BMW i3

[TonyWilliams]

If the future of EV's is ugly, small, 4 passenger, sub-100 mile range cars with no place to quick charge it, we're doomed anyway.

Hey Tony, from the perspective of a Spark driver, small is beautiful... well, a least more beautiful than that Rav4 you're driving - and faster too!

Ya, the Rav4 EV is not very attractive. Yes, rub in the Spark spanking I took !!!!

 

[nozferatu]

And I have to agree with the above poster, small doesnt make it bad...not everyone wants an SUV or gargantuan Tesla Model S.

Sub-compact cars like i3 and Spark are something like 2% of total fleet sales in the USA. Basing mass appeal EV hopes on them is folly.

The i3 isn't a subcompact..categorizing it in the same class as a Spark EV is highly inaccurate...and again...you are missing the point on the i3. It's the technology in the car that will transfer down to other cars. So you better hope its success is good otherwise yes, as you mentioned...buying EV's for the future is pointless.

Basing mass appeal of EV's on Teslas...to me...is pointless. All it does is show how many wealthy people can afford EV's while the rest of us continued to be forced to buy desirable IC vehicles.

 

[gra]

I have no doubt it's an irritant but I like to focus on all the cutting edge stuff the car has to offer and will be, IMO, the future of cars to come. Like your Subaru, things will be changed and modified and made better. And just like you did, people will buy the car because they want it and like to have it. No car is perfect. And BMW may have either overlooked this particular design issue or it may be intentional for reasons unbenounced to us. But it's a car worth looking at if you want a premium brand EV at a relatively attainable price (definitely more attainable that a rich man's toy Tesla).

However you better hope the sales are good for the sake of future EV's and the technology this incorporates into its weight savings design approach. It's a technology that early adopters will appreciate and pave the way for other EV's that you and I will be able to buy thanks to them.

The only 'cutting edge' thing on the i3 is the carbon fiber, and BMW is just using the i3 to get the initial bugs out of the way so they can port it to their big, profit making cars and keep selling them under ever more restrictive CAFE. The success or failure of the i3 won't affect that. As for the i3 itself, it's a vastly overpriced sub-100 mile range city car; better handling and performance than most, but undistinguished in just about every other way except that it's designed for recycling (which is a requirement of the German government IIRR). It is no more the path to mass-market acceptance of BEVs than the Tesla is, and arguably its less so despite the Tesla's higher price - at least you get some significant utility and performance improvements with the Tesla. If BMW had taken the money they spent on CFRP and instead stuck some more battery in the car for the same price, it would have been far more valuable to EVs in general. Not that lightweighting isn't a good thing for efficiency, but it's a question of bang for the buck, and they didn't get it here.

 

[nozferatu]

I have no doubt it's an irritant but I like to focus on all the cutting edge stuff the car has to offer and will be, IMO, the future of cars to come. Like your Subaru, things will be changed and modified and made better. And just like you did, people will buy the car because they want it and like to have it. No car is perfect. And BMW may have either overlooked this particular design issue or it may be intentional for reasons unbenounced to us. But it's a car worth looking at if you want a premium brand EV at a relatively attainable price (definitely more attainable that a rich man's toy Tesla).

However you better hope the sales are good for the sake of future EV's and the technology this incorporates into its weight savings design approach. It's a technology that early adopters will appreciate and pave the way for other EV's that you and I will be able to buy thanks to them.

The only 'cutting edge' thing on the i3 is the carbon fiber, and BMW is just using the i3 to get the initial bugs out of the way so they can port it to their big, profit making cars and keep selling them under ever more restrictive CAFE. The success or failure of the i3 won't affect that. As for the i3 itself, it's a vastly overpriced sub-100 mile range city car; better handling and performance than most, but undistinguished in just about every other way except that it's designed for recycling (which is a requirement of the German government IIRR). It is no more the path to mass-market acceptance of BEVs than the Tesla is, and arguably its less so despite the Tesla's higher price - at least you get some significant utility and performance improvements with the Tesla. If BMW had taken the money they spent on CFRP and instead stuck some more battery in the car for the same price, it would have been far more valuable to EVs in general. Not that lightweighting isn't a good thing for efficiency, but it's a question of bang for the buck, and they didn't get it here.

That "only" thing that doesn't seem to be very high on your priority list is as important to the range and performance of an EV as the other "only" thing...the batteries. This is a testbed for all practical purposes because of the new approach used primarily with materials in both structural and nonstructural applications... so if you and others are not willing to adopt initially, fine...but don't belittle it because you don't want to.

There are many other "things" that are quite interesting and worth noting for people who really do care about using renewable, reusable, and recyclable material in vehicles. That has value in itself if you care about those things....the list is long so I won't bother reiterating the unique features and materials and design themes in this car.

You compare it to a Tesla...have you ever been next to a Tesla Model S? Do you realize how big and heavy that car is? And how sparse and low-rent the interior feels? Do you realize the Tesla is almost 1900 lbs heavier than the i3? The comparison is ridiculous. Load up the i3 with the Tesla batteries and then we can talk about equivalent range and performance. I don't get it...everyone keeps talking about the Tesla like it's the holy grail when in fact if you dissect what they've done is exactly what typical German manufacturers do...make a pig of a car and stick a humongous engine and fuel tank in it (in this case a huge battery and motor) and suddenly be amazed it accelerates quickly and has a long range.

