backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 69 comment(s) - last by andrinoaa.. on Mar 10 at 3:58 PM
Kia showcases Kia Rio Hybrid

Kia's Rio subcompact is a popular car that is available in the $10,700 to $15,000 price range. Paired with a 5-speed manual transmission and its 1.6 liter 110 HP engine, the 2,365 pound Rio manages to achieve fuel economy ratings of 32MPG/35MPG city/highway -- quite respectable in its class.

Not content with those numbers, Kia unveiled a new hybrid version of the Rio at the Geneva Auto Show. The Kio Rio Hybrid pairs a 1.4 liter gasoline engine with a 12kW electric motor, 144-volt battery and a continuously variable transmission (CVT).

Kia also went to town on weight-saving measures with the Kio Rio Hybrid. The company decided to use aluminum for the hood, trunk lid and front seat frames along with lightweight wheels and electric steering to reduce weight by 485 pounds, despite the added hybrid components.

With the new powertrain and lower curb weight, the Kio Rio Hybrid can accelerate from 0 to 60 in a leisurely 12.2 seconds and achieve a top speed of 112 MPH. The combined city/highway fuel economy jumps to 53.4 MPG on the European cycle. Air pollutants are also reduced by 37%.

Pricing and U.S. availability of the Kio Rio Hybrid was not made available. However, seeing as how the U.S. is the biggest market for hybrid vehicle, it should be coming here shortly.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hawt
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/8/2007 1:21:32 PM , Rating: 3
That's pretty slick. Though by swapping all of those parts for "lighter" components, I wonder if they sacrificed a great deal in collision protection. Depending on the materials used it could be a bad thing or it may not matter. Let's see the crash tests come back with results.




RE: Hawt
By therealnickdanger on 3/8/2007 1:40:33 PM , Rating: 3
The only problem with crash tests is that they don't typically exceed 40MPH, rendering them pretty useless in determining safety for life-changing and fatal crashes, which mostly occur at much higher speeds.


RE: Hawt
By Magnus Dredd on 3/8/2007 3:49:47 PM , Rating: 3
One of wife's best friends was killed in a Kia which rolled at 40 Mph and the roof collapsed.

One of her coworkers was seriously injured in a Kia when the seat collapsed backwards when another car ran into the back of her Kia.

Another of her coworkers was injured, but not seriously in a collision, saying that her seat belt came undone when she hit another car.

The three people above, all worked at a records department at a major US bank, and had accidents within a 12 or 18 month period about 5 years ago.

You could not pay me to own a Kia.


RE: Hawt
By Merry on 3/8/2007 4:16:26 PM , Rating: 4
You could not pay me to own a Kia.

The the Rio has a 4 star euro ncap safety rating

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/rat...

So I would presume they have solved the safety issues of 5 years ago.


RE: Hawt
By Magnus Dredd on 3/8/2007 4:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that they didn't have terrible ratings at the time.

This causes me not to trust the ratings.

Example: I don't think they test vehicles to make sure that the roof can maintain it's integrity in the case of a roll-over. This is an important thing that makes a Volvo a much safer car than a Honda, ratings be damned.


RE: Hawt
By Samus on 3/8/2007 8:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
The difference between ncap 4 and ncap 5 i believe is simply the deformation of the door structure so the ability to open the doors in a 40mph collision is hindered a little bit with a 4 star, but that doesn't mean they wont open. at least thats what I remember from Top Gear.

This looks like a spiffy car, especially if its under $15000.


RE: Hawt
By RamarC on 3/8/2007 4:45:31 PM , Rating: 3
Kia's made a lot of strides in quality and safety since the Sportage. And few cars prior to '04 could protect occupants in a roll over at 40mph.


RE: Hawt
By mtnmanak on 3/8/2007 11:40:32 PM , Rating: 3
More importantly - Stay away from that bank!! That place is clearly a death trap!


RE: Hawt
By encryptkeeper on 3/9/2007 12:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's a Kia. That should be enough to tell you to not buy the thing.


RE: Hawt
By Kuroyama on 3/8/2007 1:44:21 PM , Rating: 4
Aluminum is stronger than steel on a per pound basis, which is why aircraft are largely aluminum. However, it's also fairly expensive, plus the hybrid drive will add even more cost to it, which makes we wonder if this can still be priced as a low-end car when it comes to market.

