Kia Forte Turbo Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A change that is not really a change.

As I mentioned in some other thread, I was getting tired of the stick shift. I thought, if I can find a deal I like, I will switch.
So here it is.
My old (2nd owner) 2015 SX, steel blue, premium package. About 20k miles. In perfect condition, well, except tires that are worn below half of the usable depth.
From what I gathered over the 7 months of our journey, it was rust proofed; black tints, and wind deflectors were installed by the previous owner who must have pushed the car a bit (at 10k miles wear on front tires was significant) and the dogbone bushing was beaten up.

20160322_103841.jpg

So, GaryLang in Chicago area got me a deal I did not refuse.
I got a new 2016, black pearl, with package. ODO at the time of deliver was 25 miles. Basically a virgin.

20161121_160139.jpg

So far I like the AT. It is very, I'd say, stiff. Shifts are quick and there is not so much of a torque slippage. Something I was afraid of being used to old automatics.
It seems AT uses the low end torque very nicely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nero211 and drc69

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Very NICE I like. I sure like my AT car she runs good and smooth.
I did only one-side of the dogbone and I have been happy with the results.
Enjoy your new ride. Next month I hope to start the install of the Pioneer HU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLP

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
What sort of trade-in value did you get? Try a private sale at all?
No, I did not try a private sell at all. I thought about it, but I did not care much about the trade in value as I cared only how much I needed to pay OTD.
The difference was 8300 OTD.
Oh, they used 13'250 if I recall correctly for the trade.

All in all - if they give me a smaller discount, but more for trade in, or great discounts and less trade in - no difference as by the end the difference is what I needed to pay.
So taking into account 20k miles and almost two years old car with stick shift for a brand new, slightly better equipped with AT... I guess it was a very decent deal.


EDIT.
They just posted my trade in...
http://www.garylangauto.com/used/Kia/2015-Kia-Forte-McHenry-8d4b94c90a0e0ae75af8e084c3457bc6.htm

no pics yet and description is messed up: 1 L engine, colour: chrome, interior: aluminum. Interesting...
lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
Goodbye.

.
.
.

Welcome!! :)

New car, so nice and shiny, mine looks like hell right now. Hope you like the AT more!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I can see getting tired of using a manual as a daily! Be prepared to work extra hard getting that black clean! Good looking trade up though! :)
I will not be washing it so often... once in a while. I got other things to do.

New car, so nice and shiny, mine looks like hell right now. Hope you like the AT more!
I really do.

The picture loaded huge and I thought you traded it in for a Sportage.
I noticed that, too. Sometimes the forum loads pictures a bit longer and they end up initially at full size, after a moment they go into "thumbnail mode"...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
I belive the AT is geared different as well (both for better take off and lower rpms at highway speeds). Congrats though.

Do you miss the HIDs? At least now you can upgrade to a universal 35 watt system instead of the 25 in the OEM version.

Also that black box from turtle wax works nice on these cars in black
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
I belive the AT is geared different as well (both for better take off and lower rpms at highway speeds). Congrats though.
Yes, I fully researched both before doing the swap.
The first 4 gears are lower in AT. Yes, that makes it goes quicker. Then, 5th gear is basically the same output, while 6th is taller making highway cruising a bit more efficient.
I mean the final output.
See the graph.

X axis - engine speed in RPM
Y axis - car speed as measured at the output shaft from transmission in MPH

Transmission.jpg

Do you miss the HIDs? At least now you can upgrade to a universal 35 watt system instead of the 25 in the OEM version.
Actually my 2015 did not have HIDs. It had only the premium package, not the technology... in 2015 KIA had two optional packages. In 2016 they put everything together, but dropped the HID.
To tell the truth - I was really looking for a 2015 to have the HID with autoleveling. And swap them for 35 W... but mainly the autoleveling was needed.
And sure enough, I found a few. Used ones. One was in MO I think. But they wanted me to put down over $6000 of difference, while I got a brand new for only $2300 more.

I will simply now go back to the kit I had on the previous one. Simply plug and play. This is the reason I got an extra set of headlights dust covers... so that it is a simply swap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Will be interesting what sort of mileage difference you see. The impression that I get with reading mpg threads here and on the fb group over the last year seem to indicate the manual does significantly better in real world driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Congrats on the new toy!
So...what's the dogbone?
thanks.
Dogbone is the type of engine mount they put with this engine. It simply looks like a bone... I think they also call it a lower mount and rolling something...

Will be interesting what sort of mileage difference you see. The impression that I get with reading mpg threads here and on the fb group over the last year seem to indicate the manual does significantly better in real world driving.
On the way back from Chicago area I got about 33 mpg when going roughly 65-70.
In city - on my regular commute - hard to say yet. Not only it is getting colder, but also I have not had the chance to drive so often.
So far I got 400 miles....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Will be interesting what sort of mileage difference you see. The impression that I get with reading mpg threads here and on the fb group over the last year seem to indicate the manual does significantly better in real world driving.
That's what I see on the Soul forums. Stick on the base 1.6 (no t) gets lots better MPG than the auto 1.6 or 2.0.

We're in winter gas now, that makes a difference too.

thanks.
Dogbone is the type of engine mount they put with this engine. It simply looks like a bone... I think they also call it a lower mount and rolling something...



