Same goes with the Exige I saw a couple of weeks ago; the trunk is a small cubby above the back of the engine, a light coat might stuff it full.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Electric MINI revealed -- The Mini E
- Thread starter stopcrazypp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
As I understand it, it's not feasable. Manufactureres are expected to provide parts supplies, warrenty and liability for these cars. They just can't do that realistically. It's why they crushed the EV1's after the stupid decision to cancel the model. The remaining ones are 'On loan' to some universities as study projects; the 'Pink Slips' are still with GM. Some drive train components and batteries have been removed to render them as not roadworthy and the recipients had to sign a contract agreeing not to attempt to place them on the road.
The MINI E isn't a finished product; it's quite brilliant but not feasable. The 'PEM' is very expensive, it's all connected up with military grade connectors that are too expensive to be practical. It's battery storage isn't fully crash tested and it's only understood by a few dealers.
Last but not least, you couldn't insure it normally. It's a modified vehicle with an impractical replacement cost.
Rest assured... we asked, asked again then basically got on our knees and just begged. It's not a case of BMW corporate being an ass just practicality and the legal system that we, the consumers asked for!
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
GM got raked over the coals for killing their electric car program the moment that CARB eased the pressure. Crushing them was the logical next step in that disastrous path. Once they decided that they were not going to keep and support them, that's what they had to do.
I wonder if there is a statute of limitations to a manufacturers responsibility. i.e. had GM not crushed them but instead stock piled them, they may have been able to release them by now.
BMW never set out to build a mass produced MINI E so what could they do with a bunch of un-maintainable EV conversions? I'd even go as far as arguing that their allowing us to test them out in the real-world and join in with the program sets them, BMW, above other manufacturers.
BMW has a replacement: the Active-E. It's that simple.
GM didn't. They went right back to building SUVs after crushing the EV-1.
Honda crushed their EV+ too, but they didn't get a backlash. I think it's mostly because they had the Insight as a replacement.
Ford tried to crush the Think EVs too, but under pressure they decided to ship the remaining cars back to Norway instead.
Toyota gave in on the RAV-4 EV and kept some on the road.
I think there are still some Nissan Altras on the road for fleet usage.
Chrysler actually sold some electric minivans.
Anyways if GM made even a small compromise (like selling some drivable ones for fleets or shipping to another country), they probably wouldn't get the reaction they got.
Last edited:
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
I am not completely against GM, or completely for BMW, but just to help answer the question as to why these cases are different:
One difference is that GM said they wouldn't crush the cars right before they crushed them. They also spent tens of millions of dollars fighting the law so they could abandon the program completely, whereas BMW seems to have plans to continue with EVs. GM also didn't call the EV-1 a "test" program consistently, like BMW has; owners were surprised when the cars were called back. Another is that rather than simply destroying them, BMW seems (?) to be planning to at least re-use some of the parts.
I hear the "manufacturers have to provide parts" argument a lot; often with a number like 7, 8 or 10 years attached to it. I have looked but never actually found a law that requires that. I suspect that if there is such a law, it would be of the warrant of merchantability sort, which is implied. Which should be overcome by an explicit agreement to the contrary, which EV-1 customers offered to sign when they tried to buy their cars. Does anybody know any specifics about how this works legally?
Last edited:
I'm very, very curious about this supposed law too. I've never seen any reference that can point to the specific law (name/number) in the books, which makes it very suspicious. I've found a similar law in California that covers appliances and electronics, but it doesn't seem to apply to the EV-1.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/5145-How-many-Roadsters-will-be-produced?p=66672&viewfull=1#post66672
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'll agree that the difference is that GM had a production ready vehicle and BMW has clearly stated this was a test bed, and they are offering another EV.
If it is just a case of having to provide the parts, keep x% of the fleet back as donor vehicles. Or make buyers sign a waiver.
What buyers couldn't then get from the regular Mini parts catalog, I suspect they could get from AC Propulsion anyway.
What buyers couldn't then get from the regular Mini parts catalog, I suspect they could get from AC Propulsion anyway.
I'm not convinced. BMW only created the MiniE program to get the CARB credits. When the sales of the Mini was added to BMW sales in CA they went from a niche manufacture to a major player (I believe over 60,000 units sold a year) and were no longer exempt from low carbon emmision numbers the majors were reqired to meet. They fought CARB asking for a break and were rejected. Then they came out with the MiniE program to weasel skew the numbers without actually producng a clean air product that would be on CA roads for the car's lifetime.
Similar threads
