[gladini]

saw here

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1380177404283514880

which goes here

Hyundai Kona Electric Performance, Engine, Ride, Handling

The Hyundai Kona Electric on the road review including ride and handling information. Pick the best engine and compare performance with similar cars.

www.whatcar.com

 

[farmergiles]

It's not quicker than a Leaf E+ (215bhp, 0-62 6.9secs)

 

[gladini]

It's not quicker than a Leaf E+ (215bhp, 0-62 6.9secs)

Must admit your Leaf is better looking, bigger boot.
The CCS swung me away, and the end-user-usable higher watts of the Kona.

I'm disappointed Hyundai did not up the 64 to a 70 during this update.
Space in the frunk that coulda taken some more cells.

 

[KiwiME]

That whole review reads like an advertisement.

 

[tanelv]

It's not quicker than a Leaf E+ (215bhp, 0-62 6.9secs)

Actually, it is (not that it would be the most important thing) TB tests

 

[farmergiles]

I was quoting Nissan's figure:

Leaf Car Configurator | Leaf Electric Cars | Nissan UK

Build your Nissan LEAF with our car configurator. Choose the fuel type, engine, transmission, colour to customise your perfect electric car for the future.

www.nissan.co.uk

Can't find Hyundai's figure on their website.

But as you say, they are not relevant to a buying decision.

 

[SoulGW]

However if Hyundai’s performance figures are like their actual range figures and Nissans are the same, the Konas will be accurate and the Nissan miles off!

 

[farmergiles]

However if Hyundai’s performance figures are like their actual range figures and Nissans are the same, the Konas will be accurate and the Nissan miles off!

You may well be right, but the video linked to is pointless because there is no comparison with a Leaf E+. We'll wait to see a head to head.

As far as the range goes, the answer may be that the Koreans have quietly fitted batteries 10% larger than advertised.
This means the range is closer to the WLTP because the buffers are not included in the advertised Kwh.
Whereas Nisssan do include the buffers, hence, for example, a 62Kwh Leaf has only 56kwh usable capacity.
If this is the case, it's a clever marketing ploy and well worth the extra cost because of the favourable publicity.

 

[SoulGW]

That whole review reads like an advertisement.

What review did you read? It criticised the fact you couldn’t get a 64KWh on it with a grant, the handling, and the conclusion is there are better cars for the money..... hardly an advert!

 

[SoulGW]

You may well be right, but the video linked to is pointless because there is no comparison with a Leaf E+. We'll wait to see a head to head.

As far as the range goes, the answer may be that the Koreans have quietly fitted batteries 10% larger than advertised.
This means the range is closer to the WLTP because the buffers are not included in the advertised Kwh.
Whereas Nisssan do include the buffers, hence, for example, a 62Kwh Leaf has only 56kwh usable capacity.
If this is the case, it's a clever marketing ploy and well worth the extra cost because of the favourable publicity.

Not even quietly - the 64KWh Kona has a 67KWh battery - so it’s 64KWh vs 54kwh - that’s a big difference....

Plus their energy management is well regarded... they just seem to get better efficiency!

 

[farmergiles]

What review did you read? It criticised the fact you couldn’t get a 64KWh on earth with a grant, the handling, and the conclusion is there are better cars for the money..... hardly an advert!

I don't know what you are on about. I never quoted any car review for Kona or Leaf.
I was referring to Tanelv's Youtube video of the Kona's performance test which is not relevant to comparing the Kona to a Leaf's 0-62 time.
But I originally posted because Car Wow and others have incorrectly stated the E+ time at 7.5".

 

[hieronymous]

I don't know what you are on about. I never quoted any car review for Kona or Leaf.

Re-read ALL of post #9 from @SoulGW...

 

[farmergiles]

Re-read ALL of post #9 from @SoulGW...

Good point!