Featured First Drive: 2016 Kia Niro

The C-HR will be Toyota's new, smaller SUV.

 

Ugh...the C-HR, that is as gaudy as gaudy gets... I don't mind being different, I drive a Prius afterall, but I hope they tone down the looks on that one.

Meant a smaller CUV Hybrid, I don't need or want the size of a RAV4.

 

I dislike the drone, but we cope. You have the stereo a little louder. You don't use full power unless you absolutely have to do it. It is stronger in my prius than my brother's camry hybrid.

The hsd is wonderfull at idle, becuase there isn't one. It is an engine off. There are trade offs and I think the luxury of engine off at stops and decelerations is a bigger +, than the drone. Still better sound insulation and more power (mainly mg2 and battery) along with better software could do away with the bad "feel" fairly easily.

I don't think its a deal breaker to anyone.

 

After having an EV, the cvt seemed gutless. Like most Journalists say, you step on it, nothing really happens.

 

The RAV4 Gen I. was smaller, & they sold it in many other areas even after Toyota decided to go to its present day jumbo size. (imo) Too bad they didn't just leave well enough alone when it came to the old/smaller size. iirc, it ran all the way into 2003 ... at least in the 'ev' version. but let's not open that can of sore spots.
.

 

Have you seen Civic and Corolla? They are the same size as Accord and Camry.

This is the trend in the market.

 

Manufacturers tend to increase the size each model revision. Eventually there is room for a new model to be added at the low (small) end. For example, as the RAV4 grew, it made a place for the upcoming C-HR

 

It's a Kia. I have had a Kia. In the middle of 5 toyotas and 2 Hondas. There's a reason they are cheaper.

 

they'll improve, and the price will rise.

 

Given the flat rear deck in this hybrid version, I'm very interested to see what the cargo area's going to look like with the Niro PHEV. If the trunk intrusion is no worse than, say, a C-MAX hybrid (not the Energi), and AER's better than 25 mi., this little CUV could be a game-changer. It might have seemed less impressive if we already had Outlander PHEVs tooling around (as they do by the thousands in the UK, which is probably why this Manchester writer found "no real excitement about it"), but Mitsubishi's seen to it that we don't. Assuming the hybrid version doesn't disappoint, the Niro PHEV could well be the most useful and truly economical PHEV on the U.S. market yet - it gets lots better MPG than the larger Outlander PHEV (at least 10 mpg?), and you've got a gas-free commuter and errand runner and a high MPG highway cruiser with ample room for four adults plus cargo and a Kia-scale price tag.

I mean, c'mon. If you want to know one of the main reasons I'm kinda "meh" on the Prime, this is it. It's not so much that I believe all the above will come together perfectly - I understand the basis for a lot of the Hyundai/Kia skepticism I'm reading here. But if the Niro gets in the ballpark of what early reviews indicate, it does raise questions about how Toyota could have delivered such a disappointing plug-in. Just how hard were they trying?

 

yeah the deck is going to be important. can kia pull off what others cannot?

 

They're off to a good start, matching the Prius as one of the few hybrids to show up with a trunk lacking obvious intrusions. With a rear hatch area more C-MAXish than Prius-like, I think they've got 1-2 extra inches to play with for the PHEV battery pack before things start to look cramped. But I don't want to get too far ahead of myself. Let's see how the hybrid does first, then see what Kia finally shows us for the PHEV. I'm cautiously optimistic, though since my disappointment at the Prime unveiling, I must emphasize cautiously.

 

I may have missed the good highway MPG of a CUV vs a hatch/kammback...

 

As of right now, the only Niro PHEV is the concept car. Kia has not announced anything about a plug for car coming to market. So far, it is only Ioniq that is getting plug in versions.

It needs to get AWD first. I think everything called a CUV available in the US has it as an option.

 

Really? We don't have dates, but they've shown the concept, and I'm assuming that the Niro project manager wasn't outright lying back at the February reveal when he said we could expect to see a PHEV version "a little later in the lifecycle":

Kia Niro Project Manager Confirms Plug-In Hybrid Version Is Coming

It's the BEV version that he wasn't so sure about, whereas an Ioniq BEV is definitely planned. Perhaps that's what you're remembering. Regardless, it won't be here all that soon - I make it even money that the Outlander PHEV beats it to (our) market (given Mitsubishi's near limitless capacity to disappoint), which would doubtless steal some of the Niro PHEV's thunder.

I can't think of a good reason it wouldn't - eAWD's kind of a no-brainer for a CUV-shaped hybrid (e.g., RAV4, Highlander). I'd be disappointed if Kia doesn't see that, but not overly surprised if it's not available year one.

