edatoakrun said:
edatoakrun said:
...Most disappointing to me, is that the reported NEDC range only exceeds that of the '14-'15 LEAF by a bit over 6% (132/124), as compared to the ~11% higher range over the LEAF (93/84) the US EPA gives the Soul.
Because I do mostly low speed driving (with large ascents and descents) My LEAF seems to closely track NEDC range (109 miles for new 2011-12 LEAFs) and I was expecting that the lower NEDC average speed would reduce the aero disadvantage of the Soul, and result in a greater proportionate range increase on that test cycle, not a lesser one.
Seems like there must be some other (relative to LEAF) inefficiency in the Soul, beyond just the ~100 lbs of extra weight, and boxy profile.
"GRA"...Or maybe, since we know that the NEDC is wrong and wildly optimistic, you could just look at the EPA city ranges of the LEAF and Soul EV, 92 and 103.6...
I'm frequently impressed by how much you
think you know, GRA.
All the ranges are longer on the NEDC cycle primarily because of the lower average speed (though it includes some time at higher speeds than the USA EPA uses on its
highway cycle test) and fewer stop-and-go events than in the EPA urban cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oddly enough, it's not just me, they're adopting a new test because the NEDC is so inaccurate and optimistic:
"Why European Gas-Mileage Ratings Are So High--And Often Wrong"
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091877_why-european-gas-mileage-ratings-are-so-high--and-often-wrong" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Will European Fuel-Efficiency Tests Get More Realistic Under New Rules?"
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093048_will-european-fuel-efficiency-tests-get-more-realistic-under-new-rules" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"European regulators say incorrect CO2 ratings coudl be costing drivers $580/year"
http://green.autoblog.com/2014/10/03/european-regulators-say-incorrect-co2-ratings-cost-580-year/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
edatoakrun said:
If any test cycle could be called "wildly optimistic", I think it is the EPA highway cycle, with average speed of only ~48 mph and a top speed of ~60 mph.
http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/methods/hwfetdds.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I really think a freeway speed range test using the actual left-lane freeway speed in many parts of the US (averaging in the high 70's or low 80's) would be of far more interest to most prospective BEV buyers.
While I agree that the highway test should be modified to reflect more realistic speeds, the addition of the US06 cycle to the test regime, http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/methods/us06dds.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; seems to have made the EPA numbers match real world results within 10% or so. Personally, I've never had any trouble exceeding the EPA's highway mpg for at least the past 26 years, i.e. even before they last tightened the test in 2007. I definitely don't hypermile or poke along below the flow of traffic, but I do use cruise control most of the time. For instance, my 1988 Subaru was rated at 25 mpg highway; I normally got 27, and up to 29.5 in that. My current 2003 Subie was rated at 27 mpg hwy (but would be rated 25 mpg under the 2007 standard), and I normally get 28-29, and have gotten up to 31; my worst, with three people and luggage in the car (but mostly flat), rain/wet roads and headwinds was 26.5. Things have tightened up considerably since the original EPA ratings came out, when essentially no one could achieve the mpg ratings (that's the method still used for computing CAFE, which is why the Monroney sticker values are and will be far below the CAFE values). Naturally, automakers still do their best to game the tests, but they get called on it when they're way off, as Hyundai/Kia/Ford have all experienced this year.
edatoakrun said:
I wonder if the 2015 LEAF range would come close to the 2015 Soul?
...this GCR test drive, where they got 114 miles in careful urban/suburban driving:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095421_2015-kia-soul-ev-first-drive-of-newest-electric-car" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Meaningless, as an indicator of comparative range.
It's certainly meaningful as an indicator of fairly easily achievable real-world range, albeit in good conditions. It takes considerably more effort to achieve that kind of range in a LEAF, although it can be done. I agree with their conclusion that a Kia Soul has a 'no worries' 70 mile range when new in good conditions. Personally, I consider the current crop of BEVs to be good for a guaranteed range about 50% of their EPA range for 3 years in areas with temperate (rarely below freezing) winters, 40% in areas where the winter temps regularly range down into the teens, and 30% below that. TMS can increase the number of years and/or winter range. Obviously it's possible in many cases or if you're willing to make compromises to do better, but I think of guaranteed range as if I were to hand the key to somebody's grandmother and they just drove it like any other car, what range would I be comfortable telling them they could drive with no worry year round, using HVAC/lights/wipers with a reserve.
edatoakrun said:
On another subject, the batteries' relative heat tolerance, Kia voids the battery warranty if the car is exposed to ambient above 50 c (122 f) for over 24 hours, one degree C higher than Nissan allows.
Good thing that the Soul's battery is cooled then, huh? I suppose if you left the car parked inside an un-ventilated garage in Death Valley in August it might be possible to maintain the battery temp that high for that long, but since anyone with any sense is going to avoid the place like the plague at that time of the year, I think we can leave Darwin to sort that one out. As for Phoenix et al, if you're driving the car on a daily basis when the battery will be cooled, I can't see that it would be an issue.
