Volvo C40 VS Kia EV6
Volvo C40
Likes
- Great charging and range
- Two well specified variants
- Impressive driving performance
Dislikes
- Single motor not as good value
- Seats could be more comfortable
- Rear seat space compromised
Kia EV6
Likes
Dislikes
Summary
Volvo C40
Throughout its history Volvo has been known for a lot of things. Being a safety leader, dorky but endearing station wagons, ‘bloody Volvo drivers’, and more recently, a trailblazer in minimalist premium design.
The C40 is the first step in a next chapter for Volvo, with the brand wanting to be known next for its leadership in the electric space. For the first time for Volvo, it’s a fully electric offering
But in a world of Teslas, Polestars, and Mercedes Benz EQs, where does the C40 sit, and is it worth considering in an increasingly congested premium small SUV space?
We went to its Australian launch to find out.
Read more about
- How safe are the 2023 BYD Atto 3 and Volvo C40 electric cars? Two Chinese-built EVs score highly, but there's a catch with one...
- Best electric cars arriving in 2022
- Sick of waiting for a Tesla Model Y in Australia? Volvo could be about to eat its lunch as C40 Recharge orders open with 434km driving range and sharp pricing
| Safety rating | |
|---|---|
| Engine Type | — |
| Fuel Type | Electric |
| Fuel Efficiency | —L/100km |
| Seating | 5 seats |
Kia EV6
Sometimes I think the present is nowhere near as futuristic as I thought it would be when pondering things 20 years ago.
And then there are times when the two cars you’re comparing are an electric Mustang SUV and a 580 horsepower Kia that accelerates faster than a Ferrari Enzo.Â
Yep, this comparison of the Ford Mustang Mach-E GT and Kia EV6 GT is one of those times when we’re reminded how much things have changed and how quickly we need to accept the changes electric cars introduce as the new normal.
Read more about
Supercar-like acceleration, the dilemma of charging and the premium price they command are key EV attributes. But they are still cars. Still the way we get around.
If they’re SUVs like the Mach-E GT and EV6 GT we need to compare more than just their EV credentials. Practicality, driveability, value-for-money, safety and ownership costs are also hugely important.
And this is what we’ve done here, comparing them not just as electric cars but in all the ways you’ll use them, too.Â
| Safety rating | |
|---|---|
| Engine Type | — |
| Fuel Type | Electric |
| Fuel Efficiency | —L/100km |
| Seating | 5 seats |
Verdict
Volvo C408.3/10
The C40 becomes a compelling option in the electrified small SUV space, offering a premium look and feel, great range and tech inclusions at the price, as well as awesome on-road dynamics.
Its main downsides are the rear seat, which is compromised by its platform and design-led roofline, and the overwhelming power and added traction of the dual-motor makes the single motor less attractive on the value front.
Still, regardless of variant chosen, the C40 looks to offer a stand-out balance of price, range, and performance, against its traditional rivals and newcomers alike.
Kia EV6/10
The Ford Mustang Mach-E GT wins this comparison with the Kia EV6 GT by a small margin, mainly due to its better practicality, its styling and its lower ownership costs. The Kia EV6 GT is also brilliant in its sporty handling, value-for-money and great battery tech. But if there was one that’s the best all-rounder to live with daily, it’s the Mustang Mach-E GT.
| Â | Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
Price and Features | 7 | 8 |
Design | 9 | 8 |
Practicality | 8 | 7 |
Under the bonnet | 9 | 9 |
Efficiency | 8 | 8 |
Driving | 8 | 8 |
Safety | 9 | 9 |
Ownership | 8 | 7 |
TOTAL | 8.3 | 8 |
Design
Volvo C40
Volvo has become a brand with a distinctive and consistent design language which embodies the kind of beautiful minimalism normally associated with Scandinavian brands.
I have always liked how Volvo says more with less design elements, with only gentle touches of chrome or gloss black, and a lack of over-the-top sporty pieces avoiding the temptation to over-sell the sporty potential of the brand’s range.
The C40 takes the small SUV formula, well established by its XC40 relation, and gets a bit weird and experimental. It’s slightly lower and has a more coupe-styled rear, with a strongly raked rear window giving it a sportier and more aggressive look than the rest of Volvo’s SUV range.
The styling is sold by an angular spoiler piece running atop the boot, and the rear light clusters have gone all minimalist, constructed of individual pieces rather than a single transparent housing, and they give a nod to the C30 hatchback which this car is the spiritual successor to, by name and nature.
The interior offers up no surprises, sticking to the formula Volvo has established across all of its current models. An effortlessly premium space with, again, a minimalistic dash dominated by the portrait touchscreen, the C40’s premium nature is confirmed by its finely patterned inlays, simple chrome pieces, and abundance of soft-touch surfaces.
The big upright vent fittings with clever rhomboid patterns on their adjustment dials are always a highlight piece of modern Volvos, and the pattern work is continued on the central volume adjust dial and even on the little rotating pieces of the light and wiper stalks. Clever.
Even the software is paired back on the multimedia suite and digital dashboard, with easy to use shortcuts and simple menus which suit the car.
Volvo might turn off some buyers with the more unconventional shape of the C40. But for those looking for a more traditional SUV it also offers the XC40 in the same two variants, and the Polestar 2 caters to those not looking for an SUV at all.
Kia EV6
Two more different looking SUVs you could not find. Actually, the EV6 GT barely even looks like an SUV although that’s what Kia calls it and the industry classifies it as such.
Have a look at the images, or better still watch the video we made above, to take in the stark comparison between the styling of these vehicles.
The Mustang Mach-E GT looks reassuringly like a Mustang SUV with its vertical bar tail-lights, the muscular rear haunches, blade headlights, shark nose bonnet and big grille.
Well, it’s not a real grille but if you look closely you’ll see the faint outline of honeycomb mesh behind the semi-transparent plastic.
The Kia EV6 GT looks more like a bloated hatchback than an SUV, but you could argue that’s all an SUV is, anyway, I guess.
Still, it’s a stunning design with its pinched in nose, bulbous and smooth panels, looking low, wide and intimidating like a venomous insect complete with lime green brake calipers.
Despite the obvious exterior differences their dimensions aren’t wildly different as you can see in the table below, only the height sets them apart.
If all you had to go with were these figures I’m sure you’d never imagine they’d belong to two very different looking SUVs. The extra height gives the Mustang GT Mach-E a more upright and boxy design, and this affects practicality as you’ll read about further on. For now let's look at their insides on purely stylistic merits.
Of course they have completely different interiors. The Mustang Mach-E GT has a more macho, serious but sporty cabin with high quality feeling fabrics adorning the dashboard and synthetic leather seats. Only the gigantic portrait media display makes this feel like a modern Ford product.
The EV6 GT’s cabin feels dark, like a cave but one filled with expansive screens and tech. There are intriguing patterns etched into the dashboard and deep seats that wrap around their occupants.
Its innards are as alien as its exterior and I’m here for it. And so are many people. Probably not those who like the Mustang Mach-E GT’s cabin, though.
I think the Mustang Mach-E GT pulls off a better look, especially considering the pressure it’s designers would have been under to create an SUV version of one of the most iconic cars on Earth. Â
Dimensions | Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
Length | 4743mm | 4695mm |
Height | 1623mm | 1545mm |
Width | 1881mm | 1890mm |
Wheelbase | 2984mm | 2900mm |
Â
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
9 | 8 |
Practicality
Volvo C40
The C40 is essentially a XC40 with a cropped down roofline, and there are some obvious downsides which this new shape brings.
The front seat throws no surprises, though, offering plenty of room for two adults with a welcome level of adjustability for the seat and wheel. The seats could be more comfortable, though, with a notable lack of padding in the base compared to some luxury (or even non-luxury) rivals.Â
I’m a fan of the fabric trim which comes on both grades, bucking the trend of needing to have leather or leather-like trim for a car to feel ‘premium’.
The ample window space up front, including the massive glass roof helps the C40’s cabin feel spacious, but the view out the rear with its aggressive design is all but a very limited letterbox aspect, particularly if the rear seat headrests are in the upright position.Â
While some controls are exclusively via touch interface, there is a physical volume dial, and shortcut buttons for the defogger functions.Â
Temperature is controlled by touch, however, and the detail settings have some smaller toggle adjustments. Tricky to jab at when you’re on the move.
