Hyundai is turning robotaxis into a major EV business, with plans to build tens of thousands of IONIQ 5 vehicles for Waymo at its Georgia factory.

Hyundai sees robotaxis as a new EV opportunity

The Hyundai robotaxi strategy is expanding as electric-vehicle demand in the United States grows more slowly than expected. Instead of relying only on private buyers, Hyundai is looking toward autonomous mobility companies for additional EV volume.

Hyundai Motor Company CEO José Muñoz said the company plans to build tens of thousands of IONIQ 5 robotaxis for Waymo.

The vehicles will be produced at Hyundai Motor Group Metaplant America in Georgia. Hyundai says the first IONIQ 5 robotaxis for Waymo will be delivered in the fourth quarter of 2026.

The project turns robotaxis into more than a technology experiment. For Hyundai, it is becoming a dedicated business opportunity within its electric-vehicle operations.

The partnership between Hyundai and Waymo dates back to 2024.

The companies agreed to integrate Waymo’s sixth-generation autonomous-driving technology into the electric IONIQ 5. The vehicles are being assembled in Georgia before receiving the technology needed for autonomous operation.

The IONIQ 5 was selected because of its electric architecture and packaging.

Hyundai says Waymo vehicles will use the company’s sixth-generation Waymo Driver. The vehicles will also receive autonomous-ready modifications, including redundant hardware and power doors.

That means the project is not simply about selling standard IONIQ 5s.

Hyundai is preparing vehicles specifically for autonomous mobility.

Georgia factory becomes a key part of the plan

The Hyundai robotaxi programme is closely tied to the company’s Georgia manufacturing operation.

The Metaplant America, located near Savannah, already produces the IONIQ 5 and IONIQ 9. Hyundai has also been validating IONIQ 5 vehicles equipped with Waymo’s autonomous-driving technology at the facility.

The factory therefore gives Hyundai a local production base for robotaxi vehicles.

That is important for scaling.

Waymo says its service is already operating in 14 U.S. cities, following recent launches in Denver, San Diego and Tampa.

As the service expands, the need for more vehicles also increases.

Hyundai has also made a broader commitment to U.S. manufacturing.

The company says it has committed $26 billion to U.S. investment from 2025 through 2028. Part of that strategy includes increasing production capacity and investing in autonomous driving, robotics, artificial intelligence and other technologies.

That makes the Waymo agreement part of a much larger industrial strategy.

The robotaxi programme can use Hyundai’s manufacturing capacity while also giving the company a new channel for electric vehicles.

Muñoz described the opportunity as particularly important at a time when EV demand has not developed as quickly as automakers expected.

The IONIQ 5 will use Waymo’s latest technology

The IONIQ 5 robotaxis will use Waymo’s sixth-generation autonomous-driving hardware.

Waymo and Hyundai announced that the technology would be integrated into IONIQ 5 vehicles over multiple years. The companies also said they planned to produce the vehicles in significant volume as Waymo expanded its service.

The manufacturing process is also different from Waymo’s approach with some other vehicles.

Hyundai’s IONIQ 5 robotaxis are being built with the necessary equipment and modifications in the production process. By contrast, Waymo has used other vehicle platforms that receive autonomous hardware later.

The first non-testing IONIQ 5 robotaxis are expected to reach Waymo in the fourth quarter of 2026. Hyundai says these vehicles will support the company’s growing autonomous ride-hailing operations.

Hyundai’s own Motional operation will also use robotaxi-ready IONIQ 5 vehicles when its commercial driverless service launches later in 2026.

This creates two potential customers for Hyundai’s autonomous-ready EV platform.

Waymo is one.

Motional is the other.

That gives Hyundai more ways to use its EV manufacturing capacity as autonomous mobility expands.

Robotaxis are becoming a new source of EV volume

The wider automotive industry is also moving toward large fleet deals for autonomous vehicles.

That matters because robotaxis can require thousands of vehicles instead of individual consumer sales.

