I think that case was a seperate issue involving the cooling systemI carefully read the thread, and it seemed like the car owner either got a buyback or a replacement car.
I think that case was a seperate issue involving the cooling system
As well as the insults from a Hyundai Tech (SAWgate!) and theft of some personal property by a member of the vehicle recovery service!leeding to a substansive settlement.
It looks like some Bolts are also going up in flames( LG Chem battery supplier), according to this article at least one instance had the driver injured. https://insideevs.com/news/448722/chevrolet-bolt-ev-fires-initiate-nhtsa-probe/And why haven't any of these fires started while the vehicle is *being driven*, with a lot
more instantaneous electrical stress on the cells?? Seems all the horror stories are
about parked cars.
_H*
I think it was done at their base in Tilbury. Tech said they couldn't re-balance the pack due to problems with their test equipment, so replaced the whole battery to get the customer sorted out quickly.Ahh, my mistake then. So someone in the UK actually managed to get a battery replaced (delivered to the dealership and installed)?
And why haven't any of these fires started while the vehicle is *being driven*, with a lot
more instantaneous electrical stress on the cells?? Seems all the horror stories are
about parked cars.
_H*
No, they are saying what ever was defective in the battery pack was only defective until March. It may have been manufacturing error in one component. They are also saying it wasn't defective before September of 2019. So it seems to me that there it may very well be the separation foam and that it was defective during that period of time, perhaps they changed manufacturers for the separation material.I still don’t understand why the recall would end at March. They obviously haven’t upgraded
the battery since March, but now they’re saying they’ll replace the battery with a new type.
Not a hit for them, but for their insurance company."A recall of the e-crossover is already in effect over in South Korea, and the fix comes in the guise of a software update for the Battery Monitoring System and an all-new battery." https://www.autoevolution.com/news/...ents-may-lead-to-worldwide-recall-150081.html
Wow, battery pack replacements for 77,000 Konas? If that is true that's going to be over a billion dollar hit to Hyundai's bottom line. I don't know but it looks like a mess no matter how you look at it.
Yet another LG adjustment in the manufacturing process just prior to our time frame:It looks like some Bolts are also going up in flames( LG Chem battery supplier), according to this article at least one instance had the driver injured. https://insideevs.com/news/448722/chevrolet-bolt-ev-fires-initiate-nhtsa-probe/
I will speculate that these fires may happen while parked is because statistically non commercial vehicles are predominantly stationary.
Yet another LG adjustment in the manufacturing process just prior to our time frame:
https://insideevs.com/news/342671/my-chevy-bolt-is-on-third-battery-pack-heres-why/
This is not what I(nor many others)was hoping for.
I really hope these companies are forthright with a detailed explanation and conclusive resolution sooner than later.
I'm going to suggest to read between the lines and infer that Hyundai/LG were already aware of what the problem and solution were in March and changes in serial production were already put into effect by then. I know it sounds kinda sinister but in my mind quite plausible given Hyundai's very secretive nature and past history with its ICE vehicles. I honestly think that if wasn't for the South Korean government recently pushing the issue and triggering a recall in South Korea Hyundai would have ignored this as long as possible.I still don’t understand why the recall would end at March. They obviously haven’t upgraded
the battery since March, but now they’re saying they’ll replace the battery with a new type.
I'm going to suggest to read between the lines and infer that Hyundai/LG were already aware of what the problem and solution were in March and changes in serial production were already put into effect by then. I know it sounds kinda sinister but in my mind quite plausible given Hyundai's very secretive nature.
I could see an insurance company covering liability related to damages caused by a defective manufactured product but I don't see any insurance company company covering replacement of a defective product that would be considered part of the original warranty language. Typically manufacturer's back or self insure their own warranty products. Given its past history with ICE vehicles I can't imagine what Hyundai's insurance premium would be if a third party insurer was covering its warranties. I certainly could be wrong and I would be interested to find out.Not a hit for them, but for their insurance company.
I agree but I think Hyundai is a little unique in that the "publicly traded" corporation is really a family run conglomerate with what I suspect as appreciable influences in the SK government ( dare I say almost mafia like). Admissions like this are also culturally sensitive as if one would be loosing face to do so.Unfortunately a lot of companies do this. They don't publicize the reasons for changes that they made as it might be seen as an admission and awareness of liability. So they just quietly make the change and say nothing.
I should add that sometimes companies get away with it for quite some time. In this case it sort of seems to be blowing up in the faces of Hyundai/LG.
This isn't a warranty issue, it is a recall over something that is defective and companies to take insurance out over that.I could see an insurance company covering liability related to damages caused by a defective manufactured product but I don't see any insurance company company covering replacement of a defective product that would be considered part of the original warranty language. Typically manufacturer's back or self insure their own warranty products. Given its past history with ICE vehicles I can't imagine what Hyundai's insurance premium would be if a third party insurer was covering its warranties. I certainly could be wrong and I would be interested to find out.