[evioniq]

The car looks almost the same design wise, so I'm going to assume the headlights will line up and match the 1st gen Ioniq EV. Once the 38 kWh comes out I'm going to see if these will drop in/plug & play with the 1st gen.

 

[HyperIoniq]

Just bumped into Bjørn Nyland’s 38kWh test drive, “Hmmmmm”

 

[yticolev]

Wow, great resolution backup camera which can be activated going forward. Bye, bye, most of blind spot issues. Should make those who hate the rear split view happier. Wonder if we can retrofit the camera? Worth it just for the better backup view.

 

[Jan Treur]

The charging power levels for the different battery percentages SOC are assumed to be the same as for the Kona EV with the same battery; see below. I made some rough calculations for practical use in long distance trips (fast charging from 20% to 80%) and came out at an about 5% longer traveling time compared to the current version.

There are indications that it will have liquid cooling of the battery. Anyone can confirm this?

Bjorn Nyland has shown a charging process of the Ioniq 38kWh at a 350 kW fast charger from Fastned, near Amsterdam; see here. I took the numbers and made a graph comparable to the above graph which is believed to be based on a Kona. The following graph was the result:

Then I made an overlay of the previous graph to compare them in more detail:

So, they are not exactly the same but still quite comparable.

What can be seen is that up to 68%, the power levels are around 42 kW (up to 50%) and around 36 kW (from 50 to 68%). In total, in 39 minutes you get 68% starting from 0, and this is 26 kWh (what is 93% charge for the 28 kWh Ioniq). If you do not start at 0, but, for example, at 15%, then it will be faster: 31 minutes, which sounds a bit more bearable than the 54 minutes of the official documents. In these 31 minutes, the 26 kWh you get is 16% more charge than an 80% charge for the Ioniq 28 kWh (which is 22.4 kWh). When subtracting the 15% charge at the start of the charging, this 16% extra becomes 20% extra, so you can drive 20% further, so after 5 times you can skip one charging session compared to the 28 kWh Ioniq. Plus you can start from home with 36% extra charge.

If you want to go above the 68%, to 80%, for example, the charging is really slowing down. You will spend many minutes of these 54 minutes for that phase. You may want to stay away from that phase (unless you are just enjoying your meal).

So, it may be smart to think about a good strategy of charging.

 

[Redfast]

C'est pas tout à fait vrai.
Bjorn démarre sa charge à 10%
Il est rechargé 58% en 38 minutes soit 22,1kWh et non 26kWh pour arriver à 68%.
De 10% à 80% de la vitesse est de 29,8kW.
Très mauvais.

 

[evioniq]

Bjorn says Hyundai ruined the Ioniq and it charges embarrassingly slow.

In his 1000 KM challenge, he drove the old Ioniq in 12 hours 15 minutes, he drove the 62 kW Leaf in 15.5 hours. He says he guesses the new Ioniq will do the 1000 KM challenge in between the old Ioniq and 62 kW Leaf's times.

 

[MR Scan Man]

So, it may be smart to think about a good strategy of charging.

Or stick to the 28kWh Ioniq. If you are not going to use the extra size of the battery because it takes too long to fill it, you may as well have the smaller battery which can charge at 69kW on a suitable charger.

 

[Jan Treur]

Some first experiences with the 2020 Ioniq EV in the Netherlands, not yet from me but from someone I know from the German forum who lives in the Netherlands and who through me came to my dealer in Alkmaar and had ordered a Premium there (later than myself ...), delivered last week Wednesday:

Fr 13 Sep 2019, 18:18
First impressions: compared to the old model, much less rolling noise in the interior
Generally much quieter.
Steering a bit easier and more direct. In general, the vehicle feels better.
He does everything the same as the old one, but everything is a bit better.

Collected with a full battery. Driven 200 km, the first half highway between 100 and 120 km/h and the second half highway with 80 to 100 km/h. Outside temperature 20 to 22° C. Inside at 22°.
Display remaining range 146 km. Consumption 11kWh/100km.

I currently charge with 20 amps, the duration indicated by Bluelink is 5 hours.
What I don't understand, what should I do with the huge cable roll in the trunk. The charging cable fits perfectly in the lower part of the trunk.
That's it for now
https://www.goingelectric.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=35721&start=1480

Mon 16 Sep 2019, 15:47
It is indeed the case that the right-hand lane is fully lit and always on.
If all criteria for the automatic system are met, the left light cone is switched on.
This is much more pleasant compared to its predecessor. There are no more brightness differences.

