Hyundai Going Electric With Hybrids and Plug-Ins
Hyundai's been making so many announcements about electric vehicles and hybrids lately you'd think it was ZAP. The Korean automaker's promised to put a hybrid subcompact, a hybrid mid-size and a plug-in competitor to the Chevrolet Volt on the road within five years. There's even some speculation at least one of them could be stamped "Made in the USA."
Hyundai's going full-bore with its electric program, launching a partnership with Korean companies LG Chem, SK Energy and SB LiMotive to develop the batteries its cars will need if they're to start hitting the road by 2010 as promised. LG's got a solid background, having provided some of the batteries General Motors is considering for the Volt. The Japanese dominate battery tech these days, but Hyundai says the Koreans could catch up by 2013 -- at which point the company hopes to put a plug-in hybrid on the road. Korean automakers are spending nearly $1 billion on battery tech, and the government has kicked in $40 million.
We'll see the first of the Hyundais to use that technology in November.
John Krafcik, Hyundai's VP of product development, announced the new Sonata hybrid will make its debut at the Los Angeles International Auto Show in November and could be on the road by 2010. It'll use a lithium-ion battery, making it the first partially-electric Sonata since Switched-On Bach.
Don't confuse the gas-electric mid-size Sonata with another hybrid Hyundai in the works -- a propane-electric hybrid based on the Avante (known here in the states as the Elantra) that promises 37.9 miles per gallon. The subcompact could be on the road as early as next year, but there's almost no chance we'll see it here even though its propane powertrain could make a billionaire out of Hank Hill.
Early signs suggest the Sonata hybrid will be made in America. Hyundai spokesman Jim Trainor was coy when asked if the hybrid will be built in the same Alabama factory that cranks out the standard Sonata (pictured) and would only say Southerners build some mighty fine cars. "The workforce down there and the products they're building are awesome," Trainor told the Birmingham News. "The quality coming out of the plant is awesome. Certainly careful consideration will be given to those sorts of things when we're looking at where a vehicle like that will be built."
Hyundai's a rags-to-riches story better than any early-evening nominating convention speaker could offer. From the dowdy Excel to the overly tarted-up sedans of the early 2000s, Hyundai has matured into the ultimate "cocktail party car" -- comfortable yet unobtrusive, well-built but not overwrought. The incredible Genesis and stately Sonata prove the carmaker has truly arrived.
Producing what could be the first lithium-ion hybrid to hit the street would be a major coup for Hyundai and a boon for Korean battery manufacturer LG.
Photo by Hyundai.
Posted by: TR Bob | Aug 29, 2008 10:33:36 AM
Since when do the Japanese "dominate battery technology." Which technology are you referring to? LG Chem was selected by GM because it was one of the best, not an also ran. Toyota is reluctant to go li ion because it can't get batteries
even though its tightly connected with Panasonic. I'll agree that the Japanese dominate NiMh technology, but who gives a damn about that obsolete technology?
Posted by: kerry bradshaw | Sep 1, 2008 7:43:37 AM
When is Hyundai going to re-launch the Stellar? I think a plug-in Stellar would be the best thing ever.
Posted by: ersatz | Sep 1, 2008 10:01:37 AM
I will Stellar you something.
Posted by: Robert Stellar | Sep 1, 2008 10:14:31 AM
2010? 2013? Where the heck is the EV-1? It got 80-120 miles between charges and that was the early mid 90's. WTF!!! this country and the world needs to wake up and demand better. Hey Shell Oil - any thoughts on this subject???
Posted by: pablo | Sep 1, 2008 2:44:16 PM
2010? 2013? Where the heck is the EV-1? It got 80-120 miles between charges and that was the early mid 90's. WTF!!! this country and the world needs to wake up and demand better. Hey Shell Oil - any thoughts on this subject???
Posted by: pablo | Sep 1, 2008 2:45:39 PM
It has recently been theorized by the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? that the EV1 program was eliminated because it threatened the oil industry and because it required virtually no maintenance and therefore threatened GM's profitability by undermining the replacement parts aftermarket as well as the company's strategy of planned obsolescence. GM responded to the film's claims, before actually having seen the movie, laying out several reasons why the EV1 was not commercially viable at the time.
Posted by: gomez | Sep 1, 2008 3:25:07 PM
We can't get through any electric-car thread without griefers like pablo above. Sheesh...
Posted by: ferrarimanf355 | Sep 1, 2008 3:28:17 PM
Well, that's because it does unfortunately ring true... not even having seen the film it seems highly probably - it's just a question of supply and demand & collusion.
I wonder how many industries are blighted by the same problem - market economics may not be the god-send it seems...
Example:
Product A. Requires no maintanance and has no/v. limited complementary goods, could replace product B, which is the opposite.
If the company who developed A also sells B it has zero reason to bring A to market.
If it was another company, buy them out (or more...underhand tactics) and bury it.
Product B therefore still dominates the market regardless of product A's potential.
Analysis of the welfare surplus from A vs B is very complex however, as there are too many variables, eg. non-polluting car like product A = improved health, reduced global warming (perhaps). However, jobs lost etc. Although that is the old-luddite problem in a more complex form I guess, which supposedly has been resolved.
However, it does mean that products become more and more meaningless...fashion swings etc
Sigh. My brain hurts. Knowing nothing would be so much simpler. I'm off to get drunk. I hope someone actually understands the above. It would be depressing if not...
Posted by: skeptico | Sep 1, 2008 3:59:43 PM
My Toyota service center uses a Toyota RAV4E (last sold 2003), all electric, to shuttle customers. I was shocked at how quiet and fast the RAV4E is. You can buy a used one w/ 45000 miles for $62,000 on ebay.
"pablo" and "gomez" are correct.
Posted by: Ovonics | Sep 1, 2008 4:03:38 PM
Interesting theory, except for some points. First, the maintenance money does not go into the manufacturer's pockets, it goes to the dealer where the car gets the maintenance.
Spare parts aren't exactly moneymakers because on a competitive market if you have a car that needs too much parts and repair, it will lose market share aginst another car, so you end up with a lousy product no one buys.
Last but not least, the whole A vs B thing is kind of assuming you have a monopoly. Throw in a few competitors going for the consumer's money and then the argument makes no sense at all. You sell what customers buy, if you try to sell product A over B or viceversa against market forces, you end up where Detroit is right now.
@Pablo
yes, Shell has a thought about the subject, and that is: they don't make cars!! What can Shell do against or in favor of EV's? Nothing, that's in the hands of the automakers (those are the ones who make cars, fuel companies don't), which do not have any dips on Shell's money by the way, as you can see, Detroit is going down while Shell is rich right now. I'm sure they can't stop a Korean or Japanese company from making an EV and bringing it to market can they? Why don't you buy a Tesla? They're for sale you know, and Shell can't stop you or them. What? too expensive? Damn free market!
Posted by: A.F. | Sep 1, 2008 4:40:56 PM
@Ovonics
No, they're not correct. A 2003 used RAV4 goes for under 15,000 (13,500 according to yahoo cars). Who in their right mind thinks paying 47,000 more for a changed drivetrain makes sense? Are you saving 47,000 dollars on fuel? The reason hybrids and EV's are hot right now is not because of pollution, we have known about pollution for decades and nobody cared but a few (sad but true), the reason is fuel prices, money, your money.
If you have 62,000 to spend on a 5 year old fleet car then good for you, go ahead and help the environment because I live in the same world and would appreciate it (no sarcasm, it's true), but not everyone can go down that path right now... damn free market!! :D
Posted by: A.F. | Sep 1, 2008 4:53:40 PM
@A.F.
Love your response. Too many people thing auto makers and the oil companies are in cohoots with each other when they are definitely not.
In the only time an auto maker contacts an oil company is when they have an engine that requires a special blend and what formulated gasoline currently on the market will support it.
Or an refinery company formulates a new cleaner burning gasoline or diesel, possibly as mandated by the government, and the oild company contacts the auto company to see if their vehicle's engines can burn it without problems.
.
Pablo, like all the other gullible "saw the movie, belived it, blame GM and the oil companies" people (I was going to say morons, but that would not be a nice thing to say) and you get uneducated, didn't do their own research responses like Pablo's.
.
Pablo, let me re-iterate once more. The EV1 actual range was more like 60 miles (real world range, not the hyped publizided range). Turn on the headlights and the range dropped to around 50 miles. Turn on the AC and the range dropped to around 30 miles.
It generally took around 8 hours to recharge IF one had the high voltage recharing station. It took a lot, lot longer if one used standard 120V house current.
The EV1 was basically a vehicle ahead of battery technology.
The battery technology just didn't exist to make the EV1 a cheap, viable vehicle.
Battery technology STILL is not up to the task, but is getting better then it was when GM killed the EV1 in 2003.
.
Pablo, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
.
for an honest take on the EV1, not the propoganda spouted in that asinine movie.
Posted by: TR Bob | Sep 1, 2008 5:14:56 PM
@ ovonics, according to your post;My Toyota service center uses a Toyota RAV4E (last sold 2003), all electric, to shuttle customers. I was shocked at how quiet and fast the RAV4E is. You can buy a used one w/ 45000 miles for $62,000 on ebay.
