Kia Niro EV Gets Range Rating Of Over 300 Miles


Kia has just revealed that its Niro EV electric crossover travels more than 300 miles per charge.

That’s a hugely impressive figure, which is largely due to the efficiency of the electric vehicles offered by both Kia and partner Hyundai.

With just 64-kWh of battery capacity on board, exceeding 300 miles was not expected. Officially, the Niro EV is rated at 301 miles WLTP. It’s EPA rating has not been released, but it will be a slightly lower figure.

For comparison purposes, the Hyundai Kona Electric is rated at exactly 300 miles WLTP (though we still see it listed at 292), so the Niro EV trumps it by a single mile.

The 2019 Hyundai Kona Electric will be available in the U.S. soon and offers an impressive EPA-rated 258 miles of range. So, figure a mile or two more for the Niro EV when it gets official EPA figures. Let’s say 260 miles

At 260 miles, the Niro EV will be the longest range electric car offered in the U.S. without a Tesla badge, a title currently held by the Kona Electric.

The Niro EV should be available in the U.S. in early 2019.

The all-new Kia e-Niro will make its European debut at the Paris Motor Show and will go on sale in Europe at the end of 2018.

In addition to the 64-kWh battery, a cheaper 39.2-kWh version of the Niro EV will be offered at a later date. Range for this version hasn’t been released yet.

The 64-kWh version of the Niro EV features the ability to charge from empty to 80% in only 54 minutes. The car scoots to 62 mph in 7.8 seconds.

Back to the topic of efficiency, the Niro EV gets equipped with regenerative braking, Coasting Guide Control (CGC), and Predictive Energy Control (PEC). Kia stated this in regards to these systems:

“The technologies enable drivers to recharge the battery pack and maximize vehicle range when coasting or braking.”

“CGC and PEC are linked to the navigation system and account for upcoming corners and topographic changes, suggesting when drivers could coast in order to harvest additional energy.”

Kia has yet to publish full pricing info for the Niro EV.

Kia Niro EV
7 photos

Categories: Kia

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

142 Comments on "Kia Niro EV Gets Range Rating Of Over 300 Miles"

newest oldest most voted

Misleading theadline.. if it is really 260 mi EPa range can you not say over 300mi or at least put WLTP next to that?

I think it’s a fair headline.

Do we know what the Bolt gets under WLTP? I expect it’s somewhere around 270 miles…

Nope. InsideEVs has to date been consistent that when the test protocol isn’t given, it’s EPA. I shouldn’t need ot get to the 3d paragraph of the story itself to find out the headline is indeed misleading (not to mention, 260mi EPA is a good result, no question, and kudos to Kia, but it’s not “slightly less” than 301mi — it’s 14% less.

The Ampere-e (European Bolt) gets a 520 km/323 Mile Range on the NEDC cycle. Not sure what that translates to for WLTP.

Why is the American EPAs method supposed to be the default standard over WLTP – Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedure?

Tunnel vision. Half the traffic to this site is from outside the USA.

Who uses miles outside of the US?

The UK!

Well, stop it and get with the program already! 😉

No. It’s normal. If don’t like uses google translate

Only Liberia

And Myanmar aka Burma

The EPA has proven its real life drive accuracy. Could not care less about the other standards.

As a European, I still look at EPA range, not the useless WLTP figures.

WLTP is far from useless. Do you mean NEDC?

WLTP is less useless then NEDC I guess, but still pretty useless. The I-Pace for example only reaches its WLTP range when hypermiling.

That’s because the WLTP “realistic” test cycle still does not reflect real drivers on real roads. It is actually more like a real driver hypermiling. Hence…

NEDC is useless. WLTP is useful if you drive mostly city. Only Uber/taxi drivers care much about city range, though.

The EPA range rating is generally closer to real world outcomes.

But more important both the Kona and the Niro ARE NOT currently offered in the U.S. as the article states. Until proved otherwise I must assume that these cars will be only available here in very low numbers (like 3 digits per year) and who really knows when. I hope that is not true as I would like to buy a Niro.

Because maybe it’s more realistic under real world driving scenarios? I don’t care the country of origin of the cycle, I just want it to be as accurate as possible to real world driving. No cycle is perfect. If the EPA cycle was overly optimistic I would prefer one that was more accurate. So far I have owned 3 EV/PHEVs and the EPA estimation on range has been pretty accurate compared against my average range for each car.

