Yet Another Comparison: Bolt vs BMW i3 vs Model S

[MrAustraliaTax]

We're almost exactly the same as the OP;
P85DL
i3 (BEV not REX)
[no Bolts in Australia]

The P85DL is a glorious car. It's awesome on long drives. It's awesome at traffic lights. It's very big.
The i3 has many annoying quirks and seemingly inane design decisions marring it. It's small and maneuverable.

The i3 gets driven more as it is a very practical car for quick, short trips.

 

[Mattzilla]

I don't own a Bolt but I test drove one and I really liked it. I'm in the minority here because I don't put subjective eye candy at the forefront of deciding on which vehicle I find superior. Using primarily visuals to select a vehicle is sort of like primarily using your penis to select a wife. Mostly stupid and useless in regards to what really matters.

Anyway, using my brain, I think I would actually prefer a Bolt over my Tesla under 2 circumstances.

1, I gotta have better L3 infrastructure coast to coast.

2, Bolt needs TACC.

Do both of those and it's superior to my Tesla. For my purposes, anyway.

 

[suraj1194]

In a comparison of cars, the Model S wins. In a comparison of city cars, the Bolt wins.

 

[PeterHG]

Overall the car was engineered to be an urban car

What does it even mean to be an "urban car"? Better than a bicycle? I think we let car companies off the hook when we allow this designation. There are plenty of excellent small cars for cities, such as BMW's Mini, that don't require the label "urban" to explain their existence.

 

[SageBrush]

What does it even mean to be an "urban car"?

It means
1. Low average speeds
2. Low distances between charges
3. It might also mean more access to L2 charging

So ...
1a. High Cd is not a problem, and hatchback configs are favored for utility
2a. More opportunistic charging, less reliance on DCFC

This has little to do with "letting car manufactures off the hook" and a lot to do with acknowledging that it makes sense to tailor tools to the job. You should also remember that the car was probably designed with Europe in mind where rail is an attractive option for long(er) distance travel.

 

[PeterHG]

It means
1. Low average speeds
2. Low distances between charges
3. It might also mean more access to L2 charging

So ...
1a. High Cd is not a problem, and hatchback configs are favored for utility
2a. More opportunistic charging, less reliance on DCFC

This has little to do with "letting car manufactures off the hook" and a lot to do with acknowledging that it makes sense to tailor tools to the job. You should also remember that the car was probably designed with Europe in mind where rail is an attractive option for long(er) distance travel.

My question was not a question. It was a critique of the marketing baloney. They call the i3 an urban vehicle only because of its glaring shortcomings--such as low speed capability, low range, high Cd--as you point out.

I don't like dissing others' rides, and I hope i3 owners will forgive me. It just makes me very angry that one of the world's foremost car companies came up so short on their EV at a critical juncture for the industry.

 

[AndrewTX]

We're almost exactly the same as the OP;
P85DL
i3 (BEV not REX)
[no Bolts in Australia]

The P85DL is a glorious car. It's awesome on long drives. It's awesome at traffic lights. It's very big.
The i3 has many annoying quirks and seemingly inane design decisions marring it. It's small and maneuverable.

The i3 gets driven more as it is a very practical car for quick, short trips.

Just curious; what makes it more practical for quick, short trips than your MS?

 

[Mike K]

My question was not a question. It was a critique of the marketing baloney. They call the i3 an urban vehicle only because of its glaring shortcomings--such as low speed capability, low range, high Cd--as you point out.

I don't like dissing others' rides, and I hope i3 owners will forgive me. It just makes me very angry that one of the world's foremost car companies came up so short on their EV at a critical juncture for the industry.

BMW fell into the trap that everyone up until Tesla did: Let's make our electric cars look as weird as possible. Toyota does it with the Prius and Honda with the Insight, etc. And for years people clamored that nobody wanted electric/ hybrid cars but that was just because the electric cars available were all ugly looking, had poor performance or both. The i3 is a horrible transition car because not only would someone theoretically be making the jump from an ICE car to an electric but they'd be making a jump to a whole new awkward category of car. It's no surprise it isn't selling. And again, I own one. Just want to make sure that's clear before someone calls me a Tesla fanboy again.