Hyundai’s plan to build tens of thousands of IONIQ 5 robotaxis for Waymo would therefore represent a major production programme.

The company has not disclosed an exact number.

Instead, Muñoz said the volume would reach “tens of thousands” over time.

Hyundai’s strategy also fits its broader expansion in software, autonomous driving and robotics. At its 2026 CEO Investor Day, the company said it plans to scale robotaxi deliveries with Waymo while expanding its autonomous-vehicle technology roadmap.

The move gives the IONIQ 5 another role beyond traditional EV sales.

It can serve as a consumer electric crossover, a robotaxi platform and a foundation for future autonomous mobility services.

Hyundai is therefore using robotaxis as a way to create new demand for electric vehicles while expanding its role in autonomous transportation.

The first Waymo deliveries are due in the fourth quarter of 2026. From there, Hyundai’s goal is to scale production to tens of thousands of vehicles.

The AM Radio Bill has passed the U.S. House and now moves to the Senate. Learn how it could affect EVs and new vehicles sold across America.

The House has advanced the AM radio requirement

The AM Radio Bill has cleared the U.S. House of Representatives. Lawmakers passed the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, also known as H.R. 979, on September 15. The measure now sits on the Senate legislative calendar.

The bill would require automakers to include AM broadcast radio in new vehicles without an additional charge. The proposed requirement would apply to vehicles manufactured or imported for the U.S. market.

The legislation is not law yet.

The Senate must still consider the measure before it could move through the rest of the federal process. As of September 21, the bill has already reached the Senate calendar.

The proposal comes as some automakers move away from traditional AM receivers.

That change is especially visible in electric vehicles. Manufacturers have cited electromagnetic interference as one of the technical challenges involved in keeping AM reception in some EVs.

Electric motors and their power electronics can generate electromagnetic noise. That noise can interfere with the frequencies used by AM broadcasts.

Automakers can design around the problem. Possible solutions include better shielding, filtering and changes to the position of antennas or other electronic hardware.

Those solutions can also add cost and engineering complexity.

Why EVs are at the centre of the discussion

The connection between the AM Radio Bill and electric vehicles is important because the legislation would also cover new EVs sold in the United States.

Some automakers have already removed AM radio from selected electric models. Other brands have moved toward streaming and digital audio instead.

The bill would change that direction.

If enacted, the government would require access to AM broadcast stations as standard equipment rather than leaving the decision entirely to automakers.

The legislation focuses on access to AM broadcasts, not on one specific hardware design.

The House legislation directs the Department of Transportation to establish the requirement. The proposed framework also allows digital technology to be considered when providing access to AM stations.

That could give manufacturers some flexibility in how they meet the rule.

The bill also includes a requirement for vehicles that lack AM access before the new regulation takes effect. Automakers would have to clearly disclose that information to consumers.

Supporters of the legislation have pointed to emergency communications as a major reason for keeping AM available.

The Senate Commerce Committee noted that 60 senators had already become cosponsors earlier in the year. The House passage now moves the debate to the next stage.

The Senate will decide what happens next

The AM Radio Bill is now waiting for action in the Senate.

The House approved the measure by voice vote on September 15. It reached the Senate on September 16 and was placed on the legislative calendar.

That means the proposed requirement is closer to becoming federal law, but new vehicles are not currently required to include AM radio under this bill.

The Senate process could still determine the final outcome and timing.

For automakers, the debate involves both regulation and technology.

Keeping AM reception available in modern vehicles can require additional engineering in some EV applications. At the same time, the proposed legislation would prevent manufacturers from charging a separate fee for the required AM capability.

For buyers, the key point is simple.

The House has passed the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, but the measure still needs Senate action before it can become law.

If it eventually takes effect, AM radio access would become a federal requirement for new vehicles covered by the rule.

The next major step is therefore in the Senate, where the legislation is now awaiting consideration.

Tesla reported 236 driver-assistance crash incidents in July 2026, the highest monthly total so far, including four fatal cases with the system confirmed as engaged.

