2017 FORD CMAX, KIA NIRO and TOYOTA Prius V MPG TEST Drives

[ptjones]

I test drove top of line KIA NIRO Touring at Peoria KIA in Pheonix, AZ last week with mixed reviews . The NIRO only had 3 miles on it. Exterior looks nice, interior looks a little cheap for Top of the Line($33k) and didn't have rain sensing wipers or hands free automatic hatchback. It reminded me of an improved Prius V without the extra space, the EV Mode is gutless and above 40 mph the ICE is on all the time unless your gliding. It was nice at the end of trip it displays Trip Info: miles and MPG's average.      I drove 16  miles with KIA Salesman, 7 HWY(65 mph on the 101Loop) and 9 mi City(35-45mph) getting 45.1 MPG average working on getting good MPG's. On the FWY the only way I could get the ICE to shut off was to glide.  NIRO is noticeably lighter, but I don't think it handles better than My CMAX. As far as acceleration goes CMAX is in a class by itself.  IMO NIRO Touring isn't as nice as my CMAX SEL.  BTW I had 54 mpg average on my 2013 CMAX with about 75 mi. FWY and 25mi. City on this fill up when I test drove the NIRO.

 

I drove a Prius V 2017 model 3 from Findley Toyota Flagstaff, AZ to try to have a up to date comparison with 2017 KIA NIRO Touring. The car seems nice, the suspension was a little stiffer than the NIRO and felt a little heavier not sure about the handling, it definitely accelerates slower than the Nero( some power is lost from being at 6900ft elevation) and of course no comparison to the CMAX. The car only had a few miles on it and after approx 7 mi.HWY/City Loop it's average was 44.5 mpg's. 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 experience.

 

I wanted to compare a 2017 FORD CMAX Titanium to 2017 KIA NIRO Touring and 2017 TOYOTA Prius V Model 3 so I test drove one from AutoNation FORD just off I-85 FWY in Union City, GA.  Weather Conditions weren't great with 55*F and rain, ( figured to loose 1 mpg from 8*F lower temp than NIRO Test and a couple from the rain but I decided to go ahead anyways. So I started down I-85 for 7 mi. got off FWY and took country roads( 55-45 mph) back to the Dealer for a total of 20.4 mi. I was pleasantly surprised to get 46.3 mpg's average with 10.7 EV miles, 52% of the miles.

 

As it turned out there was KIA of Union City Dealer a couple of blocks down the street from AutoNation FORD so I got the chance to drive another NIRO Touring with Salesman, He sent me down SR 138 for 6 miles and turned around and came back, I wanted to go on I-85. Speed was 45-55mph with wet road, but no rain. The average for twelve miles was 37.9 mpg, I would have thought it would have been better. The drive was about half an hour after CMAX drive with dryer road conditions, no rain and no difference in wind conditions.

 

Today  I drove a 2017 KIA NIRO FE from Thornton Road Kia in Lithia Springs, GA for a 27 mi. test drive, temp 66*F/no wind, 10m. HWY and 17 mi.,  35-40 mph City getting 54.4 mpg which is very good.  BTW I don't like the tires, they don't inspire confidence under hard cornering like the CMAX and probably the Touring's wider tires.

I was hoping to duplicate the route with my CMAX, but the roads the Salesman took me on aren't on my GPS's so I ended up driving SR's at 50-55mph for 28 mi, but still managed to get 55.3mpg., I think I lost about 5mpg because of the difference. :sad: At 35-40 mph I should be getting 65-80mpg, at 50-55mph, 55-65MPG.  Bottom line My CMAX gets better MPG's than the the most fuel efficient KIA NIRO FE. :)

 

So results are:  2017 FORD CMAX Titanium     46.3 mpg

                     2017 KIA NIRO Touring #1       45.1 mpg

                     2017 KIA NIRO Touring #2      37.9 mpg

                     2017 KIA NIRO FE                    54.4 mpg

                     2017 TOYOTA Prius V Model 3  44.5 mpg

             MY   2013 FORD CMAX SEL            55.3 mpg

NOTE*  Manufactures Displays tend to be optimistic by varying amounts, CMAX odometer is understated by 1.6 to 2% which can increase MPG's by up to 1 mpg.

 

Paul               

Edited March 5, 2017 by ptjones

[AZgman]

Nice write-up. Impressive that the Ford design can still hold up to a couple of newer designs.

[ptjones]

Here is some more info:

 

All cars were started cold and the 2 NIRO's and Prius V, I was the first driver to drive them. The CMAX had 30 miles on it before I drove it. The first Niro OT was 63*F, 2nd NIRO and CMAX were 55*F with wet roads and with CMAX it was raining. Prius V was also low 60's*F and at 6900ft of elevation, not sure how much difference that would make.
It was interesting comparing the cars and feeling the differences in ride, response to the accelerator, acceleration, EV operation and usefulness, handling and seat feel. Being very familiar with the CMAX I could feel the differences in rolling resistance and lighter feel of the steering wheel between factory 38psi on 2017 CMAX and 50psi which I run in mine. They also added a ECO( Prius) switch which makes the accelerator act more like you were driving a Prius, hated it. :sad:  They did add Bliss, blind spot warning when cars are next to you. I wish I had plugin my ScanGaugeII when I did the test drive so could have monitored SOC and WT. :sad: I really like the Empower Display in CMAX, apparently the other cars aren't design to drive in EV only.

If I get more free time I might go on some more test drives. :)  It's fun, but dealing with pushy Sales Managers is annoying. :sad:

 

Paul

[joshg678]

Sales manager: "what can we do to get you home in this car today?"

Me: "Give it to me for free"

Sales manager: "haha, can't do that. But seriously, what could we do?"

Me: "Is it free?"

 

 

 

Prius button, that's great lol

[AZgman]

SOC = State Of Charge

WT = Water Temperature 

 

??

[C-MaxSea]

Nice work Paul !  Just a little air out of the Niro balloon I'd say.  No match for the 5 year old design of the C-Max package of performance and benefits. 

 

EV only to 40 mph on the Niropriuss - eeeeeeeekkk !!!

Edited March 1, 2017 by C-MaxSea

[ptjones]

I don't get it, it has bigger HVB and 43 hp motor, but they really don't use it.  Like I said, improved some over Prius V. :sad: No real match to CMAX IMO. :)

 

 

Paul

[raadsel]

I don't get it, it has bigger HVB and 43 hp motor, but they really don't use it.  Like I said, improved some over Prius V. :sad: No real match to CMAX IMO. :)

 

 

Paul

 

I think you are trying to draw conclusions on far too little information. We do finally have the first two US Niros being reported on Fuelly -- one is getting 44.0 and the other, in a Touring (44.0 EPA combined rating) is getting 47.6. While the person with the 47.6 combined rating is in San Diego, so doesn't have the same weather issues as some here, that is quite impressive since he has only driven about 1,000 miles, so far. In his notes he states that he did a 211 mile round trip, almost entirely at 65 mph on cruise control, and recorded 49.3 mpg. 

 

Granted, this doesn't prove anything one way or another. First, it will be interesting to see how his fuel economy changes (likely improves) as the car is broken in and he gets used to driving it. Second, it will be much more interesting as we get more people reporting, particularly people with the FE, LX, and EX models that have higher EPA ratings.

 

I understand that the Niro is not for you. I'll agree, the lack of power is disappointing -- then again, in a car where we purposely try not to use the power, I'm not sure how critical that is. I also haven't heard of anyone here trying out the "sport" setting -- the default setting of the Niro is "Eco", which is similar to having the "Eco" on in the current C-Max. I'll be interested to see, over a longer term, how it does.

[raadsel]

I found this YouTube video that I thought was interesting. Granted, it is 30 minutes long and most of it isn't terribly interesting, especially the first several minutes of stop and go traffic. Basically, it is just the raw video feed of a test drive of a Kia Niro from the drivers perspective (camera mounted on the drivers head). He is driving a Touring model (44 mpg EPA rating). While you don't get a feel for the car, you can get a perspective of him accelerating (and see the needle on the Eco Guage for how hard he is accelerating), the cabin noise, etc. He also talks occasionally during the video, including pointing out the BLIS, lane keep, and autonomous braking systems. It is also worth noting he finished with a 44.3 mpg average for his drive, you can form your own opinions on his driving style.

 

[ptjones]

I think you are trying to draw conclusions on far too little information. We do finally have the first two US Niros being reported on Fuelly -- one is getting 44.0 and the other, in a Touring (44.0 EPA combined rating)(The window sticker said  46city/40Hwy/43combined.) is getting 47.6. While the person with the 47.6 combined rating is in San Diego, so doesn't have the same weather issues as some here, that is quite impressive since he has only driven about 1,000 miles, so far. In his notes he states that he did a 211 mile round trip, almost entirely at 65 mph on cruise control, and recorded 49.3 mpg.  nteresting on my first test drive I was hypermiling with mostly city and got 45.1mpg and I'm guessing the actual fuelly numbers would be 1-2 mpg less.  :headscratch:

 

 