The digital dash is refreshingly simple, but minimally adjustable, with the choice of either a nifty navigation screen, a blank screen, or trip details being the only options.
Cabin storage is good but not stellar. There are bottle holders and big pockets in the doors, a set of two cupholders in the centre (beats the Polestar 2’s single cupholder), a small tray with a wireless charger under the multimedia screen, and a smallish console armrest box.
The rear seat is where the real problem exists. Unlike the XC40, the C40’s cropped roofline means my head was hard up against the roof (I’m 182cm tall).Â
I did have decent knee room behind my own seating position, however the seat comfort in the back still isn’t as good as some rivals.Â
The middle position is also compromised, thanks to the raised centre floor piece the C40’s platform needs to facilitate all-wheel drive in its combustion relations.
A bottle holder appears in each door pocket, and in a rare inclusion, there are heated outboard rear seats, adjustable air vents, and USB-C charging ports.
The boot has a quoted capacity of 413 litres with the rear seats up. The floor is comparatively high suggesting a smallish space when loaded with luggage cases, for instance. Stay tuned for a follow-up review so we can see how well it holds our three-piece demo set.
The floor itself has an adjustable, pop-up divider and multiple luggage hooks, making it quite versatile, and there is a cavity beneath which can hold your charging cables as well as the inflator kit in place of a spare wheel.
Kia EV6
Electric vehicles have changed practicality for the better. Not being constrained by big engines, transmissions and driveshafts means the packaging can be designed for good storage and people room.
Flat floors open up space, front boots are handy and even the ability to use their colossal battery to power campsites or other appliances is a big plus.
Below is a table comparing boot sizes and power outlets. On the face of it the EV6 GT appears to have the bigger rear boot but the stacking height is lower than the Mustang Mach-E GT’s taller space.
The EV6 GT also has next to no front boot, while the Mustang Mach-E GT has a large storage space under the bonnet.
As for rear legroom, the EV6 GT and Mustang Mach E GT have plenty of space for me at 189cm to sit behind my driving position and headroom is excellent in both.
Entering and exiting the Mustang Mach-E GT is easier due it’s more traditional SUV shape with tall doors and elevated ride height. The EV6 GT is almost 10cm lower overall and I hit my head swinging into the back seat while doing my legroom test.
Both cars have directional air vents in the second row, cupholders, door pockets and USB ports.
Talking of power outlets, only the EV6 GT has a vehicle-to-load (V2L) power outlet which will take a regular household appliance plug.
It’s a tough call as to which is more practical, and while the Kia has the versatile V2L and plenty of space, the Mustang's front boot and ease of entry and exit makes it the winner here.  Â
| Â | Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
Seats | 5 | 5 |
Boot capacity (five seats up) | 402L | 480L |
Frunk capacity | 134L | 20L |
Wireless phone charging | Yes | Yes |
USB Ports | 4 | 5 |
V2L socket | 0 | 1 |
Â
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
8 | 7 |
Price and features
Volvo C40
When it comes to electric vehicles, it’s impossible to consider price alone, as you also have to consider driving range, and the C40 manages to impress on both fronts.
Its refreshingly simplified range consists of just two highly-specified variants, a single motor which starts from $74,990, offering a 434km driving range, or a dual motor starting from $82,490 which offers a 420km driving range.
There’s much more devil in the detail, but to set the scene there are now quite a few direct rivals in this price-bracket, including everything from the Tesla Model Y (from $72,300), Mercedes-Benz EQA (from $78,513), Polestar 2 (from $63,900) and even the Kia Niro which is similarly sized and specified (from $65,300).
Interestingly, the C40 is closely related to the Polestar 2, but has a much higher base starting price. Volvo says this is because it carries a higher standard specification, and offers the C40 without option packs.
Standard gear on the base single motor C40 includes 19-inch alloy wheels, a 9.0-inch portrait multimedia touchscreen (running a Google-based always-online software suite), LED headlights, dual-zone climate control, a fixed panoramic sunroof, electrically adjustable front seats, heated seats for the front two and outboard rear seats, a powered tailgate, as well as keyless entry with touch-free ignition.
