KIA Rio - 88mpg!

Mad Pierre said:
I love all these people who go on about mega mpg and cheap tax. LOL If you got the money enjoy a good sized engine car while you can. If life that bad you need a 88 or more car. AND your not 17. you need to look at sorting your spending issue's elsewhere.
Click to expand...

LOL OL OL OL OLOOLO

Oh the socratic irony. Go save 40 pence a day by buying a new PSU for your computers. (At the age of 36)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18320260

Personally I dont care about MPG in my car. However, my wife commutes 50 miles a day and as such its ideal for her to have an economical car. Its not the case of needing it, its just saving money on her mundane commute whilst she is earning <30k PA
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be that surprised if it could do 88mpg. It's a curious property of the way round we do fuel measurements that the difference between doing 88mpg and 55 mpg is smaller than the difference between doing 55 mpg and 33mpg.

A lazy, modern diesel in a small car doing 88mpg? I can believe it.
 
88 MPG is not worth the sacrifices. For someone driving the typical 10,000 miles per year the 245 HP 328i petrol with an automatic transmission will only cost an extra £620 a year, yet is a thousand worlds apart in terms of driving experience and performance. Heck, even an F10 535d, with a 3.0 litre straight six multi-turbo diesel pushing 313 HP, is less than £500 a year more in fuel. For less than £25 per month on top of the Kia you could fuel a 320d automatic.
 
Last edited:
Nathan said:
Oh the socratic irony. Go save 40 pence a day by buying a new PSU for your computers. (At the age of 36)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18320260
Click to expand...

:eek: :D

Nathan said:
Personally I dont care about MPG in my car. However, my wife commutes 50 miles a day and as such its ideal for her to have an economical car. Its not the case of needing it, its just saving money on her mundane commute whilst she is earning <30k PA
Click to expand...

Exactly. For me, most of my driving is a pretty boring 45 mile daily commute.

At the moment I'm driving an old car, which gives me somewhere in the region of 30-35 MPG (combined). The reason I'm doing this is that my company car scheme came to an end and it cost next to nothing to get this car back on the road.

However, in total I do about 18000 miles per year and so if I could get a car with ~50 MPG (combined) I could probably save £1000+ per year on fuel.

I'm not going to rush out and splash £7k+ just to try and save £1k on fuel, but equally, if fuel prices continue to rise, I'm not going to try and keep this car running for the next 3 years, when I could have a better car that is cheaper to run.
 
PMKeates said:
88 MPG is not worth the sacrifices. For someone driving the typical 10,000 miles per year the 245 HP 328i petrol with an automatic transmission will only cost an extra £620 a year, yet is a thousand worlds apart in terms of driving experience and performance.
Click to expand...

Shock as £12k car can't compare to a circa £30k car.

I know what you're trying to say (second hand 328i), but it's hardly a fair comparison. As all you're really saying is that buying new means that you get less value for money, which is something everyone knows.

There is no doubt that efficient cars offer the most benefits to people who do high mileage and that people who do high mileage, generally don't want to be stuck in a 'box'. But there is no doubt that the potential fuel savings are starting to make some people consider sacrificing on comfort and performance.

I'm currently doing my daily commute in an 8 year old Rover. In terms of comfort and performance, it's not a patch on what I used to drive, but at the same time it has no negative effect on my day. I get to work on time and ultimately the drive is almost entirely the same as it's always been.

The biggest down side for me is that this car is less efficient than my old one - but it cost me next to nothing to get this back on the road, compared to buying a new, more efficient, car. When it comes to replacing this one, I now know that I am perfectly happy with this level of comfort and performance, and so MPG will be a fairly big consideration, if it means I can save £1k-2k per year on fuel.
 
It's not really about price of the car but about the diminishing benefits of increased MPG. There are much better cars than the Kia that while not quite as economical, for all intents and purposes there's almost no additional cost. Beyond 50 MPG, unless you are driving very large distances it's basically no issue. If the extra £500 a year on fuel for a decent engine in a decent sized car is a problem for someone, then a £12,000 brand new Rio isn't for them anyway.
 
People care only about visible cost. They fill the tank every week and this is a visible cost. Halving this cost means the world to many people whilst the many thousands of pounds the same car loses in depreciation is completely lost on them. Almost nobody can tell you the predicted TCO of the car they drive yet they can all tell you what a tank of fuel costs, despite fuel being just a fraction of the TCO of buying, running and owning a vehicle.

We should be grateful of this as it allows those of us who can see further than our nose to purchase much better cars with a similar TCO by virtue of the depressed used values of half decent cars.
 
PMKeates said:
It's not really about price of the car but about the diminishing benefits of increased MPG. There are much better cars than the Kia that while not quite as economical, for all intents and purposes there's almost no additional cost. Beyond 50 MPG, unless you are driving very large distances it's basically no issue. If the extra £500 a year on fuel for a decent engine in a decent sized car is a problem for someone, then a £12,000 brand new Rio isn't for them anyway.
Click to expand...


My point is that your statement applies to any new car.

For anyone considering buying any new car, there will always be a second hand alternative that offers better performance, better comfort and similar economy for the same price, or less. And the second hand alternative will also undoubtedly suffer less depreciation during the time they own it.

I don't know why anyone would buy a new Kia, whether it gives 88MPG or not. But equally I don't know why anyone would buy a new Corsa, or a brand new Saxo, but people do.
 
Last edited:
div0 said:
My point is that your statement applies to any new car.
Click to expand...
Not really. It applies very particularly to the Kia because it's 88 MPG from an underpowered horrorbox is not really of any value over the 55 MPG from something less underpowered and less horrific.
 
PMKeates said:
Not really. It applies very particularly to the Kia because it's 88 MPG from an underpowered horrorbox is not really of any value over the 55 MPG from something less underpowered and less horrific.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point.

Anyone who is considering buying a new Kia, because it offers 88 MPG is not interested in performance. The fact they could buy a second hand 328i for the same price will be of no interest to them, even after pointing out that it won't cost much more in fuel per year.

The same as someone who wants to buy a brand new Corsa (for whatever reason), won't be swayed by the fact that they'd be better off buying a 2-3 year old Focus.
 
This MPG business is really starting to annoy me now.
I don't stand a chance in hell of finding an F01 750i when I come to change cars next year as they are all bloody diesels because of MPG yo!
 
div0 said:
I think you're missing the point.

Anyone who is considering buying a new Kia, because it offers 88 MPG is not interested in performance. The fact they could buy a second hand 328i for the same price will be of no interest to them, even after pointing out that it won't cost much more in fuel per year.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point, actually. I am highlighting the idiocy of such a situation and you are somehow arguing that it's fine, because people are idiots? You don't have to be "not interested in performance" to appreciate driving a better car. Many people have just never had the experience.

OK
 
I got my Rover 75 diesel because it could do 50mpg with plenty of comfort.

I then fitted a tuning box, had it remapped, upped the boost and buggered around with the awful EGR system.

It now does nowhere near 50mpg, I may aswell have a petrol.

I just can't deal with slow cars, even if it did do 88mpg!
 
PMKeates said:
I think you are missing the point, actually. I am highlighting the idiocy of such a situation and you are somehow arguing that it's fine, because people are idiots? You don't have to be "not interested in performance" to appreciate driving a better car. Many people have just never had the experience.

OK
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the point I was making. That your statement applies to people who waste money on new cars. Not people who are interested in saving money.

If someone is genuinely interested in saving money, then they will buy a second hand, efficient car that offers the performance they need.

People who buy a new Kia aren't doing it to save money, they're doing it because they want a new car that's cheap to run. You and I both know that's misguided, but so is most people's reasons for buying any new car.
 
[TW]Fox;20646974 said:
Yet you bought a diesel Rover 75 with the worst version of the 2 litre diesel BMW have ever made fitted to it.

Confusing.
Click to expand...

You're not kidding. I miss using proper fuel... guess I'm just making do until I can plough more than a couple of grand into a car.
 
div0 said:
People who buy a new Kia aren't doing it to save money, they're doing it because they want a new car that's cheap to run. You and I both know that's misguided, but so is most people's reasons for buying any new car.
Click to expand...
But the point is valid for the used versions also?
 
How goods the 7 years warrenty on the rio?

People may see it as 88mpg and

7 years of warranty?
(only servicing cost,mot,fuel bills)
 
Last edited:
PMKeates said:
But the point is valid for the used versions also?
Click to expand...

Less so, as when you're spending less on the initial outlay, then the fuel savings start to become more of a factor.

There's no point spending 12k on a new efficient car, when you can have a much better car, that only costs £500 more to run and completely offsets this increased cost, by depreciating less.

But if you're genuinely interested in cutting commuting costs, then when spending say 4k, a saving of £500 per year is something worth considering - even if it means accepting a 'lesser' car on the performance/comfort front.

For me, I don't get why anyone would buy a new car and be worried about efficiency, as any saving is instantly cancelled out by the depreciation on new cars. But then I don't get why people buy any new cars, for the exact same reason - but people do, because they can afford it and they want something new.

I'm certainly not saying that everyone should want an 88MPG Kia, but for some people in the second hand market, there are real savings to be made, if you're prepared to sacrifice a bit of comfort and performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom