Real Kia Carens fuel consumption
Kia Carens real fuel consumption by user reviews is approximately 23% higher compared to official consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 19% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 27% higher. Above consumption difference is the average for all Kia Carens produced from 2000 to 2021. For Kia Carens produced up to 2011 the difference in real fuel consumption by user reviews is on average +13%, while for those produced after 2011 it is on average +34%.
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
Average difference between user reported and stated consumption
All carmakers average fuel economy difference between advertised and user reported
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
2016
Kia Carens 2016
Average real petrol consumption difference: +29% Average real diesel consumption difference: +48%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Kia Carens versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6Kia Carens 2016 1.6 MT | Petrol | 6.2 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km+29% |
| 1.7Kia Carens 2016 1.7 CRDI MT | Diesel | 4.2 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km+48% |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2016 2.0 MT | Petrol | 7.0 l/100km | |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2016 2.0 AT | Petrol | 7.8 l/100km |
2013
Kia Carens 2013
Average real petrol consumption difference: +25% Average real diesel consumption difference: +33%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Kia Carens versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6Kia Carens 2013 1.6 GDI MT | Petrol | 6.4 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km+28% |
| 1.7Kia Carens 2013 1.7 CRDi 115 HP MT | Diesel | 4.7 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km+32% |
| 1.7Kia Carens 2013 1.7 CRDi 136 HP MT | Diesel | 4.8 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km+33% |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2013 2.0 GDI MT | Petrol | 7.2 l/100km | |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2013 2.0 GDI AT | Petrol | 7.9 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km+23% |
2006
Kia Carens 2006
Average real petrol consumption difference: +21% Average real diesel consumption difference: +16%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Kia Carens versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0Kia Carens 2006 2.0 MT | Petrol | 8.1 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km+17% |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2006 2.0 AT | Petrol | 8.4 l/100km | 10.4 l/100km+24% |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2006 2.0D MT | Diesel | 6.2 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km+18% |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2006 2.0D AT | Diesel | 7.1 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km+14% |
2002
Kia Carens 2002
Average real petrol consumption difference: +14% Average real diesel consumption difference: +10%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Kia Carens versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6Kia Carens 2002 1.6 105 HP MT | Petrol | 8.2 l/100km | |
| 1.6Kia Carens 2004 1.6 105 HP MT | Petrol | 8.2 l/100km | |
| 1.8Kia Carens 2002 1.8 MT | Petrol | 8.1 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km+11% |
| 1.8Kia Carens 2002 1.8 AT | Petrol | 9.1 l/100km | |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2004 2.0 CVVT MT | Petrol | 8.1 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km+6% |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2004 2.0 CVVT AT | Petrol | 8.6 l/100km | 10.6 l/100km+23% |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2002 2.0 CRDi MT | Diesel | 7.0 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km+10% |
| 2.0Kia Carens 2002 2.0 CRDi AT | Diesel | 7.6 l/100km |
2000
Kia Carens 2000
Average real petrol consumption difference: +5%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Kia Carens versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 1.8Kia Carens 2000 1.8 MT | 8.6 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km+5% |
Real fuel consumption of other carmakers
The fuel consumption reported by users does not reflect the experience of all users, may be selective (depending on the driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the car and other circumstances) and should therefore not be taken as a representative indicator.