Hyundai Launches the i30; Up to 50 MPG with the Diesel Model
25 June 2007
 |
| The i30 |
Hyundai is launching its new European C-Segment car, the i30, first shown at the Geneva Auto Show in March 2007.
The i30 offers a range of newly developed gasoline and diesel engines, with the new 1.6-liter diesel being the most fuel-efficient at 4.7 l/100km (50 mpg US) and CO2 emissions of 125 g/km.
The 1.6-liter engine offers 85 kW (113 hp) and 255 Nm (188 lb-ft) of torque. A 2.0-liter cousin offers 103 kW (138 hp) of power and 304 Nm (224 lb-ft) of torque with fuel consumption of 5.5 l/100km (42.8 mpg US) and CO2 emissions of 191 g/km.
Both diesels feature Variable Geometry Turbo-charging (VGT), low friction balance shaft technology and high-pressure common rail diesel injection for minimised engine originated NVH (noise, vibration and harshness). A Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) is standard.
Five and six-speed manual gearboxes and a four-speed automatic transmission are available, depending on the model. Automatic transmission is offered as an option with the 1.6-liter gasoline and diesel variants. The range-topping 2.0-liter diesel has a six-speed manual gearbox to help maximise the engine’s performance potential.
At the entry-level, a new 80 kW (108 hp) 1.4 liter gasoline engine offers fuel consumption of 6.1 l/100km (38.6 mpg US). A newly developed 1.6-liter gasoline engine nudges up fuel consumption to 6.2 l/100km, but delivers 90 kW (120 hp) and 154 Nm (114 lb-ft) torque.
The i30 is the first Hyundai to carry the "i" in its name, marking Hyundai’s new branding approach. Future vehicles in other segments will also carry the i letter.
So what? If this car was to be introduced in the U.S., I would be jumping for joy. Alas, it's probably not,so one with the brain-dead insanity.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | 25 June 2007 at 08:04 PM
Nice looking car and 50 MPG would be great.
Does anyone know if this diesel would run on B100 or not.
Before I bought my Prius I had an old Mercedes 240 diesel that ran great on B100.
Posted by: KJD | 25 June 2007 at 09:29 PM
Hyundai has stated tha thye will be bringing diesels to the US market.
I'd line up to buy a real-world 50mpg car. THe fact that it is a clean diesel is just icing on the cake. I'll convert it to run on 100% recycled vegetable oil!
Never visit a gas station again!
Posted by: DieselHybrid | 25 June 2007 at 09:33 PM
Mike,
The torque figure for the 1.6 gas engine should be 114 lb-ft.
JC
Posted by: JC | 25 June 2007 at 10:10 PM
Oops. Corrected, Thank you!
Posted by: Mike | 25 June 2007 at 10:44 PM
What are the CO2 emmissions of the patrol engines? Why are they not published above?
Posted by: Michel | 26 June 2007 at 02:18 AM
For those of you who think you will never visit a gas station again, forget it. Who do you think owns the refueling stations? Right you are, Big Oil. Control the pumps and you control the prices. What will you do when you find that Diesel or Biodiesel cost more than Premium? What about the idea kicking around the oil business of charging by the energy density of the fuel? That would also increase the cost of diesel. Also you must know that in order to super-refine diesel for the American market, remove the sulfur, it can take up to 15% more oil to the gallon. Who's going to pay for that? Right you are again....you! The only advantage of using diesel is if you run Biodiesel, it lessens our dependence on the middle east. I see no reason for diesel cars other that to help the auto companies and oil companies recoup their development investments. We should move as fast as we can toward PHEVs and BEVs. Diesel? No thanks, I'll wait.
Posted by: Lad | 26 June 2007 at 10:04 AM
Lad,
You are spot on! BTW this Hyundai does NOT meet the T2B5 "clean-diesel" equals "dirty-gasoline" equivalent specification.
Its only a slightly cleaner diesel that is still pretty polluting.