…could it be that European driving habits, driving conditions and the more urbanized environments drive the need for a different standard? Not all Europeans have access to 80mph (130kmph) interstate highways, so perhaps such driving conditions are the exception in Europe, not the rule. Slower speeds, and flat terrain; driving at 70kmph to 100kmph moves you toward hyper-mile battery range results. We all know the Bolt gets up to and occasionally over 300 miles if being driven at 70kmph. That might be closer to normal European conditions.

Mainly because the EPA Test is widely considered to be more representative of real world range.

And also because we’re just better. USA! USA! USA! USA! 😁🇱🇷😁

Because the EPA rating is realistic, the European ratings are for downhill on a warm summer day.

The EPA rating is also realistic only on a warm sunny day, just on the flat instead. 😉

The EPA need to do winter ranges as well. Not everyone in North America lives in California! As it is the EPA ranges appear to be out around 30% for 6 months of the year.

My personal experience with my Volt, 53 mile EPA rating, is that it’s dead nuts on for my 12 month average. In the summer off the highway I get over 70 miles of range, last Saturday’s trip to Vermont was 72, but in the winter on a highway it’s in the 40s. if I look at my cummulative numbers on Voltstats the MPGe is almost exactly at the EPA rating. Admittedly this is a sample of one but it gives me a lot of confidence in EPA numbers, historically when I was driving regular ICE cars the city/highway mileage that I got was very close to the window sticker ratings, so I’m of the opinion that the EPA really knows what they are doing.

Unfortunately yearly average isn’t going to help when you end up stranded in the middle of nowhere in the -30C because the range isn’t long enough.

In fact average is useless for this sort of thing if it’s not accurate for +20C degree days too. Having a cold and warm weather range makes far more sense (say average predicted range in -20C and +20C, or 0f and 70f in American).

Data from Tesla users suggests their ranges in winter are around 30% less than EPA. Cold is something that kills EV’s too (towing/roof racking is the other unfortunately. Yes ICE lose a bit of range in those scenarios, but no where near the same extent.

Wait a sec. Winter = -30 to 50F. Pretending that winter is a single stable temp that leads to 30% reduced range is just crazy.
There is also a huge variable about timing charging to when you leave or being in range mode. I see 30% as a nearly worst case scenario. On a long trip, there is not a huge difference between the lose in efficiency between an EV and an ICE car. There is a difference for sure but it isn’t as great as you imply.
I know my use case is not everyone’s. But I will throw this out – most roadtrips are not during the winter. AAA will confirm that. But the fact is that some people do long drives in the winter.
I suppose the EPA should have a winter range and a summer range. The winter should probably be somewhere around 20F. It should be clear because I can’t say that I have ever road tripped at 20F since college in upstate NY. Even then, most of the time it was warmer.

Just because where you live it doesn’t get that cold, doesn’t mean it doesn’t in other locations in North America. Many of us regularly take “roadtrips” (in my case to and from a location in one day that doesn’t have a charger at the terminus, not a roadtrip) when it’s -30. The point being is EV’s ARE far more affected by the cold, because of the technology, the shorter ranges due to battery technology and the charging time. Range figures should consider than. If we want EV’s to become mainstream then people need to know the capacity of the vehicle they need. How many are really going to search out the real world winter range of the vehicle they are interested in before buying? They’ll just trust what’s on the promotional material/what the salesmen tell them and then potentially suffer the consequences later. Even if it’s just named as range based on a warm and cold temperature rather than “winter” and “summer” it will help. “range at -20f” and “range at 70f” would be fine. Too much range is less of an issue than too much range. And no, 30% isn’t worst case scenario – it’s a pretty common occurrence… Read more »

I agree 100%. Summer range is close to the epa, but winter is a solid 25% less on both our Bolt and Volt. When it’s really cold, 0f or less it’s closer to 50% less. I know when I bought by Volt I was really disappointed that it only got 30 ish miles on a charge. Granted it was January in Colorado, but if people buy assuming they will get warm weather range they will be very disappointed with winter range.

It’s an American site!,create your own if you are not happy with it.

The Internet isn’t American, it’s worldwide. Any site on it is global.

Except Fox News – right?

While the net isn’t American, the site itself is based in the U.S. Would you expect Deutsche Bank to focus everything on its site to be easily understandable to someone in sunny Minnesota?

The reason for relying on EPA, in the UK at least, is that it has been far more accurate than the totally dishonest NEDC, and even at this early stage looks to be more accurate than the WLTP, which is just NEDC in a new, somewhat more credible, guise. It seems to still be conceding too much to manufacturers lobbying. In particular EPA applies a discount to its test figure, to account for its lack of realism, but WLTP does not seem to, simply relying on the test cycle being more realistic than the totally unrealistic NEDC cycle. The WLTP cycle is STILL not real world though.
I will be looking at both, but will focus much more on the EPA.

