Dee123
Well-known member
G8YTZ said:
Is BMW going to replace the sat nav or did they offer you a refund for the option cost?
What Range do you get with real world conditions?
- Thread starter MikeS
- Start date
Help Support BMW i3 Forum:
Is BMW going to replace the sat nav or did they offer you a refund for the option cost?
ironsia
Active member
Justin, I think we Brits are a minority on this forum by now, so since as a small country and maybe a bit more internationalist in outlook, it would be a courtesy for us to specify when we mean UK or Imp gallons (4.546 litres/liters) rather than the US variety (3.79 liters/litres).G8YTZ said:
Checking my facts on Wikipedia, I've just realised the US fl oz is not the same as the UK one, either. I have confidently been telling people they're the same for more years than I care to think!
Wikipedia gives typical gasoline/petrol energy content as 33.3kWh/US gall, which comes to 39.9kWh/UK gall. John
DeafSoundGuy
Well-known member
Well my 2 cents - I've only had the i3 for about 10 days and yesterday got the chance to do a 90 mile trip - middle of Portland down I-5 to Silverton and back Hwy 99. It's a 8 mile uphill trip out of Portland to hit the straightaway of I-5. I found out real fast that on Eco+ mode doing 56 mph tops, that I was impeding traffic so had to switch to Eco for at least 1/2 the journey so Eco and Eco+ the whole way. Got 81 miles and REX kicked in (Good boy Rex!) and took me the last 9 miles. Seamless transition to Rex. As I got off the freeway, I could certainly tell the motor was running and then it kicked down into an idle mode very quickly in town. I am so impressed. A lot of hills coming back, so amazing that I could get 81 miles with all those hills.
I did note that once the motor kicks in full speed to keep up with Hwy demands, there seemed to be a bit of Gyro effect going on with the car that effected handling. No biggie though as hopefully it will be very rare that Rex kicks in. What a great piece of mind knowing it's there.
I did note that once the motor kicks in full speed to keep up with Hwy demands, there seemed to be a bit of Gyro effect going on with the car that effected handling. No biggie though as hopefully it will be very rare that Rex kicks in. What a great piece of mind knowing it's there.
Dee123 said:
I am waiting to hear what their proposal is. For us a refund is not a viable option at all, how can you have such a high-tech car with a such a low-tech navigation and infotainment system? Frankly for the cost difference I don't even understand why they bother with anything but the best package, why develop two sets of software and hardware carry twice the spare parts inventory? It seems that BMW have some significant issues with their configurator and order fulfilment system, something is not getting through to the factory, but otherwise the car is a gem, excellent build quality and a great drive, like everyone else driving ICE cars is living in the past!
"but the efficiency of conversion into traction is very poor in a combustion engine and gearbox when compared to a modern digital synchronous electric motor."
First of all I like EVs but (strange as it may seem) also enjoy historic motorsport and all forms of genuine eco technology. And NO I don't work for any oil companies, in fact I would like to see less dependency on fossil fuels and more renewable useage.
The claim that an EV is so much more efficient is, from an engineering standpoint, mostly bunk - it all depends of how that electricity was provided, overcoming the higher environmental impact of EV car production and dealing with weight disadvantages vrs conventional cars. Clearly BMW has gone some way to overcome some of the latter two with lighter car materials and lowered eco impact in Leipzig production, but very little of the i3 is locally sourced and 250kg is still a hefty "fuel tank" that looses capacity with time and recharge cycles.
It is one thing to compare a traditional Hybrid car with an ICE car but quite another to use a Plug In ICE or REX that claims huge MPG but ignores the energy used beyond the plug.
The key to efficiency is lightness and aerodynamics. This has been proven time an again in aerospace and in the Ansari X Prize to achieve over 100eMPG. This was won by Edison2 - with a very small ICE engine:
http://www.edison2.com/blog/month/december-2009
"neither the Leaf nor the Volt meet the performance, efficiency and emissions requirements of the X Prize"
The US EPA MPGe is plug (or for ICE pump) to wheels rather than power generation or oil drilling to wheels. This leads to poor comparisons in overall energy and pollution impacts.
