BMW i3

[Rifleman]

No, I don't believe that the majority of i3 buyers will come from "other EVs"; most of them will be recruited from the ranks of ICE drivers. That said, the percentage of conquest buyers coming from other brands will be very significant. We have seen something similar with the LEAF in the past.

Most i3 buyers will have previously driven an ICE. In the case of the i3, most buyers are going to be people who have already decided to buy an EV, and will choose the i3 over the leaf or other options. I suspect that there will be VERY few people who have not already made the decision to go EV who choose the i3. The i3 will pick off sales from other EV's, not from other BMW vehicles. At this point, virtually every EV sale picks off a driver from ICE. As the first rounds of Leaf and Volt leases start to end, we will start to see our first mainstream drivers buying their second EV (not including those going from roadster->Model S or who drove 1st gen EV's like the EV1 or original Rav4EV)

 

[Electroman]

Why would an ICE driver who has already rejected the Leaf and Volt, would jump into i3?

The biggest complaint these folks have on these two is a) Range b) Price

Which one of those concerns does i3 address ?

You and I can argue all we want till the cows come home, that an average American drives only 40 miles a day and the 70 (realistic) miles Leaf and i3 offer is more than enough. But for many their comfort level is a much higher range - perhaps 120 to 150 miles.

Bottom line: this puny range and high price will not convert ICE drivers.

 

[surfingslovak]

Most i3 buyers will have previously driven an ICE. In the case of the i3, most buyers are going to be people who have already decided to buy an EV, and will choose the i3 over the leaf or other options. I suspect that there will be VERY few people who have not already made the decision to go EV who choose the i3. The i3 will pick off sales from other EV's, not from other BMW vehicles. At this point, virtually every EV sale picks off a driver from ICE. As the first rounds of Leaf and Volt leases start to end, we will start to see our first mainstream drivers buying their second EV (not including those going from roadster->Model S or who drove 1st gen EV's like the EV1 or original Rav4EV)

Please enlighten me, is the EV market so mature and are the ranks of ICE drivers and potential EV drivers so limited that a marketing and advertising spend will have no effect? Are we at a point where we have to fret about stealing "potential" buyers from other EVs? I'm curious how you can make a compelling argument for the following statement you made up-thread.

"Ok... fine, we'll make an EV but we're going to make sure it only takes sales from OTHER EVs, not from our 1,2 or 3 series cars."

Besides, in the event that you were right, wouldn't competition force other EVs to get better? As to the percentage of LEAF drivers considering an i3, I have a pretty good idea of that market segment; we ran a poll on the forum to gauge interest. I don't see many switching over, not unless the i3 competed better on price or on range. The Volt could be a different story, and I think it's no accident that GM announced a significant price reduction a few months ago.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would an ICE driver who has already rejected the Leaf and Volt, would jump into i3?
Which one of those concerns does i3 address ?

...

Bottom line: this puny range and high price will not convert ICE drivers.

The i3 with REx has about twice the EV range of the Volt, and it charges more quickly on level 2. Additionally, it offers quick charging, and will be more efficient overall, which includes REx mode. Some prospects struggled with the perception of the Chevy brand. I think there is enough there to mull over.

As to prospective BEV drivers: it's a similar story here as well. The Nissan brand does not appeal to everyone. The styling of the LEAF does not appeal to everyone, same goes for its handling, options, connected and other services. How does the Chevy Cruze differ from the Nissan Versa? Please, this is marketing 101. A recent consumer survey indicated that plugins would see much faster adoption rate if Toyota decided to build and market a compelling EV.

People have different preferences and perceptions. We don't all want to drive the same car. I would recommend checking the European market, where the i3 went on sale already. Plenty of ICE converts there. Why should it be any different in the US?

 

[Rifleman]

Besides, in the event that you were right, wouldn't competition force other EVs to get better? As to the percentage of LEAF drivers considering an i3, I have pretty good idea of that market segment; we ran a poll on the forum to gauge interest. I don't see many switching over, not unless the i3 competed better on price or on range. The Volt could be a different story, and I think it's no accident that GM announced a significant price reduction a few months ago.

You are exactly right, its a good thing to compete with the other EV's out there. Every non Tesla EV has major flaws in it, such as resistive heaters, to small of an internal charger, lack of strong regen, ect. Most EV drivers have put up with this issues not because they like these design choices, but because there are no other options. Raising the bar on EV's is good for everyone. I said that the i3 will take away sales from the Leaf, Volt, and Spark EV, but I did not say that it is a bad thing that it is doing so.