If you want to call the i3 vastly overpriced then you can make the same argument for all BMW's because they are all overpriced relative to other cars that perform the same function these days. You are paying for the name to a certain extent but I'm not factoring that in right now.

The bottomline is the i3 is a high quality, very innovative vehicle that BMW is undoubtedly going to use its technology in all its models in the near future...not just the "i" series. Why BMW chose to put in only an 18.8 kWh battery in the car I can't say. But at almost 5 miles per kWh spec for efficiency, it's very competitive with every other EV out there if not ground breaking in that area.

At the end of the day, I can afford an i3...I can't afford a Tesla so it doesn't matter to me what Tesla offers or doesn't offer. I'll be able to lease an i3 probably for a reasonable amount and still save on fuel costs and be happy with a utilitarian EV that will do what Spark EV, Leaf, or other EV does. I don't see the issue.

 

[TonyWilliams]

You might want to recheck those lease rates on the i3.

Try $800-$900

 

[nozferatu]

You might want to recheck those lease rates on the i3.

Try $800-$900

BMW isn't stupid. They know these cars won't sell if they lease them for that much. I can count on one hand how many cars will lease for that much. Even the more expensive Cadillac ELR will be far less than that as far as I found.

There are no official numbers as of yet that I can find so I really don't know where you get those numbers...none I can find on BMW's own financing website or anywhere BMW has officially released...so at this point it's hearsay and conjecture...like many other things about EV costs.

The only "official" thing I could find and this isn't even official is that BMW is apparently going to limit the i3 sales to only Tera World configuration...which is their top of the line model. This will, undoubtedly piss off customers who've signed up for something else and have waited a while for the release of the car.

http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/


However, if you're not one of those "I've got to have the first iPhone" type of guy and aren't dumb enough to wait in line for one, then waiting a few months is no big deal. After the hype dies down, things will go back to normal.

 

[gra]

The only 'cutting edge' thing on the i3 is the carbon fiber, and BMW is just using the i3 to get the initial bugs out of the way so they can port it to their big, profit making cars and keep selling them under ever more restrictive CAFE. The success or failure of the i3 won't affect that. As for the i3 itself, it's a vastly overpriced sub-100 mile range city car; better handling and performance than most, but undistinguished in just about every other way except that it's designed for recycling (which is a requirement of the German government IIRR). It is no more the path to mass-market acceptance of BEVs than the Tesla is, and arguably its less so despite the Tesla's higher price - at least you get some significant utility and performance improvements with the Tesla. If BMW had taken the money they spent on CFRP and instead stuck some more battery in the car for the same price, it would have been far more valuable to EVs in general. Not that lightweighting isn't a good thing for efficiency, but it's a question of bang for the buck, and they didn't get it here.

That "only" thing that doesn't seem to be very high on your priority list is as important to the range and performance of an EV as the other "only" thing...the batteries. This is a testbed for all practical purposes because of the new approach used primarily with materials in both structural and nonstructural applications... so if you and others are not willing to adopt initially, fine...but don't belittle it because you don't want to.

Without getting into the whole recyclable/sustainable issue, which as I said is due to German requirements, as I said above lightweighting is important, but let's look at exactly how much battery BMW saved through using CFRP, meanwhile achieving about the same range as the Nissan LEAF and most other sub-$35k BEVs - 2 kWh. Let's see, that $7k for 2kWh, or $3.5k/kWh. Since current pack prices are rumored to be in the $500/kWh range (certainly no more than $700/kWh), that's one hell of a markup even for BMW.

There are many other "things" that are quite interesting and worth noting for people who really do care about using renewable, reusable, and recyclable material in vehicles. That has value in itself if you care about those things....the list is long so I won't bother reiterating the unique features and materials and design themes in this car.

You compare it to a Tesla...have you ever been next to a Tesla Model S? Do you realize how big and heavy that car is? And how sparse and low-rent the interior feels? Do you realize the Tesla is almost 1900 lbs heavier than the i3? The comparison is ridiculous. Load up the i3 with the Tesla batteries and then we can talk about equivalent range and performance

Great, let's do that. Oh wait, we can't because BMW doesn't build such a car, although the lack of and desire for more range is the single biggest complaint/desire from customers (actual and potential), and is the primary reason why people bought about as many Teslas last year as they bought less than half as expensive LEAFs. We know batteries are heavy - we also know that it's batteries that provide range.

I don't get it...everyone keeps talking about the Tesla like it's the holy grail when in fact if you dissect what they've done is exactly what typical German manufacturers do...make a pig of a car and stick a humongous engine and fuel tank in it (in this case a huge battery and motor) and suddenly be amazed it accelerates quickly and has a long range.

It's certainly big and heavy, but then given current batteries if you want range you've got no choice but to do that. The pack of an S85 weighs over 1,300 lb, and uses batteries with a higher specific energy and energy density than BMW uses. If we were to assume that BMW would build a 5/7 series to compete with it, then by using CFRP they might save 8kWh of battery, assuming the same ratio as applies with the LEAF/i3 (and the LEAF is steel not Al, so the weight saving will be less over the Tesla). But I'd love to see them build such a car, and see how they price it, cause at the moment Tesla has absolutely no competition as a long range BEV. I don't slobber over them, it's just a car, but that's the fact.

If you want to call the i3 vastly overpriced then you can make the same argument for all BMW's because they are all overpriced relative to other cars that perform the same function these days. You are paying for the name to a certain extent but I'm not factoring that in right now.

Ah, but it's BMW's decision on U.S. pricing that we're talking about. In Europe it's priced far more competitively. And up until the most recent generation, BMW's higher price did buy you something in terms of performance, handling, and driving qualities; that particular laurel has been looking a bit shopworn recently.

The bottomline is the i3 is a high quality, very innovative vehicle that BMW is undoubtedly going to use its technology in all its models in the near future...not just the "i" series. Why BMW chose to put in only an 18.8 kWh battery in the car I can't say. But at almost 5 miles per kWh spec for efficiency, it's very competitive with every other EV out there if not ground breaking in that area.

22 kWh; 18.8 kWh is usable. Now compare it to the Spark EV's stats. The Spark is built of steel and is a couple of hundred lb. heavier, uses a battery chemistry of lower specific energy and energy density but better durability, has about the same or better EPA range and may well go further in real life, and costs $15k less. The i3 is a nicer car in most areas (suicide doors with non-opening rear windows and a stupidly positioned charge port aside), but it's not $15k nicer.

At the end of the day, I can afford an i3...I can't afford a Tesla so it doesn't matter to me what Tesla offers or doesn't offer. I'll be able to lease an i3 probably for a reasonable amount and still save on fuel costs and be happy with a utilitarian EV that will do what Spark EV, Leaf, or other EV does. I don't see the issue.

If money isn't an issue for you, go for it. For me, I can't see paying premium prices for a utilitarian car.

 

[Blackmamba]

Noz, why not just save your $$, buy a Spark EV which is innovative in its own with its torquey drive motor and tall gearing, and wait for BMW to sort out the hiccups the first gen i3 has? Let others be the beta testers. And BTW, there's nothing to be ashamed about having a bowtie brand logo on the hub of the steering wheel. Maybe five or ten years ago, but there's been a turnaround since in good product. BMWs are good, but nowadays their products hide behind the brand's rep more than ever.

Failure of the i3 to catch on will hurt BMW as a company way more than it will hurt the EV world as a whole.

 

[nozferatu]

Without getting into the whole recyclable/sustainable issue, which as I said is due to German requirements, as I said above lightweighting is important, but let's look at exactly how much battery BMW saved through using CFRP, meanwhile achieving about the same range as the Nissan LEAF and most other sub-$35k BEVs - 2 kWh. Let's see, that $7k for 2kWh, or $3.5k/kWh. Since current pack prices are rumored to be in the $500/kWh range (certainly no more than $700/kWh), that's one hell of a markup even for BMW.

You're missing the point. The advantages come in many forms...it's a bigger car than a Spark EV, has more room, has more cargo space, is probably safer, has more utility, is as quick if not quicker, on and on and on..and has about the same range or perhaps even more than the Spark EV....and yet has a smaller battery pack and weighs less. That's the advantage. Yes it costs more...but if you want to make excuses about costing more...look at Tesla.

Great, let's do that. Oh wait, we can't because BMW doesn't build such a car, although the lack of and desire for more range is the single biggest complaint/desire from customers (actual and potential), and is the primary reason why people bought about as many Teslas last year as they bought less than half as expensive LEAFs. We know batteries are heavy - we also know that it's batteries that provide range.

That's right...you can't compare the two because they are different cars at vastly different price points and used for vastly different types of use and driving. Again...the purchases of Teslas do nothing other than expose how many wealthy people there are. And the one and only reason why Tesla's sell well is because they've use the "range anxiety" marketing BS to work for them. They've oversized everything so people now think of the Tesla the same way you would think of a regular car...excess range...excess power. The fact that most Tesla drivers initially after purchase constantly charged their cars...only to stop charging constantly after a few weeks of ownership...is testimony to the psychology at work rather than the reality. So they are able to sell EV's with huge battery packs to people who probably won't drive more than 30-40 miles a day anyway in and around San Jose, etc.

It's certainly big and heavy, but then given current batteries if you want range you've got no choice but to do that. The pack of an S85 weighs over 1,300 lb, and uses batteries with a higher specific energy and energy density than BMW uses. If we were to assume that BMW would build a 5/7 series to compete with it, then by using CFRP they might save 8kWh of battery, assuming the same ratio as applies with the LEAF/i3 (and the LEAF is steel not Al, so the weight saving will be less over the Tesla). But I'd love to see them build such a car, and see how they price it, cause at the moment Tesla has absolutely no competition as a long range BEV. I don't slobber over them, it's just a car, but that's the fact.

Again, I don't really care what Tesla does....we're talking about AFFORDABLE EV's in the price range of the majority of people who would like one or are considering one. It's great Tesla has given wealthy people options to buy a long range EV....doesn't help me or 99% of everyone else out there. In the same token that you say let's wait and see how much BMW's 5/7 series EV's will be, let's wait and see how cheaply Tesla can make a $30K EV and what sort of range, performance, and options it will have. Hopefully they'll do it soon...but I doubt it. They are still too busy catering to Elon's rich buddies.

Ah, but it's BMW's decision on U.S. pricing that we're talking about. In Europe it's priced far more competitively. And up until the most recent generation, BMW's higher price did buy you something in terms of performance, handling, and driving qualities; that particular laurel has been looking a bit shopworn recently.

