2017 Kia Niro

[ptjones]

Did anyone say what the max speed in EV is? What size tires and wheels are and Car has to be smaller to weight less. :headscratch:  Interesting to see the accelerating times to 60mph. :)

 

Paul

[obob]

Did anyone say what the max speed in EV is? What size tires and wheels are and Car has to be smaller to weight less. :headscratch:  Interesting to see the accelerating times to 60mph. :)

 

Paul

 

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/tire/2017/2362820/kia_niro.html

Standard tire size:

P 225/55 R 17 (NOTE: THIS IS PROBABLY WRONG OR NOT ALL MODELS HAVE THIS SIZE )

 

 

 

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/kia/2017-kia-niro-ar169443.html

year: 2017 make: Kia Model: Niro price: $ 25000 (Est.) Engine: inline-4 Horsepower @ RPM: 146 MPG(Hwy): 50 Torque @ RPM: 195 Displacement: 1.6 L 0-60 time: 10 sec. (Est.) Top Speed: 125 mph (Est.)

Edited January 10, 2017 by obob

[ptjones]

NIRO is smaller all the way around although it looks like it might have more storage space. Not sure how that works. And it weighs 400 lbs less, that's surprising  :)

 

Paul

[raadsel]

Did anyone say what the max speed in EV is? What size tires and wheels are and Car has to be smaller to weight less. :headscratch:  Interesting to see the accelerating times to 60mph. :)

 

Paul

 

The Niro FE (50 mpg), EX and LX (49 mpg) have 205/60R16 tires, the Touring (43 mpg) will have 225/45R18 tires. The larger tires, roof rails, and about 150 additional pounds of electronics (heated/cooled seats, adaptive cruise control, autonomous braking, Harmon Kardon stereo, etc.) seem to be what lowers the Touring's fuel economy.

 

I'm not sure Kia has released the details on the powertrain but I'd expect the EV max speed to be similar to the 72 mph you find in the Sonata/Optima Hybrids.

 

Much of the weight reduction is that some parts, such as the hood and hatch, are made of aluminum. It is close in size to the C-Max. The Niro's wheelbase is longer but overall is two inches shorter; it is 1 inch narrower than the C-Max, and is 3.5 inches shorter. Interestingly, headroom is only 1" less in front on the Niro, and both the C-Max and the Niro have the same rear headroom. The Niro has a bit more than an inch more legroom in front, and just under an inch (.9") in back. The Niro has a bit less cargo space, about 5 cu ft. less -- most is likely because of the lower height but some is because of the increased passenger space -- though it also has room under the cargo deck for a full sized spare tire. With the rear seats folded down, the Niro actually has about 2 cu. ft. more cargo space than the C-Max. Unsurprisingly, the Niro's turning radius seems to be a few inches less than the C-Max. 

 

I've not seen an official 0-60 time but it appears that it will be about 10 seconds.

 

Most of my information is coming from Kia sources, such as this: http://www.kiamedia.com/us/en/models/niro/2017/specifications  While it is not a C-Max, it looks like it might be one of our better options for a C-Max replacement in the next year or two; unless Ford builds a Model E CUV.

Edited December 24, 2016 by raadsel

[ptjones]

Found this NIRO on Fuelly: http://www.fuelly.com/car/kia/niro/2016/arska/534123   NIRO only averaging 45.5 mpg. and  From a performance stand point NIRO isn't that close to a CMAX.  The more I read about the KIA NIRO the more it sounds like a Prius V with less space. Add to that it only has a 43 hp electric motor, 139 total hp and 0-60mph in over 10sec.   , sounds like a Prius V.  It will be interesting to see what people think when comparing the CMAX with two electric motors for 60 hp, 188 hp total and 0-60 in 8 sec. and with Grill Covers you can get similar MPG's.  We have many Prius owners that traded in for CMAX's. You would have thought KIA would have come out with a NIRO more sportier than Prius V and It's still only 4mpg better than Prius V.  IMO :)

 

Paul

Edited January 13, 2017 by ptjones

[raadsel]

Found this NIRO on Fuelly: http://www.fuelly.com/car/kia/niro/2016/arska/534123   NIRO only averaging 45.5 mpg. and  From a performance stand point NIRO isn't that close to a CMAX.  The more I read about the KIA NIRO the more it sounds like a Prius V with less space. Add to that it only has a 30 hp electric motor, 139 total hp and 0-60mph in over 10sec.   , sounds like a Prius V.  It will be interesting to see what people think when comparing the CMAX with two electric motors for 60 hp, 188 hp total and 0-60 in 8 sec. and with Grill Covers you can get similar MPG's.  We have many Prius owners that traded in for CMAX's. You would have thought KIA would have come out with a NIRO more sportier than Prius V and It's still only 4mpg better than Prius V.  IMO :)

 

Paul

 

I replied elsewhere but I don't think your points add much. As I mentioned with the Fuelly average; you need to take into account those are non-US versions of the car driven largely since September (when it because available for purchase overseas). The results, so far, are for new cars, not yet broken in, driven in colder weather; so you would have to expect that number to be higher at this time next year. And, as for averages, that still beats the C-Max Hybrid Fuelly average by about 5 mpg -- so over 10% better fuel economy so far.