Just a side thought - I hear people dismiss AWD all the time, claiming that a good set of snow tires will do you just as well, but I've done years of winter driving with FWD + snow tires and AWD + all-seasons, and there is a qualitative difference, e.g., I never had to "rock" my AWDs, an exercise that I'd be forced into about every other season with the snow-tired FWDs (the advantages show up a lot more often than that, but that's the plainest example). You can definitely still get in trouble if you enter into clearly unmanageable situations or just drive like an idiot (very common among the "AWD means I can do anything" crowd), but AWD is a real benefit for reasonable drivers forced to deal with unreasonable road conditions. It's a big selling point for those markets, which is why Toyota's decision to skip eAWD for North America's Prius is inexplicable, given their stated desire to expand the car's appeal.

 

This is the Niro PHEV concept.



I don't see why Kia wouldn't do a PHEV Niro with it sharing parts with the Ioniq, but until we get an official announcement with prototypes, I'll treat comments about they plan too offer one like Toyota comments about the NS4 coming to market. For a more positive outlook, I'd say there isn't anything official stated because they are still working on the Ioniq PHEV, which doesn't arrive until next year.

The Soul doesn't have it, and that appears to have more ground clearance than the Niro. With the Rav4 hybrid and upcoming Outlander, having AWD will help sales.

My comments about FWD with winter tires being better are based upon an old Popular Mechanics article where they tested it. The AWD with all-seasons was a Subaru, so the AWD deficit they reported couldn't be blamed on an asymmetrical system.

Personally, I have never had an issue driving through snow and getting home with FWD and all seasons. There were difficulties at times where snow tires or AWD would have helped, but we very rarely have snow pack on the main roads for more than a day here, and I don't have a job where I am required to get to work regardless of weather. So, for most people here, AWD for bad weather is an added cost in car price and fuel use that isn't necessary.

Which goes back to what PM and others have said about FWD and snow tires working just as well as AWD and all-seasons. The statement isn't an absolute one; one isn't going to be better than the other in all situations. All else being equal, AWD will cost more than getting a set of snow tires for a FWD though.

From the reports and specs, the eAWD on the gen4 Prius is less powerful and capable that what this market expects from AWD; such as it operating only at low speeds. If that is so, better for Toyota to skip it than risk an eAWD sucks reputation.

 

Didn't really recall that you'd made that argument before, so this certainly wasn't directed at you. I can see what grounds your assessment, but I think folks in Buffalo and Cleveland (my former part of the map) have a perspective rooted in a different life experience. Vagaries of my career often had me doing ~45 min. commutes over a combination of highways and decidedly non-highway roads for years at a time (winter after winter), and staying home every time those roads were kinda bad was not a practical option in the pre-telework era. The tradeoff was definitely worth it for me (probably gave up ~3mpg and I was driving a Subaru and a Toyo Matrix, not big $$$ SUVs), but the issue of practical value and cost takes me to another point . . .

That strikes me as arguing in two different directions. On the one hand, you were saying above that the overall cost of AWD makes it a poor value for folks only interested in weather-impacted road conditions, but on the other hand you're saying here that an efficient and cost-effective eAWD system that is precisely for those applications would be a bad idea, because it wouldn't deliver what this market "expects." Which market are we talking about? True, eAWD doesn't offer the off-road capabilities that low-IQ truck buyers pretend they need (and yes, that specifically excludes perfectly reasonable truck buyers who are towing their fishing boats out to the cabin by the lake). I'd point out that those Hummer-aspiring coal-rollers aren't even considering a Prius, so what that group "expects" isn't part of the equation. That being the case, what expectations of which buyers do you imagine an eAWD Prius would fail to meet? Sure, I wouldn't buy it in Albuquerque, but it would be exactly what I'd want for my old routine in NE Ohio. I think (perhaps self-servingly) Prius buyers are generally a rational lot (gearheads would say to a fault), and I'd expect them to react accordingly to an eAWD system, not like "the market" as a whole. Toyota should know their customers better.

 

I am aware there are locales where AWD can be essential, but many buying AWD for poor weather live outside those areas. AWD is selling in larger numbers because of marketing, not actual need, and that wastes resources.

My comments about the Prius AWD being less powerful and capable isn't about it not being able to go off road, but in relation to other actual cars with AWD that the manufacturer says to not take off road.

Most people expect the AWD to provide some input at any speed. The E-four on the Prius might work only at speeds at up to 25mph. Traffic volume aside, many go faster than that on snow. They go even faster than that in heavy rain, which is another time AWD would be expected to provide a benefit.

Toyota wants to expand the Prius market, so they have to think in terms of the larger group for when it comes to selling the car.