Are you considering buying/leasing BMW i3 ?

[surfingslovak]

Perhaps, but I still think it is too expensive for the range... And I think the limited Rex is simply silly on many fronts...

Perhaps. Time will tell. Personally, I would have preferred a 28 or 30 kWh BEV option. The price and weight penalty would have been similar to the REx, and the uptake much better than BMW had anticipated. While I think that they missed the sweet spot on the BEV, especially with the Infinity LE and the 40 kWh Model S out of the picture now, the i3 could still sell well. I heard various things through the grapevine, and the upshot is that they likely realize how much lead Tesla has in the EV market, and that they need to do better. I, for one, hope that more automakers will get serious and there will be more viable options on the market. For every pocketbook and need, if possible. I think the i3 will fit the bill, even though the BEV version is not as ambitious as I was hoping to see.

 

[cyellen]

But I'm relatively sure that the i3 is my LEAF replacement.

Why? What do you find appealing over the Leaf?

1. I've always loved BMW cars.
2. I prefer the styling over the LEAF.
3. The new option packages on the LEAF don't appeal to me...and I would love leather, but I hate black leather. (Silly, I know, but I've put up with the ugly and always dirty gray cloth for way too long now).
4. Someone has to buy them so the manufacturers keep making them. Might as well be me.

 

[aqn]

For me, the i3 has the qualities Nissan could have given the LEAF but instead decided to endow it with lard-ass qualities because they were afraid 'Murcans wouldn't go for it otherwise. To wit, the i3 is smaller, and is almost 500 lbs lighter than the LEAF. That's like throwing the battery pack out of the LEAF.

In automotive design, weight reduction pays off everywhere and the weight savings are compounded throughout. Lighter weight means: brake components can be smaller and lighter for the same level of braking performance; structural and suspension pieces can be lighter because they don't have to carry or control as much weight; suspension pieces (springs, dampers, anti-roll bars) can be smaller because they have less weight (both sprung and unsprung (see "smaller brakes")) to control; motive power source can be smaller because it doesn't have to propel as much weight; ditto transmission: with less power (for the same level of performance) to transmit and less weight to propel, the gear set, drive shaft, differential, drive shafts etc. can all be smaller and lighter. Every components being smaller and lighter begets a weight saving which can in turn permit another round of downsizing of every component.

Conversely, adding weight penalizes everywhere and the penalty is compounded just as benefits are compounded for weight savings.

Range? I remember Nissan's claim of 80-100 miles per charge. I NEVER saw 80 miles. Yeah, yeah sure, those of you in the table-top desserts of AZ and South CA may have. Not me. Does BMW fudge their range numbers like Nissan? Time will tell. The availability of a range extender makes the i3 what the GM Volt could have been: simple. Besides, I fail to understand the preoccupation with making EVs behave like ICE vehicles range-wise. That's like putting a rotary dial on cellular phones because one can't get used to a virtual number pad.

Performance? 0-60 in 7+ secs is three whole seconds quicker than the LEAF, and is about what my stock 2005 MkV GTI would do.

Handling? The i3 has the same low CG and tire quality as the LEAF, but it has RWD and 50/50 weight distribution. In the twisties, I fully expect the i3 to hand the LEAF its head.

Looks? I bought the LEAF, didn't I? 'Nuf said.

Size? I am the sole occupant of the car 70% of the time. Another 29+% of the time, it's my wife and I. A tiny fraction of the time, we have luggage. An even smaller fraction of the time, I have three or four occupants in the car. Size is not an issue with me.

The biggish fly in the i3 ointment is the price. Time (and personal priorities) will tell whether the i3's price premium is justified.

 

[Boomer23]

For me, the i3 has the qualities Nissan could have given the LEAF but instead decided to endow it with lard-ass qualities because they were afraid 'Murcans wouldn't go for it otherwise. To wit, the i3 is smaller, and is almost 500 lbs lighter than the LEAF. That's like throwing the battery pack out of the LEAF.

In automotive design, weight reduction pays off everywhere and the weight savings are compounded throughout. Lighter weight means: brake components can be smaller and lighter for the same level of braking performance; structural and suspension pieces can be lighter because they don't have to carry or control as much weight; suspension pieces (springs, dampers, anti-roll bars) can be smaller because they have less weight (both sprung and unsprung (see "smaller brakes")) to control; motive power source can be smaller because it doesn't have to propel as much weight; ditto transmission: with less power (for the same level of performance) to transmit and less weight to propel, the gear set, drive shaft, differential, drive shafts etc. can all be smaller and lighter. Every components being smaller and lighter begets a weight saving which can in turn permit another round of downsizing of every component.