It's really moot at this point to call out BMW's pricing as competitive or not in the US as official leasing/financing options have not been released as far as I know. So let's wait and see.

22 kWh; 18.8 kWh is usable. Now compare it to the Spark EV's stats. The Spark is built of steel and is a couple of hundred lb. heavier, uses a battery chemistry of lower specific energy and energy density but better durability, has about the same or better EPA range and may well go further in real life, and costs $15k less. The i3 is a nicer car in most areas (suicide doors with non-opening rear windows and a stupidly positioned charge port aside), but it's not $15k nicer.

Well to you it may not be $15K nicer but then again someone buying a Kia Optima turbo might say the same thing about a BMW 328i or MB C250 too. EV's are no different. The price staggering will be the same for EV's as it is for the IC equivalents...so this sudden "under the microscope" attitude for EV's makes no sense whatsoever. It is what it is..like it or leave it. Just like I choose to "leave" the Tesla.

If money isn't an issue for you, go for it. For me, I can't see paying premium prices for a utilitarian car.

I'll let you know if money is an issue once official buying/leasing options are available. Until then, I'm focusing on the innovation incorporated in the vehicle which will, undoubtedly, trickle into other cars across the automotive technology fields for all manufacturers. I'm not a BMW lover but I do applaud BMW for taking the chance and investment in using such new technology on their new vehicles. It shows forward thinking.

 

[nozferatu]

Noz, why not just save your $$, buy a Spark EV which is innovative in its own with its torquey drive motor and tall gearing, and wait for BMW to sort out the hiccups the first gen i3 has? Let others be the beta testers. And BTW, there's nothing to be ashamed about having a bowtie brand logo on the hub of the steering wheel. Maybe five or ten years ago, but there's been a turnaround since in good product. BMWs are good, but nowadays their products hide behind the brand's rep more than ever.

Failure of the i3 to catch on will hurt BMW as a company way more than it will hurt the EV world as a whole.

Hey Blackmamba,

I'm definitely considering it for sure. It's not out of the question. The i3 would be for my wife..not me. She liked it and I do to. But I'd be happy with a Spark EV. I just need to do my homework before jumping into a 3 year commitment with an EV. I'm trying to figure out my real needs, costs, etc..

I agree with you that the i3 failure will hurt BMW. But as a whole it's a conservative company and makes moves in calculated ways. It's invested huge amounts of money into the "i" brand technology and even if the i3 itself is a failure, it's not going to be because it's a bad vehicle...I think it's a bit ahead of its time in some ways and many people won't appreciate it for what it is.

Has anyone seen the i8?? I saw one at the LA Auto Show and on the street in camouflage...wow...what a car. It just looks like it's the future...that's what's really cool about it. I got the same sense from the i3 but clearly not as prominently as with the i8. I don't like BMW cars as a whole to be completely honest...but the "i" brand has really caught my attention.

 

[cwerdna]

The i3 isn't a subcompact..categorizing it in the same class as a Spark EV is highly inaccurate..

If the i3 isn't a subcompact, then what EPA size class is it? Have sources for that?

The Spark EV is a subcompact per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33640 and since both seat 4 and both have somewhat limited cargo room, I expect the i3 to be classified as either subcompact or compact, at best.

 

[nozferatu]

The i3 isn't a subcompact..categorizing it in the same class as a Spark EV is highly inaccurate..

If the i3 isn't a subcompact, then what EPA size class is it? Have sources for that?

The Spark EV is a subcompact per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33640 and since both seat 4 and both have somewhat limited cargo room, I expect the i3 to be classified as either subcompact or compact, at best.

Let's agree to disagree...it's a much bigger vehicle even though it carries 4. The i3 is going head to head with MB's B-class EV...which is substantially larger than the Spark EV. The Spark EV is just barely larger than a Fiat 500...and let me tell you..owning one of those...that's a small car.

I got a crack at driving the i3 at the LA Auto Show...totally different size class and if the EPA does classify it as sub-compact, they are flat out wrong.

 

[cwerdna]

The i3 isn't a subcompact..categorizing it in the same class as a Spark EV is highly inaccurate..

If the i3 isn't a subcompact, then what EPA size class is it? Have sources for that?

The Spark EV is a subcompact per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33640 and since both seat 4 and both have somewhat limited cargo room, I expect the i3 to be classified as either subcompact or compact, at best.

Let's agree to disagree...it's a much bigger vehicle even though it carries 4. The i3 is going head to head with MB's B-class EV...which is substantially larger than the Spark EV. The Spark EV is just barely larger than a Fiat 500...and let me tell you..owning one of those...that's a small car.

I got a crack at driving the i3 at the LA Auto Show...totally different size class and if the EPA does classify it as sub-compact, they are flat out wrong.

If it hasn't been assigned yet, I predict the i3 will receive either a subcompact or compact EPA size classification. Per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacarhelp.shtml#epaSizeClass "The size class for cars is based on interior passenger and cargo volumes as described below...."

