Official Kia Soul EV thread

[hill]

............snip.......... My understanding is that the law changes in 2018, meaning that any compliance EVs will have to be sold in all ZEV states to qualify. Fuel Cell vehicles will still allowed to be sold in CA only past 2018.

Nissan, on the other hand, annoyed me by delaying the release of the Leaf in NY for 14 months after it was first sold in CA. Non-ZEV states like Texas and Florida had the Leaf many months before we could get it here in NY -- and it wasn't due to infrastructure, because both FL and NY had 0 QCs for at least a year after the Leaf was sold in those states.

Be very glad NY wasn't on the early delivery list. You could of used the opportunity to watch the AZ early deliveries die early deaths from heat. You'd have a better understanding of what you were getting in to. I'm just glad the Soul EV has chademo. With the spark pretty much a non starter - it means the SAE's franken-plug will most likely die on the vine.
As for FC cars . . . . . they'll likely only be leased . . . . and only after they force other drivers to pony up hundreds of millions in motor vehicle fees to build a horribly small amount of hydrogen fueling stations.
.

 

[gsleaf]

It looks like Kia sold some Soul EV's in Norway this month.

http://insideevs.com/volkswagen-e-golf-on-top-of-norway-sales-chart-in-record-august/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Devin]

Whether it's the Leaf at 84 EPA or the Soul at 92, they're basically the same range vehicles from a buyers perspective.
And then why would a buyer trade-off the knowledge of the Leaf's three years of 'field testing' for an unknown BEV that
costs more and just has an EPA of just eight more miles?

All the LEAF's three years of 'field testing' have done is prove that Nissan's thermal management strategy is very poor and has resulted in capacity loss across the board. That hurts the case for the LEAF, it doesn't help it. To use the same logic, why would a buyer trade-off the knowledge of Chevy's three years of modern plug-in 'field testing' for a LEAF that costs more than a Spark with active battery cooling and gets only 2 more EPA miles?

And you know that TMS on the Soul is going to make a significant reduction in battery
degradation, right? Where are the long term data to support that, i.e. Spark and others with TMS?

Here's the data based on a survey of Tesla Roadsters (with TMS)...

The Plug In America LEAF Battery Survey showed that concern about accelerated battery capacity loss among some vehicles in hot climates was justified. It found a clear correlation between reported capacity loss and hot climates, although not for all hot-climate vehicles. Also, the Leaf's poor battery instrumentation made it difficult to quantify the magnitude of the problem.
[...]
The data points, and associated trend lines, are pretty clearly grouped by climate, with cars experiencing hotter temperatures losing apparent capacity more quickly than cars in milder climates.
[...]
In the case of the Roadster, the data points from different climates are mixed together with no discernable pattern. This shows no significant correlation between climate and battery longevity.

But I digress. My point here is that LEAF's three year head start in the market does not make it inherently more attractive than the Kia Soul EV with greater range, if similarly priced. Most consumers still lump all EVs together as "those new electric cars" anyways.

This is still an improvement, because up until very recently, many people thought EVs were still a future-technology. When I volunteer at events with Plug In America, the most common question I get, after range, is "when can I get one of these cars?" I then have to explain that I don't work for an automaker, am not driving a prototype, and the cars are available today.

People who value long-term reliability over all other factors aren't in the market for an EV anyways. They're still driving a 10 year old Camry.

Not having TMS is the future.

So are hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. :?

 

[mtndrew1]

I just dropped by "Car Pros" Kia in Carson where I talked to a salesman about the Soul EV.

Remarkably the guy wasn't completely clueless and was pretty friendly. He told me the facility expects to have the EVs in stock by the end of September, and that his training seminar on the car was scheduled for this coming weekend.

The salesman promised to call me when they get EVs in for test drives. I sat in a regular gasoline Soul to see how it was and I was surprised to find it was beautifully appointed with nice materials and impeccable fit and finish. I guess I was expecting something mediocre. Certainly it's at least a half step above the Leaf.

I'm looking forward to my test drive!

 

[lorenfb]

"My point here is that LEAF's three year head start in the market does not make it inherently more attractive than the Kia Soul EVVisit the Kia Soul EV Forum with greater range, if similarly priced."

Sure it does, with the exception of the Leaf's battery, i.e. the Leaf's battery data are really the only long term
(over 3 yrs) true BEV battery data (even considering Tesla MS & discounting the Roadster), the Leaf is an
exceptionally reliable BEV. Who really knows how reliable the Soul will be long term? Besides, no ones knows
how well the Soul's battery will hold-up even with TMS long term.

Why would anyone really consider a Soul given that:

1. It's more costly than the Leaf;
2. It only has an additional EPA range of 8 miles;
3. There's no overall reliability data on the Soul BEV;
4. and it's an ICE conversion?