As you point out the ULSD spec takes more oil to make, so you don't save much in actuality. Bio-diesel may have slightly less carbon i.e. shorter hydrocarbon chains, but most of the benefit is pure environmental astrology and numerology, from not counting the same CO2 emitted because its "natural". Pure nonsense.
You are right; its only benefit is that it gives the money to non-ME oil sheiks. Forward with the Electrification of Ground Transport!
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 26 June 2007 at 10:24 AM
You're missing the true allure of diesel to many folks. The thought (forget the reality) that someone could grow their own fuel or use veggie oil, or convert veggie oil to biodeisel, has huge appeal. Even though most would never actually do this, they like the IDEA that they would have the option of procuring their own fuel. A biodeisel engine can never become obsolete. A gas powered car could easily become obsolete. Ethanol is beyond the grasp of the common man, biodeisel is not.
Why spend 20-30 grand on a gas powered car that is completely reliant on the US maintaining access to oil imports?
Posted by: darwin | 26 June 2007 at 11:09 AM
Stan,
Plant pulls CO2 from air, you burn oil from plant and put CO2 back in the air...you are employing "astrology and numerology" to assert that this increases the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere.
Energy to plant, grow, harvest, refine and transport? You need to do the same thing for petroleum as well.
Having said that though...I much prefer PHEV and BEV to straight diesel (or biodiesel).
Posted by: Patrick | 26 June 2007 at 11:09 AM
Most likely the biodiesel market will flourish around small engines like this one and heavy lifters for trucking and shipping industry.
Though recently I was informed that new cargo shipping is going to genset powered electric drives. Gensets still need diesel. Better new plant feedstock than very old plants from the middle east. As we are reluctantly coming to understand, CO2 dispersion plays a minimal role in warming.
Posted by: gr | 26 June 2007 at 11:38 AM
I think people forget that engineers from several companies are working on plans to grow oil-laden algae on a huge scale with large "farms" of vertical tanks to grow the algae. Not only does these algae types result in easy processing to huge amounts of biodiesel fuel and heating oil, but the "waste" from processing into biofuels could undergo additional processing to make animal feed or ethanol fuel! We're talking making biofuels on a scale far larger than growing corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, and other plants to turn into biofuels.
Posted by: Raymond | 26 June 2007 at 12:26 PM
Since “green” businesses are popping up left and right, I love that The Social Venture Network is holding a contest to reward business leaders of socially responsible companies! If you know a CEO or high-level person in such a company, please send this link to them: www.svn.org/imaginewhatsnext.
Posted by: William Bailey | 26 June 2007 at 01:07 PM
William,
A colleague of mine who works at a non-profit sent SVN to me. I’m trying to start a non-profit myself and I can use all the help I can get! Thanks!
Posted by: Saul Hudson | 26 June 2007 at 01:12 PM
Patrick,
Suppose I don't make bio-deisel from this years crop of plants, but wait and use last years crop. Does that change the nature of the CO2 I emit?
Converely, if I use two year old plants to make my bio-deisel, does that change the nature of the CO2 I emit?
Conversely, if I use a million year old crop of plants to make my bio-desiel, does that change the nature of the CO2 I emit?
If you think it does, Just how? Didn't these old plants take up CO2 from the air just like the other plants? So whahts the difference?
Merely environmental accounting. Astrology and Numerology in action...
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 26 June 2007 at 01:29 PM
Million year old organic carbon must have been preserved from oxidation in some way (eg burial) so it is out of the loop or safely sequestered. Best it stays that way. If biofuel carbon isn't more or less recycled the crop yields will be unsustainable. I think (somebody confirm) the recycling loop is confirmed by the presence of about 1% carbon 13.
Posted by: Aussie | 26 June 2007 at 03:55 PM
A hatchback like this should be going 70 MPG, i believe it is achievable by tuning down the engine and use a 13" rims.
