Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BMW Created the Most Efficient Electric Car In the US

Posted by timothy on from the turning-the-shaft dept.

cartechboy (2660665) writes "You think of efficient electric car and you probably think of the Tesla Model S, right? Well, you'd be wrong as the Model S is only rated at 89 MPGe. As of today, BMW now has the most efficient electric car sold in the U.S., the 2014 i3. The ratings were just posted to the Internet via a window sticker, and at 124 MPGe combined (138 MPGe city, 111 MPGe highway), the i3 is currently king of the efficiency race. The nearest competitor? The 2013 Scion iQ-EV with a 38 mile range and 121 MPGe rating, but it's not even available to the general public. Other competitors are mostly compliance cars such as the Chevrolet Spark EV and Fiat 500e. So where does that leave us? Well, BMW just won the race, for now. But how long until a competitor takes away that top spot?"

10 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Range is the issue by stewsters · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most of the power is going to hauling a battery around.

    Tesla s has 265 mile range
    i3 has 81 mile range
    Scion iQ-EV has 38 mile range

    I would be curious to see how the numbers hold up if they all were designed for the same range.

    1. Re:Range is the issue by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Tesla is a much larger car all around, not just the battery.

      A better comparison to the BMW i3 might be the Fiat 500e (sold only in California). It's even a bit smaller than the BMW, and gets "only" 122/108 MPGe vs the 138/111 for the BMW. So, I do find the BMW impressive. However the Fiat starts at $32K which almost $10K less than the BMW. Making a car light without other sacrifices does require more expensive materials, so I would expect more from the BMW than the Fiat, and evidently it delivers.

  2. Re:MPGe by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Informative

    For the last year, I have driven a Nissan Leaf with an 80-90 mile range. On only two occasions I was not able to make a trip I wanted to make because of my car's range. Manufacturers are clustering around that range number because it's good enough for most people a vast majority of the time.

  3. Re:Efficiency doesn't matter... by fnj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Efficiency doesn't matter for an electric car that can be powered for FREE by the sun

    Completely naive fail. Apparatus to convert that sunlight to electric power costs money and has to be depreciated. Not only is photovoltaic power not free; its cost ($130 / MWh) is higher than natural gas ($64 to $128 / MWh), coal ($96 / MWh) or advanced nuclear ($96 / MWh). Those estimates for systems coming on line in 2019, so they are not based on obsolete data. Solar thermal is even worse ($243 / nMWh).

  4. Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Informative

    The exact opposite of true. It's just a measure of energy. 33.7 kWh is about 120mj, which is the same as a gallon if gas.

  5. Re:Chevy Spark EV by damnbunni · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Spark is only sold in California and Oregon, according to GM's official page on it.

    Oregon's ZEV/LEV legislation is based on California's.

    Looks like a compliance car to me!

  6. Re:Thank you summary guy by mlts · · Score: 3, Informative

    MPGe is like MPG... It is cool for advertising, but in the real world... doesn't mean that much. What really counts is both gpm (or l/km) or even more generally, cost per unit distance. For example, new diesel vehicles are touted as great for mileage. However, if one factors in the repair costs, and the need to use DEF as a second fuel, the gap can close between a TDI vehicle versus a hybrid or even a plain old gasser.

    This can vary for a person. For example, one cow-orker I work with lives fairly close. So, the relatively small range of a Leaf is good enough, since he never really taxes it. However, if the EV was an only vehicle, it might be that the greater CPM of a gasser might be a better fit.

  7. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ... by jamesl · · Score: 3, Informative

    German auto brand Volkswagen's XL1, which it claims is the most fuel-efficient production car ever made, has been named the winner of the Transport category at Designs of the Year 2014.
    http://www.dezeen.com/2014/05/...

    You may have seen this advert in the Goodwood Festival of Speed programme and are wondering how we determined that the XL1 was the worldâ(TM)s most fuel-efficient hybrid production vehicle.
    http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/ab...

    And it's a looker.

  8. More importantly... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative
    The BMW didn't win by chance, but because it is based on a totally different construction method to makes it lighter:

    What makes the i3 different from every other car on the market is under the skin - it's almost entirely made out of plastic. This is no ordinary plastic, mind you - it's carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic. It's basically the same stuff used to make Formula One cars and stealth bombers. What's remarkable about the i3 is that it's the first mass-market car made out of carbon fiber. There's no metal in the car's body - all the bumpers, doors and skins are plastic as well. The only major metal parts are the drive unit and suspension components. The result is a four-seat, four-door city car that weighs only about 2,700 pounds - or nearly 500 pounds less than a BMW 1 Series.

    This actually quite a bold and innovative new product. It's a shame they made it so ugly. I'm really curious to see crash test results.

  9. Re:Efficiency doesn't matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Efficiency doesn't matter for an electric car that can be powered for FREE by the sun

    Completely naive fail. Apparatus to convert that sunlight to electric power costs money and has to be depreciated. Not only is photovoltaic power not free; its cost ($130 / MWh) is higher than natural gas ($64 to $128 / MWh), coal ($96 / MWh) or advanced nuclear ($96 / MWh). Those estimates for systems coming on line in 2019, so they are not based on obsolete data. Solar thermal is even worse ($243 / nMWh).

    About $70/MWh in Texas. Just under $50/MWh aka 5 cents/kWh after the federal subsidy.

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Cheapest-Solar-Ever-Austin-Energy-Buys-PV-From-SunEdison-at-5-Cents-Per-Ki

    Prices have dropped rapidly so you really need to check quarterly and not use any source even slightly outdated. That EIA report uses 3 year old data, and further monkeys with the cost of money in weird ways costing "green" ones at 3.5% and fossil 6.5% - for no reason at all other than a hit job on fossil prices. It also uses $8/mmBTU price for natural gas without saying it, so overcosts natural gas. Kind of a load of crap.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm