Newbie here, wife getting her 2021 Kona (preferred) six months earlier than expected.
- Thread starter navguy12
- Start date
- Replies 238
- Views 38K
navguy12
Well-Known Member
You describe the situation accurately.
Prior to the fix, the car was a hassle to keep straight...too many inputs just to stay on track.
The steering wheel is perfect, the drive home from the dealer was so much better.
navguy12
Well-Known Member
No, I have not.
It will be a few weeks before I put the car back up on the hoist, I can look then if you/someone can confirm exactly where I should look to find the appropriate hardware version number.
navguy12
Well-Known Member
Okay, seen and thanks.
FWIW it is possible to observe the label without using a hoist and removing the bottom panel :
http://www.insideevsforum.com/commu...-vibration-type-sound.7262/page-11#post-98019
navguy12
Well-Known Member
As soon as the rust spray stops dripping on everything I'll have a look.
apu
Well-Known Member
Nope that is the original non revised version part number.
apu
Well-Known Member
Its quite possible they have made a change to the offending drive shaft bearing without making a significant change to the motor and its part number. It appears we are only seeing the revised motor with thicker gearbox mating surface in folks who are having troubles. I have seen no new production Konas with the 701 motor. It seems to be the same with Kia 711 replacement motors. Its hard to imagine that now over 2 years into production that they haven't figured this one out and made the appropriate production change. At least I hope so.
navguy12
Well-Known Member
I would agree, two years should be enough to deal with the issue if there is a failure rate high enough to warrant the running production fix.
Anecdotally, I have been told that "the industry standard" requires a failure rate of 1% to have a running change implemented...anyhow, I'll keep an ear open...
apu
Well-Known Member
I suspect that failure rate is somewhat tempered by its unit cost. Assuming 120,000 Kona EVs have been produced in the last 2 years 1% would represent 1200 vehicles.
If its a $20 electrical component 1% would represent $24,000 fleet liability, which I suspect they would ignore. If even 0.5%( or roughly 600 vehicles) of Kona's motors need replaced at lets say 5K , now we are talking about a $3,000,000.
navguy12
Well-Known Member
My wife just did her first "critical distance trip" in her new Kona, the trip from our home in Batawa to her son's home east of Ottawa.
The trip is 257 (nominal) km, via two lane higways with an 80 kph posted limit, which we historically do at 90 kph.
Background note: my TM3 "autosteer" is capped at 10 kph over the posted limit when off of limited access freeways, hence our practice of doing this trip at 90 kph.
We were topped up to 100% prior to departure.
Conditions were dry roads, tailwind component of 15 kph, temperatures between 8c and 14c with an HVAC setting of 22c:
The trip odometer at the end of the trip:
Based on the above data, I estimate the energy consumption was (.128 × 258.9) = 33.14 kWh.
The battery (indicated) % SOC at the end of the trip:
Based on the above pieces of information, I estimate the usable energy capacity of the battery at ((100/49) × 33.14) = 67.63 kWh.
Note: I understand the crudity of my numbers and that, for example, the indicated 51% SOC may only be 50.51%.
Anyhow, to fill the battery from 51% to 90% (using the 40 amp circuit I installed two years ago at my son in laws place) indicated a push of 31 kWh:
Based on the above information, with 31 kWh being pushed to raise the battery SOC (90% - 51%) 39%, then it would take ((100/39) × 31) = 79.5 kWh pushed to the battery to raise it from a theoretical zero SOC to 100% SOC.
With my estimate of 67ish kWh as the available capacity and my estimate of 79ish kWh os the required push from the grid, I estimate the on board charger losses at about 16ish percent.
67 kWh usable capacity and about 16% inverter losses when charging.
Is my back of napkin math correct? Thanks.
The trip is 257 (nominal) km, via two lane higways with an 80 kph posted limit, which we historically do at 90 kph.
Background note: my TM3 "autosteer" is capped at 10 kph over the posted limit when off of limited access freeways, hence our practice of doing this trip at 90 kph.
We were topped up to 100% prior to departure.
Conditions were dry roads, tailwind component of 15 kph, temperatures between 8c and 14c with an HVAC setting of 22c:
The trip odometer at the end of the trip:
Based on the above data, I estimate the energy consumption was (.128 × 258.9) = 33.14 kWh.
The battery (indicated) % SOC at the end of the trip:
Based on the above pieces of information, I estimate the usable energy capacity of the battery at ((100/49) × 33.14) = 67.63 kWh.
Note: I understand the crudity of my numbers and that, for example, the indicated 51% SOC may only be 50.51%.
Anyhow, to fill the battery from 51% to 90% (using the 40 amp circuit I installed two years ago at my son in laws place) indicated a push of 31 kWh:
Based on the above information, with 31 kWh being pushed to raise the battery SOC (90% - 51%) 39%, then it would take ((100/39) × 31) = 79.5 kWh pushed to the battery to raise it from a theoretical zero SOC to 100% SOC.
With my estimate of 67ish kWh as the available capacity and my estimate of 79ish kWh os the required push from the grid, I estimate the on board charger losses at about 16ish percent.
67 kWh usable capacity and about 16% inverter losses when charging.
Is my back of napkin math correct? Thanks.
I have averaged 125 W / km consumption in similar driving conditions, although the measurements I have made @240V AC charging have been closer to 90% efficiency, example close to this:
https://insideevsforum.com/community/index.php?threads/charging-loss.7922/#post-88785
As a side note, the majority of my charging is on pubilc EVSE @ around 4kW rate supplied 208V.
Wildeyed
Well-Known Member
Your mention of Batawa caught my eye. I believe we have the same dealership, Belleville Hyundai. Small world.