BMW i EfficientDynamics - i3 confirmed to be a RWD, Mid-Engine car.

  • Thread starter Prince.M5
  • 344 comments
  • 35,290 views
@homeforsummer
I dont doubt the things you mention, i just say it will perform average for modern sport car standards. You compared it yourself to cars as a 6 series or Maserati Gran Turismo, not track beasts as a M4. Also, Toyota wasn't thinking of how much fun the GT86 is to drive on Prius tyres when they made their decision, they were thinking of the $$$.
 
Also, Toyota wasn't thinking of how much fun the GT86 is to drive on Prius tyres when they made their decision, they were thinking of the $$$.
Take it from the chief engineer of the project:
Car and Driver
...The charitable among us would describe the Michelin Primacy HPs’ grip as underwhelming. Toyota chief engineer Tetsuya Tada tells us, “They are Prius tires,” and he’s not joking—they’re identical to those in the Toyota hybrid’s top trim level (outside the U.S.), right down to the compound and construction...

Those wimpy tires, however, contribute to the fun. Their deliberately tenuous grip encourages drivers to explore the cars’ limit behavior. Tada boasts that these cars are largely a reaction to the advanced technology and high-grip tires that have become synonymous with the modern sports car. The Primacy HPs’ easy breakaway characteristics make for a playful demeanor.
The whole point of the Toyobaru is to defy the "mega grip, mega power" mentality.
 
i just say it will perform average for modern sport car standards. You compared it yourself to cars as a 6 series or Maserati Gran Turismo, not track beasts as a M4.
Road tests already suggest otherwise.

And the track aspect is largely irrelevant - how many customers of cars like that regularly take them on track? I suspect the number is low, even in the wider sphere of Porsche or BMW M-car ownership. I'm not sure why the M4 is even being discussed, actually - it's a completely different vehicle to the i8. The 911 is more appropriate, since it's a purpose-built sports car rather than a jazzed-up version of a car sold in its hundreds of thousands to sales reps.

For the road, provided you don't drive everywhere like a lunatic, reviews suggest the i8 has more than enough performance.
 
"Fun" with quotation marks is how I would describe the allure of faster laptimes on excessively sticky rubber, personally. The Cobalt SS Turbo is my go-to example for that kind of folly. I'll take a slower RWD car over a boosted Cobalt anyday, but the logic of "fun = performance" implies the SS Turbo should get first pick over a long list of otherwise desirable cars.

So you think the tire choice on the Toyobaru was motivated by money. Getting back to the i8, then: In addition to the fuel savings from reduced rolling resistance, I think BMW intends to prove that a futuristic hybrid car can have a soul, something that wouldn't be quite as apparent with the clinical efficiency of wider tires.
 
I'm probably going to test drive the i3. I'm also very interested in the new e-Golf.
 
I'm probably going to test drive the i3. I'm also very interested in the new e-Golf.
Still not yet driven the i3, but the e-Golf is a neat little car. Not as flashy as the BMW obviously but just a good, sensible, usable electric car with good performance.
 
I'm extremely doubtful that any decent summer tire would cost a manufacturer particularly more than the low rolling resistance tires that the car is equipped with. And if lap times were the main thing, they certainly wouldn't have been so stringent in the car's powertrain.




It's also pretty amusing to think that the BreezeFreese's specifically targeted, complex and long gestation period after huge public support was undermined at the very last second because Toyota wanted to save a few bucks on tires after creating what was very close to a completley bespoke chassis, engine and drivetrain to power it.
 
Last edited:
I'm probably going to test drive the i3. I'm also very interested in the new e-Golf.

I've had a good poke around an i3 at a dealer, and I have to say, I think it'll make the Golf feel like a pretty boring place to be... just another appliance in the super-market car park. The i3 isn't exactly pretty, but it's eye-catching and fascinating to look at, even if just for the visible CFRP weave!

As it happens, I don't think I'm going to go for an i3 after all, it's a good car and the range isn't a problem at all for me, but I think it's going to be much easier to get the MD to sign off on something a little more conventional, I'm thinking 320d GT or 420d GranCoupe at the moment :)
 
Wide tires suck for feel.