Also, it is worth noting that this article is comparing apples and oranges. The 53.4 mpg Imperial is only 44 mpg US. Still a respectable figure, but I assume this is measured by means similar to the old EPA guidelines, in which it is not much better than a standard Civic and Corolla which both got 42mpg under the old guidelines.


RE: Hawt
By ksherman on 3/8/2007 2:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, it is worth noting that this article is comparing apples and oranges. The 53.4 mpg Imperial is only 44 mpg US. Still a respectable figure, but I assume this is measured by means similar to the old EPA guidelines, in which it is not much better than a standard Civic and Corolla which both got 42mpg under the old guidelines.

Why would you assume that? What in the article lead you to that conclusion? There is a new standard for establishing fuel economy. Its a law to use the new standard on all 2008+ models. Not to mention the fact that if the article was quoting figures based upon Imperial gallons, why would they be following the EPA standards, which is a standard for the US, not Europe.

On a side note, how does the European methods for calculating MPG compare with the old or new EPA standards?


RE: Hawt
By Kuroyama on 3/8/2007 4:11:21 PM , Rating: 3
The 53mpg figure stated in the article has absolutely nothing to do with the US EPA rules in 2008+ or any other year. The old EPA standard is the more appropriate in this case. For instance, in the UK the Prius has a combined fuel economy of 65.70mpg (imperial units), which is 54.7mpg in US gallons. This is almost exactly the same as the old EPA measurement of 55mpg for the Prius. So, yes, the 44mpg via old EPA measurements seems the appropriate conversion to make.


RE: Hawt
By AndreasM on 3/8/2007 5:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing it's US mpg, and has been converted from km/l.


RE: Hawt
By Marlowe on 3/8/2007 7:11:57 PM , Rating: 3
You brits and yanks should start using liters / 100 km like siviliced Europe does hehe :) No more confusion!

Also miles per gallon is sounding so much more optimistic, as you kinda measure just miles not fuel.. "so what if I don't get so much miles, I get where I want anyway.."

In comparison to liters per 10/100 kilometers.. then you really measure your fuel usage in liters of fuel and easier see how much you're really using.. "omg I use 8 liters on these 100 kilometers.. maby I can use only 6 liters if I'm light on the throttle!"

Measuring fuel efficiency in MPG makes you not really care so much about it.. That's what I think :P


RE: Hawt
By Kuroyama on 3/8/2007 7:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
The 2007 Kia Rio automatic gets 32mpg combined (us gallons). The article states that fuel efficiency was increased by 44%, which would put this at 46mpg (us gallons). If you look around the net further you'll find that some articles state this is 53.4 Imperial mpg, which is consistent with the various comments I've posted above.

It is sort of like some articles on the next model Prius claim that it'll get 94mpg, until you read the fine print and discover it's Imperial gallons and on a Japanese test that is apparently even easier than the old EPA ones.


RE: Hawt
By lewisc on 3/8/2007 1:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say that the components they have swapped for aluminium parts would affect the car safety wise; the hood, trunk and seat frames shouldn't reduce the structural integrity of the car. Besides, aluminium is a tried and tested material now for making the frames, let alone panels, of much more expensive executive cars (such as the audi A8).


RE: Hawt
By Hoser McMoose on 3/8/2007 5:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Highly unlikely. None of the components they removed have much to do with the safety of a vehicle. It's the unibody frame and cage around the passenger compartment that really determine the safety, along with a healthy dose of smart engineering.

The only component mentioned that might affect the safety of the vehicle is the seat frame. However as another poster mentioned, aluminium is strong, pound for pound, then steel, so simply using a larger (but still lighter) aluminium frame they could make it just as safe.


RE: Hawt
By bldckstark on 3/8/2007 9:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Aluminum weighs around 45% less than, and is around 29% stronger than steel pound for pound. The problem lies in the fact that aluminum is much less elastic. When you stretch a piece of steel (using 30 carbon unhard) it starts to elongate at around 36,000 lbs per square inch (36ksi), and fails at about 60ksi. Aluminum starts to stretch at about 34ksi, and fails at ~45ksi (using 5083 H-116 aluminum). Therefore more damage is sustained to high aluminum content vehicles in a collision. This can actually help vehicles pass the Euro pedestrian collision tests because the hood deflects more on impact, absorbing more of the energy. There is no way of knowing what the difference in crash performance is by looking at the aluminum vs. steel parts. You have to test them. That is why they wreck all of those cars.

