The 2014 (60Ah) i3 REx vs The 2017 (94Ah) i3 REx

255 miles of combined range? This range estimator is probable a little more optimistic than real life, but I definitely believe 200 miles is possible with the new 2017 i3 REx. 

What a difference three years makes.  I was able to secure one of the first 2017 BMW i3 REx cars that made its way into US dealer inventory, compliments of Chris Chang, Sales Manager at BMW of Bloomfield here in New Jersey. The vehicle is mostly the same as my 2014 i3 REx, the one big exception is it has the new 94 Ah battery cells, which increase the overall battery capacity from 21.6 kWh to 33 kWh without increasing its physical size. That was necessary, since this isn't a redesigned i3, so the battery modules had to fit in the existing battery tray.

The 2017 i3 REx in Fluid Black next to my "Moloughney Red" wrapped 2014 i3 REx

As much as I wanted to check out the moonroof option that this car had (finally the moonroof is available in the US!), there is no denying the single most important improvement I was interested in was to find out how much more range the new model has. The EPA range rating for the 2017 i3 REx is 97 miles per charge, and BMW claims 180 miles of total range when combined with the added miles from the range extender. The full 2.4 gallons of gas is now available for the REx. Previously it was software limited to only 1.9 gallons so the vehicle would qualify as a BEVx vehicle. My 2014 i3 REx has an EPA rating of 72 miles per charge, and BMW claimed a total range of 150 miles including the range extender miles. So the new i3 REx should offer about 35% more all-electric range, if the EPA test results are accurate. One thing to note is the auto manufacturers do the range testing in house, and reports it to the EPA. I think many people are under the assumption that the EPA tests the cars, and they do not. Manufacturers have been known to "massage" these numbers to fit their needs.

Range Testing

I wanted to perform three tests. The first was to fully charge the car and drive it easy. I didn't hypermile, but I took it a little easier than I usually drive. It was 83 degrees, which is favorable for good range, but I did have the A/C on the entire time. I drove in Comfort Mode because that's pretty much the only mode I ever drive in. I took a combination of highway and secondary roads and basically drove the speed limit with moderate acceleration from stops.

After 100 miles of driving, the car still had 26% state of charge and was estimating an additional 37 miles available. I've driven my i3 long enough to know how far it can go, within a couple miles, and I'm sure if I were driving my i3 in those same conditions it would have gone about 72 to 76 miles before the range extender would have needed to turn on. This new i3 REx easily beat the 35% range increase expected by the EPA range rating. In fact, based on these results I think it would be hard for me to get less than 100 miles per charge even if I tried. So that's what I did for the next test.

This time I was going to drive it harder. Not Autocross hard mind you, but I'd punch it from all the stops, drive 75 - 80 mph on the highway and not concern myself with using the regenerative braking to their fullest advantage. Basically, I'd drive like I was late to an important meeting. Halfway through, I realized my efforts weren't making much of a difference. At 50% SOC I had driven 62 miles and the range estimator still showed 62 miles to go. I did noticed that the gas range estimate had dropped from 85 miles to 75 miles though, even without using any. That's because my driving efficiency was much worse than it had been on the first 100 mile drive.

Seeing how I was still on my way to 120+ miles of range, I stepped up my assault on the tires, and really thrashed the car around a bit. It worked, and I further reduced my efficiency. I finished up this 100 mile trip with only 13.5% SOC and estimated 16 miles remaining. I was able to reduce the single charge range by 21 miles, but I couldn't manage to get less than 100 miles of range, which was my goal. In my opinion this is great news. Honestly, I don't know how this car is rated at 97 miles per charge; that's nearly impossible to attain unless it's being operated in cold weather or perhaps being driven at a very high rate of speed. I'm sure once the winter months roll in and the temperature drops it won't be hard to get less than 100 miles of electric range. However in moderate temperatures, I think most people will always be in triple digits. Based on the experience with my car, I'm guessing this new i3 REx will probably average about 85 to 90 miles of all electric range in the winter. My car only averages about 60 to 65 miles of electric range when the temperatures are below 30 degrees Farenheight, therefore 85 to 90 miles sounds about right for this new, longer range model.

Even with trying to get less than 100 miles, I still managed 100 plus an estimated 16 miles remaining. 

The REx Test

The final test was to see if the range extender performance was any different. Much has been made over the fact that the i3 REx can enter Reduced Power mode, and slow down under certain strenuous driving conditions. So I depleted the battery, drove it for 50 miles and made sure to take it up some hill climbs at highway speeds. The first thing I noticed is the range extender operates the exact same way as it always has. It doesn't turn on until the battery state of charge reaches 6.5%. The "Hold State of Charge" option is still disabled here in the US, so if you want that feature, it will still have to be unlocked by coding the vehicle, as before. There was some speculation that the automatic turn on point of the REx might be at a higher SOC with the new model, but I can confirm that's not the case. However, there were two observations that I noticed that were positive.

First, the range extender seemed quieter from inside the cabin. In my car, the REx motor is pretty quiet and unnoticeable until it kicks into it's highest output mode. At that point you can definitely hear the scooter engine revving up high from underneath the rear seats. It's kinda like you're being chased by lawnmower. On long highway trips it will operate at its highest level for most of the journey and the noise is noticeable. I'll usually turn the radio up a notch to cancel it out. With this new car, driving at a constant 75 mph to 80 mph the motor seemed much quieter than it does on mine. My wife was with me for part of this test and she also noticed. She actually asked me if the REx was even running. It seems to me that BMW improved the REx soundproofing. It does sound just as loud as before from outside the vehicle, but it's definitely quieter on the inside.

Secondly, (and I've reached out to BMW for confirmation on this but haven't received a response yet) it does seem like the REx motor has been tuned for a slightly higher output. I took the vehicle on highway roads that I drive on regularly, and have on occasion done so when the REx was operating. The range extender was able to hold the state of charge higher, and under more strenuous driving conditions than my 2014 REx can. There's one particular long incline that I drive every day. With my car, if I start at the bottom with 6% SOC and drive 70 mph up to the top I'll deplete the battery to about 2.5%. I did this same test with the 2017 car and I reached the top of the climb with 5% SOC remaining. I repeated the climb with the same results. I also noticed that I could drive at about 75 mph on flat ground and maintain the 6% SOC. My car can maintain the SOC on flat ground with a constant 70 - 72 mph, but not any higher or the charge will slowly deplete.

I know the 6.5% buffer is now larger, because it's holding 6.5% of 30 kWh instead of 6.5% of about 19 kWh, so that extra energy is definitely helping, but to me it appears that the REx motor has a higher output for the 2017 model. The REx motor in my car is rated at maximum power output of 28 kW. I wouldn't be surprised it we find out the power has been increased to about 33 kW, but I don't have any official confirmation on that. I'm just going on what I've experienced with the previous REx cars and how this new one compared to it. Another hint that I may be correct is the REx is now rated at 35 mpg, down from the 39 mpg which the previous models were rated at. I don't think the extra 170 lbs alone would cause a loss of 4 mpg. I believe it working harder now to produce more energy, which was I'm guessing was achieved through a software adjustment.