A fairer comparison of energy transfer would be: electric motor vrs a wheel bearing or the final drive unit on an ICE gearbox. For a UK EV the power is produced at the power station which means mostly coal and then grid losses. Excluding the cost in energy terms of mining coal or shipping natural gas from Qatar, DEFRA stated the average UK generation CO2 to be 527g/kWh which has probably lowered very slightly with increased PV and wind-farm construction.
If you live in CA USA things are much better if you have your own Solar PV or use similar renewables like hydro or wind farms. Some states (like Hawaii) use petroleum to generate the electricity in the first place. The current UK and US fascination with Shale gas probably means we are not going for the most eco friendly options to create energy. And 10 years to build a nuclear power station uses a lot of energy before the plant is even operational.
What if China converted to 100% EVs?
"researchers from Tsinghua University (China) and Argonne National Laboratory (US) found that a large-scale conversion to EVs in China could actually increase carbon emissions, compared to internal combustion and hybrid drives. SO2 and NOx emissions also increase in China with increased use of electric vehicles, although the conversion would decrease the use of oil. Coal-based power dominates the Chinese electric grid, accounting for over 95% of electric generation in some regions and a large majority overall."
So technically EVs have several very long tailpipes - some much cleaner than others.
"A report by the UK Royal Academy of Engineering finds that in order for electric vehicles to have a big effect on climate change the grid in Britain needs to move away from coal towards non-carbon power sources, such as nuclear, wind and wave. As the report puts it, “EVs and PHEVs (plug-in hybrids) can only be as ‘green’ as the electricity used to charge their batteries.”
Some won't like this but it's worth a read:
http://m.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472?mobile=y
First of all I like EVs but (strange as it may seem) also enjoy historic motorsport and all forms of genuine eco technology. And NO I don't work for any oil companies, in fact I would like to see less dependency on fossil fuels and more renewable useage.
The claim that an EV is so much more efficient is, from an engineering standpoint, mostly bunk - it all depends of how that electricity was provided, overcoming the higher environmental impact of EV car production and dealing with weight disadvantages vrs conventional cars. Clearly BMW has gone some way to overcome some of the latter two with lighter car materials and lowered eco impact in Leipzig production, but very little of the i3 is locally sourced and 250kg is still a hefty "fuel tank" that looses capacity with time and recharge cycles.
It is one thing to compare a traditional Hybrid car with an ICE car but quite another to use a Plug In ICE or REX that claims huge MPG but ignores the energy used beyond the plug.
The key to efficiency is lightness and aerodynamics. This has been proven time an again in aerospace and in the Ansari X Prize to achieve over 100eMPG. This was won by Edison2 - with a very small ICE engine:
http://www.edison2.com/blog/month/december-2009
"neither the Leaf nor the Volt meet the performance, efficiency and emissions requirements of the X Prize"
The US EPA MPGe is plug (or for ICE pump) to wheels rather than power generation or oil drilling to wheels. This leads to poor comparisons in overall energy and pollution impacts.
A fairer comparison of energy transfer would be: electric motor vrs a wheel bearing or the final drive unit on an ICE gearbox. For a UK EV the power is produced at the power station which means mostly coal and then grid losses. Excluding the cost in energy terms of mining coal or shipping natural gas from Qatar, DEFRA stated the average UK generation CO2 to be 527g/kWh which has probably lowered very slightly with increased PV and wind-farm construction.
If you live in CA USA things are much better if you have your own Solar PV or use similar renewables like hydro or wind farms. Some states (like Hawaii) use petroleum to generate the electricity in the first place. The current UK and US fascination with Shale gas probably means we are not going for the most eco friendly options to create energy. And 10 years to build a nuclear power station uses a lot of energy before the plant is even operational.
What if China converted to 100% EVs?
"researchers from Tsinghua University (China) and Argonne National Laboratory (US) found that a large-scale conversion to EVs in China could actually increase carbon emissions, compared to internal combustion and hybrid drives. SO2 and NOx emissions also increase in China with increased use of electric vehicles, although the conversion would decrease the use of oil. Coal-based power dominates the Chinese electric grid, accounting for over 95% of electric generation in some regions and a large majority overall."
So technically EVs have several very long tailpipes - some much cleaner than others.