Granted, this doesn't prove anything one way or another. First, it will be interesting to see how his fuel economy changes (likely improves) as the car is broken in and he gets used to driving it. Second, it will be much more interesting as we get more people reporting, particularly people with the FE, LX, and EX models that have higher EPA ratings.   I was looking for a Hybrid that could potentially replace my SEL trim level. :)

 

I understand that the Niro is not for you. I'll agree, the lack of power is disappointing -- then again, in a car where we purposely try not to use the power, I'm not sure how critical that is.  If you think about it the CMAX uses the extra power to charge the HVB, at 2 Bars on level ground the HVB charges quickly, but going uphill the HVB stops charging until there is extra power again. With the CMAX you should be in EV about 50% of the time to get good MPG's. We can go 85mph in EV, the NIRO was only 40mph which took extreme effort. There is no display to show you how much pressure you can put on the accelerator without turning the ICE on. :sad:   Bottom line is you can drive around in EV in CMAX, the NIRO you can't without being a nuisance.  :drop:

   I also haven't heard of anyone here trying out the "sport" setting -- the default setting of the Niro is "Eco", which is similar to having the "Eco" on in the current C-Max. I tried Sport setting on second NIRO test drive and all it seem to do was turn it into a manual transmission, it didn't change the performance off the start, just a gimmick and wouldn't improve MPG's. :sad:  I'll be interested to see, over a longer term, how it does. From what I have seen so far P&G( Pulse and Glided) is the way to improve MPG's with the NIRO IMO.

 Raadsel you need to Test Drive a NIRO Touring and tell what you think. :)

Paul

[raadsel]

My mistake on the combined MPG, I was going off memory, and it is 43 and not 44 on the Touring. I think we can both agree that a test drive, especially when it is the first time a car is "driven" is not necessarily representative of what actual fuel economy is going to be. While we also tend to assume the worst as to the dashboard mpg readings, it is only an assumption that it will be worse than the Fuelly numbers

 

As for replacing your SEL, it appears the Niro EX, with the Tech package, may actually be the closest to the SEL/Titanium trim of the C-Max; and it does have the 49 mpg combined EPA rating. There are some trade-offs but I think I'll save this for another post to keep this one from getting too long.

 

I think when trying to argue "charging" and "EV mode" you are inventing excuses. You are getting into a technical area where we'd need to actually examine how much each car charges at various RPM levels and how much gasoline is being consumed, etc. The problem is, the extra power on the C-Max is not really used to charge the battery. Instead, we try to limit the RPMs the C-Max ICE runs at -- meaning we are not using the extra power -- trying to get the most efficient RPM. You're going to do the same with the Kia; the only difference being with the smaller engine might have 2200 RPM as the "sweet spot" (ideal fuel economy for propulsion and charging the battery) where it is only 2000 RPM on the C-Max -- and I'm just guessing a number on the Niro, again, we'd need to have time to play with the car.

 

As for EV mode, a hybrid does not need to use EV mode to be efficient -- in fact, I've seen several Prius owners argue that charging the battery and then using EV at highway speeds is actually less efficient, because of the power loses of creating the electricity, storing it in the battery, and then using battery power to run the motor. I also know the Sonata/Optima hybrids run in EV up to 72 mph. That the Niro appears not to means that the engineers found it was more efficient not to run in pure EV mode. OTOH, watching the video I posted above, while he is driving at (what appears to me) to be over 60 mph the car goes into EV mode for a time while he appears to be maintaining his speed -- which would seem to indicate the car is capable of running on EV at higher speeds. 

 

I'll admit, I fully understand how Hyundai/Kia's hybrid system works on the Sonata and Optima, and the physical systems seem to be the same (just smaller) in the Ioniq and Niro, I don't know the differences in the software side -- such as what speeds it goes into EV. I do suspect that the Hyundia/Kia engineers that designed the Ioniq/Niro hybrid system do and have tuned it to get the best fuel economy they can. As for only pulse and glide working, that doesn't fit what we know, as it was reported here (by you?) that in the record setting cross country run, Wayne Gerdis used a Load under Power (keeping a constant RPM) strategy rather than a Pulse and Glide technique. We also know the Niro averages between 3 and 10 mpg better in EPA averages -- though we will likely need to wait and see the real world results.

 

And I do need to drive a Niro and have plans to, I'm just waiting for dealers to have Niros in stock (Cars.com only shows 4 Niros in stock within 100 miles of me).

Edited March 2, 2017 by raadsel

[raadsel]

It is interesting trying to compare the features of the C-Max to the Niro, and I find some features on the Niro that I miss on my C-Max and others that I'd miss if I owned the Niro.

