2012 Kia Rio

[weisshorn]

Using the Shell V-Power Nitro+ yielded the worst city FC yet, 5.41km/L! Not only that, the lower RON Nitro+ gave me the dreaded engine "knocking" sound on at least 4 occasions with the last one the noise is so loud when accelerating in A/T mode doing 40+km/hr that my wife seating on the front noticed and asked "unsa nang banha?!" ("what is that noise?!). Hirap umakyat, mabagal mag accelerate and the engine emitted a louder growl because the lower power made my foot pressing on the accelerator harder. I'll stay away from Shell from now on since I can't seem to find any Nitro+ Racing available locally here in Cagayan de Oro City.

I am now using Caltex GOLD for my next fc evaluation with "ECO" on to make the comparison more or less fair among fuel yields. My current mileage is 715km.

Parang knocking & low power issue ng Accent 1.4 AT yan ah. I suggest pacheck mo sa casa, baka need ng ecu reflash katulad ng hyundai accent. Hindi dapat ganyan kababa ang fuel efficiency & power output nyan. Just my thought..

[cyberian]

Parang knocking & low power issue ng Accent 1.4 AT yan ah. I suggest pacheck mo sa casa, baka need ng ecu reflash katulad ng hyundai accent. Hindi dapat ganyan kababa ang fuel efficiency & power output nyan. Just my thought..

Thanks a lot sir weisshorn. I am building a case to present to Kia casa come 1st PMS and your input on accent cases helps.

[jut703]

Curious lang, bakit parang ang layo ata ng FC ng Rio sa Accent?

Sa pagbabasa ko sa Accent threads, nasa 9 km/L yung mga naka 1.4AT sa city driving. Eh yung mga naka-Rio na 6 km/L, that's almost 50% higher FC.

Parang imposibleng normal na ganyan kalaki ang disparity, kahit pa sabihing iba yung pagka-tune ng engine. The cars are based on the same platform and have roughly the same curb weight.

[weisshorn]

Curious lang, bakit parang ang layo ata ng FC ng Rio sa Accent?

Sa pagbabasa ko sa Accent threads, nasa 9 km/L yung mga naka 1.4AT sa city driving. Eh yung mga naka-Rio na 6 km/L, that's almost 50% higher FC.

Parang imposibleng normal na ganyan kalaki ang disparity, kahit pa sabihing iba yung pagka-tune ng engine. The cars are based on the same platform and have roughly the same curb weight.

^ The same as what I thought.
My brother 1.4L accent ay di naman ganyan katakaw sa gas tulad ng Rio ni sir Cyberian. Wala din akong narinig na knocking or low power issue from his driver. Sa aking pananaw ang Rio ni sir Cyberian ay may issue. Dapat agapan na kaagad at dito natin malaman kung ano at paano ang reaction ni KIA. Pag mabilis nila ma-fix ang problema eh malaking tulong so as not to sway away prospective buyers.

[cyberian]

Here's a pics of my city fc evaluation in case of any doubt:

http://imageshack.us/f/24/kiariocityfc.jpg/

As you will see my manual computations of actual fuel consumptions (city driving in Cagayan de Oro City) are below 6km/L!

For full text on this report kindly refer to my post on page 85 of this thread.

[renzo_d10]

Same case with the Accent, some units get a normal 8-10km/L range some get a low-4km/L consumption.

[reuelc]

^ The same as what I thought.
My brother 1.4L accent ay di naman ganyan katakaw sa gas tulad ng Rio ni sir Cyberian. Wala din akong narinig na knocking or low power issue from his driver. Sa aking pananaw ang Rio ni sir Cyberian ay may issue. Dapat agapan na kaagad at dito natin malaman kung ano at paano ang reaction ni KIA. Pag mabilis nila ma-fix ang problema eh malaking tulong so as not to sway away prospective buyers.

Factors that probably affect the fc of rio hatch (when compared to accent)are the ff:
- 17" rims
- features like eco mode, auto climate, etc.
- power to weight. Rio is heavier.

[jut703]

Same case with the Accent, some units get a normal 8-10km/L range some get a low-4km/L consumption.

May mga nagpost na ba na naka-1.4L Rio na nasa ~9 km/L yung FC? Puro mabababa nakikita ko sa thread na 'to eh, baka namiss out ko yung may normal FC.

Factors that probably affect the fc of rio hatch (when compared to accent)are the ff:
- 17" rims
- features like eco mode, auto climate, etc.
- power to weight. Rio is heavier.

Uh, the Rio 5-door weighs 1068 kg, while the 1.4 GL Accent weighs 1115 kg.

Auto climate control won't affect your FC, that's a pretty weird connection to make.

The rims may affect FC by about 1 km/L at most due to greater rolling resistance, but not double the car's consumption.