"A report by the UK Royal Academy of Engineering finds that in order for electric vehicles to have a big effect on climate change the grid in Britain needs to move away from coal towards non-carbon power sources, such as nuclear, wind and wave. As the report puts it, “EVs and PHEVs (plug-in hybrids) can only be as ‘green’ as the electricity used to charge their batteries.”
Some won't like this but it's worth a read:
http://m.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472?mobile=y
jadnashuanh
Well-known member
Assuming the power plants are not located in the middle of a city, with the concentration of ICE vehicles in a city, switching to EVs would make at least the air quality much better there. ANd, if you assume that most of those vehicles will be recharging at night, it helps to balance the load.
Been to China...most of the time, the air quality is horrible! Producing electricity will get greener, but it's likely to take a long while. An EV can shift the location of some of that pollution, though, and even though not solving the problem, at least living in a city may be more tolerable and healthy.
Been to China...most of the time, the air quality is horrible! Producing electricity will get greener, but it's likely to take a long while. An EV can shift the location of some of that pollution, though, and even though not solving the problem, at least living in a city may be more tolerable and healthy.
I agree about local pollution to a limited extent. It depends how far away you move the Power Station - in the UK that's not very far! Plus the further you move it, the greater the energy losses to extended gridlines. All it takes this side of the pond (UK) is a change to a high pressure weather system which tends towards an easterly breeze (light winds) that return the pollution we normally export over the channel back towards us. The cities suffer the worst pollution at these times of weather stagnation and relatively high temperatures. Even in winter cities tend ot be warmer than the surrounding countryside. Local pollution levels increase due trapping of air by high rise buildings, insolation (sun heating up buildings and land creating temperature inversions) which causes a lack of air circulation. Much of that is also industrial haze, waste dump emissions and even recycling plants. Into that mix traffic congestion and you can see why there's a problem. If you get rain then at least diesel fumes are significantly reduced. Gas/petrol fumes, benzine and PM10s from construction dust, road works etc, may not visible.
Does the i3 REX have a particulate filter? It should have but seems unlikely as many modern diesels are now cleaner than the latest direct injection petrol cars:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/new-petrol-engines-cause-more-air-pollution-dirty-diesels
Following info from: http://www.powerstroke.org/
"Particulates or smoke are really the only problem for diesels (compared with petrol engines). Most of the controversies and newspaper scare stories center around particulates. Various groups have been trying for years to prove a link between diesel smoke and cancer, and so far have failed to actually prove anything. Friends of the Earth may come up with statements such as "Small particles are believed to lead to 8,100 premature urban deaths every year (1.9% of all deaths in urban areas)" and then apply them to diesel emissions, but this is flawed because:
The studies were carried out in American cities where the penetration of diesel in the market is lower. Any increase in deaths due to particulates, if it exists, may be caused by particulates from some other source; the particulates in question have not been indisputably linked with diesel emissions.
Even in Europe, particulates from diesel motors are a very small percentage of the particulate emissions which we breathe; most are from industry.
Diesel engines emit more PM10 particles, that is particles which have a diameter up to 10 microns, but petrol cars actually emit more PM1 particles than diesel ones. These particles are smaller than 1 micron and are invisible. They are also more likely to penetrate deeply into human lungs (as they are smaller) and look less like a natural dust particle, which human lungs have evolved to cope with."
From edison2:
"Wired magazine asserted that if you really wanted to have a lower automotive carbon footprint, instead of springing for a new Prius, buy a good small used car.
The argument is that carbon dioxide produced while driving is only a part of the overall carbon footprint. Not often considered is the energy used (and carbon emitted) in the production of a car. Wired points out that it takes about 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Prius – or the equivalent of 1000 gallons of gasoline.
In other words, you have to drive about 46,000 miles before you have paid off this “carbon debt” associated with a new Prius – but with a used car this debt has already been paid. Similar arguments are often made regarding buildings, weighing the embodied energy contained in an existing structure, and the energy costs of demolition and construction, vs. the ongoing energy savings accrued with a new “green” building.
One way of minimizing automotive carbon debt is to buy a car that requires less energy to build in the first place. A car with less material and labor inputs, and a car that avoids energy-intensive exotic materials. A car that through extreme efficiency – a 100 mpg car, say – pays off the remaining debt very quickly."
