Kizashi 2012 fuel economy

Let others know about your performance modifications, and help members find the parts they want.
KlutzNinja
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:58 am

This is the Kizashi’s fuel economy in L/100km. Seems okay. Better than its MPG numbers, which haven’t aged well (20-31 MPG, at the extremes. A lot of variation depending on trim, AWD/FWD, and transmission). A BMW M340i turbo inline-6 with the 8-speed ZF and like 380+ hp (and it’s probably underrated) gets at least as good of MPGs as the Kizashi, according to the EPA lol. Car & Driver once got 42 MPG with a 4-pot 3 Series on their highway fuel economy test loop. Modern technology is impressive… until it breaks. At least the Kizashi’s engine should be good for the life of the car (if given oil changes). Very few things to break or foul up compared to a lot of modern vehicles.

I get about 23-24 MPG in mostly urban/neighborhood driving, and living on a hill, which means a lot of uphill driving. Thankfully not too steep. In my previous car, which was supposed to be somewhat more economical, I got 25-26 MPG, with a partially different commute. I kind of wish the Kizashi hybrid were a thing, even if it would have been molasses-slow.

I hope the original poster’s issue was solved.
Attachments
C6D93FEC-5369-48F4-8AD9-DE8BD39CD617.png
Current: Blue 2018 Mazda 3 GT 5-Door
Previous: Blue 2010 Ford Focus SES,
Black 2013 Kizashi Sport GTS-L (CVT; FWD)(RIP)
NickL
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:46 pm

Wow! The consumption of a Bimmer with so much power is really impressive, as the entire car. But this is true only when it's new. Because of the turbo Fever manufactures today produce a lot of cars with small turbo petrol Engines from 1 to 1,6 litre and pump it up with a turbo. So yes, the engines are torqy, agil and have good mileage but the lifespan of these Engines is much less than from NA engines. As a simple comparasion, I always say that you can't take a small man and give him a lot of steroids, send him to Gym and expect to have exactly the same power and strenght as the bigger guy and to be light as well. I mean you can, but at some point he is going to break down and loose his health and everything else from the Steroids abuse. Something similar is with cars. Small turbo engines can never be as nearly reliable and durable as a bigger NA. The bigger engine with turbo is the best from both worlds, but then again these are the most expensive cars on the market and are not reserved for lower middle class cars.

Anyway, I have nothing against consumption of a Kizzy as long as it stays reliable. I would rather pay few extra bucks on the GAS station than for the repairs.
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing". H. Ford
User avatar
KuroNekko
Posts: 5192
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:08 pm
Location: California, USA

The Kizashi's fuel economy was average, or maybe just a little below average, for the time it debuted. I think the Camry and Accord got a couple MPG better for models with similar 2.4 or 2.5 liter engines. However, most rivals like the Accord and Camry did not offer AWD. Also, most rivals had base engines that peaked in the high 160s to mid 170s in HP range while the Kizashi had a class-leading base engine making 180 and 185 HP for the CVT and manual, respectively. My Kizashi with the FWD manual continues to deliver the expected average of around 24 MPG, which is on par with the EPA estimates for the car and Fuelly's data for the average of all Kizashis on the app. It's not great but for an engine that was designed in the mid to late 2000's, it's quite average.

As other have pointed out, the strength of the engine is the more reliable and old school design consisting of a normally-aspirated, multi-port injection, inline 4 with a timing chain. These features don't return the better fuel efficiency of today's new cars but should give 250,000+ miles of reliable service with regular maintenance. Other than for very few engine cracks due to incorrect factory torque on bolts for a limited number of early model engines, the Kizashi's J24B isn't known for issues. I think it's an engine that will provide reliable and rather predictable performance and economy for many years.

Personally, given car prices these days and my desire for a replacement vehicle that doesn't really quite exist yet, I plan to drive my Kizashi for quite a while longer to save money and wait for ideal vehicles to debut. I also have a manual transmission so as long as I can supply a replacement clutch when the time comes, I think the powertrain should outlast my need for the car. Given my next vehicle will be very different from the Kizashi, I plan to thoroughly enjoy this car until the time comes to replace it and move on entirely from conventional ICE vehicles.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
KlutzNinja
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:58 am

KuroNekko wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 8:13 pm The Kizashi's fuel economy was average, or maybe just a little below average, for the time it debuted. I think the Camry and Accord got a couple MPG better for models with similar 2.4 or 2.5 liter engines. However, most rivals like the Accord and Camry did not offer AWD. Also, most rivals had base engines that peaked in the high 160s to mid 170s in HP range while the Kizashi had a class-leading base engine making 180 and 185 HP for the CVT and manual, respectively. My Kizashi with the FWD manual continues to deliver the expected average of around 24 MPG, which is on par with the EPA estimates for the car and Fuelly's data for the average of all Kizashis on the app. It's not great but for an engine that was designed in the mid to late 2000's, it's quite average.
From what I’ve read in the reviews for the Kizashi, it was considered pretty fuel efficient for what it was at the time. All the other sedans in the midsize class were making similar numbers. If fuel economy was ever mentioned in the reviews, it was in a good light, not a bad light. I don’t recall the fuel economy ever being marked as a bad thing. But it wasn’t long before direct injection, turbocharging, and transmissions with more gears (as well as CVTs) began to proliferate the segment. That said, the turbo engines, at least from Ford, weren’t really delivering on fuel economy (all boost, no eco :lol:), and I’ve heard Nissans with their CVTs don’t always hit their EPA numbers.
Current: Blue 2018 Mazda 3 GT 5-Door
Previous: Blue 2010 Ford Focus SES,
Black 2013 Kizashi Sport GTS-L (CVT; FWD)(RIP)
NickL
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:46 pm

