2016 vs 2014

[evboy]

Well I've had my 2016 sparky for a few weeks after selling my 2014. The 2016 is faster and overall better. The dcfc is wort it IMHO. Fast chargers are popping up everywhere so getting one without one is a mistake. It's really come in handy. The leather seats r awesome compared to the 1 Lt. Overall I love my 2016. Greatest car ever made.

[NORTON]

..... after selling my 2014. The 2016 is faster and overall better. ....

Who says it's faster?
objective evidence?

'overall better' is subjective, so whatever....

[MrDRMorgan]

For 5 years, I have had the pleasure of driving a used 2014 2LT w/o DCFC. Absolutely no problems. I have also had the opportunity - my first Spark EV - to drive a leased 2015 Spark EV 2LT with DCFC for three years / 30k miles. Only one problem with some sort of charging issue that required a dealer visit to rectify. Again, almost trouble-free. Finally, I have had the opportunity to drive a used 2016 Spark EV 2LT with DCFC for three years. with absolutely no problems. Overall, I would rate the 2016 first, the 2014 a very close second and the 2015 third because of the electrical problem that caused a permanent 1.5 kWh loss in battery capacity.

My wife and I are still driving both the 2016 and 2014. The biggest difference between the two cars is the battery degradation in the 2014 is happening faster that that in the 2016. Otherwise, both cars have been trouble-free and are still great vehicles.

[Kermit]

The larger final drive would make me think the 2015-6's are faster, but probably not by much.

[Redpoint5]

I understand the 2014 battery capacity is higher, but does it also degrade more rapidly than the newer batteries?

[RSC]

I understand the 2014 battery capacity is higher, but does it also degrade more rapidly than the newer batteries?

I don't think we have enough data points to say. There is an owner of a 2014 on this forum (NORTON) who seems to have exceptional capacity retention. I don't think he does anything special to care for the battery.

[Kermit]

I think we need to get NORTON an OBD2 reader and Torque Pro so we can compare apples to apples.

[NORTON]

I have the TorquePro. I have two different OBD-II to BT adapters.
Last time I tried, I can't get the PIDS to load to wherever they load to....
I'll go over Londonbroiler's video again someday......

BUT,
Those that do use TorquePro, how much is it different than the car's Energy Page numbers?
That should be easy to answer.

[RSC]

I have the TorquePro. I have two different OBD-II to BT adapters.
Last time I tried, I can't get the PIDS to load to wherever they load to....
I'll go over Londonbroiler's video again someday......

BUT,
Those that do use TorquePro, how much is it different than the car's Energy Page numbers?
That should be easy to answer.

I hardly ever drive very far, usually just a 14 mile round trip downtown, so I don't have very accurate numbers, but speaking roughly, I would say that the Energy Page numbers are not very far off. Sometimes the calculated capacity looks a little high especially when I haven't driven very far, but that might just be because I don't catch the numbers just as they roll over. Usually the calculated capacity looks pretty close. Definitely I would say that you have impressive capacity.

I had to struggle a bit to load the PIDs, but it's been so long that I don't remember enough to be much help.

[NORTON]

...I hardly ever drive very far, usually just a 14 mile round trip downtown, so I don't have very accurate numbers, ...

If you are dealing with high heat where you live you should be plugging in, at least during the daytime.
If it wasn't for needing TMS for the pack, nothing is stopping you from running the pack very low to get some data on <50% SOC.

Thanks for sharing that the energy page is not far off from Torque numbers.
I'd like to see a few data points with both sets of numbers for comparison.