So maybe The Economist is right? We need a mix of better ICE and EVs:
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21584436-automotive-technology-electric-and-hybrid-cars-are-being-given-run-their
Does the i3 REX have a particulate filter? It should have but seems unlikely as many modern diesels are now cleaner than the latest direct injection petrol cars:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/new-petrol-engines-cause-more-air-pollution-dirty-diesels
Following info from: http://www.powerstroke.org/
"Particulates or smoke are really the only problem for diesels (compared with petrol engines). Most of the controversies and newspaper scare stories center around particulates. Various groups have been trying for years to prove a link between diesel smoke and cancer, and so far have failed to actually prove anything. Friends of the Earth may come up with statements such as "Small particles are believed to lead to 8,100 premature urban deaths every year (1.9% of all deaths in urban areas)" and then apply them to diesel emissions, but this is flawed because:
The studies were carried out in American cities where the penetration of diesel in the market is lower. Any increase in deaths due to particulates, if it exists, may be caused by particulates from some other source; the particulates in question have not been indisputably linked with diesel emissions.
Even in Europe, particulates from diesel motors are a very small percentage of the particulate emissions which we breathe; most are from industry.
Diesel engines emit more PM10 particles, that is particles which have a diameter up to 10 microns, but petrol cars actually emit more PM1 particles than diesel ones. These particles are smaller than 1 micron and are invisible. They are also more likely to penetrate deeply into human lungs (as they are smaller) and look less like a natural dust particle, which human lungs have evolved to cope with."
From edison2:
"Wired magazine asserted that if you really wanted to have a lower automotive carbon footprint, instead of springing for a new Prius, buy a good small used car.
The argument is that carbon dioxide produced while driving is only a part of the overall carbon footprint. Not often considered is the energy used (and carbon emitted) in the production of a car. Wired points out that it takes about 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Prius – or the equivalent of 1000 gallons of gasoline.
In other words, you have to drive about 46,000 miles before you have paid off this “carbon debt” associated with a new Prius – but with a used car this debt has already been paid. Similar arguments are often made regarding buildings, weighing the embodied energy contained in an existing structure, and the energy costs of demolition and construction, vs. the ongoing energy savings accrued with a new “green” building.
One way of minimizing automotive carbon debt is to buy a car that requires less energy to build in the first place. A car with less material and labor inputs, and a car that avoids energy-intensive exotic materials. A car that through extreme efficiency – a 100 mpg car, say – pays off the remaining debt very quickly."
So maybe The Economist is right? We need a mix of better ICE and EVs:
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21584436-automotive-technology-electric-and-hybrid-cars-are-being-given-run-their
OK back to the thread!
Well sort of!
I managed to test both i3 BEV and i3 REX over the same commute back in March 2014 when the UK was having a more wet than cold exit from winter.
I also drove a brand new Audi A3 TDI , A1 TDI and the 2001 A2 1.2 TDI all on same roads in similar conditions and driving styles.
The results for range and CO2/km were quite surprising.
Will try to get a link for spreadsheet.
Well sort of!
I managed to test both i3 BEV and i3 REX over the same commute back in March 2014 when the UK was having a more wet than cold exit from winter.
I also drove a brand new Audi A3 TDI , A1 TDI and the 2001 A2 1.2 TDI all on same roads in similar conditions and driving styles.
The results for range and CO2/km were quite surprising.
Will try to get a link for spreadsheet.
O's not Hose...letter O's....
Just got back from a little drive to Currys-PC World to see if I could get one of those invisibility machines they advertise on the Gadget Show (in the i3 of course) plugged it into the Chargemaster thingy with the big blue BMW type 2 cable...
Then some Pikey came up the drive telling my my trees were about to fall over if he didn't lop the top off them, so resisting dropping back into my native Anglo Saxon language, I politely explained that we already have a chap who does all that type of thing.
He then said... Why you got an 'hose in your car? Of course it was obvious to those "in the know" that I was just filling up the "Mr Fusion" tank..... But that bloke went away thinking I was mad pouring water into the car.
Justin.
Just got back from a little drive to Currys-PC World to see if I could get one of those invisibility machines they advertise on the Gadget Show (in the i3 of course) plugged it into the Chargemaster thingy with the big blue BMW type 2 cable...
