2017 Kia Niro

[obob]

There are like 193 Niros listed on cars.com so apparently the dealers have them or are getting them very soon.  Only some of them have pictures.  I remember when the C-max was a new car there were listings on cars.com with VIN numbers but the dealers didn't actually have them yet but there were close to getting them.

Edited February 1, 2017 by obob

[raadsel]

There are like 193 Niros listed on cars.com so apparently the dealers have them or are getting them very soon.  Only some of them have pictures.  I remember when the C-max was a new car there were listings on cars.com with VIN numbers but the dealers didn't actually have them yet but there were close to getting them.

 

From what I can tell, they are either just arriving or will arrive in the next week. Kia is having a big ad push with Melissa McCarthy during the Super Bowl, so I'm sure they want dealers to have at least some Niros in stock on Monday.

[raadsel]

Alex on Autos did his First Look review of the Kia Niro. He said the Niro does 0-60 in 9.8 seconds, so faster than a Prius, though he does mention the C-Max has more power. He also showed stopping distance at 118 ft, so shorter than the C-Max (he did mention the C-Max) but that is in the Touring trim -- the one that only has a 43 mpg EPA rating. Impressively, though, he said that in his time with the car (a couple of days, from what I recall) that he averaged between 44-50 mpg, including doing the 0-60 and other testing.

 

He also mentions the C-Max has more power but said the Niro has a better ride. Overall, he wanted to compare it with other hybrid crossovers, such as the Rav4, but noted that the others are larger so it makes for a strange comparison. He also said that he is holding off on making too many comparisons until he can get one on loan at home for a week.  

[ptjones]

A few weeks ago I searched the Atlanta Area on the net and a couple of dealers implied they had them when they didn't. :gaah: What a waist of time, maybe end of march or beginning of April. :shrug:  It looks like they got ahead of themselves. :headscratch:

 

Paul

[Louder North]

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.

 

Agreed.  There is now a new review on the same site (posted Feb 2nd).  Quite favourable and more in depth.  

[djc]

Looks nice. 

They say the base model is  270kg (about 600lbs = 4 adults) lighter than the tested SX.  I am curious how that is possible.  Electronics don't weigh much.  Wheels and tires are heavy so maybe that accounts for some of it.  Maybe a sunroof?  That large weight difference between trim lines with same body and drive train is mysterious.  For example, looks like difference between C-max SE and SEL is at most a couple hundred pounds.

[ptjones]

That seems odd to me too. :headscratch:  I would be surprised if there was more than a hundred pounds difference between SE and SEL. 

 

Paul

[plus 3 golfer]

If you look on Kia.com, the Touring model weighs the most - about 170 pounds more than the base model.  The Touring has 18 inch rims and 225 tires while the base has 16 inch rims and 205 tires.  Hence, this likely accounts for the most of the decrease in FE of the Touring vs Base.  Also, the Touring is slightly taller (0.4 inches) than the base due to roof rails which the Base doesn't have.  So, don't know where the 600 pounds comes from.

 

Also, when comparing the height and width of the C-Max (63.8" tall and 72 " wide, excluding mirrors) with the Niro at 60.4 / 60.8 " tall and 71.1 " wide (assume excluding mirrors), the frontal area of the Niro is likely about 8% less than the C-Max.  So, it's easy to see why the Niro with about 3% less Cd (0.29 Cd vs 0.30 for the C-Max), 8% less frontal area than the C-Max, and  weighing about 534 pounds less than the C-Max, the Niro is rated at 52/49 MPG vs 42/38 for the C-Max. 

[raadsel]

If you look on Kia.com, the Touring model weighs the most - about 170 pounds more than the base model.  The Touring has 18 inch rims and 225 tires while the base has 16 inch rims and 205 tires.  Hence, this likely accounts for the most of the decrease in FE of the Touring vs Base.  Also, the Touring is slightly taller (0.4 inches) than the base due to roof rails which the Base doesn't have.  So, don't know where the 600 pounds comes from.

