Kia Forte Forum banner
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
What are those of you that drive mostly highway(or have taken road trips) in their 5doors getting on the highway?

I'm waffling on whether to get a Koup or 5door SX with a manual transmission and have a long all highway commute(flat and straight so used to beating EPA ratings). Some Koup folks are reporting 36-38mpg highway in that combination, which is around what I get out of my Celica. Wondering if the 5door takes a hit being slightly taller/heavier/less aerodynamic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Its actually supposed to get more because of the extra gear but with 85/15 driving Ive been getting around 30 MPG on my EX. VERY disappointed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Its actually supposed to get more because of the extra gear but with 85/15 driving Ive been getting around 30 MPG on my EX. VERY disappointed.
For one thing it's winter and the gas sucks and iirc you purchased recently and may still be breaking in the motor, and the mpg by all accounts typically improves post this period in the motor's life.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
982 Posts
I think the best I've gotten has been 31 mpg going 60-65 consistently. 90% hwy... I would like to know what tire size and what conditions did the "EPA" test the car..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
They just test on a dyno and change the rolling resistance to account for aerodynamics and such. To get the measurement they actually measure the byproduct carbon in the exhaust, not the gas level directly.

So like they say...it's just a baseline for comparing and may not reflect real world values.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
I've done some straight highway and am getting around 33 to 34. Mixed driving, around 27 to 28. Not bad, considering the cold weather and winter gas here in MA. I suspect that once the car is fully broken in, I will get around 35 on the highway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
For one thing it's winter and the gas sucks and iirc you purchased recently and may still be breaking in the motor, and the mpg by all accounts typically improves post this period in the motor's life.
5000 miles and I live in Orlando so no winter gas so no excuse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
641 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Could be that the 2.4 in the SX is more fuel efficient at certain speeds.

I was very impressed to see the rpms well under 3k even at 80mph on the highway on my test drive(of a Koup).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
Maybe you're getting some bad gas Schmitty? :p I'm not sure how great I'm doing right now but it feels like it goes pretty damn quickly. Although I am only driving within the city back and forth from school to home to work to school to work to home >.>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
I have the 2011 2.4 5 door which is the same engine that is in my 2009 Hyundai Sonata. On a long trip I got as high as 34 mpg with it. Since the Forte weighs less it should exceed that on a long trip if you get favorable tailwinds and don't drive at excessive speeds. Recently I took two fairly long trips and got about 28.7 mpg but it isn't fully broken in. This is with the six speed automatic. Don't forget that the gasohol you purchase has less energy content than does pure gasoline which is what the car is rated at. Translated that means a car rated at about 24 mpg will get 23.5 with gasohol.

Since 11/11/10 (purchase date) I have the following mileage figures:

27.88
24.25
21.55
22.21
26.98
24.83
28.70
28.72
24.35

I live in Texas so the temperatures are mild. In northern climates when it is cold your mileage will go into the toilet. Take that into consideration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
Trip computer or empirical method?
The trip computer is only approximate. No, these are the actual numbers from the odometer and the amount of fuel put into the vehicle. For example, on 12/30/10 I filled up at 1,469.1 miles, $24.50 and 8.539 gallons. The computed mileage was 28.72. On 1/6/11, I filled up at 1,648.2 miles, $21.10 and 7.354 gallons which computed to 24.35 mpg. The latter was a combination of city and highway. The former was all highway driving.

I've been keeping logs on fuel mileage for 40 years or more. The most important determinant in fuel mileage is the weight of the vehicle although there have been incremental improvements in engine technology. When I was growing up we had engines in excess of 5 liters and today they run from about 1.6 to 2.5 liters but actually develop just as much power or more. The American cars of the 60s and 70s would get perhaps 10-13 mpg and on the highway a very good mileage figure would be 18-20 mpg.

The incremental changes can be seen in comparing my Forte to my 1972 Datsun 510 with three speed automatic. We drove that about 70,000 miles and it got about 23.5 mpg. It weighed 2125 pounds. My Forte 5 door weighs 2,944 pounds. So it actually gets slightly better fuel economy. If it weighed the same as that old Datsun it would undoubtedly get about 35 mpg. Interesting link if you are interested.

Five & Dime, 1968-1973 Datsun 510 Specs & Pricing - Drive - Motor Trend Classic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Its actually supposed to get more because of the extra gear but with 85/15 driving Ive been getting around 30 MPG on my EX. VERY disappointed.
And yet,on the 2.0 Forte page,you state you get 37 mpg @ 70 mph.(I'd think you would be 'appointed' with 37). For less disappointment in mixed driving mpg, accel as easy as possible in town. It ain't fun,but mpg will pick up by 'torque-ing' it as much as possible as opposed to rpm-ing 3500+. Also,My Rondo 2.4 got better mlg after 15,000 miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
And yet,on the 2.0 Forte page,you state you get 37 mpg @ 70 mph.(I'd think you would be 'appointed' with 37). For less disappointment in mixed driving mpg, accel as easy as possible in town. It ain't fun,but mpg will pick up by 'torque-ing' it as much as possible as opposed to rpm-ing 3500+. Also,My Rondo 2.4 got better mlg after 15,000 miles.
That was on a road trip with flat ground. And yes I was appointed. I keep it under 2.5k while accelerating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
schmitty,I'm interested in the 5-door to replace my Rondo,mainly for the better gas mlg. IF the Forte can average 30+ most days & achieve 36+ hwy on favorable days,I would be satisfied. The Rondo is rated 19/26 & avgs 24 over a year with a range of 21-29. The Rondo is very comfortable,quiet,peppy,roomy & easy to enter/exit. BUT,on windy days @ 72 actual mph(speedo reads 3 high),mpg can be as low as 23.5-not good. As a courier I drive 55,000+ miles a year could use 6+ better mlg more than the extra room of the Rondo. I appreciate your input & attitude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Quite happy

I've only had my SX hatchback (2.4L, manual) for just over a week. With conservative driving in winter weather I got 7.8L/100km. or 600km on 47L of gas (calculated manually not using the trip computer). This is with 90/10 Hwy/Cty driving. Once the weather warms up and the car is broken in I'm sure it will get even a bit better.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
i commute to work 70 miles round trip . I have manage 37 mpg . driving at 60 mph on highway. city driving has been 26 mpg . I purchased this car for a commuter car . I have been getting good mpg once the motor was broken in .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
I think i had a glitch the last couple days.... Because usually in city i average like 16-17mpg and last couple days I been showing over 30 in city.... crrazzzzy idk whats wrong..
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top