A week with the Hyundai Ioniq 9 SUV: What we liked, what we didn’t

There's a lot to like about this SUV, made in Georgia.

See full article...

 

[mmiller7]

It looks like a lowered Suburban or station wagon. Can you fit a 4'x8' sheet of plywood with 2nd and 3rd rows lowered?

This is what I was also thinking - I like the longer back end, I have no use for 3rd row seats but a cargo area would be high on my list. I've got a Subaru Outback I really like for trips due to fitting 2-4 adults plus all the luggage/stuff easily and would not want to lose that with so many cars now sloping the hatch to have less cargo room.

This Hyundai has my attention for sure!

 

[mmiller7]

The hood is too low, the corners are more rounded

WHAT is this obsession with creating more blindspots and worse maneuverability in the front???

 

[=j]

Interesting. But ~300miles of range is so archaic and under-ranged given what is possible and on the horizon. Not to mention this whole thing looks like a Dodge Caravan.

Just got off a 600 mile road trip this past weekend in my ID. Buzz; and every time somebody said "I need to pee" or "I'm hungry", I responded "We are going to stop to charge in about 5 minutes". Each time, ABRP insisted I stop for about 10 minutes. Each time, I actually stopped for about 20 between potty and getting snacks/meals.

The range is fine for real people taking real roadtrips. There will always be overnight trombone repairmen who complain about range, no matter how high said range gets.

 

[Flipper35]

God I want to like these but could they please stop making the headlights and taillights so freaking ugly ?

The last gen Pilot tail lights drive me crazy. They look like they forgot to finish them.

 

[Snark218]

I really don't much like sloping hatches at the rear. My Mazda3 has one, and I tolerate it, but I would not have designed the car that way.
Sloping hatches are purely for style. Not for aero. The flow is generally going to separate at the aft edge of the roof whether the liftgate is vertical or canted 45°, and once it's separated, the exact shape of the trailing face doesn't really matter..... so you may as well go with the shape that allows the best use of internal volume. Or, if you make the slope gentle enough for the flow to stay somewhat attached, then you're into fastback coupe territory and you've wrecked your rear seat headroom.

Not necessariy so; a basically vertical, flat rear end terminating a horizontal roofline (e.g. old Volvo wagon) creates a very high-volume, low-pressure wake that generates significant pressure drag, and that drag is worsened because doesn't manage the separation of flow very well and so creates a lot of turbulence. The extreme example is how a passing semi can whomp you with its trailing wake, sometimes enough to push you over a foot in your lane. Most cars that are squared off like that today have a spoiler and some aero stuff around the top edges of the rear hatch to separate the flow better, but it's still far from aerodynamically efficient.

It's all based on research from '30s Germany, originally done by Wunibald Kamm, which was mostly done in obscurity and lost in the wartime chaos till found again in the '60s by Peter Brock, but the resulting form does bear his name - the Kammback. Mercedes had an interesting and fascinatingly ugly concept car a long while ago, called the Bionic, which had a Kammback and mimicked the shaper of a pufferfish - which sounds bonkers till you consider that evolution has been working on optimizing that shape for large internal volume while retaining at least some hydrodynamic efficiency for longer than we've been doing the same for cars. The Bionic combined a bulbous, rounded front end and the the classic Kammback teardrop taper back to a small, sharp, vertical back end; it guides the flow back to closure around a wake of fairly low volume, and separates the surface from the flow sharply so the flow is smooth. The low-pressure wake would extend maybe a few feet back from the bumper. This profile would basically be the ideal profile for a vehicle where aero efficiency is a high priority, though a more tapered fastback would probably be more aerodynamic, just as a squareback hauls a lot more cargo. The reasons why hatchbacks don't all look like this are, however, tragically obvious (even if I can't bring myself to hate it); the Prius has a similar profile and got bagged on for years after it came out.

Almost all modern cars incorporate the Kammback profile to some extent, including your Mazda3 and other hatches with a sloping rear hatch, because fuel economy and emissions are tightly regulated and that's the best tradeoff with internal volume and cargo space. The boat tail shape of the Ioniq9 also echoes hydrodynamics and is actually getting closer to the Kammback ideal, as far as a compromise between interior volume and aerodynamics goes. It tapers back a bit to a sharp cutoff that closes off the low-pressure wake and manages turbulence, just like the Bionic but to a lesser degree and with a less aerodynamic front end. A sloping rear hatch, a la Giugiaro and all the designs that ripped him off/paid homage, is not as good as a Kammback, but is closer to the ideal than a fully squared off rear end. Of course every design is a compromise between priorities.