 

The Niro is missing, as has been mentioned, rain sensing wipers; I'm not sure why Hyundai/Kia don't add it to their US cars as they do apparently offer it in other countries; active park assist; auto up/down windows for the back windows; and it does not have a powered lift gate in back.

 

There are several features that do not match up exactly but where both have a similar, but different, feature: The Niro does not have color adjustable ambient lighting, they do have a red colored "mood lighting" -- I suppose I'll need to drive the Niro at night to see exactly what that is (and maybe someone can tell us). Factory Navigation is only available on the Touring trim, though all trim levels have at least a 7" touch screen and Android Auto/Apple CarPlay. The Niro does not offer a Panoramic sunroof, though it does have a smaller sunroof that opens. The Niro has a physical button that allows you to toggle the touchscreen on and off (I used to like that feature on a previous car at night), the C-Max only does it from a settings menu in the touchscreen. The Niro has a Harman/Kardon sound system instead of the Sony in the C-Max.

 

And for items the Niro has that the C-Max does not: Integrated Memory Driver's Seat, HID headlights, LED tail lights, LED daytime running lights, heated and cooled driver and passenger seats, heated steering wheel, Qi Wireless charging for a smartphone, Adaptive Cruise Control, Forward Collision warning and autonomous braking, and Lane Keep Warning. I'll mention the Privacy glass, though that is easily added to the C-Max.

 

One other "feature" I'll mention, though you'd have to buy it separately; Kia dealers can sell a spare tire kit (which includes the jack) that you can install without reducing the cargo capacity, the kit fits under the cargo load floor.

 

If you find something else that is different between the two cars (beyond the drivetrain and tires), please let me know and I'll update this.

 

Above I mentioned that I believe the Niro EX with Tech package is the closest to compare to the C-Max Titanium. The Niro obviously has a smaller engine and this trim level has only 16" wheels, but it does have an EPA 49 mpg combined rating (it will be interesting to see how it does when people start testing it). It has a combination of Leather and Cloth rather than "leather trimmed" C-Max seats; comfort of the seats is a personal preference and both have heated front seats. The Niro does not have factory navigation, but with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay on a 7" touchscreen, that doesn't seem (to me, at least) like much of a difference to the 8": factory Nav on the C-Max (which also has Android Auto/Apple CarPlay). The Niro only has a base 6 speaker audio system, not the Harman/Kardon; your tastes likely determine how big a difference that is to the Sony (which most find lackluster).

 

As I mention above, no Niro has the powered lift gate, active park assist, rear seat auto up/down windows, or rain sensing wipers. You also lose the parking sensors on the EX trim and the 110v inverter.

 

The items on the Niro EX with Tech package that the C-Max doesn't have include LED daytime running lights, positioning lights and tail lights, Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Keep Warning, Forward Collision Warning and Autonomous braking. I also feel it is worth adding the Niro has space for a spare tire without reducing the cargo capacity.

 

My opinion is that the EX with Tech is closest to the C-Max Titanium because, while it is missing the parking sensors, 110v inverter and upgraded stereo of the Touring, it still has most of the C-Max Titanium features, plus several features you can't get on any C-Max. The Touring with Tech package adds HID headlights, Qi Wireless charging pad, cooled and heated front seats, and integrated driver seat memory settings. Of course, ultimately which models you feel compare, as well as how important the various options are, is personal preference.

[ptjones]

Raadsel it looks like you don't have NIRO or CMAX brochures, because you have alot of miss information.  I have a NIRO brochure and FORD Dealer CMAX ordering Guide. 

 

 

My mistake on the combined MPG, I was going off memory, and it is 43 and not 44 on the Touring. I think we can both agree that a test drive, especially when it is the first time a car is "driven" is not necessarily representative of what actual fuel economy is going to be. While we also tend to assume the worst as to the dashboard mpg readings, it is only an assumption that it will be worse than the Fuelly numbers.

 

As for replacing your SEL, it appears the Niro EX, with the Tech package, may actually be the closest to the SEL/Titanium trim of the C-Max; and it does have the 49 mpg combined EPA rating. There are some trade-offs but I think I'll save this for another post to keep this one from getting too long.