After driving 42 miles on the highway I still had 70.5% SOC and an estimates 93 miles or range remaining. My 2014 i3 REx doesn't even go 93 miles per charge!  The range of the 2017 is a substantially greater than previous i3s, even more than the EPA rating would seem to advertise.  

Faster Charging With A New Profile

Previous model year i3s were capable of charging at 30amps which, at 240 volts, gave a maximum draw of 7.2 kW. The new i3s can accept 32 amps which translates to 7.4 kW. Not a huge difference, but it can help if you're waiting for the car to charge to a certain SOC so you can unplug and drive. I should note that most public charging stations are limited to 30 amps, so it won't make a difference on those units. However at home, I have charging stations that can deliver 32 amps so I was able to monitor the difference. My car usually accepts 7.1 to 7.2 kW (depending on the voltage supply) but this new i3 was consistently drawing 7.3 kW to 7.4 kW, so I can confirm the onboard charger upgrade.

The charging profile of my 2014 i3 REx is on the left, and the 2017 i3 Rex is on the right. 

Both charged from 6.5% to 100%. The 2014 car charges fully in about 3.5 hours and the 2017 in about 4.5 hours.

I did observe something interesting while monitoring the charging profile of the new i3. Instead of the charge rate gradually tapering off as the SOC reached 90%, and slowing down for the final 40 minutes of charging, this car took the maximum rate nearly right up to the end of the session. I charged it three times to monitor this and it behaved the same way all three times. I've never observed this on any other EV. Normally, the vehicle slows down the charging rate considerably as it approaches the end of the session to slowly balance the cells. This takes place once the vehicle is over 90% and the final 5% to 10% of charging takes much longer than charging at lower SOC. That's not happening with this vehicle. It only slows down slightly, and only for a couple minutes at the very end. The charging rate doesn't gradually lower until it shuts off, it more closely resembles falling off a cliff. Interesting.

Finally, a Moonroof

This is fully opened

The moonroof is a new option for the US. It's been available all along for i3s outside of North America, and now it's available here also. The moonroof is a $1,000 option and is a split version, having two openings separated by a solid center section. Each opening has its own manually-operated sunscreen, but the moonroof itself is one piece, and slides back with a push of a button. However it only opens about eight inches, slightly more than half of the actual opening in the roof. It's not even large enough to stick your head out of it - not that you would want to do that; but the point is, it's a small opening. The moonroof does accomplish two things, though. It allows more light in the cabin, giving the feeling of it being more open. It also allows you to eliminate side window buffeting by simply tilting the moonroof open.



Available Battery Capacity - Surprise!

BMW states that the new battery is 33 kWh, and 27 kWh of that is usable. That's only 81.8%  of the total pack, much less than the ~90% they allowed to be accesses on the 60 Ah battery pack. When I read that I wondered if it was perhaps sign that the new 94 Ah cells were less tolerant to deep discharge than the 60 Ah cells were, so BMW was going to be conservative with them. So when I fully charged the battery after the first 100 mile test run, I checked the hidden diagnostic menu and to my surprise it was showing a full 30 kWh accessible. So BMW is allowing access to roughly 90% of the overall pack, just like they do with the 60 Ah cells. That explains the extra range I've witnessed but it doesn't explain why BMW's official stance is that there is only 27 kWh accessible. Perhaps it's for battery capacity warranty claims?

While the "Batt.Kapa.Max" isn't an exact measurement of the available capacity, but it is very close. Close enough to prove there's much more than the 27 kWh that BMW claims is available.

Gained Some Pounds

The only negative I've found is that the new battery is heavier, and adds 170 lbs to the curb weight (3,064 lbs to 3,234 lbs). This does effect performance a bit. The car doesn't feel quite as responsive as my 2014 does. Without testing the performance times, I'd say it's probably close to a half a second slower from 0 to 60 mph. Handling didn't seem quite as crisp as mine either, but that might not be this car's fault. It has the 19" turbine wheels, and my i3 the 20" wheels with the sport tires, which are wider and have a larger contact patch. I also recently lowered my car with sport springs from H&R which have improved the handling, so it's not fair to compare the handling to my car.

My i3 before and after installing the H&R Sport springs. It dropped the car 1" in the front and .8" in the rear.

The other performance change I noticed is the regenerative braking seems to be blended in differently. When driving slowly, it seems pretty much the same as my car does. However at higher speeds the car will coast more when releasing the accelerator. The regenerative braking doesn't initially come on as aggressively as is does on my car. It will get progressively stronger if you continue to coast, but initially upon releasing the accelerator, the car freewheels a lot more than previous versions do. I like this for highway driving, as freewheel coasting improves efficiency. If you slightly depress the friction brake pedal, the friction brakes aren't used, instead the car used first uses only regenerative braking, until you depress the brake pedal harder.

Summing Up

After a couple days and driving over 300 miles I feel it's safe to say that I believe most people will find the average usable range greater than the EPA rating of 97 miles per charge. I almost wonder if BMW purposely underestimated the range a bit in an effort to under-promise and over-deliver. On my 2014 i3 REx, I've found the range to be pretty close to the EPA rated range of 72 miles per charge. I do average a few miles more than that during the warmer months, and about 10 miles less per charge during the winter when it's cold. But this new i3 has unexpectedly trounced the EPA range rating by a healthy margin. I think most people should average well over 100 miles of pure electric range on these vehicles. The range increase will undoubtedly push some people deciding on whether to go BEV or REx into the BEV camp. I know if I were buying one today I'd go BEV also. Getting this kind of range with the REx, I'm certain 125 to 140 miles per charge would be easy to attain with the 2017 BEV. That, combined with the ever increasing CCS DC fast charge networks, would really be all I need for all my driving needs.










Thanks again to Chris Chang and BMW of Bloomfield for providing me with the use of this car for three days of testing.

What the Frunk?

The front storage compartment (Frunk) of my i3 after driving a few weeks on the salt-covered winter roads of New Jersey - yuck!

First, let me begin by saying I was one of the people who really didn't mind the fact that the i3's front storage compartment (affectionately called the "frunk" by many since Tesla initially coined the term for the area under the hood of the Model S) wasn't waterproof. I never envisioned keeping anything up there that I would need to access frequently and since my Electronaut Edition i3 came with a nice storage bag that would keep whatever I put in there nice and dry, it was really a non-issue as far as I was concerned.

It looked a little better when I first got the car. Of course everything looks better new, but being exposed to all the elements means you really can't store anything up there that isn't waterproof & durable

It was so inconsequential to me at the time I didn't even list it as a minor annoyance when I did my initial likes & dislikes posts back in June. Well after living with the car for nine months now, I have some different perspectives and I think I'll soon go back and do an update on what I like and don't like about the i3. One of the things I'll add to the dislike list is the fact that the frunk area is easily penetrated by moisture, dirt, leaves and anything else that would find its way under the hood of a traditional ICE car.