Notice the size classification in the Specs tabs for these vehicles?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32516&id=24900&id=24825&id=26425 (Fisker Karma is physically huge on the outside yet only gets a subcompact classification due to its tiny interior).
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33029&id=33396&id=33640&id=33558

 

[cwerdna]

Side note, I just stumbled across a post on the BMW i3 Facebook group about this and this post from MNL (at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=353299#p353299)

Oh, by the way, in another disappointment to hopeful early i3 buyers, if there are any such buyers left after the lease cost disappointments, BMW plans to only import fully loaded versions for the first 3 months or so. BMW calls this a "launch edition" and I've heard that they do this often with new models.

So if you aren't one of the ActiveE "Electronauts" (who are able to choose their option levels and will get the first US cars), and you want one of the first cars here, you'll be forced to take a fully loaded model, with only option of the paint color and the choice of adding the sport wheels. In CA, if you had the idea to get one of the early REx models and get one of the few remaining green carpool stickers before they run out (and maybe flip the car when the HOV panic starts), you'll need to buy a $56K car.

If you don't want the REx engine, during the 1st 3 months, you'll be forced to take a $50,875 car!

There are more details about this from Electronaut #1: http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/2014/02/us-i3-orders-limited-to-special-launch.html.

Crazy! It's sorta good for the Electronauts but boy, I suspect some non-Electronauts semi-interested in the i3 will just turn their back on BMW and get something else.

 

[nozferatu]

Side note, I just stumbled across a post on the BMW i3 Facebook group about this and this post from MNL (at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=353299#p353299)

Oh, by the way, in another disappointment to hopeful early i3 buyers, if there are any such buyers left after the lease cost disappointments, BMW plans to only import fully loaded versions for the first 3 months or so. BMW calls this a "launch edition" and I've heard that they do this often with new models.

So if you aren't one of the ActiveE "Electronauts" (who are able to choose their option levels and will get the first US cars), and you want one of the first cars here, you'll be forced to take a fully loaded model, with only option of the paint color and the choice of adding the sport wheels. In CA, if you had the idea to get one of the early REx models and get one of the few remaining green carpool stickers before they run out (and maybe flip the car when the HOV panic starts), you'll need to buy a $56K car.

If you don't want the REx engine, during the 1st 3 months, you'll be forced to take a $50,875 car!

There are more details about this from Electronaut #1: http://bmwi3.blogspot.com/2014/02/us-i3-orders-limited-to-special-launch.html.

Crazy! It's sorta good for the Electronauts but boy, I suspect some non-Electronauts semi-interested in the i3 will just turn their back on BMW and get something else.

Time will tell.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a new technology and an option for others. Options are good...it will definitely benefit the industry as a whole in terms of lightweight materials and innovative design. Someone had to do it...since no one else had the balls to.

 

[gra]

Without getting into the whole recyclable/sustainable issue, which as I said is due to German requirements, as I said above lightweighting is important, but let's look at exactly how much battery BMW saved through using CFRP, meanwhile achieving about the same range as the Nissan LEAF and most other sub-$35k BEVs - 2 kWh. Let's see, that $7k for 2kWh, or $3.5k/kWh. Since current pack prices are rumored to be in the $500/kWh range (certainly no more than $700/kWh), that's one hell of a markup even for BMW.

You're missing the point. The advantages come in many forms...it's a bigger car than a Spark EV, has more room, has more cargo space, is probably safer, has more utility, is as quick if not quicker, on and on and on..and has about the same range or perhaps even more than the Spark EV....and yet has a smaller battery pack and weighs less. That's the advantage. Yes it costs more...but if you want to make excuses about costing more...look at Tesla.

Let me correct you on one factual error, before replying to the meat: The Spark has a 21.4 kwH battery, of which 17.3 kWh is usable; the i3 has a 22 kWh battery, 18.8 kWh of which is usable.

The i3 is a somewhat larger car than the Spark, although considerably smaller than a LEAF (see the post by DeaneG for his impressions of i3 re the LEAF on this link: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=721&start=980 ) Depending on what you use it for that may or may not be important. 'Probably safer' remains to be seen. More utility? Spacewise maybe, if you have dogs not (no opening rear windows), rangewise probably only if you have the REx, because the Spark will likely go further on its battery. Again, Tesla being priced more buys you something, range.

Great, let's do that. Oh wait, we can't because BMW doesn't build such a car, although the lack of and desire for more range is the single biggest complaint/desire from customers (actual and potential), and is the primary reason why people bought about as many Teslas last year as they bought less than half as expensive LEAFs. We know batteries are heavy - we also know that it's batteries that provide range.

That's right...you can't compare the two because they are different cars at vastly different price points and used for vastly different types of use and driving. Again...the purchases of Teslas do nothing other than expose how many wealthy people there are. And the one and only reason why Tesla's sell well is because they've use the "range anxiety" marketing BS to work for them. They've oversized everything so people now think of the Tesla the same way you would think of a regular car...excess range...excess power. The fact that most Tesla drivers initially after purchase constantly charged their cars...only to stop charging constantly after a few weeks of ownership...is testimony to the psychology at work rather than the reality. So they are able to sell EV's with huge battery packs to people who probably won't drive more than 30-40 miles a day anyway in and around San Jose, etc.

