-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
BMW i3
- Thread starter gregincal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
Adm
Active Member
The i3 has received 4 out of 5 stars on the EuroNacap crashtest: http://euroncap.synapticdigital.com/Latest%20Release/euro-ncap-publishes-the-results-of-eleven-vehicles/s/0ea4bee8-c69e-41e9-abf3-d6b9e88d8d89
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Mitrovic
Member
Well, I understand that the car might be interesting for the american drivers. But I do not understand why european drivers should buy it.
IMHO the Renault Zoe is in most points better. Even in the crash test:
Renault ZOE | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
BMW i3 | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
The BMW is only better in acceleration. But the much cheaper Renault offers more space and a bigger range. The standard equipment seems to be better in the Renault, too. It is safer, imho prettier. Renault has front wheel drive, so is better on snow, too.
Build quality? No, I do not think that the BMW is much better, they had so many issues ( e.g. brakes ) on their newer combustion engine cars.
IMHO the Renault Zoe is in most points better. Even in the crash test:
Renault ZOE | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
BMW i3 | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating
The BMW is only better in acceleration. But the much cheaper Renault offers more space and a bigger range. The standard equipment seems to be better in the Renault, too. It is safer, imho prettier. Renault has front wheel drive, so is better on snow, too.
Build quality? No, I do not think that the BMW is much better, they had so many issues ( e.g. brakes ) on their newer combustion engine cars.
smorgasbord
Active Member
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
In fairness though – if you look at the test scores, there doesn’t really seem to be any significant difference. It appears the i3 just barely missed 5 stars for some reason…
As I understand it, in Europe, relatively few people prefer a less handling, high riding Jeep-derivative. So in Europe – if in the Bimmer shop – potential i3 buyers might look at the 1 Series 5-door Sports Hatch, the 3 Series Touring and the 3 Series Gran Turismo. All with petrol and diesel engines so (relatively) efficient they’re not even on sale in the US… The European diesel and petrol prices as compared to the US ones, as well as the European public being more aligned with the consensus of the 97% of Climate Scientists on Global Warming/Climate Change will also be contributing factors.
As for the US …I probably don’t know.
Of course not but you get an idea of how it drives, and it is very fast. Probably as quick as a 60kw Model S to a certain point.
The i3 does 0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds (what a 60 kWh MS can do based on numerous real-world tests)?
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Are you sure? Their official US spec. sheet says 7.2 seconds…
BMW i3 - Features & Specs - Specifications - BMW North America
I think you missed his sarcasm which was, I think, a result of him missing a joke (that the i3 would accelerate as fast as an S60, to a point, point being a speed less than 60.)
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
BMW says the i3 gets 80-100miles. In reality it was 65. BMW says the Range Extender adds 70-90 miles. In reality it's 40-50. That makes the max range of the ranged extended version 105-115 miles total. That is very bad.
It's slow. Its performance literally sucks when you get low (limited to 44mph while on highway when you get too low?? That is DANGEROUS.) It doesn't go very far (that wouldn't even get me to work one direction in the range extended mode, let alone the return trip...and besides even if it get me the range you'd probably die anyway on the NJT getting run over by trucks going twice as fast while your car it trying to charge itself just to go faster than 50mph). It's missing common safety features. Oh, and it's ugly as sin. Fell out of the damn ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. What a joke. BMW major fail.
First Review In: 2014 BMW i3 Range Extender Performance Limited
It's slow. Its performance literally sucks when you get low (limited to 44mph while on highway when you get too low?? That is DANGEROUS.) It doesn't go very far (that wouldn't even get me to work one direction in the range extended mode, let alone the return trip...and besides even if it get me the range you'd probably die anyway on the NJT getting run over by trucks going twice as fast while your car it trying to charge itself just to go faster than 50mph). It's missing common safety features. Oh, and it's ugly as sin. Fell out of the damn ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. What a joke. BMW major fail.
First Review In: 2014 BMW i3 Range Extender Performance Limited
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
According to the article from Green Car Reports you're referring to:
It will go forever as long as you keep refueling the tank. Or am I missing something?
- - - Updated - - -
What common safety features is it missing?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'll wait for the EPA ratings. The 65 I think was highway with AC on and in cold weather. The "range extender" is not intended for use like a Volt (it's more for emergencies).
- - - Updated - - -
Unless you intend to stop every 50 miles for fuel, it's not a very practical way to travel on long trips. Even carrying an extra gas can, it's a hassle to have to stop that often.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
I agree that it’s a hassle to stop, as compared to not having to stop. And is carrying a gas can a good idea if you were to luck out and become involved in an accident?
But if you start out with a full tank and want to travel ~260 miles, then it seems that would be about 3 stops. Unless there are significant queues at the various gas stations, then that would add like what? 15-20 minutes? Doesn’t really seem to be that though to be honest… And it seems these fill ups should be pretty swift ones…
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The problem is if you have to stop that often, the time you lose from getting off the freeway becomes significant. I think you lose way more than only around 5 minutes per stop. And keep in mind, you can go those 260 miles in a Volt or Model S non-stop.
In all, the range extender in the i3 is simply not suitable for long trips (because of gas tank size).
Folks,
The i3 is meant to be a city vehicle. It does a great job being a city vehicle. In fact it's even appropriate in Southern California bumper to bumper freeway driving. The REX is there as a "safety" precaution for those that feel they need it. Frankly, for some of us, it's not an either the i3 or a Tesla choice. It could be an i3 AND a Tesla. Over the past two and a half weeks of welcoming our Model S home, I've driven it in LA traffic and it is a comfortable ride. However, as quick as it is. It's such a large car that I'm not as comfortable cutting in front of people as I usually do in my Active E (not in my wife's Roadster as it is HER car, not mine).
The i3 with REX would stay home on the longer trips and the Model S will go. And anything too far. I'll fly and rent a car (preferably an EV), take public transportation, or take a cab/car service.
Now on the BMW i equation, if one wanted to drive on a long trip in a car as an i3 owner. BMW gives credits to its owners to rent ICE BMWs (yes, I know, doesn't quite go with the EVs for all driving) but they basically provide i3 owners with the opportunity to drive "hybrid" with the help of a loaner fleet of ICE BMWs. BMW DOES have a lot invested in its "other" technology.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That's what I have been trying to point out is the role of the REx as designed. However, with a simple change (larger gas tank), the REx can be far more than just a backup and actually worth the asking price ($4k can buy you lots of tows).
I, as well as other participants in the Active E program, also pointed out that perhaps they should have just shoved some more batteries where the REX void and gas tank would be and provide the i3 with more range! If the i3 would have started with 130-150 miles of EV range it would've been a "no brainer" as it is... We're still waiting to see what the deal would be for Active E participants.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Granted – I’ve never been on a US freeway. In Sweden it wouldn’t be that much of a problem. Here, there are plenty of gas stations no further than two or three golf drives away from the freeway… You might have to look up where they are in advance, but it wouldn’t be more difficult than that. And you would perhaps also have to stop at gas stations that aren’t owned by the Norwegians, which would of course make you feel really bad (The others are owned, or part owned, by Shell, some Kuwaiti and some Saudi Arabian. Shell IMO is a particularly immoral corporation, and being Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian in this case means that they’re closely linked to their respective very, very undemocratic and massively corrupt regimes)…
I of course agree though that a product from Tesla is much and a lot better than a product from BMW for the foreseeable future. But as has been stated, not everyone can afford or seem to be willing to shell out for a 85 kWh Model S…
Regarding the Volt: The refueling nuisance aside, do we know which one of the i3 REx and the Volt that is the more fuel efficient for longer trips?
Similar threads