 

I think when trying to argue "charging" and "EV mode" you are inventing excuses. You are getting into a technical area where we'd need to actually examine how much each car charges at various RPM levels and how much gasoline is being consumed, etc. The problem is, the extra power on the C-Max is not really used to charge the battery. This is not true, with a ScanGaugeII you can watch HVB charging, also CMAX works on Power Load with CVT, ICE and two Electric Motors you can have the same Power Load and a wide range of RPM's. Instead, we try to limit the RPMs the C-Max ICE runs at -- meaning we are not using the extra power -- trying to get the most efficient RPM. You're going to do the same with the Kia; the only difference being with the smaller engine might have 2200 RPM as the "sweet spot" (ideal fuel economy for propulsion and charging the battery) where it is only 2000 RPM on the C-Max -- and I'm just guessing a number on the Niro, again, we'd need to have time to play with the car. The NIRO uses the electric motor to assist the ICE where as the CMAX doesn't most of the time.  Like I said before the CMAX most efficient power is at 2 Bars which is more power than needed to move the car forward so the excess is used to charge the HVB. 

 

As for EV mode, a hybrid does not need to use EV mode to be efficient -- in fact, I've seen several Prius owners argue that charging the battery and then using EV at highway speeds is actually less efficient, because of the power loses of creating the electricity, storing it in the battery, and then using battery power to run the motor. ​In Theory this is true, but in practice it isn't for the CMAX for the reasons above. I also know the Sonata/Optima hybrids run in EV up to 72 mph. I drove 7 miles on the FWY at 60-65 mph and it never went into EV. That the Niro appears not to means that the engineers found it was more efficient not to run in pure EV mode. OTOH, watching the video I posted above, while he is driving at (what appears to me) to be over 60 mph the car goes into EV mode for a time while he appears to be maintaining his speed -- which would seem to indicate the car is capable of running on EV at higher speeds.   He had to be coasting, interesting I got better MPG's than he did going the same distance. :)

 

I'll admit, I fully understand how Hyundai/Kia's hybrid system works on the Sonata and Optima, and the physical systems seem to be the same (just smaller) in the Ioniq and Niro, I don't know the differences in the software side -- such as what speeds it goes into EV. I do suspect that the Hyundia/Kia engineers that designed the Ioniq/Niro hybrid system do and have tuned it to get the best fuel economy they can. As for only pulse and glide working, that doesn't fit what we know, as it was reported here (by you?) that in the record setting cross country run, Wayne Gerdis used a Load under Power (keeping a constant RPM) strategy  This is totally impractical for everyday driving, I talked to Bob, the other NIRO driver and he said they went pretty slow. :sad:rather than a Pulse and Glide technique. We also know the Niro averages between 3 and 10 mpg better in EPA averages -- though we will likely need to wait and see the real world results.

 

And I do need to drive a Niro and have plans to, I'm just waiting for dealers to have Niros in stock (Cars.com only shows 4 Niros in stock within 100 miles of me).

 

 

 I will try to straighten things out here, you sure write alot. :sad: 

It is interesting trying to compare the features of the C-Max to the Niro, and I find some features on the Niro that I miss on my C-Max and others that I'd miss if I owned the Niro.

 

The Niro is missing, as has been mentioned, rain sensing wipers; I'm not sure why Hyundai/Kia don't add it to their US cars as they do apparently offer it in other countries; active park assist; auto up/down windows for the back windows; and it does not have a powered lift gate in back. Also 10 way Power Passenger seat with power lumbar, active noise cancellation and Smart Guage with available EV Power Bar.

 

There are several features that do not match up exactly but where both have a similar, but different, feature: The Niro does not have color adjustable ambient lighting, they do have a red colored "mood lighting" -- I suppose I'll need to drive the Niro at night to see exactly what that is (and maybe someone can tell us). Factory Navigation is only available on the Touring trim, though all trim levels have at least a 7" touch screen and Android Auto/Apple CarPlay. The Niro does not offer a Panoramic sunroof, though it does have a smaller sunroof that opens. The Niro has a physical button that allows you to toggle the touchscreen on and off (I used to like that feature on a previous car at night), the C-Max only does it from a settings menu in the touchscreen. The Niro has a Harman/Kardon sound system instead of the Sony in the C-Max.

 

And for items the Niro has that the C-Max does not: Integrated Memory Driver's Seat, HID headlights CMAX does have this, LED tail lights, LED daytime running lights CMAX has LED Signature Lighting, heated and cooled driver and passenger seats, heated steering wheel, Qi Wireless charging for a smartphone, Adaptive Cruise Control, Forward Collision warning and autonomous braking, and Lane Keep Warning, This was annoying feature . I'll mention the Privacy glass, though that is easily added to the C-Max.

 

One other "feature" I'll mention, though you'd have to buy it separately; Kia dealers can sell a spare tire kit (which includes the jack) that you can install without reducing the cargo capacity, the kit fits under the cargo load floor.

