Company that put a petrol engine in a Tesla goes bust owing €32 million

The three companies of the Austrian Obrist group have filed for insolvency with combined debts of €31.8 million, without ever taking their HyperHybrid system into production — the petrol range extender they installed in a Tesla Model 3.

Some ideas sound reasonable on a napkin and fall apart the moment they touch a factory. Obrist's idea was to take an electric car, remove most of the battery and fit a small petrol engine to act as a generator. Less weight, less cost, more range. On paper, flawless. In practice, the Austrian company has just declared insolvency with **€31.8 million** in accumulated debt across its three companies, without ever selling a single production car with its technology.

The figure is not journalistic rounding. **Obrist Powertrain**, the company developing the HyperHybrid propulsion system, owes **€18.85 million** spread across 34 creditors and had barely nine employees at the time of insolvency. **Obrist Technologies**, the branch responsible for methanol production and CO2 capture patents, owes another **€6.08 million** to ten creditors and no longer had any staff. The third piece, **Obrist DE**, the German subsidiary based in **Lindau** focused on sales and development, adds roughly **€6.8 million** in outstanding liabilities. Three companies, one ending.

## The Tesla Model 3 that promised 1,000 kilometres

In January 2020, Obrist presented what it called the Mark II project. The base was a **Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus**, whose original battery of around 50 kWh was replaced with a pack of just **17.3 kWh**, made up of 18650 cells and weighing **98 kilos**. With that reduced battery, the car could travel about **96 kilometres** in purely electric mode. Beyond that, the generator came into play: a two-cylinder petrol engine with **40 kW (54 hp)** of power, which did not drive the wheels directly but produced electricity for the system.

The company claimed this combination allowed a total range of up to **1,000 kilometres**, a figure that turned plenty of heads in 2020 because the public charging network was far less developed than it is now. The combustion engine ran at a relatively constant estimulante ilegal, kicked in above **65 km/h** and, according to the data the company provided at the time, achieved a thermal efficiency of **40%** with a claimed consumption of just **2 litres per 100 kilometres**. The tank held approximately **20 litres**.

The economic argument was just as ambitious. Obrist maintained that, once sufficient production volumes were reached, its system could be manufactured for about **€4,500**, and even suggested that a Model 3 equipped with this technology could see its price cut by more than half. It even broke down material costs: **€2,000** for the battery and **€1,200** for the generator, excluding labour. These were figures that never got verified on a real assembly line.

## From petrol to synthetic methanol

Far from stopping there, Obrist broadened its pitch. In 2022 it presented an evolution of its technology on a **Tesla Model Y**, this time with a system capable of running on synthetic methanol, a fuel the company branded **aFuel**. The story was no longer just about building cheaper cars with more range, but about offering a solution with a negative emissions balance. The company claimed its cars could remove **24 grams of CO2 per kilometre travelled** from the atmosphere — a figure that depended on an industrial capture and storage system that was never developed at the necessary scale.

In 2024, Obrist announced an alliance with an investment fund from **Abu Dhabi** to drive synthetic methanol production facilities in **Namibia, Egypt, Thailand and the United States**. There was talk of investments of tens of billions of euros and plants costing approximately **€16 billion** each. By its estimates, around **2,700 plants** of this kind would be needed to replace fossil fuels worldwide, implying an investment close to **€50 trillion**. All of this was being said by a company that had still not commercialised its propulsion system in a single production car.

In parallel, Obrist devoted efforts to lobbying European institutions so that Brussels would reconsider its emissions reduction plans and allow combustion engines beyond **2035** using synthetic fuels. In late 2024, it even claimed its HyperHybrid system could emit **85% less CO2** than a comparable conventional electric car — a highly questionable claim, since it depended entirely on the assumptions used to calculate emissions across the entire energy cycle.

## A market that no longer waits

Founder **Frank Obrist** has attributed the insolvency to high development costs accumulated over years, failed negotiations with potential investors and the crisis gripping the European automotive industry. The Austrian creditor protection association **AKV** has also pointed to the growing commitment of European manufacturers to battery-only electric cars.

The market context has changed a great deal since 2020. Battery costs have fallen, ranges have increased and charging infrastructure has improved. Electric systems with range extenders have found their niche in certain markets, especially in **China**, but demand for them has entered a contraction phase while plug-in hybrids gained ground. The window Obrist wanted to exploit kept closing while the company continued showing prototypes at motor shows.

All that remains is the technical consolation: the range extender idea was not absurd, and it does have reasonable applications, such as restoring range in older electric cars with degraded batteries. But one thing is for physics to work, and quite another for someone to pay for it. For years, Obrist confused the second with the first, and now it is the creditors presenting the bill. Nothing set out here constitutes financial advice; anyone with interests in companies in this sector should consult a professional.