asking serious questions to the supplying dealer.

Ultrasonic

motorguy wrote: »

You'd imagine the trip computers would also probably be based on the same technology across the VAG range.

True, but I think at least 5% is typical for Skodas - I've never seen anyone quote better than that. My own Skoda consistantly reads ~19% high so it certainly does happen (although I've yet to check VCDS to see if mine has been set to read high, there is an adjustment).

motorguy

Ultrasonic wrote: »

True, but I think at least 5% is typical for Skodas - I've never seen anyone quote better than that. My own Skoda consistantly reads ~19% high so it certainly does happen (although I've yet to check VCDS to see if mine has been set to read high, there is an adjustment).

:eek:

That practically renders the trip computer pointless for MPG.

scaredofdebt

I asked the dealer how accurate he reckoned the computer would be - he said they were pretty accurate without giving me anything definite. He said they had to be fairly accurate or they'd get loads of complaints.

That's what the dealer said anyway.

Personally I'd expect 3-10% margin of error, probably giving a reading that's too high.