If you live in the bay area, a simple trip from San Jose to San Francisco for dinner, theater or what have you, is about 100 miles round trip, almost all freeway. Commuting in from the central valley, as many people do (the Bay Area is the supercommuter capital of the country), you're looking at 100-180 miles round trip; crazy, but people do it. And if you go out of town on the weekend, you're looking at 100 miles or more one way. So unless you think that the average Tesla owner is a retiree who only motors around at 10-15 mph inside a gated community, your 30-40 miles per day is ridiculous. Sure, that's enough for many people's commutes, but it's certainly not enough if you want to use it for anything more. Which is kind of the point, because if you don't need more range, why on earth would you buy a Tesla in the first place?

It's certainly big and heavy, but then given current batteries if you want range you've got no choice but to do that. The pack of an S85 weighs over 1,300 lb, and uses batteries with a higher specific energy and energy density than BMW uses. If we were to assume that BMW would build a 5/7 series to compete with it, then by using CFRP they might save 8kWh of battery, assuming the same ratio as applies with the LEAF/i3 (and the LEAF is steel not Al, so the weight saving will be less over the Tesla). But I'd love to see them build such a car, and see how they price it, cause at the moment Tesla has absolutely no competition as a long range BEV. I don't slobber over them, it's just a car, but that's the fact.

Again, I don't really care what Tesla does....we're talking about AFFORDABLE EV's in the price range of the majority of people who would like one or are considering one. It's great Tesla has given wealthy people options to buy a long range EV....doesn't help me or 99% of everyone else out there. In the same token that you say let's wait and see how much BMW's 5/7 series EV's will be, let's wait and see how cheaply Tesla can make a $30K EV and what sort of range, performance, and options it will have. Hopefully they'll do it soon...but I doubt it. They are still too busy catering to Elon's rich buddies.

If you don't care about Tesla, then why did you bring them up? I was just replying to your statements, especially the one where you swapped cause and effect of why the Tesla S is big and heavy. As to the Model E, that's due in the 2017-2018 time frame, for somewhere in the $35-$40k range, and with about 200 miles of range. We'll see how well they meet that - I suspect it will depend on how well the Model X does.

Ah, but it's BMW's decision on U.S. pricing that we're talking about. In Europe it's priced far more competitively. And up until the most recent generation, BMW's higher price did buy you something in terms of performance, handling, and driving qualities; that particular laurel has been looking a bit shopworn recently.

It's really moot at this point to call out BMW's pricing as competitive or not in the US as official leasing/financing options have not been released as far as I know. So let's wait and see.

Well, we did have an electronaut ask his dealer for a lease quote, and that's where the $800/$900/month figure that others have quoted came from. See http://insideevs.com/heres-a-look-at-a-bmw-i3-lease-quote-of-930-per-month/

Since that went over like the proverbial lead balloon, BMW will have to offer leases well below those prices.

22 kWh; 18.8 kWh is usable. Now compare it to the Spark EV's stats. The Spark is built of steel and is a couple of hundred lb. heavier, uses a battery chemistry of lower specific energy and energy density but better durability, has about the same or better EPA range and may well go further in real life, and costs $15k less. The i3 is a nicer car in most areas (suicide doors with non-opening rear windows and a stupidly positioned charge port aside), but it's not $15k nicer.

Well to you it may not be $15K nicer but then again someone buying a Kia Optima turbo might say the same thing about a BMW 328i or MB C250 too. EV's are no different. The price staggering will be the same for EV's as it is for the IC equivalents...so this sudden "under the microscope" attitude for EV's makes no sense whatsoever. It is what it is..like it or leave it. Just like I choose to "leave" the Tesla.

Sure, value is in the eyes of the beholder. It just happens that lots of EV enthusiasts, including a considerable number of 'Electronauts', don't see it in the i3, any more than they see the value of a tarted-up $75k Volt. And at least for myself, there's nothing sudden about an 'under the microscope' attitude towards EVs. I apply the same criteria to them as I do for any other car, or any other expensive technology.

If money isn't an issue for you, go for it. For me, I can't see paying premium prices for a utilitarian car.

I'll let you know if money is an issue once official buying/leasing options are available. Until then, I'm focusing on the innovation incorporated in the vehicle which will, undoubtedly, trickle into other cars across the automotive technology fields for all manufacturers. I'm not a BMW lover but I do applaud BMW for taking the chance and investment in using such new technology on their new vehicles. It shows forward thinking.

Well, sure, it shows forward thinking. They either get better gas mileage and reduce emissions, or they'll have to reduce the # of cars they can sell in California, and we constitute about 10% of the U.S. car market and probably a much higher % of the U.S. BMW market. So far at least, CARB seems to be sticking to its guns, so BMW either makes their cars lighter, sells more diesels if CARB will let them, or employs lots of other expensive technologies to boost mpg and meet CAFE. And we already know what the car's MSRP is, and today we know that you won't be able to buy one for three months without including every single option except wheels (unless you're an 'electronaut').

 

[nozferatu]

If you live in the bay area, a simple trip from San Jose to San Francisco for dinner, theater or what have you, is about 100 miles round trip, almost all freeway. Commuting in from the central valley, as many people do (the Bay Area is the supercommuter capital of the country), you're looking at 100-180 miles round trip; crazy, but people do it. And if you go out of town on the weekend, you're looking at 100 miles or more one way. So unless you think that the average Tesla owner is a retiree who only motors around at 10-15 mph inside a gated community, your 30-40 miles per day is ridiculous. Sure, that's enough for many people's commutes, but it's certainly not enough if you want to use it for anything more. Which is kind of the point, because if you don't need more range, why on earth would you buy a Tesla in the first place?