Because the EPA cycles try to actually be accurate. None of the standards are perfect due to different driving cycles, habits etc…. But the European NEDC one is basically garbage, easily being over inflated compared to real world testing. WLTP is a little better, but still optimistic. The EPA rating is the most accurate of the 3. Real consumers want to know what they’ll realistically get, it’s that simple. So publications will mostly still use EPA ratings.

Seriously….all the automakers need to be treated fairly. But giving different range numbers from different rating systems is unfair to American companies since the get their first rating from EPA and others get ratings from less accurate & more generous rating systems.

Just add 3 or 4 letters…..300 miles WLTP range, 333 miles EPA range, etc. It’s not hard and it can even be done in headlines.

Precisely! Adding “EPA”, or “WLTP”, Won’t exceed “Headline Length Limits”, or “Spoil” the read!

++ How about the following editorial policy:
(1) ALWAYS give the rating system used,
(2) when that is not provided by the source, DON’T PUBLISH that number.

“Others” have rating system with lower numbers than EPA for cars, for example Hyundai Ioniq. EPA has 200 km, but the Korean standard has it at 191 km.

The Niro is looking better and better. Basically the same size as the Leaf, but with better cargo storage (wider and more rectangular), and now a really good range rating, and a price that’s far below I-Pace, e-Tron, and Model X. They will sell as many of these as they care to make.

And a very good active thermo management system on the battery and power train.

Anyone know if the Kona EV use a similar thermal management system?

It’s the same platform. Kia and Hyundai are sister companies.

It’s not the same platform. Kia Niro shares platform with Hyundai Ionic

@Marcel Guldemond said: “The Niro is looking better and better. Basically the same size as the Leaf, but with better cargo storage..”

Certainly Leaf is in danger of loosing some sales to Niro. Niro has better range & better sleek exterior looks… but Niro interior looks outdated… way too cluttered with knobs, dails, & switches.

The car looks good but as long as they produce ridiculously low volumes (30K per year) it doesn’t matter much.

At this point both the Niro and the Kona are compliance cars. When we see similar availability as the Leaf, we may think about them differently.

@CDAVIS said: “…[Kia Niro] way too cluttered with knobs, dails, & switches.”

I say this based on the interior Niro EV photos/videos I’ve seen including:

Which is unlike the elegant (less cluttered) Nero EV concept interior:

Would be great for Niro EV if what goes into actual production is more near the concept interior than the existing current traditional Niro interior.

Either way, Niro EV will likely do very well for Kia.

I like nobs and switches!!!!

Yes, Niro’s interior design lacks any coherent idea whatsoever. Like taking bits and pieces from other vehicles and slapping them together. The exterior though is absolutely fine.

It does sound great. I hope they make a lot of them.

Availability outside of CARB states and price are the elephants in the room for sure.

If like Ioniq, even availability in carb states is in doubt.

The exact same comments are made in every Niro article. By the same people? The Niro is slated for a wider US release! If you got $45,000, make a reservation and stop whining.

If the 64kWh platform is going to be $20,000 more than I paid for my 40kWh Leaf, I’ll have zero regrets not waiting for it.

$20,000 can just about pay for a long driver I want like the MX-5 or 2019 Ford Ranger.

Who says it’s slated for a wider release?

$45k is way too much for Niro EV.

M3 Owned- Spark Leased - Niro EV TBD

They do have to compete against their own PHEV. Our local shop has 12 PHEVs on the lot. Just waiting to get EV, but if that pushes the PHEVs lower, may dive and get that instead. Not paying price premium if don’t have to.

If it is priced similarly as the Bolt then, uh oh Bolt. The Bolt will still be marginally more sporty but with 20 miles less range and a less conventional look compared to the Niro’s standard compact CUV look it might be in real trouble.

More comfortable seating better interior, power seats, ACC and possible sunroof like the Soul EV

Don’t forget charging speed.

But it won’t put the Bolt in any sort of trouble, if it’s available in similar quantities as previous Hyundai/Kia EVs…

The Bolt will be dead once GM loses their fed tax incentive.

Doubtful. They will just drop the price. Or up the standard/available options.

The Bolt is good – the problem is that GM is not interested in selling it.