 

Also, when comparing the height and width of the C-Max (63.8" tall and 72 " wide, excluding mirrors) with the Niro at 60.4 / 60.8 " tall and 71.1 " wide (assume excluding mirrors), the frontal area of the Niro is likely about 8% less than the C-Max.  So, it's easy to see why the Niro with about 3% less Cd (0.29 Cd vs 0.30 for the C-Max), 8% less frontal area than the C-Max, and  weighing about 534 pounds less than the C-Max, the Niro is rated at 52/49 MPG vs 42/38 for the C-Max. 

 

You beat me to it, I was just about to post that. I'm guessing that it was a mistake, that the difference is actually around 60 kg on the Canadian models (the US has four models, like the SX equals the Touring), that someone accidentally added a zero. Beyond the tires, the Touring also comes with a sunroof.

 

The other advantage the Niro is going to have in fuel economy, over the C-Max, is the engine. Like the new Prius, the Niro's engine has a thermal efficiency of about 40%.

Edited February 7, 2017 by raadsel

[fbov]

GDI and resulting increased compression will do that... Ford was introducing GDI in conventional engines when C-Max came out, so I'd expect to see it in the next generation. 

Frank

[nsteblay]

I test drove the Niro today.  It is on my shortlist of new cars I'm considering for a summer purchase.  Here are some of my key take-aways.

 

• The car is attractive and comfortable.  I felt like I was riding as high if not higher than my C-Max, had as much room on the inside, seats were as comfortable, and visibility was good. My wife really liked it.
• The tech looks good.  I like it better than my 2013 C-Max.  Has Apple Carplay and Android Auto with a nice touch screen that is very accessible.  Has a wireless charging pad for a Samsung phone. Has the sensors that you are commonly seeing in most new cars.  Also, keyless, unlocking with touch, sensing wipers, automatic climate control, etc.
• Handling was good.  The 6-speed versus CVT didn't really change my perception of the ride. I guess I have no preference.
• It seemed to have much slower acceleration. It was a short test drive, so it may be an unfair assessment, but it definitely didn't have the spunk of my C-Max.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get it on the freeway, so I wasn't able to kick it down in a merge situation. I'm sure it has adequate power for typical freeway driving. I'll need to test drive again before buying.

We also drove the Rav4 Hybrid with AWD.  Super nice car but a good chunk more expensive and interestingly not as comfortable.  Also much lower gas mileage.  I also don't like the Toyota tech, no Carplay or Android Auto.

 

I'll be checking out the Honda HR-V also, even though it isn't a hybrid.

 

Right now the Niro is on the top of our list.  I wish Ford had the next generation hybrid out to consider.  

[ptjones]

What MPG's were you getting? What trim level? Were you able to EV for longer distance than CMAX and how was the EV power, acceleration?

 

Paul

[AZgman]

I test drove the Niro today.  It is on my shortlist of new cars I'm considering for a summer purchase.  Here are some of my key take-aways.

 

• The car is attractive and comfortable.  I felt like I was riding as high if not higher than my C-Max, had as much room on the inside, seats were as comfortable, and visibility was good. My wife really liked it.
• The tech looks good.  I like it better than my 2013 C-Max.  Has Apple Carplay and Android Auto with a nice touch screen that is very accessible.  Has a wireless charging pad for a Samsung phone. Has the sensors that you are commonly seeing in most new cars.  Also, keyless, unlocking with touch, sensing wipers, automatic climate control, etc.
• Handling was good.  The 6-speed versus CVT didn't really change my perception of the ride. I guess I have no preference.
• It seemed to have much slower acceleration. It was a short test drive, so it may be an unfair assessment, but it definitely didn't have the spunk of my C-Max.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get it on the freeway, so I wasn't able to kick it down in a merge situation. I'm sure it has adequate power for typical freeway driving. I'll need to test drive again before buying.