 

If you find something else that is different between the two cars (beyond the drivetrain and tires)in reality these are the number one reason the CMAX has over the NIRO having driven the NIRO IMO, please let me know and I'll update this.

 

Above I mentioned that I believe the Niro EX with Tech package is the closest to compare to the C-Max Titanium. As I have said before having driven the NIRO  Touring twice the CMAX Titanium is a better package overall with simular MPG's from my test drives, better performance and better interior IMO over the KIA NIRO Touring. The Niro obviously has a smaller engine and this trim level has only 16" wheels, but it does have an EPA 49 mpg combined rating (it will be interesting to see how it does when people start testing it). It has a combination of Leather and Cloth rather than "leather trimmed" C-Max seats; comfort of the seats is a personal preference and both have heated front seats. The Niro does not have factory navigation, but with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay on a 7" touchscreen, that doesn't seem (to me, at least) like much of a difference to the 8": factory Nav on the C-Max (which also has Android Auto/Apple CarPlay). The Niro only has a base 6 speaker audio system, not the Harman/Kardon; your tastes likely determine how big a difference that is to the Sony (which most find lackluster).

 

As I mention above, no Niro has the powered lift gate, active park assist, rear seat auto up/down windows, or rain sensing wipers. You also lose the parking sensors on the EX trim and the 110v inverter.

 

The items on the Niro EX with Tech package that the C-Max doesn't have include LED daytime running lights Yes it does :), positioning lights and tail lightsIt does have It does have Auto Halogen Headlamps with Headlamp Courtesy Delay, Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Keep Warning this can be annoying feature, Forward Collision Warning and Autonomous braking. I also feel it is worth adding the Niro has space for a spare tire without reducing the cargo capacity.

 

My opinion is that the EX with Tech is closest to the C-Max Titanium because, while it is missing the parking sensors, 110v inverter and upgraded stereo of the Touring, it still has most of the C-Max Titanium features, plus several features you can't get on any C-Max. The Touring with Tech package adds HID headlights, Qi Wireless charging pad, cooled and heated front seats CMAX does have heated seats, and integrated driver seat memory settings This is only available in the Touring Model. Of course, ultimately which models you feel compare, as well as how important the various options are, is personal preference.

It all  comes down to test driving the two cars. :)  sorry about the length this Post CMAX Members :sad:

 

Paul

[raadsel]

Raadsel it looks like you don't have NIRO or CMAX brochures, because you have alot of miss information.  I have a NIRO brochure and FORD Dealer CMAX ordering Guide. 

 

 

 I will try to straighten things out here, you sure write alot. :sad: 

It all  comes down to test driving the two cars. :)  sorry about the length this Post CMAX Members :sad:

 

Paul

 

I don't see where you really corrected much. I will admit, I missed that they added the "LED Signature lighting" to the 2017 C-Max but that appears to be the only mistake you pointed out. I put "heated and cooled seats" because it seemed stupid and less clear to just say cooled seats, and I thought I had previously pointed out the heated seats on the C-Max, that it is the same as the Niro EX only having heated seats. You'll also notice where you say, "only available in the Touring model," I was pointing out the features that are added by the Touring trim. So, again, the only actual mistake was that I missed they had added LED lighting to the 2017 C-Max.

 

Again, I don't know how they've set up EV mode on the Niro. I do know the Prius does not go into EV mode above 40 mph and I also know the Prius beats the C-Max in fuel economy; that was my point. It may be the Niro does not go into pure EV mode at higher speeds -- I hope at some point to find out more of the technical details but at this point we don't know (beyond what you think you have figured out from your test drives).

 

As for you getting better fuel economy on your test drives, I would hope so. I wanted people to draw their own conclusions but, if you watch the video, you'll notice that he tended to "floor it" when accelerating (you can tell by the "Eco Gauge" getting maxed out). He was definitely not driving efficiently, rather driving it like most test drivers do, and yet he still managed to get the EPA numbers.

 

As for Lane Keep, I don't see why it matters that you find it annoying. I have known people that find rain sensing wipers annoying; everyone has different ideas about what they find important on a car. I was merely listing what the differences in options on each car, that people would figure out from that which car. or both, have the options they find important.

 

My plan is to drive both a Niro EX and Touring; I've heard that the two drive differently, that the tires make quite a bit of difference (with most reviewers preferring the way the EX drives). I also need to drive the new C-Max (I believe there are still only 2016s in my area) and get a feel for how much it has changed versus my 2013 SEL. Though I don't think I'll want one, I'll likely also want to drive the Hyundai Ioniq, just to compare it, as well.