Interestingly, Volvo also told us some 90 per cent of customer interest so far has been for the more expensive dual-motor variant, which is particularly impressive for doubling the power output while adding 20-inch alloy wheels, a 360-degree parking suite, premium Harmon Kardon audio, and an alternate interior trim.
Both variants score safety equipment and items which are otherwise part of expensive option packs in the Polestar 2 range. We’ll take a look at the full safety gear later in this review.
Overall, the C40 impresses on the premium car value front compared to rivals, bolstered by solid range and impressive performance.
Kia EV6
Electric cars are more expensive than their petrol counterparts and generally will be until the cost of EV batteries comes down. This is what drives the manufacturing price up with the extra cost passed onto the consumer. But the good news is the price is coming down.Â
That news doesn’t really help you much here because the Kia EV6 GT has come down in price and lists for $99,590, before on-road costs. Still, that’s less than the Ford Mustang Mach-E GT which lists for $104,990.
The EV6 GT and Mustang Mach-E GT sit at the top of their respective ranges and have large batteries. That’s the reason for the $100K MSRP. They both come with a lot of equipment and you can see a side-by-side comparison of their standard features in the table below.
What stands out is the lack of powered front seats in the EV6 GT, and also the absence of leather upholstery in both cars.
Both still come with heated seats, excellent sound systems and sunroofs - although the Mustang Mach-E’s is a large panoramic glass version, while the Kia’s is smaller and opens.
The EV6 GT’s head-up display is brilliant, while the Mustang Mach-E doesn’t have one.
The Mustang comes with 20-inch alloys which offer a better ride than the EV6 GT’s 21-inch alloys - but more on that in the driving section further down.   Â
| Â | Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
MSRP | $104,990 | $99,590 |
Media Display | 15.2-inch | 12.3-inch |
Instrument cluster | 10.2-inch | 12.3-inch |
Head-up display | No | Yes |
Climate control | Dual-zone | dual-zone |
Auto parking | Yes - in-car | Yes - remote |
Keyless entry/push start | Yes | Yes |
Sound system | B&O 10 speakers | Meridian - 14 speakers |
Sat nav | Yes | Yes |
Sunroof | Panoramic | Slide opening |
Privacy glass | Rear side | Rear side |
Upholstery | Artificial leather | Artificial leather |
Seats | Front: Powered/heated | Front: heated; Rear: heated |
Wheel size | 20-inch alloys | 21-inch |
LED Headlights | Yes | Yes |
Â
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
7 | 8 |
Under the bonnet
Volvo C40
Great news here, the C40 can be chosen with two powerful layouts, either a front-wheel drive 170kW/330Nm set-up, or a dual-motor all-wheel drive arrangement, able to make use of nearly double the power at 300kW/660Nm. The dual-motor is capable of sprinting from 0-100km/h in just 4.7 seconds.
The front-drive is backed by a 69kWh battery allowing it a 434km range, while the dual motor ups the battery size to 78kWh to allow a 420km driving range.
Kia EV6
Electric motors make massive amounts of power and torque but the outputs of the Mustang Mach E GT and EV6 GT are beyond 'normal' EVs.
The EV6 GT has a motor driving the rear wheels and another driving the front ones. Together they have a combined output of 430kW and 740Nm with 0-100km/h coming in a brutal 3.5 seconds. That is seriously quick and unnecessary and I love it.
The Mustang Mach E GT also has all-wheel drive thanks to a motor at the front and at the rear but together they make a whopping 358kW and 860Nm, although at 100kg heavier it’s a tad slower to 100km/h with a time of 3.7 seconds. Still these times are quicker than almost any production car from the early 1990s.
Who wins here? I’m calling it evenly matched.
| Â | Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
Combined motor output | 358kW/860Nm | 430kW/740Nm |
Drive wheels | AWD | AWD |
0-100km/h | 3.7 seconds | 3.5 seconds |
Â
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
9 | 9 |
Efficiency
Volvo C40
Surprisingly, energy consumption is quite high for both C40 variants. The single motor is the more efficient of the two, consuming 16.8kWh/100km on the more lenient ADR testing schedule, while the dual motor officially consumes 22.2kWh/100km to the same standard. I saw around 23kWh/100km overall in my short test of the dual-motor variant.
