Hyundai Tucson FCEV Drives 1,480 Miles In 24 Hours


Hyundai Tucson ix35

Hyundai Tucson ix35

Arnt-Gøran Hartvig and Marius Bornstein set in Germany a new record for distance traveled in 24 hours in a hydrogen fuel cell car.

They drove a Hyundai Tucson ix35 for a 1,480.73 miles (2,383 km) achieving an average of 61.7 mph (nearly 100 km/h) on public roads.

The two were driving 186 miles back and forth (sounds like real-world application…not) between Vatenfall’s hydrogen station in HafenCity, Hamburg, and a Shell hydrogen station in Sachsendamm, Berlin.

In June, their Hyundai Tucson FCV also set a record of 435 miles on a single refuel.

Range and refueling time of FCVs are really good, but cost of cars, lack of hydrogen stations, etc. prevent commercialization beyond small pilot projects.

“We are at a transitional point of technology in the automotive industry. 2 Characters join forces to put to the test a Hydrogen fueled car and see how far they can go in 24hrs on public roads and in turn set a world first record.”


Category: Hyundai

Tags: ,

43 responses to "Hyundai Tucson FCEV Drives 1,480 Miles In 24 Hours"
  1. sven says:

    This is also the ZEV 24-hour distance record, since it beats the BEV 24-hour distance record of 1,273 miles, which was achieved using battery swapping.

    This same pair “have also driven from Oslo to Monaco, refueling only at the hydrogen stations already installed along the 1,404-mile route.”

    “Since refueling the Tucson Fuel Cell takes as little as three minutes, both drivers were able to spend the bulk of their time on the road.” Unlike the California hydrogen fueling stations, these German stations sound like they’re ready for prime time.

    1. Thomas J. Thias says:


      Great Scott!

      The HY Infrastructure has just rocketed to a total of less then 13 public fueling stations in the USA.

      This breathtaking fueling station build out, at $2,000,000 per site, while holding a steady pace since last September, of ZERO BUILD, when there were less then 13 total, USA!

      Links Goes To US Department Of Energy – Alternative Fuels Data Center



      Tomas J. Thias



    2. Mike777 says:

      Wow. The most Restricted Fuel Network in the World gave us some bullshit statistic.

      A fuel 200% more expensive than Premium is going to be a solution for No Man.

      Hydrogen Summary of Failure

      Hydrogen stations make excellent explosive terrorist targets.
      Hydrogen stations are very expensive, cost per station: $1 Million, who is going to be forced to pay for this?
      Hydrogen stations not pumping at the 10,000 psi required, you’re only getting Half Charges!

      Difficult to make hydrogen and store it.  
      Hydrogen isn’t a source of energy, you can’t mine it, you can convert something else to hydrogen, like methane, but then you lose energy in the process.  
      Hydrogen from water( in a global drought? ), is extremely inefficient.  
      Hydrogen from methane gives you No Help with global warming, it actually makes things worse.  As methane wells typically leak like sieves
      Hydrogen must be supercooled and compressed to 10,000 psi to store sufficient energy, which requires lots of energy.
      Burning it as a fuel is less than 50% efficient.
      The energy to do all this could be used to directly run an EV from a battery, and get you Twice as far.
      Hydrogen likes to leak.
      Hydrogen has a general problem of metal embrittlement, so you need special tanks.
      Hydrogen leaks as an invisible gas.
      Hydrogen is extremely flammable with an invisible flame.
      Right now hydrogen is a loser vs. current batteries, not to speak of the battery chemistry in the coming solid state batteries.
      Chevy Volt gets better MPG, at a Lower Price, and allows you to use cheap solar energy for your fuel, and hydrogen does not. We will not run out of gas during the EV conversion process.
      Platinum in the fuel cell = expensive.

      Hydrogen time refueling vs. solar.
      Solar: You plug in at your home, Time 60 seconds.
      Hydrogen: You drive 20 minutes, or to California, to the station 10 minute refuel, 20 minutes back home: 50 minutes lost.

      Hydrogen Cars were built on the premise that we’d need a “Bridge Fuel” to EV’s, however battery tech has advanced so rapidly that there is no need for a bridge, especially one as wasteful and expensive as this.

      EV’s running on Solar helps pay off your Solar investment 20%-40% faster = More PROFITS to YOU.

      1. Three Electrics says:

        More tired talking points from the EV shadow lobby. Instead of regurgitation propaganda you read somewhere, let’s have a real discussion. Every technology has its tradeoffs.