[reuelc]

May mga nagpost na ba na naka-1.4L Rio na nasa ~9 km/L yung FC? Puro mabababa nakikita ko sa thread na 'to eh, baka namiss out ko yung may normal FC.



Uh, the Rio 5-door weighs 1068 kg, while the 1.4 GL Accent weighs 1115 kg.

Auto climate control won't affect your FC, that's a pretty weird connection to make.

The rims may affect FC by about 1 km/L at most due to greater rolling resistance, but not double the car's consumption.

What makes it weird? Basic logic: at vs manual. Not a fact but possible.

Rio hatch curb weight is 1068 while accent 1.4at is 1060 based on brochure. Still looks negligible though.

I hope this is just an isolated case.

[cyberian]

Factors that probably affect the fc of rio hatch (when compared to accent)are the ff:
- 17" rims
- features like eco mode, auto climate, etc.
- power to weight. Rio is heavier.

Sir reuelc, your assumptions are correct and if you happen to ask any Kia dealership on the fc I am sure the answer would be: 1.4 sedan = 9-10km/L city, 12 highway; hatchback 8-9km/L city, 12 highway. Apparently the figures already cover the factors you observed. But I wonder why the 1.2 sedan model has better fc considering it's power to weight ratio is really poor compared to the Rio5.

Not only those are the numbers (sited above) they gave in reply to my inquiries on several occasions prior to the purchase, I also happened to asked again from 2 sales agents last week on my visit to the casa to get the license plate. Same inquiry, same reply and felt I just been screwed!

If they just tell me straight to my face that my laughable fc figures of 5.4-5.9km/L is appropriate for this model (Rio5) in the city then I will just rest and live with it.

Anyway, I'll just wait for the 1st PMS to come if there is any improvement before making conclusion on the fc.

By the way, a friend of mine has a civic 1.8S with an 18" rims + wide rubbers. His fc is way better at 8km/L city. Side by side, my Rio5 is obviously small, short, lighter and less powerful. Why it sucked fuel so bad is beyond anyone's logic unless technology is brought into the equation. Whatever it is, people gasped in disbelief upon hearing my fc. It is that bad and I hate being asked every time.

[jut703]

What makes it weird? Basic logic: at vs manual. Not a fact but possible.

Rio hatch curb weight is 1068 while accent 1.4at is 1060 based on brochure. Still looks negligible though.

I hope this is just an isolated case.

Both automatic climate control and manual aircon systems still rely on the same compressor to ventilate cool air to the car's cabin. The computers needed to run the climate control (not present on manual systems) definitely don't stress the engine so much more, to the point that it'll create a noticeable increase in fuel consumption.

For example, Altis 1.6E (manual aircon) owners don't have consistently lower FC figures than Altis 1.6G (auto climate) owners. I'm pretty sure that the kind of aircon control system is negligible in determining the car's FC.

The fact of the matter is, 5-6 km/L is preposterous in a 1.4L subcompact. There's got to be something wrong with the car that leads to that kind of consumption.

What brochure states that the 1.4 AT weighs 1060 kg? From the one I have from Hyundai, and also the one on their site, the curb weight for the Accent 1.4 is said to be in the range of 1035 kg - 1115 kg. Kinda safe to assume that the 1035 kg is the MT's weight, while the 1115 kg is closer to the AT's weight. The 1.6L is said to be between 1060-1140 kg. I think that HARI just lifted this off the international spec sheet without taking into consideration that the only 1.6 we have here is an AT version, which leads me to believe that the 1.6 GLS weighs closer to 1140 than 1060 kg.

Now even if we assume that the Accent 1.4 AT weighs 1060 kg only, 8 kg will not make a difference. If it did, fat people will have far worse FC figures compared to thin people.

[PsychoMp3]

just little point, the rims don't make much of a difference, but actually should make the FC better in some case, because less tire rotation versus a smaller tire. Weight is a factor but not much either, the rio has a 107HP engine which compensates for the weight.

Manual vs AT is a small factor nowadays. Tried a 2011 CRV yesterday just sunday driver mode, reached 9.5 to 10.5 KM/L as per trip computer which is still better estimates than the owner could imagine. However, I was driving with only half a tank of gas so less weight, was only maintaining 1500 to 2000rpm, gliding in some parts of EDSA and only got stuck in traffic along cubao after that took Ortigas flyover via valle verde to get to Fort Bonifacio from Monumento.

[reuelc]

Both automatic climate control and manual aircon systems still rely on the same compressor to ventilate cool air to the car's cabin. The computers needed to run the climate control (not present on manual systems) definitely don't stress the engine so much more, to the point that it'll create a noticeable increase in fuel consumption.

