Hyundai ioniq

#1
fyi - there's already a thread that has 96 pages of Hyundai stuff;
Hyundai IONIQ - Prius competitor? | PriusChat
#2
the article you posted is primarily about the standard Hyundai hybrid. Not their ev. Yes they have a mediocre 100 mile range EV also. But since there are now 200 & 300 mile EV's it's pretty much yesterday's news.
.

 

124 miles is plenty for most people, and the MSRP is under $30k.

 

duno .... just quoting the polls ....

What's the minimum electric-car range for mass acceptance? Poll results

my better ½ falls into that group - comfy knowing her ride is good for ~245-250 miles.
My guess is - 250+ mile range allows for 3 hours driving at 70mph, while still leaving a bit of wiggle room if you drive in cold weather (or mountains) which dumps 25 miles or so of range.
Yes - realistically people seldom ever need over 120 miles, but when they ever do go further - they want it available - & most want their recharge times (after a long drive) to take no longer than a quick stretch, a quick pee, wash hands, & down a bite to eat.
.

 

Interesting poll because 150 miles was my threshold for getting our BMW i3-REx last year. My target was to reach Nashville, 120 miles, from Huntsville without having to stop for fuel or charging. Once end-of-lease BMW i3-REx became available for under $30k, it was an easy decision. Testing has shown the car fully meets this requirement.

Even refueling every 70 miles, we've gone 360 and 700 mile cross-country trips. However, the maximum sustained charge speed is 70 mph with 65 mph being significantly more efficient. The BMW i3-REx can burst faster for passing and climb modest hills but then it has to run slower or descend on the backside of the hill to recover the charge. The actual block-to-block speed in this mode is mid-50 mph. But a 70-150 mile range is pretty much usable in the region SouthEast of the Mississippi.

We had two range limit issues in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma when running on 70 mile range, gas power. The first was a closed truck stop about 2 AM and the second at the last 3 miles of a turnpike (I had skipped refueling at the over-priced, midway gas station on the turnpike. In both cases, we had at least 50 miles of EV range and a spare gallon of gas in the trunk. As for L2 chargers, much less fast DC, they were few and far between in September 2016.

Bob Wilson

 

I understand the latest Rex BMW has even further range. Good on them!
.

 

i don't believe 124 is enough for most people. in fact, i don't even know who most people are. but i'm sure they will sell some, and then, reports of higher, lower or same ev range will affect how sales continue to grow, along with a myriad of other factors.

 

Yes and no. Although the range is higher, the efficiency numbers are down:

	metric	2016 BMW i3-REx	2017 BMW i3-REx	difference
1	EV range	72 mi	97 mi	+25 mi
2	total range	150 mi	180 mi	+30 mi
3	kWh/100 mi	29	30	1 kWh extra which is less efficient
4	MPG	39	35	lost 4 MPG
5	MPGe	117	111	lost 6 MPGe

I am investigating a hypothesis for the excessive loss.

Bob Wilson

 

We are about to see a divergence, just like the computer industry went through once upon a time... so long ago, many are unaware of that history.

CPU speed indicated how the computer package was configured in the retail world. Faster meant more memory and larger hard-drive. It was elegantly simple, making the sale of them to newbies far less of a challenge. That worked great. It helped establish the industry, making their product a household device. Eventually, the device became personal & portable, taking on traits well beyond the original concept.

The idea of an EV fulfilling all roles of transport was a good means of proving the technology worthy. That isn't ultimately how to sell it though. Households with multiple vehicles could easily exploit the abilities of a lower-capacity EV. Who cares? All you're running around for errands and short commutes could be done with a vehicle like that. What if you're retired and don't need to travel long distances? For that matter, same could be true for a student.

We need to take a serious look at the problem "faster & further" is causing. That mindset is not helpful when attempting to attract the masses. Some simply see that as overkill, an expense they are unable or unwilling to accept. Also, think about how long it would take to fully recharge a large battery for a person who is limited using to a 120-volt outlet.

Take a look at "computers" now. We see far more than just desktops of the past. There are notebooks, tablets, and phones. All have a common purpose. All provide computing in their own way though. All get the job done. Yet, prices & configurations varying tremendously.