July brought a new record for Tesla

A new report published today, September 20, 2026, highlights a record month for Tesla’s driver-assistance crash filings. In July, the company submitted 236 crash reports to U.S. federal regulators. That is the highest monthly total reported so far.

The figure also continues a rising trend during 2026. Tesla reported 135 incidents in March, followed by 207 in May and 209 in June. July then moved above that previous high with 236 reports.

The reports are connected to the federal reporting system for advanced driver-assistance technology. Under NHTSA’s Standing General Order, qualifying Level 2 ADAS crashes must be reported when the system was engaged within 30 seconds of the incident and the crash meets specific severity criteria.

That detail is important when interpreting the numbers.

A reported crash does not automatically mean the driver-assistance system caused it. The filing system records crashes involving an engaged system. It does not, by itself, establish responsibility for the collision.

The July total becomes more notable because four of the reported crashes were fatal.

In each case, Tesla’s submissions were marked “Verified Engaged”, meaning telemetry data confirmed that a driver-assistance feature was active.

However, the public versions of those reports do not reveal enough information to determine whether the system contributed to the crashes.

The available records also do not clearly identify whether Autopilot or Full Self-Driving was active in each incident.

That distinction matters because Tesla uses several driver-assistance configurations. The public filings are not detailed enough to separate the systems in these fatal cases.

Four fatal crashes are part of the July data

The four fatal incidents occurred in Maryland, Minnesota and California.

One crash happened on July 12 in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Another took place on July 20 in Ashby, Minnesota, during a work-zone incident.

California accounted for two more cases. One occurred in San Mateo on July 15. Another happened near Ione on July 22.

The four incidents resulted in deaths, but the circumstances were different in each case. Public records identified different crash scenarios, from a collision during a left turn to a road departure and a multi-vehicle incident.

Because important sections of the Tesla filings are redacted, the available information does not provide a complete picture of what happened immediately before each collision.

The redactions are particularly important.

The reports hide information such as the crash narrative and software version. Those fields could provide additional context about the vehicle’s behaviour before impact.

Without that information, it is difficult to determine the precise role of the driver-assistance technology.

This is why the July figures need careful interpretation.

The record number of filings shows that Tesla reported more qualifying crashes than in any previous month. It does not prove that Tesla’s software caused those 236 incidents.

NHTSA itself warns that the data should be interpreted carefully. The agency notes that reports can contain limitations and that duplicate reporting can occur when the same incident is submitted more than once.

NHTSA uses the reports to monitor ADAS safety

The federal reporting system exists to give regulators more information about the real-world performance of advanced driving technology.

NHTSA says the Standing General Order allows it to receive timely information about crashes involving Level 2 ADAS and automated driving systems. The agency can then use that information to identify potential safety concerns and conduct further investigations when necessary.

Level 2 systems remain driver-assistance technologies. NHTSA states that drivers must remain fully engaged and in control of the vehicle when these systems are active.

That makes the language around Tesla’s technology particularly relevant.

The July reports identify crashes where the assistance system was engaged. They do not establish that the technology was operating incorrectly in every case.

The record also comes as federal regulators continue to examine Tesla’s broader driver-assistance operations.

NHTSA maintains a public database of reported incidents and updates the underlying files as more information becomes available. The agency says its datasets are designed to improve understanding of ADAS and automated-driving safety in real-world conditions.

For Tesla, July now stands out for the 236 crash reports filed in a single month.

Four of those incidents were fatal, and Tesla’s telemetry indicated that a driver-assistance system was engaged. However, the available public records do not establish that the system caused any of the four crashes.

The key issue is therefore not just the number of reports. It is the amount of information available to explain what happened.

Tesla’s July data set a new monthly record, but the record alone cannot be treated as proof that its driver-assistance technology caused those crashes.

As regulators continue collecting and reviewing the filings, additional information could provide a clearer picture of the circumstances behind these incidents.