Kia Owners Club Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
now im all for utilising the modern advances that technology brings so when i had the chance to purchase a modern diesel engined vehicle that would be quick, quiet and economical... well as meatloaf sang " two outa three aint bad" !, well im not enamoured with the thirst my soul has for the gogo juice its not as good as advertised and that does gall me (a lot) so i was wondering if maybe kia could remap the engine for say betterconomy i know you can do a remap for performance so theoretically it should be possible to tweak it it to be better on fuel , anyone thinking along similar lines or is it just me that wants it all ways ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
i have complained on here before about the lacklustre performance and got slapped down. Yet my fiat had 25% LESS brake horse power than the Soul and would run rings round it in acceleration and be more economical at the same time. I have a very gentle driving style and can usually hit or improve on the manufacturers claimed figures......i cant get anywhere close with the Soul. I reckon a remap that actually reduced the maximum engine power but boosted torque especially low down would give better "normal motoring" performance and significant economy gains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
you could add this, less fuel, more power, more torque, more mpg remapto the everlasting chewing gum, the tyres that never wear out but give F1 grip levels, brake padsthat touch disc's but produce no heat or noise and don't wear out, oil that never gets dirty, filters that clean themselves
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
or you could give us useful advice on who could do a remap like this and whether it was possible and whether Kia have altered the latest diesel engine mapping as some people are claiming much improved economy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
I suggested a reduction in power with a relevant increase in torque...which is what usually happens when engine tuning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
viking garages,viking paul ...?? is that coincidental??its just that if other manufacturers say 55 mpg and thats what you get then thats fair,but its a bit annoying to only be getting 45 at best when kia have claimed a much higher figure,its not as if it cant be done is it??others have done it and how... well i spose they try again if it dont work outfirst time and maybe other manufacturers probably are more aware that the customer after lashing out 14 grand plus is going to be hyper critical !regarding the statement regarding consumables wearing out is tyres oil etc dont last we know thatand its to be expected,but 15 to 20 % innacuracy in the fuel consumption figures is at best a lapse in arithmetic at worst a bit of a con!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
there was a performance chip for the diesel for sale on the usa forum..... it claimed more power, more torque and a 5% improvement in fuel...... im guessing not all at the same time tho...lol.
When i chose my soul - i guessed that a 1.6 diesel would be pretty much the perfect combination of engine size versus car size versus economy in use...... so that 2 out of 3 analogy works quite often!!!...lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
My brother has his Audi A6TDI superchipped, and that is a flying machine - so how fast that Skoda fabia VRS on here with the same engine goes dosent bear thinking about. But i digress.... they actually took a couple of days to do his upgrade altering all sorts of parameters - so i am wondering if they could actually tailor a setup to the individual. Some of them offer different levels of power.....wondering if they offer different levels of torque too - cos thats the real measure of performance with ease - in todays driving environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
Hi eggobako yes viking paul does work for Viking Garages i make no secret of that if you see my previous posts and offers to club members


with ref Kia claiming fuel consumption figures see quote below from Eric that was posted a couple of weeks ago and is totaly correct



Eric said:
It seems that no matter how many times it is said, most people never pick up on the fact that the published fuel consumption figures are those obtained from a common standard test defined by the European parliament that all new cars submitted to market in Europe have to undergo and the results have to be published in all advertising.


So its not KIA,Ford, Vauxhall, Volkswagen, Peugeot, Skoda, Nissan, Toyota and a host of other manufacturers saying this is the fuel consumption you can expect to get from our cars, its them saying this is the fuel consumption our carefully prepared car achieved during the standard defined test.



So the only meaningful thing you can hopefully get from the numbers is to compare one car to another and find out who managed to get the best from their car in the test.



No manufacturer can say precisely what fuel consumption you will get from your car, there are just too many variables with your right foot being the biggest. As a rough guide the Urban figure plus 10% is what you might get in normal fairly sedate open road driving and Urban minus 10% to 15%for congested town/city driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Ok then, ignoring the figures which obviously do not provide a fair comparison in fuel consumption in everyday driving. why does the kia fair so badly in fuel consumption compared to its rivals?. My friends have focus 1.6tdi, audi a3 tdi, seat leon tdi and toyota avensis tdi. All these cars (except the toyota) give better consumption in normal driving than my carefully driven Soul. My previous Fiat on the same roads in the same conditions gave better consumption and was faster. I know the Soul is heavy - but all my friends cars are similar or bigger..... the focus can easily hit 60mpg on steady cruising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Looked into getting a tuning box or a re-map for the previous car but after speaking to various campanies I came to the conclusion that despite all their claims how could a man with a PC and a small box improve what a manufacturer had spent hundreds if not thousands of hours developing. I will admit that a propper re-map done on your own car could be potentially benficial but such a job ain't cheap. All the suppliers also tell you that the fuel comsumption reduction will only appear if you drive like a granny, you can do that without a re-map. Also consider that any changes made to vehicle electronics leave a signature somewhere on the ECU, if the re-map caused problems with the engine etc. the dealer/manufacturer would probably find this evidence even if the car had been returned to standard and your warranty would be null and void.












Think I have posted before my experiences with my last few cars and official fuel consumption but I will list them again, I am a bit of an anorak when it comes to keeping a record of such things according to the Mrs.



52 Mondeo 2.0 130PS TDCi Official combined 47, our average 37, our long run 50

55 C-max 1.6 110PS TDCi Official comined 57, our average 44, our long run 57

08 BMW 118D 145PS Official combined 63, our average 47, our long run 55

60 Kia Ceed SW 115PS CRDi Official combined 62, our average so far after 900 miles 46, no propper long run yet.



All are a country mile away from what the manufacturer says but all have been no worse than expected. The BMW (which we still have) probably looks to be the most disapointing but when you consider its more powerfull and faster than the Mondeo weighs a ton and a half and has a 2 litre engine (despite the 118 badge) yet does 10 MPG more than the Mondeo how can I be disapointed. With regards to the Ceed I will be happy if its as good as the C-max overall but on present evidence its looking like it may better it slightly.



As Eric says use the figures only as a comparison between cars and not as an exact indication as to what you will get.



I don't owna Soul (the Kia type) but considering Kia's figures are about 7MPG less than my Ceed I would not be expcting to better 40mpg overall in the real world.



Paul
Edited by: suttonseven
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
The tuning boxes take you closer to the edge or use up more of the inbuilt safety cushion that manufacturers allow in their set ups. De-tuning the power to produce more torque will put just as much pressure on the mechanics as would more power.

So the real question is, have Kia altered something on the latest Diesel???... is the owner that was getting 57mpg straight out of the box still getting this??......can all new edition soul owners please report their mprg so we can determine if something has been improved??

And if it has - we can try and find out what.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
My Soul Shaker (manual diesel) has returned 52mpg on the last 5 tanks. I'm quite happy with that.

To be honest, when I looked at the advertised fuel consumption figures before I bought the car in April , 50 to 53 mpg was what I thought I would achieve once the car loosened up.

My first couple of tanks only returned 46mpg even though I was driving like I had gout in my right foot. Now the engine is loosening up it's a different car to drive.

As was stated earlier, the manufacturers mpg figures are only a means of comparing one car with another, and not what every person should expect to achieve. Different driving styles will suit the power curves of some cars better than others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Mines on just over 13k now supposedly.....and if i go really careful with no high speed stuff i can just about get 51mpg average. My Fiat did 48-58mpg straight out the box. My soul is still very tight and has got more running in to do.....maybe i need to just give it some and drive it like i want to enjoy it - not drive it like i want it to last forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Re running the engine in. If you drive the car gently during run in then it wont run in properly. It has to be done in stages. Each stage the engine is taken further up the rev range. This way the rings will bed to the bores and give you a good tight seal giving you better compression, which inturn should give you good power and good fuel consumption.
The rings to bore mating is very important. In bike engines for racing and this is probably good for all engines is to run the engine at a set rev for 15mins then its left to cool down then its fired up again and ran at higher revs for a similar time then left to cool down and finally the same procedure again. This gives good ring to bore seal and the heating up and cooling down gives good ring strength.
The worst thing you can do is labour the engine this does more harm than having it rev freely.
Re bike engines they do not recommend using fully synthetic oil during running in period as this slows up the ring to bore seal. I am thinking this is why it takes about 20k till the engine gives better power and fuel consumption on these Kia engines. I just wonder if they would run in better with a mineral oil for the first 500 miles. After about 500 miles the oil is changed for a semi synthetic oil. Some say dont use fully synthetic untill its done about 6000miles. My bike engine is a 4 cylinder 1000cc. 20 valve head and revs to 12500rpm which is low as some rev to 16000rpm. Now these engines are going past 100,000 miles without any problems. So what I am saying is dont be afraid to rev/cane it from time to time this will do no harm and help keep carbon deposits down and keep your DPF clear.
Sorry to go on abit but I just think people are tooo gentle at times with their engines which is not a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
The Euro 5 CRDi engine in the Ceed is factory filled with fully synthetic oil and has a 20000mile/1 year service interval. The low ash 5w/30 fully synthetic oil is essential with a DPF, lesser oils can cause premature blockage and subsequentfailure.






With regards to bedding the car in (don't like using the term running in nowadays) when I bought the C-max the garage said "drive it like you stole it", just drove it perfectly normally from day one and never had a problem. I have treated the Ceed exactly the same and hopefully the result will be as good.



With regards to running new engines in they are manufactured very differently today than they were years ago, the materials are better and the tolerences are tighter. This coupled with modern oils means that we aren't saddled with the strict routine we were in the 60's and 70's. The first car I bought where you just drove it normally from day one (no really high revs and no labouring) was an 86 G o l f, all new cars since then have been treated exactly the same and in approx 350,000 miles I have never had an engine issue except for a sticking EGR valve on a G o l f at 110,000 miles.



Paul
Edited by: suttonseven
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
interesting. on my fiat i had to replace the EGR every 3 years cos it blocked up...... maybe i really do need to get my finger out and drive harder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
tempest said:
interesting. on my fiat i had to replace the EGR every 3 years cos it blocked up...... maybe i really do need to get my finger out and drive harder.

There he goes, harping on about his Fiat again - I won't warn you about swaring again! lol
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top