Niro does well in this comparison!

Discussion in 'Kia Niro' started by davidtm, Jan 14, 2020.

  1. davidtm

    davidtm Active Member

    For anyone liking some moral superiority, here's a recent video of mileage to battery exhaustion:

     
  2. CanuckTom

    CanuckTom Member

    I would say the Niro came out really well in that comparison, it's by far the most comprehensive comparison between virtually all the popular EV's in the marketplace today.

    I have to say considering the Kia is the 2nd cheapest vehicle in that test it's quite the standout.

    Thanks for sharing!
     
    davidtm likes this.
  3. molund

    molund New Member

    2nd place and only 15km less than a Model 3 long range! It makes me wonder if a Kona could have beat the Model 3?



    Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs
     
  4. My son has a long range Model 3 and I have a Kona EV. In the summer, I was seeing as much 515 kms range with a full battery, while he was topping out at 525 kms. BUT my Kona would consistently beat its range (more kms driven than range used), while his was the opposite. However, we have not gone on a trip with both cars together, so can't say for sure which has longer range. And as we know there are a lot of factors that affect range (city vs hwy, temps, aggressive driving, etc).

    The M3 is more aerodynamic so will likely be more efficient at higher speeds. On the other hand the Kona/Niro battery and drive train may be more efficient than Tesla's (despite the hype you read) since it does much better in the city.
     
  5. Emperor Niro

    Emperor Niro New Member

    It appears the Kia was the most efficient, however, going 90% of stated range in colder weather.
     
  6. papab

    papab New Member

    To skip the melodrama and get to the results, skip ahead to 25 minutes.
     
  7. JasonG

    JasonG New Member

    Pretty impressive considering the Model 3 was rated for much higher range... Major plus in my book!
     
    ericy likes this.
  8. I charged mine up to 100% yesterday in preparation for a long drive.

    It was delightful to see 306 miles on the console! Went to Davis and back from the South Bay. No problem. About 75 miles left when I made it home.

    I had charged up at work. Interestingly, during the 5-6 mile drive home that night, it only ticked down to 305. Overcharging, or unreliable voltage --> SOC calibration near the top end of the battery? Thoughts?

    IMG_1689.JPG
     
    Domenick likes this.
  9. JasonG

    JasonG New Member

    Can wait to try my new one out! Picking it up tomorrow!
     
    jeff_h and davidtm like this.
  10. Dave M

    Dave M New Member

    Hi David

    We have made similar drives but I have not had the same power at the end. What speeds were you traveling at? Adaptive cruise? We’re still trying to optimize our longer trip use. I can tell you higher speeds are great for time but not for distance.

    Dave M (also Silicon V)


    Sent from my iPad using Inside EVs
     
  11. I find adaptive cruise control is not the most efficient. I think it accelerates and brakes more aggressively than I do. I tend to use it in stop and go traffic where it made life surprisingly easier. I was driving around 65 on the way up to be sure we would be on time, and maybe 55-65 on the way back.

    I have done some experimenting with ICE vehicles, and the mileage difference between say 70 mph and 55 mph is HUGE. I think it was in a Sonata where it made the difference between something like 35 mpg and 50 mpg. Drag force is exponential in velocity, so not super surprising but still startling to see.

    So, thinking about a drive to Davis being 110 miles, I can drive it at 55 in two hours or at seventy in 1:35. . That gets to be noteworthy, 50 minutes saved in a one day round trip. Maybe that is worth it to me, maybe not....but if I am driving to someone's home in SF, it is maybe a 50 minutes drive, perhaps 30 miles of that on the highway each way. Now the difference between going 70 and 55 is going to save me a total of 15 minutes over the round trip . What's the point of rushing?

    Think about how much carbon the nation would not burn f the national speed limit was 55. Would that really change most people's lives that much?
     
  12. ITown

    ITown Member

    There was a national speed limit of 55 mph imposed in 1974. It was so popular that it was repealed in 1995.
     
  13. TandM

    TandM Active Member

    I either drive entirely different than you do or somehow our Niro EVs must react vastly different from one another.

    During the spring, summer, and fall, our GOM frequently reflected 315+ miles of range (and was very close to accurate). I was driving 95% highway and at least once a week doing 350+ miles in a round trip (always at 70 to 75 mph and usually 95% on the adaptive cruise control since the only major metro was my own and the rest was very open roads). Many of my trips were with lots of cargo and with temperatures into the mid 90s.

    I have a hard time thinking that if I slowed down to a rate that would impede normal traffic (and probably put me at risk of being hit by an aggressive driver) and that if I spent 350+ miles not using cruise control that I would be seeing any better numbers than when I am doing a normal speed and using adaptive cruise control.

    Even now in the winter, I am seeing 260+ on the GOM with the temperature below freezing and still frequently using the highway (always at the speed limit or ever so slightly above).
     
  14. Well, most of my experimentation has been in ICE vehicles, not the Niro. Frankly, around here it is more likely 55 is a top speed.