Conversely, adding weight penalizes everywhere and the penalty is compounded just as benefits are compounded for weight savings.

Range? I remember Nissan's claim of 80-100 miles per charge. I NEVER saw 80 miles. Yeah, yeah sure, those of you in the table-top desserts of AZ and South CA may have. Not me. Does BMW fudge their range numbers like Nissan? Time will tell. The availability of a range extender makes the i3 what the GM Volt could have been: simple. Besides, I fail to understand the preoccupation with making EVs behave like ICE vehicles range-wise. That's like putting a rotary dial on cellular phones because one can't get used to a virtual number pad.

Performance? 0-60 in 7+ secs is three whole seconds quicker than the LEAF, and is about what my stock 2005 MkV GTI would do.

Handling? The i3 has the same low CG and tire quality as the LEAF, but it has RWD and 50/50 weight distribution. In the twisties, I fully expect the i3 to hand the LEAF its head.

Looks? I bought the LEAF, didn't I? 'Nuf said.

Size? I am the sole occupant of the car 70% of the time. Another 29+% of the time, it's my wife and I. A tiny fraction of the time, we have luggage. An even smaller fraction of the time, I have three or four occupants in the car. Size is not an issue with me.

The biggish fly in the i3 ointment is the price. Time (and personal priorities) will tell whether the i3's price premium is justified.

May I quote you on the main i3 thread, or better yet, you can paste your above comments to that thread? After an impressive test drive of the i3, I mentioned on that thread that the i3 appears to be the small performance EV that some of us have been waiting for. I got some "meh" responses and comments about the i3's appearance.

 

[aqn]

For me, the i3 has the qualities Nissan could have given the LEAF but instead decided to endow it with lard-ass qualities because they were afraid 'Murcans wouldn't go for it otherwise. [...]

May I quote you on the main i3 thread, or better yet, you can paste your above comments to that thread? After an impressive test drive of the i3, I mentioned on that thread that the i3 appears to be the small performance EV that some of us have been waiting for. I got some "meh" responses and comments about the i3's appearance.

I suspect that even if I said "no", that may not prevent you from quoting me anyway.

Seriously though, please quote away. And thanks for the virtual "like".

(I would have posted myself but mybmwi3.com's brain-damaged sign-up process is having the better of me.)

 

[evnow]

Range? I remember Nissan's claim of 80-100 miles per charge. I NEVER saw 80 miles. Yeah, yeah sure, those of you in the table-top desserts of AZ and South CA may have. Not me. Does BMW fudge their range numbers like Nissan?

From where I'm, Austin looks like a table top. I regularly get over 80. Infact except in the coldest months, I always get above 80 (just 4.0 on m/kWh - very easy).

I don't remember Nissan "fudging" numbers. They said 100 miles on LA04 - and the actual range on LA04 is more than 100 miles.

 

[TomT]

I gotta disagree with this one. Nissan and their dealers were touting 100 miles all over the place, almost always with no disclaimers... And then the EPA 73 mile range figure came out and even that did not completely squelch the lie.

I don't remember Nissan "fudging" numbers. They said 100 miles on LA04 - and the actual range on LA04 is more than 100 miles.

 

[evnow]

I gotta disagree with this one. Nissan and their dealers were touting 100 miles all over the place, almost always with no disclaimers... And then the EPA 73 mile range figure came out and even that did not completely squelch the lie.

Dealers - yes. I'd like to see Nissan saying 100 miles without qualifications.

BTW, Nissan (and a lot of us) were surprised at the 73 mile EPA range. Leaf did get 100 mile city/highway average - 73 came about because of that arbitrary 30% adjustment factor. It is quite possible Nissan thought they would get EPA 100 mile range certification.

 

[surfingslovak]

I gotta disagree with this one. Nissan and their dealers were touting 100 miles all over the place, almost always with no disclaimers... And then the EPA 73 mile range figure came out and even that did not completely squelch the lie.

Dealers - yes. I'd like to see Nissan saying 100 miles without qualifications.