And ironically, one of the Giugiaro homage/ripoffs we've got around today, the above-mentioned Ioniq5, does a very good job of giving the impression it's not as teardrop-shaped as it really is. It's got a lot more in common in terms of profile with Kamm's designs and the Bionic than it does with an OG Hyundai Pony, VW Golf, or Fiat Panda.

EDIT: Credit where credit is due, to our man Wunibald.

 

[Flipper35]

Just got off a 600 mile road trip this past weekend in my ID. Buzz; and every time somebody said "I need to pee" or "I'm hungry", I responded "We are going to stop to charge in about 5 minutes". Each time, ABRP insisted I stop for about 10 minutes. Each time, I actually stopped for about 20 between potty and getting snacks/meals.

The range is fine for real people taking real roadtrips. There will always be overnight trombone repairmen who complain about range, no matter how high said range gets.

Our long trip a while back, a long range model S would have added several hours over 3400 miles because the places we stopped every 2-3 hours of driving did not have chargers so we always had to make a special stop and that stop only gets you to 80% range if you stay less than an hour. (I did use the Tesla route planner back then).

I am glad it worked for you, but it is going to be a while to reach parity with a regular fuel stop.

 

[Snark218]

Interesting. But ~300miles of range is so archaic and under-ranged given what is possible and on the horizon. Not to mention this whole thing looks like a Dodge Caravan.

Everything is archaic when compared to the future, dude. That's tautological to the point of irrelevance. We buy the cars that are available, not the ones available five years from now.

 

[Snark218]

Our long trip a while back, a long range model S would have added several hours over 3400 miles because the places we stopped every 2-3 hours of driving did not have chargers so we always had to make a special stop and that stop only gets you to 80% range if you stay less than an hour. (I did use the Tesla route planner back then).

I am glad it worked for you, but it is going to be a while to reach parity with a regular fuel stop.

Sounds like you needed better route planning, so you could combine rest stops and charging stops. That's not an issue with the technology, it's an issue with how you were adapting to it.

 

[Flipper35]

Not necessariy so; a basically vertical, flat rear end terminating a horizontal roofline (e.g. old Volvo wagon) creates a very high-volume, low-pressure wake that generates significant pressure drag, and that drag is worsened because doesn't manage the separation of flow very well and so creates a lot of turbulence. The extreme example is how a passing semi can whomp you with its trailing wake, sometimes enough to push you over a foot in your lane. Most cars that are squared off like that today have a spoiler and some aero stuff around the top edges of the rear hatch to separate the flow better, but it's still far from aerodynamically efficient.

Mercedes had an interesting and fascinatingly ugly concept car a long while ago, called the Bionic, which mimicked the shaper of a pufferfish - which sounds bonkers till you consider that evolution has been working on optimizing that shape for large internal volume while retaining at least some hydrodynamic efficiency for longer than we've been doing the same for cars. The Bionic has a kind of teardrop taper back to a small, sharp, vertical back end; it guides the flow back to closure around a wake of fairly low volume, and separates the surface from the flow sharply so the flow is smooth. The low-pressure wake would extend maybe a few feet back from the bumper. This profile would basically be the ideal profile for a C-segment hatchback. The reasons why hatchbacks don't all look like this are, however, tragically obvious; the Prius has a similar profile and got bagged on for years after it came out. (I still can't bring myself to hate it, though.)

View attachment 121479

The boat tail shape of the Ioniq9 also echoes hydrodynamics and is actually getting closer to the ideal, as far as a compromise between interior volume and aerodynamics goes. It tapers back a bit to a sharp cutoff that closes off the low-pressure wake and manages turbulence, just not as well as the above. A sloping rear hatch, a la Giugiaro and all the designs that ripped him off/paid homage, is not as ideal, but is closer to the ideal than a fully squared off rear end. And of course, he was also trying to keep the roof relatively horizontal over the passenger cell, because a family car needs back seats; every design is a collection of tradeoffs.

And ironically, one of the Giugiaro homage/ripoffs we've got around today, the above-mentioned Ioniq5, does a very good job of giving the impression it's not as teardrop-shaped as it really is. It's got a lot more in common with the Bionic's shape than it does with an OG Hyundai Pony, VW Golf, or Fiat Panda.