"pablo" and "gomez" are correct.
This is solid prove that people are willing to pay $62,000 for used electric car. I'm sure, if GM are will to sell EV1 , it would not cost this much. But even GM sell EV1 for $62,000 I still believe there are buyers will pay for that price.
Thank for your information.
Posted by: gomez | Sep 1, 2008 5:29:42 PM
@gomez
No, actually, it's solid proof that people are willing to SELL an electrified RAV4 for $62,000.
It is my opinion that anyone dumb enough to actually buy it either has way more money to spend then they need or stupid.
Reading your first comment, the last sentence in your post is a word for word plagerism of the Wiki articale I posted.
As you may have read that article, I'm sure you did evenmore research on the EV1, other than the EV1 fan site, and know that the EV1 just wasn't a viable product.
.
Let's say for argument's sake the EV1 was a viable product.
Why hasn't any other auto manufacturer not brought out a totally electric vehicle with the exception of Telsa and a couple of other specialty car shops. And those vehicles starting costs are in the $80,000 on up - mostly due to the cost of the batteries.
.
For all the bogus hype people praise the EV1 for, one would think that GM would just resurrect the EV1 instead of spending millions upon millions of dollars and man-years into developing the Volt.
.
People who see that EV1 docufictionary and gush in their underwear about it and then not bother to actually obtain FACTS are, in my opinion, idiots.
Posted by: TR Bob | Sep 1, 2008 8:14:40 PM
When cellphones first appeared they cost a couple of thou and were in a shoebox sized-bag. Now they cost nothing. PR & tech created a demand for what wasn't already there, or really needed by most, and flooded the market.
-
Waiting for over-list Prius and used Diesel VW's is because folks perceive a need, a desire, to get off of the merry-go-round of unnecessary consumption and increasing fuel costs.
-
In the '70's the 'big-3' made small and relatively efficient cars after the first 'gas crisis'. As soon as the oil co's said they'd recovered, the big-three 'invented' the SUV and all the tools to make you believe you needed one, and made a ton of cash. (Taking a POS pickup chassis and adding some tin and seats and be exempt from safety & mileage requirements).
-
If what's left of the big-3 did make affordable electric cars like the plug-in Prius (at $30,000) they would sell. Perhaps there is a subplot related to suffering losses because of really dumb planning, and their now being able to 'reorganize' production with less union involvement
-
As for the $62K RAV4e, some people will pay anything for anything. The point was that they're still cruising around.
Posted by: Ovonics | Sep 1, 2008 9:56:20 PM
There will be few electric cars until the government finds another way to replace the gas tax; That is what really killed the EV1.
Posted by: rick go | Sep 1, 2008 10:08:09 PM
I'm sorry A.F. but you're forgetting the most important complementary good in the history of complementary goods...OIL. As for having to have a monopoly, the whole point of my post was oligopolistic collusion.
As for the car-manufacturers and the oil companies being in "cahoots" - good god wouldn't you if you were them? They must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted by: Skeptico | Sep 2, 2008 1:42:46 AM
I don't necessarily fault GM for killing off the EV1. But I do fault them for letting Toyota get the jump on Hybrid cars. GM had such a technological jump on everybody (an EV1 and a Hybrid share a great deal of their technology) and they just let it get stale. I read recently that the guy who designed the EV1 had plans to produce a model with a gas generator on board to charge the batteries, thus producing, in effect, a Chevy Volt 10-15 years before the Volt is scheduled to come online. But his idea was shot down at the time. That's unfortunate. Given that the EV1 had a nearly 100 mile range on 1996 battery technology, you've got to assume that a gas-charged model as described would have shown amazing MPG figures.
But GM and Ford were making money hand over fist with SUV's, never giving a second's thought to whether the goose that laid the golden eggs was a spring chicken or an ailing old hen. Now the goose is on its death bed, and the domestic auto makers are wondering how they're going to keep making payments on the farm. Meanwhile the farmer up the road (Toyota) was wise enough to prepare for the day that his old hens gave up the ghost by using some of his earnings to breed chickens that were better suited to evolving tastes.
Posted by: David Flores | Sep 2, 2008 2:47:21 AM
Samsung,Hyundai,Kia,LG
Korean, the best!
Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 2, 2008 6:50:40 AM
The thing that killed the EV1 was you and me. The demands of the public. Realistically though, the demise of the EV1 began with the DOT's upgraded safety standards which the EV1 could not meet. I'll just make a side note here and say that these safety standards are what the PUBLIC demands. The demise of the EV1 was not some conspiracy between GM and Big Oil. As TR Bob has stated above the EV1 had mediocre performance even more so in cold weather. It was not a product that could compete in the market, at the time, with standard IC vehicles and so it wasn't worth it for GM, at the time, to invest in redesigning the model to meet those new safety standards for what simply amounted to a "research project". Instead they let all the leases run out and legally could not re-lease or sell the EV1 vehicles to the public. Ever. In hind-site the choice not to continue developing an electric vehicle, or an interim solution such as gas /electric hybrids, was obviously a bad decision by GM but then if I could see the future I'd be emperor of the world right now. Today's realities have forced GM and other car manufacturers to invest/re-invest in electric vehicles technology. GM has with the Volt, but has lost any advantage of time that they would have had if they continued research immediately after the demise of the EV1 project. Unlike David Flores I cannot blame GM or any manufacturer for the decisions the make. They put out products that make them money and that the public wants and up until recently our craving for Trucks and SUV's made north american car manufacturers money and satisfied our demands. If our consumer decisions were more responsible we, GM and other car manufacturers would not be in the predicament we're in now. So, the Blame lies squarely on the shoulders of you and me.
Posted by: Jake | Sep 2, 2008 7:05:23 AM
You'll buy what you're told to buy. After all the 'hard research' via web, magazine, or whatever media, you'll buy what you've been formed to buy. If you're of limited means you're not a target. Otherwise, much more money is spent on shaping the customer than is spent on R&D.
Posted by: M. McLuhan | Sep 2, 2008 9:47:16 AM
@Jake,
I appreciate the kudos.
.
I had a good friend who had the "pleasure" to lease the EV1.
He lives in the Hollywood hills near the op of one of those hills.
After he got his shiny new EV1 home, he dutifully let it charge overnight.
The next morning he drove it to Malibu to spend the day at the beach with his wife.
It was one of those warm summer days and he had the A/C on. He got to Malibu, but he only made it to Santa Monica when the EV1 glided to a halt. Battery discharged. Yeah, he really wasn't paying too much attention to the charge level, but he thought he could go the full 120 miles.
Had to have the EV1 towed back to the house.
After recharging it overnight, he then used it to commute his 20 miles each way to and from work, with the A/C off.
Next weekend, he drove down to Disney Land in Anaheim. At the end of the day, he drove back. He got to the I-5/I-10 interchange when the EV1 glided to a halt, still showing roughly 15% charge remaining. Trip distance from house to dead on road was 65 miles - no A/C, no radio, no headlights, and no alternate source of power to go the last 10 miles or so.
The rest of his lease he drove it just to & from work. Even then, on cool days the EV1 would struggle going up the hill to his house.
Plus he still had to buy another car for when he needed to go more than 25 miles from home.
When his lease was up, he gladly gave it back.
He even had the embarrassment of having a Prius pass him on the 405 going up the hill between Sherman Oaks and Culver City.
.
And yet, some people still insist the EV1 was the greatest thing since Al Gore.
It was a good concept. It just could not compete as a viable vehicle.
Posted by: TR Bob | Sep 2, 2008 12:46:56 PM
Posted by: greeny | Sep 2, 2008 7:31:47 PM
Posted by: greeny | Sep 2, 2008 7:36:20 PM
Posted by: greeny | Sep 2, 2008 7:44:51 PM
Suck on this greeny.
Posted by: Jake | Sep 2, 2008 8:35:49 PM
very enlightening article
Posted by: g curtis barry | Sep 3, 2008 9:07:50 AM
One pair of newlyweds living in poverty, rely on friends and relatives for Jieji to live. http://www.sevengold.com/ One day, a husband to his wife: "Dear, I have to leave home. I am going to place very far to find a job until I give you a conditional comfortable decent life will come back. http://www.scggame.com/ I do not know whether to go to How long, I just you one thing, waiting for me, I was not the time to be loyal to me, I will also loyal to you. "
Posted by: sevengold-scggame | Sep 4, 2008 2:55:16 AM
thanks
Posted by: sohbet | Sep 8, 2008 10:16:10 AM
Being the owner and driver of a 2007 Kia Optima along with test driving other Kia models, I can say the latest offerings from the Korean automakers are building good quality cars - not to be compared with the ones they built a few years ago.
.
I look forward to all these new plug-in hybrids coming out from the various auto-makers. It will help drop the cost of the batteries and, hopefully through competition, reduce the costs of the plug-ins.
Plus, it will, hopefully, force GM to build a good quality Volt to compete.