The US has laws about a vehicle being able to sustain more than it's weight while on it's roof without crushing (I don't know about Euro, but I would suspect they do also). This is why vehicles nowadays have such large "pillars" leading to the roof from the body. Also the vehicles are only tested against themselves. They do not run a Suburban into a Neon (I own both) at 40 mph. Physics - they're not just good ideas, they are laws.

No vehicle can be expected to sustain unlimited forces and not crush to the point of injury. That is why the tests are run at certain speeds. Running any vehicle into another at 100 MPH would almost always cause instant death to all occupants even if they hit the airbags.


Not much in the way of acceleration
By Whedonic on 3/8/2007 1:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for environmentally friendly technologies, but 0-60 in 12.2 seconds is just terrible. At that rate, I'd be scared trying to get up to speed merging onto the highway.




RE: Not much in the way of acceleration
By Deaks2 on 3/8/2007 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
...but compared to a regular Rio which takes 10+ seconds for the same jaunt, it's not too shabby.


By Hoser McMoose on 3/8/2007 6:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have the exact performance numbers for the existing Rio, but I know that it can't be very good. I've driving one of my good friend's Rio, and let me tell you, getting up to highway speeds does NOT happen with any sort of urgency!

This is especially true if you have the air conditioning on! We were actually joking about this while driving, she would turn the air conditioning off when going up a hill and it honestly made a noticeable difference in the (still small) amount of power the car had!


RE: Not much in the way of acceleration
By noxipoo on 3/8/2007 1:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
so you must of not drove in the 80s? or had sports cars all your life.


RE: Not much in the way of acceleration
By semo on 3/8/2007 2:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
yeah just because a car can do 60 in say 6 seconds doesn't mean you have to do it all the time. when driving on the highway at high speeds you should always obey the law first and put use of a car's performance for pleasure last (safety first is what i'm trying to say). bearing that in mind, it can be stressful joining high speed traffic or overtaking in an underpowered car but then if you are a good driver (not talking about having the heaviest right foot on the road) can compensate for that, e.g. thinking ahead and planning your maneuvers before you make them (which is what distinguishes professional drivers from rest, not the performance of the vehicle they happen to be driving).

by the way, what is kio? the article refers to kio (kia?) in a few sentences.


RE: Not much in the way of acceleration
By Magnus Dredd on 3/8/2007 4:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's been proven time and time again that it is unsafe to merge at a speed that is very different than the existing traffic.

Merging onto a highway where the traffic is doing 80Mph at 55Mph is dangerous, regardless of what laws are on the books.


By semo on 3/8/2007 5:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
so are you suggesting we fight speed with speed? you merge with traffic on the slowest moving lane and motorways are designed so that you have enough distance to build up speed (remember, a good driver thinks ahead).

anyway, here in england the speed limit is 70 and if you are going at that speed or higher you'd be stupid no to look and take notice when approaching a junction where slower moving traffic might join your lane.


By RamarC on 3/8/2007 4:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when driving on the highway at high speeds you should always obey the law first and put use of a car's performance for pleasure last (safety first is what i'm trying to say). bearing that in mind, it can be stressful joining high speed traffic or overtaking in an underpowered car but then if you are a good driver (not talking about having the heaviest right foot on the road) can compensate for that, e.g. thinking ahead and planning your maneuvers before you make them (which is what distinguishes professional drivers from rest, not the performance of the vehicle they happen to be driving).


agreed. that's why they have acceleration lanes. my dad has a hyundai spectre(?) and it has a wimpy gas pedal, so that means i don't wait until the last minute to press it down when merging!


By Martin Blank on 3/8/2007 2:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that far off of the time that most people take getting up to freeway speeds, which is usually in the realm of 15 seconds or so. It is a little anemic compared to many other cars, but Kia has never really tried to compete at that level, instead focusing on producing a decent car at low cost.