When BWM designed the i3, they chose to compete in the existing EV market, and not to attempt to extend the existing EV market. It's a great thing to have more competition in the existing EV market. I think that the lower EV market will continue to grow, but think that the growth it sees will come from people making the choice they want to go EV, and then deciding they want the i3, or the leaf, or the volt, or whatever they choose. With the current offerings (outside of Tesla), EV growth will not come from someone deciding they want to buy a BMW, and then choosing the i3 over the 3 series.

To date, Tesla is the only company that has made an EV that can compete and win against it's ICE peer in all categories. Until there are other EV's that can do this, all EV's will compete only within the EV market, and not directly against ICE. (I will make an exception for the C-Max Energi, if you count it as an EV, as when you run the numbers on it, including incentives, it actually can compete very well against that standard C-Max. Ford really needs to give this one the marketing push that is needed to let people know this)

 

[stopcrazypp]

=You and I can argue all we want till the cows come home, that an average American drives only 40 miles a day and the 70 (realistic) miles Leaf and i3 offer is more than enough. But for many their comfort level is a much higher range - perhaps 120 to 150 miles.

I agree, the ZEV credit optimized "100 mile" (LA city cycle) EVs like the Leaf and i3 may work for most commutes, but it doesn't work for most semi-regular weekend trips (even ignoring much longer annual/semi-annual trips). So they can't be the only car, while something like a "150 mile" or "200 mile" EV can work as an only car. That's the main part I'm disappointed at the i3 for.

 

[tommolog]

I agree, the ZEV credit optimized "100 mile" (LA city cycle) EVs like the Leaf and i3 may work for most commutes, but it doesn't work for most semi-regular weekend trips (even ignoring much longer annual/semi-annual trips). So they can't be the only car, while something like a "150 mile" or "200 mile" EV can work as an only car. That's the main part I'm disappointed at the i3 for.

BMW's solution to that is the range extender. A BMW i3 REx can certainly be your only vehicle if you want it to be. That might not be everyone here's first choice (to burn gas on the few times a year you need to drive further) but for the vast majority of people that currently burn gas all the time, the ability to drive 95% of the time on electric and only need 10 or 15 gallons of gas for an entire year of driving is appealing.

If there were 150 mile or 200 mile EV alternatives within the reach of most people than I agree the majority of them would choose those over the complicated range extender model that still requires the maintenance (albeit much less) of a typical ICE car. The problem is there isn't. The least expensive Model S is $72,000 before tax and incentives, leaving the i3 REx $25,000 less and that 25K makes a huge difference in reaching a larger pool of potential customers.

Plus, even though a Model S can in most cases be the "only car", how often is that the case? I'd bet a very small percentage of Model S owners do not own another car. I've been driving electric for 5 years now, with sub-100 mile EV's and drive them over 30,000 miles a year. I have ICE cars also and on the one day a month or so that I need more range or more utility I take my pick up truck. On many of those days even a 150 or 200 mile EV wouldn't work for me anyway without drastically rearranging my schedule and route to incorporate charging. Personally I don't think the sub-100 mile range of the i3 will cause issues for many people because they want it to be their only car. If they need that kind of utility, the range extender will serve them much better than a bigger battery can (utility wise) in many instances.

Does this little "city car" EV solve every problem we have with current EV's? Certainly not. As much as I personally like it I wish BMW copied Tesla's model of optional battery packs. An i3 with an optional 35kW pack would be perfect for me and would have basically given us the Model E three years before Tesla does. I think a LOT of people would be looking past its unconventional styling if the EPA sticker displayed a 150 mi EPA range.

However it is what it is and I think it's great for Tesla and the whole EV movement. Having a premium automaker like BMW make such a huge investment (over 3 billion so far) in electric vehicles helps to validate the fact that this is the direction the industry is going. What BMW is doing is so much more than converting a couple thousand cars from their current lineup and offering them at a loss for CARB compliance. If the i3 turns out to be a sales disappointment (I don't think it will) BMW isn't going to just say "well see nobody wants these cars) because they have too much invested. They will reevaluate and come out with a better car. BMW i is too big now, it's the direction the board of management is taking the company. There will be missteps and a learning process but they are in it for the long haul for sure. How many other existing OEM's besides Nissan (GM perhaps) are?

I don't think BMW needs to sell 100,000 i3's a year for them to call it a success. If they hit their targeted 30,000 - 40,000 per year worldwide they will be very happy and it will certainly lead to more BMW EV's with longer ranges and greater utility. By the time the second generation i3 is out (2017-2018) there will be at least a half dozen BMW's with plugs. The ball is moving, just not as fast as we all want!

 

[dpeilow]

Totally agree with surfinslovak.

But believe me, I know many LEAF drivers who are shocked by the reality of winter driving despite being warned 50 miles was likely. I wouldn't be surprised if they switched to the REx.

I've also had many BMW drivers wax lyrical about the i3 when the usual EV conversation starts up. BMW expects many of them to opt for the REx and that's probably a good thing.

 

[Rifleman]

BMW expects many of them to opt for the REx and that's probably a good thing.

If I were to buy an i3, I would get the REx, and I desperately want to drive pure EV.

 

[stopcrazypp]

BMW's solution to that is the range extender. A BMW i3 REx can certainly be your only vehicle if you want it to be. That might not be everyone here's first choice (to burn gas on the few times a year you need to drive further) but for the vast majority of people that currently burn gas all the time, the ability to drive 95% of the time on electric and only need 10 or 15 gallons of gas for an entire year of driving is appealing.

I would pick it if they simply switched the range extender for more battery capacity (although the fact it's a 4 seater city car is also a problem for me). Given the current situation, I would just wait for the gen 3 (or the Infiniti EV) and I suspect a lot of people would do the same. Investing $40-50k into a plug-in in the i3's market segment to still have an ICE in it at this point doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. And I think in the market's eye, driving an EV with enough range to cover weekend trips still has a different meaning than one that depends on the gas engine to drive those trips (EV vs EREV). I think the i3 REx will mainly appeal to former Volt owners who want more electric range.

It's also a problem that they are selling the range extender as a back up with a tiny gas tank (to avoid a tow) rather than as a true range extender (mainly for ZEV credit compliance reasons to fit into the BEVx category).

And like Rifleman, I'm not saying the i3 is a bad thing or that it won't sell, it just doesn't really change the market situation for EVs (and I had hope that it would).

 

[Lloyd]

I would bet that we see aftermarket modifications of the 2.5 gallon gas tank to allow more range very soon. It would make this car much more useful!

 

[RobStark]

I think the sales numbers and production ramp up is comparable to what we have seen with the Zoe, which is priced very competitively, in part thanks to the battery rental scheme, and has been universally well received. Remember the slow start Tesla had with the Model S last winter and how Elon was personally tending to quality issues? It's easy to see the glass as half full.

But BMW is a truly global company, unlike Renault, and unlike Tesla currently produces 1.8M vehicles per year. When an auto company has a hot product they have their dealers stocked with 20k+ units before the official release and marketing program start so units are ready to fly of the shelf. BMW already knows how to paint a car and how to screw things together. There is not the steep learning curve of Tesla. Carbon fiber is new and EV powertrain is new but not building cars from scratch.

Yes but this does not imply much about where the majority of buyers will be recruited from. Remember, EV sales in Europe have been anything but a tiny sliver. While a significant percentage of LEAF and Volt buyers have indicated interest in the i3 here in the US, I believe that the majority of owners will come from an ICE. As is the case with any other plugin vehicle on the market.

We are still at the very beginning of EV adoption. I think it's really silly to view a new entrant standoffishly, point out that it offers nothing new, and will most likely only harm existing product offerings. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe that has been the underlying tone of much of the debate in this thread.

LEAF had no option but conquest buyers.

Giving new entrants a pass when they don't bring a genuine practical improvement to EVs defeat the purpose of competition, which is supposed to improve the breed.

The I3 is for people who want a LEAF or those that still want ICE generator a la Volt but want a prestigious brand plaque on the hood.

Tesla raised the bar and brought new people into the fold. Like me. I was a turbo diesel guy previously. BEVs did not have good enough range and Volt did not offer good value for the money.

With battery prices falling 7-8% every year we as consumers should demand a raising of the bar with every new BEV entry. And call a compliance BEV a compliance BEV.

 

[surfingslovak]

I agree, the ZEV credit optimized "100 mile" (LA city cycle) EVs like the Leaf and i3 may work for most commutes, but it doesn't work for most semi-regular weekend trips (even ignoring much longer annual/semi-annual trips). So they can't be the only car, while something like a "150 mile" or "200 mile" EV can work as an only car. That's the main part I'm disappointed at the i3 for.

I agree with the assertion that BMW should have aimed higher in terms of their pure BEV offering. A 30 kWh battery would have likely carried a price and weight penalty comparable to the REx. It looks like, for whatever reason, their product managers and planners decided that the REx will cover this use case, and prospects will get over the fact that they will have to burn some gas. The i3 is what it is, but this does not mean that BMW is not working on improvements for the i3 or developing other related vehicles. The same can be said of Nissan, GM and Tesla.

- - - Updated - - -

BMW's solution to that is the range extender. A BMW i3 REx can certainly be your only vehicle if you want it to be. That might not be everyone here's first choice (to burn gas on the few times a year you need to drive further) but for the vast majority of people that currently burn gas all the time, the ability to drive 95% of the time on electric and only need 10 or 15 gallons of gas for an entire year of driving is appealing.

Agreed. I struggled with that also, but when I look at the amount of fuel wasted when my car (I had both a LEAF and the ActiveE) needed a tow, then this would have likely covered several years worth of REx usage in my case.

If there were 150 mile or 200 mile EV alternatives within the reach of most people than I agree the majority of them would choose those over the complicated range extender model that still requires the maintenance (albeit much less) of a typical ICE car. The problem is there isn't. The least expensive Model S is $72,000 before tax and incentives, leaving the i3 REx $25,000 less and that 25K makes a huge difference in reaching a larger pool of potential customers.

Yes, we all have to face market reality. I wanted a plugin vehicle in 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon disaster struck, and I decided that I didn't want to wait any longer. If it wasn't for that, I would likely be driving a Model S today, but the market reality in 2010 was different, and the LEAF looked like a more viable choice from all the alternatives. Who can say with absolute certainty what choices and criteria EV prospects are pondering today? A good number of them might find the i3 to be their ticket to the plugin world. I will need a new car next year. If BlueStar was for sale, I'm relatively certain that I would go with that, but we all will have to wait a bit longer for that to happen.

- - - Updated - - -

To date, Tesla is the only company that has made an EV that can compete and win against it's ICE peer in all categories. Until there are other EV's that can do this, all EV's will compete only within the EV market, and not directly against ICE. (I will make an exception for the C-Max Energi, if you count it as an EV, as when you run the numbers on it, including incentives, it actually can compete very well against that standard C-Max. Ford really needs to give this one the marketing push that is needed to let people know this)

That makes much more sense to me, thanks for elaborating further. I would offer that according to a recent survey, about 25% of households in the US would be a good fit for a 100-mile EV and are indeed considering a plugin vehicle. When we consider the average vehicle age in the US, which is 11.4 years, then new plugin sales should be about 2% annually. They are not nearly close however, and presently hover around 0.6%. This means that 2 out of 3 prospects do not see a compelling enough product on the market, for whatever reason. There is plenty of opportunity to build a better mouse trap and capture this demand. Additionally, marketing, advertising and further R&D spending will help to increase the pool of prospects. I hope we can agree that there is a long way to go from 25% to 100% of the households, and plenty of opportunity for more than a handful of car makers.

- - - Updated - - -

Totally agree with surfinslovak.

But believe me, I know many LEAF drivers who are shocked by the reality of winter driving despite being warned 50 miles was likely. I wouldn't be surprised if they switched to the REx.

I've also had many BMW drivers wax lyrical about the i3 when the usual EV conversation starts up. BMW expects many of them to opt for the REx and that's probably a good thing.

Thanks for that, dpeilow! I have to admit that I was a bit surprised when you announced that you were going with the Ampera back in 2011. That said, I nearly traded in my LEAF for a Volt, because it was my only vehicle and I struggled with non-existent charging infrastructure in my area. Driving a plugin for three years, coping with a number of growing pains, and helping other owners gave me a new respect for what it takes to affect large-scale change in personal transportation. That said, I have to agree that many things have moved along much more quickly than I would have thought possible.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Agreed. I struggled with that also, but when I look at the amount of fuel wasted when my car (I had both a LEAF and the ActiveE) needed a tow, then this would have likely covered several years worth of REx usage in my case.

This situation is why I don't like the BEVx category. If it didn't exist, BMW would be forced to offer a larger battery instead (which is what I expected given the battery size of the MINI-E and Active-E). And if it wasn't so restrictive, the gas tank would be larger and the car would be suitable for longer trips (instead of being stuck in the middle) and the comparison with tow truck spending wouldn't even come up in terms of the $4k REx premium. Of course, maybe the market will react differently, or like Lloyd says: gas tank modification becomes popular.

 

[surfingslovak]

LEAF had no option but conquest buyers.

Thanks, Rob. I appreciate your point of view. I'm afraid that I might not have expressed what I meant with conquest buyers properly. I think most established automakers would rather bring in buyers from other brands than to cannibalize existing sales generated by their other models. That's why I brought up the profile of a typical LEAF buyer: he or she typically comes from an ICE, which competes with Nissan. Yes, there are many Nissan-faithful as well, but the point I was trying to make is that what you and Rifleman brought up is not something typical of the i3. I would contend that all of the major plugins (LEAF, Volt and the Model S) targeted similar buyers. The i3 will be no different, and as I mentioned above, the opportunity and the prospect pool is large enough to accommodate everybody.

- - - Updated - - -

And call a compliance BEV a compliance BEV.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. Given my usage pattern, the RAV4 EV would likely be a better choice than the i3, when considering what will be available on the market next year. That said, I don't like the fact that the RAV4 EV has so many documented issues, and Toyota could not be bothered to fix them. It also does not help knowing that they are openly hostile towards EVs, and the RAV4 is a pure compliance play. I learned from prior ownership experience that the commitment of the manufacturer is critical to owner satisfaction. It really helped that Nissan would respond in a very meaningful and significant way to the battery capacity loss owners faced. Likewise, I learned to appreciate that BMW stands behind their EV program, and is willing to learn from mistakes. As an owner, you are on this journey with them together. I believe that's one of the most critical aspects when considering an EV.

- - - Updated - - -

But BMW is a truly global company, unlike Renault, and unlike Tesla currently produces 1.8M vehicles per year. When an auto company has a hot product they have their dealers stocked with 20k+ units before the official release and marketing program start so units are ready to fly of the shelf. BMW already knows how to paint a car and how to screw things together. There is not the steep learning curve of Tesla. Carbon fiber is new and EV powertrain is new but not building cars from scratch.

Again, this could be a misconception. I believe you might realize that Renault owned Nissan? The Renault-Nissan alliance is far larger by volume than BMW. Additionally, the i sub-brand was a clean-sheet design, as was the manufacturing line in Leipzig. Many aspects of the carbon fiber process and manufacturing were new as well. I worked briefly at the FIZ in Munich at the beginning of my career, and I have an appreciation of the monumental task the i sub-brand must have represented. Both in terms of logistics and also in terms of leadership. Many engineers I worked with at the FIZ were focused on a particular task or specialty. Bringing a completely new and novel vehicle to market is challenging in an organization geared towards building something else. I'm sure that both Nissan and GM faced very similar challenges as well. Tesla could actually have an advantage, much like Amazon did when compared to traditional booksellers, because they are building an organization dedicated to new mobility. Although they might have a lot to learn, they can be more nimble and aggressive.

- - - Updated - - -

This situation is why I don't like the BEVx category. If it didn't exist, BMW would be forced to offer a larger battery instead (which is what I expected given the battery size of the MINI-E and Active-E). And if it wasn't so restrictive, the gas tank would be larger and the car would be suitable for longer trips (instead of being stuck in the middle) and the comparison with tow truck spending wouldn't even come up in terms of the $4k REx premium. Of course, maybe the market will react differently, or like Lloyd says: gas tank modification becomes popular.

Yes, I struggle with this as well. The saving grace here is that CARB is willing to consider feedback from drivers and OEMs, and might revisit the BEVx regulation in the future. From reading the published documents on their website, I believe that they are primarily interested in maximizing the total EV miles driven, and will do what it takes to further that goal.

 

[ChadS]

The I3 is for people who want a LEAF or those that still want ICE generator a la Volt but want a prestigious brand plaque on the hood.

Several reasons why people might prefer the i3 other than the brand name have been listed above. For one, when compared to the Volt with a REX, it has TWICE the electric range - an extremely important difference to most electric buyers (though it will be balanced for some by the extra fillups required on road trips). Differences are less dramatic when compared to the LEAF without the REX, but it has more tech, is faster and has better driving dynamics, is more efficient and built more sustainably, and has better thermal management. Not everybody will pay the extra price for those things (and in fact some will prefer the LEAF's more usable doors and bigger back seat and cargo area), but clearly some people will. I've never bought a premium brand (some might count Tesla, but they were simply an unknown brand when I bought them) but I would definitely be interested in the i3 despite its higher price. Not sure if I would take it over the LEAF because I am pretty cheap, but I sure would consider it.

