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?"

45 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Thank you summary guy by avandesande · · Score: 4, Interesting

    for mentioning the range of the scion and none of the other vehicles

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Thank you summary guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      MPGe is an estimate based on a usage protocol developed by the Gov't. It is good for comparison purposes but it does not really work well in the real world. For example the Tesla S when purchased includes lifetime free charging on Tesla's own superchargers which are using solar power for the most part. That sort of support is beyond the pale of the typical auto manufacturer. But some Tesla's don't use the superchargers so their MPGe may be closer to what the EPA says. As the saying goes, YMMV!

      When you get an EV or plugin hybrid you find the calculations to measure your vehicle performance are complicated.

    2. Re:Thank you summary guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why you just buy the one that looks the coolest and use the numbers to rationalize your choice.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Thank you summary guy by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      So buying a product based on a single statistic where the bigger number wins isn't right for every single person on the planet?

      Wow!

    5. Re:Thank you summary guy by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      Quit spreading lies and FUD. First of all, most diesels, including many new "clean diesels" (e.g. the VW Golf/Jetta/Beetle) do not use diesel exhaust fluid (DEF)*. Second, there's nothing inherent to diesels that make them have higher repair costs than "plain old gassers" other than the turbo (and lots of new gassers these days -- like the Ford Ecoboost -- have turbos too).

      The real reason why diesels have an undeserved reputation for being expensive to repair is that most of them in the US have been made by VW or Mercedes, but they're expensive to repair because they're German, not because they're diesel!

      (*Even some of the "bluetec" engines do not, in fact, use DEF even though they're named after it.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Thank you summary guy by aztracker1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why I drive a V8 Challenger R/T ... If I didn't do it, how could the Prius drivers feel good about saving the world?

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    7. Re:Thank you summary guy by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As much as I am a fan of Tesla, there is no way in hell that the superchargers get most of their power from their solar panels (unless they only charge a car per day).

    8. Re:Thank you summary guy by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      In fact, Diesels require less maintenance than comparable Otto cycle engines simply because they don't have sparkplugs. Everything else is similar between either type of engine.

    9. Re:Thank you summary guy by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      No, but they do have turbochargers, very high pressure (3000 bar) injectors, finicky flywheels and exhaust filters that can get clogged.

      That's quite a lot extra that can go wrong.

    10. Re:Thank you summary guy by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Range right now is the big limiting factor towards electric car deployment.
      Gasoline and Hybrid cars get about 400 miles straight, that is about 8 hours of driving.
      Electric cars can barely get 100 miles, that is about 3 hours of drive time.

      The Electric car is still good for most commutes, even mine which is rather long may still work, however it will be close to the limit. But that means people will need to buy 2 cars, one for distance, and 1 for commute. Environmentally it seems like a good plan however not to many people can afford 2 cars per person, or 2.5 cars for 2 people.

      I hate to be in your car when you're driving 8 hours straight without a break. That's why the Tesla Supercharger network is so useful - it's broken a long trip up into reasonable lengths (3 hours is really the maximum for a family - between the need for bathroom breaks, leg stretching, etc).

      Sure, the driver can do 8 hours with discipline, but the rest of the family gets fidgety, the legs start to cramp, etc and soon they'll be demanding that you stop. And if you do it at a supercharger, well, you stop for meals, snacks, a walk, and half an hour later, you have plenty of juice to make it to the next supercharger. (And no, a half hour really is the minimum length for a break when you include all the hassles of getting everyone out, to the bathroom, and then a nice little walk to get the legs going again).

      Then again, Teslas get 280+ miles, the supercharger easily adds 200 miles during a half hour, etc, so you're good for 4-5 hours of driving.

      And most families that can't afford two cars can't afford to go on long trips very often. In which case, you basically... rent a car. If your electric gets you through your day-to-day activities, then the occasional long distance family car trip means instead of paying two insurances and maintenance on the gas car you barely use, you just rent it for the time you need.

      Which isn't a bad idea - a longer trip you may want to rent a larger vehicle to hold more stuff, and so everyone travels in comfort.

  2. 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 viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      But the i3 has twice the range as the Scion and is more efficient.

    2. Re:Range is the issue by macpacheco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can start by comparing the i3 with a more equivalent Tesla:
      85 kWh = 265 mile range (3.11 miles / kWh)
      60 kWh = 208 mile range (3.47 miles / kWh)
      40 kWh = 160 mile range (4 miles / kWh) should be around 114 mpge
      the 40 kWh Tesla was never produced, too little demand, people want a real electric car, not an expensive toy.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Range is the issue by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The Scion shouldn't even be mentioned, because it's not a real product:

      Even dedicated Scion iQ fans are unlikely to see the little electric iQ version; that's because it will only be offered to fleets that can use a very short-distance electric car. Its EPA-rated range of just 38 miles isn't likely to appeal to many buyers, so Toyota's zero-emission "compliance car" will instead be the Toyota RAV4 EV with a range of 103 miles from its Tesla-engineered electric powertrain.

    5. Re:Range is the issue by Macman408 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      That's a bit of an exaggeration/misinterpretation. Yes, the battery can be heavy; on a car with a reasonably long range like the Tesla, about a quarter of the weight (1,000-1,300 pounds) is the battery. On the other hand, some of that weight gain is offset by removing things that aren't needed - like the gas tank, fuel pump and hoses, gasoline itself (about 120 pounds for a full 20-gallon tank), as well as other components that aren't needed on an EV. As another example, a V8 engine weighs around 600 pounds; the Tesla Model S motor apparently weighs about 150 pounds - or 300 pounds if you include the reduction gear and inverter.

      Anyway, the reason why range is difficult is that the energy density of gasoline is far higher than that of a battery. An 85 kWh battery, at ~1,300 pounds, has an energy density of 0.24 MJ per pound. Gasoline, on the other hand, contains about 19.2 MJ per pound. Even at the abysmal efficiency of an internal combustion engine (on average, about 20%), they still need 16 times less weight in fuel than an EV does in batteries.

      The car companies are solving for a complex set of variables - the volume of the car dedicated to batteries, the weight (and thus power-to-weight ratio), the cost, the range requirements of their target market, etc. Tesla is trying to make the EV people's primary car, by using a huge battery capable of brief ultra-high-power recharging; most other companies have chosen to simplify, by marketing the EV as a family's second car - good for going to work, school, and errands (and 99% of most peoples' driving); but they still have a second car for road trips.

    6. Re:Range is the issue by mattack2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My smart electric is an expensive toy? About $26500 out the door, but I got $10K back in federal tax rebate (not deduction) and state rebate (not actually a tax rebate, a separate project that simply sent me a check).

      Even without those, it's great not having to go to gas stations, or do oil changes, etc. Plus, I happen to get free charging at work, but I'd buy it even without that.

    7. Re:Range is the issue by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, but why does every vehicle have to work for *everybody*?

      I've always liked small cars, but when I had kid tiny cars didn't work for me any more. It doesn't mean that small cars are *stupid*, they're not right for me at this particular phase of my life.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Range is the issue by non0score · · Score: 2

      You do understand that the GP/TFA is comparing between electric vehicles, right? That Tesla has to haul around more battery than the BMW i3 electric, and is exactly why the Tesla has more range. I'm not sure what ANY of your reply has to do with the GP/topic. Why did you even mention gasoline?

    9. Re:Range is the issue by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Consolidating pollution in the power stations makes it far easier to implement pollution-mitigating upgrades, and batteries can be recycled rather easily. Japan's nuclear accident has nothing to do with this discussion.

  3. Tesla still wins by blueturffan · · Score: 4, Funny

    This BMW is ugly as sin and only has half the range.

    No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame

    1. Re:Tesla still wins by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Funny

      This BMW is ugly as sin and only has half the range.

      Electric cars have to be ugly. If they looked like regular cars, then how would everyone else know how you are sacrificing yourself for the environment?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Tesla still wins by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      If it works better, it's beautiful.

      What's with people trotting out the "looks ugly" criticism? That means you can't think of anything else, anything just a little more substantive, to criticize?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  4. Full-size, heavy car by Scowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We shouldn't really expect a full-size luxury car, with a huge range (ie heavy batteries) to hold this title in the first place.

  5. What is MPGe supposed to mean? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    As the subject says ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. 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.

  6. Won what race? by FF-Loucks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The leaf is $6k less and 115 MPGe. 124 MPGe isn't going to save you $6k over the life of the car.

    1. Re:Won what race? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      I love my Leaf. Many people's biggest complaint about the car is it's odd exterior looks. Those people will not be impressed by this goofy looking BMW.

    2. Re:Won what race? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not just a great electric car, it's a great car. But I'm a function over form kind of guy. The bug eye headlights push air out of the way so that at highway speeds the side view mirrors sit in a bubble of low pressure, greatly decreasing air resistance and improving range. The squared off shape allow the interior to seat 4 adults comfortably while leaving a good amount of cargo space.

      You seriously don't know how obnoxious engine noise and gear changes are until you drive without them. It's like floating on a cloud.

    3. Re:Won what race? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      It would probably be more energy efficient to have a speaker and a computational model to make the sound a petrol car would make given the actions the driver takes. You could have the sound of a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in your car. Or a jet engine. Or a steam engine.
      That would also allow the obnoxious sound to be loudest inside the car instead of damaging my ears while you drive past my bike.
      It would also allow you to turn it off when you have company in your car and you want to chat while driving.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  7. Re:MPGe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

    what an empty distinction, "most fuel efficient electric car". it's electricity, silly, we have plenty of it. The big differentiators between models is and always will be range. although there seems to be an EV niche developing aournd $40k and 80mi range.

  8. 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.

  9. 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).

  10. Whatevs, yo by garote · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been getting five or six times this efficiency for years!

    "A person riding a bicycle at 15 miles per hour (24 km per hour) burns 0.049 calories per pound per minute. So a 175-pound (77-kg) person burns 515 calories in an hour, or about 34 calories per mile (about 21 calories per km). A gallon of gasoline (about 4 liters) contains about 31,000 calories. If a person could drink gasoline, then a person could ride about 912 miles on a gallon of gas (about 360 km per liter).
    ( Source: HowStuffWorks website )

    1. Re:Whatevs, yo by unrtst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And this is relevant to people who drive cars how? Don't get me wrong, I love bikes, they're just not a realistic option for everyone and all situations.

      Seems pretty relevant since so many comments are about what MPGe means, and we're (mostly) all geeks.
      It's also relevant since the range of these things (38 miles for the Scion; 81 for the BMW) are less than my overweight ass can do on a bike in a day... especially on that low end, it's very relevant. If you can go no further than 38 miles without a recharge, then you're probably not trying to push that envelope and, in many cases, you'd be doing a round trip (go somewhere, do something, get home, probably shooting for less than 30 miles). That's well within the biking sweet spot.

      You can't carry as much luggage (though the scion really doesn't hold much either), and you can't easily have a passenger, and rain and other inclement situations suck a lot more, and it can be slightly more scary to ride one on the highway than the scion, but bikes have a much better MPG*, similar range, and significantly lower sticker price and TCO.

      I'm glad garote posted that... I've always been a bit curious about that figure. My hunch, when I was riding a LOT, was that I wasn't really saving any money because my calories cost way more than a gallon of gas, and my intake went up significantly. This approaches an answer to that question... not exactly the same question, but interesting.

  11. Re:Efficiency doesn't matter... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

    Do you have any idea how much money it costs to get FREE energy from the sun?

  12. 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!

  13. 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.

  14. Not so naive fail by garote · · Score: 2

    That cost chart happens to include capital cost (manufacturing a solar panel) but only barely factors in the environmental degradation cost (crap spewed into the atmosphere by a coal plant). The adjustment chosen - $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions - is very optimistic, and acknowledged to be arbitrary. That's why the only number that comes close in your short list is nuclear, which factors in disposal cost.

    Personally, I'd be happy to increase up-front cost to save on the back end. And given the popularity of electric and hybrid cars, I'm not alone in that feeling.

    1. Re:Not so naive fail by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It isn't clear what lifetime they are using for solar PV either. Quality panels are guaranteed for ~25 years on average, but that just means at least ~80% capacity remaining at that stage. It's not like they fall off your roof or stop working entirely.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  15. 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.

  16. Re:apples to apples by Golden_Rider · · Score: 2

    the i3 comes with a internal combustion engine range extender, wonder what the efficiency drops to when that kicks in..

    Care to show me the stats on the ICE range extender you speak of?

    The range extender is an option. Maybe it is not offered in the US (although it is mentioned in reviews), but it is available in Germany: http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrze...

    It is a 2 cylinder engine which according to the BMW website increases the range to 300-340km total (about 200 miles).

  17. 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

  18. BMW won nothing by horza · · Score: 3, Insightful

    BMW won nothing. Tesla won the electric car race by creating a car that has the range of a normal car, is faster than a normal car, and looks as good as any normal car. This is why it is scoring so high in consumer reports that cover ALL cars, not just electric vehicles.

    The BMW i3 has 1/3 of the range, does 0-60 in twice the time (7 seconds), and looks fugly. In my city we have dozens of public cars like this all over the city that anybody can jump into and use for €8/hour. I am sure lots of companies will buy it for staff than need to do local runs. Probably got a good market in local governments, councils and utility companies. Being one of the slowest production cars ever to hit the road will probably mean low insurance cost.

    It's apples and oranges. A bicycle is more efficient than either. It doesn't do the same job though.

    Phillip.

    --
    Property for sale in Nice, France