 

[Smidge204]

Why would anyone really consider a Soul given that:

1. It's more costly than the Leaf;
2. It only has an additional EPA range of 8 miles;
3. There's no overall reliability data on the Soul BEV;
4. and it's an ICE conversion?

1. Cost is not the final arbiter of anything. Styling, fit and finish, brand etc. are all factors.

2. 8 miles is quite a lot. How many threads on this forum are people with ~70 mile commutes asking if they can make it in a LEAF?

3. I can only assume you mean reliability for the battery pack, not the vehicle as a whole. It would be a long way to fall for the car as a whole to be unreliable. Given that, there's not much reliability data on the LEAF's newest battery setup either, and the older battery's reliability is not much to brag about.

4. So what if it is? I don't see how that's necessarily a point against it. As long as they didn't compromise to make it work (e.g. loss of cargo/passenger space compared to the ICE version) then that just makes it equivalent to the ICE version on those metrics.

=Smidge=

 

[cwerdna]

3. I can only assume you mean reliability for the battery pack, not the vehicle as a whole. It would be a long way to fall for the car as a whole to be unreliable. Given that, there's not much reliability data on the LEAF's newest battery setup either, and the older battery's reliability is not much to brag about.

There weren't any significant reliability problems w/the Leaf's batteries. They worked and didn't fail. The problem was/is degradation.

If you want to throw stones about battery (pack) reliability, that would fall on the Model S. Numerous packs have been replaced due to something failing inside the pack (contactor?).

I've seen almost no entire picks nor individual modules replaced on Leafs for anything other than degradation, where the entire pack's replaced.

 

[Smidge204]

There weren't any significant reliability problems w/the Leaf's batteries. They worked and didn't fail. The problem was/is degradation.

Degradation is a failure mode. The vehicle is no longer performing as intended or as reasonably anticipated. If your 80,000 mile tires are bald after just 50,000 miles and you haven't abused them, it doesn't matter if tire wear is otherwise normal - those tires have failed because they wore out faster than anticipated. Same with the battery degrading faster than anticipated.

This isn't "throwing stones" - I'm not trying to crap on the LEAF and I'm certainly not interested in white-knighting the Soul EV - it's just a statement of facts. Sure, we can talk about the Model S and its fair share of problems, but that's not exactly germane to the topic.
=Smidge=

 

[cwerdna]

^^^
I disagree w/your definitions. So, if a part of a battery pack's reliability is degradation, at what point is the Leaf's battery "reliable" vs. "unreliable"?

As to the Model S battery pack replacements due to failure of something inside, the cars quit running, as presumably the pack no longer supplied power to the car. That's failure.

The degraded Leaf packs we've seen so far didn't do the above. Perhaps somewhere below 0 capacity bars, the pack wouldn't be able to provide insufficient voltage to allow the car to move say a few hundred feet. That's either a failed pack or at complete end of life.

If something failed inside the pack that prevented the car from moving or charging, that's a failure. If this were widespread, it'd be fair to label the battery pack as unreliable.

I've not heard people referring tires as having "failed" because they wore out before their treadwear warranty. To me, tire failure is along the lines of blowout, cords sticking out, significant bubbles/bulges, in the absence of road hazard.

 

[Smidge204]

I disagree w/your definitions. So, if a part of a battery pack's reliability is degradation, at what point is the Leaf's battery "reliable" vs. "unreliable"?

There is a certain, defined (if only loosely defined) performance issued by the manufacturer on the performance of the battery pack. Anything that falls outside of this expected performance can and should be considered a failure.

Losing a sizable portion of battery capacity well ahead of schedule is absolutely a failure. It might not be "burst into flames" failure, but then again you can still fail an exam without getting a perfect 0 score right?

As to the Model S battery pack replacements due to failure of something inside, the cars quit running, as presumably the pack no longer supplied power to the car. That's failure.

Absolutely. So is the battery losing capacity well ahead of schedule.

The degraded Leaf packs we've seen so far didn't do the above. Perhaps somewhere below 0 capacity bars, the pack wouldn't be able to provide insufficient voltage to allow the car to move say a few hundred feet. That's either a failed pack or at complete end of life.

A completely dead pack is indeed a kind of failure, but again that is not the only definition of failure. Things can fail to perform without completely breaking. Are you saying that if your new LEAF had lost 20-30% capacity within a year of buying it, you wouldn't pursue the dealer for warranty service because the car didn't, in your opinion, fail? Would you be okay with Nissan refusing service because the car could still technically be driven?

Of course not. The vehicle has defined performance specifications and you'd expect them to be satisfied, wouldn't you?

Basically you're arguing that this never happened.

I've not heard people referring tires as having "failed" because they wore out before their treadwear warranty. To me, tire failure is along the lines of blowout, cords sticking out, significant bubbles/bulges, in the absence of road hazard.

So if your tires had an 80K warranty and were racing-slick bald after just 50k, you wouldn't seek warranty service? By your own argument there is nothing wrong with those tires.

