Time to check in with our long-term Kia Rondo’s fuel log. If you’ve been following the adventures of our mostly city-driven Rondo-mobile, you’ll already know that our real-world numbers have been falling short of the official EPA estimates for the 2007 6-cylinder Rondo of 20 city/27 highway. You may also know that the EPA changed the way it tests vehicles for the 2008 model year to reflect modern driving conditions better. What you might not know is that the EPA has published adjusted fuel economy estimates for vehicles made from 1985-2007, too. So I decided to see how our numbers stacked up to these newly adjusted numbers. And it turns out that…
Check it out: The EPAâs adjusted estimates for the 2007 Kia Rondo with the V6 are 18 city/25 highway. Our Rondoâs lifetime average is now at 18.84 mpg.
Not staggeringly better, but at least we're not doing worse anymore (for the moment).
Bryn MacKinnon, Senior Editor, Edmunds.com @ 6,135 miles
SubyTrojan says:
01:39 PM, 02/15/08
Good entry, Bryn! Hopefully it'll encourage people to look up what the revised EPA estimates are of their MY2007 and older vehicles.
The revised estimate the EPA shows for the 2004 Subaru Impreza WRX is 20 mpg combined. I usually average 20-22 mpg with my 2004 WRX Sedan. Most of my driving involves commuting/crawling along the Pomona and Santa Monica freeways from Monterey Park to the Edmunds office and back (one-way: ~23.9 miles, 75-90 minutes). I'll let the EPA's use of a 2004 Subaru Impreza 2.5 RS image slide this time. :o)
dragonflight says:
01:40 PM, 02/15/08
This number sounds about right, but is still surprising. As the owner of an '06 Hyundai Tucson V6 AWD, I get between 18-20mpg, despite having an anemic engine (the same 2.7l) with a 4WD system.
Hyundai really needs to phase out this engine- I see an ideal replacement candidate in a smaller-displacement version of the 3.3l they're using on the newer models. Or heck, at the consumption rates we're seeing, stick a 2.4l I4 from GEMA, turbo the 2.0 hyundai has, or just outright stick the 3.3l in the Tucson/Sportage/Rondo.
stephen987 says:
02:00 PM, 02/15/08
That's gotta be pretty close to the Enclave's MPG.
estreka says:
02:37 PM, 02/15/08
Wow! I'm way above average for hwy mileage.
2001 S2000: 19/27
My S2000: 18/30
When I can find 93 octane (TX): 20/33
The truck, not so much.
'99 Silverado 2500: 14/18
My truck: 8/20
vacagrande says:
02:46 PM, 02/15/08
2004 330i - 18 city/27 highway
Pretty much exactly what I get on both extremes, my usual MPG is 22-23 with a mix of both. Kudos to the EPA for once.
tlcruz says:
02:58 PM, 02/15/08
Well, with the new EPA, i'm getting just about what I should.
02 Nissan Sentra SE-R 2.5 AT
OLD: 23/28 & combined 25
NEW : 20/25 combined 22
I do most city driving and get 20-23 on average, despite my lead foot. I get 26/27 on long highways roads. :)
06scooby says:
07:55 AM, 02/16/08
I think i'm in the minority on this one. My legacy wagon was originally rated at 22/29 but has been revised for 20/27. My worst tank ever was 22 and change and I typically average around 25-26 in mixed driving. ON my last trip to LA with the cruise set at 80 I averaged 31 mpg for the entire trip! I think some cars were over inflated more than others.
roar02ram says:
09:05 AM, 02/16/08
18/25 is awful & an 19 mpg average is worse. Seriously, folks, we're getting down to decimal points across vehicle types, which makes no sense.
chrishs2000 says:
09:25 AM, 02/16/08
18 is terrible for a KIA RONDO with less than 200hp. How much can that thing possibly weigh???
My 2003 Accord V6 6MT is rated 20/29 under the old ratings and like 18/26 under the new ones...I average 23-24 in the city and 32-34 on the highway. But I think with an MT it's a lot easier to beat the estimates.
aspade says:
12:03 PM, 02/16/08
Sure it makes sense.
No car gets 18 mpg in the city. You get 0 mpg sitting on someone's bumper, 2-5 mpg accelerating up to speed, 30-50 mpg cruising, 60-100 mpg coasting until the next stop 400 yards later when you get to do it again.
Depending on how much time you're doing each of these things, you can come in at 18 mpg overall. Or 10. Or 25. All in the same car.
The EPA contrived one mix of how often to do each of these things and that's the number that goes on the sticker.
If the traffic you drive in doesn't match the EPA's version of it, you'll obviously get a different number. That doesn't speak ill of you, or the car, or the EPA. Just shows that measuring two different things will give different results.
A Rondo weighs about 3500lbs, just like most midsize cars which is what it is underneath. 19 isn't terrible, it's what a vehicle of that size gets in such driving conditions.
banhugh says:
08:43 AM, 02/17/08
So you are comparing the lifetime average mpg of the car with the city driving EPA predictions. Sounds like an orange to apple comparison to me.
skierx420 says:
12:43 PM, 02/18/08
I think that if you get in between the EPA estimates for the life of the vehicle, then it validates the EPA estimates. Thats it. Your miliage may vary. I live in a rural area I hardly ever see the mpg on the city. But I am always just a few ticks below a mpg or two of the highway estimates on my combined driving. So my combined habits are much different.
ramblinmo says:
07:01 AM, 02/24/08
I4 EX 2007 5 seater here. I do very little city driving and am averaging 25-26 consistently. These are not long trips using cruise control, but 40 to 55 average MPH. Highway best average was 28 @ 60-65 mph.
jasonsavage says:
02:16 PM, 05/12/08
my gas milage is never the same despite the same driving conditions. is there a problem with my rondo?
also does using premium gas make any difference in the rondo?