195/215 is plenty wide, especially if they're low profile tires. I've no doubt the staggered set-up causes some understeer... I wonder why they didn't just go 205/205?
Pretty much all high-end German cars are designed to be stable at top speed since they can do that on the Autobahn repeatedly. The almost all have staggered setups as well. They all understeer because of it but it adds to the car's inherent stability at any speed.

Also, I believe the i8 has a rearward weight bias.
 
With an electric drivetrain, they could make the weight bias anything they want. 50/50 is entirely possible with the proper packaging.

RE: Toyobaru tires: If they really wanted to save money, they would have given it the cheap tires the Prius has on in the US instead of summer tires like the Primacy HPs from Michelin... which aren't all that cheap.


They're still not great tires.
 
RE: Toyobaru tires: If they really wanted to save money, they would have given it the cheap tires the Prius has on in the US instead of summer tires like the Primacy HPs from Michelin... which aren't all that cheap.

They're still not great tires.
The base tires are the same type as Prii. When the car first came out there wasn't an option for anything else, actually.
 
Yup, they're still Prii tires, but the more decent 17's. The base Prii we have here gets 15" with ultra-LRR tires that have sidewalls made of used party balloons.

Funnily enough, the first time I drove an NC, it was on Primacy HPs. And it actually felt more neutral than the BRZFRS. Sure, the BRZFRS' low center of gravity made it better over the limit, but that same limit felt higher on the Mazda.
 
I've had a good poke around an i3 at a dealer, and I have to say, I think it'll make the Golf feel like a pretty boring place to be... just another appliance in the super-market car park.
Ordinarily I'd agree since I find the i3 fascinating, but I can certainly see the appeal of the Golf. The Golf's inherent boring-ness actually counts for it in some ways with the electric powertrain, as you climb into it expecting a rumbling diesel and spend the entire time being pleasantly surprised at how wonderfully smooth, quiet and responsive it is. It's like the thing beats your expectations every time you get in.

Not yet driven the i3, but on a more objective note I believe the Golf is also the more practical and better-riding car, each of which is actually quite a good reason to go for it given an electric car's typically city-based routine.

Had a whizz around Berlin in the e-Golf. Stand-out features were being able to beat cars from every traffic light without acting like a yob, the absolutely amazing LED headlights (went through a tunnel - never driven something with such clear lighting), the smooth ride, and the fact I did a 24km route and somehow only used about 11km of electricity. I've got quite used to getting the best from hybrids and EVs but that last one still surprised me.
 
@homeforsummer

Possibly I've just been reading too many BMWi press releases, but I just can't look at an electrified vehicle that's based on one that was designed to be powered by an internal combustion engine, and not think "compromised".

Possibly of all the new and forthcoming BMW projects, the one I'm most keen to see is the i5. BMW should be able to deliver the best all-round electric car in the world.
 
Possibly I've just been reading too many BMWi press releases, but I just can't look at an electrified vehicle that's based on one that was designed to be powered by an internal combustion engine, and not think "compromised".
There's an element of that, but it's quite complex.

VW's MQB platform was designed from the outset to accept plug-in drivetrains, so it's theoretically no less "compromised" in that respect than the i3. I recall the e-Golf isn't even a great deal heavier - if at all - than a diesel Golf, despite the need to carry a ~24 kWh battery pack. The e-Up is the same (that one is heavier due to the batteries, but the design isn't compromised - even the boot is the same size as the regular car) and the new Smart Fortwo/Renault Twingo is another car designed to be plug-in from the outset. As is Volvo's upcoming architecture.

If there's an aspect that's truly compromised, it's the styling, as the Golf needs to have a long enough bonnet to accommodate regular engines - but equally, there's no reason the i3 needs a bonnet of any sort other than for aesthetic reasons, so it could be argued BMW has "played it safe" even with such a striking vehicle.

The biggest compromise of modern electric cars is that the general public will reject them for styling reasons, if manufacturers fully exploit the fact they don't need to make space for a rigid engine and transmission structure. It's a shame - as a closet futurist I'd love to see automobile design take an entirely new path with EVs - but as a rule the general public are fearful of change, so even electric cars will be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary for the time being.
 
