This past Thursday-Sunday I rented a Kia EV6 Wind (middle trim) RWD on Turo for a trip over Tioga Pass to Lee Vining and the surrounding area to hike and climb a peak, after doing basically the same trip with a rented IONIQ 5 SEL AWD about 10 days before. See
https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=624935#p624935 for my review of the Ioniq 5.
The EV6 sits lower than the Ioniq, and it also has worse rear visibility due to its shallower sloped rear hatch glass. The view is accurately described in one review I read as a letterbox slot. Removing the center rear armrest is even more necessary than on the Ioniq to provide adequate rear vision. Unlike the Ioniq (all but the highest trim) the outboard rear headrests are also removable rather than molded into the top of the seats, but I didn't find it necessary to remove them as well, as they just blocked the lower rear corners of the rear glass. However, for someone of about my height (6'0") visibility to the left rear is very bad, essentially a very small gap between the head rest, top of the seat and the B-pillar. Right rear vis isn't great either. Forward, unlike the Ioniq there are a couple of ridges at the edges of the hood so you have some idea of where the fenders are, although the hood seems longer so I'm not sure if there's any net improvement.
Looks are a matter of personal taste and while I like the way both cars look, as I mentioned up-topic I feel the EV6 devotes too much effort to form over function, while the Ioniq has a more practical, utilitarian look. As I place a high value on the 'U' in CUV, the latter wins out for me. Really, I don't think the EV6 is a CUV. I think of it more as a hot hatch or sportwagon.
As mentioned in the Ioniq post, I think the EV6 generally has better driver controls than the Ioniq, with more dedicated albeit still touch-sensitive HVAC/audio controls and even some physical switches. Of the latter, there are seat heating and ventilation switches on the center console for both front seats. Also the overhead lights both front and rear have physical buttons (you push the light lenses in front). Both cars are limited to a single rear cargo light mounted low on the left side, and thus pretty useless when carrying anything high enough to block or cover it. One oddity is that the same bank of touch-sensitive buttons are used for both climate and audio. You toggle between the two modes by pushing a specific one of the buttons. As I don't listen to music anymore owing to my lack of hearing I just left it in Climate mode most of the time, but you can also set it to default to one or the other mode on startup, or after five seconds in the other mode.
One control where I think the Ioniq wins is the gear selector. In the Ioniq it's a stalk attached to the steering column just below the washer/wiper control stalk - you rotate the outer portion forward to go from R or N towards D, and rotate it backwards to go the other way. You push a button on the end of the stalk towards the steering column to put it in park.
By contrast, the EV6 has this large (guessing 2.5-3" diam.) disc mounted flat on top of the center console. 'N' is in the center, you twist it left for 'R', right for 'D';, and push a button in on the center of the disc for 'P' . ISTM it takes up a lot of real estate for no particular reason other than being different for the sake of being different. It's not as if these controls are in constant use, and a stalk-mounted gear selector has a more familiar feel to most people.
The EV6 seems to have more storage space in the center console, but I prefer the arrangement of the storage, USB and 12 Volt receptacles of the Ioniq, and the latter's lack of any hump or console blocking the center floor allows you to slide across from one side to the other to enter or exit from the right (it also allows a water bottle or other cylindrical container to roll under the pedals, so don't leave any such container on the passenger floor in that car).
One other control I prefer in the Ioniq is the Drive Mode (Eco/Normal/Sport/Snow) button. In the EV6 it's longer but narrower and a bit further away from the junction of the left steering wheel spoke and the rim, while in the Ioniq it's a nice, big round button right below the junction. Given how rarely most people are likely to need to use this, this is a minor advantage, but I noticed it as I was alternating between Eco for cruising and Normal for passing.
Spare tires.
AFAIC any car which may be driven on unpaved roads for any significant distance in remote areas where cell phone service is limited to non-existent and where traffic is the same should be equipped with a full-size spare, jack and lug wrench, carried in such a sway as to not interfere with the cargo area. Neither of these cars is so equipped, they just have a fix-a-flat kit. Carrying an aftermarket spare may or may not be possible in the EV6 lying down behind the rear seats, but given the low-sloped rear window I suspect it would be impossible to stand one up against the left wall/window of the cargo area with the seats up (so as not to block the driver's view and retain as much cargo area as possible); there probably isn't room to do so. The Ioniq's rear window is more steeply sloped so it might work there. I didn't measure, but IME taking a wheel w/tire off and actually seeing how it fits back there is the best test. I carried a full-size spare in my '88 Subaru that way on trips, after having the dealer pull a wheel and tire off so I could test it before I bought it.
Cargo area/Sleeping in the car.
As with the Ioniq the folded seat backs don't provide a completely flat floor with the cargo area, but have a small slope. This isn't a problem, but the EV6 falls way short of the Ioniq for sleeping, at least for anyone taller than maybe 5'6". The rear seats don't slide, just fold, and while all of the rear headrests can be removed and turned around, their rear sides have weird shapes (which appear to be purely for 'style') that make them jut well above the level of the seat back, so using them to provide head & neck support isn't comfortable under a pad. If you're a side sleeper you may be okay, but stretching out on your back, uh-uh.
Also, the lower roof meant I couldn't sit up without my head hitting the headliner, while I just cleared it in the Ioniq. The rear overhead light switch is better in the EV6, as it's a physical switch. But the inability to use it with the car off had me pining for the simple off/on/on when door or hatch open switch, usable at all times and easily findable and identifiable by feel in the dark, of my Forester.