Leaves can make their way into the frunk also, as found out by BMW i3 Facebook group member, Michal Cierniak

So why didn't BMW make this area waterproof? I have never gotten an official answer but my guess is because it would add weight and cost. Plus, since it is such a small compartment, they figured the vast majority of people would only use it for things like extension cords, a tool kit and the occasional use EVSE, all of which are OK to get wet once in a while. They probably also figured most people would get a bag to put those items in, and they even sell one such as the one that I have. Because I have an Electronaut Edition i3, mine was free and embroidered "Electronaut Edition." It keeps the items in the bag clean and dry, but the bag itself gets very dirty and isn't really pleasant to handle when it's covered in dust and now road salt. 

Which one would you prefer to handle?

The i3 has a lot of mechanical components up in the frunk area; they are just hidden by the removable screens on both sides of the frunk. Once you remove these snap on screens, you can see that area looks basically like a traditional ICE engine compartment, minus the engine of course. The storage compartment only occupies a small section of that area as opposed to the Model S. Since the Model S is so much larger than the i3, Tesla was able to utilize a huge portion of the area under the hood for storage, creating a large front trunk which they called the frunk and still have enough room to fit whatever mechanical parts they located up there. The i3 didn't have much space to spare since the front area of the car is so small, so the storage compartment seems like more of an afterthought than something that was a well planned design feature.

After removing the plastic frunk, and the snap-on shields on both sides of it, what you see looks very similar to a conventional gasoline or diesel powered car (minus the engine!) Photo credit: Tim Hood

If waterproofing the entire area up there just wasn't cost effective, or if it was going to add too much weight, then I do understand the reasoning, but what they should have done was provide a nice frunk cover that could snap on and provide - at the very least - a water-resistant seal. Perhaps some ingenious entrepreneur will manufacture and sell such a cover...

* If you want to use my car as the mold you know where to find me, and I'll be your first customer ;)

BMW i3 Tires: Get Ready For Winter!

The aggressive tread and the specialized rubber compound of Bridgestone Blizzaks should help me get through all the bad weather this winter brings

I live in Northern New Jersey and we can get some pretty bad weather in the winter. The temperatures in January and February are routinely in the 20s (Fahrenheit) and can even dip down below zero from time to time. At those temperatures, you really should have dedicated winter tires for proper traction, even if the roads aren't always snow covered. In fact, most tire experts recommend that you buy dedicated winter tires instead using all-season tires if the average temperatures where you live are below 45 degrees in the winter.

The Rial X10-I that fit the i3 come in the bright silver pictured here, and also painted black.

That's not a plot to get you to spend more money on tires that you really don't need as I've seen some people contend. Winter tires are specifically made for use in cold weather and will definitely outperform all-season tires in cold conditions. The rubber compounds used in winter tires are completely different than what is used in summer or all season tires. Winter tires are designed so that they become stiffer on the inside of the tire, and more flexible on the outside to provide better grip at lower temperatures. They also have stronger bead construction to resist the multiple mounting and dismounting because winter tires are often mounted and dismounted every year, unlike regular tires that quite often stay mounted on the wheel their entire life.  Non winter tires become stiff and lose traction, which increases the chance of the vehicle losing control and skidding.

I'm liking the new look!

Snow chains are also available for the i3

In my case I absolutely needed to get winter tires because I ordered my i3 with the 20" Sport wheels. The tires that come with these wheels are summer tires which mean they are not recommend for cold weather use. The three 19" wheel options for the i3 all come with all-season tires and if you don't live in a really cold area, you can live with all-season tires year round. To complicate things even more, there are no winter tire options for the 20" Sport wheels of the i3. Since there are no other cars that have such tall, skinny wheels as the i3, Bridgestone only made winter tires for the 19" wheel options. Therefore, anyone who has the optional 20" Sport wheels and needs to get winter tires, needs to buy a set of 19" wheels as well. BMW sells a package that uses the base model i3 wheels (#427) and the Bridgestone Blizzak 19" winter tires. However, I opted to buy aftermarket wheels made by Rial, and the Blizzak tires from the Tire Rack. I like the look of the Rial wheels, and I also like that they are different from the stock wheels, giving my car a more custom look. I was actually a little surprised when I found out the Tire Rack was going to offer aftermarket wheels for the i3. Since the i3's wheel sizes are so different from anything used on any other car available today, I didn't think aftermarket wheels would be available so soon. 

The Rial wheels bow out in the center. Not good for preventing curb rash or aerodynamics.

I'm sure I'll take a range hit from this modification, but how much I'm not quite sure. The aggressive tread and softer rubber will increase rolling resistance so that alone will make a difference. The weight will also be a factor. The Rial wheels with the Blizzak tires weigh 39.2 lbs, while my 20" Sport wheels with the Ecopia EP500s weigh only 36.2 lbs. Three lbs per wheel might not seem like too much, but it actually will make a difference in the car's electric range. Finally, these wheels aren't nearly as aerodynamic as the stock wheels so I'm sure my drag coefficient just went up. BMW spent a lot of energy designing wheels that are good looking, lightweight and are aerodynamic. These Rial wheels appear not to have taken any of that into consideration when they were designed. The large openings between the spokes are begging for increased wind resistance, and to make matters worse, they aren't even flush with the rims, the center of the wheels actually bows outward and will clearly increase drag. I'm really not worried about this though because safety in the winter, and being able to negotiate the snow covered roads of Northern New Jersey are my primary concerns. Plus, I have the range extender so if my efficiency is reduced by 6 or 7 miles per charge, I'll still be able to get to wherever I need to go without worrying about running out of juice. Bring it on!

I'm happy to report the i3's hatch will indeed fit a set of wheels/tires if you need to transport them to your dealer or tire shop to install them.

My old MINI-E did pretty well in the snow. The front wheel drive and winter tires worked really well, better than my ActiveE in fact. I'm anxious to see how the i3 does, but I'm optimistic it will do well. The thin tires will help, as they will cut through the snow instead of riding on top of it. 

Guest Post: Efficiency or Range? You Can’t Have Both.

The i3 is the most efficient production car available today

Every now and then I have a reader send me an article they wrote and ask if I'd like to post it here. Usually it's not exactly what I'm looking for and politely explain why I won't be posting it and thank them for sending it nonetheless.  Occasionally I'll get something interesting though, like the post below which was sent to me by Robert Kasper. I think it's particularly timely since just last week I posted the Tesla/BMW comparison piece and I think this is an interesting follow up to it.  I hope you enjoy:                    

  Efficiency or Range?  You Can’t Have Both.

…But Advanced Technology Can Help.