We also drove the Rav4 Hybrid with AWD.  Super nice car but a good chunk more expensive and interestingly not as comfortable.  Also much lower gas mileage.  I also don't like the Toyota tech, no Carplay or Android Auto.

 

I'll be checking out the Honda HR-V also, even though it isn't a hybrid.

 

Right now the Niro is on the top of our list.  I wish Ford had the next generation hybrid out to consider.  

 

Are you not considering a 2017 C-Max? If not, why?  The 2017 C-MAX has a power passenger seat, Car Play/Android Auto, Blind Spot monitoring, Xenon Headlights and all of the bugs worked out. I do agree with you about the RAV4 Hybrid BTW.

[raadsel]

What MPG's were you getting? What trim level? Were you able to EV for longer distance than CMAX and how was the EV power, acceleration?

 

Paul

 

For trim level, it sounds as if he were driving the very top model, since the wireless phone charger is part of an option package only available on the top of the line Touring.

[raadsel]

Are you not considering a 2017 C-Max? If not, why?  The 2017 C-MAX has a power passenger seat, Car Play/Android Auto, Blind Spot monitoring, Xenon Headlights and all of the bugs worked out. I do agree with you about the RAV4 Hybrid BTW.

 

While I agree they finally added some nicer features by adding the Platinum model, it is still missing the Autonomous braking, Smart Cruise Control, etc. that would have been on the Niro he test drove.

[nsteblay]

I believe I drove the EX ... not entirely sure.  It was a very short trip and I didn't check the MPG for it.  

 

I already have a C-Max ... but you're right, I am thinking about another C-Max.  If you've invested recently in a C-Max you made a good choice.

 

I have an Automatic OBD II and capture metrics on every drive.  My 2016 yearly MPG average was 44.8.  Here is a graphic of my MPG this last year.  I live in Minnesota so you can see the variability by temperature.  Average MPH per trip was only 35 as I use the C-Max predominately for freeway commuting during rush hours.  It would be much lower if my average MPH was higher.  For longer freeway trips with no traffic, where my average MPH is closer to 50 MPH, I get just under 40 MPG in warm weather.  I believe the Niro will get a more consistent MPG even at higher speeds, similar to the Prius.  I'll wait to see what owners report these next couple of month.  I joined a Niro forum.

  

 

[ptjones]

I test drove top on line KIA NIRO Touring at Peoria KIA in Pheonix, AZ Today with mixed review . I drove16.1 miles, 7 HWY and 9.1 mi City getting 45.1MPG's working on getting good MPG's. Exterior looks nice, interior looks cheap for Top of the Line($33k) and didn't have rain sensing wippers. It reminded me of improved Prius V without the extra space, the EV Mode is gutless and above 40 mph the ICE is on all the time. NIRO is noticeably lighter, but I don't think it handles better than CMAX. As far as acceleration goes CMAX is in a class by itself. IMO NIRO Touring isn't as nice as CMAX SEL. BTW I would get around 55 mpg with my 2013 CMAX

 

Paul

Edited February 20, 2017 by ptjones

[ptjones]

I believe I drove the EX ... not entirely sure.  It was a very short trip and I didn't check the MPG for it.  

 

I already have a C-Max ... but you're right, I am thinking about another C-Max.  If you've invested recently in a C-Max you made a good choice.

 

I have an Automatic OBD II and capture metrics on every drive.  My 2016 yearly MPG average was 44.8.  Here is a graphic of my MPG this last year.  I live in Minnesota so you can see the variability by temperature.  Average MPH per trip was only 35 as I use the C-Max predominately for freeway commuting during rush hours.  It would be much lower if my average MPH was higher.  For longer freeway trips with no traffic, where my average MPH is closer to 50 MPH, I get just under 40 MPG in warm weather.  I believe the Niro will get a more consistent MPG even at higher speeds, similar to the Prius.  I'll wait to see what owners report these next couple of month.  I joined a Niro forum.