Your definition of failure is far too naive, IMHO.
=Smidge=

 

[TomT]

Many, if not most, consider that to be a serious failure.

There weren't any significant reliability problems w/the Leaf's batteries. They worked and didn't fail. The problem was/is degradation.

 

[lorenfb]

The buyers know what to expect from a Leaf, i.e. there're three years of data.
They don't know what to expect from a Soul other than; It looks like its ICE original,
it will cost more than a Leaf, it may have an additional 8 miles of range, and it will
have TMS. There's no overwhelming logical factor to motivate a Soul purchase
versus a Leaf purchase.

For some, not me, roll-the-dice and buy a Soul!

 

[mtndrew1]

The buyers know what to expect from a Leaf, i.e. there're three years of data.
They don't know what to expect from a Soul other than; It looks like its ICE original,
it will cost more than a Leaf, it may have an additional 8 miles of range, and it will
have TMS. There's no overwhelming logical factor to motivate a Soul purchase
versus a Leaf purchase.

For some, not me, roll-the-dice and buy a Soul!

The gasoline Soul has a good reputation. It's likely the body systems and general assembly will be to the same standard as the conventional Soul.

Pricing has not been released, but they're launching the Soul EV globally, they're planning a 50-state US rollout, and Kias in general are a solid value proposition.

The whole car is warranted for five years, the drivetrain for ten years, and the battery capacity is warranted to 70% for 100,000 miles.

Overall, the only hesitation I would have with buying the Kia over the Nissan is that Nissan techs and regional service personnel are likely to be far more EV knowledgeable. I could see a minor problem with the Kia escalating into a nightmare because everyone up the chain is learning how to handle it.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Without knowing what the price is going to be, its hard to say whether the extra range is worth it or not but if its 8 more miles EPA, a careful driver could EASILY make that 12 more miles. That would be HUGE for me.

I have several jobs in Grays Harbor County, WA home of ZERO PUBLIC CHARGING STATIONS. That tiny extra bit of range would actually allow me to make it to 4 of the closer locations that I currently have to gas it.

 

[GRA]

Without knowing what the price is going to be, its hard to say whether the extra range is worth it or not but if its 8 more miles EPA, a careful driver could EASILY make that 12 more miles. That would be HUGE for me.

I have several jobs in Grays Harbor County, WA home of ZERO PUBLIC CHARGING STATIONS. That tiny extra bit of range would actually allow me to make it to 4 of the closer locations that I currently have to gas it.

Alternatively, it would allow people to use the heater on trips where they now have to freeze or dress for cold to make it in a LEAF. Assuming they price it reasonably, the Soul has numerous advantages over the LEAF for many people, including me. It still falls short of my needs, but it's closer to meeting them.

 

[lorenfb]

"Assuming they price it reasonably, the SoulVisit the Soul Forum has numerous advantages
over the LEAF for many people, including me."

Like what, i.e. other than the joke of eight more miles and TMS with an unknown battery chemistry?

 

[Berlino]

How worldwide can you get when production is only 5,000/year?

Will parts be easy to find?

 

[TomT]

Nissan didn't sell that many more Leafs in the first year...

How worldwide can you get when production is only 5,000/year?

 

[Smidge204]

How worldwide can you get when production is only 5,000/year?

5,000 for the 2015 model year, at least. I've not seen anything about future production.

"Assuming they price it reasonably, the SoulVisit the Soul Forum has numerous advantages
over the LEAF for many people, including me."

Like what, i.e. other than the joke of eight more miles and TMS with an unknown battery chemistry?

That "question" has been answered several times already in this thread... :roll:


As for the battery, the press release was linked much earlier in this thread:

"The 360 volt 96-cell lithium-ion polymer battery has been engineered for high capacity, thermal stability and safety. Accordingly, the battery features a nickel-cobalt-manganese cathode, which helps increase capacity, and a graphite-based anode, which increases durability while reducing weight. Additionally, the cells use a gel electrolyte, and each cell contains ceramic separators to significantly improve thermal stability and safety."

=Smidge=

 

[lorenfb]

How worldwide can you get when production is only 5,000/year?

5,000 for the 2015 model year, at least. I've not seen anything about future production.

"Assuming they price it reasonably, the SoulVisit the Soul Forum has numerous advantages
over the LEAF for many people, including me."

Like what, i.e. other than the joke of eight more miles and TMS with an unknown battery chemistry?

That "question" has been answered several times already in this thread... :roll:


As for the battery, the press release was linked much earlier in this thread:

"The 360 volt 96-cell lithium-ion polymer battery has been engineered for high capacity, thermal stability and safety. Accordingly, the battery features a nickel-cobalt-manganese cathode, which helps increase capacity, and a graphite-based anode, which increases durability while reducing weight. Additionally, the cells use a gel electrolyte, and each cell contains ceramic separators to significantly improve thermal stability and safety."

=Smidge=

Where are the battery degradation data?