Here in Europe, we didn't have Accord 8th Generation the same as in States. Actually, what in US is called Acura TSX, was literally an Accord 8th gen in Europe. It looked exactly the same, had same engines and transmission, and only had that H instead of A on the front grill.

The stronger petrol Engine of European Accord was equipped with 2.4 litre , 4 Cylinderm 16v engine with 201 hp paired with 5 speed automatik Transmission. Due to the transmission, tihis car was not considered to be fast at all, because the gears were to long and the transmission was slow to react. And also, the fuel consumption was not admirable because Automatic gearbox increased the weight of a cat. Euro Accord was also offered with 6 speed manual transmission in Type S model, which had the same 2.4 liter 200hp engine, but because of MT the car was much more live and felt better on the road. In addtion to that it had a bigger Rims, better handling, and it looked much better with deeper front and rear bumper, side skirts and Spoiler at the Trunk. This Accord Type S with MT was extremely rare to find in Europe, and was considere to be a desirable Unicorn in the world of Honda fans. However, this car was a bit heavier than Kizashi and because of that it hits 0-60 in a little over 8 sec, which is a slightlyt slower when compared with Kizashi MT, and in returned had a little worse consumption when compared with Kizashi MT. Kizashi also had a shorter path when braking from 100 and above km/h, and a bit more better handling. The Accord had only bigger maximum Speed because it had 20 more hp.

So compared to that Euro Accord 8th gen with MT which is lets say a legendary, mass produced cheap sporty\family car from Japan to come at that time, Kizashi was a bit better in almost every way. The only problem was... most of the people never ever heard about Kizashi before.

However, I must admit that Accord Type S looked damn good in that "S" edition....

https://media2.24aul.ru/imgs/5ca9d28df4 ... 522150.jpg


I was about to buy one and was hunting it in months before I bought Kizashi. Problem with Accord Type S was not only because it was so rare in Europe, it's also because of its price Tag. For the same production year, similar mileage and extras and accesorries, Accord was at least 2 to 3000 Dollars more expensive. So regarding to that as well, I think that Kizashi is a better car in every single way.
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing". H. Ford
User avatar
SAEED_KIZZY
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:31 pm

in my opinion, automatic Kizashi has good fuel economy when I bought a car 10 years ago on the highway around 6.5L/100KM and in city 8.5 now I think engine run a little rich but still 7.5 on highway and 8.5 in city driving.
and I heard honda engines still need to adjust cylinder valves every 100K. which is ridiculous not to mention gearbox problems (like Kizashi CVT of course:))
NickL
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:46 pm

6,5 liter on Highway? That I can accomplish only when I drive strictly 60 mph in 6th Gear. How fast did you drive to get such a low consumption, especially with CVT? CVT should consumpt usually a little bit more fuel than manul, or am I wrong?
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing". H. Ford
User avatar
SAEED_KIZZY
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:31 pm

NickL wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 12:38 pm 6,5 liter on Highway? That I can accomplish only when I drive strictly 60 mph in 6th Gear. How fast did you drive to get such a low consumption, especially with CVT? CVT should consumption usually a little bit more fuel than manul, or am I wrong?
The CVT gearbox is technically designed to be efficient If we talk about both FWD I think CVT should have better fuel economy than a conventional manual gearbox, especially when cruising on the highway because the torque converter is locked and all of the engine power is transferred to the wheel.
in my case, I usually use my car for outside trips and long distances, and yes with 60mph car has a phenomenal gas millage. (around 32mph or 7.5l/100km)
User avatar
KuroNekko
Posts: 5192
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:08 pm
Location: California, USA

On paper, the CVT models get better fuel economy. I think the model with the highest ratings are the FWD CVT models with the smaller 17 inch wheels. The AWD and the manual trans models are nominal in difference. That being said, the components will not do too much to differentiate the Kizashis from each other in real world fuel economy. The main determinant of that is driver style anyway. Aggressive driving and braking will reduce fuel efficiency. City driving will also return lower fuel economy than highway driving. Some factors are in your control while others are not. I think the average MPG for most Kizashis (all models in all driving conditions) comes out to 24 MPG (9.8l/100km). This is what I average with a good mix of city and freeway driving.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
Post Reply