 

[SageBrush]

My question was not a question. It was a critique of the marketing baloney.

You are caught in a self-induced tautology.

I understand marketing spin, but you refuse to understand engineering trade-offs. The truth about the i3 is, as usual in these things, somewhere in the middle. E.g., car roominess, ease of ingress/egress, and hatchback utility lead to higher Cd. Or another: use of carbon fibre has little benefit on the highway and a lot more in stop/go driving.

As for charges of "weird-mobile," those are the mating call of the reactionary conservative you hear.

 

[SageBrush]

BMW fell into the trap that everyone up until Tesla did: Let's make our electric cars look as weird as possible. Toyota does it with the Prius and Honda with the Insight, etc. And for years people clamored that nobody wanted electric/ hybrid cars but that was just because the electric cars available were all ugly looking, had poor performance or both. The i3 is a horrible transition car because not only would someone theoretically be making the jump from an ICE car to an electric but they'd be making a jump to a whole new awkward category of car. It's no surprise it isn't selling. And again, I own one. Just want to make sure that's clear before someone calls me a Tesla fanboy again.

The Prius has sold over 5M copies.

The i3 is expensive and limited utility in the US. That strikes me as more than adequate explanation.

 

[Mike K]

Yeah the Prius wasn't the best example.

 

[hill]

The carbon fibre reduces the car's weight and improves the city MPG; it does nothing for aero .....snip.....

either I was not clear or you didn't get what I was saying or a little of both. The fact that BMW would put so much THOUGHT into what the body would best be made out of (because lighter ultimately translates to more range, especially stop & go), despite the extra cost of carbon fiber, bmw didn't use the same expense rationale when it came to lowering i3's drag - because lower drag also plays a part in range increase @ speed.
better?
.

 

[McRat]

Yeah the Prius wasn't the best example.

The Prius is an excellent example. It's ugly, always has been, cheezy interiors (carnival rides have better seats), poor performance, and the biggest seller in the hybrid market. Ugly, slow, and poorly appointed is the winning combo?

The Pickup Truck. Normally ugly to very ugly. Big seller.

Camry/Corolla. Ugly. Big seller.

Most SUVs. A box with tires. Big seller.

Folk who buy cars for looks are actually the minority. Live with it.

 

[SageBrush]

either I was not clear or you didn't get what I was saying or a little of both. The fact that BMW would put so much THOUGHT into what the body would best be made out of (because lighter ultimately translates to more range, especially stop & go), despite the extra cost of carbon fiber, bmw didn't use the same expense rationale when it came to lowering i3's drag - because lower drag also plays a part in range increase @ speed.
better?
.

A lower Cd is not just an investment in money, it carries its own trade-offs in car utility*. Moreover, BMW probably expected to spread their investment in carbon fiber technology to other models whereas a low Cd in the i3 is more of a one-off investment.

*One I am happy Tesla chose for the Model 3, but that is just a personal preference.

 

[hill]

The model 3 will benefit from Tesla's investment in front end drag CD. the same can be said for any investment that BMW does with drag. are you saying that investment in a low drag coefficient can't be invested over other cars? because I'm guessing (as to bmw) it certainly could & should be.

 

[MrAustraliaTax]

Just curious; what makes it more practical for quick, short trips than your MS?

Easier to get into/out of and easier to park. Much more maneuverable in small areas like car parks.

 

[hill]

translation:
he means caw - pawks

(looking forward to immigrating down-undah - some day . . . cheese !!! (that's cheers to everyone else)
.

 

[hill]

oops double post

 

[MrAustraliaTax]

A few further comments in defence of the i3.

1. Weird on the outside. Not at all weird on the inside. Surprisingly spacious in the rear seats. "Suicide" doors nowhere nearly as annoying as we first thought they'd be.

2. Range anxiety is not an issue. It easily covers our daily driving needs with usually more than 50% charge left.

3. Missing many features which we adore on the P85DL like seat memory.

4. Setting a navigation destination is a train wreck - we don't bother - but I gather this is the same system as in all BMWs. Seeing petrol stations as POIs was surprisingly annoying until we eventually figured out how to turn this off.

 

[electracity]

Yeah the Prius wasn't the best example.

The original Prius was not designed to be distinctively weird.