Lamborghini Debuts Its First Hybrid Super-SUV

Lamborghini CEO Stephan Winkelmann has made it clear the company, which makes some of the fastest cars in the world, would not speed into the era of electrification.

“Our first steps in that (electrification) direction will be plug-in hybrids throughout the lineup,” he said in a 2022 interview with Penta. “This is all very easily welcomed at Lamborghini. The equations are easy. We always promise more performance than the generation before for all our cars, and we will do so while maintaining sustainability. By 2025, we will be able to cut our overall emissions by 50% with all of the hybrid models added.”

Proving Lamborghini and Winkelmann are as good as their collective word, the time of watts and volts arrived in Bologna, Italy, with the debut of the 2025 Lamborghini Urus SE. The first hybrid super-SUV from the proud Italian firm, which starts at $275,000 marries the familiar internal combustion specs of its growling engines with battery power looking not so much to save the planet as to propel vehicles across it with more alacrity.

The Urus SE is the first hybrid plug-in version of Lamborghini’s SUV, and it’s aimed to outperform its all-internal combustion rivals, such as the Aston Martin DBX707 and the Bentley Bentayga. The PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) Urus SE relies on an 800 CV hybrid powertrain, surpassing any previous Lamborghini SUV model in torque and power numbers.

As for external styling on the Urus, Lamborghini takes after its competition at Aston Martin or Ferrari by trying to make an SUV that looks as little like an SUV as possible.
Courtesy of Lamborghini

The machine’s twin-turbo 4.0-litre V-8 engine is reengineered and partnered with an electric powertrain to produce 620 CV. For the uninitiated, CV is the abbreviation of Chevaux-Vapeur and is similar to horsepower. Usually, HP converts to just a little less than CV—at least allowing the automotive enthusiasts from the U.S. and Europe to get a traditional sense of vehicle power for gas-powered or hybrid vehicles without needing a conversion calculator.

To make a long engineering story as quick as the Urus SE, if you add together the internal contrition power plant and the e-motor, the final output is 800 CV. The result is a Lamborghini that cuts its emissions by 80% without sacrificing performance, comfort, or driving excitement.

The thinking process on when and how to release this plug-in hybrid began before the company’s 2021 pledge to cut CO2 emissions, says Stefano Cossalter, the Urus model line director.

“This plan gave momentum to a profound and constant research of opportunities and challenges involved in the transition to electrification,” Cossalter says. “The plan started in 2023 with the launch of the Revuelto [sold out into 2026], our first HPEV (high performance electrified vehicle), and continues with the launch of the hybrid version of our Super SUV Urus SE.”

Cossalter lays out that the slow and steady march to electrification will continue next year with the release of the Temerario, described by Lamborghini as the successor to the popular Huracan and “the first super sports car in the history of the … brand to be equipped with a V-8 twin-turbo engine paired with three electric motors.” Then, the automaker will look to the horizon for its introduction of the Lanzador, the company’s first BEV (battery electric vehicle) in 2028.

The hybrid version offers improved performance over the 100% gas Urus. A magnet synchronous electric motor located inside the SE’s eight-speed automatic transmission tied into the four-wheel-drive system can boost the V-8 engine, offering additional acceleration. Meanwhile, that motor can provide enough power to transform the Urus SE into a totally electric vehicle with a range of about 35 miles in EV mode.

With the new drive system noted, Lamborghini’s engineers could turn to performance specs. They built in a new, centrally located longitudinal electric torque vectoring system with an electro-hydraulic multi-plate clutch. That’s a lot of fancy tech talk to say the vehicle can throw power and grip back and forth between the front and rear axles wherever the onboard system senses it’s needed. A new electronic limited-slip differential on the rear axle helps give the Urus SE oversteering when needed. The end result is an SUV that packs the feel of a Huracan on the road.

That supercar feel in an SUV is the experience Lamborghini refuses to abandon in the Urus SE, Cossalter says.

“We didn’t come to compromises in the hybridisation process,” he says. “We wanted the Urus SE to preserve the DNA of the original project and enhance the experience for the driver. For those reasons, we decided not to downsize. We kept a V-8 engine with its strong character and voice, and then added some spice to the dynamic behavior by changing the all-wheel-drive architecture. The result is we have more power, more torque, more speed, more fun.”

As for external styling on the Urus, Lamborghini takes after its competition at Aston Martin or Ferrari by trying to make an SUV that looks as little like an SUV as possible. The profile is lowered, and the lines sweeping and tapering from nose to tail, as though Lambo’s in-house designers want to hide the size and functionality of an SUV inside the shape of the familiar Lamborghini supercars of the past.

However, driving the Urus does not feel much like a traditional Lamborghini supercar simply because the driving position is higher and more upright compared to, say, an Avantador that puts the driver’s backside close to pavement. Regardless of where one sits, the acceleration, noise, and tight handling lives in a Urus as happily as it does in any other Lambo.

As its first volume consumer step into the hybrid world, the Urus SE tells Italian supercar enthusiasts to keep the faith.

“The Urus SE points to the future with electrification while keeping its heritage intact,” Cossalter says.

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.

Lamborghini Debuts Its First Hybrid Super-SUV

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.