By fic2 on 3/8/2007 4:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
You must not drive in the Denver area where people in their big *ss v-8 powered SUV/trucks don't know what an acceleration lane to get on the highway is. Most of the people I end up behind are doing about 50mph when they attempt to merge onto the highway. Doesn't matter how long the entrance lane is.

So for them 0-60 in 12 seconds would be going FAST.


Long-awaited Hyundai Accent Hybrid?
By Anonymous Freak on 3/8/2007 2:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Kia is owned by Hyundai.

Three years ago, Hyundai announced that this year they would come out with an Accent Hybrid. (The Accent is the cheapest new car money can buy; or at least, it was three years ago, I haven't checked recently.) Is this what they're releasing instead?

The only major problem with Hyundai/Kia's cars is that, as others have noted, they get pretty lousy mileage compared to equivalent competitors. I mean, the Rio is smaller than a Civic, yet the Civic gets 10 MPG better, with better performance. They're going to be making a Hybrid Rio, and reducing weight at the same time, yet it will only get the same mileage as a non-Hybrid Civic? With less passenger and cargo space, and worse performance?

Yes, it's cheap, so I expect it to be 'less' of a car, but *THAT* much worse, that even making it a hybrid can't make it equal the non-hybrid Civic? (Don't even bother trying to compare it to the Corolla or other cars in the class.) Even if they manage to make the hybrid-ization cost less than $2000, and only put it on the lowest-end model, it's still $13,500. And it's barely even a competitor to the $15,000 Civic or $14,000 Corolla, much less a revolutionary new car.

Of course, I am a fan of ANY technology that improves the environment, so I'll wait until I see the U.S. specs. (P.S. In looking up info on equivalent UK vehicles... Why the hell doesn't Honda make the Euro Civic, with its high-efficiency diesel engine, available in the U.S?!? That car looks way cooler than the US Civic!)




By Kuroyama on 3/8/2007 3:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
Because until the very recent advent of clean diesel in the states it was almost impossible to pass emissions standard, and still is quite difficult in states following the California emission laws. Now that clean diesel is available it is expected that many diesels will come to the US in the next few years.


RE: Long-awaited Hyundai Accent Hybrid?
By SilthDraeth on 3/8/2007 4:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
I know its slightly off topic, but why did GM kill production of the Geo Metro?
50mpg in a non hybrid. So what if it was small, and did 0-60 in 2 minutes (slight exaggeration). For cost, fuel economy, it still hasn't been topped. I have seen Geos get over 200k miles as well, so it wasn't like they where only good for 75k miles.


RE: Long-awaited Hyundai Accent Hybrid?
By Kuroyama on 3/8/2007 4:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
Supply and demand. There's little point in selling a car if not many people will buy it. In this case the Metro had a reputation of being a death trap in accidents. When I went to buy my first car and thought of a Metro everyone I knew (in California no less) basically said that it was unsafe; perhaps this was not warranted, but if that's what people think then they won't buy it.


By SilthDraeth on 3/8/2007 5:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose. I had heard the same thing, but believe it to be unwarranted. Just as the belief that a huge SUV is super safe.

I have my own theories, but they verge on conspiracy, along the lines of the electric car that GM did away with.

Anyways, hopefully this new kia hybrid is cheap, and efficient. I would love to buy a Prius, but the increase cost over a Corolla isn't justified. It would take around 15+ years to pay off the difference between the two cars, and the battery is only guaranteed for 10 years. To many unknown factors.


By Xenoterranos on 3/9/2007 3:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
A friend of mine owns one of those. Bought it new. All he's ever done on it is change the oils, etc...We call it the Screamin' Demon, and not because it's fast. ;)


I can see Kia
By d33pblue on 3/8/2007 1:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Selling quite a few of those. Fair amount of size, $15k, 53MPG is impressive.




RE: I can see Kia
By Kuroyama on 3/8/2007 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
53.4 mpg Imperial is only 44 mpg US. Still a respectable figure but under old EPA guidelines the Civic and Corolla got 42mpg, so it is quite possible this hardly does any better than then.


RE: I can see Kia
By lewisc on 3/8/2007 1:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that European measures of a car's fuel efficieny were more stringent than the old EPA guidelines. Please, someone correct me though if this isn't correct!


RE: I can see Kia
By ksherman on 3/8/2007 2:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
I commented on this statement above...


