Kia Owners Club Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have recently replaced my 2008 Ceed LS CRDI 1.6 hatchback with a 2018 Ceed 2 1.6 CRDI ISG hatchback. The new Ceed should be 23% more fuel efficient on the Combined cycle (74.3 mpg versus 60.1 mpg). Given that my old Ceed had an actual Combined average of 55.7 mpg, calculated over 2 yrs and 20.0k miles, then ,theoretically at least, the new car should be achieving approx 68.8 mpg. The car has now covered approx 2000 miles and the Combined average is 54.8 mpg, a figure less than my old Ceed LS. Moreover, the 2000 miles has been driven on quiet rural roads, during off-peak hours, for approx 90% of that mileage and has been driven during the summer months. Once winter driving gets underway, the Combined average mpg will deteriorate further.
On the question of performance, the new Ceed does not come close to matching the on-the-road performance of the old car, especially on hills. A gradient which could be accelerated up easily in 3rd gear, with the option of moving up into 4th gear in the old Ceed , the new car struggles to cope with in 3rd gear, even when I'm in the appropriate gear.; and this despite the fact that the new Ceed has a more powerful engine( 134 bhp versus 114 bhp ).
I would welcome any comments. Am I being unrealistic in terms of my expectations of fuel economy and performance??
The car is a Kia approved vehicle and is still under warranty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
It is very difficult to measure fuel consumption in normal use on public roads - so may variables that it needs a lot of driving to get a representative average. There is one measure which you can do without too much difficulty: measure it's 0 - 60 time on a flat road and see how that compares to the claimed figure. If it is not near to the claimed performance then there might be something wrong with it. Make sure the tyre pressures are correct, turn off all electrical equipment and get the engine properly warmed up. Try a few runs and make those gear changes snappy.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
A gradient which could be accelerated up easily in 3rd gear, with the option of moving up into 4th gear in the old Ceed , the new car struggles to cope with in 3rd gear, even when I'm in the appropriate gear.
Clearly not the appropriate gear if it is struggling. And if you have the gear indicator on the dash. Ignore it when going up hill.... We have a steep hill near us and it keeps saying need to be in 4th. There is no way i can go up it in 4th doing 30 MPH....

Could be gearing is different between the 2 cars which would explain how you could use 4th before & not now.

Also on MPG. Do you check it on each tank? As I have done 14K miles as read on the dash, is still going up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Many thanks for your suggestion. I will try this out and see how the 0-60 time works out. Theoretically the time for the new Ceed should be markedly quicker than the old Ceed LS, with 9.5 secs versus 11.5 secs. However, the performance problem with the new car appears to be a lack of low rev torque, especially on gradients. Frankly, if the new vehicle had even matched the performance of the old car, I probably wouldn't even have raised it as an issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
I would welcome any comments. Am I being unrealistic in terms of my expectations of fuel economy and performance??
There is a simple reason for most of the difference in official mpg between your old Ceed and the new one. Your old one did not have ISG, the new one has it.

In the real world ISG (or whatever manufacturers call it) makes 1/2 of sod all difference to the mpg but on the official test on the rolling road in the lab it makes a huge difference.

One good example. Back in about 2008 2 of the engineers at work were due new company cars. Both chose a Volvo V50 diesel. On came with stop/start and one without. Then the argument started. The user of the one without stop/start was paying much more tax than the user of the other, since it was not the users fault he was given a more expensive car to run he was given a salary increase to cover his tax bill and both users were told to keep an accurate record of fuel use to enable any major difference to be sorted (users paid for fuel themselves and claimed back for company use).

At the end of the first year the results were in, the mpg of both cars having covered a similar mileage (most of which was on company business on long trips) was virtually identical. Form memory the official CO of the stop/start car was 99, the one without 121, a 22% difference, very similar to the difference between the Ceeds you are quoting.

There is another factor that will affect mpg and also performance. Your old car was 12 years old and the new one is only a year old. It will still be tight. Our Ceed CRDi steadily improved over the 5 years we owned it. The last holiday we used it for showed the best mpg we had ever seen and it was also noticeably quicker as the years went by.

I suspect nothing is wrong. Your exceptions were unrealistic on mpg based on the miracle figures given for ISG equipped cars and you will have to wait for some miles to built to get the best performance.