For example, Altis 1.6E (manual aircon) owners don't have consistently lower FC figures than Altis 1.6G (auto climate) owners. I'm pretty sure that the kind of aircon control system is negligible in determining the car's FC.

The fact of the matter is, 5-6 km/L is preposterous in a 1.4L subcompact. There's got to be something wrong with the car that leads to that kind of consumption.

What brochure states that the 1.4 AT weighs 1060 kg? From the one I have from Hyundai, and also the one on their site, the curb weight for the Accent 1.4 is said to be in the range of 1035 kg - 1115 kg. Kinda safe to assume that the 1035 kg is the MT's weight, while the 1115 kg is closer to the AT's weight. The 1.6L is said to be between 1060-1140 kg. I think that HARI just lifted this off the international spec sheet without taking into consideration that the only 1.6 we have here is an AT version, which leads me to believe that the 1.6 GLS weighs closer to 1140 than 1060 kg.

Now even if we assume that the Accent 1.4 AT weighs 1060 kg only, 8 kg will not make a difference. If it did, fat people will have far worse FC figures compared to thin people.

Printed brochure. I noticed on the website weight is within a certain range eg. 1035-1115 for 1.4 and 1060 to 1140kg for 1.6. yes and even if it is heavier, getting 5-6km/l is still a bit far from accents ave. fc, not to mention the rio sedan at, also gets better fc.

[c_cube]

yup there is something wrong sa FC ng rio. im also wondering why it's like that.

=========

Regarding the mood light.. had it disconnected * maspro. kelangan lang alisin yun diffueser tas may 2 screws sa loob and pull out the assembly. may makikita kayo connection sa likod na kelangan lang tanggalin.

[cyberian]

yup there is something wrong sa FC ng rio. im also wondering why it's like that.

=========

Regarding the mood light.. had it disconnected * maspro. kelangan lang alisin yun diffueser tas may 2 screws sa loob and pull out the assembly. may makikita kayo connection sa likod na kelangan lang tanggalin.

At this point I am looking at my own unusually very poor fc and not to all Rios. I hope it's isolated considering Rio5 1.6 GDI has an average of not less than 10km/L on City with traffic sa Canada and EU, I learned this after reading Kia website forums. I know those are GDI's, a more efficient engine but come on, 5.4-5.9km/L? Definitely there is something wrong with my Rio5. The Chevy Optra 1.6LS consumes less fuel than my Rio5 and I actually thought 7.0km/L city of the Optra is too much among the gas vehicles I've driven.

Thanks for the tip on the mood light!

[spymaker]

guys, has any of you considered the horsepower as the culprit of poor fc? an engine cannot be a miser and feed so many horses. my ex mt gets 6.7km/l city here in davao. the same consumption as my 93 glxi lancer. the same "hatak" and accelaration too.

[weisshorn]

My opinion is that the problem of sir cyberian rio is about the same with sir bratski 1.4L AT accent. High FC + low power. rio & accent use the same 1.4L engine of hyundai. sir bratski accent problem was fixed by ecu replacement & software update to euro 2 version (as per his last post here in tsikot). Tingin ko ito rin ang makakalutas ng problema ni sir cyberian, kaya lang casa will deny this to death. The question is: Does KIA have this euro2 version of software update for Rio today??

[renzo_d10]

guys, has any of you considered the horsepower as the culprit of poor fc? an engine cannot be a miser and feed so many horses. my ex mt gets 6.7km/l city here in davao. the same consumption as my 93 glxi lancer. the same "hatak" and accelaration too.

How much power does a 1.4L Rio give out? 108-110PS? Still not enough to let the car reach 4-5km/L. In fact, the Altis being heavier and more powerful has a better consumption of 9-10km/L.

Maybe an ECU update would resolve the issue?

[yapoy86]

baka naman break-in period pa lang yan... yung adventure na naka dinosaur na 4D56 engine, nung 1st 5k kms pa lang... malakas din sa diesel mga 6-8 kms per liter, tapos ramdam mo na medyo makupad pa at magaspang ang takbo.. after 5k kms tapos change oil to 10w30 oil eh lumakas ang hatak at naka 10km/l na ngayon.. sa change oil nyo try nyo yung shell economy oil baka magbago yan

[c_cube]

Kahit break-in period masyadong malakas yun kay cyberian. Naka eco on pa siya niyan

Kasi yun sa akin, sa city driving with heavy traffic ang naging konsumo 6.7km/l with eco off pero malakas parin for a 1.4.

Pinag tataka ko lang kung bakit sa accent nakakakuha ng 9km/l sa city driving, eh parehas lang naman ang makina. Kaya sa tingin ko sa program ng ecu ang culprit. Malamang iba ang gamit ng kia.


Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2