RE: I can see Kia
By PhantomKnight on 3/8/2007 5:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually IIRC, Europe uses L/100km (yes litres per 100km).
So more than likely it has been converted.


Kia Hybrick
By andrinoaa on 3/9/2007 2:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
How is it that a ten year old honda civic is more fuel efficient than a 2007 Kia Hybick?. Man is this the biggest dumb down of the new millenium? With a modern hybrid I expect 70+ miles/gallon!! this is just marketing shlick.
As for safety, how is a modern american SUV any safer than a kia in a rollover? me thinks not, just look at the fatality statts.!!!!!!!




RE: Kia Hybrick
By Xenoterranos on 3/9/2007 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Purely Anecdotal:

When's the last time you sat in a c.1985 Toyota Carolla?

My fiance's been driving one throughout college. The doors are paper thin, everything feels cheaper than a soda bottle, and you can feel rocks pinging the bottom of the car through the floorboards. It's as small as a 2 seater miata, and has "seats" for 4. (I'm 6'4, and barely fit in it with the seat all the way back. I could NOT drive it comfortable for more than a quick store run). Even with its rotted out engine, leaky everything, and her foot glued to the floor 99.999% of the time, it got 30+ miles to the gallon.

The heads just gave out a month ago (~280,000 miles, 3 owners we know of) and we still sold it for 150$. She payed $600 for it. If THAT's what you want to deal with, THEN you can get a 70+mpg car. Personally, I like my truck (read: I Live In Texas) but as I've said many-a-time, would KILL for 30+ MPG.


RE: Kia Hybrick
By andrinoaa on 3/10/2007 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
Note that I said a TEN year old HONDA. How did a 22tr old corolla come into the equation? Ok so you are in america and I live in australia, different cars different expectations. We tend to get the best of the world cars here and just for good measure the average age of a car here is 12yrs. I'm sorry if you cannot see my perspective, but it seems you have bought the "american dream", lock, stock and barrel ! I have owned big and powerfull cars in the past, but man you can live without it. It's someone elses agenda, get over it. We all would love to live in Hollywood but you have to tailer the cloth to suit the garment. Its only transport, it needs to be safe and functional. I'm not saying buy any old shit, but you have to raise your expectations and trucks are not the answer, just look at the way ford and gm are on a downward spiral, people are voting with their wallets


By Hoser McMoose on 3/8/2007 6:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
While I'm generally all in favor of hybrid cars, the Kio Rio is a very poor choice to base a hybrid off of.

The changes made, including a more expensive drive train, more expensive transmissions, new body panels, batteries, etc. are all going to push the price up by at least $5,000. The problem here is, who the heck wants a $20,000+ Kia Rio?!

The Rio's main (only?) real selling feature is that it's cheap. That's Kia's whole schtick, reasonable quality (at least in the past two or three years) for a very cheap price. This is doubly true for their bottom-end Rio.

Hybrid drives make a lot more sense on larger and more expensive vehicles where the extra drivetrain and battery weight make up a smaller percentage of total vehicle weight, and the cost increase is comparatively small.

Also fuel savings on hybrids tends to be more or less a percentage thing. A small vehicle with a 1.6L engine isn't using much gas to begin with, so if you reduce your fuel consumption by 30%, you aren't saving much. However if you reduce the fuel consumption by 30% on a very large vehicle with a big V6 or V8 engine, that's a MUCH larger absolute fuel savings.

Probably one of the most effective Hybrid designs is the Lexus RX series of SUVs. The Hybrid version uses 27% less gas, which on a large vehicle like that translates to a BIG reduction! On the other hand the Hybrid lists for less then $4000 more (since it is only a new drivetrain, no body part swaps like in the Kia), which is only about 10% of the total cost of the vehicle.

Your "breakeven point" (where money saved on gas vs. extra spent up front on the hybrid) is going to happen MUCH sooner on the Lexus RX vs. the Kia Rio. EPA estimates (old measurement system) estimate the breakeven point at just over 7 years for the RX, while for the Rio it will probably be at least 10 years.




By bldckstark on 3/8/2007 9:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
The same can be said for diesel engines. They charge $4k for a diesel, and you don't get to keep the gas engine. The gas engine costs $3k, so you pay a total of $7k premium for a diesel pickem-up truck. It takes about 6 years to break even in them. You had better need that extra power in the diesel, or you are wasting money.