For the record Honest John real mpg (the best place to look for a good indication as what to expect) gives the 2007-2010 CRDi 48.7 mpg. The 2018 CRDi is 45.7 mpg.

Think you are doing well based on those figures.

Our 2010 facelift CRDi (115PS) averaged about 50.5 mpg over the 5 years we owned it, in year one it averaged 49.77 mpg, in year 5 51.45 mpg, the type of trips remained the same. Honest John gives a figure of 50.4 mpg for that model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
Many thanks for your suggestion. I will try this out and see how the 0-60 time works out. Theoretically the time for the new Ceed should be markedly quicker than the old Ceed LS, with 9.5 secs versus 11.5 secs. However, the performance problem with the new car appears to be a lack of low rev torque, especially on gradients. Frankly, if the new vehicle had even matched the performance of the old car, I probably wouldn't even have raised it as an issue.
Testing the 0-60 on a car is unrealistic and potentially destructive. To get a figure you would need to test both cars at the same time over the same piece of road and since you have sold the 2008 car that is not possible. When manufacturers and magazines do a 0-60 time they rev the car to virtually the red line and drop the clutch. Gears are literally snatched as fast as the hand can move. They do this several times and very often they break the cars in the attempt. Its not a problem for them but it would be for you.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
I will try this out and see how the 0-60 time works out. .
TBH. 0 to 60 is not going to help the MPG issue.

Track a few tanks from brim to empty and see how they work out. using maths (see below quote), not the dash readings. While you may see a lot better MPG than what the dash (average) shows. It takes a while for that average to rise.

Note the total mileage. Fill up. When empty or near empty. Fill the tank again and note the number of litres put in. Divide the number of miles driven by the amount of fuel used in litres (miles per litre) To convert the figure to miles per gallon multiply it by 4.544.
Also helps to use same pump if possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Yes I always try to use the same pump as well if calculating MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
Testing the 0-60 on a car is unrealistic and potentially destructive. To get a figure you would need to test both cars at the same time over the same piece of road and since you have sold the 2008 car that is not possible. When manufacturers and magazines do a 0-60 time they rev the car to virtually the red line and drop the clutch. Gears are literally snatched as fast as the hand can move. They do this several times and very often they break the cars in the attempt. Its not a problem for them but it would be for you.

You are reading more into my post than I intended.


If the car is not producing the expected power then this might explain the poor MPG (more wellie needed when driving). I am not suggesting that the OP compare the present car with the previous car , I am suggesting he compare the current car with the factory claim. Neither am I advocating trying to match the factory acceleration figure (you would need to remove every bit of non essential kit from the car, set all fluid levels including fuel to the minimum, and as you say really mistreat the car). You can safely redline the engine through the gears (or just a little less 'cos you don't want to hit the limiter) and make brisk gear changes using the clutch - this will produce a figure less than the factory claim, but not all that much less and a sound basis for evaluating the actual performance of this particular car. No need to compare it to any other car, just the factory claim for that particular car. If he gets within 15% of factory then probably it is performing as expected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
TBH. 0 to 60 is not going to help the MPG issue.
Obviously not but


a) The op is also complaining about the performance


and


b) if the car is significantly under performing there may be a fault which also adversely affects consumption (by needing to use more wellie for normal driving).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
Testing the 0-60 on a car is unrealistic and potentially destructive. To get a figure you would need to test both cars at the same time over the same piece of road and since you have sold the 2008 car that is not possible. When manufacturers and magazines do a 0-60 time they rev the car to virtually the red line and drop the clutch. Gears are literally snatched as fast as the hand can move. They do this several times and very often they break the cars in the attempt. Its not a problem for them but it would be for you.
Really? A few 0-60 runs will trash a car? Any professional driver doing those tests will not break cars for long before getting the sack. Sorry but you're talking rubbish. While not that great for the car, you can certainly get close to manufacturer times while maintaining some mechanical sensitivity. To suggest doing some fast starts will wreck a car is just scaremongering. Mine must be well into the 100's of hard, fast getaways up to motorway speeds and the last time it was in for a service the mechanic commented on how smooth it sounded and pulled on the test drive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
I have recently replaced my 2008 Ceed LS CRDI 1.6 hatchback with a 2018 Ceed 2 1.6 CRDI ISG hatchback.
....
A gradient which could be accelerated up easily in 3rd gear, with the option of moving up into 4th gear in the old Ceed , the new car struggles to cope with in 3rd gear, even when I'm in the appropriate gear.; and this despite the fact that the new Ceed has a more powerful engine( 134 bhp versus 114 bhp ).
I would welcome any comments. Am I being unrealistic in terms of my expectations of fuel economy and performance??.
The old car was great wasn't it? Looking at the brochure, the newer car only has a juicy looking headline power figure but the torque is only up from 250 to 280Nm. The gearing has reduced the revs by that difference and there are a few kg additional weight. This means the extra power only provides a better 0-60 time and higher top speed but gives no real world benefit unless you spend time a lot of time looking at 4000rpm. Similarly, most people would never notice any difference between the current 114 and 134 versions. (Contrast to the early model where there was a difference between 90 and 113.)

