Hyundai IONIQ To Get CCS In U.S., Possibly Europe Too?


Hyundai IONIQ Electric

Hyundai IONIQ Electric

Hyundai IONIQ Electric

Hyundai IONIQ Electric

Is Hyundai about to break from team CHAdeMO?

I make it a point to attend as many of the auto shows as possible, often there as the on-the-scene reporter for Inside EVs. The obvious reason to do so is you get to hear press conferences first hand, take pictures of new model introductions, and interview company representatives, like my recent exclusive interview with Chevy Bolt chief engineer Josh Tavel.

However, one of the things I like best about going to the shows is I always come away with a lot of bindustry rumors, most of which never actually come true, but some do eventually prove to be correct. The difficult thing is wading through all the buzz and figuring out which ones are actually real.

I’m convinced that some OEMs purposely leak out false rumors, just to keep us all wondering what’s true and what isn’t. For that reason I’m always reluctant to write about anything that I don’t have concrete evidence on, or a source that has proven reliable in the past. Sometimes though, when I keep hearing the same rumor from multiple sources, even if I don’t necessarily have first hand proof, I begin to believe it’s true.

Hyundai IONIQ Electric - Image From Geneva

Hyundai IONIQ Electric – Image From Geneva

Such is the case with today’s post. I want to stress I don’t have any hard evidence here, just the fact I’ve heard this from a handful of people, dating back to the 2015 New York Auto Show nearly a year ago, and as recent again as this week. So this is my opinion, but I now believe Hyundai and Kia are about to break from CHAdeMO, and defect to CCS as early as later this year. Despite what has been reported by multiple news sources, I don’t believe that when the Ioniq launches later this year it will use CHAdeMO, but instead use CCS.

I believe that this plan has been in the works for a while now, and the reason Kia (partly owned by Hyundai) dealerships installed dual connector DC Fast charge stations when they launched the Kia Soul EV, even though that vehicle uses CHAdeMO. I believe Kia electric vehicles will soon follow Hyundai’s lead and switch to the North American SAE backed DC fast charge standard, the Combined Charging system also.

Another hint to the switch is when Kia began installing 100kW DC fast chargers in Europe back in 2014, all the stations were dual head, CCS and CHAdeMO. That prompted author Mark Kane to ask “Kia is silent about the fact that these chargers have second plug on the other side and it’s CCS combo plug (European version). Probably 100 kW too. Why is Kia including CCS? Does this mean something?” I think we now know why.

So is team CHAdeMO losing a player? And if so, is this the beginning of the end of CHAdeMO in North America and Europe? I know this is still just a rumor, and it’s quite possible I’ve read the tea leaves wrong, but my bet is we’re going to see the first CHAdeMO defection before the end of 2016, and maybe even at of just after the Geneva Auto Show this week.

Categories: Charging, Hyundai

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

81 Comments on "Hyundai IONIQ To Get CCS In U.S., Possibly Europe Too?"

newest oldest most voted

All compliance cars should use CCS, for Hyundai the CCS is right :-). With chademo adpater Tesla is using, europe and US dc quick chargers sure will deliver 80-90% of electricity with chademo plugs.


That sounds like fun, unless you bought/have a car with a Chademo plug. This whole standards discussion is very awkward, cars will be around for over 10 years with Chademo plugs.

We can have multiple plugs on the chargers for a minor price (compared to the general price of the charger and site installation), but you can’t change the plug on the car realistically.

By 2025 there might be an argument when the Nissan Leaf is 10 years old. Although I doubt any manufacturer will commit to any conversions. Because of the tight CAN bus integration it is neigh impossible unless you are the manufacturer of the car.

Since both the Soul and Leaf are still sold in decent numbers currently, it is unreasonable for charge networks (like FastNed) to not carry multiplug chargers.

It’s a moving target anyhow, at some point the 50kW stations will be replaced by 100kW stations, it will probably just carry a 100kW CCS and a 50kW Chademo at that point.


Hmm… Now this will be interesting to watch what happens.

David Murray

I’ve had a feeling for a while that Chademo would lose out in the USA. With Mitsubishi eliminating it from the U.S. bound Outlander PHEV, and Hyundai/Kia also abandoning it, that least mostly Nissan supporting it.

It’s sad. But long-term I think it will be beneficial to the plug-in movement in North America to have a single fast charging standard. (well, except for Tesla)

Doug B

That charging port on the ioniq sure doesn’t look like it could fit a j plug and a Chademo plug, but a CCS, would fit fine.


The Ioniq plug (almost a pun), pictured above is a CCS Type2 inlet, NOT a CCS SAE inlet.

It would be great if N.America also adopts the Type2 plug standard … after-all even Tesla uses s variation of Type2 plug in Europe.

(FYI: CCS SAE are minor share of the global DC charging infrastructure … and are NOT plug compatible with CCS Type2 chargers and vehicles)


I’m not so sure… it has something covered up on the bottom that is where the DC pins on a CCS plug would go. I think that might actually be a disguished CCS plug.


Type 1 is use in North America. Not likely everybody will come their right mind and will switch everything to Type 2.

Bill Howland

As I’ve said before, most of the larger countries of the world do things the Mennekes way (Type 2),
which is perfectly fine,
and then North America and many smaller countries do things the J1772 (TYPE 1) way, which is also perfectly fine.

And due to irreconcileable differences, thats the way it will always be.

Or, put it this way; when it changes it won’t be the ev’s primarily causing the change..


This ought to be interesting…


I could see Chademo going the way of the Dodo in North America if the Korean automakers go to CCS AND Nissan can’t get a 200-mile LEAF on the market by the end of 2017. The DC fast charger makers will not want to make their units more expensive by including a Chademo plug, especially when CCS will make up most of the growth in the non-Tesla EV market for the next year or two in this scenario.

3 different standards for one market is inefficient by requiring 3x the infrastructure to do the same thing. If we must coalesce around 2 standards, CCS and Tesla SC are the way to go.


“3 times the infrastructure”
I believe the cost of an additional plug to a fast charger might be in the 2k neighborhood. Can anyone confirm this?

Roland van der Put

I cannot comment on the exact costs, but adding a CHAdeMO plug in addition to a CCS plug is indeed not a big cost increase. It can also be added to a 150 kW CCS charger for instance, but it will then be limited to whatever the limit is of the CHAdeMO standard at that moment.


Reality is that neither CCS nor CHAdeMO are currently > 200 amp standards.

So right now, there’s only one SAE Level 3 charging standard that has any infrastructure deployed at that’s Tesla’s.

It is likely that by 2020, even if CHAdeMO is revised to handle > 200 amps, we won’t see CHAdeMO L3 outside of Japan in any real numbers.

It’s already late for any vehicles to ship in 2017 to have a deployed > 200 amp DC charging standard other than a Tesla. If they don’t revise the CCS or CHAdeMO specs until 2017, we won’t see mass adoption until well into 2018. Any standard that comes in 3rd will lose out.

Even when CCS > 200 amps is finalized, we then have to see just how much money various outfits are willing to cough up to get a usable deployment of them. Further, we don’t know the upfit costs for existing stations nor do we know how backwards compatible it would be in the end. Further, it would be frustrating to search for CCS DC to find mostly 25 kW and 50 kW variants, further hampering EV adoption by the masses.


I don’t know if everything is finalized or not, but it doesn’t really matter. Standards evolve and are extended, and finalized after some time. Some chargers that got deployed recently do support 300A at 400V (120kW) both for Chademo and CCS:


While it is commendable that they built a modular system, those EVSE’s are still limited by the plug standards. And it is still up to the site to have installed sufficient electrical capacity to handle the higher output. Plug any existing CCS or CHAdeMO equipped vehicle, no matter the battery pack size or the c-rate that the battery can take and the limit will be the amperage of 200 amps. At 400 volts, that’s 80 kW assuming zero taper.


At least when it comes to CCS here in europe it supports up to 170kW charging. 850V @ 200A. That’s 35-50kW more than Tesla superchargers. I think the SAE variant used in the US uses smaller DC contacts and is limited to ~600V.


Pay attention to the amperage. That limit is still 200 amps. Virtually all mass produced traction packs are 300-400 volts and therefore can’t take any voltages that high, so the kWh rating is meaningless, The amperage limit dictates the size of the wiring.


The use of greater than 100 amps DC charging; even for current Tesla Model S/X owner is ~5% of the miles driven.

More important than having 100+ amp DC charging is having (multiple) pairs of DC charging outlets at each charging location. I’d much prefer to see two 100 amp outlets over one 200 amp outlet. When it comes to infrastructure, having reliable charging service has much greater value to faster service that is not reliable (due to single point failure modes).


My gut tells me that Tom’s right and CCS will be the way forward in every market except Japan.


Yeah, it may very likely be impossible to have CHAdeMO because the hatch area won’t fit it. It seems like it has to be CCS.

Roland van der Put

I am certain the Hyundai Ioniq will come with a CCS plug in Europe, since it has already visited our Fastned stations during field testing. It did charge with CCS during those tests.


The outlet in the picture is not CCS.
Are you sure it charged DC using CCS and not Type2 or AC or something like that?

e-Golf driver

It certainly looks like CCS to me. Take a look at CCS was designed to work with Type 1 and 2 EV plugs.

Type 1 (US) uses the J1772 (IEC type 1) plug for data/control Type 2 (EUR) uses the Mennekes (IEC Type 2)plug for data/control.


Type 2 alone is not CCS. 2 extra DC connectors are missing. They may be hidden behind small plastic cover below, but it is not visible in the picture. Or it may be just empty space to allow to use CCS cable with extra 2 prongs.


Yes, this one is CCS plug.


Now I wonder if DC charging will be optional? As one car has it and another doesn’t.


If you flip through all of the photos there is a shot of the two inlet caps dangling from the car. All shots of the Ioniq in Geneva have CCS pins below the Mennekes inlet, but some shots have the CCS cap still in place.

Hyundai has not shown, so far, an Ioniq without CCS. Not that it indicates whether or not it’ll be standard, just that all the photos shown so far have it, just some have the cap on.


Guess some of the dual head chademo/CCS units could eventually be converted to dual CCS ?


Roland van der Put

Because of shared components (power modules) most chargers cannot be used with both CHAdeMO and CCS plugs at the same time. So converting is very unlikely.

M. St. John

Is there an advantage to CCS over Chademo? Is the only difference the plug?


Negotiation protocol is different. AC in the same plug – I would not call it advantage, just a feature.
There are some disadvantages though:
1. CCS plug is different in Europe and America, so car shipping becomes an extra hassle, the tiny market gets even more fragmented. Chademo is the only standard that has at least DC part is the same around the world.
2. Vehicle 2 Grid for house backup has made some progress with Chademo. I didn’t heard about it using CCS, although it should be possible in theory.

Power limits are not much different – up to the same 120 kW for deployed chargers. Both can be extended further.


CCS has V2G included in the spec.

(Not that V2G will really lead to much.)

MTN Ranger

Mostly space savings with not requiring two connections for AC and DC charging. There is much talk of CCS version 2 with 150kW within the next couple of years. With much higher manufacturer support it seems to have a better future than CHAdeMO.


The big advantage is a single connection on your car instead of two. The size of the charging door on a CCS car is the size of a regular gas door. The size of a charging door for a Chademo+L2 port is the size of a glove compartment door. Plus, it’s a clunkier cable to lug around.

Regarding the V2G capabilities of Chademo, that is dead in the water. It makes zero sense to use car batteries to power the grid, since car batteries already have a limited lifespan, and are more expensive per KwH than stationary batteries because they have to be more compact.


Who cares really what charging port door on a car is? It doesn’t make any difference. Your hood door for example is much bigger anyway, who cares about it.

V2G is useful not for all time use but for backup. The grid can always go out for couple of days, your freezer contents will be lost and you will be sitting in dark/heat/cold unless you have backup generator and even maintained it recently enough and it starts up. V2G can save you at least over night.


Yeah, it will “save” you overnight, and leave you stranded in the morning with an empty car battery. Again, if that’s your use-case, then a stationary battery or a generator is a better (and frankly, probably less expensive) solution. V2G is dead, it’s an over engineered solution for a non-issue.


You may be left with discharged battery in the morning if battery is small and you use it all without paying attention to charge level. But even small battery is much better than nothing to power most important things.

Sure generator is better if you have time and will to maintain it, but where I live grid is reliable enough and very few people have generators. Or have them and they fail to start after some hurricane because nobody had started them in years.

Yes, it may be not most important thing as after all you can always use some low power DC AC converter for emergency if you need it. But still a nice feature to have.


Oh yeah, regarding your “who cares” comment about the size of the charge port door, how often do you open your hood? Once every day to charge? Nope. The more frequently you use something, the more the usability matters. Most people open their hood. Most EV users open their charge port at least once a day. Usability matters. In any case, why would you want Chademo to succeed? The only point you’ve brought up in its favor so far is V2G, which frankly doesn’t exist for either Chademo or CCS in any real sense since it’s all in concept for both… so I guess you just like old clunky standards?

And yes, if I had the choice I would pick the Tesla plug over either Chademo or CCS in a heart beat.


Edit: Most people never open their hood.

The commenting system here removes everything that has brackets around it apparently. That’s fun. 🙂


I still don’t get it. You see a problem of opening glove compartment size charge port door? Seriously? Most people open glove compartment many times a day and don’t have any trouble. It doesn’t require any significant physical force.

Besides the future trend is that battery cars will have wireless charging as in Nissan IDS. So you’ll need charge port door for road trips only anyway.


“why I want Chademo to succeed” – because Chademo was here first. Some people may say that CCS was invented by EV-non-makers to slow down EV makers from Japan and I suspect it may have some truth in it.
Anyway nowdays it doesn’t matter that much with dual standard chargers. We already stuck with at least 2 (or 5 if account for different CCS in Europe and NA, China’s own standard) charging plugs anyway. I would like to see unified and open charging network that would give a chance for electric cars get out of fragmented niche and that is all.


Smaller footprint, fewer parts, easier conversion from shared platforms – all leads to lower costs.


Like $10 savings per piece? I don’t think it is going to save the day 😉


If you had any idea the lengths automakers go through to save $0.03 per door handle you’d realize the comedic value of that statement.

If an automaker can save $10 per car by having CCS while reducing weight a few hundred grams (having one opening instead of two, etc.), they’ll be all over it. Over a model run that would be a $3.5 million savings.


It will be savings only if number of charging protocols the automaker needs to support doesn’t increase from 1 to 2. If it increases, you are looking at astronomical loss compared to these +3.5 mln. due to engineering cost, double fragmented parts stock, double testing and so on. Especially for low volume market like battery cars now. Right now for Hyundai it means increase from 1 to 2 standards as Japan and maybe Korea stays Chademo.


That wasn’t the question; the question was what benefits (if any) CCS has over CHAdeMO.

The poster answered that it’s potentially smaller, lighter, and could lead to cost savings.

You then belittled that poster by dismissing a hypothetical $10 savings per car as trivial which it very much is not. Automakers go to great lengths to shave $10 off a car.

My point is that if an automaker is choosing one standard over the other, CCS *might* save them money. Automakers fret over every penny of production cost and if CCS is cheaper to implement and assemble (one door instead of two, etc.) it could nudge the CCS/CHAdeMO battle towards CCS.


$10 for a Chademo port and all of the extra wires? You have to be kidding! Also, look at the VW Golf – how much do you think they saved by having a single port for gas or electric vs having to engineer a new Leaf-like charging panel?

Bill Howland

CCS, whether type 1 or type 2 variant (which, as mentioned was going to always be different anyway) looks to be a much cheaper to manufacture recepticle. No doubt that is why GM went for it, and, since you have to have the J1772 or Mennekes on the car ANYWAY, the small addition of the dc prongs both fits in the available real estate, and makes better use of the existing plug.

The added pins to me look to be about 1/10 the cost of the whole Chademo jack. Although disparaged as a “franken-plug” its added it size is not much compared to the ‘level 2’ plug you have to have even if the customer does not care to pay for a fast charging option.


Behold, the Bolt effect. But when (not if, but when) Nissan comes out with viable Bolt competitor, then what? Meanwhile, Tesla is well positioned (literally) with nicely spaced Superchargers.


Musk should be pushed to bite the bullet, acknowledge past errors fragmenting the charging network, and start using the same CCS in Europe/North America if most automakers will start using it. Lame low power excuses don’t fly anymore, CCS can support more power than current non-standard Tesla plugs. It obvious that for EV adoption it is a way better to have single more bulky plug instead of 6 different ones even if your own is somewhat more slim, but you can’t plug it in charger in front of you without some adapter hassle.


Except that the current CCS standard is limited to 200 amps. Tesla’s plug is already charging at 370 amps. Until SAE comes out with a new CCS standard and products come to market based on that standard, Tesla can’t switch over to it.

Roland van der Put

The CCS standard for 150 to 350 kW charging will be finished early next year. Tesla Model 3 is due for production late next year…


This statement is many years out of date. There are 120 kW CCS/Chademo chargers deployed in Europe and I had posted links many times, it gets boring to repost again and again. CCS is 150 kW now and 300 kW at 800V will be done soon as Porsche needs it.

Tesla charging is not a standard, it doesn’t meat definition of the word “standard”. It is proprietary “walled garden” and it is exactly what hinders charging infrastructure expansion as you can’t never know if you are investing into another dead-end “Betamax” hardware. Separate non-shared charging networks by each automaker is not a way to go and it is Musk fans task to deliver this message to Musk.


I’m sorry to have to tell you you’re wrong, but from my checking into this the CURRENT rating for CHAdeMO is 62.5 kW and 90 kW for CCS.


What do you mean by “rating”? You may take older standard version and found these 60 kW or 50 kW at 400V. It doesn’t really matter as if you go to real life charger that uses the same compatible Chademo or CCS plugs, it can happily feed you whole 300 A at 400 V, that is 120 kW:
Whatever is left not finalized in standard, will be finalize within a year or two as new standard revisions will get released. The point is that Chademo or CCS plugs did not change in the way that would break backwards compatibility, and can support all the power you need. If you take a car like Model S 70D, it barely can exceed even 100 kW at the very beginning of charging, and power goes down afterwards:


You do understand the fire hazard it would be if one tried to put 300 amps over plug standards and wiring designed for a 200 amp limit, right?

Go grab the standards docs and point out where the standards support > 200 amps.


CCS and Chademo are indeed limited to 200 A. The voltage supplies has to follow the pack voltage to keep the current at its 200 A maximum.

The kW ratings are just “specmanship” from the charger manufactures. Yes they are achievable, but only at the max voltage the charger could theoretically supply if the battery voltage was high enough.



Japan has CHAdeMO, China will have its own standard, and CCS is a standard agreed by a number of different manufacturers, but with different plugs in Europe and the USA.
But, none of those is a finalized standard that allows for the amount of current that a Model S or X can draw at a Supercharger.

It’s hard to complain about Tesla taking a proprietary approach that is already being used by people to take fuss-free long-distance journeys, while other “cooperative” manufacturers don’t even a long-distance BEV on sale, more than 3 years after the first Supercharger was opened.


Why not build a CCS to Tesla adapter? That would have the most flexibility in charging.


My understanding is that this isn’t a trivial task due to the way CCS communicates with the car.


I looked up both CCS and Chademo and yes, there are signaling differences. Chademo uses CAN bus on separate low-voltage pins, while CCS uses power line carrier (PLC) on the power pins.

This signaling difference would require a PLC modem to make a CCS->Tesla adapter. I don’t see this as a major technical obstacle.


Chademo is done outside of Japan. CCS cars have already started to outsell Chademo cars in recent months in the US. Tesla obviously tips those scales with the adaptor, but an adaptor is hardly a serious committment to a standard.

At this point, I won’t be surprised if the next gen Leaf comes with CCS.

Alan Campbell

This is no surprise. The standard in the US is CCS, the standard adopted by the vast majority of automakers in Europe is CCS.

Texas FFE

Everyone is predicting the demise of CHAdeMO chargers just because a concept car looks like it has CCS charging capabilities??? I have a preference for CCS but CHAdeMO is by far the most prominent DCFC system in the US. We need to be realistic, even if CCS does become prominent it’s still going to be years before CCS even catches up with CHAdeMO. I think we can expect the dual standard to be around for quite a while.

Roland van der Put

Agreed, particularly since there is already an installed base that needs CHAdeMO support.


I think that the only way there’d be a shift by Nissan, is if there’s agreement in Japan to go to CCS.


So by the end of 2016 the following cars will be on the road in the US with CCS:

BMW i3
Chevrolet Bolt EV
Ford Focus Electric
Hyundai Ioniq Electric (?)
VW e-Golf

If the MB 250e or Fiat 500e adopt fast charging it will certainly be CCS.

In the CHAdeMO camp we have:

Nissan Leaf
Kia Soul


Imiev chademo. Also on the road.


Isn’t that car effectively cancelled? I recall reading Mitsubishi was putting no more support behind it and they’re selling fewer than ten per month at this point, clearing inventory.

Is there any product coming after they finish the run of the 2016 model year iMiev?


You can add the Spark EV to the CCS list . . . but it does have limited distribution.

Mitz iMiEV has Chademo but it sells only in tiny numbers and I believe it has been killed.

Jeff Songster

While I have strongly defended CHAdeMO in the past… I believe it would be wrong not to include the CCS socket on the next LEAF. Keep the CHAdeMO too… For at least until the cars are mostly obseleted.


That is what I’ve been saying since CCS came out. Nissan should have immediately switched and we would have only had Tesla & CCS since no one else was supporting Chademo in the USA. (OK, the iMieV existed but it never sold much and Mitz never installed Chademo chargers.) None of the other Japanese/Korean Chademo backers released Chademo cars in the USA.

David D. Nelson

Hopefully someone comes up with a CHAdeMO to CCS adapter when I can no longer find a CHAdeMO charger for my Soul EV. It should be possible with the right electronics but would probably be bulky.


All German car makers and all the American car makers (except Tesla) official back CCS. The Japanese and Korean car makers have said they back Chademo. It certainly would be interesting if this Korean car maker moves from Chademo to CCS.

Chademo also seems a bit hobbled since the biggest Japanese carmaker has refused to make an electric car (Toyota), Honda also hasn’t made an EV, Mazda has nothing, Subaru has nothing . . . all we have is the Nissan LEAF really. The Mitz iMiEV is now dead and they’ve said they won’t put Chademo in the Outlander PHEV in the USA (whenever they finally get around to that).

I was predicting that CCS would ultimately win but it has been hard to maintain that view with so few US & German cars that use CCS actually hitting the market. (No Ford, no Chrysler, no GM except the limited Spark EV, VW just recently got the eGolf on sale, etc.) The BMW i3 seemed to be the main CCS car.

Bill Howland

Again, I bet CCS will win out due to the connector looking like it is 1/10 the cost of the entire CHademo connector.

You can ignore the cost of the base j1772/ or mennekes since they’ve already established they will continue the 2 separate ‘types’ and you have to have that part of the jack anyway even for people who don’t want a fast charger.

Or to look at it the other way, with Chademo you need TWO jacks, which is cost prohibitive.


Children, play nice. STOP THE STANDARD WAR! you need to agree on what plug to use.

Peter Kelly

While I understand car makers will do what suits them, and if there is a solid argument why one is better I won’t contradict, but there seems to be one minor statistic not specifically mentioned here. While people compare numbers of manufacturers, the greatest number of EV cars on the road is the Nissan Leaf, at the moment.

Does that not make the idea of a sudden Chademo disappearance moot?


Great point, but if you look at sales in recent months, the Leaf is already being outsold by i3, Golf and Spark, and this is only going to get worse when the Bolt, Focus, Ioniq hit the market later this year. The Leaf (and Chademo) obviously already has a headstart of a few years, but the gap has recently started to close.


Sounds like a nice business to make a CHAdeMO to CCS connector and vs versa. What a great opportunity.