Energy consumption could be better for both, as I have achieved more consistently impressive results particularly from Hyundai and Kia electric cars.
Where the C40 is more impressive though is its charging specs, which are exactly where they need to be for a car this size. On a rapid DC charger, the C40 can charge at a rate of 150kW meaning a 10 - 80 percent charge in 40 minutes for the dual motor, or 32 minutes for the single motor.
On the slower AC standard, the C40 charges at a rate of 11kW. Expect a 10 - 80 percent charge time of around five or six hours on this standard.Â
The C40 uses a European-standard Type 2 CCS charging port, although it misses out on the handy two-way charging feature offered by some rivals.
Kia EV6
There’s so much to tell you here and the table below will help with understanding the capacities, ranges and consumption of the EV6 GT and Mustang Mach-E GT.
The Mustang Mach-E GT has the larger battery and the longer range, but the EV6 GT’s battery has a much faster DC charging rate.
The Kia can make full use of a 350kW fast charger while the Mach-E can’t accept more than 150kW. You can see the charging times in the table.
Energy efficiency is crucial to an EV’s range and in our test we filled the batteries of the Mustang Mach-E GT and EV6 GT to 100 per cent and drove a 180km route made up of CBD traffic, motorways, suburban streets and country roads. Â
At the end of the trip we found both used almost exactly the same amount of electricity at nearly the same rate. The difference being the Mustang had more projected range left because its battery is larger. Â
Who wins? Well, this is really about energy efficiency and we found that both were a good match for electricity consumption. So, let’s call it a tie. You could argue the Mustang Mach-E GT has more range, but the rebuttal would be the EV6 GT’s super-fast charging time.Â
| Â | Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
Battery capacity | 91kWh | 77.4kWh |
Estimated range | 490km | 424km |
Max DC charging speed | 150kW | 350kW |
DC 10-80 percent charge time | 45 minutes | 18 minutes |
Max AC charging speed | 10.5kW | 10.5kW |
Official combined consumption | 21.2kWh/100km | 20.6kWh/100km |
Distance (energy test)) | 176.5km | 178.0km |
Electricity used | 32.6kWh | 32.18 |
As tested combined consumption | 18.5kWh/100km | 18.1kWh/100km |
Â
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
8 | 8 |
Driving
Volvo C40
If you’ve driven any kind of XC40 or even a Polestar 2 before, the C40 will offer no surprises. It’s pretty much exactly the same from behind the wheel with a few subtle tweaks.
This is a very good thing. The C40 is quiet, easy to drive, and its electric motor and regen system offer a smooth single-pedal experience.
It is also alarmingly, overwhelmingly, rapid. While its massive set of batteries under the floor make it feel heavy off the line in stop-start traffic, sticking your boot into the accelerator will remove any doubt, particularly in the dual-motor variant, that this Volvo means business.
The dual-motor also has an incredible torque-vectoring system, making it extremely difficult to elicit so much as a squeak from its tyres. It also feels as though torque is distributed quite evenly between its two driven axles, making it feel neither prone to over- or understeer.
This has the effect of making the C40 feel somewhat indestructible in the corners, with absurd levels of grip.Â
The same feeling is present in top-spec versions of the Polestar 2, only the feeling of ever-present weight is more noticeable in the higher-riding C40, which can make it unsettling to take corners at the kinds of speeds it is capable of.
The steering tune is interesting. Volvo offers two software-controlled modes, either heavy or standard, and the standard mode is heavy enough.Â
Despite its electrical assistance, the wheel does continue to offer some organic feedback, making the C40 a pleasure to steer on countryside roads.
The ride is also surprisingly good, despite massive wheel options. I was impressed how easily the C40 handled most bumps and undulations, communicating little to the cabin.Â
The ride can approach its limits with such big wheels and the weight of its batteries, generally these are communicated via unsettling thuds from underneath the car. Regular undulations at higher speeds also had the C40 bouncing around a little.
On the whole, though, the cabin is kept relatively insulated and serene, adding an element of total confidence, similar to that offered by Teslas, whilst offering better ride quality with a softer edge. At higher speed, at least on the 20-inch wheels, road noise does pick up, however.
