Kia C'eed - Horribly uneconomical?

highlydebased

Perhaps anyone else who drives one of these might be able to share your experiences...

My parents have one of these, the 1.4 petrol estate. I drive it also. It is HORRIBLY uneconomical. The onboard computer says we're getting 7.1 mpg. and thats probably right. 40 euro petrol doesnt last a week of moderate driving

So is this in line with other C'eed motorists or is ours just fécked?

ciarsd

Are you sure thats not 7.1L/100km (the newer readout on OBC's of newer KM clocked cars) ?
If it is, its pretty much on the money for a 1.4 You mention a week of moderate driving but fail to mention distance covered...?

Anan1

Brim it, zero the trip meter, calculate your actual fuel consumption next time you fill, and then post it here.

chris85

7.1 mpg is shocking. Would expect that from a big 6 litre v8 american muscle car.

Firstly be more accurate with the fuel usage. Check how many miles is being got for the €40 being put in which would give a better indiction.

If it is that low than it needs to be looked at. Does the car get serviced regularly? Ensure tire pressures all good but they wouldnt make that big of a drop if a bit off.

Is the car sluggish at all?

Nonoperational

I doubt very very much it is giving 7 mpg.

highlydebased

Anan1 wrote: »

Brim it, zero the trip meter, calculate your actual fuel consumption next time you fill, and then post it here.

That seems like the best idea.

chris85 wrote: »

If it is that low than it needs to be looked at. Does the car get serviced regularly? Ensure tire pressures all good but they wouldnt make that big of a drop if a bit off.

Is the car sluggish at all?

Was recently serviced indeed. With more than two people in it it does be quite sluggish indeed- though I think thats more to do with it being generally underpowered...

HarryPotter41

Would agree that the clock must be set to the km/l usage

DaveJac

if it was only getting 7mpg your car wouldnt even be running id say engine would be flooded petrol would wash down into your oil ect, must be 7.1L/100km id say which would be normal id say, a 1.4 engine in a big enough car

pete4130

7.1l/100km works out to be roughly 40mpg which isnt bad for a 1.4 petrol estate

highlydebased

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Would agree that the clock must be set to the km/l usage

That's probably it (Though the manual says MPG, odd)

Anyway if it is 30+ it certainly seems nothing like it. For example this evening I filled up with 15 euros worth and it went from zero to half full. Drove 10 miles and its now about 1/10th full.

ianobrien

I'd say the Cee'd's display is in l/100km (litres consumed per 100km driven). Most cars went that way when they changed from miles to kilometers and it's the standard for Europe really.

7.1l/100km equates to 33mpg according to Google. I'm getting that from a 1.5 Almera (with a mix of town driving and some very heavy right foot on the Motorways).

ianobrien

Neon-Circles wrote: »

For example this evening I filled up with 15 euros worth and it went from zero to half full. Drove 10 miles and its now about 1/10th full.

15 euro is about 12 litres of fuel. In a 50litre tank (I'm taking a guess as to the size of the tank), that's about a quarter of a tank. How much did the gague go up by?

My fuel gauge jumps in big jumps when it gets about a quarter tank. It can get worrying but I've got no notion of opening the tank to check the float and it's armature. I'm living with it......

HarryPotter41

Neon-Circles wrote: »

That's probably it (Though the manual says MPG, odd)

Anyway if it is 30+ it certainly seems nothing like it. For example this evening I filled up with 15 euros worth and it went from zero to half full. Drove 10 miles and its now about 1/10th full.

Jesus, wish my car would go from zero to half full with 15 euros. If thats happening I am guessing you're having a gauge problem

x in the city

1.4 litres is wayyy too small for an estate, why do people think

1.4L + Big car = = yummyy for petrol savings.

unless you want to have the torque of a hamster and a expensive purschase petrol wise its not good.

ShayK1

I've 2 points to make.

1. Does nobody else think that a 1.4l petrol engine is a ridiculous engine to be in an estate?
It must be very under powered?

2. In general I find the middle part of the fuel guage moves the quickest. It can take 50+ miles for my gauge to move off of the full mark and you'd probably get another 50 miles out of it when the gauge shows empty.



As mentioned already, fill the tank, zero the trip counter and then see what you get to a tank. Its the best way.

EPM

Sisters ceed is in km/l on the dash. That's quite good for mixed driving

Esel

ShayK1 wrote: »

Does nobody else think that a 1.4l petrol engine is a ridiculous engine to be in an estate?

Not if it's on a pallet in the load area.

sentient_6

EPM wrote: »

Sisters ceed is in km/l on the dash. That's quite good for mixed driving

Your thinking of L/100km. & yes 7.1 L/100km is good. ~ 40 mpg.

Zonda999

Actually to be fair, the 1.4 in the cee'd has 105 bhp which is more than the basic 1.4 engines in many competing cars

Crasp

Zonda999 wrote: »

Actually to be fair, the 1.4 in the cee'd has 105 bhp which is more than the basic 1.4 engines in many competing cars

At what RPM? Maybe that's the problem with fuel consumption...?

colm_mcm

The ceed has a really clever continuously vvt engine, like the few valvematic engine that Toyota have in the avensis.
Fair enough the 1.6 crdi diesel is the obvious choice for a new ceed with the low vrt and tax, but estates arent all used for transporting antiques and towing horseboxes

-Chris-

Anan's right, and also you need to start measuring these things in litres rather than Euro - variations in petrol prices will make it seem like your MPG is disimproving.

techie

I have a Cee'd and to clear a few things up:

It has a 52Litre tank
The display is probably set to l/100km as already stated but it can be changed to mpg (in the manual), although early models like mine (07) show US mpg not european mpg.
It has 109bhp and is a lot more lively than other 1.4 petrols in other makes even in the estate.

Mine regularly gets 6.2l/100km under varied driving so I don't think that's too bad.

Plus a 7 Year Warranty thrown in too !!

coylemj

If the petrol isn't leaking then it's being fed into the cylinders, can you see a lot of white smoke in the rear view mirror which would be a sign of a mixture that is too rich (in petrol)?

shedweller

ShayK1 wrote: »

I've 2 points to make.

1. Does nobody else think that a 1.4l petrol engine is a ridiculous engine to be in an estate?
It must be very under powered?

2. In general I find the middle part of the fuel guage moves the quickest. It can take 50+ miles for my gauge to move off of the full mark and you'd probably get another 50 miles out of it when the gauge shows empty.



As mentioned already, fill the tank, zero the trip counter and then see what you get to a tank. Its the best way.

It's the most accurate way.

I would tend to agree that 1.4 is small for that size of car. But as somebody has pointed out it is tuned for more power. But of course, with that comes more L/100k.

Re: the fuel gauge. It appears that most are like that. Half full on my yaris is two bars off the top out of 8 bars in total. Our cee'd is much the same. So the bottom half goes real quick whereas the top half takes much longer to go. It's like the tank is tapered i suppose.

-Chris-

I've found that tapering effect in every car I've ever driven. It's weird, but not something I'd worry too much about.

EPM

sentient_6 wrote: »

Your thinking of L/100km. & yes 7.1 L/100km is good. ~ 40 mpg.

That's it. Knew after typing but wasnt bothered editing on phone

shedweller

Nah, it's just a quirk!

kindalen

anyone with the diesel, whats the real world mpg like?

Absurdum

-Chris- wrote: »

I've found that tapering effect in every car I've ever driven. It's weird, but not something I'd worry too much about.

This article explains why gauges behave the way they do.

shedweller

I get about 5L/100k, Herself gets 5.5 to 5.7L/100k!

mickdw

Its beyond me how someone cannot tell the difference between 7 & 30 mpg. While obviously the brim it method is the best way to work it out, it should still be possible to get a fair indication based on how much petrol it is taking to do any given journey.

coolbeans

mickdw wrote: »

Its beyond me how someone cannot tell the difference between 7 & 30 mpg. While obviously the brim it method is the best way to work it out, it should still be possible to get a fair indication based on how much petrol it is taking to do any given journey.

It's pretty simple really, the OP is quite clearly and glaringly wrong on some crucial facts all of which should be clear by now.

highlydebased

coolbeans wrote: »

It's pretty simple really, the OP is quite clearly and glaringly wrong on some crucial facts all of which should be clear by now.

I might be slightly ignorant to the facts but not glaringly wrong

coolbeans

OK then, just a bit clueless. I'd guess that your car is running just fine.

HarryPotter41

Neon-Circles wrote: »

I might be slightly ignorant to the facts but not glaringly wrong

But it is reading l/km isn't it

-Chris-

Ok, Ok, I think he gets it.

Let's take it as read that the car was reading l/100Km.

Zubeneschamali

-Chris- wrote: »

Let's take it as read that the car was reading l/100Km.

Then his problem is solved, the car does 40 mpg and is not uneconomical.

The fuel gauge apparently doesn't read very accurately if you're "filling up" by putting in 12 litres, but none of them do.

Kajor

How do you work this out? It seems i'm working it out wrong, or am I?

I drive a 1.6 CDRi Kia C'eed. It has a 52L tank. On average I get about 700-750km to a tank.

So it seems I get 14.5km/l, which is twice anything anyone has quoted here.


When long distance driving I get about 1200km per tank.

-Chris-

The measurement is l/100KM, not KM/l. That's where you're going wrong.

Based on your figures you're getting around 7l/100KMs

Kajor

-Chris- wrote: »

The measurement is l/100KM, not KM/l. That's where you're going wrong.

Based on your figures you're getting around 7l/100KMs

Of course...bit of a duh! moment there

Zander75

Should it not be more like 4.5 l/km. 7 sounds a bit high!

Sorry was looking at the 1200 per tank

-Chris-

When Kajor gets 1200km out of a tank on a long run they're getting 4.3l/100km.


Seems about right tbh.

Matt Simis

mickdw wrote: »

Its beyond me how someone cannot tell the difference between 7 & 30 mpg. While obviously the brim it method is the best way to work it out, it should still be possible to get a fair indication based on how much petrol it is taking to do any given journey.

Yup and the other problem I see is the idea of putting in "15 Euro" and opposed 15litres. 15 Euro varies with the price of fuel, 15 litres is 15litres. When fuel is more expensive, 15Euro of fuel will last for less time.

So frustrating to see people talking bout fuels in Euro, you dont buy EUR20 of milk a month, you buy X Litres.

dnme

x in the city wrote: »

the torque of a hamster

Quote of the day I reckon, love it:D