I am curious to see what kind of premium they are going to charge for the new small diesels they are going to put into cars now that they have the fuel they asked for.


Kia Brings Hybrid Technology to the Low-end
By vijayshimla on 3/9/2007 12:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
KIa pairs a 1.4 liter gasoline engine with a 12kW electric motor, 144-volt battery and a continuously variable transmission (CVT). for 53.4 MPG on the European cycle. Just imagine if Kia look forward & pairs a 1.4 litre CRDi Diesel engine instead of gasoline- for even cleaner & more fuel efficient vehicle. I am sure 70 MPG plus will be achievable with a CRDi Diesel Hybrid.




By bldckstark on 3/9/2007 5:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
So you think Diesels are 23.7% more efficient than gas engines? Think again. They are more like 5-10%. Avery significant number for sure, but not enough to get to 70 from 53.4.


Do the math
By klstay on 3/9/2007 12:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
32 mpg
46 mpg

60 miles/day
360 miles/week
52 weeks/year
18,720 miles/year

at 32 mpg 585 gallons/year
at 46 mpg 407 gallons/year

$2.50/gallon

at 32 mpg $1463/year
at 46 mpg $1018/year

savings of $445/year

If the hybrid costs $2225 more than the 'standard' vehicle comparably equipped and you keep it 5+ years then you come out ahead ASSUMING comparable maintenance. (That is one very big assumption BTW.)

Also, average length of car ownership in US is currently 58 months.

Personally I would be surprised if the hybrid is not $4k more than the same 'level' standard Rio. Which means you would have to own it 9+ years to break even.

Every time I drive past my neighbor's Prius in my 4 cylinder Passat (not itself an environmental bombshell by any means) I mentally thank him for helping to fund that research. Someday these vehicles will be the smart buy; just not today. Today they are for those who are really bad at math. All of you also have my thanks.




RE: Do the math
By Xenoterranos on 3/9/2007 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
If you live in a rural area you can routinely do more than 60 miles a day. I do 100 miles 3 times a week just going home->school->work->other->home, and I live in the city. Point is that situation matters, and we should encourage people to really look into their situation.
Of course if they're one of those "Well, I've got 100K to blow, might as well be on somethign' that moves" types, point them to the Tesla Roadster. Just don't tell them they're helping you get a cheaper hybrid 5+ years down the road :)


Finally
By AntiV6 on 3/8/2007 10:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Finally a Hybrid that doesn't look like something I left in the toilet!




Ratings = nothing but air
By ElJefe69 on 3/9/2007 3:39:53 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to know what is a safe car, first you have to define safety in grisly details. Safety is the degree to which a car will not cause the occupants to have to see a doctor and sue for disabilities. This is how insurance companies see safety. 5 star crash rating of a honda civic is 3 tiers worse (on a scale of 5 tiers) than a Mini cooper which only gets 4 stars for crash rating. Hm. Well, that means that a mini cooper (using an actual example here) will protect its occupants from harming themselves in many ways. Insurance companies dont care about airbags or ratings, they look at accidents and how much medical expense is paid for those who drive certain cars. Crash ratings are meaningless as car companies like honda make cars to JUST pass the test without passing the real tests of life/death/serious injury, the tests that come from real data on crashes and who and how much people get hurt.

always ask an insurance agent which car is safer for the occupants to be in, not a magazine or some archaic synthetic tests. Synthetic tests are useful when you have no method of getting real life data. I think by now theres more real life data than synthetic tests!

yeah, in short, kia always did suck. Two years ago it had the highest rating for most repairs in the first year. Oddly, Jaguar had the lowest repair rating.

Buy a used car instead of one of these. cheaper and well, it might havea longer history of being ok. People try and convince me also of how Hyundai is so nice now. Eh. It is like the parent who stops beating you and is nice after many years. Screw them.




$10k!
By walk2k on 3/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: $10k!
By Aikouka on 3/8/2007 1:50:50 PM , Rating: 3
Nothing, because you just quoted the standard Rio's price range.


RE: $10k!
By Mitch101 on 3/8/2007 2:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly they arent trying to charge me $4K-$6K just because its a hybrid. Which should send a signal to everyone why are the other car companies charging you 4K-6K when KIA isnt? Because they are simply milking the environmentally friendly people out of thier cash.