        1. JimGord says:

          Mike 777 is right.
          It is not that the BEV group is anti hydrogen, they are simply rational thinkers that are anti B.S. If there was a safe capacitor option that had the same power in less space than batteries, the BEV group would go for it.
          Hydrogen, for all the reasons mentioned by Mike 777, is DOA

  2. sven says:

    Here is an interesting thread on Tesla Motors Club on whether the Model S can break the 24-hour BEV range record using Supercharging, and analysis of what speed and charge level would be optimal. It doesn’t look like the Tesla would be able to beat the record set by the Tucson hydrogen FCEV, but this thread is before the release of the P85D, 90-kWh battery option, Ludicrous mode, and 135 kW Superchargers. Either way, the Tesla would have to travel at a much higher speed to make up for the extra time spent supercharging over the three-minute hydrogen fill ups of the hydrogen Tuscon.

    1. Mike777 says:

      Hydrogen is trying to solve a problem no one has.
      With 300 mile range, 90% of EV drivers may only need a changing network 2% of the year.

      Plugging in at home, vs. hunting down a Hydrogen Station on your way to work? You Must Be JOKING.

      1. sven says:

        No one? What about urban dwellers who park on the street?

        1. krona2k says:

          Charging posts can be installed in the street. It really is that simple. I know it’s not a common occurrence yet, but it will be.

          1. sven says:

            Nothing is easy in densely populated urban environment like NYC. I just don’t see NYC putting 3+ million charging posts up, and if they do the copper thieves and vandals will have a field day. Not to mention the tripping hazard the cords would create for New Yorkers exercising their birthright to jaywalk, and sanitation men carrying garbage cans back and forth between parked cars. And where are they going to put the snow that normally gets shoveled into huge mounds the entire length of the curb?

            It just ain’t gonna happen.

            1. krona2k says:

              It’s not going to happen? Somehow electrically powered parking meters have happened.

              OK this is slightly different as there is the cable there, but locking plugs, which *should* have been in the standard from the beginning, are hardly a huge technical challenge.

              It will happen because the difficulties will be vastly outweighed by the benefits.

              1. sven says:

                Electrically powered parking meters in NYC have a small solar panel on top and a battery backup which get swapped out, but absolutely no connection to the grid. They also use orders of magnitude less electricity than a L2 charger, since all they do is print receipts. And the city doesn’t install an electrical parking meter for each street parking spot. You have two parking meters (that print out receipts) per block for the 30 odd parking spots on one side of a city block. You would need to put in 30 chargers, not two like parking meters, to cover just one side of an average block.

                And just how are you going to prevent copper thieves from snipping off chargers cord? and will the city promptly fix the vandalized or broken chargers? Not if it’s anything like Baltimore.



            2. krona2k says:

              Here’s an image from Philly. Coiled cables address many of your concerns. It really is this simple:

              1. Steven says:

                Where in Philadelphia?

                1. krona2k says:

                  It’s from this page:


                  Actually the picture looks more like London to me. However the page show that this kind of post is now allowed in Philly. In any case the picture is demonstrating that there’s nothing particularly problematic with on-street charging.

            3. jelloslug says:

              I cannot see how a hydrogen station will even be allowed at all in NYC. They are too dangerous to have in a metro area.

              1. sven says:

                There are already a number of CNG filling stations in NYC. Are you saying a hydrogen station is much more dangerous than a CNG station?

            4. JimGord says:

              What is not going to happen is having hydrogen stations within half a mile of any residence for safety reasons.
              Hydrogen is a clear, odorless, tasteless, highly explosive gas that will never be adopted for ground transportation.
              – too expensive
              – too inefficient
              – too dangerous
              – and most of all, still based on a fossil fuel (methane) electrolysis is way too an expensive way to make hydrogen.

              1. sven says:

                Are you seriously trying to tell me that none of the existing or planned hydrogen stations in California are or will be within a half mile of any residence? Really? Can you cite a source to back up your spurious and specious claim, because to me it sounds like you’re fear mongering and spreading hydrogen FUD.

                Well low and behold, I’ve found the DOE setback requirements for hydrogen fueling stations. The setbacks are only 10 to 25 feet, NOT HALF A MILE as you falsely claim. Do you care to explain the discrepancy?


                1. Mike777 says:

                  In the age of amplification of a terror threats, yes, this should be a top concern.

                  1. sven says:

                    This should be a top concern? Good grief. Thank God that you’re not in charge of homeland security!

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Are you seriously suggesting that people who park on the street would be better off driving a hydrogen fueled car than a gasmobile?

          Let’s put aside the issues of much higher cost for H2, and let’s pretend that it’s as easy to find a H2 fueling station as a gas station. Consider only this:

          Based on well-to-wheel efficiency, it’s about ten times as efficient to power a car with gasoline than with H2. Obviously such massive inefficiency causes a heck of a lot of pollution and CO2 emission.

          So on what basis is using hydrogen to power a car as good as, let alone better than, gasoline?

          Gasoline is much cheaper, much easier to transport, store and dispense, and from a realistic well-to-wheel analysis, it’s far less polluting.

          There is absolutely no aspect of hydrogen fuel that makes sense for powering a car. For the booster stage of a rocket, it has its place. There may be other niche applications where a fuel cell is better than either gasoline/diesel or battery power.

          But using hydrogen to power a passenger car? Nope. No way.

          Powering a car with hydrogen benefits only Big Oil & Gas, because about 95% of hydrogen fuel comes from natural gas. It certainly doesn’t benefit drivers, or auto makers, or taxpayers, or the State of California.

          It’s just stupid, period.

          1. sven says:

            “Based on well-to-wheel efficiency, it’s about ten times as efficient to power a car with gasoline than with H2. Obviously such massive inefficiency causes a heck of a lot of pollution and CO2 emission.”

            Ten times more efficient? Are you just making stuff up? Pulling numbers out of the air? I call bull****.

            “Gasoline . . . from a realistic well-to-wheel analysis, it’s far less polluting [than hydrogen].”

            Put down the crack pipe, right now! A quick look at any reputable WTW analysis shows just how wrong your conclusion is with regards to CO2. In regards to particulate matter, smog forming nitrous oxides, acid rain causing sulfur oxides, hydrogen has none while a gasoline powered ICE spews them out of tailpipes in copious amounts at ground level for all pedestrians and city dwellers to breath all the live-long day and night. Perhaps your extreme anti-hydrogen bias is clouding your reasoning.

            Argonne National Labs GREET Well-to-Wheels analysis:


            1. Djoni says:

              But that didn’t stop the gas to prosper and tell everyone that it was totally safe and harmless.

              Just saying, that the truth is somehow never clearly told about by any self promoting party.
              And therefore many lies in between the lines.

      2. Taser54 says:

        Honda already has a home hydrogen refueling station which refuels fuel cell cars overnight.

        Simply put, home supply of hydrogen will continue to become more efficient, eventually discarding stripping hydrogen from CNG and progressing to solar production of hydrogen.

        Now, you may argue that electricty and electric cars are more convenient-for the moment- but you simply can’t discount what the Japanese are doing with their methodical march toward a hydrogen economy. There will be widespread home production of hydrogen to support decentralized power production and the off-shoot will be the ability to fuel FCEV at home.

        If that isn’t what YOU want, so be it. But to cavalierly dismiss it, would be foolish.

        1. philip d says:

          Honda has been working on this for over a decade an have yet to come out with anything resembling a consumer product.

          There is no mention of price even at mass production. There is no mention if the home system will be able to reach the 10,000 psi needed. All I can find is their earlier version home system which claims they could reach 5,000 psi which isn’t enough.

          They do mention that the current prototype (not consumer ready product) can…”Thanks to its enhanced design, the next-generation Solar Hydrogen System can produce 0.5 kg of hydrogen in 8 hours, enough to power the FCX Clarity fuel cell electric vehicle 30 miles.”

          So overnight with an unpriced prototype system you can fill your FCV with less miles than a Chevy Volt can charge in 3.5 hrs.

          Given that the standard electrolysis hydrogen fueling stations can cost in the ballpark of $2 million I can only imagine what a smaller home station would cost. It certainly won’t be even as low as what my EVSE in my garage costs times 10 or maybe even 100.

  3. Aaron says:

    LEAF: 80 miles/charge (80 minutes @ 60 MPH), 20 minutes to refill = 100 minutes per segment. 1440 minutes in 24 hours. LEAF could do 14.4 segments or about 1152 miles. While it’s less than 1480 miles, it’s still in the ballpark.

    1. Mike777 says:

      And a Tesla Blows this Away.
      I’ll wait for the Tesla Model 3, and plan for Solar Panels.

    2. Dave R says:

      A 20 min LEAF QC will only get you 40-50 miles, not 80.

      And the lack of thermal management will cause overheating of the battery by the 5th QC or so slowing down charging further unless you can do it in very cool weather.

      1. Aaron says:

        “80% in under 30 minutes”. Since I was being conservative on range estimates, let’s say 60 miles range.

        I would like to know your source for overheating the battery pack after multiple quick charges.

  4. Ash09 says:

    I wonder how much the hydrogen they spent doing this cost. Or would have cost, were the automakers not footing the bill for now.

    1. sven says:

      Are automakers footing the bill in Europe? The Hyundai Europe webpage for the Tuscon ix35 and this European news article make no mention of Hyundai providing free hydrogen to purchasers/leasers.

  5. Wraithnot says:

    The Tesla battery swap station at Harris ranch has been operational for several months now so someone could beat this record in a Model S by driving up and down interstate 5 and stopping every couple of hours to swap the battery. But driving up and down interstate 5 repeatedly seems even sillier than driving in between two hydrogen stations repeatedly.

    1. Phr3d says:

      +1. ayep.. but a world record Is a world record, silliness has never stopped the contestants before.
      and of course, someone’ll do the FCEV on the autobahn, whoops, avg speed 125m/200k..
      and so it goes..

  6. Taser54 says:

    Article would be better without the snarky editorializing.

    And the final sentence, “Range and refueling time of FCVs are really good, but cost of cars, lack of hydrogen stations, etc. prevent commercialization beyond small pilot projects.” Could easily have been said about the roadster when released.

    1. BraveLilToaster says:

      The difference is that even without superchargers, or even the plentiful level 2 charging stations on the roads today, it’s *possible*, albeit not necessarily *desirable* to refuel a Roadster basically everywhere, even in the middle of Nowheresville, North Dakota.

      You can’t say that about hydrogen. Ever.

      As an added bonus, the L2 chargers are dirt cheap, which is why they’re everywhere now. L3 chargers aren’t that cheap, but in some places that’s changing too. But if L3 expansion is being held back by cost (or more accurately, being held back by a lack of customers to fund them), that’s nothing compared to hydrogen stations.

      1. Thomas J. Thias says:


        Here is a great story you might of missed of a Tesla owner with pal running in his car from McAllen, Texas to the Panama Canal bringing along a, “score of plug adapters”!

        “Randy Denmon and Dean Lewis decided, almost on whim, to drive Denmon’s Tesla Model S from McAllen, Texas to the Panama Canal, traversing some of the worst roads in the Americas, finding electric power where they can, and being shaken down by corrupt border guards.”

        Link Goes To EV World Dot Com-


        Thomas J. Thias



        1. Thomas J. Thias says:

          Oops, no, I don’t publish this payment calculator but it’s a great payment calculator – haha


          Thomas J. Thias


    2. GRA says:

      Exactly the same comments were made when ICEs were introduced, “Get a Horse!” being the typical jibe.

      1. GRA says:

        In case it’s not clear, my post was in response to Taser54’s comment that the same points against H2/FCEVs currently could have been made about the Roadster. No vehicle can function without the necessary infrastructure, and building same is always expensive and time consuming, especially at first.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Nonsense. The Tesla Roadster could have been, and still can be, “refueled” anywhere there is an electrical outlet within extension cord reach of the car.

          “Fool cell” cars? Not so much. Not now, and not ever.

  7. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    The article says:

    “The two were driving 186 miles back and forth (sounds like real-world application… not) between Vatenfall’s hydrogen station in HafenCity, Hamburg, and a Shell hydrogen station in Sachsendamm, Berlin.”

    Back in the day when the Guinness Book of World Records was an actual print book, under the category of “Most hands shaken in a single day”, there was a disclaimer. I can’t find a copy at the moment, but as best as I recall it read something like this: ~”Attempts at breaking this record merely arrange several people in a circle, and have one person in the center successively shake hands around the circle over and over. Guinness does not consider such efforts to be noteworthy, and are not considered in this category.”~

    In other words: Yeah, it may be a record of some sort, but that doesn’t mean it’s worthy of notice. Seems like driving back and forth between two hydrogen fueling stations is equally lacking in noteworthiness.

    Or, to put it more succinctly: Who cares?

  8. Steven says:

    Something not addressed in the article, although they used the same filling station over and over, how many other users were using the same station during the same 24hr period? A lot of the problems we’ve been shown were related to frequent consecutive uses, e.g., could only fuel two or three before stopping.