 

thing is, it may not be enough range in the US which has large distances between towns / cities, but consider the UK / EU, we have much smaller distances between places so the 125 mile range is more than adequate for most, longer runs our motorways have services with rapid chargers about every 30 miles or less so charging is not a problem

next year Hyundai are due to release a 200mile SUV style EV based on the new Kona, with a 60-65KWh battery

 

agree the notion 'sounds' logical. Reality / Toyota action flies in the face of logic somewhat, in this instance. Remember? Even as Toyota brought their little smart-car sized EV Scion to the US, they pulled the rug out from under prospective buyers - sending all of 'em (leased) to agencies / institutions in stead. Not that I disagree w/ Toyota's logic. That strategy was likely (in part) motivated because of their long range hydrogen progect ( kind of makes me wonder if it was such a great idea - why not have hydrogen be short-range since the infrastructure would cost trillions) - which for now, seems to be sputtering, even as Toyota is claiming they are coming back with another EV (long range?) .
.

 

worldwide, it could be a winner, but even for local driving, 124 miles less winter losses may prove to be too little.

 

Toyota is investing heavily in lithium battery sales... switching the regular Prius and pushing high-volume for Prime.

What is there to remember that cannot change/adapt to the emerging market? Heck, GM was fiercely anti-EV until recently. In other words, get over it.

As new players enter, plans will be altered.

 

Relax, we've had worse. <GRINS> I've done it too.

Bob Wilson

 

Me too

get over what ... not following .... my thought was in agreement - that even tho small ev's (according to the survey posted) might not be as popular (due to America's passion for land barges .... whether ev's or ICE) there STILL can be a niche market for them. If that's true, it's confusing that Toyota would abandon selling their teensy Scion ev. So it was confusing that on the one hand it sounded like you were touting small electrics, even though Toyota chose to abandon them here in the US. That's not meant to sound adversarial - if that's what evoked the "get over it" - thing. And ....... not sure why GM coming to grips with long-range electrics comes into play, either.
.

 

I'm glad there are companies making different range size EV's. 2+ car households rarely need both vehicles with a range of over 200 miles. Will most people still think they "need" this range in every EV they buy? Probably. Then again, most people think they "need" a massive SUV for driving around the city.

 

Where are the numbers coming from? If the EPA window sticker, there might not be an actual difference in efficiency. Just a difference in the math somewhere. You noted it with the 2016 vs 2017 Prius c. It also is seen with the Malibu hybrid; 47mpg city and 46mpg highway goes to 49 and 43 between the model years.

Much of the country doesn't have 3 hour commutes.

Most of the public has the issue with range anxiety and just the newness of plugging in a car. The 200+ male range BEV is needed to conquer that, but once incentives dry up and people see actual BEVs on the road, then the price vs range is going to get a closer look by potential buyers. I want a BEV, but the 2005 Prius(was the step up from retail base) was the most expensive new car I have ever bought.

Many of the households in the US that could afford a new plug in already have more than one car.

My friends with kids don't own two minvans in case the other spouse has to take the spawn instead. They have a more reasonably sized car for the second one, and swap vehicles when needed. Why pay for the longer range BEV when it is just going to get left behind on trips anyway.

The iQ EV is a poor example to bring up. First, it is that few people buy ICE cars that size in the US. More importantly is two numbers linked to it; $45,000 price tag if it had been actually sold, and just 38 miles of range under the EPA testing. The range alone was enough to doom it. That makes the Leaf look like a highway road warrior.

We need 200+ miles to get people to even look at BEVs. With familiarity, shorter range will become acceptable to the price sensitive, but 100 miles will likely be the floor range.

 

I used FUELECONOMY.COM and the change in numbers is consistent with some of posted changes: slightly more weight and higher ICE power. But as I mentioned, I'm looking at several things in our 2014 that I suspect are affecting performance and more adversely the 2017 model.

The decrease was not proportionate to any changes that I'm aware of and much worse than one would expect. Adding TSS-P should not cause the performance hit reported.

I've not followed that model closely but I understand from some of the podcasts (i.e., Autoline Daily) that there have been some changes that should have improved performance, articulating air inlet vanes?

Bob Wilson

 

There is a 335 pound weight increase with the larger battery pack. The Model S sees similar weight increases and efficiency drops with battery size increases.

There was no performance hit.
"EPA is updating its method for calculating the fuel economy shown on new-car window stickers starting with the 2017 model year."
- About the Ratings
It was just a change in the 'fudge factor' going from raw test results to the window sticker. The majority of models saw no change in the published numbers.

I couldn't find anything that would warranty retesting the hybrid; the automatic on the 2.0L ICE got a 9th gear. Otherwise the 2016 to 2017 changes were new colors and feature shuffling among the trims. 2017 is just the second year from a major redesign.