Tesla raised the bar and brought new people into the fold. Like me. I was a turbo diesel guy previously. BEVs did not have good enough range and Volt did not offer good value for the money.

With battery prices falling 7-8% every year we as consumers should demand a raising of the bar with every new BEV entry. And call a compliance BEV a compliance BEV.

I completely agree all the automakers can be doing more, and in fact I volunteer to try to push for that. The i3 is not all it could be, nor all I had hoped it might be. But if you are implying the i3 is a compliance car, I am afraid it simply doesn't meet the definition (as stopcrazypp points out below, there could be more than one definition; but I'm referring to the industry use of the term). BMW is clearly going WAY farther than the Spark, Fit, RAV4, and 500e. BMW built an entirely new platform, and is making the i3 available in non-ZEV states, and plan to sell them in far larger numbers than are required to meet CARB regulations.

The i3 is a conquest car; and I'm fine with that. My main issue with the i3 is that it is meant to be a non-cannibalizing conquest car (perhaps that's what you meant). I'm not happy about that; but it's a start. The i8 will be a halo car; that's worse as volumes are meant to be lower. But supposedly they are working on a whole line of vehicles; I suspect BMW is trying to move slow to get their dealers up to speed. No sense making cars their dealers won't sell. I'm hoping that, as a premium brand with Tesla's capabilities established, BMW dealers will catch on faster than Chevy and Nissan dealers have (they are going the right direction, but very slowly in most of the country). BMW corporate displayed a car near me a few months ago; several local dealers showed up and while they weren't incredibly familiar with the car, it was clear they had done some homework and really wanted a piece of the action. I took that as a good sign. It helps that the LEAF and Model S have done extremely well in this (non-ZEV) area.

 

[stopcrazypp]

But if you are implying the i3 is a compliance car, I am afraid you are unfamiliar with the definitions. Yes, it complies with the CARB rules, but so do all the other cars including Tesla - they are all complying with the laws and taking advantage of the incentives, as you would expect any business to do. BMW is clearly going WAY farther than the Spark, Fit, RAV4, and 500e. BMW built an entirely new platform, and is making the i3 available in non-ZEV states, and plan to sell them in far larger numbers than are required to meet CARB regulations.

There's two definitions. Most people would define "compliance car" as one that's being built purely to comply with the minimum required volume (i3 is not under this definition). TonyWilliams uses a definition that any car that complies with the ZEV regulation is a compliance car. By that definition, only Tesla is not a compliance car because Tesla doesn't need those credits (Coda also, but they are bankrupt). Even the Leaf is a compliance car under that definition, as Nissan uses those credits for compliance, and the car is also optimized for the "100 mile" LA cycle range that the ZEV regulation calls for.

 

[ChadS]

I see your point, stopcrazypp, and thanks for helping to clear up the differences. I am using the former definition because that is what is used in the industry. I don't see the second definition as useful (I recognize that it flows from the definition of the word; but the term "compliance car", like many terms, is a shortened label that does not necessarily fit the definition of the words in the label - the term "conquest cars" don't really tell you what they are either); by definition all existing manufacturers have to comply so yeah, they all build compliance cars. The second definition lumps all existing manufacturers together regardless of their approach. It's the different approaches that I am interested in.

 

[surfingslovak]

The US pricing list has just been released. (via bimmerpost and the i3 Facebook grop).

Click to open

 

[Electroman]

Am I reading it right ? $40k base price for 80 mile range car ?

 

[surfingslovak]

Am I reading it right ? $40k base price for 80 mile range car ?

While the disappointment is palpable, that particular information is not new, Jay. The base MSRP was announced in the summer. The US trim is optioned differently though. I think an interesting question would be, why exactly is the price relative to the base model LEAF so much higher in the US when compared to Europe. And what other options were available, and how much they cost. In addition to comparing the base models, I would like to price out and compare a fully loaded trim as well. While we might have a good idea of the range based on the NDEC numbers, the official EPA range figure has not been determined yet. So the "80 mile range car" is as good a guess as any.