By Rob Kasper

In the world of electric vehicles, whether Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) or Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), there is a clear trade off between range and efficiency.  For a given technology, efficiency suffers as range increases due to the weight of not only additional battery capacity, but the increased structure and volume to haul that capacity around.  Now that there are a significant number of plug-in vehicles being manufactured, and a recognized standard to test them, we can identify trends.  Consider Table 1 and Figure 1, a plot of efficiency (as measured in EPA MPGe) vs. range in miles for 2014 plug-in electric vehicles measured by the EPA.  They are grouped into Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and further identified as either conventional or advanced technology design and construction.  Conventional technology is generally characterized by a manufacturer’s use of an existing gasoline powered platform modified for battery electric drive, steel frame construction and cladding, and standard battery technology.  Advanced technology is generally characterized by a clean sheet, purpose built EV design, extensive use of aluminum or aluminum plus Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) for weight savings, higher energy density lithium ion battery packs, with the bonus of performance equivalent to or exceeding the best of conventional technology plug-in vehicles.

Figure 1: Efficiency vs. Range

Table 1: EPA Electric Range and MPGe

Beyond the obvious observation that the price of greater range is lower efficiency within a given technology, it is important to note the significance of advancing technology.  The ground-up EV design, significantly lighter weight construction, and advanced battery technology of the BMW i3 and Tesla Model S push the blue trend line significantly up and to the right of conventional BEVs’ green trend line.  As significant is the single data point (in purple) representing the only advanced technology PHEV currently available – The BMW i3 REx.  Not only is it capable of greater efficiency and far more range than any conventional PHEV (the red trend line), it is more efficient than all but two conventional BEVs, with only slightly less range than all but the most inefficient conventional BEVs.

It is this outlier of a data point, the BMW i3 REx that might best help illustrate why a smart means of increasing the range of an EV may not necessarily be to add more battery capacity.   Battery energy is clean and well suited for powering vehicles for relatively short-range transportation but due to its weight and lengthy charge times, inefficient and inconvenient for long distances.   On the other hand, the benefits of energy density and convenience make gasoline/diesel energy better suited for longer range transportation with the trade-off being greater well to wheel emissions in many parts of the world.  In the case of the BMW i3 REx, each mile of range requires either 0.15 pounds of gasoline, or 5.7 pounds of battery capacity.  At 37 times the mass specific energy density of battery power, very little gasoline is required to extend range for a given tank size, and that tank can be replenished in minutes nearly anywhere in the well developed fossil fuel infrastructure that currently exists worldwide.  This capability requires a 265 pound increase in the weight3 of the vehicle for the REx engine and associated systems, which imposes a 6% decrease in efficiency, but once set, that efficiency does not appreciably decrease as more energy in the form of gasoline is added to increase range.  Increasing battery capacity cannot increase range as efficiently, as not only must the weight of the battery increase by 37 times the weight of gasoline per mile in the first increment, but by the weight of increased structure and volume, as well as even greater battery capacity to offset the reduction in efficiency resulting from the weight increase.  There comes a point where the sacrifice in efficiency may no longer be worth the additional range to be gained.
See figure 2:

Figure 2: EV Energy Storage (and Generation) Weight vs Range for Advanced Technology EVs

1- EPA testing protocol does not account for approximately 4 miles of range remaining after REx fuel exhaustion when publishing a 72 mile battery powered electric range before REx activation, but does account for it in the total range calculation of 150 miles:  72 electric miles + 1.9 gal x 39 mpg + 4 electric miles = 150 EPA range (76 electric + 74 gasoline).  76 miles of range is also the result of dividing the EPA measured total i3 wall to wheel consumption of 22.0 kWh by the i3 REx EPA measured consumption rate of 0.288 kWh/mile.  This value is further corroborated by the CARB BEVx designation awarded to the i3 REx which requires the electric range not only be at least 75 miles, but that it must exceed the gasoline range, neither of which would be possible without accounting for the ~4 miles of range remaining after REx fuel exhaustion.

2- The EPA’s 95 MPGe rating of the Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid includes 0.2 gallons of gasoline operation plus 29 kWh of electric operation per 100 miles.  Subtracting the 10 mile of gasoline operation contribution to the total (0.2 gal X 50 mpg) yields 29 kWh per 90 miles, or 32.2 kWh per 100 miles, which results in 105 MPGe for electric only operation. (MPGe = 33,705 divided by watt hours per mile.)

3- While EPA rated at 87 miles of range in its base form, purchasers of the Mercedes-Benz B-Class can choose to pay an additional $600 for the Range Package, which makes an additional 17 miles of range available.  There is no difference in total battery capacity between the two configurations, only the percentage of SOC made available to the driver.

4- The 8 BMW battery pack modules weigh 55 lbs. each, for a total of 440 lbs.  Reference page 17 of the BMW i3 Service Managers Workshop Participant Guide at http://darrenortiz.com/website_pdfs/BMWi3PG.pdf.

5- 265 lbs for the REx engine and all associated equipment is the difference in weight between the i3 BEV and i3 REx as published on BMW’s spec pages:  http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/i3/BMWi3/Features_and_Specs/BMWi3Specifications.aspx
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/i3/BMWi3RangeExtender/Features_and_Specs/BMWi3RangeExtenderSpecifications.aspx.  Adding the 440 lb. battery weight makes the total energy production and storage weight at 76 mile of range 705 lbs.  This increases by 11.4 lbs. of gasoline for every 74 miles driven beyond 76.

6- Widely quoted in other sources, Car and Driver claims the Telsa Model S 85 kWh battery pack weighs 1323 lbs: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-tesla-model-s-test-review.  This is exactly 600 kg, making it appear to be an estimate, but it is the only number we have to work with, as Tesla does not publish the spec.

7- Weight of the 60 kWh Tesla Model S battery pack is estimated from the 85 kWh figure to be 60/85 X 1323 lbs. = 934 lbs.

BMW ///M i3: It's Coming - Soon!

A full range of official press photos of this semi-camouflaged Mi3 will be released a couple days before NAIAS in two weeks. This is the only one I was authorized to reveal.

About six months ago, Eric Loveday of InsideEVs.com wrote this article that predicted the BMW M performance division won't be making an M version of the upcoming BMW i3 or i8. I've known for a while now that that was not true, but the information I got from BMW was under embargo until now so I couldn't comment on it previously. I finally got a chance to look at a pre-production ///M i3 last week. The car I saw didn't have all the body work or the special wheels that the ///M i3 pictured above has since this one is being used for internal testing here at BMW's North American headquarters, but it did have all the performance upgrades and ///M badging.

I was lucky to be one of only a few people to get a sneak peak of the M i3 before its unveiling at NYIAS in two weeks.

Perhaps this was the intention all along, or maybe BMW changed their minds along the way, but both the upcoming i3 and i8 plug-ins from BMW i will get the "M" treatment. Back in August of last year I did a post about BMW offering a Sport Version to satisfy the desires of the performance minded i3 buyers and it turns out BMW was definitely listening. Honestly, I would have really been surprised if the i3 didn't have an ///M variant or at the very least, as I suggested, a special edition "Sport" i3.

One person posted this on Bimmerpost. Perhaps they were wishing for an ///M i3 also?

Recent articles have popped up around the web eluding to the fact that BMW was working on a "special edition" i3 and that it would have a more aggressive appearance, but many assumed that would be reserved for the i3 coupe which is expected to launch about a year after the 5 door hatchback i3 that is available now. That's may be so, but I have confirmed the ///M i3 will indeed be a modified version of the current i3 offering, and it will indeed be available soon after the initial US i3 launch. If the i3 concept coupe does make it to production, it would seem likely to get the same ///M treatment as the 5 door hatchback is.

I knew all along that if BMW really wanted their customer base to welcome the i3 and accept it as a true BMW then they would have to offer a performance version, just like they do with their other models. Performance is in BMW's DNA, it's what distinguishes a BMW from the other premium brands. To not make a performance version of the i3 would seem to be a mistake in my opinion. However I didn't expect it to come so quickly. I figured the ///M i3 would be launched sometime in 2016 to invigorate interest once the initial excitement over the i3 began to wane.

TopSpeed (www.topspeed.com) had their go at what they think the ///M i3 will look like

Loveday wrote, "We suspect that BMW will make available several performance-enhancing products for both the i3 and i8 in the near future, but both an i3M (Mi3) and an i8M (Mi8) seem to be no-goes." That's certainly understandable since BMW had said on more than one occasion that they will not be tapping the M performance division to tweak the i3 & i8.  So what do I think changed their minds? My guess is surveys; it's that simple. Last September I received an email survey from BMW i asking me about 50 questions regarding my interest in the i3. I'm not sure if I was included in the survey because I drive an ActiveE or just because I was signed up on the main BMW website for i3 information, but the survey focused on what options I would pay extra for. Almost all of the questions centered around paying for more range and paying for more performance, with one of the questions specifically asking if I would pay and additional $8,000  for an ///M version of the i3.

Fortunately the majority of the respondents must have answered as I did, saying yes we would be willing to pay extra for both range and performance. Yes, I know the i3 is focused on sustainable personal transportation for an evolving world, but hell, there's always the weekends, and i3 owners will want to autocross their cars just like 3-Series owners do. That's part of the BMW heritage, and part of why people gravitate to the brand.

TopSpeed's ///M i3 guess shown in coupe' form

Over the two weeks we should be getting all the details for the ///M i3 & ///M i8 models. The New York Auto Show opens on April 15th and both ///M cars will make their world premiers there. This will coincide with another special announcement regarding never-before released information about DC Fast charging for the i3, so if you are an i3 fan, head to the NYIAS this year. The Press preview days are April 16 & 17th, with the show opening up to the public on Friday the 18th and running until Sunday, April 27th.

The ///M i3 wheels will be a modified version of the optional 20" wheels available on the i8

Opening ceremonies of NYIAS will include Mayor de Blasio declaring the show officially open and that will take place at the BMW exhibit, likely next to the ///M i3 and ///M i8. This all but guarantees that pictures of the new performance-orientated plug-ins will be plastered in every newspaper in the NY metropolitan area. Unless BMW strategically places their gas offerings there which would be very disappointing.

Little is actually known about the spec's of the ///M i8, but I do have some of the details on the ///M i3. Besides a more aggressive exterior styling, including a new front grill and spoiler, monochromatic paint (Yes, the black hood and rear diffusers will be painted the color of the car) a larger rear spoiler and fender flares. The standard wheels on the ///M i3 will be the 20" Sport wheels that are currently available on the i3 (the 19" wheels aren't available on the ///M i3). However there will also be a wider wheel offering which puts a 20" x 6.5" wheel on the car with 245/40/R20 Brigestone Potenza S001 Tires. The wheels look very similar to the optional 20" BMW i8 wheels but they appear to be painted black in the press photo I obtained. The upgrade tire size is nearly perfect in diameter and the speedometer will not be affected at all. I suspect this will dramatically improve the handling, but it will certainly come with a price. I'd expect this tire and wheel combo to likely be about a $2,000 option, but for the performance-minded, it will likely be worth it!

Specification-wise all I know is that BMW is indeed using the same motor that the base i3 uses, it's just been modified to increase power output by about 25%. If that holds true, figure on about 210 horsepower and 230 lb-ft of torque. I was told the goal was to get the 0-60 times in the mid 5 second range and with that kind of added power I believe it is definitely within reach since the stock i3 BEV does it in about 7 seconds with 25% to 30% less power. The suspension will obviously be improved for performance and the interior will likely get the usual smattering of ///M badging and special seats which offer more support.

______________________________________________________________________

Now for the most intriguing part of this. The i3 has been designed around the philosophy of weight savings whenever possible. Many of these features will add weight which reduces efficiency. Plus, the more powerful drivetrain will likely use more energy than the stock set-up does. If someone were to drive the car hard (like it should be driven) then the range may only be 40 or 50 miles, and that's just not enough. So I asked if the ///M i3 would be available with the range extender, and was told definitely not; it will only be available in BEV form. Pressing further about the likely limited range of what will be a very expensive 40 mile electric car he replied, "The ///M i3 will have a greater electric range then the standard i3. It will also charge faster and offer technology unavailable in any other electric vehicle on the market." Now this is indeed getting interesting. There are really only two possibilities here that make any sense. It either has a larger battery pack, perhaps utilizing the space where the range extender goes, or BMW is using the higher density batteries that they have been testing in MINI-E mules for a couple years now. These cells are reported to have about a 30% greater energy density than the stock i3 batteries that come from Samsung have, so that would seem to work here.

I wish I could say I've had the opportunity to test drive it, but I didn't. I was only allowed a brief in person look at the one pictured above in Arravani grey which was at BMW NA's headquarters undergoing internal testing and give the BMW Press photo of the semi-camouflaged one on the track. Even without driving it or knowing what it's going to cost, I decided to cancel my Electronaut Edition i3 and place my order for an ///M i3. They aren't officially available yet so please don't call your dealer and ask to reserve one, that won't be possible until after the New York Auto Show. The ///M i3 & ///M i8 will also be available in "unique colors specific to the M division," I'm hoping Melbourne Red is one of them ;)

4/2/14 EDIT: As many of you figured out, this was an April Fools Post yesterday and I want future readers to realize that. If you take a look at the first letters of each paragraph that are in bold blue text you can see that spell "April fools", I'm surprised nobody commented on that here. I hope you enjoyed it and what I really hope for is a real ///M i3 form BMW sometime in the future!

An Aerospace Engineer from the UK Compares the i3 and the i3 REx

 

Lucas flying formation in the Crimea

Lukas Willcocks is a member of the BMW i3 Forum and when I noticed that he posted about having the opportunity to take both an i3 and an i3 REx each for 24 hour test drives I asked him if he wanted to offer his thoughts and comparing them here. What I didn't know was that Lukas is an aerospace engineer. A few of my friends are engineers and the one thing I've learned about them is not to ask a question about something without expecting an answer that involves thoroughly explaining every aspect of the subject. Well, I found Lucas is not very different from my friends! :) His response was about three times as long as any post I've ever put up here and below is actually the condensed version! Warning: We're going off into technical geek land here folks! Special thanks to Lukas for the time and effort he put into this guest post:

To REX or not to REX: 24h with the BMW i3 BEV and another 24h with the BMW i3 REX:

Greetings from darkest Lincolnshire in the English Midlands. Winter this year is mild but very very wet and windy! Educationally, my background is in aerospace engineering but long before that I helped my father fixing old Land Rovers in the Kalahari and later Fiat Twin cams and VW GTis in the EU. I'd always found rally and race cars exciting and in recent years had the privilege of racing in historic motorsports with a 1969 Lancia Fulvia HF.

Colin Chapman (of Lotus racing car fame) is quoted as saying to his engineers “add lightness!” In fact the quote is from Sir Geoffrey De Havilland who gave the world the amazing wooden composite Mosquito WW2 fighter bomber- a machine that could leave fighter aircraft for dead. He also pioneered the first Jet Airliner the DH Comet 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

Aerospace is about efficiency and optimization for specific roles. Whatever the debate on the environment, the world is attempting to move towards more sustainable living. Only 8% of the planet is suitable for arable farming and we all hate traffic jams. Conurbations are increasing at an alarming rate. My old home of Gaborone Botswana had just 40,000 people in the 1970s – now it it has well over 250,000. That country (the size of Texas or France) had 10 miles of tarmac road. Now it has the Trans Kalahari highway!

No cyclist or pedestrian likes petrol or diesel fumes. Electric cars are seen as a way of improving air quality in built up areas. That's all well an good as long as folk don't claim they are emission free vehicles! Most countries still rely on coal fired power stations and acid rain and CO2 is still produced when an EV is used. Even California is not 100% Solar PV / Wind farm dependent.

What is the most efficient means of getting from A to B? An interesting question and much depends on the task – is it to transport 40 tonnes of produce to market 1000 miles away or 2 miles to the grocery store to pick up some tomatoes for lunch? I recall a study that said even cyclists put out at least 15g/km CO2 based on toast consumption!

Intro over!

My thanks go to Hamish of BMW Soper in Lincoln UK who provided the i3 BEV in white which was fitted with lots of toys! And also to Chris Whitmore of BMW Statstone Derby UK for the loan of the grey i3 REX.

So how did the BEV compare with the REX?

That is the ultimate question on most potential owner's minds. Interestingly both cars when fully charged used the same amount of energy on the 29 mile commute to work. The BEV was quick but it's advantage over the slightly heavier REX was not noticeable in normal use.  Both cars had the same tyres front and rear so there was no Cd advantage for the BEV either. Unless you go to the Drag Strip regularly, I very much doubt any driver would notice a difference between the BEV and REX in acceleration terms. If anything the REX felt a little more planted in the corners but this may have been subjective. The rear motor/RWD layout allows far more steering angle than a regular vehicle so the turning circle is very tight at low speed. In muddy conditions it is possible for the traction control to give up and the tail does wag a little if you are too enthusiastic with the go faster pedal.

The biggest change is when you get down to around 6 miles of range. In the BEV there is mild panic even in Eco Pro Plus mode. In the REX the motorcycle engine kicks in with an annoying drone but it is not really noticable above 40 mph.  Some were concerned about speed restriction reports when the REX gets down at lower battery charge levels. I tried 0-50mph max acceleration and this seemed unaffected but there was on screen advice to go easy on the throttle pedal to enable battery charge level maintenance. It could well be that 70 mph uphill on a freeway would not be sustainable at these lower charge levels. That said,  my return journey was with REX activated manually at around 30% SOC. It did not maintain it precisely but achieved around 27% SOC over the 29 miles. Refueling was done at the same Shell station with same grade of petrol - tank was topped off both before and after commute. Economy on REX is not that great but it is really there to get you home or to nearest fast charger.

My guess is the battery in a REX will be in a far better state than that of a BEV after 3 years of similarly hard use. The damage associated with running the LiON batteries to an absolute minimum are more likely to be avoided by the car that maintains charge at low levels.It should also be noted that when the doors are unlocked the charge goes down whether plugged in or not because displays and system heating are activated and run off the main battery.  This might be fixed by a BMW phone app for users who wish to configure for a trip whilst charging. Showing off all the gizmos to your work colleagues will also deplete charge! 

Overall I like the purity of the BEV and only wish it could better 60 miles in mild winter commute. If it could do 100 miles at 60 to 70 mph I would buy one right away. As it stands if committing to an i3, I'd have to go for the REX and downgrade on the options list.

Now for some thoughts on the i3 in general: 

What can we compare the BMW i3 with? Existing cars have come a long way since Henry Ford. On the other hand the past decade has seen an explosion in ULVs (unsuitably large vehicles) sold to consumers of a “super size me” culture. Now I am all for the old Range Rover V8 doing 16 mpg through deep Kalahari sands where a Ford F250 got just 8 mpg. However for the grocery store run?

That might be acceptable in Arizona but on cramped narrow British roads with passing places in hedgerows or London's residential road width restrictors? Bigger normally means heavier and less aerodynamic so the term gas guzzler still applies. How is it that in 40 years fuel consumption has not really improved significantly? Part of the answer is heavier structures and crash worthiness regulations but that's often an excuse. Take the Fiat X 1/9 2 seater 1970s mid-engine sports car – it featured 50 mph impact bumpers and roll over protection for the US market – they even rammed one with an AMTRAK ! It passed but then the Feds reduced the regs and Fiat lost out. However that small car was tough (apart from on UK salt laden winter roads) yet still much lighter than today's machines: http://www.sportsvogn.no/x19reg/story.html

A few visionaries still exist. VW developed the 3L cars – 3 litres of fuel for 100 km of travel. They produced the shortened Polo and called it the Lupo 3L with magnesium and Aluminium panels. Audi developed the all aluminum A2 which many have cited as an influence on today's BMW i3. The 3L version of the A2 was designed to carry 4 German sized adults and their luggage from Munich to Turin over the Alps with minimal fuel cost and low emissions. It had a Cd of just 0.25 – the same as the original 2 seater Honda Insight hybrid and weighed just 855 kg.

This has been my everyday transport for some 190,000 miles over the past 12 years: http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/audi_a2_tdi.php Sadly the car was poorly marketed compared with the less efficient Toyota Prius and productionceased in 2005. But not before an H2 and electric variant were prototyped. In 2010 DBM Energy claimed their modified Audi A2 could travel 375 miles at 55mph on batteries alone.

http://www.plugincars.com/claiming-battery-breakthrough-electric-audi-drives-375-miles-55-mph-without-recharging-99966.html

Sadly the factory and prototype burnt down.

VW have moved on into the extremely expensive ECO car with their impressive XL1 – but it's no longer a Volks-Wagen (people's car) at £100k !

http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/vw-xl-1-we-drive-the-future-2014-02-03

Others have compared the i3 to Tesla. A bit like comparing a 1 series with an Aston Martin.

This review will look at basic everyday practicality and make some suggestions for BMW's further i3 development.....

External Colour choices:

Not a lot of choice. Mostly greys, silvers and one for the Dutch : orange. I don't mind the

contrasting black panels. One dealer suggested the i8 Protonic Blue might become available next year.

The biggest downside if you want orange is the extra you have to pay to upgrade the interior. Someone should tell BMW to have a look at Irn Bru (Scottish Soda – orange, black &blue can work!). Not such an issue in USA.

Interior space:

Many reviewers have posted that the i3 has an airy feel – at least from the front seats. I would agree that the large sloping front windscreen and uncluttered dashboard appears to offer more light and the high seating position reduces any bathtub parallels by giving a more commanding view of the road ahead. However, whilst the i3 is around 15cm wider than the A2, in the rear it has almost 4cm less headroom, 20cm less foot room and just under 7cm less elbow room. The larger rear side windows help to mask the latter somewhat.

The white i3 BEV had a white LOFT interior – nice if you never drive in the real world. The white carpets soon became muddy grey brown! The REX had the standard interior which was very practical.

I like the futuristic flat screens that appear to hang in space over the dash.

Whatever your view on the construction material, the anti reflective properties of the dash work well with the black bonnet rather like a 1960s Rally car.

The driving position is very comfortable and has a good degree of adjustment. The seat height shift is a little awkward compared to rival cars where body weight has to be lifted on the steering wheel before raising.

The seat heating is a very worthwhile option for winter driving and means you can save energy on interior heating.

Side bolstering of the front seats is minimal. Had the car been designed with conventional rear doors and without forward tilt on these front seats, maybe BMW could have gone for a fixed back sportier option like a Recaro Pole Position (just 7kg!).

Load space:

One disadvantage of RWD with rear Motor placement is the much high than normal load area and reduced volume.

(litres seats up /litres seats down)

i3: 260 / 1100 litres

A2: 390/1085 / and approx 1400 litres with rear seats out

A3 Coupe: 365 / 1100 litres

A3 Sportback: 380 / 1220 litres

A1 Coupe: 270 / 920 litres

Quite a bit of space is taken up with American sized Soda Cup holders between the seats!

Weight Saving:

BMW has made much about the lightness of the underlying CRP structure on the i3. They are to be congratulated for bringing this to a sub £26k (base model with £5k UK grant) production car.But it is still a heavy car even making allowances for the EV battery pack.

One wonders whether 19 or 20” wheels are more about style over substance – certainly a larger diameter spinning mass has a greater effect on vehicle dynamics. It would be interesting to know what each wheel design/tyre combo weighs.

Areas where lightness could be added:

1. Make it a 3 door or go for conventional rear doors with CFRP B pillar.

2. Go for 1 front wiper blade with full sweep. Remove rear wiper mechanism and install

better rear tailgate with aero screen cleaning. (NB: the front wipers DO NOT sweep up to 90 degrees so there are a couple of unswept patches either side at eye level).

3. Make rear seats removable like briefcase design in A2 and front seats fixed back like Audi TT Quattro Mk1.

5 Doors or 3 door with Access panels?

In terms of accessibility we have already seen reviews of the difficulty in releasing rear occupants with driver or front passenger in place. The suicide rear doors are a design statement more than a practical solution to rear seat entry/egress. Such an arrangement in a UK Supermarket parking space with an SUV either side, it could get too tight to let the kids out of the rear seats. In some ways a 3 door hatchback or Coupe might have an advantage, although those front doors tend to be longer. It seems odd that the designers made the front seats forward tilting and indicates that a 3 door option may have been in mind.

Some commentators have made comparison with the Mazda RX8. In both cases these sucide doors have had to be strengthened considerably and fitted with larger closing mechanisms and hinges to cope. From a weight and energy saving perspective this is a little absurd. Matters are made worse if a child seat is fitted in front without ISOFIX. Note the weight limit is just 18kg (40lbs) for an ISOFIX attachment so heavier children will require the seat belt attachment. This makes it impossible to open the rear door on the pax side if the child seat is up front.The deeper rear windows are good for rear seat occupants but do not open – not even to a vent position. Again why bother with rear doors? Make it a 3 door Coupe like the orange prototype or offer a CFP B pillar / Avant version with normal rear doors and hidden handles ( a la Alfa Romeo 156).

Aerodynamics - What a Drag!

The i3 has a closed front grill / kidney emblem and commendably flat under tray free of the usual incursions. But for an ECO minded car it is somewhat surprising that BMW did not strive to improve the Drag Coefficient or reduce the frontal area of the i3.

If you never go over 40 mph (London UK inside the M25) this isn't going to affect you. But most London workers live outside due to ever spiralling house prices and will likely need to use the Motorway (Freeway) network. Greater aerodynamic efficiency (and hence lower battery consumption) could have been achieved by replacing the BMW X5 like wing mirrors with VW XL1 rear view cameras or at least more compact examples. The Cd is 0.3 (about as bad as a 1992 Toyota Camry or 1993 Subaru Impreza). The i3 is much wider than most pure 4 seaters and the MPV styling and battery floor makes it quite tall. Frontal Area of 2.38 m2 x 0.3 results in a CdA of 0.714.

Compare this to a 2001 Audi A2 1.2 TDI : CdA 0.544 or 2013 VW XL1: CdA 0.279.

At 100km/h (62mph) the i3 BEV creates 326 Newtons of drag. The REX model a little more at 336 Newtons. The A2 a mere 257 Newtons.

More meaningful to the average punter is BHP absorbed by drag. Here we are not considering the drag from the drive-train / single gear or tyre friction and this is for a flat road with nil wind.

At 40 mph the i3 consumes a minimum of 3.33 BHP (2.5kW) in drag alone. Not a lot! But accelerate to 60 mph and it goes up a factor of 4 to 12.5BHP (9.317kW). Get on the freeway in Montana or de-restricted Autobahn and at 93 mph the i3 requires 42.14 BHP (31.44 kW)!

It is no wonder that i3 test drivers have noticed a massive reduction in range when driving on faster roads. If you add in tyre resistance, wheel well turbulence, and a less than optimal gear ratio (optimised for acceleration rather than cruising then expect about 60 mile range from a BEV and a bit less all electric from the REX).

What if BMW had optimised just the Aero side?

40mph:

A2: 2.54 BHP(1.894kW),

XL1: 1.30 BHP(2.54kW)

60mph:

A2: 9.52 BHP (7.10kW)

XL1: 4.88 BHP (3.64kW)

93 mph:

A2: 32.1 BHP (24kW)

XL1: 16.5 BHP (12.28kW)

The i3 could be improved by careful modification of the front profile (which could include improvements to pedestrian safety), an extension or redesign of the tailgate and a longer rear spoiler, vortex generators at the rear (perhaps incorporating the trademark aerial) and more ducting air dam style under the car to improve wake and add almost drag free down-force. The door alignment and rear wheel arches could be improved to lessen drag.

Noise:

The i3 internal SPL is actually about 2dBA louder at 50 mph than the diesel Audi A2 due to wind noise. But at lower speeds the ICE can't compete (except with Start Stop at the lights!).

Driver Technology:

The BMW i brand is all about connectivity and city mobility. This test drive did not spend much time in the City. It is not possible to test the iphone/Android app without making a purchase as it is linked to the vehicle's VIN number. I was able to link my phone via Blue Tooth and play music through the radio functions. This worked 90% of the time. Both cars had standard audio which is of reasonable quality. The other 10% there was electronic signal distortion.

The layered menus were not as intuitive as a touch screen app. The iDrive handwriting recognition didn't work for me as a Right handed scribe in a RH Drive car ! My other cars are LHD!

The start up procedure could be simplified. It's not a get away car! Unlike the A2 that tells you to put your for on the brake pedal before start, the i3 makes that assumption. The electronic handbrake took some getting used to but when trusted it seemed to work OK even on hill starts. NB the CFRP Alfa Romeo 4C has a traditional handbrake and is the lightest car in it's class.

Unlike other EV manufacturers the battery regen mode is all about the accelerator pedal. The sweet spot for freewheeling downhill is hard to find with the small text on the Tacho indicating minimal kWh/100km use. This could be corrected with a Head Up Display or peripheral coloured lights to aid the driver to drive more efficiently. Similar displays tell pilots about optimum wing angle of attack in flight.

The white i3 BEV had all the goodies in terms of rear view camera and automatic parking. This worked well 4 times out of 5. The 5^th was the same spot as the 4^th but for whatever reason the car refused to park itself once it found the spot. One issue is the position of the camera which is right on the rear bumper (fender) where it gets covered in road muck. A better spot might be behind the rear glass within the wiper's swept zone.

The large centre screen was a delight if a little distracting on the move. It is especially good in the rear view camera mode (with a clean camera!). But you must still scan between screen and real world to avoid pedestrians who can't hear the i3!

There is no SOC on the BEV which is a shame. The REX has it hidden away on a “hold state of charge” menu.

The vehicle pre-conditioning menu takes some finding but worked on both BEV and REX. It's important to realise the extra electricity you will use to get the car up to temperature in winter. I set 16 deg C for an 0715z departure time on both cars. The mistake with the BEV came when I tried to charge at work using a 13A socket. The car did not charge because the menu had a timer setting (for cheaper home night tariffs). In the end I managed to cancel that and got just an hour's worth of charge.

Breakdown cover:

The i3 has no jack, no spare wheel, no wheel brace. Back in 2003 I learnt the hard way that tyre gunk doesn't work as advertised. In fact I had bought a full set of winter wheels and tyres for the A2 but had left these at home on the daily commute. One of the skinny Bridgestone B381 Eco tyres gave up the ghost at 60 mph. There was no drama and no wheel damage but it was a busy road . Had I had a spare I could have used the underfloor tool kit and Alloy jack to get back on the road within 20 minutes. Instead it took over 4 hours to get a recovery truck out and go home to change wheels.

The i3 cannot be towed in the conventional fashion and must be lifted onto a low loader! I would rather carry a spare. But 19 or 20” in that small boot (trunk)?!

In Germany a full set of Winter 19” rims can be had for 900 Euros. In the UK BMW are charging almost double! LED lights: The BEV had the optional LED headlamps for normal (dipped) use. This gave a pleasant blue / white light. The adaptability was not noticed on country lanes. Main beam was still halogen and no better than other vehicles. The mix of blue and yellow light is a little odd.

How does it drive?

Short answer: Very well!

In fact it is great fun to drive and the novelty of silent startup and acceleration to 40+ mph is superbly smooth. The downside of fun is the temptation to use the available torque. Only once did my free hand reach for a non existent gear stick! Yes I would have liked a second cog for more efficient highway motoring.

The bar graph (approx SOC indicator) goes down like fuel gauge in an English Electic Lightning!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5dvT-G7JNs

For a newcomer to EVs it feels very odd to start moving in near silence. This requires even greater lookout and anticipation than normal in built up areas as pedestrians do not hear you coming. That is a positive aspect that should re-energise driver skills.

The acceleration is excellent – the REX was not noticeably more sluggish than the BEV. I spent most of the time in ECO PRO mode (with a maximum of 70 mph set for motorways). ECO PRO + was used to get from work to the dealer in Lincoln with a depleted battery. The car felt much more fidgety on the twisty B roads than in Comfort or EP. Perhaps the stability electronics and throttle/extra regenerative braking response has this effect.

Visibility from the driver's seat was better than expected and very similar to the A2. The driver just has to move their head around the thick A pillars when approaching junctions. The grip from the 155 front and 175 rear standard tyres is more than adequate for dry road cornering at speed. The rear tyres did struggle when there was a little mud on the tarmac and the traction control flashed on these occasions. Winter tyres offer a good 3 times the grip and much shorter stopping distances so it would be interesting to compare in winter conditions.

I was surprised that the BEV had 175 section rears and this may have added drag to match the REX. Apparently the REX has a slightly narrower rear track. Steering feel was good even if not direct (servo assisted). Narrow tyres bring steering benefits and

the turning circle impressed all who witnessed it. The cruise control was very good. Neither car had the lane keeping/auto braking technology.

Conclusions:

First off BMW deserves credit for bringing the i3 to market. It offers an alternative approach to EV design and manufacture. The blue sky thinking maybe went a little overboard in the style over substance department.

However, the looks grew on me. Even the cheap looking interior panels! The car drove far better than a car of this mass deserves. In practical terms it is not as good as it could be. BMW could learn a lot more from a similarly sized car built with practicality, ECO credentials, lightness and aerodynamic efficiency that is 15 years older. The aluminium Audi A2 (especially the 1.2 model). One thing they did far better than Audi was in marketing the i3 more aggressively like Toyota did with the Prius.

Improvments: If I were responsible for product development on the i3, for 2015 I'd introduce tat least some of the following:

1. Three door version like Coupe concept

2. Aero optimisation

3. Further weight reduction programme.

4. HUD option with SOC indication

5. More obvious ECO / Freewheel indication

6. More colour choice not linked to interiors

7. Lightweight Biodiesel or CNG REX options

8. More practical 5 door version with B pillar, removable rear seats and FWD to improve rear load space and traction in snow.

9. Better seat raising design.

10. Full LED lighting

11. RH iDrive for RHD and LH iDrive for LHD markets

12. Fairer winter wheel/tyre pricing

13. Better rear camera positioning

14. ICE FWD option without EV for long distance commuters in countries without decent electrical network.

15. Spare wheel/ jack options as alternative to tyre gunk.

16. Better Driver info menus

17. Better English translation of manual

18. Work with Solar PV controller manufacturers to offer old i3 batteries as storage and the likes of “Immersun” to offer Solar PV charging.

19. Encourage Fast DC network expansion in all markets – like FastNED.

Special thanks to Lucas for the in depth review!