Posted by: rexis | 26 June 2007 at 05:55 PM
Stan is delusional. The carbon in biofuels is drawn back into the plants it came from - it's a sustainable cycle. Anyone that questions such a basic concept needs their head examined.
Posted by: | 27 June 2007 at 08:58 PM
"Bio-diesel may have slightly less carbon i.e. shorter hydrocarbon chains, but most of the benefit is pure environmental astrology and numerology, from not counting the same CO2 emitted because its "natural". Pure nonsense."
You have no idea how the carbon cycle works, do you? There's a significant difference between actively cycled carbon derived from biological sources - from living plants that sequestered that carbon less than a year ago - and carbon that's been locked away in a geological sink for several million years, and which plays no part in the active, atmospheric carbon cycle until it's released by burning.
Before you puff up and claim that I'm full of it, I'm a biogeochemist. I know what I'm talking about. You clearly do not.
_Suppose I don't make bio-deisel from this years crop of plants, but wait and use last years crop. Does that change the nature of the CO2 I emit?_
No. On a geological timescale, the time scale on which a biogeochemical cycle becomes established, a year is nothing.
_Conversely, if I use a million year old crop of plants to make my bio-desiel, does that change the nature of the CO2 I emit?_
Yes. It's fossil carbon that does not participate in the ACTIVE carbon cycle, which has equilibrated without it. See how that works? The atmosphere-biosphere-climate system has equilibrated to the quantity of carbon that's actively cycling in that system. Net additions to that system (from volcanoes and the like) are balanced by net subtractions (carbonate formation, etc.) The equation is balanced. When fossil carbon, which is not an active player in the system but which is immobilized in a sink, is reintroduced to that system, the equation becomes unbalanced. Burning a biofuel doesn't represent a net addition to the biosphere-atmosphere system, any more than the carbon released by rotting leaves or a burning tree does.
I might suggest that you actually become familiar with the science behind this before you so arrogantly shoot your mouth off. The difference between the two is so obvious that it pains me to have to explain it. Fossil carbon has been locked in a sink for millions of years, and the cycle has equilibrated without it; organic carbon has been a part of the cycle and has resided in fuel form for a geochemically insignificant amount of time.
Posted by: Charlie | 07 July 2007 at 10:23 AM
"A hatchback like this should be going 70 MPG, i believe it is achievable by tuning down the engine and use a 13" rims."
Rims and detuning wouldn't net you an extra 20mpg. Simple physics there. To get that kind of economy, you'd have to be incorporating advanced aerodynamic tweaking, lightweight materials, and low rolling resistance tires. It'd look more like an Insight than the sort of practical family vehicle that the buyers of this car are actually looking for.
Posted by: Charlie | 07 July 2007 at 10:26 AM
http://3f132a4cf3ae17d3f361a02ffbed30a8-t.odsxfx.org 3f132a4cf3ae17d3f361a02ffbed30a8 [url]http://3f132a4cf3ae17d3f361a02ffbed30a8-b1.odsxfx.org[/url] [url=http://3f132a4cf3ae17d3f361a02ffbed30a8-b2.odsxfx.org]3f132a4cf3ae17d3f361a02ffbed30a8[/url] [u]http://3f132a4cf3ae17d3f361a02ffbed30a8-b3.odsxfx.org[/u] 82f6f41a12f5d0f876f2f92d6541f238
Posted by: Santino | 13 July 2007 at 05:34 AM
I sell them in Australia and you can not use bio deised withuot voiding your warenty (5 years unlimited Miles)
Over here we pay $1.27 per liter for unleaded petrol and $1.40 for diesel.
There are a number of people making bio diesel, however no manufacturers will warrent a car that uses it.
All the new diesel motors are made to run on low sulfer diesel. Old diesel motors run fine on bio diesel but not new ones
Posted by: Grum | 02 August 2007 at 08:56 PM
i need to know how much co2 is realeased by a car by consuming one liter of 98 octane petrol?
Posted by: subhash | 31 December 2007 at 06:16 AM