I was just thinking this is a great looking car. But then I saw the picture of the inside. After driving a Model 3 for 9 months now, all the Niro’s buttons and switches made my head spin!

well sure vs the 3….which has NO buttons or switches, LOL.

Oh no 🙈 buttons

I will have to agree. All cars seem to have too many buttons after owning the Model 3 for several months.

It’s still nice to have buttons/knobs for commonly used dedicated functions. Like switching back and forth from your favourite radio stations, volume control, temperature control, fan speed, etc. But there should be no need for a gazillion, I agree.

As another Model 3 owner, I don’t miss any buttons.

Yes, on the steering wheel not on the dash. How is a button on the dash different than one on the screen?

Are you serious? Thats like asking how is a real keyboard different than an onscreen one..

How many buttons do your smart phone has? That kid growing up next to you probally doesn’t know what a button is, and thats the future of car owners. Just look at Apple’s video when they introduced the iPhone, he show a picture of the leading phones (4) at the time next to theirs and those phones looked ridiculous, very funny. Look at a planes instrumentation of today and compare from an old. Many cars today have 18+ buttons on the steering wheel, now that’s insane.

The main objectives of the car and the phone are different. In the car, you need to be able to perform certain operations on muscle memory. Hogging attention of users is not a problem for the phone. It’s concerned with giving you as much real estate as possible for media while being able to fit in the pocket.

Any conventional ICE car has 3 mandatory parts:
1. ICE engine compartment
2. Passenger cabin
3. Cargo trunk

IMHO, any BEV has 2 mandatory parts:
1. Passenger cabin
2. Cargo trunk

It makes BEVs “small from outside and big from inside”, and much more maneuverable on the road.
That’s why there is no need to copy ICE cars design for new BEV vehicles.
That’s why I prefer what Chevy did with the Bolt EVs.

Obviously, it is much easier and cheaper for the traditional car manufacturers to re-use their existing car design and manufacturing plants assembly lines.

You need to appreciate the work done by engineers with this. When you include the battery, the volume of components of an EV may be more than ICE. So it has been clever designing and using the fact that batteries can be made in almost any shape, that EVs can be made with more interior space.

Bjorn Nyland did a great series on this last two weeks. This is a seriously impressive car. I am wondering what the availability will be like. If it’s like the elusive Ionic EV, it’ll be as common as an unicorn.

Surprisingly, he found the Niro to be less efficient than the Kona.

Not surprising at all. Niro is bigger

Surprising in the sense that the WLTP rating suggests otherwise…

Did he mention anything about a “Rating for Towing?”

He didn’t know, just rumors about towing so far

I like his videos but they are unnecessary long. Bjorn lacks editing.

Despite the “-4” at your comment right now, I agree with you. I think especially the comparison between the Kona and Niro would have been far better if edited. Some split screens would have been great to better see the differences.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Will there be an WAD offering of this?

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous


ICE/Hybrid/EV NIRO is FWD only. No immediate plans for AWD.

WAD => Wading And Diving?

There’s a rumor that the refresh of the Kia Soul EV may have an AWD option.

Yes, the John Holmes special edition 🙂

I like the looks of the Kona better than than the Niro but I think the Niro will cost less. As poor as sales of the Bolt EV have been, I really don’t expect big numbers for either the Kona or the Niro. Either of them would make a nice replacement of my 2018 Leaf when I’m ready to move on.

Chevy intentionally constraints number of Bolt EVs available in the US. It is a compliance car for them. For many months in 2018 their target was South Korea, and other countries, but not the US.

It took me 2 weeks before I was able to get a Bolt EV in July 2018, in Florida.

Wow! A whole “2 Weeks!” You know, in Canada, we would call that “Almost Instantly!” (When compared to the Multi Month Wait for it in Ontario, in Particular!)

Niro will most likely cost a little more than the Kona (for the same 64kWh drivetrain): Slightly larger car, much higher standard equipment spec (see Bjorn Nyland’s YouTube series, or any of the many UK reviews). In the UK, the expected price difference is 500gbp more for the Niro (the Kona already has an official announced price, the Niro doesn’t).

I saw Bjorn’s video. The Kona looked much more refined, or to put another way, the Niro looked like a cheap knockoff of the Kona. But these cars may look very much different in person.

Hopefully I will get a chance to see them in person someday, I’m still not convinced Hyundai and Kia are serious about selling these cars other than in compliance states.

The Niro hybrid has a strong showing in the hybrid market, so there is at least a chance of this doing well in the EV realm as well. That is, if they don’t supply constrain it.

The Niro is great. But it appears Tesla isn’t the only manufacturer choosing to adjust the advertised rated range for marketing purposes. Bjørn Nyland found Kona to be about five percent more efficient.

Both vehicles are impressively efficient, but isn’t it interesting that Hyundai (the mother company) chooses to rate the Niro ahead of the cheaper Kona? I bet they could have rated Kona 315 miles WLTP if they wanted to…

Could it be that the Niro have a little bit more usable kwh. I think Bjorn Nyland talked about that

Bjorn is no engineer so i would take his ‘analysis’ with a grain of salt.

According to Bjorn Nyland with insider info from his visit in Seoul Korea : The Niro is using SK batteries not LG as originally planned and still used for the Kona — because LG is too much under water with production/delivery already.
Niro has 65 KWh SK, Kona 64 KWh LG.

300 miles if you Hyper Mile it ! 50mph or less under Ideal Circumstances ……A To Total Falsity !

That’s why most people wait for the EPA rating. It’s by far more realistic.

Korean range for Niro is 385 km (239 miles).

Korean cycle is supposed to be pretty close to EPA.

They are Fuel efficient , But Not That Good . If Only it were True ..

Bjørn Nyland did a 500 km (310 miles) trip at ~90 km/h (~56 mph), including significant elevation changes.

Sure, if you do higher-speed highway driving, the range will drop significantly — but that doesn’t make the 300 miles claim a total falsity. It’s actually perfectly achievable in some fairly normal conditions. (Unlike that of the I-Pace…)

Test drives in B.C., Canada; Colorado, USA, needed, for US/Canada marketing; as well as how well it can drive the “West Coast Electric Highway”, from Vancouver, B.C., to San Diego, California! And, a good story about Toronto, ON, to Montreal, QC; or to Key West, FL, would be helpful, too! Those types of storirs let folks know, not just how good the Vehicle is, but how good the Infrastructure is, for EV’s like these, outside of the Tesla universe! Maybe, having a Testing Checklist, of about a Dozen City to City Pairs, from 250 to 2,500 miles apart, in increasing ranges; each, in Europe, and in USA/Canada, for all ‘Long Range’ EV’s to present, as a “Scoreboard”, of sorts, as to travel time, charging availability (fast & destination), and road handling reports, for each, from Consumer Reports, Road & Track; Car & Driver; Popular Mechanix, etc! With early production cars, and revisited after 18 months, as a “Improvement Report Card”, would be great, too! Having both Company initial stories on such trips, before 1st deliveries, as well as such sources as mentioned for 3rd party verification, should become a “Standard”, fir bringing out new EV’s, that are pitched as “Long… Read more »

You missed an “Over the Rockies” winter trip from BC to Calgary, or the US equivalent for a real world winter range.

It’s Good assurance to know that if needed you can squeeze that many miles out of that car. However …, To make a Habit out of Supercharging Extremely Hi & Low ….Charge/Discharge rates will severely shorten the Life of the Battery,,

What does “WLTP” mean? How much do we know about it – is it “optimistic” or “realistic”?

It’s better than NEDC, but still less realistic than EPA.

From the several cars for which both official EPA & WLTP ratings are available, it looks like the combo EPA AER is 10%-15% less than the WLTP.

“Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedure” – the newest version out of Europe that is more accurate than their old NEDC test cycle, but still not as accurate as the EPA test.

WLTP is based on Big Auto lobbying in EU headquarter ( lobbyist with checkbook in hand sneaking around in Brussels) to water down the legal test-standard. Better e.g. slightly more realistic than the unrealistic older NEDC thou.

Reason for an easy test cycle is to get the fuel consumption down, so that the car manufacturers can better reach a specific CO2 reduction target (or face hefty fines) for their combined fleet. So it’s all ICE based, and EV are just understated (without specific intention) with WLTP cycles as well.

Designed … Check.
Rated … Check.
Built in volumes that matter… ???

And no trailerhitch ?

Yes! I wondered if it would be rated for towing?

Any CUV type, it seems to me, “Should” be Towing Rated, as part of the “Utility” in cUv!

Then, the question is: What load Should be Minimum, for a “Passing Grade”, on that?

I’m sure you will be able to buy a trailer hitch for the Niro, just like you can for the Bolt EV and the Leaf. I’m also sure that the Niro won’t be rated for towing, just like the Bolt EV and the Leaf.