[fbov]

... we try to limit the RPMs the C-Max ICE runs at -- meaning we are not using the extra power -- trying to get the most efficient RPM. You're going to do the same with the Kia; the only difference being with the smaller engine might have 2200 RPM as the "sweet spot" (ideal fuel economy for propulsion and charging the battery) where it is only 2000 RPM on the C-Max...

It's not reasonable to compare a stationary engine to a geared one, nor a high RPM motor with a low RPM one. 

 

Look at the motor specs for Hyundai's hybrids, and you'll see one very odd thing... lots of torque but no HP - 43HP, 125 lb-ft torque for Niro. Our Sonata is the same; 51HP and 151 lb-ft. The reason is simple; it's a low RPM motor - 51 HP at 1770-2000 RPM. The C-Max motor is rated 118HP@6000 RPM with 177 lb-ft torque. (...Likely peaking at 1500-2000 RPM, as all EV motor outputs are current limited at low RPM.)

 

The difference between "Eco" and "Sport" modes in our Sonata is all in transmission shift points; Eco mode just short shifts until 4th, and a true surge in speed. Engine speed is always changing with road speed and gear shifts. It's a very conventional approach, with an electric motor filling the hole in low RPM torque that results from a small Atkinson-cycle ICE. 

 

"Sweet spot" RPM can be selected... by changing speed, just like every other geared vehicle. They're nothing like C-Max. 

 

HAve fun,

Frank

[ptjones]

It's not reasonable to compare a stationary engine to a geared one, nor a high RPM motor with a low RPM one. 

 

Look at the motor specs for Hyundai's hybrids, and you'll see one very odd thing... lots of torque but no HP - 43HP, 125 lb-ft torque for Niro. Our Sonata is the same; 51HP and 151 lb-ft. The reason is simple; it's a low RPM motor - 51 HP at 1770-2000 RPM. The C-Max motor is rated 118HP@6000 RPM with 177 lb-ft torque. (...Likely peaking at 1500-2000 RPM, as all EV motor outputs are current limited at low RPM.)                                                                 I think you meant  188HP :)

 

The difference between "Eco" and "Sport" modes in our Sonata is all in transmission shift points; Eco mode just short shifts until 4th, and a true surge in speed. Engine speed is always changing with road speed and gear shifts. It's a very conventional approach, with an electric motor filling the hole in low RPM torque that results from a small Atkinson-cycle ICE. 

 

"Sweet spot" RPM can be selected... by changing speed, just like every other geared vehicle. They're nothing like C-Max. 

 

HAve fun,

Frank

I was disappointed that I never felt NIRO's extra torque during my two test drives. :sad:  The first thing CMAX owners will notice when they first drive the NIRO is the lack of response to the accelerator pedal, we are use to the car moving when we barely touch the accelerator, with the NIRO nothing happens. :sos:  You have to push down what seem like a 3rd of the way before things start moving, by that time you have to floor it to keep from getting rear ended. :sad:  You can easily feel the difference in acceleration when accelerating hard.   :) 

 

In the final analyse the main reason members were interested in the KIA NIRO was the better gas mileage.  For me my testing showed that the NIRO doesn't get better MPG's than the 2017 CMAX Hybrid.  My test of CMAX with rain the whole time of test (rain sensing wipers worked great :)) with 40% HWY(65mph) and 46.3mpg average vs NIRO Touring half hour later with wet roads and 45-55mph speeds getting 37.9 mpg average.  Even with test bias against CMAX it still beat NIRO by 8.4 mpg which is 2.4 mpg better than NIRO EX 6mpg over Touring. Add to that I'm averaging about 52mpg in my CMAX for the last year(NIRO FE EPA combined is 50mpg) there is no reason not to get a CMAX if I buy a new car.

 

If above wasn't enough I could add CMAX Titanium has an overall better driving experience, has all goodies I have plus more, plus nicer looking interior and the price quote was $1,000 cheaper. :) 

 

Paul  

[obob]

To consider with respect to highway driving:

 

Drag coefficient

 

Niro .29

Prius V .29

C-Max .30

( difference between .29 and.30 is like 3.33% )

 

Prius .24

Tesla S .24

( difference between .24 and.30 is like 20% )

Edited March 3, 2017 by obob

[nsteblay]

My current 2013 C-Max just hit 100K and will be handing it down to my kids.  I was looking for a new car and test drove the Kia Niro.  I knew I wouldn't be happy with the acceleration as its life and death :shift:   out there on the crazy Minneapolis freeways.  I ended up buying a second C-Max, new 2016 SE, and am quite happy.  Getting mid 40's immediately.  

