OFFICIAL EPA Fuel Economy - Stinger 3.3T & 2.0T RWD/AWD

[Bamm1]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39716&id=39717&id=39718&id=39719

The addition of AWD has no effect on the 3.3T's fuel economy.

The 2.0T loses 1 mpg in the city and 1 mpg combined, with the addition of AWD.

All numbers are on premium fuel.

 

[Kia Stinger]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39716&id=39717&id=39718&id=39719

The addition of AWD has no affect on the 3.3T's fuel economy.

The 2.0T loses 1 mpg in the city and 1 mpg combined, with the addition of AWD.

All numbers are on premium fuel.

That's great! But isn't that kind of unusual?

 

[Bamm1]

That's great! But isn't that kind of unusual?

I think it is probably a rounding game. The AWD model might get 24.51 mpg on the hwy, so they round up to 25. The RWD model comes in at 25.49 mpg on the hwy, so they round down to 25.

The Genesis G80 Sport gets 1 mpg better on the hwy with RWD. Couldn't play the rounding game there. But the G90 3.3T, just the like 3.3T Stinger, gets the same fuel economy regardless of what wheels are driven.

It is in Kia's best interest to get you to shell out the 2200 bucks for AWD......

 

[Jayce]

Well, that's about what I was expecting MPG wise. I guess I'll be at the gas station a lot lol.

 

[Chris]

Well, that's about what I was expecting MPG wise. I guess I'll be at the gas station a lot lol.

Yep, and as always real world numbers aren't what those EPA tests say. The guys in the Aussie discussion that have reported their numbers are lower than these.

 

[Jayce]

Yep, and as always real world numbers aren't what those EPA tests say. The guys in the Aussie discussion that have reported their numbers are lower than these.

Exactly. No vehicle I've ever owned has gotten what the EPA says. I'll probably be in ECO mode the majority of the time, ha.

 

[CHC]

I'm coming from a 2.0L 156hp 4-cylinder banger that gets around 34mpg on average... soooo getting behind the 3.3T with 19/25 mpg is slightly disappointing at the cost of power but not surprising. Will definitely have to adapt to that.

However to quote from a review from ArsTechnica in a "real world" scenario, the journalist saw more than 30mpg on the highway (???):

"Other points to note? Oddly enough for a performance car I managed to exceed the car's stated fuel economy. Kia quotes 19mpg city, 25mpg highway, and 21mpg combined for the V6 (regardless of RWD or AWD.) But with the car set to Smart, I saw more than 30mpg on the freeway legs of our route. Hard driving in the canyons was a little worse as you might expect, at around 13mpg. The infotainment system is adequate—it's Kia's latest Uvo3 system which includes some telematics options for your smartphone (diagnostics and geofencing), but the presence of CarPlay and Android Auto is welcome and the optional 15-speaker Harmon Kardon sound system was more than acceptable to my middle-aged hearing."

 

[BahamaTodd]

There is actually almost no difference between the RWD and AWD ratings. You can see the raw MPG data here to 4 decimal figures:
Datasets for All Model Years (1984–2018)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml

Model: City/Hwy/Comb MPG
2.0T RWD: 21.7150 / 29.0797 / 24.5081
2.0T AWD: 21.2505 / 28.9563 / 24.1415
3.3T RWD: 18.7977 / 25.2170 / 21.2296
3.3T AWD: 18.6679 / 25.3255 / 21.1725

The 3.3 AWD actually did (negligibly) better than the RWD on the hwy.

 

[davebo]

I'm only justifying a car with such poor fuel economy because I have a very short commute, so hopefully I'm not burning too much gas overall. Shame this thing has such a small tank though. Gonna have to fuel up a lot more often.