I would buy this. I would certainly like to see a little more 0-60 but for the price and gas milage Im sold.


RE: $10k!
By ksherman on 3/8/2007 2:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
If you read the END of the article, you would see that the price on the hybrid has not been sent. You cannot applaud Kia for putting out a cheap hybrid until you see the price tag. Civic aren't that much higher than the Rio's stated price range, but their hybrid is priced well above the standard Civic line.


RE: $10k!
By Mitch101 on 3/8/2007 4:13:00 PM , Rating: 3
Your right my bad. This might not turn out to be a deal after all. Its a shame because I would like to get into a budget car for going to and from work and if one were ECO friendly even better. I just cant do the upfront costs of hybrid and hope to get my money back over time. Hybrids need to be priced agressively with thier full gas versions otherwise I will have to pass.

Maybe the ECO friendly people need to stop beating up the people around them for not buying hybrids and focus on pushing the auto makers to make them cheaper so more people will be interested.

People on limited budgets will always go with the cheaper vehicle because they dont have the funds reguardless if its cheaper in the long run.


RE: $10k!
By walk2k on 3/8/2007 6:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
You're going to buy it all up front with cash?

No, you're going to make monthly payments. By the time the car is paid off, you'll have saved in gas whatever premium they get.

Maybe non-eco friendly people need to stop making excuses?


RE: $10k!
By Mitch101 on 3/9/2007 10:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Thats not true. 4K-6K buys a lot of gas over the course of 4 years time. Most people dont generally keep a car much longer than the loan figuring they want the best return on a now used car.

The way you paraphrase your comments is the way a car salesman will upsell you 4k-6k on a car.

Hybrid cars simply dont cost 4K-6K more to produce!

Better gas milage this is what we should demand anyway as consumers because we are being squeezed by the gas companies with ever increasing prices.

Gas prices were almost at a point where it doesnt make sense for someone making low wages to even go to work or own a car.


RE: $10k!
By glennpratt on 3/9/2007 11:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hybrid cars simply dont cost 4K-6K more to produce!


Really? Huge Li-Ion batteries, huge electric motor, computer to control engine start/shutdown/regenerative braking, safety lockouts for emergency workers and on top of that they have less economies of scale then their conventional counterparts.

Nothing against hybrids here, just questioning your point.


RE: $10k!
By Rugar on 3/9/2007 1:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
Let me preface by saying that I am somewhat "Green". I recycle, I ride my bike to work, and I conserve when and where I can. I would like to see the US become more green and would love to see more hybrids on the road.

Now, walk2k's argument makes some sense but it is missing some basic finance. Why do I say this? In order to “justify” a price increase the amount saved would be greater than or equal to the amount spent. Thus, the hybrid would have to save enough in fuel to offset the cost of the hybrid package plus interest. I’ve included the calculations below, but number-wise the hybrid would have to save me the $3500 “hybrid” charge and the $470.16 increase in interest to justify the initial expense. The current national average cost for regular unleaded is about $2.50 a gallon (from AAA). So… $3970.16 buys me about 1580 gallons of fuel. For the gas only Rio that’s about 50,000 miles (at 32 MPG). For the hybrid to “catch up” considering it gets 21.4 more MPG (53.4 – 32) it would have to save more than 50,000 miles worth of fuel. To do that, you would have to use 2336 gallons of fuel for a total “break even” mileage of ~125,000 miles. From a risk/reward standpoint, it is very unlikely that any economy vehicle like the Kia Rio is going to last long enough to travel 125k miles. Until the hybrid “surcharge” comes down, it’s just not worth buying a hybrid at this point. Especially if you factor in how much more expensive they are to maintain and repair.

Numbers and assumptions - Note that I am giving the benefit of the doubt in these assumptions.

Assumption #1: Most car buyers in the US who would be interested in this Kia hybrid are at or below median income. Thus, they would finance most if not all (I will use 90%) of the new car over a 4 (or more) year period.

Assumption #2: Most people who are interested in this Kia would not qualify for extremely low financing. Using the Yahoo finance tables (http://biz.yahoo.com/b/r/a.html) to get the national average, we will use the average 6.99% for a 4-year note.