[plus 3 golfer]

The most significant factors affecting the Niro's FE over the C-Max FE are likely CdA and weight not how the hybrids operate. So, I would assume that drivers (no matter what their driving style) will get better FE in the Niro than a C-Max.  Below is a table showing the weight and estimated CdA difference of the C-Max and Niro.  Based on previous analysis of coast down data and EPA RLHP coefficients, the Niro EPA ratings seems to be consistent with the C-Max EPA ratings given that the C-Max is significantly heavier and has a significantly higher CdA.  

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Plus 3 Golfer

[ptjones]

To consider with respect to highway driving:

 

Drag coefficient

 

Niro .29

Prius V .29

C-Max .30

( difference between .29 and.30 is like 3.33% )

 

Prius .24

Tesla S .24

( difference between .24 and.30 is like 20% )

I'm sure my Coefficient of Drag has decreased with Grill Covers and Wheel Covers, but I don't know how much. :headscratch:  I got back from driving to AZ and back and it looks like I averaged about 47.5 MPG's with temps 28-70*F with a little rain and a lot of winds. That's 9.5mpg better than EPA.  I had stretches where I had uphill headwinds where I was only getting 32mpg :sos:  and another going  downhill with tailwind about 350mi. in NM where I average 60mpg. :yahoo: I went out I-20/I-10 and came back I-40/I-22/I-20.

 

Paul

[plus 3 golfer]

I'm sure my Coefficient of Drag has decreased with Grill Covers and Wheel Covers, but I don't know how much. :headscratch:  I got back from driving to AZ and back and it looks like I averaged about 47.5 MPG's with temps 28-70*F with a little rain and a lot of winds. That's 9.5mpg better than EPA.  I had stretches where I had uphill headwinds where I was only getting 32mpg :sos:  and another going  downhill with tailwind about 350mi. in NM where I average 60mpg. :yahoo: I went out I-20/I-10 and came back I-40/I-22/I-20.

 

Paul

It wouldn't surprise me if your Cd is under 0.27.   When I ran coast down tests with / without grille covers, I estimated a drop in Cd to 0.279 using grille covers.  IIRC, this 7% reduction in Cd from 0.30 at highway speeds should result in a reduction of 3 - 5 % in RLHP.

 

All you need to do is to run some coast down tests but it requires about a mile of flat road to accelerate to around 70 mph, coast down in N to around 35-40 mph and repeat in the opposite direction over the same part of the road.  Run tests multiple times with and without grille covers and wheel covers while recording speed vs time via the OBDII port with an APP like ForScan.  Load data into Excel and analyze.  :)

[ptjones]

I posted this on first post.

Today  I drove a 2017 KIA NIRO FE from Thornton Road Kia in Lithia Springs, GA for a 27 mi. test drive, temp 66*F/no wind, 10m. HWY and 17 mi.,  35-40 mph City getting 54.4 mpg which is very good.  BTW I don't like the tires, they don't inspire confidence under hard cornering like the CMAX and probably the Touring's wider tires.

I was hoping to duplicate the route with my CMAX, but the roads the Salesman took me on aren't on my GPS's so I ended up driving SR's at 50-55mph for 28 mi, but still managed to get 55.3mpg., I think I lost about 5mpg because of the difference. :sad: At 35-40 mph I should be getting 65-80mpg, at 50-55mph, 55-65MPG.                            

 

Bottom line My CMAX gets better MPG's than the the most fuel efficient KIA NIRO FE. :)

 

Paul

[fbov]

Paul, we all know you're not normal, and after a year in a Niro, you'd probably modify and adapt to it as well as you have to the C-Max. I'd be interested to see what you think of the Sonata Hybrid, a more-comparable 2l drive train that will beat our 0-60 times.

Frank

[ptjones]

Wait a minute Frank, Car and Driver says 2017 CMAX 7.9 sec. http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/c-max,   Sonata Hybrid 8.1 sec.  http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-hyundai-sonata-hybrid-test-review :)      I like EVing everywhere, HWY, CITY, uphill, down hill and on the level. I like EVing from 0 to 50 mph or more depending on SOC. (State of Charge) :) Can't do all of that with NIRO. :sad:

 

Paul

Edited March 7, 2017 by ptjones

[raadsel]

Paul, we all know you're not normal, and after a year in a Niro, you'd probably modify and adapt to it as well as you have to the C-Max. I'd be interested to see what you think of the Sonata Hybrid, a more-comparable 2l drive train that will beat our 0-60 times.

Frank

 

Even more interesting, it appears Kia is making an Optima Hybrid Sportwagen, though the report I saw was for a PHEV.