Just charged to100% and the range with climate displayed via Bluelink is 306 km.
A gimmick is when a predecessor stands still and starts driving again, there is a warning sound and a sign in the display.
https://www.goingelectric.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=35721&start=1500

Mon 16 Sep 2019, 17:31
If the automatic cruise control is activated, it will now start driving automatically.

 

[MR Scan Man]

I currently charge with 20 amps, the duration indicated by Bluelink is 5 hours.

Just charged to100% and the range with climate displayed via Bluelink is 306 km.

I presume the 20 amps is DC fast charging.

The 100% charge is only 57 km more than I'm getting with my 28kWh battery.

Personally, I don't think the increased cost is good value for money.

 

[Jan Treur]

No, it is AC charging at home, 230 Volt, so 4.6 kW, I think from about 42% to 100%.

I don't think in these few days the displayed range is already reflecting his driving style. In reality, as he reported, he got more than the displayed distance. The reported 11 kWh/100km makes 348 km. We may ask him after some longer time. He himself wrote to me in an email that the car is worth every penny of its price.

 

[MR Scan Man]

He himself wrote to me in an email that the car is worth every penny of its price.

And that's the important thing. Imagine paying that much for a car and finding you don't like it.

 

[Jan Treur]

For some this car will fit, for some, like you apparently, it will not.

 

[Jan Treur]

I made a Google Sheet where everybody can include experiences with range and efficiency for the Ioniq 2020 EV 38.3 kWh; see here.

 

[Robinhood]

On Ionity 350 kW my 2017 Ioniq got from 5% to 81% in 20 minutes! That means roughly 21 kWh -> i posted picture below (i reached 94% in 30minutes! - Its not optimal thing to do because on the end it charges only 22 kW -> Second picture). The new one in Bjorns video added only 32% in same time! That is around 12,2 kWh vs 21 kWh!!!! (Bjorn started at 10% and in 20 minutes he charged it to 42%) That means the old one beats the new one in long distance travels anytime you want - especially on 1000km trips like Bjorn is doing. Now everything else that has been changed is probably bettter than in old one - visuals are offcourse always debatable...

 

[Jan Treur]

>> The new one in Bjorns video added only 32% in the same time!

In the first phase, Bjorn's video shows a charging speed of around 42 kW, so for 20 minutes, this is 42/3 = 14 kWh (37%) vs 21 kWh, not 12 (32%). Still less, but a bit less dramatic.

For the 30 minutes you did you got a 25 kWh extra charge, which is an average charging speed of 50 kW. During the same 30 minutes, the new one uses a 40 kW average charging speed and will get a 20 kWh extra charge. This difference is less because within this period the new Ioniq will not reach the low charging speed of 22 kW you reached at the end: in the last part of this period, the new Ioniq is charging faster than the old Ioniq (34 kW vs 22 kW). In Abetterrouteplanner such subtle things are taken into account, which may explain why you usually don't see big differences when you check real-world trips for the old and new Ioniq EV there.

 

[Jan Treur]

I checked for a number of trips, what Abetterrouteplanner tells us and made graphs for the different distances: from left to right trips from Amsterdam to Cologne (268km), Paris (499km), Berlin (660km), Munchen (826km), Milan (1077km), Marseille (1235km), Nice (1390km), and Barcelona (1538km). See below.

The average time difference % is 3.3% for these trips. For the trips above 1000 km, the average time difference % is 4.9%. The 'break-even' point is here at 400 km. From 200 km to 800 km, the difference % increases more or less linearly to around 5%, after which it does not change substantially.

 

[MR Scan Man]

I checked for a number of trips, what Abetterrouteplanner tells us and made graphs for the different distances: from left to right trips from Amsterdam to Cologne (268km), Paris (499km), Berlin (660km), Munchen (826km), Milan (1077km), Marseille (1235km), Nice (1390km), and Barcelona (1538km). See below.

The average time difference % is 3.3% for these trips. For the trips above 1000 km, the average time difference % is 4.9%. The 'break-even' point is here at 400 km. From 200 km to 800 km, the difference % increases more or less linearly to around 5%, after which it does not change substantially.
View attachment 30764

Nice research.

 

[Xinix]

I agree the difference is not as bad as I expected. BUT: it's still a strange policy to issue a new version which in the end is worse than the previous version in a very important metric such as travel time.

 

[PetteriSeppänen]

Ok when will we see the 38kWh second generation Ioniq on its own forum segment? Jan Treur?

 

[Jan Treur]

Would it deserve a special segment?