Official Kia Soul EV thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
mtndrew1 said:
My Soul's GOM is always very pessimistic in comparison to what I actually achieve. I don't believe it has ever promised more range than I've actually got from a charge.

I hope this becomes the new norm for all EVs.
 
My Volt had an incredibly accurate GOM as long as the conditions were similar to the previous drive cycle. I'd imagine the Spark is the same but I've never driven one. The Soul is just eternally pessimistic.
 
Fair enough, but your Volt has a range-extender on board. As BEVs move to more mainstream customers, they will need to err on the side of caution so as to have a final reserve.
 
Soul GOM is very accurate. I do get a kick out it never going up when it regens down hill. I have seen an occasional range jump by 1 mile but only if it dropped just seconds ago. No more of that 11' Leaf GOM craziness...
 
Leaf GOM uses only the last few miles driven. If they are on surface roads and the commute is mostly freeway, Leaf will always be optimistic. Using last couple of hundred miles is probably a better way to estimate range - but that will look optimistic when going @ 70 mph.
 
evnow said:
Leaf GOM uses only the last few miles driven. If they are on surface roads and the commute is mostly freeway, Leaf will always be optimistic. Using last couple of hundred miles is probably a better way to estimate range - but that will look optimistic when going @ 70 mph.

The GOM is totally useless in estimating remaining range. It's much more accurate to directly monitor either remaining Ahr or kWh
in estimating remaining range. The GOM distorts the range estimate by including coasting miles which one won't necessarily encounter
for one's remaining trip. All EVs should provide remaining Ahr/kWh (basically a fuel level gauge) besides a GOM (estimated fuel range
as in an ICE). The GOM estimate becomes very inaccurate in long down driving, e.g. 20+ miles.
 
mtndrew1 said:
My Soul's GOM is always very pessimistic in comparison to what I actually achieve. I don't believe it has ever promised more range than I've actually got from a charge.

I find my Soul's range estimate to be a bit optimistic, but I'm positive that it's due to my driving style. I'm used to driving performance cars and make little attempt to drive more efficiently in my Soul than in my other vehicles.
 
lorenfb said:
The GOM is totally useless in estimating remaining range. It's much more accurate to directly monitor either remaining Ahr or kWh
in estimating remaining range. The GOM distorts the range estimate by including coasting miles which one won't necessarily encounter
for one's remaining trip. All EVs should provide remaining Ahr/kWh (basically a fuel level gauge) besides a GOM (estimated fuel range
as in an ICE). The GOM estimate becomes very inaccurate in long down driving, e.g. 20+ miles.
kWh would be totally lost on 90% of drivers. GOM can be accurate if the drivers put in the route and the car uses all the available information about the route (like Tesla is trying to do). SOC that is provided is a good proxy for kWh remaining - so is the "ideal" miles Tesla shows.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
mtndrew1 said:
My Soul's GOM is always very pessimistic in comparison to what I actually achieve. I don't believe it has ever promised more range than I've actually got from a charge.

I hope this becomes the new norm for all EVs.
Not very useful - it can create needless range anxiety.
 
tractioninc said:
mtndrew1 said:
My Soul's GOM is always very pessimistic in comparison to what I actually achieve. I don't believe it has ever promised more range than I've actually got from a charge.

I find my Soul's range estimate to be a bit optimistic, but I'm positive that it's due to my driving style. I'm used to driving performance cars and make little attempt to drive more efficiently in my Soul than in my other vehicles.

That's interesting! I think you're in a unique position to compare and contrast the two cars.
 
evnow said:
GetOffYourGas said:
mtndrew1 said:
My Soul's GOM is always very pessimistic in comparison to what I actually achieve. I don't believe it has ever promised more range than I've actually got from a charge.

I hope this becomes the new norm for all EVs.
Not very useful - it can create needless range anxiety.

The thing I appreciate most about the Soul's GOM is that it doesn't bounce around at all. As another poster said, you can go down a giant hill and it'll just stay static; it always errs on the side of caution so as not to give a false sense of security.

