Kia Owners Club Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, everybody,
As the owner of a new shape Picanto 2, bought in September last, I am surprised and disappointed with the fuel consumption of a high of 53mpg and a low of 45mpg over 2000 miles and worsening as the miles mount.
Has anyone found the same consumption, or am I alone - is there something wrong with my particular car? Information gained before I bought the car was to the effect that I could expect in the region of 60mpg.
Otherwise, the car is fine in all respects, with all the goodies that I like in a small car, and riding quite well over the bumps.
What have others found, consumption wise?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
What engine size 1.0 or 1.25,others here are saying they are averaging 47mpg on the 1.2,
the smaller engine may use more as it has to be worked harder.
I,m getting 42-44 on my Rio 1.25 1500 miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
@newkia, that sounds a bit thirsty. Can you tell us a bit about the roads you usually drive on? Are they hilly, twisty, congested, bumpy, urban, etc. or more open, flat, uncongested, etc? Also, what is your driving style like? Do you mainly drive alone or with passengers, and do you accelerate and brake hard, drive fast, etc?

I am getting over 350 miles before I fill up, and the car takes about 25 litres from memory, but I am going to do an accurate test soon. The digital mpg gauge shows 62 mpg from memory, but I will check on that.

I drive alone, on a mixture of rural B roads and town stop-start conditions. I accelerate smoothly and watch the traffic ahead. I lift off the accelerator when I see red traffic lights, etc. and roll up to slow/stationary traffic, hoping to be able to avoid stopping. The tyres are inflated to 37 psi. I use fully synthetic 0W40 oil, which is thin enough to reduce friction and pumping losses, while providing superior lubrication for the engine, even from cold starts. The above points will reduce consumption quite a lot.

I'm a little disappointed with the Picanto's consumption, but that's because my last car was a Citroen C2 1.4. turbo-diesel, and got 76 mpg, and 83 mpg on a run!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Hi, ujoni08, thanks for comments. The engine is the 1 litre three cylinder and is very satisfactory in the way that it goes, being very quiet when not pulling hard. My driving is normally very restrained, I can normally obtain high mileages per gallon from my cars (I also own a Suzuki Alto, 2004 vintage, from which I get a constant 55 - 63mpg with an 1100cc engine)and I, as a 73 year old, don't drive hard. The terrain around where I live is basically flat with the hills being no more than 1 in 10 gradients and not many of them, either. Occupancy of the car is normally my wife and me and our mileage will be in the region of approximately 7000 per year. My driving style sounds exactly to be like yours - gentle on the car!
The use of very thin fully sythetic engine oil sounds good - perhaps that would be the way to go when the first service is carried out. I will suggest that to the garage.
Many thanks to you for your interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
@newkia, it sounds like you're driving economically, so the car seems a little thirsty for one only weighing around 910 Kg and with a 1.0 litre three-cylinder modern injected engine. I was going to say it may loosen up, but since you've already done a fair mileage, I'm not sure how much more it will do so.
I think we're not going to see much better mpg from cars of this price range anytime soon. The Picanto is already light, given all the safety devices all cars have to have now, and has low-resistance tyres. Low-friction brakes, which are able to withdraw completely from the discs, are still pricey and difficult to make. That leaves aerodynamics (the Picanto is already quite good) and engine technology. I've been reading about direct-injection petrol engines, but these are still rare (Ferraris, etc.) and expensive. Then there's forced induction. The modern small turbocharged petrol engines that are becoming popular seem to be good at making torque and keeping CO2 emissions low, but they're quite thirsty.
I used to prefer diesels. As I mentioned above, the economy was amazing. I did realise how expensive they can be to repair, though, when my Renault Clio 1.5 DCi turbo (previous to the Citroen) needed a new fuel pump and injectors at 24 000 miles. Over two thousand pounds! That put me off a bit, plus I didn't like the way diesels make their engine oil dirty so quickly. I know it's not a problem, but I like to see golden oil on the dipstick. Also, if you drive mainly in town, a diesel can develop problems with the exhaust gas recycling valve, diesel particulate filter, etc. Diesel is 8p a litre more expensive, so you have to drive many miles to save over a petrol car. Also, servicing the diesels was costing about £390 a time, whereas the Picanto is costing me £86 a time on the KiaCare 3 year plan.
Anyway, I've filled up today, and will be posting my mpg figure soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Its the same old story Kia say 70 odd to the gallon and no one can match it. Bull sh*t from the manufacturers again. So dont believe everything you read in the brochures especailly mpg figs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Quite wrong actually, the fuel consumption figures are actually done by a third party (Government) they test the car, not KIA or any other manufacture. Dont take any notice of the trip computer as they are not that accurate, not only that, the figures the government quote are optimum readings and are NOT average readings. The trip computer actually shows AVERAGE Mpg over the cars life. The picture on the trip will be of a Lollipop with some dots leading towards a car which is its MPG from new not for each journey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Yeh MrKia we all know they aint done on public roads with weather and gradient conditions. No new news there.
Well then guys why dont the manufacturersgive realistic figs instead of the so call labority conditioned figs.
You know why cause inflated mpg figs sells cars to those gullable people out there.

Edited by: davy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
See I'm the other way round. My proceed is smaller, less comfortable and is less practical. I downsized from a 2ltr to a 1.6 and am getting 10-20mpg LESS! I will admit I prefure the pro ceed though compared to my last car. One thing I'm 99% sure of though is that aren't the EU CO2 figures along with mpg figures all done ona rolling road? I'm next to adamant they are, with no wind resistance I'm not surprised the figures are optimistic.Edited by: RichieD76
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
Thanks for the replies. Yes, I agree with mrkia, thunderbird and richieD76 (I was simply agreeing with davy about the figures being unrealistic, not saying that manufacturers conduct their own tests).
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top