The old Ceed could do the important 50-70 in 5th in 10 seconds. (This is a much better test than 0-60, pity it's rarely published) The numbers suggest to me that the new one ought to be slightly better. I don't see anything that explains it being noticeably worse in 3rd.

As you say, the fuel consumption is similar, so the engine isn't broken. Difficult to know what to suggest.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
I have recently replaced my 2008 Ceed LS CRDI 1.6 hatchback with a 2018 Ceed 2 1.6 CRDI ISG hatchback..
Looking at the Specs for the old car Here it shows as having a turbo. Is that correct?
Where as you new on will not. Is this correct?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
374 Posts
Looking at the Specs for the old car Here it shows as having a turbo. Is that correct?
Where as you new on will not. Is this correct?
If I am reading your post correctly are you really suggesting that the current Ceed CRDI producing 136 bhp does not have a turbo whereas the original which produced 90 or 115 bhp did?

All current diesels have a turbo. There is no way they could produce more than about 60 bhp on a 1600 if they did not have one. I had a 1900 non turbo diesel back in the 90's and that produced a mighty 65 bhp, what a slug.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
Back again.

Thanks. Hence the "Is this correct"

Kia do not make it easy to work it out. Petrol have T- gdi (why a "d" which to me implies diesel?) to say turbo. It appears diesels do not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Ive been reading this thread and can only add this;

I have a similar car to OP, mine being 2015.

The CRDi (136) is ridicously long geared in 3rd upwards (itself being an almost 90mph gear) . In contrast 5th (top) in my old D4D 2.0 Corolla is equal to my Cee'd 4th. This equates for just over 60+ mpg on a criuse.

I get consistent 55mpg currently on a 70% motorway / 30% upban cycle. Summer sees it at 58-60mpg. this is outstanding in my book, the Cee'd is not a small or light car. The fuel readout tallies with a brim to brim almost exactly.

yes, I see where the OP is getting with the appearness of slowness when getting a move on. Whilst the engine is more powerful, it is hampered by the gearing. Drop a cog!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
The CRDi (136) is ridicously long geared in 3rd upwards (itself being an almost 90mph gear) . In contrast 5th (top) in my old D4D 2.0 Corolla is equal to my Cee'd 4th. This equates for just over 60+ mpg on a criuse.
Of course... I forgot this thread was about the intermediate model so I was looking at the brochure for the current car. The 3rd revs on that model went down about 20% without a corresponding torque increase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Many thanks for all the comments, suggestions and advice which I will take on board as I continue to monitor the car over the next month or so. It would appear, based on some of the comments that should have reasonably expected to a achieve about 58-60 mpg during the summer period, given the type of driving I do.(90% quiet rural roads 10% light urban traffic- off peak - which involves no more than 2 sets of traffic lights and a mini- roundabout) Hardly the cut and thrust of heavy stop-and-start heavy city traffic.
On the performance side, dropping a gear to more quickly climb a gradient will improve the speed of ascent but at the cost of adversely impacting economy In addition, when I have selected 3rd gear,I have been well above the minimum road speed for using that particular gear. The problem appears to be very poor torque at the lower speed before the turbo starts to kick in at about 1800-2000 revs.
Again, many thanks for your responses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
I have had a couple of diesels where the gearing was a little 'Tall' for non motorway driving,thereby having to use (say) 3rd in a 30 limit and not using top gear for country roads,turbo diesels are usually happiest at certain RPM's - in our cars circa 2100rpm - 2300rpm ish.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top