What's your point? There are plenty of trips I can use as examples that would leave most EV's wanting. So what? I can't afford $900-1000 a month in payments and a $120K...so what's your point? I don't care what Tesla owners can and can't do....I don't why a few of you can't get that? You're comparing a Tesla to a Spark EV and slamming the Spark for not having the range. If I want to go further than I can I'll take a regular car for that particular trip and be done with it.

Another thing is not everyone has the lifestyle ability of a "bay-area" young rich person who's willing to spend that much money on a car, on a place to live, etc....you just don't seem to be looking at things through the eyes of the average person here. When I go to Stanford, every other car is a Tesla driven by some rich millionaire who can afford it...great...we're not all like that.

If you don't care about Tesla, then why did you bring them up? I was just replying to your statements, especially the one where you swapped cause and effect of why the Tesla S is big and heavy. As to the Model E, that's due in the 2017-2018 time frame, for somewhere in the $35-$40k range, and with about 200 miles of range. We'll see how well they meet that - I suspect it will depend on how well the Model X does.

I'm not bringing them up...TW, you and another poster are constantly bringing them up in regards to their charging standards and so on....and I'm saying I don't care what Tesla's charging standards are because for most people it's unaffordable and out of reach. 2017-2018 is 4 years away....there are EV's already available that will allow most people to do what they need to do comfortably. If I do need to go on a long trip out

Since that went over like the proverbial lead balloon, BMW will have to offer leases well below those prices.

The lease for the i3 isn't officially released so articles like that are rubbish and hearsay...let's wait and see if it actually is $800-900 a month. In which case then yes, it's not worth it.

Sure, value is in the eyes of the beholder. It just happens that lots of EV enthusiasts, including a considerable number of 'Electronauts', don't see it in the i3, any more than the see the value of a tarted-up $75k Volt. And at least for myself, there's nothing sudden about an 'under the microscope' attitude towards EVs. I apply the same criteria to them as I do for any other car, or any other expensive technology.

That's their choice...no one is forcing anyone to buy an i3. Owning an 1 series electric BMW doesn't necessarily automatically qualify those drivers as end-all be-all spokesmen of that is and isn't worth it anyway.

Well, sure, it shows forward thinking. They either get better gas mileage and reduce emissions, or they'll have to reduce the # of cars they can sell in California, and we constitute about 10% of the U.S. car market and probably a much higher % of the U.S. BMW market. So far at least, CARB seems to be sticking to its guns, so BMW either makes their cars lighter, sells more diesels if CARB will let them, or employs lots of other expensive technologies to boost mpg and meet CAFE. And we already know what the car's MSRP is, and today we know that you won't be able to buy one for three months without including every single option except wheels (unless you're an 'electronaut').

BMW has invested enormous amounts of money in the "i" line...most probably to use the technology in all their lines because the weigh savings will be substantial across the board for all their models. I doubt they did this just to meet CARB.

 

[gra]

If you live in the bay area, a simple trip from San Jose to San Francisco for dinner, theater or what have you, is about 100 miles round trip, almost all freeway. Commuting in from the central valley, as many people do (the Bay Area is the supercommuter capital of the country), you're looking at 100-180 miles round trip; crazy, but people do it. And if you go out of town on the weekend, you're looking at 100 miles or more one way. So unless you think that the average Tesla owner is a retiree who only motors around at 10-15 mph inside a gated community, your 30-40 miles per day is ridiculous. Sure, that's enough for many people's commutes, but it's certainly not enough if you want to use it for anything more. Which is kind of the point, because if you don't need more range, why on earth would you buy a Tesla in the first place?

What's your point? There are plenty of trips I can use as examples that would leave most EV's wanting. So what? I can't afford $900-1000 a month in payments and a $120K...so what's your point? I don't care what Tesla owners can and can't do....I don't why a few of you can't get that? You're comparing a Tesla to a Spark EV and slamming the Spark for not having the range. If I want to go further than I can I'll take a regular car for that particular trip and be done with it.

Another thing is not everyone has the lifestyle ability of a "bay-area" young rich person who's willing to spend that much money on a car, on a place to live, etc....you just don't seem to be looking at things through the eyes of the average person here. When I go to Stanford, every other car is a Tesla driven by some rich millionaire who can afford it...great...we're not all like that.

Again, I'm not comparing a Tesla to a Spark, and I don't know anyone who is; none of us is 'slamming' it for not having the same range. As it happens I like the Spark largely because it has the most range under real world conditions of any of the sub-$35k BEVs. What I have tried to point out is that if you want a BEV with enough range to do all your driving, given current battery tech it will be big, heavy and expensive. Doesn't mean you can't do the same job a hell of a lot cheaper with an ICE; I'm perfectly happy driving my 2003 Subaru Forester until an EV arrives that can do all the things I need a car to do and which I can afford, and I would never spend $70k or more for a car. But for those who can afford to make that switch, At the moment the Tesla is the only game in town, and even if they weren't it's not possible at the moment to get that kind of capability much cheaper.

If you don't care about Tesla, then why did you bring them up? I was just replying to your statements, especially the one where you swapped cause and effect of why the Tesla S is big and heavy. As to the Model E, that's due in the 2017-2018 time frame, for somewhere in the $35-$40k range, and with about 200 miles of range. We'll see how well they meet that - I suspect it will depend on how well the Model X does.

