Kia Rio CRDi Ecodynamics 3.2L/100km EU average.

[ausias]

Kia Rio Ecodynamics: Forbidden Fruit At 2011 Frankfurt Show

Technical data:
KIA Rio 5p 1.1 CRDi WGT Basic Eco-Dynamics ficha técnica, prestaciones, consumos, dimensiones de este coche - km77

Review of New Kia Rio:
New Kia at km77.com

It's easy if you want (and if you're employing european experienced engeeners that will tune Kia/Hyundai cars to european liking and requirimients. And waht if your automaker boss is pleased with you doing safer, cheaper, faster in comparision, cheaper maintanace and fuel filling cars.
Kia and Hyundai in european market only needs a fast GTI, a big saloon, and doing that desirable but low selling) cars. The same engine compared with a german one, alway has more power and torque, less fuel consumption, lots of standardard equipment, high safe rating on Euroncap, ESP as standard...
Only downside are absence of Sport and Luxury versions.

Wake up VW and other!

[brucepick]

Unfortunately it's an old story. For some odd reason manufacturers continue to believe that US car buyers won't buy enough fuel sipping vehicles to make it worthwhile to build them.

We do have our cafe regulations that force manufacturers to include some fuel sippers in their mix of vehicles, but too often those have been the runts of the litters, poorly designed and built.

Unfortunately most Americans buying new cars and trucks still want big, fast flashy ones. I've long believed that many people who really want a fuel-sipping car also refuse to buy a new one. So we thrifty folks don't "vote" with our dollars to get those fuel sippers made. My own family included.

[ausias]

New BMW and Mercedes-Benz are cars in the way of all model decreasing fuel consumption (increasing mileage, sorry). Class-C 350 Blueefficiency. V6 of 306 cv with an average of 32 mpg (usa equivalents) or EU 6.7 L/100km average. Why a Ford Mustang isn't capable of that figures? A Ford Focus Rs 305 cv also has bigger mileage than Mustang, but poorer than MB. what are they doing?
near 200 bhp using less than 5 L/100km on highway (47 mpg) is possible only ecomodding a bit a car. Automakers have lots of tools on doing it cheap or even retrofittable.
Buyers don't help, but massive Advertesiments on desirable cars (made non sustainable cars) are filling of hundred of prejudices.
My aunt sold his 11 years Honda CRV 131 cv, 20mpg after hours of me insisting and doing calculations on costs per km, she buyed a Hyundai ix35 136 cv, 36 mpg. She is spending the same amount of money that maintaining her old car, but she now has safer, newer, good loking SUV with 18" rims, leather, computer, ESP, 9 airbags, 5 year warranty, faster acceleration from any road speed to other, ¿but the same 0 to 62?, faster maximum speed also. 5 or 6 $/gal or +50% in other European countries, help a lot to think in saving money.

IN USA there are a lot of hybrid and cheap cars with lot f power, and in Europe we have very little desirable hybrids. And +60 to +100% more price, it seems like there is one world but not one market. I don't understand how is possible that the same car has so differents prices, and so differents fuel consumptions.

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by brucepick

Unfortunately it's an old story. For some odd reason manufacturers continue to believe that US car buyers won't buy enough fuel sipping vehicles to make it worthwhile to build them.

Lobbyists from Detroit & big oil . Do not underestimate these.

[niky]

Blame the consumers.

A Rio 1.1 CRDi would be wonderful. But American consumers won't buy such a "slow" car.

Note the Scion xB. Not the greatest aerodynamics, but the car was beloved by many as it gave a combination of great space and good fuel efficiency. Typical complaint? Not enough power. Solution? Replace the car with a bloated, overweight second-generation model with a honking big 2.4 liter engine (replacing the perfectly adequate 1.5 in the previous car) because the typical buyer wants a car that will do 100 mph for hours on end or 80 mph going up a grade while carrying two kegs of beer and towing a small house.

I've talked to buyers who won't buy a Fit because it's slow. A Fit that hits the benchmark 60 mph as quickly as bigger cars with twice the engine. But since it's a measly 1.5 liters, it must be slow, in their minds.

