[peter47]

SHCS, that just about up-stages the Japanese translations in their manuals, in terms of unintelligibility... 🤔 Clearly their translators are not very 'smart'. I wonder what our Aussie version says..?

Do you know what..? I was unable to find any reference to the transmission drive mode button or its operation. It must be there somewhere, but I went back and forwards, looking up all index lists and still could not find it. What heading did you find that info under SHCS..?

 

[peter47]

Do you know what..? I was unable to find any reference to the transmission drive mode button or its operation. It must be there somewhere, but I went back and forwards, looking up all index lists and still could not find it. What heading did you find that info under SHCS..?

I finally found it. I downloaded the manual, then was able to use the search function, obtained (via my IT savvy son), by using the command F function, which opens a small search box, and finally found it under 'Drive Mode Integrated Control System', by searching (space)Eco(space), then toggling via the arrows through all the spots those letters pop up. One heading I did not think of - who knew..? Whew. I knew it must be there. Actually, once found, I must admit the wording in our version for each of the three modes, Eco, Normal & Sport, was pretty well described, so I have not photo'd it and pasted it here. Unlike the Canadian version SCHS above posted. I wonder what the US version is like..? Anyone..?

 

[Speedtek22]

I finally found it. I downloaded the manual, then was able to use the search function, obtained (via my IT savvy son), by using the command F function, which opens a small search box, and finally found it under 'Drive Mode Integrated Control System', by searching (space)Eco(space), then toggling via the arrows through all the spots those letters pop up. One heading I did not think of - who knew..? Whew. I knew it must be there. Actually, once found, I must admit the wording in our version for each of the three modes, Eco, Normal & Sport, was pretty well described, so I have not photo'd it and pasted it here. Unlike the Canadian version SCHS above posted. I wonder what the US version is like..? Anyone..?

I did notice that when Smart or Sport is selected and you scroll through the centre display to the screen that shows the drive mode...as soon as the screen displays it, the drive mode shows "OFF" (and the the little Smart or sport icon at the top left of the display goes out as well). I think it will display normal, but it switches to off when you look at it in any other mode...the Schrödinger's cat of displays...lol

Sorry if that sounds confusing...

 

[peter47]

Ok, bit of an update re the economy thing, and how well it relates to the car's computer analysis. Completed another distance check from fill kick-off to fill kick-off. Calc'd out at 9.8 km/L = ~ 10L/100km. (= 28.2mpg) The car average L/100km was 9.2. So, not to foul agreement really. Not great economy, but this entire tankfull was nearly all on the island driving, with no speeds above 80kph, and mostly in speed zones of 50-70kph, and no significant length of freeway type driving, so I'm ok with that.

 

[SHCS]

Thought I'd update this. This is my 'actual' fuel economy. Note that the notation in red is what KIA's dash app suggests I'm getting. Clearly, it's spouting complete garbage.

For those considering those numbers with plans to purchase a KIA, that is almost entirely City driving (50-80kph). Very little highway driving. You can see where I did do a little highway driving, the First week of December.

My complaint isn't the mileage I'm getting, nor is it that it's nowhere close to what KIA claims in written materials. My driving habits come into play here. It's that in my opinion the only way they can be 'this wrong, this consistently' in their fuel economy estimates is if they're fudging the numbers intentionally. Not once did it report a 9.0.

For all of you looking at the fuel economy shown in the dash app and thinking you're getting great fuel economy, I suggest you actually do the math and check your true numbers.

I don't think KIA's alone in this. But if you're gonna put the numbers on the dash you ought to be closer than 15%.

 

[peter47]

My figure this month was closer SHCS, but I hear what you are saying. I wonder if the fact that with the standard issue tyres on, which gives a 4kph over-read at all speeds, how much that might translate to at least in part, an explanation re the car computer's estimate error. When I replace tyres I'm going to go one step up in sidewall, and see if that corrects the speed, and also the cars calc'd economy. After all, if it's underestimating the distance travelled in the same way as its speed, while 4kph is only ~ 4% at 100kph, but at 60kph, where a lot of city running is done, that = 6.6%. That error could well come close to the difference between actual, and car computer calculated, could it not. Am I wrong - anybody..? Maths was never my strong point.

 

[Speedtek22]

My figure this month was closer SHCS, but I hear what you are saying. I wonder if the fact that with the standard issue tyres on, which gives a 4kph over-read at all speeds, how much that might translate to at least in part, an explanation re the car computer's estimate error. When I replace tyres I'm going to go one step up in sidewall, and see if that corrects the speed, and also the cars calc'd economy. After all, if it's underestimating the distance travelled in the same way as its speed, while 4kph is only ~ 4% at 100kph, but at 60kph, where a lot of city running is done, that = 6.6%. That error could well come close to the difference between actual, and car computer calculated, could it not. Am I wrong - anybody..? Maths was never my strong point.

You'd have to push the size up more than one notch to make any real difference. I'm at 1.5% oversize and it seems to bring the reading closer to dash indicated, but still at least 1L/100 km off (or more, it doesn't seem to be consistent).
My dash indicated is definitely higher than SHCS due to the taller tires, so it is a start. (Sorry, I haven't been writing it down, just doing a quick comparison when I add fuel)

 

[SHCS]

Ran across this video today. He does a good job of explaining why we're doing it wrong. Also explains why Speed is getting better fuel economy out of Sport.

Which Drive Mode saves the most fuel? The answer may surprise you! Kia Class - YouTube

He explains why aggressive drivers don't experience better fuel economy out of 'Eco' in the case of the vehicle he's explaining. Basically says you get the best fuel economy by choosing the mode that matches your driving style.

That being said, my last two tanks I ran in 'SMART' mode whereas I had been in 'Normal' for the majority of driving the Seltos. I'm estimating an increase in fuel economy of less then ten percent but more than five, over Normal mode. It has though been with a trade-off. I'm seeing that 'hesitation' situation one of our other members is mentioning in another thread. Gonna stick with it a few more tanks to see if it truly is a savings or just fluke.

 

[peter47]

Ran across this video today. He does a good job of explaining why we're doing it wrong. Also explains why Speed is getting better fuel economy out of Sport.

Which Drive Mode saves the most fuel? The answer may surprise you! Kia Class - YouTube

He explains why aggressive drivers don't experience better fuel economy out of 'Eco' in the case of the vehicle he's explaining. Basically says you get the best fuel economy by choosing the mode that matches your driving style.

That being said, my last two tanks I ran in 'SMART' mode whereas I had been in 'Normal' for the majority of driving the Seltos. I'm estimating an increase in fuel economy of less then ten percent but more than five, over Normal mode. It has though been with a trade-off. I'm seeing that 'hesitation' situation one of our other members is mentioning in another thread. Gonna stick with it a few more tanks to see if it truly is a savings or just fluke.

Interesting video, and no real surprise SHCS. It may well inprove your economy. Because it fits with my own experience of using mainly the Eco drive mode. Because in the Seltos Eco mode, it actually accelerates at about the normal rate you would use unless in a real hurry, without even dropping a gear unless there's a significant speed differential, so not sluggish, therefore doesn't motivate a heavy foot on the loud pedal, unlike many other makes. In your Smart mode driving without a lead boot would keep it in Eco mode - hit the pedal and it whisks you up to Normal or Sport, with faster acceleration, so heavier fuel use. Unfortunately, while your Smart is trying to figure out exactly what the driver wants, it causes the hesitancy sometimes complained about.

 

[fearturtle44]

I have left mine on Normal the whole time. After 3500 miles, I’m getting 32.1MPG with 50/50 with highway/in town driving. About what I was getting with my 1.8L non AWD Honda HRV.
I have been impressed so far with my Seltos.

 

[peter47]

I have left mine on Normal the whole time. After 3500 miles, I’m getting 32.1MPG with 50/50 with highway/in town driving. About what I was getting with my 1.8L non AWD Honda HRV.
I have been impressed so far with my Seltos.

Yeah, I think if I was driving one of your models with no Eco, and just Smart, Normal and Sport, I'd do the same. Leave it in Normal, drive fairly light-footed, and just flick the lever across and drive it manually in Sport when necessary, so then when you flick the lever back, it's back in Normal, not in Sport mode, so no need to fiddle with the knob.

 

[Speedtek22]

Yeah, I think if I was driving one of your models with no Eco, and just Smart, Normal and Sport, I'd do the same. Leave it in Normal, drive fairly light-footed, and just flick the lever across and drive it manually in Sport when necessary, so then when you flick the lever back, it's back in Normal, not in Sport mode, so no need to fiddle with the knob.

This is the way....