 

Doesn't sound like you are using Grill Covers which is good for at least 2 mpg and oil pan heater if you don't have block heater.

 

Paul

[ptjones]

I drove a Prius V 2017 model three from Findley Toyota Flagstaff, AZ. The car seems nice the supension was a little stiffer than the NIRO and felt a little heavier not sure about the handling it definitely accelerates slower than the Nero and of course no comparison to the CMAX. It's very obvious KIA was going after Prius owners, NIRO Salesman said Prius owners bought their NIRO's. IMO I don't think CMAX Owners would get much worse mpg's than NIRO and 2017 CMAX TITANIUM Is overall a better Hybrid.

Paul

Edited February 26, 2017 by ptjones

[MaxHeadroom]

SnowStorm, I think they had to draft trucks to get those high levels.  Can't get around aero drag otherwise, the big energy sapper.

The main truth to get elevated MPG levels is to get the engine to operate at around 75% max cylinder loading at around 1900 rpm or so (highest efficiency).   The engine computer tries to do that, but the way we drive can obviously help.   Some complexity to it, yet the main rule is "When the engine has to run, it should be at peak efficiency, since all energy in a hybrid comes from gasoline." (non-plugin hybrid of course)

 

About the Niro, it appears Kia-Hyundai just didn't want to pay for the planetary gearset patents (Toyota) like Ford cut a deal for.  I like the clutchless, smooth power blending in the CMax and Prius better than using a complicated clunky DCT (Niro).  ........  I read a review on the Niro recently, and the car experts noticed the transmission did some very annoying things.    My opinion is the Niro is a no-buy.  (Buy the Kia Soul Electric if you want a green Kia, that one is good.) The Niro is good except for the power setup, which is important.

[Kelleytoons]

Yeah, the Niro won't be anything I'd be interested in, for exactly the reasons you mention.

[fbov]

... About the Niro, it appears Kia-Hyundai just didn't want to pay for the planetary gearset patents (Toyota) like Ford cut a deal for.  ...

Appearances can be deceiving...

 

The power split system was patented by TRW in May, 1973 US3732751. Ford and Toyota did cross-license patents, but that's very common, and this wasn't one of them. It expired in 1990. No practical motors or HVBs existed at the time; a great idea in need of parallel technologies.

 

It's also easy to forget two things...

Hyundai's hybrid driving experience is very similar to a conventional drive train, so there's less need for driver accommodation to a constant engine speed.

Integrating the motor into the transmission may have cost or production advantages, enabling engine options, or control system commonality across models.  

 

They're not dummies, neither is Ford.

 

HAve fun,

Frank, whose wife got a Sonata Hybrid. 

[djc]

Consumer Reports today posted a first look at the Kia Niro.  They report getting 42mpg in "mixed driving"; far short of the 52mpg they got with the current Prius.  They paid $26,800  for their mid-range copy.   They also say:

 

"If your priorities are to save gas but have some fun doing it, given the Niro's mundane driving experience, we’d suggest looking at the Ford C-Max or Fusion Hybrid."

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/2017-kia-niro/2017-kia-niro-challenges-toyota-prius-as-fuel-economy-contender/

[Louder North]

Another review of the Niro on driving.ca.   No new news on the need for more HP, but some interesting photos (12 v battery reset button?).  The reviewer also observes that "However, with its hybrid powertrain — and subsequent 5.4 L/100 km combined fuel economy rating — the Niro separates itself from that pack, instead focusing its gaze at nibbling into the market share of the Toyota Prius V, and to a lesser extent the Ford C-Max hybrid".

[ptjones]

Interesting most reviews mention the 190 ft/lb of Torque yet having driven 3 NIRO's I never feel it. :headscratch: They didn't like the lag time of the accelerator either, CMAX owners wouldn't too. :sad:

 

Paul