My Volt was similar in this regard but the Soul ratchets the consistency up a notch, at least in my experience.
 
evnow said:
GetOffYourGas said:
mtndrew1 said:
My Soul's GOM is always very pessimistic in comparison to what I actually achieve. I don't believe it has ever promised more range than I've actually got from a charge.

I hope this becomes the new norm for all EVs.
Not very useful - it can create needless range anxiety.
For me and I expect most people, it's just the opposite. I prefer a hard, guaranteed number to a 'maybe, under this, that and the other conditions' number.
 
GRA said:
For me and I expect most people, it's just the opposite. I prefer a hard, guaranteed number to a 'maybe, under this, that and the other conditions' number.
I'd rather dispense with the GOM entirely and have energy units displayed. I can figure out for myself how many energy units it takes to make a trip under varying conditions.

In effect, Tesla does this with a range number based on ideal (or user determined) conditions. If you are getting only 0.8 miles for each standard range mile it is a simple matter to determine the range under those conditions. Those range miles are de facto energy units.

evnow said:
kWh would be totally lost on 90% of drivers. GOM can be accurate if the drivers put in the route and the car uses all the available information about the route (like Tesla is trying to do)...
Not necessarily. Even with terrain and speed adjustments the algorithm still won't account for changing weather conditions. And it can't accurately predict future speeds without some sort of driver input. At some point the driver is going to have to use some sense or experience when stretching the range. Nevertheless, I suppose this is the approach that will be taken for future range estimates and is a lot better than the current GOMs.

However — at the risk of stating the obvious — as the range of EVs becomes significantly greater, the need to precisely estimate how many miles are left becomes greatly reduced because the vast majority of trips will not come close to exceeding that much greater range. Right?
 
dgpcolorado said:
I'd rather dispense with the GOM entirely and have energy units displayed. I can figure out for myself how many energy units it takes to make a trip under varying conditions.

I agree, long-term this is the better solution. My Honda Insight has a GOM too, but it is buried a few levels deep into the Multi-Info Display. It too is absurdly optimistic, often claiming that the car can travel over 500 miles on a full tank. The tank is 9 gallons, and I average about 45MPG. I would have to get well over 50MPG, which is hard to say the least. But I never really look at the GOM in the Insight (except to compare it to the Leaf's) because I know I can travel several hundred miles on a tank, and I trust the fuel gauge to be somewhat accurate. I know that if I have about a quarter tank, for example, I can safely travel 75-100 miles.

I think in the end, when we get to a true 200-mile range, the EVs should simply show a rough state-of-charge. I think we should bury both the GOM and the energy units under some menus for those who care. Neither should be prominently displayed on the dash. Drivers will learn their own habits, and instinctively know how far they can travel on the remaining charger. IMHO, that's where we need to be when EVs really go mainstream.
 
I've routinely used the onboard 'range until empty' displayed on my BMWs since the late 90's. I always found that info useful, despite the estimate not being super accurate--likely because my driving style varies a lot by mood and circumstance. The range estimates on our EVs seem noticeably more accurate, but even more sensitive to driver behavior.

Now that I've put over 500 miles on my Soul I've started exploring its limits more (acceleration, braking, cornering, top speed, etc). It's proving surprisingly capable compared to other gas-powered compact cars I've driven hard.
 
tractioninc said:
...Now that I've put over 500 miles on my Soul I've started exploring its limits more (acceleration, braking, cornering, top speed, etc). It's proving surprisingly capable compared to other gas-powered compact cars I've driven hard.
Is the Soul really in the compact car class? It seems bigger in the pictures (I've never seen one in person before).
 
+1

All the cars I have owned since the mid nineties had a Range To Empty feature and I've always found it useful (and reasonably accurate - particularly at the bottom end)...
It would feel weird NOT to have it these days...

tractioninc said:
I've routinely used the onboard 'range until empty' displayed on my BMWs since the late 90's. I always found that info useful, despite the estimate not being super accurate--likely because my driving style varies a lot by mood and circumstance.
 
Back
Top