Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Kia Carnival fuel consumption

Of all Kia Carnival modifications produced from 2002 to 2018 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 17% higher compared to advertised consumption. Starting from 2002 Kia Carnival average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was less than industry average, at 2006 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became similar to average. It should be noted that the gap between advertised and actual fuel economy changed quite significantly across the entire automotive industry during this period. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearDiesel cars
All carmakersKia Carnival
2002+7%insignificant
Show all years
2003+8%insignificant
2004+9%insignificant
2005+10%insignificant
2006+11%+17%
2007+12%+33%
2008+13%+33%
2009+14%+33%
2010+16%+33%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Kia Carnival.

2006 - 2010

Kia Carnival 2006 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines21.6 MPG
10.9 l/100km
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines30.2 MPG
7.8 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines22.8 MPG
10.3 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+32%

According to advertised fuel consumption, Kia Carnival 2006 with automatic transmission have almost the same fuel economy as similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Kia Carnival with automatic transmission consumes around 3.2 litres per 100 km or 37% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Kia Carnival advertised fuel economy is among the 20% worst in its class, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is one of the worst.

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
2.7 liter petrol engine
Kia Carnival 2006 2.7 V6 189 HP manual 21.6 MPG
10.9 l/100km
Kia Carnival 2006 2.7 V6 189 HP automatic 21.6 MPG
10.9 l/100km
2.9 liter diesel engine
Kia Carnival 2006 2.9 CRDi VGT 185 HP manual 30.2 MPG
7.8 l/100km
27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km+12%
Kia Carnival 2006 2.9 CRDi VGT 185 HP automatic 30.2 MPG
7.8 l/100km
19.8 MPG
11.9 l/100km+53%
2001 - 2006

Kia Carnival 2001 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines20.2 MPG
11.7 l/100km
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines27.7 MPG
8.5 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines27.4 MPG
8.6 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *insignificant

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Kia Carnival 2001 with automatic transmission consumes on average 1.1 liters per 100 km or 11% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Kia Carnival with automatic transmission consumes around 1.2 litres per 100 km or 15% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Kia Carnival with 2.9 diesel engine and manual transmission (Kia Carnival 2002 2.9 CRDI 144 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
2.5 liter petrol engine
Kia Carnival 2002 2.5 i V6 24V 150 HP manual 21.6 MPG
10.9 l/100km
Kia Carnival 2002 2.5 i V6 24V 150 HP automatic 19.0 MPG
12.4 l/100km
2.9 liter diesel engine
Kia Carnival 2002 2.9 CRDI 144 HP manual 28.7 MPG
8.2 l/100km
29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km-2%
Kia Carnival 2002 2.9 CRDI 144 HP automatic 26.7 MPG
8.8 l/100km
25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km+5%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.