BTW, Nissan (and a lot of us) were surprised at the 73 mile EPA range. Leaf did get 100 mile city/highway average - 73 came about because of that arbitrary 30% adjustment factor. It is quite possible Nissan thought they would get EPA 100 mile range certification.

There is a video featuring Mark Perry spouting this nonsense. The dealers did not pick up this misinformation out of thin air. As to the LA4 test cycle, even the so-called LEAF specialist was caught on video completely misrepresenting the nature, and the average speed of this test cycle. Yes, for people like you the difference might be clear, but there is virtually no way for the average consumer to know what this means. Moreover, it was unclear to many people in the employ of Nissan, as well as the dealers, who happen to be at the very end of the information chain. You kept pushing this agenda for years now, it's time to concede, and give it a rest. The alternate reality, where the LEAF is marketed with its EPA range is a better one. I firmly believe in that.

 

[Berlino]

The alternate reality, where the LEAF is marketed with its EPA range is a better one. I firmly believe in that.

It is good that the web site gives the EPA range. On the Canada 2014 site they even slip up in places and use the 2013 EPA number.

However, both the US and Canadian sites appear to have taken down the page where ranges are posted for different circumstances. This is a problem in Canada where most dissatisfaction is a result of unwary purchasers not realizing how much range they'll lose in the Winter.

 

[evnow]

There is a video featuring Mark Perry spouting this nonsense. The dealers did not pick up this misinformation out of thin air. As to the LA4 test cycle, even the so-called LEAF specialist was caught on video completely misrepresenting the nature, and the average speed of this test cycle. Yes, for people like you the difference might be clear, but there is virtually no way for the average consumer to know what this means. Moreover, it was unclear to many people in the employ of Nissan, as well as the dealers, who happen to be at the very end of the information chain. You kept pushing this agenda for years now, it's time to concede, and give it a rest. The alternate reality, where the LEAF is marketed with its EPA range is a better one. I firmly believe in that.

There are tons of material I can quote where Nissan has been very vocal about the range - including disclaimers we all signed when we bought Leaf. Not saying there were zero slipups - but overwhelming written communication by Nissan has disclaimers.

The only people pushing an "agenda" are people who claim somehow Nissan misled them - whereas the reality is that there was enough information about the range for anyone doing a little bit of homework.

 

[surfingslovak]

There are tons of material I can quote where Nissan has been very vocal about the range - including disclaimers we all signed when we bought Leaf. Not saying there were zero slipups - but overwhelming written communication by Nissan has disclaimers.

I'm not disputing that there were disclaimers. The main argument is that this is no way to sell an EV. Especially since even so-called experts in the employ of Nissan did not know how to interpret these numbers properly. This is the crux of the argument. It's not about disclaimers, although those were missing on occasion too, and the context suggested different performance of the vehicle.

The only people pushing an "agenda" are people who claim somehow Nissan misled them - whereas the reality is that there was enough information about the range for anyone doing a little bit of homework.

This is not a nice thing to say at all. You suggested multiple times and very vocally that the LA4 test cycle was fine. The argument being that since you were able to understand its implications, so should have everyone else. That's very self-referential, and it fails to acknowledge what can be reasonably expected from a customer or a prospect.

Let me quote the Chief Judge Kozinski from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps you would volunteer to explain to the Honorable Judge Kozinski, that he clearly did not understand the implications of the LA4 test cycle, and should have paid better attention to the disclaimers? I'm sure that he would love to talk to you about that.

How is that relevant? Someone who has spent a lifetime working in judicial branch of our government likely has a well developed sense of what is reasonable and what is not. The fact that he would find enough motivation and time to write a 58-page objection letter should be enough of an indication that a few things could be improved so that similar situations are less likely to arise in the future.

This is just an acknowledgement that EVs are fairly new to most consumers, and we are all still learning. The worst thing to do is not to admit that something could be done differently and possibly better.

And to Berlino's argument above, yes the EPA cycle includes a cold-soak, which catches some of the effect of cold weather on range, but it might not be enough. Additionally, the EPA test ignores the heater, likely because heat was a free byproduct of the combustion process in conventional vehicles.

 

[evnow]

This is not a nice thing to say at all. You suggested multiple time and very vocally that the LA4 test cycle was fine. The argument being that if you were able to understand its implications, so should have everyone else. That's very self-referential, and it fails to acknowledge what can be reasonably expected from a customer or a prospect.

Not sure what you mean by "LA4 test cycle was fine" - let alone that I suggested that very vocally. Can you reference it ?

Infact, one of the oft repeated questions we had early on was - what is Leaf's highway range. So much so, that was one of the questions I asked Perry when I met him. He said about 70 miles.

Let me quote Chief Judge Kozinski from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps you would volunteer to explain to the Honorable Judge Kozinski, that he clearly did not understand the implications of the LA4 test cycle, and should have paid better attention to the disclaimers. I'm sure that he would love to talk to you about that.

I've not followed that story much - so can't say where the judge is coming from without knowing the context.

But I don't see how what he wrote somehow nullifies what I've been saying - that anyone who did their homework would have easily found out 100 miles was on city cycle.

 

[surfingslovak]

But I don't see how what he wrote somehow nullifies what I've been saying - that anyone who did their homework would have easily found out 100 miles was on city cycle.

I'm sorry, but I don't have all day and all year to argue about this. The key takeaway from all this is that it's unreasonable to expect prospects and customers to understand what the published range figures, and the often mentioned "100 real-world miles" would mean practically. It's not about doing or not doing homework. It's about having reasonable expectations of your fellow EV drivers and Nissan's customers. Don't insinuate that they simply
"did not do their homework" or somehow and unfathomably claim that they were "misled". Both phrases were used in your prior arguments.

As to Chief Justice Kozinski, there was a class action lawsuit, which was filed on September 24, 2012, right after the Phoenix range test. You might have heard about it. One of the complaints was that Nissan has misrepresented the true range of the LEAF in its marketing. While everyone has a different reaction, Chief Justice Kozinski, who happens to be a LEAF owner and a class member, filed an objection to the proposed settlement of the lawsuit. In the excerpt I posted above, Judge Kozinski relates his own experience with the LEAF and its range.

While one could argue that the judge was just another hapless customer, who did not do his homework, the fact that he felt motivated enough to write a 58 page deliberation shows that he felt strongly that his expectations were not met. As someone who has worked an entire lifetime in the justice system, one can assume that Judge Kozinski has a well-developed sense of what is reasonable and what is not.

 

[ydnas7]

It was Reasonable for Nissan to develop a city for 100miles LA4
It was Reasonable for EPA to give it a 73miles sticker.

It is Reasonable for BMW to develop a city for +100miles LA4 battery
Is it Reasonable for drivers to use the REX only if they don't have a plug at home?
(we know some will try to)

 

[surfingslovak]

Is it Reasonable for drivers to use the REX only if they don't have a plug at home?
(we know some will try to)

Possible, although I have yet to witness that despite many predictions to the contrary. People do strange things all the time. As a large business, it would behoove you to learn to understand your customers and anticipate their behavior. This works pretty well with conventional cars, but we are in the midst of learning curve with EVs. That is the entire point. What could work and be appropriate for a small crowd of hardcore EV enthusiasts and industry insiders might not sit equally well with others, no matter what their background and educational level might be. We see all sorts of legal disclaimers on products all the time here in the US, and for a reason. Even though most EV makers have adopted the practice of using the EPA range in their marketing and sales materials in the US, EVs are still using completely unrealistic NEDC range figures over in Europe.

 

[DaveEV]

The only people pushing an "agenda" are people who claim somehow Nissan misled them - whereas the reality is that there was enough information about the range for anyone doing a little bit of homework.

Sure, the range info was sufficient when the car was new.

But after 3 years driving a normal amount of miles (~10-12k/year) is anyone outside of the coolest climates of the USA seeing anything that indicates that 20% capacity loss at 5 years and 30% capacity loss at 8 years is going to be the average?

I'm at 82% after 2 and half years at about 10k mi/year despite 80% charging nearly all the time. I'll be down around 70% capacity remaining by the time 5 years rolls around. On one hand I hope I drop down to 8 bars by then. On the other hand, I won't be able to drive the car as much due to the amount of capacity loss.

 

[evnow]

But after 3 years driving a normal amount of miles (~10-12k/year) is anyone outside of the coolest climates of the USA seeing anything that indicates that 20% capacity loss at 5 years and 30% capacity loss at 8 years is going to be the average?

Sure, rapid battery degradation is unexpected. I won't be surprised if this is unexpected for Nissan as well.