I'm not bringing them up...TW, you and another poster are constantly bringing them up in regards to their charging standards and so on....and I'm saying I don't care what Tesla's charging standards are because for most people it's unaffordable and out of reach. 2017-2018 is 4 years away....there are EV's already available that will allow most people to do what they need to do comfortably. If I do need to go on a long trip out.

I think you're confusing me with Tony and cwerdna. As to my attitude towards Tesla, I agree that they aren't currently mass-market. It is certainly their plan to aim for a mass-market car, if you squint a little ($35k being about $4k more than the current median price of a new U.S. LDV).

Since that went over like the proverbial lead balloon, BMW will have to offer leases well below those prices.

The lease for the i3 isn't officially released so articles like that are rubbish and hearsay...let's wait and see if it actually is $800-900 a month. In which case then yes, it's not worth it.

Hardly hearsay, that was an official dealer quote for someone pricing the car. It certainly includes some extra dealer markup, and I agree that it will never fly at that price.

Sure, value is in the eyes of the beholder. It just happens that lots of EV enthusiasts, including a considerable number of 'Electronauts', don't see it in the i3, any more than the see the value of a tarted-up $75k Volt. And at least for myself, there's nothing sudden about an 'under the microscope' attitude towards EVs. I apply the same criteria to them as I do for any other car, or any other expensive technology.

That's their choice...no one is forcing anyone to buy an i3. Owning an 1 series electric BMW doesn't necessarily automatically qualify those drivers as end-all be-all spokesmen of that is and isn't worth it anyway.

Sure. But when the reaction of a large number of EV enthusiasts (not just BMW EV customers), who are generally at least slightly positive to ANY new BEV, is at best neutral and often negative towards a new one, it certainly indicates the car may be a very poor seller.

Well, sure, it shows forward thinking. They either get better gas mileage and reduce emissions, or they'll have to reduce the # of cars they can sell in California, and we constitute about 10% of the U.S. car market and probably a much higher % of the U.S. BMW market. So far at least, CARB seems to be sticking to its guns, so BMW either makes their cars lighter, sells more diesels if CARB will let them, or employs lots of other expensive technologies to boost mpg and meet CAFE. And we already know what the car's MSRP is, and today we know that you won't be able to buy one for three months without including every single option except wheels (unless you're an 'electronaut').

BMW has invested enormous amounts of money in the "i" line...most probably to use the technology in all their lines because the weigh savings will be substantial across the board for all their models. I doubt they did this just to meet CARB.

Of course not, they have to meet higher mpg requirements in Europe and China as well.

 

[nozferatu]

Again, I'm not comparing a Tesla to a Spark, and I don't know anyone who is; none of us is 'slamming' it for not having the same range. As it happens I like the Spark largely because it has the most range under real world conditions of any of the sub-$35k BEVs. What I have tried to point out is that if you want a BEV with enough range to do all your driving, given current battery tech it will be big, heavy and expensive. Doesn't mean you can't do the same job a hell of a lot cheaper with an ICE; I'm perfectly happy driving my 2003 Subaru Forester until an EV arrives that can do all the things I need a car to do and which I can afford, and I would never spend $70k or more for a car. But for those who can afford to make that switch, At the moment the Tesla is the only game in town, and even if they weren't it's not possible at the moment to get that kind of capability much cheaper.

OK fair enough...you are not comparing the Tesla to the Spark but some are...not directly in terms of performance and such but in terms of "Well if Tesla offers it then everyone else should" kind of mentality. You know what I mean? What I'm trying to convey is that the shock and awe of Tesla achieving what they have isn't as monumental as everyone thinks it is in terms of engineering. They've created a heavy, big, battery laden vehicle with a huge motor and charge an arm/leg for it. And they've created their own charging standard where a few others are saying "well since they are successful everyone should use that system." Not so...that's not how things work.

I think you're confusing me with Tony and cwerdna. As to my attitude towards Tesla, I agree that they aren't currently mass-market. It is certainly their plan to aim for a mass-market car, if you squint a little ($35k being about $4k more than the current median price of a new U.S. LDV).

No I'm not..I know you aren't saying what they are saying. Those two are their own entities lol.

Hardly hearsay, that was an official dealer quote for someone pricing the car. It certainly includes some extra dealer markup, and I agree that it will never fly at that price.

Who got this quote? What dealer? Where? When? Where are the official numbers?

Sure. But when the reaction of a large number of EV enthusiasts (not just BMW EV customers), who are generally at least slightly positive to ANY new BEV, is at best neutral and often negative towards a new one, it certainly indicates the car may be a very poor seller.

Who knows...that's not a good way to judge the outcome by any means IMO. Let's wait and see. Time will indeed tell. But the more options the better.

I think we agree on many points....and I certainly am not putting you with TW and cdwerna.

 

[gra]

Hardly hearsay, that was an official dealer quote for someone pricing the car. It certainly includes some extra dealer markup, and I agree that it will never fly at that price.

Who got this quote? What dealer? Where? When? Where are the official numbers?

Should all be in the link I provided a page or two back. If it wasn't in that one, it was in a similar article at GreenCarReports.com, Plugincars.com., or green.autoblog.com.