    Since air drag is scales with velocity squared and rolling resistance appears to be quite low with these vehicles, I am suprised you are averaging 5mi/kwh at 70 mph. I will try kicking in adaptive CC and see what happens.

    As for aggressive drivers, I find the far right lane is often going sub 55 in the Bay Area. Too many exits, I suppose.
     
  15. wizziwig

    wizziwig Active Member

    5 mi/kwh at 70 mph is impossible in even the worlds most efficient and aerodynamic freeway EV unless you have assist from gravity, wind, or an incorrectly reporting speedometer (always use real GPS speed). See this data for real-world Tesla Model 3 RWD measurements during Summer. As you can see their data shows 4.58 mi/kwh at 65 mph. 70 mph would be worse, especially in a much less aerodynamic boxy car like the Niro.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2020
  16. TandM

    TandM Active Member

    Rural midwest drivers would not be appreciative of 55 mph even in the right lane on the highway. You had better have your 4 ways on and be towing livestock or breaking down because otherwise no one is going to have the patience to tolerate you impeding the flow of 70mph traffic.

    Guess our differences might be city highway versus open road highway. When I do the 350+ mile round trip drive, after getting on the highway about 3 miles from my house, I typically do not touch the brakes or come out of adaptive cruise control for 140ish miles (when I exit that highway for a different one). I leave it set at 73mph the entire time (unless I have too many people brake checking me or flying by and then I speed up to 77mph).


    I guess I am glad I drive a Niro EV and not a Tesla Model 3.

    While this might be a dash picture, know that we pull data with our OBDii as well and see consistent results. In fact my husband likes to watch ABRP from home and then call me to scold me from driving too fast.

     
    niro525 likes this.
  17. wizziwig

    wizziwig Active Member

    One-off reports on forums or youtube are not statistically relevant due to many variables and errors. Unfortunately, I don't know of a large enough sample size for the Niro or Kona to be useful. The next best substitute would be something like the Chevy Bolt. It has similar enough form factor and close enough EPA rated efficiency to the Niro. You can see some data for that vehicle here. ~3.92 miles/kwh at 65 mph. Highway speeds around here are closer to 75 mph. At those speeds I see about 3.8 miles/kwh but it's just one sample point so not useful to drawing any real conclusions. My Niro does not have the battery heater or heatpump but I doubt those make much difference to warm temperature efficiency.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2020
  18. TandM

    TandM Active Member

    I have both winter packages. The heat pump is useful even in warm temperatures because it makes the AC operate more efficiently as well.

    Yes, that picture was of one instance only (and it was the first one I came across not our most efficient but nonetheless it showed a number solidly over the 4.58 you were listing off at me as being the best possible outcome). We have been collecting our data on the Niro since our test drive (which was a 425+ mile trip home).

    Both of the studies you are presenting are for different manufacturers with different drive trains. Comparing limes to lemons via a black and white photo would have similar results just because they have the same shape but once you look at a broader, full color picture you would see they are not the same and neither would be the comparison.

    Throwing studies about other vehicles out there doesn't speak for the Niro. It's okay to just let the Niro stand for itself.
     
  19. Dash pictures are all I have to work with atm. One thing that puzzles me about yours, is that 316 mi/(4.7 mi/kwh) implies a 67.2 kWh battery, not 64 kwh. That said the full size of the battery when the user invisible part of it used to maintain battery capacity by avoiding true 100% charges is something like 67.4 kWh. I wonder if your computer is using the whole battery instead the 64 kWh cap.


    I did three experiments setting ACC to 70 mph and resetting the consumption info after coming to speed for some highway drives. ACC response time was set to slow since I have noticed that uses less aggressive braking and acceleration so is presumably more efficient.

    The photos were taken very soon after exiting the highway each time. The first was on the somewhat hilly (but I believe overall downhill) drive on I-280 from San Francisco to the South Bay. There was enough traffic, I bet my average speed was around 66 or 67 mph.


    IMG_1802.JPG


    The second is mostly flat drive on US-101 to San Jose, though I forgot to reset consumption info until I was a mile or so into the drive. The third is the same drive coming back although. I should also note on the first drive for some reason the regen braking did not kick in for most of my deceleration on the exit ramp, which partly explains the worse result.
    IMG_1804.JPG IMG_1805.JPG

    The bottom line is there is no way I will hit 300 miles on a single charge at using ACC set to 70 mph, though these averages do take me close to the official range of 240 miles on a full charge.

    Next opportunity I will try some drives at 55 mph on the same routes routes using ACC, and then do a manual comparison at about those same speeds.
     
    niro525 likes this.
  20. ITown

    ITown Member

    Your energy consumption seems to be similar to mine (I drive in the same area). When I drive at freeway speeds, I get around 3.4 - 3.8 miles/kwh, depending on elevation change and speed. In my experience, going 55 mph vs 70 is only a difference of maybe 0.1 or 0.2 miles/kwh. I don't think it's worth it unless you're forced to.
     

Share This Page