In terms of electric driving, there is a single adjustable setting for regen. The car either offers a full single pedal mode with maximum regenerative braking to bring the car to a halt with the motor alone, or a ‘standard’ mode which tones the regen down and offers it blended in via the brake pedal.Â
Single pedal mode is more efficient. I suggest you stick to it if you want to make the most of this car’s efficiency.
I was surprised to have so few complaints about the C40’s drive experience. This is a balanced and capable EV which is yet another example of how even vehicles which use combustion platforms are improved out of sight by full electrification.
Kia EV6
The way these SUVs feel to drive is as different as their looks. The Mustang Mach-E GT feels more suited to daily driving while the EV6 GT is our pick for the race circuit or sporty blasts on nice country roads with plenty of twists and turns.
Both have drive modes ranging from the hardcore 'Untame' in the Mach-E and 'Sport+' in the EV6 GT to the calmer 'Whisper' and 'Normal' modes in Ford and Kia, respectively.Â
Adjustable suspension in both firms up the ride for better handling and softens it for a more comfortable setting.
The Mustang Mach-E has the more comfortable ride overall compared to the EV6 GT which is very firm in its Sport+ drive mode but still overly hard in the Normal setting thanks to the big wheels and low-profile tyres. That said, the Mach-E GT is prone to jiggling too much over minor bumps.
The EV6 GT and Mustang Mach E GT can accelerate incredibly fast and while it's fun, the ability to move quickly is useful in overtaking and at intersections without traffic lights.Â
Neither the EV6 GT not Mach-E GT offer exceptional ride comfort but the Mustang delivers a better all around driving experience with good visibility, a more elevated driving height and supportive seats.
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
8 | 8 |
Safety
Volvo C40
Sticking to its brand promise, Volvo offers the full range of active safety equipment on the C40 regardless of variant.
This includes freeway-speed auto emergency braking, rear auto braking, lane keep assist with lane departure warning, blind spot monitoring with rear cross-traffic alert, and one of the best adaptive cruise control systems on the market.
The only item the single motor misses out on is a 360-degree parking camera, which is exclusive to the dual motor variant.
It is notable how the adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring rear cross-traffic alert, and rear auto braking are on the options list for the Polestar 2.
These active systems combined with eight airbags (the standard dual front, side, and curtain, as well as a driver’s knee and centre airbag) make for a five-star ANCAP safety rating to the latest 2022 standards.
Kia EV6
The Mustang Mach-E GT and the EV6 GT have been awarded the maximum five star ANCAP rating but the Kia was tested more recently under 2022 criteria.
Both cars have ISOFIX points for child seats in the outside rear seats, while there are three top tether anchor mounts in the second row, too. The table below compares their advanced safety tech.Â
| Â | Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
ANCAP rating | 5 (2021) | 5 (2022) |
AEB | Pedestrian, vehicle, cyclist | Pedestrian, vehicle, cyclist |
Lane Keeping Assist | Yes | Yes |
Blind Spot Warning | Yes | Yes |
Rear Cross Traffic Alert | Yes with braking | Yes with braking |
Airbags | 7 (no centre airbag) | 6 (no centre airbag) |
Â
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
9 | 9 |
Ownership
Volvo C40
The C40 is covered by Volvo’s five year and unlimited kilometre warranty, with a separate eight-year, 160,000km warranty for the battery. There is also eight years of roadside assistance attached.
It is pleasing to see the service intervals for the C40 are long, as they should be for an electric car with so few moving parts, set at two years or 30,000km.Â
The first 24 month service is free of charge, and Volvo tells us service pricing after this period will average out to around $100 a year ($200 per visit).
Kia EV6
The final piece of this comparison puzzle is the ownership costs. The table below highlights the difference in what you’ll pay to service with the Mustang Mach-E GT proving to be the more affordable.Â
The Kia comes with a longer warranty, although Ford’s battery coverage duration is better.
The Mustang Mach-E GT wins here for its more affordable capped price servicing.
| Â | Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
Warranty | Five-year/unlimited km | Seven-year/unlimited km |
Servicing cost total over five years | $780 | $1561 |
Service interval | 12 months/15,000km | 12 months/15,000km |
High-voltage battery warranty | Eight-years/160,000km | Seven-years/150,000km |
Â
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT | Kia EV6 GT |
8 | 7 |