Assumption #3: The cost of a hybrid version of the Rio is set at $3500 greater than an equivalent gas only Rio with the same options.

Assumption #4: The buyer has the cash on hand and no negative equity in a previous vehicle to afford all taxes and fees as well as the previously stated 10% down-payment.

The numbers game:
Current mid-range Kia Rio: $12,500 (Financing 90% = $11,250 financed)
Estimated hybrid “markup”: $3,500 (Financing 90% = $3,150 financed)

For the gasoline only Kia:
Down payment (excluding taxes, fees, etc) = $1,250
Monthly Note = $269.34
Total (principal + interest) = $14178.32
Total Interest = $1678.32

For the hybrid Kia:
Down payment (excluding taxes, fees, etc) = $1,600
Monthly Note = $344.76
Total (principal + interest) = $18148.48
Total Interest = $2148.48

Difference: $470.16


RE: $10k!
By Kuroyama on 3/9/2007 5:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
I assume that was supposed to be $4700, not $470?


RE: $10k!
By Rugar on 3/9/2007 5:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. The $470 is the difference in the interest paid for the gas only vs. the hybrid.


RE: $10k!
By walk2k on 3/8/2007 6:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ooops I didn't notice that.

Still, if you figure they take the stripped-down base model ($10k) and add $5-6k (if they do) you're still looking at a hybrid for $15-16k. Far less than the Prius or the Civics.


RE: $10k!
By PitViper007 on 3/8/2007 2:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$10-15k... hah! Now what is the "oh I don't buy hybrids becuz they are too expensive!!!!!" crowd going to complain about I wonder??


How about not having enough space for the entire family. Actually while the Rio is a small car, it isn't SO small that I couldn't fit everyone in, we just wouldn't be very comfortable.

On a side note, what is it with all these new "Next Gen" propulsion cars all being so SMALL? Everything that you see that is a concept for the "Next Gen" is a 2 seater or less. What gives with that? Do the designers think that kind of vehicle is really going to be any more practical in the future than it would be today? I'm all for redesigning cars for better fuel efficiency, or using alternative fuels, but let's keep the designs realistic as to what people will actually need!!! /soapbox

PitViper


RE: $10k!
By Flunk on 3/8/2007 3:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
There are larger options. The Ford Escape Hybrid and Toyota Camry Hybrid have been available for a while. There are also others if you look around.


RE: $10k!
By walk2k on 3/8/2007 5:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh right, I should have known it. The old "BUT I HAVE KIDS SO I NEED A 500-HP V8 SUV!!!!!!" excuse.

What, are your kids 8 feet tall and weigh 500 lbs each?

Maybe people should stop having so many kids, too....


RE: $10k!
By Keeir on 3/8/2007 7:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
Read his post.

The poster is mentioning that many of the "next generation" (IE not adding a Hybrid to a current car) concepts are currently 2 seaters with limited storage space. IE, Telsa Roadster, Carter thingies, etc.

No offense, but I would most likely drive my own car rather than be stuff in the back seat of a Rio for more than 15 minutes. I am a fairly normal sized male with BMI less than 20, so I doubt my experience/attitude is unique. The cargo space of a Rio is also rather lacking.

I am pretty disappointed with the Kia Hybrid. It seems like its barely as effiecient as a Prius, with less passenger space, less cargo space, and lower wieght (less safe).


RE: $10k!
By Hare on 3/9/2007 3:09:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
lower wieght (less safe).

If you hit another car head on yes. The other car is crushed and your car suffers less damage. Simple physics. However...

A lighter car is more agile. It's easier to avoid accidents (stops faster, turns faster etc). Same thing if you hit a solid object (wall etc). The weight of the car won't help at all.


RE: $10k!
By CK804 on 3/8/2007 9:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
A 60 foot articulated bus which has a capacity of at least 15x the amount of people does just fine with a 300 hp engine.


RE: $10k!
By typo101 on 3/8/2007 7:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think what all those 2 seater concept car designers are thinking is "Why is it that everywhere I look (especially on the highway) all I see are SUVs, minivans, and full sized sedans with one (maybe 2) people in it?"

Of course, this car isn't such an extreme example. I do believe that there is a market for these, and I would be happy if more people out there felt that these suited their needs.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki