2012 Kia Rio

**jut703** · July 1st, 2012 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by reuelc

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** · July 2nd, 2012 06:57 AM

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** · July 2nd, 2012 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by jut703

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** · July 2nd, 2012 10:34 AM

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** · July 2nd, 2012 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · July 2nd, 2012 04:02 PM

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** · July 2nd, 2012 06:42 PM

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** · July 2nd, 2012 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · July 2nd, 2012 06:56 PM

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** · July 2nd, 2012 07:58 PM

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