The hitch for the Bolt EV bolts to the bumper mounts but the hitch for the Leaf bolts directly to the unibody. If you really want to tow with an EV, get one that has hitch available that bolts to the unibody. Then again, my SUV has a hitch with a 6,500 lb. tow rating that bolts to the bumper mounts.

Any pricing yet? even a rough idea.

$44,500 for fully loaded with 64 kwh battery.
$36,000 for base model with 40 kwh battery.


M3 Owned- Niro EV TBD - Former 500e and Spark EV,

Too high. Niro EV has to compete with itself

Hybrid MSRP 33.5; selling ~29-30 to compete with PHEV
PHEV rebates: cali $1500 fed $3500 MSRP EX-prem 35.5

EV rebates: cali $2500 fed $7500 MSRP trim = Ex-Prem – should be ~$40.5 if higher, folk will simply choose the PHEV and get at least some electric

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Just consider WLTP as “Peak range” and EPA as “RMS range”

Where 301WLTP * .707 = 212.8AER

Topographic cruise control is really great, no need to burn ~40% of the energy you’re gaining on the downslope if you’ve got an upslope coming . . .

Next step is accurate kWh estimate based on route alititude changes and current traffic conditions . . .

This would dwarf Bolt sales numbers if they really want to sell them. The big question is… how many to they WANT to sell. They have not had any real interest in selling the Ionic PHEV or BEV. I hope this one is different.

Seems pretty impressive….with Mercedes, Audi, and Jaguar all coming out with new EVs it seems that this KIA may end up providing some of the stiffest competition for Tesla. Well done, KIA.

It doesn’t compete with any existing Tesla.

Well, it’s not available, so certainly. But when it does become available, and if they can manufacture many, and if the price is low…it will be in Model 3 territory. But that’s a lot of “ifs” to be resolved.

While it has somewhat more range than base Model 3, I’m sure even the base Model 3 is a much more desirable car in almost every other respect… So not exactly stiff competition I’d guess.

Unless you prefer small hatchbacks over small sedans.

Bye Bye Kia Soul – All Hail King Kona !!!!

On the motorway at 75 mph the Niro will only have slightly longer range than the base model 3. Maybe 20 miles longer range. Not impressive.

Why? It will have about 70 miles more range than the base Model 3. But it’s a large SUV!

The Koreans are already catching up with Tesla’s ranges. Wait until the much more prestigious Japanese manufacturers like Toyota and Honda produce BEVs.

The price for BEVs will start falling over the next 5 years, and EVs will become more and more mainstream in the next 5 years.

THIS might be the first Tesla competitor on the market.
What I find interesting is that so far, all the other car makers have been using LG batteries who no doubt, is using it to drop the costs of batteries a great deal. BUT, I am guessing that LG is providing these same batteries to KIA at 2/3 of the price that all the others pay.

Now if they can mass produce this – it will be awesome!

According to their news release thy are planning to make 1750 Kia Niro EV’s and 1650 Hyundai Kona per month in US.

Not bad numbers.

Got a link for that?

The Niro will NOT have higher EPA rated range than the Kona. Not in a million years. Bjorn has already tested both and shown that the Niro is 8% less efficient at highway speed than the Kona. Both have good efficiency given their shape and size. But since they have the same battery size (+/- 1 or 2 %) the Niro will have less overall range. It’s not complicated – same battery size, same power-train, larger vehicle, larger CDA = less range.
There’s lots of ways of gaming the WLTP system, but the EPA rating system is more robust. The only range rating that ultimately matters is the EPA highway, and there, the Niro will have about 209 EPA(h) and the Kona already has an official rating of 226 miles EPA(h). Watch’s Bjorn’s range test, before putting any credence in WLTP ratings! Eric – you should know better than this.

I am quite confident that Kona will beat Niro on EPA, as EPA gives more credit to highway speed parameters

I’m VERY interested. But what I’d really like is a Honda HR-EV with 200 MPC, full safety suite, and under $30k. YO, HONDA! Get off your butts!

I prefer the Kona’s funky styling and Hyundai will sell a ton of them in all configurations. The Niro is a bit bigger and more practical, but more frumpy. But any green is beautiful!

EPA range number is reasonable and realistic. EPA is better than WLTP.

But it would be even better if there would be 5 separate EPA range numbers per EV.

Why 5 separate EPA range numbers per EV?

Temperature differences can result in substantial differences in range.

At which temperatures should the EPA range numbers be tested?

-40F / -40C
-4F / -20C
32F / 0C
68F / 20C
104F / 40C

250 miles EPA

Needs price information. Without it, range (or any other feature) is irrelevant.