The EV6 had a similar two-level cargo floor panel as the Ioniq, and both also had just a single cargo bay light located low on the left side wall and easily blocked. With the seats up plan on wearing a headlamp if you need to find something in the dark and can't do so by feel.
Range. The RWD EV6 is rated at 310 miles EPA combined (can't find the EPA HWY), while the AWD Ioniq 5 is rated at 256 combined, 224 HWY, and IIRR 282 City, the last irrelevant for me on trips. I knew I had more than adequate range to get to Buck Meadows from home, and maybe even enough to make it non-stop to Lee Vining (not that I was going to do that on this trip). I also didn't feel the need to charge it to 100% in Buck Meadows for the same reason, and in order to compare the effects of A/C usage, I had that on the whole way where the temp was above 86 eg., i.e. from the Dublin area 10-15 miles from home, across the central valley and up into the foothills until I got up to the Big Oak Flat entrance station (4,872') at Yosemite, 136 miles from home.
Left home at 2:48, 94% SoC, GoM 248 mi. I used 50% of charge to get to Buck Meadows under virtually identical conditions as the Ioniq trip (which used 48%), even though the RWD EV6 should be a lot more efficient and have at least 30 miles more highway range, so the efficiency hit for using A/C with Driver-only HVAC for both cars (I also played around with using the ventilated seats, something the Ioniq SEL didn't have) rather than fan-only is a minimum of 2% and probably more like 4%. From Buck Meadows I used 35% to get to Lee Vining; the Ioniq used 30%.
Coming home from Lee Vining (charged to 93%, GoM 265 mi., using a/c as needed as above) I got to the EA site in Castro Valley a few miles from home with 36% (GoM 102 mi.), so used 57% for the 204.2 miles, including the 3,160' climb up to and over Tioga Pass in the first 12 miles followed by about a 100 mile descent down to 1,100 or so feet at Yosemite Junction. Much of the latter only required coast and regen.
Charging.
See the Ioniq 5 post for sites and to compare results, although I skipped the Chargepoint in Groveland this time having acquired some confidence from the Ioniq trip that I'd be able to activate a charge at the EA site in Buck Meadows. One big dislike of both this and the Ioniq is that the charge port is located at the right rear corner just ahead of the taillight, which makes it touch to reach with the connector if it's on the other side. Also, while both cars show charge level by lights inside the charge port cover, IMO the EV6's lights (1 =0-25%, 2 = 26-50% etc.) are more intuitive than the Ioniq's), neither chart port itself is lit, so plugging in is basically done in the dark by feel.
Yosemite Westgate Lodge EA (350kW), Buck Meadows, temp 92 deg., avg. mi./kWh from home 3.3., GoM 102 miles, 5:47-6:11 p.m.
SoC%/Time/kW charge rate
43 / 5:53 / ----- Started charging. Busy for a bit, so didn't see rates until
63 / 5:58 / 173
65 / 5:59 / 177
70 / 6:00 / 180
75 / 6:02 / 153
80 / 6:04 / 153
85 / 6:06 / 95
90 / 6:09 / 61 Stopped charge.
Again, I started this charge at too high a SoC to get the full benefit of the higher voltage, but still saw savings of a couple of minutes over the same SoC% ranges compared to using a 150kW charger (see below), even though I was using the 150 kW charger at lower ambient and probably battery temps after driving home.
BoA EA (150kW) Castro Valley, temp 63 deg., avg. mi./kWh from Lee Vining 3.7, time 9:50-10:22 p.m.
SoC%/Time/kW charge rate
36 / 9:53 / ------ Started charging
38 / 9:57 / 127
40 / 9:59 / 128
45 /10:01 / 129
60 /10:06 / 134
65 /10:08 / 135
70 /10:10 / 129
75 /10:12 / 132
80 /10:14 / 102
85 /10:16 / 69
90 /10:20 / 43 Charging stopped.
So, from 43-90% at a 350kW charger took 16 minutes at 92 deg. (43-80% in 11 minutes), while from 45-90% at a 150kW charger took 19 minutes at 63 deg. (45-80% in 13 minutes), a small but useful difference. Compare these rates with the Ioniq at the same chargers. Again, both these charges were started at SoC% too high to see a big benefit from the higher charge voltage.
Summarizing, while I mostly prefer the EV6's controls and how it handles, the utilitarian advantages (visibility, cargo height, cloth seats, sleeping comfort) of the Ioniq make it my choice over the EV6, as utility is a higher priority for me. What I really want is a 2023 Niro-sized car with the windows and physical HVAC controls of the 2022 [pics of the 2023 appear to show it has exactly the same touch-sensitive switchable HVAC/infotainment control as the EV6), plus greater range, AWD and charging speeds like these two offer, and the all solar-panel exterior of the Sono Sion. No one yet offers such a car, so I'll probably either lease (unfortunately, all three of the Koreans no longer qualify for the fed. tax rebate nee' credit), or else just rent until something better matched to my needs comes along,. But my needs and priorities are unrepresentative of cars used primarily as daily drivers, so consult your own priorities. Aside from the controls I did enjoy
driving both cars, and I could live with the range limitations awhile given their charging speed.
As with the Ioniq 5 if anyone has any questions I'll do my best to answer them. If it's about sound quality, Apple Car Play/Android Auto etc. I'm the wrong person to ask, as I'm too deaf now to enjoy listening to music so don't, and I won't use a phone in the car while moving.
They are probably like us, a mix of the old and new terms, truthfully I hadn't really heard the 230v thing but it sounds like that is the new number, like our 240v for standard residential higher voltage.