Manufacturers actually have to con people into buying small engined cars by giving them big headline figures... Hyundai is now pushing "138 hp" 1.6s that don't perform much better than their "128 hp" counterparts in other countries... Downsized turbocharged engines have to match the top-end power of bigger competitors... which compromises turbo design, even with variable geometry turbos... as it forces them to use a secondary (vanes open) configuration that sacrifices mid-range flexibility for top-end... because customers can't fathom how a turbocharged downsized engine with less on-paper horsepower can actually outperform a bigger naturally aspirated engine in day-to-day part throttle driving... especially if it's diesel.

It's all coming to a head. In order to meet American expectations for power while still meeting fuel economy regulations, manufacturers are increasingly relying on electronic gimmickry that severely hamstrings engine power at lower revs so they hit the sweet numbers on the EPA test, while boosting power at full throttle so they hit even sweeter numbers on the Car&Driver test. Producing engines that are schizophrenic, laggy and generally not quite as nice to drive as "less economical" engines.

I don't want a gigantic hole in the powerband at 4000 rpm just because some soccer mom deems 80 mph in 6th gear a proper cruising speed. I do all my cruising at sane engine speeds and all my overtaking at 4k rpm.

[ausias]

1.6 L4 petrol engine of 100 bhp are awful ones, bad overtaking, low torque, great fuel consumption. 1.2 L4 TSI 100 bhp, is far better in all the aspect. Turbo lag? When was last time "you" drove a Turbo Engine. Ferrari F40 biturbo was slow? 1.5 v6 Honda F1 900 bhp or even more outside F1 regulations was slow?
Fuel economy is not only a engine size problem, aerodynamics and gear ratios allowed good improvements even on big blocks.
My first Turbo car was a Variable Geometry Turbo Diesel and I will never buy an engine without turbo, compresor, vgt or biturbo. The only time I felt a good torque was in a BMW 3.0 v8 215 bhp, all other cars were slow on overtaking, slow on 50 mph to 75 mph.
A TurboDiesel of 150-160 bhp is capable of overtaking on road speed on the same time than petrol atmosferic 200 or 220 bhp. Average power on a Turbodiesel engine is higher than average power on petrol atmomspheric. It's easy to explain and test to end consumer, Advertesiments, Test drives and so on.

Maybe ther is Turbo-lag on a Mitsubishi EVO XI 2.0 Turbo of 400 bhp, but engines like 1.4 TSI with compresor and turbo, or biturbo ones, or vgt or with smaller turbos. Or Toyota Supra Turbo or non turbo ones 3.0 v6 or 2.0 the big torque improvement and 30 or 40 more bhp, made the turbo ones a good cars on fuel consumption and performance even compared with actual cars. I thing there are not any Toyota so Sportive and with so low consumption. cd=0.32, low height, good and efficient engine, autoblocking rear differential, good 0 to 62 times of 6 s or less... on highway you could cruise at 34mpg or down to 5 mpg on circuit.

[niky]

I doubt you've driven an F40 or a turbocharged Honda F1 car, either... ...I've driven quite a few new turbocharged cars over the past several years... the EVO, the Ralliart, the WRX, the STI, the X6 with the 35i package, the X5 with the 3.0D package, the Jaguar with the new V6 twin turbo diesel mill, the S60 T6, 2.0T and T4, the Ford Ranger / Mazda BT50 with the 2.5 / 3.0 Duratorq package, the 2.5 and 3.0 Hilux D4Ds, the new Navara high-output 2.5s, the Mitsubishi Triton/Strada with the old 3.2 4M41, the old 4D56T and the new high-output 2.5 package (178 bhp), the 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 Hyundai/Kia CRDi engines, the Ford/PSA 2.0 TDCi mated to both 6MT and the Powershift transmission... the MINI Cooper S and Countryman S and maybe a few more which aren't really noteworthy.

Your typical medium-output turbodiesel is good (218 hp 3.0 BMW cited is the epitome of linear power) for both power and economy. I personally love the BMW straight six (not V8) diesel.

But in a market obsessed with headline power (like the US), things go astray. The higher horse 270+ 35d variants have noticeable ramp-up, and newer turbodiesels are ekeing even more power out of lower displacements, sacrificing linear powerbands for more top-end boost.

Good examples are the Frontier Navara 2.5, which has absolutely no low end power (sucks for towing) and the new Triton 2.5 DiD, which has even more top-end and, while not sacrificing low-end torque as much, has very unsettling turbo ramp up through the rev range. It suffers from throttle lag, as well, thanks to throttle programming meant to meet emissions regulations in Europe.

One utterly unforgiveable one is the 3.0 CRDi Hyundai uses for the Veracruz. Despite the power being a match for BMW's non 35d diesel variants, the significant lag makes it a horrible car to overtake with, as the power delivery is uneven and unpredictable.

Lately I've been driving a lot of turbos... some are impressive... the 180+ hp Volvo T4, 1.6 liters, is smooth and linear, feeling much like a naturally aspirated 2.5 with more top end. Though ramp-up in power past 4k rpm is large, the car is not unsettled by it and driveability is not affected. Some are not... the new Mini Countryman S 1.6 turbo, with slightly more power with overboost function on... suffers from too much torque-steer and surge (nothing, nothing, nothing... boost) for such a small engine with such a low power output... in this case, a variable valve 2.0 might actually work better and not suffer in comparison in terms of economy.

I've yet to drive the new gasoline 1.4T Cruze (it's not out in our market yet), but I do hear it's good... though reviews on fuel economy for newer downsized US turbos are mixed... particularly with the Explorer 2.0T.

-

It would be nice if manufacturers (and regulatory bodies) tried to educate people on things like useable power and "power under the curve", to cure this fascination with top-end figures and let people know that they can get similar performance with better fuel consumption from something that doesn't have that extra 10-20 hp up where nobody but a few gearheads will ever use it...

-

Still, there are some issues besides driveability. Especially in a hot country like mine, where, after a bout of hard driving and/or heavy traffic, a lot of high-boost turbocharged cars suffer from heat soak due to the tropical climate and go into limp mode. We've even had a spate of 1.5 CRDi failures in commercial fleets. Heavy workloads don't seem to agree with oil-fed variable geometry turbos. Though this is more to do with abuse and poor maintenance procedures than with an actual flaw versus other turbos. Yet all turbos suffer in hot conditions. And don't even ask about direct injection piezo-injector nozzle replacement... it's a killer.

-

I love small turbodiesels, mind you. I think that Hyundai-Kia 1.5 is fantastic, and one of our personal cars is a Focus diesel with a "135 horse" engine that actually makes more like 150 hp during the ten-second overboost period. There's some torque-steer, but the power delivery is more linear than higher powered units, and fuel economy is great. On a good day I can get 4.7 to 5 l / 100 km with a motor good for over 200 km/h mated to a "compact" heavier than a Mazda6... without resorting to P&G or any other fuel saving techniques except sticking to an 80-100 km/h cruise.

[ausias]

I understood much better what you said (I must change my mental catalan-english english-catalan translator brain embedded, xD )

A full technical comparison between 1.4 TSI 90kW and 1.6 85kW (with 40 to 70 more torque between 1500 to 3500 rpm, and a lot more 3500 to 6000):
http://bioage.typepad.com/greencarco...posium2007.pdf

Flat torque from 1500 rpm is wonderful, oen friend has a Chevrolete Corvette '81 300 bhp 5.7V8 and redline is on 3700 rpm, torque impressive, the only engine with the same sensation on driving is a turbodiesel one, aha hahaha
I could drive my TDI at cruise speed of 190 km/h on german Autobahn (sometimes 200) at 4500 rpm and 10.5L/100km, 22,4 mpg at 120-124 mph i don't think there is a petrol engine of similar car could do this. WTF they mean with "slow"?

[niky]

Exactly. But that's what you get in a culture obsessed with 0-60 mph times and quarter-mile speeds. Most people just don't understand how much fun it is to drive an "underpowered" turbodiesel or a hybrid like the Prius (the 1.5 CVT is actually as quick as most 2.0 automatics...).

Oh well... someday cars will come with door stickers that show not only peak hp and torque, but will give a torque graph as well as an MPG / km/l graph (much like ecomodders use) to let people know what they're getting into.

[California98Civic]

How does a person import a car like this to the USA for their own use? Is it legal? In what ways is it a big expensive pain?