On the way back from Chicago area I got about 33 mpg when going roughly 65-70.
In city - on my regular commute - hard to say yet. Not only it is getting colder, but also I have not had the chance to drive so often.
So far I got 400 miles....
I figgered it looked like a dog bone. I just didn't know what or where. Thanks for 'splainin'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
I just changed mine to the 65a version on amazon, no fitment issues but it does vibrate a bunch with the AC. You are supposed to let it break in also but it was a 20 min job with a 30 dollar parts for a bit better shifting and even braking fells a bit better (assuming less inertia from the engine rotating)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
I just changed mine to the 65a version on amazon, no fitment issues but it does vibrate a bunch with the AC. You are supposed to let it break in also but it was a 20 min job with a 30 dollar parts for a bit better shifting and even braking fells a bit better (assuming less inertia from the engine rotating)
see this then... and below OEM


and OEM is here



That's what I see on the Soul forums. Stick on the base 1.6 (no t) gets lots better MPG than the auto 1.6 or 2.0.

We're in winter gas now, that makes a difference too.
Well, hard to say for now, BUT in Forte SX (1.6 T I mean) is very sensitive to RPM. If you can manage keeping early shifts, just like AT does (man, 30 mph and 4th gear) then it will pay off with low fuel consumption. And LOTS, I mean LOTS of engine braking.
Coasting is the key to any great fuel economy.
I had 32 MPG tanks in city driving (almost like city, barely stop and go, but I let it coast, barely ever touched the brake pedal).

I figgered it looked like a dog bone. I just didn't know what or where. Thanks for 'splainin'.
The second video had a pic of the mount.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Will be interesting what sort of mileage difference you see. The impression that I get with reading mpg threads here and on the fb group over the last year seem to indicate the manual does significantly better in real world driving.
That's what I see on the Soul forums. Stick on the base 1.6 (no t) gets lots better MPG than the auto 1.6 or 2.0.
So, to give you some information regarding my daily commute MPG.

Stick shift was returning (on similar weather) 30-32 MPG (according to the computer). On best days, warm, no heat needed, or if engine was already hot, it would jump to 36. But of course that was impossible to get for every day...

Automatic got me today 28.2. Take a note it has 480 miles ODO, ambient temp was +2C, hence longer warm-up times, plus I was using climate control, so it was even more extending the time needed for engine to reach operating temperature.

That is a on a one way trip, 10 miles, about 15-16 minutes with max speeds of 65 MPH, most of the time 35-45.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
A change that is not really a change.

As I mentioned in some other thread, I was getting tired of the stick shift. I thought, if I can find a deal I like, I will switch.
So here it is.
My old (2nd owner) 2015 SX, steel blue, premium package. About 20k miles. In perfect condition, well, except tires that are worn below half of the usable depth.
From what I gathered over the 7 months of our journey, it was rust proofed; black tints, and wind deflectors were installed by the previous owner who must have pushed the car a bit (at 10k miles wear on front tires was significant) and the dogbone bushing was beaten up.

View attachment 4522

So, GaryLang in Chicago area got me a deal I did not refuse.
I got a new 2016, black pearl, with package. ODO at the time of deliver was 25 miles. Basically a virgin.

View attachment 4530

So far I like the AT. It is very, I'd say, stiff. Shifts are quick and there is not so much of a torque slippage. Something I was afraid of being used to old automatics.
It seems AT uses the low end torque very nicely.
Congrats man. I'm jealous of the Black paint! I wanted a black F5 but the dealership only had silver and the darker gunmetal gray so I chose Silver to match the wheels just a bit more. I felt the dark gray didn't match well with the scheme of the wheels, of course, it's my personal preference only. But black? Black always looks good. Almost every new vehicle I've owned has been black.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
As for MPG, I've noticed in the almost 3 years I've owned mine that the more often you drive longer distances with ECO mode engaged, the better mileage it gets. It's almost like how our ECU's can adapt for Premium octane vs. regular octane gasoline. Now this is purely speculation on my part, but the proof is in the pudding in my mind.

The first full year I owned the car, I drove 35 miles each way to work every day, ECO engaged. My mileage computer would start off @ around 300 miles (give or take a few miles) each time I filled up...with regular fuel. When I switched jobs and started only driving about 6 miles to work each way the last 1 1/2 years, and every time I fill up I pretty much max out around 290 miles on the fuel mileage computer. So when I'm traveling two or three hours to see family now-a-days, HWY mileage is well below the 30 I was getting when I commuted everyday on the hwy, even with ECO engaged. And I'm almost certain it's because of how our ECU's adapt. So in turn, me not driving a longer distance to work every day seems to have trained my ECU to only register around 290 miles every fill up because it's learned my driving habits, and that mileage doesn't seem to change even when I engage ECO and am on the hwy.

Again, I may be totally wrong and the drop in the mileage computer is only superficial. I've not actually calculated my actual mileage since I started working so close to home, so I may still be getting the same 30 mpg when I take longer trips. So take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm just coversating. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
Just driving spiritedly around town(suburban 35-55mph roads no highway) I get a running 29-30mpg in my manual with 87 octane. When on the highway going up to Seattle or going out to Mt. St. Helens or the coast(highway but with lots of elevation change) I get 35mpg easy.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top