Peter Brock was responsible for the "chopped off tail" of the Daytona Coupe which proved the slope and flat back end could be aerodynamic.

https://classicmotorsports.com/articles/enzos-demise/

 

[fluctuationEM]

I'd actually love an EV Odyssey

Driving a 2018 one now since I have to haul 6 human beings on semi-regular basis. Sort of due for an upgrade in 2 or 3 years and would love to have an EV option. I have a Clarity PHEV as daily commuter.

 

[Snark218]

Peter Brock was responsible for the "chopped off tail" of the Daytona Coupe which proved the slope and flat back end could be aerodynamic.

https://classicmotorsports.com/articles/enzos-demise/

And Brock was basically reviving Wunibald Kamm's "Kammback" profile from 20 years before him, which to his credit he is very up front about, even if that article doesn't mention Kamm specifically by name. Good moves in design space are good moves in design space; now, almost every car design incorporates some of Kamm's ideas, to the point that you have to look to off-road oriented SUVs to find solid exceptions to the rule.

I edited the post you quoted to credit him and Brock.

 

[Flipper35]

Sounds like you needed better route planning, so you could combine rest stops and charging stops. That's not an issue with the technology, it's an issue with how you were adapting to it.

I didn't need rest stops when we were stopping at sites to visit every 2-3 hours, but those stops didn't have chargers. None of the restaurants had a charger either, though we could have gone to a chain that had chargers.

If you have a better way to plan, I am all for it, seriously. That is why I used the Telsa route planner, I figured it would know where I could charge when it needed charged or where we stopped to do our sight-seeing and none of the places we stopped to check out had chargers within a couple miles (St Croix Island Visitor Center for example), other than the Springfield Armory museum, which was only 1/2 mile away. Some places barely had plumbing so no charger available wasn't a surprise.

Our case is not like everyone else, just anecdotal like the 600 mile trip that worked fine.

I could PM that itinerary and you could show me a better route.

 

[some guy in San Diego]

I drive an Ioniq 5 and consider it a fairly large car.

Eh, compared the Camry mine replaced as our primary family car, it's less than 3 inches wider, less than six inches taller, and the Camry is 7 inches longer.

 

[sbradford26]

Eh, compared the Camry mine replaced as our primary family car, it's less than 3 inches wider, less than six inches taller, and the Camry is 7 inches longer.

In general sedans tend to have fairly large foot prints on a per passenger capacity. A majority of your crossovers and small SUVs tend to have smaller footprints than sedans.

I think that is an important part of the appeal though of crossovers is that they feel bigger than they are.

 

[Flipper35]

Eh, compared the Camry mine replaced as our primary family car, it's less than 3 inches wider, less than six inches taller, and the Camry is 7 inches longer.

The Ionic 5 has a little more front leg room, the Camry a little more rear legroom. Being EV helps with packaging some, but the longer Camry lets them give a little more room to the rear passengers, even though the 5 has more interior volume. (106cf vs 100cf)

 

[some guy in San Diego]

The Ionic 5 has a little more front leg room, the Camry a little more rear legroom. Being EV helps with packaging some, but the longer Camry lets them give a little more room to the rear passengers, even though the 5 has more interior volume. (106cf vs 100cf)

Granted, there's rarely more than one person in the back of ours (and that person is a 5-year-old in a booster seat), but it certainly feels like 5 people fit in it better than they did in the Camry when my parents are in town. Though it's possible the little guy being in a booster seat rather than a car seat had a bit to do with that too.

 

[Flipper35]

Granted, there's rarely more than one person in the back of ours (and that person is a 5-year-old in a booster seat), but it certainly feels like 5 people fit in it better than they did in the Camry when my parents are in town. Though it's possible the little guy being in a booster seat rather than a car seat had a bit to do with that too.

If both have sufficient legroom in the back then the wider car does feel more spacious with the extra 2+ inches of shoulder room in the 5.

 

[mysciencefriend]

I didn't need rest stops when we were stopping at sites to visit every 2-3 hours, but those stops didn't have chargers. None of the restaurants had a charger either, though we could have gone to a chain that had chargers.

If you have a better way to plan, I am all for it, seriously. That is why I used the Telsa route planner, I figured it would know where I could charge when it needed charged or where we stopped to do our sight-seeing and none of the places we stopped to check out had chargers within a couple miles (St Croix Island Visitor Center for example), other than the Springfield Armory museum, which was only 1/2 mile away. Some places barely had plumbing so no charger available wasn't a surprise.

Our case is not like everyone else, just anecdotal like the 600 mile trip that worked fine.

I could PM that itinerary and you could show me a better route.

3400 miles (5500 kilometers) is the distance between Vancouver and Quebec City... That's 60 hours of non-stop driving. I get that everything is an anecdote, but that feels like an edge-case if I've ever heard one.

On the other hand... what's a few more hours when you're talking about 60+ hours on the road...

 

[Flipper35]

3400 miles (5500 kilometers) is the distance between Vancouver and Quebec City... That's 60 hours of non-stop driving. I get that everything is an anecdote, but that feels like an edge-case if I've ever heard one.

On the other hand... what's a few more hours when you're talking about 60+ hours on the road...

As I said, that was NOT non-stop. We stopped every 2-3 hours at very specific places, like the St Croix Island visitor center mentioned in the post. Acadia has chargers just outside the park and that is a park that you mostly drive through and stop 10-20 minutes at a time at scenic overlooks so having a charger inside makes no sense. It just happens those stops did not have a charger anywhere nearby. Those extra few hours just meant less places we could visit, or we would have had to extend the trip.

Here is a map with the national parks with chargers available. About 1/4th.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/transp...ing.htm#/find/nearest?nps_funded=true&ids=all

I doubt it is an edge case as I know several people that enjoy the outdoors and visit similar places. Maybe it is because we live in a rural area we don't generally visit cities.

Joshua tree has no chargers at the visitor center, but we could have grabbed a bite in Palm Desert close to a charger. Hot Springs is one area that is well covered since you walk the whole town. The cupcake place that won first place on the Food Network contest isn't that great really, but the town is interesting. Yellowstone has chargers in parts of the park where you can charge while checking things out.

Most of the Midwest is pretty bare. When we were in Nebraska at the Homestead national park for the eclipse years ago, there were none and still are no chargers.

You can kind of see the dilemma with our trips.

The hotels most all had charging stations so you could at least start out with a 100% charge.

 

[Zoomer]

We stopped every 2-3 hours at very specific places, like the St Croix Island visitor center mentioned in the post.

There's just people who don't (want to) understand that not everyone wants to plan their holiday sightseeing around chargers. It's currently worse for this and the 2025 ioniq 5 as it went NACS - though at least they include an adapter. Supercharger sites are just slow and mostly just serve to delay the trip over alternative DC chargers.

 

[Mordac]

That's kind of to look at.

 

[some guy in San Diego]

There's just people who don't (want to) understand that not everyone wants to plan their holiday sightseeing around chargers. It's currently worse for this and the 2025 ioniq 5 as it went NACS - though at least they include an adapter. Supercharger sites are just slow and mostly just serve to delay the trip over alternative DC chargers.

Nearly absolute worst case (a V3 Supercharger vs one that can put out the maximum amount of current an Ioniq 5 can take and a 20%-80% charge -- which EA chargers that say 350kW on the cabinet never do IME), the more powerful charger would save you ... ten minutes. If you're stopping to charge instead of charging when you're stopped.

Also, nobody is saying you should plan your holiday sightseeing around chargers.
They are saying you should plan your meal breaks on road trips around chargers.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I have the sister car of the Ioniq 9, the Kia EV9, and I have the GT-Line trim, which is equivalent to this trim level. I prefer the Kia design aesthetic, especially in my Stormtrooper black and white color scheme.

Same, but in Land Trim (I think it's one trim below GT) - Love my Ev9 and prefer it's design over this car.

 

[papadage]

Same, but in Land Trim (I think it's one trim below GT) - Love my Ev9 and prefer it's design over this car.

Now, I need to decide whether to keep it, return it and lease another one of the same, or return it and buy a lightly used, off-lease Land. We are moving into a new house next week, and I'll be installing a 50A wired-in charger, so not having an NACS port is not an issue, and we have my wife's Pilot for the occasional long-distance road trip (once or twice a year to SC to visit family, an 800-mile one-way with young kids).

Will you be keeping yours?

 

[Lobotomik]

That arch of lights in the back looks very tacky, in operation it must be quite ugly, but otherwise the style is quite nice and contained for the excesses of most large SUVs

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Now, I need to decide whether to keep it, return it and lease another one of the same, or return it and buy a lightly used, off-lease Land. We are moving into a new house next week, and I'll be installing a 50A wired-in charger, so not having an NACS port is not an issue, and we have my wife's Pilot for the occasional long-distance road trip (once or twice a year to SC to visit family, an 800-mile one-way with young kids).

Will you be keeping yours?

Still have almost 2 years to go. I got an excellent lease deal. Considering swapping my current ICE sedan for a BEV and possibly changing EV9 for a PHEV due to mileage fear. Long-distance drives in EV9 are a bit scary, especially towards rural areas.