Then some Pikey came up the drive telling my my trees were about to fall over if he didn't lop the top off them, so resisting dropping back into my native Anglo Saxon language, I politely explained that we already have a chap who does all that type of thing.
He then said... Why you got an 'hose in your car? Of course it was obvious to those "in the know" that I was just filling up the "Mr Fusion" tank..... But that bloke went away thinking I was mad pouring water into the car.
Justin.
Went to the opening event at Tesla's new Gatwick sales and service centre on Thursday. Great to meet the team there who are so passionate and knowledgeable about their product, a lot like an Apple store. Had a chance to drive a Model S 85kW on some fast roads and fast it certainly is, very well screwed together too and the dual motor.... Can't wait!
But anyone spotted the small print of Tesla Motors new finance package and who's behind it?
"The financing information has been provided by BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited trading as Alphera Financial Services". Could that mean a Tesla powered BMW sometime soon?
Justin.
But anyone spotted the small print of Tesla Motors new finance package and who's behind it?
"The financing information has been provided by BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited trading as Alphera Financial Services". Could that mean a Tesla powered BMW sometime soon?
Justin.
Surge
Well-known member
FrancisJeffries said:
I'm sorry but there is just no way you can get 90-95 miles on battery power driving at 70-75mph (indicated). It's more like 60-65 miles.
I drove a REx for a few days and actually ran it constantly on the highway until the REx kicked in at 6% charge.
90-95 miles is completely wrong - maybe you meant traveling at varying speeds, but at a constant 70-75 (there's a big difference in that range too, btw), there's no way.
Surge
Well-known member
G8YTZ said:
Why would you want such a car?
I am not at all impressed with the Model S. Clever packaging, yes, and they were first to market with a pure EV. But none of their tech is new or unique.
The i3 has way more unique IP than the Model S.
I will bet that the model S will sink into mediocrity (think Volt) when competition from BMW and others comes along. Can you say "i5"?
ultraturtle
Well-known member
Remember that he has a 2.4 gallon gas tank, which makes his mileage 37-38 mpg for 90-95 miles on REx which sounds about right. He didn't claim that range for battery, only that the indicated battery range is similarly pessimistic.Surge said:
FrancisJeffries
Well-known member
Yes, that's right, ultraturtle. It's actually 9 litres - and 90 miles represents 10 miles/litre using Rex alone. That's 45.4 miles per Imperial gallon at motorway speeds. That's pretty good for real world motoring IMHO.
As an intriguing aside: having emptied the tank a few times I have found that brimming the fill requires a surprisingly variable numbers of litres! More than 10% variation, and wild horses won't draw the address and pump number of the best (i.e. the one that charges the least) I've found so far :twisted:
Perhaps we should start a thread comparing them in case there's another even better than the best I've found :lol:
WoodlandHills
Well-known member
Sounds like a call to the Board of Weights and Measures is in order...... Every few years here in SoCal there is a high profile crackdown on fuel pumps that give short measures, it's funny how the pumps rarely break in a way that benefits the consumer :lol:
FrancisJeffries
Well-known member
...which is why I'm so pleased to have found one!
ecoangel said:
very good points you raise there,
yes lithium mining and overall environm. cost of manuf. the vehicle is something most don't take into account
indeed with direct injection now on pretty much all petrol engines (at least in Eur.) and no DPF filter they may be less ecological than dir. inj. diesels with DPF
cars with petrol engines with no dir. inj. are (still) the most eco-friendly cars now (except on LPG, then they're even cleaner)
of course 4 clean air in the cities EVs are best
OVERALL hydrogen cars with hydrogen created at night from nuclear plants or solar/wind/hydro power must become most eco-friendly vehicle in the future
quite ironic
taxes and gov. legislation lead most people to dir.inj. petrol/diesel cars which are most polluting
cars that are least polluting, old petrol cars have become less interesting, also because of bonuses if you turn in the old car (that could still do plenty of miles) for recycling
i think: thanks to lobbyists from car industry
ps
CO2 makes plants grow faster, CO2 doesn't have a considerable impact on climate, see Svensmark research for instance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
RickysBMWi3
New member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1
If you charge at 240v level2, you get less range, try to leave the car charging overnight at Level 1 .... The faster the charge the lower the range...