 

The smaller electric motor is not a good comparison, as the transmission sits between the motor and the wheels -- it does not need to have as large an electric motor.

[ptjones]

I replied elsewhere but I don't think your points add much. As I mentioned with the Fuelly average; you need to take into account those are non-US versions of the car driven largely since September (when it because available for purchase overseas). The results, so far, are for new cars, not yet broken in, driven in colder weather; so you would have to expect that number to be higher at this time next year. And, as for averages, that still beats the C-Max Hybrid Fuelly average by about 5 mpg -- so over 10% better fuel economy so far.

 

The smaller electric motor is not a good comparison, as the transmission sits between the motor and the wheels -- it does not need to have as large an electric motor.  

 

I have no clue what you are talking about.  I'm thinking the CMAX's CVT with motors inside and part of the transmission would be more efficient than the motor outside supplying power to a automatic transmission. I'm sure there is more efficiency lost in an automatic transmission. And CMAX has twice the HP to boot!  Can't wait to try a KIA NIRO out in near future and see. :)

 

Paul

[raadsel]

 

I replied elsewhere but I don't think your points add much. As I mentioned with the Fuelly average; you need to take into account those are non-US versions of the car driven largely since September (when it because available for purchase overseas). The results, so far, are for new cars, not yet broken in, driven in colder weather; so you would have to expect that number to be higher at this time next year. And, as for averages, that still beats the C-Max Hybrid Fuelly average by about 5 mpg -- so over 10% better fuel economy so far.

 

The smaller electric motor is not a good comparison, as the transmission sits between the motor and the wheels -- it does not need to have as large an electric motor.  

 

I have no clue what you are talking about.  I'm thinking the CMAX's CVT with motors inside and part of the transmission would be more efficient than the motor outside supplying power to a automatic transmission. I'm sure there is more efficiency lost in an automatic transmission. And CMAX has twice the HP to boot!  Can't wait to try a KIA NIRO out in near future and see. :)

 

Paul

 

 

The advantage is that the electric motor doesn't have to spin as quickly because of the gearing, which means you don't need as powerful an electric motor. And FWIW, the electric motor on the Niro is built into the transmission, just that it is "behind" the transmission on the Niro vs. "in front" of the transmission on the C-Max. It is also worth noting the automatic on the Niro is a dry dual clutch transmission, which makes it efficiency closer to what you get from an eCVT.

 

Having said that, obviously the Niro does not have the power the C-Max does. As much as we hate it, the issue is that the Prius is the car to beat in the hybrid segment, so Hyundia/Kia, with the Ioniq/Niro, seem to have had the goal of providing cars that could beat the Prius (and look and feel more like a normal car).

[ptjones]

I don't want members to get confused about CVT transmission and drive /charging motors/ generators. Here is a image :

As you can see the motors are part of the CVT transmission. :)

 

Paul

[C-MaxSea]

Found this NIRO on Fuelly: http://www.fuelly.com/car/kia/niro/2016/arska/534123   NIRO only averaging 45.5 mpg. and  From a performance stand point NIRO isn't that close to a CMAX.  The more I read about the KIA NIRO the more it sounds like a Prius V with less space. Add to that it only has a 30 hp electric motor, 139 total hp and 0-60mph in over 10sec.   , sounds like a Prius V.  It will be interesting to see what people think when comparing the CMAX with two electric motors for 60 hp, 188 hp total and 0-60 in 8 sec. and with Grill Covers you can get similar MPG's.  We have many Prius owners that traded in for CMAX's. You would have thought KIA would have come out with a NIRO more sportier than Prius V and It's still only 4mpg better than Prius V.  IMO :)

 

Paul

 

Those MPGs look awfully familiar - we get that with our C-Max and better; and with a range of 600 miiles !  :flyaway: :shift: :flyaway:

 

Improved, yes, but another underpowered Priiius wannabe with a small tank - nyet, here.  Safety/crash test results ???

 

Nick

Edited January 11, 2017 by C-MaxSea

[raadsel]

Those MPGs look awfully familiar - we get that with our C-Max and better; and with a range of 600 miiles !  :flyaway: :shift: :flyaway:

 

Improved, yes, but another underpowered Priiius wannabe with a small tank - nyet, here.  Safety/crash test results ???

 

Nick

 

What I think is missed here is that the Fuelly average for the C-Max is actually about the same as the EPA ratings. Unless we find that the Niro's EPA numbers are inflated, something I doubt will be true (though why I'll be interested in what testers get from it), then the experience of Wayne Gerdis' test drives would appear to show that someone driving carefully likely will be able to get 60 MPG or better -- in good conditions Wayne had no issue getting 80 MPG or better.

 

As for crash test results, it does not appear that the results for the Niro in the US is not yet available. In Europe, however, the Niro got a 5-star safety rating.

[C-MaxSea]

What I think is missed here is that the Fuelly average for the C-Max is actually about the same as the EPA ratings. Unless we find that the Niro's EPA numbers are inflated, something I doubt will be true (though why I'll be interested in what testers get from it), then the experience of Wayne Gerdis' test drives would appear to show that someone driving carefully likely will be able to get 60 MPG or better -- in good conditions Wayne had no issue getting 80 MPG or better.

 

As for crash test results, it does not appear that the results for the Niro in the US is not yet available. In Europe, however, the Niro got a 5-star safety rating.

 

Indeed.  Nothing missed here, we all know what averages are.  Just having fun with a one-off opportunity.   Results over time; we shall see.

 

Good to see they pass Euro safety standards (trust they will pass ours too).  Hmmm, aren't the Euros the ones who have been passing off dirty diesels to their masses for decades (VW, Fiat, Citroen, ...................... - I don't really trust them at this point for 'standards'. 

 

:flyaway: :shift:  :flyaway:   in our speedy, comfy, does it all C-Max,

 

Nick

Edited January 13, 2017 by C-MaxSea

[ptjones]

What I think is missed here is that the Fuelly average for the C-Max is actually about the same as the EPA ratings. Unless we find that the Niro's EPA numbers are inflated, something I doubt will be true (though why I'll be interested in what testers get from it), then the experience of Wayne Gerdis' test drives would appear to show that someone driving carefully likely will be able to get 60 MPG or better -- in good conditions Wayne had no issue getting 80 MPG or better.

 

As for crash test results, it does not appear that the results for the Niro in the US is not yet available. In Europe, however, the Niro got a 5-star safety rating.

I Posted in another thread that there is one NIRO on Fuelly.com and he is getting 45.5mpg which I would be more realistic for most people than Wayne's. 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/kia/niro/2016/arska/534123  Hopefully it would be much longer before I can test drive one and keep my opinion. :)

 

Paul

[obob]

My wife and I checked out a Kia Niro at a dealer before we bought our C-Max. Other than maybe a little more gas mileage, I think the C-Max is the better vehicle.  YMMV

 

C-Max                           Niro

Proven drivetrain          New drivetrain

Comfortable seats        OK seats

US company                 S. Korean company

Ford Sync                     UVO

188 hp                           139 hp combined

176 ft/lb                         191 ft/lb combined

141 hp/129 ft/lb ICE      104 hp/109 ft/lb ICE

CVT                               DSG 6 speed

1.4KW battery               1.56KW battery

13.5 gal tank                  11.9 gal tank

 

                                           C-Max                                                       Niro

electric motor  (188-141=47hp /  176-129=47 ft-lb)       (139-104=35hp / 191-109=82 ft-lb)

 

In a way, these numbers are not easy to compare without knowing more about the way they are used.  Like the hp at the red line of the engine is not really that useful, though it may sell cars.  Though it seems to me a more torquey electric motor would be useful for more efficient acceleration.

 

There is a lot of stuff on the Internet about hp vs torque.  

 

Assuming your numbers and my reasoning are right - the Niro engineers chose a much less powerful gas engine and an electric motor with a lot more torque (47 vs 82).

 

It seems like a good idea, especially for drivers that just drive the car without thinking too much about mileage techniques.

 

And perhaps the transmission uses the electric motor so that it takes advantage of the high torque, lower horsepower.

 

(I think the days of manufacturers fudging EPA number is greatly reduced)

Edited January 14, 2017 by obob

[raadsel]

I Posted in another thread that there is one NIRO on Fuelly.com and he is getting 45.5mpg which I would be more realistic for most people than Wayne's. 

http://www.fuelly.com/car/kia/niro/2016/arska/534123  Hopefully it would be much longer before I can test drive one and keep my opinion. :)

 

Paul

 

Not sure the logic here. Granted, the 88 mpg 30 mile run that Wayne did is likely most drivers would have a hard time replicating, or even the 80+ mpg he got on his 200 mile run from LA to Arizona; but I can't see why 60+ mpg wouldn't be easily achieved by those getting 50+ mpg with the C-Max. It is also worth noting the 45.5 mpg individual you picked out is in Finland (based on the flag in his profile); his first fill up was in November (so freezing weather) and 85% of his driving is on the highway (based on his reporting) -- so I don't see why 45.5 mpg would be representative of what most here would get. 

[ptjones]

Not sure the logic here. Granted, the 88 mpg 30 mile run that Wayne did is likely most drivers would have a hard time replicating, or even the 80+ mpg he got on his 200 mile run from LA to Arizona; but I can't see why 60+ mpg wouldn't be easily achieved by those getting 50+ mpg with the C-Max. It is also worth noting the 45.5 mpg individual you picked out is in Finland (based on the flag in his profile); his first fill up was in November (so freezing weather) and 85% of his driving is on the highway (based on his reporting) -- so I don't see why 45.5 mpg would be representative of what most here would get. 

This is better than nothing, but it is hard to speculate but all the Auto News outlets said it was significantly slower in acceleration so apparently it is using ICE for that job. :) 

 

Paul  

[C-MaxSea]

FWIW, the Fuelly Niro cited above appears to be located in Finland where it's a mite chilly right now;  if so, I would expect the driver to be posting MPGs in the 50s by May/June (driving oh so slowly off the line).  ?????  You go Niro !

Edited January 15, 2017 by C-MaxSea

[ptjones]

Well last night I talked to Bob, one of the 2 drivers of KIA NIRO GWR cross country trip across America.  He has 2013 CMAX SE, but his wife drives it, he drives Sonota Hybrid.

He explained in plain English what their strategy was DWL(drive with load) which means pretty much you have even pressure on the accelerator all the time. So you end up slowing down going up hill and speeding up going down. This lets the ICE/EV do what ever it wants to do. You match your speed to the FE you want  to get. They wanted to be above 74 mpg so they tried to keep the average above 80 mpg to have some breathing room. It sounded like they were going around 50 mph+/-.  Interesting that there is no gauge in the NIRO that tells you how much EV miles you have driven. :headscratch:He said he liked the CMAX Smart Gauges better than NIRO.  You could call this a mild P&G strategy. I also use this except I don't use constant pressure on the accelerator and instead use the Two Bar Rule for acceleration and let off the gas to get into EV.  I believe this was part of the problem with Wayne trashing the 2013 CMAX four years ago, and with Post to him it seemed to me he wasn't trying to make the CMAX look good. :sad: FORD gamed the system and he wanted everyone to know it. :swear:

 

The latest info I have gotten is the NIRO is suppose to be available in April, It will be interesting to see what the real production KIA NIRO mpg's is. :headscratch:  

 

Paul

[fbov]

...Their strategy was DWL(drive with load) ...You could call this a mild P&G strategy. I also use this except I don't use constant pressure on the accelerator and instead use the Two Bar Rule for acceleration and let off the gas to get into EV. ...

Hyundai's hybrid system drives best like a standard drive train, which it is, in many ways. This makes sense.

 

 I find no indication when EV is available, negating our strategies. Dropping throttle does not access EV, necessarily. I agree Ford did a better display, save for Hyundai's real-time braking feedback (akin to our ICE threshold when EV'ing).

 

Have fun,

Frank

[ptjones]

Hyundai's hybrid system drives best like a standard drive train, which it is, in many ways. This makes sense.

 

 I find no indication when EV is available, negating our strategies. Dropping throttle does not access EV, necessarily. I agree Ford did a better display, save for Hyundai's real-time braking feedback (akin to our ICE threshold when EV'ing).

 

Have fun,

Frank

I liked my 2010 and 08 FEH for that too. I use the brake coach instead, still have 98% Regen. :)  What MPG's is your wife getting?

 

Paul

[fbov]

Ask again in 8 months. It's winter, and she has the heat set in the 80's, with defrost on full time. 

Frank

[ptjones]

Ask again in 8 months. It's winter, and she has the heat set in the 80's, with defrost on full time. 

Frank

LOL :lol2:  Is it as good as CMAX?

 

Paul

[Louder North]

New Niro review in Driving.ca  - calls it an SUV (?).   See it here.

[djc]

New Niro review in Driving.ca  - calls it an SUV (?).   See it here.

Not so much a review as a summary of Kia press release from Detroit auto show.  

re: SUV:  One year (1995) a Subaru Legacy Outback was a trim line of their wagon, the next year the essentially same vehicle was an SUV.  There don't appear to be any bright lines here - a tall wagon or enclosed truck can call itself an SUV.  In my mind, an SUV needs to have substantial ground clearance, some cargo carrying ability (wagon like), and have 4WD or AWD.  Niro appears to be more a tall wagon like C-max and not an SUV.

[SnowStorm]

Also, an 'SUV' should have some towing capability!  Certainly agree with the other requirements.