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