If there's an aspect that's truly compromised, it's the styling, as the Golf needs to have a long enough bonnet to accommodate regular engines - but equally, there's no reason the i3 needs a bonnet of any sort other than for aesthetic reasons, so it could be argued BMW has "played it safe" even with such a striking vehicle.

Actually this struck me a lot sitting behind the wheel of the the i3. Lots of modern cars seem to have a massive expanse of dashboard between you, and the base of the windscreen. Given the i3's compact appearance, with a bonnet that isn't much more than a notch in the cars profile, I was expecting to feel much closer to the 'action' - but you seem to sit miles away from the front of the car - with year head/eyes almost behind the centre line of the vehicle. It's odd because with it's wheel at each corner design you'd expect it to be easy to place on the road. This problem isn't exclusive to the i3, I find it very noticeable in my old mans Astra too - I just hadn't expected it in (what I perceived to be) such a compact car.

Looking up the e-Golf stats, I'm surprised it's not heavier to be honest. From what I've gathered though, the i3's battery still seems to have one of the better kW/kg figures, and is basically a couple of passengers lighter than the e-Golf, and the cabin of the i3 does seem pretty spacious, though I think the rear seat occupants would have less space in the i3.

I found this on volkswagen-auto.net (tried putting my own numbers together, but the VW site is either rubbish, or my browser isn't showing it properly):

Its 85-kW motor, manufactured by VW, produces 270 N·m (199 lb·ft) of torque, gave it very brisk performance despite an unladen EU weight of 1585 kg (3494 lb) or 1510 kg DIN. Compared to an equivalent version with 1.6-L diesel engine, the e-Golf is 245 kg (540 lb) heavier.

.. and the i3 is 1270/1195kg, so around 26% lighter than the e-Golf, for what I believe is very similar range (ignoring the i3 range extender model). To me, not that I'm an eco-warrior (far from it!), but the efficiency in the i3's engineering is as, if not more, appealing as it's efficiency "at the pump".

The idea of not having to give money to petrol stations anymore is good, and the idea of not having to give the tax-man any money for it (in the first year at least) is a wet-dream... I think I might be talking myself in to it again.
 
The sense of being further away from the dashboard that you describe is partly because they've shrunk the actual expanse of plastic itself I think, and partly because crash regulations dictate pretty much how far from the front of the car you sit anyway. Even in the aforementioned Smart you sit quite far towards the back of the car.

My Golf figures were just based on what I'd heard rather than research, though I'd heard it compared to the 2.0 TDI which I expect is a big heavier. Having driven a few VAG diesels and driven the e-Golf, it's certainly the electric one which feels brisker off the line. That said, the i3 is even quicker.

I follow the BMW i3 group on Facebook (cool source for stories, sometimes) and they've certainly noted better efficiency at low speeds than they have at freeway speeds. If there's one disadvantage of the i3 it's that it has a surprisingly large frontal area, which means its efficiency drops at a proportionally quicker rate the faster you go.

I definitely want to get a go in the i3 as I've been fascinated with it since the concept appeared. But of electric cars I've driven so far, the e-Golf is comfortably the best. And I say that as someone who isn't that keen on Golfs!

One word of warning on the i3 though is that it's had quite a few niggly faults so far, according to owners. They all love the car but it does seem to be a bit of a "beta test" at the moment. May be worth grabbing one a year down the line instead, once things have been sorted.
 
I'm extremely doubtful that any decent summer tire would cost a manufacturer particularly more than the low rolling resistance tires that the car is equipped with. And if lap times were the main thing, they certainly wouldn't have been so stringent in the car's powertrain.




It's also pretty amusing to think that the BreezeFreese's specifically targeted, complex and long gestation period after huge public support was undermined at the very last second because Toyota wanted to save a few bucks on tires after creating what was very close to a completley bespoke chassis, engine and drivetrain to power it.

I think you understimate the amount of burocracy a engineer has to go through when he raises the costs even by 1 € (or $)/per car. We are talking about new, proper sport tyres vs a carry over part (prius tyres).
Also, what makes you think this means the decision was taken on the very last second?

Im sorry if putting the word fun into "" earlier sounded offensive, I agree with many others here that low grip have their appeal (eventhough I prefer grippier tyres for safety reasons), but better tyres lead to better results at magazin tests, give you a much nicer impression during your own test drive at the local dealership (face it, most GT86 will be used as daily drivers not track machines) and word of mouth (faster 0-60 times - this means alot to the customers of cars like the GT86, GTi etc).
 
We are talking about new, proper sport tyres vs a carry over part (prius tyres).
The fact that they are already on the Prius is moot, since Toyota has "proper sport tires" as a carryover part that would fit the BreezeFrees installed as OEM on another one of their cars (as installed as the first performance option on the IS250, which are pretty junk in terms of longevity and ride but would still be "sportier"), and they chose to use the Prius tires anyway. Again, Michelin anything tires aren't cheap, nevermind Primacy HPs.

Also, what makes you think this means the decision was taken on the very last second?
Because if the goal was to save money from the start, Toyota did a particularly awful job of it when designing the car, what with all of the BreezeFrees-only bits and pieces. When GM put their huge entry in the market niche, half a decade prior in response to their own huge public demand for a similarly popular concept car, their car was deliberately cobbled out of parts bin components to save costs. The engine and quite a few bits of the interior were straight out of the Cobalt. Most of the drivetrain was from the CTS. The transmissions were all out of the GM compact trucks. The floorpan may or may not have been a significantly cut down version of the XLR chassis. GM still lost tons of money on each one.
Even going up another size class doesn't see the level of bespoke design as the BreezeFrees. The 370Z is a shortened midsized sedan. The Camaro is a shortened full sized sedan. The Mustang is a shortened, substantially cut down late 1990s Lincoln. The Genesis Coupe is a Genesis... except a Coupe.

(eventhough I prefer grippier tyres for safety reasons)
If those same tires are perfectly safe on the several-hundred-pound heavier, sloppier Prius (as the sport option, no less), I can't imagine there is any safety issue on the BreezeFrees.

but better tyres lead to better results at magazin tests,
Not sure how much better received the BreezeFrees could be for magazine tests.

Yeah, I am sure "fun" with low grip tyres outweights the pro's of having a car doing better lap times and test results as a selling factor.
give you a much nicer impression during your own test drive at the local dealership (face it, most GT86 will be used as daily drivers not track machines)
Which one is it?

and word of mouth (faster 0-60 times - this means alot to the customers of cars like the GT86, GTi etc).
People who cared that much about stoplight drags would presumably just buy Mustang V6s or Genesis Coupes instead; since they are cheaper/the same price, more powerful and much faster.
 
Last edited:
Again, Michelin anything tires aren't cheap, nevermind Primacy HPs.

Again, yup.

RE: Toyobaru tires: If they really wanted to save money, they would have given it the cheap tires the Prius has on in the US instead of summer tires like the Primacy HPs from Michelin... which aren't all that cheap.

Toyota has a whole lot of cheap tires to pick from out of their supplier bin. They could have even done what Subaru did with the BRZ RA and fitted it with 16" wheels with smaller tires (actually... I wouldn't mind!).

-

Again, though... the tires are only part of the grip equation. The other part is simply down to suspension geometry, tuning and settings... which is why the BRZ feels so much more buttoned down than the FRS.
 
I like fast accelerations. I like the feeling of torque. Too bad the Golf is almost 3 seconds slower 0 - 62 mph.
 
Is there official news about the i1 and i5?

I wonder if the range extender of the i3 is worth while the extra money?

Also, the tires of the i3, aren't these expensive tire because the size is not that common?
 
Last edited:
I like fast accelerations. I like the feeling of torque. Too bad the Golf is almost 3 seconds slower 0 - 62 mph.
Yeah, the BMW is a lot quicker, though put your foot down in the Golf and it's pretty easy to see off most city traffic. I was actively looking for red lights in Berlin and hoping I'd be at the front just so I could race away - since it's silent, you don't feel massively antisocial doing full-bore standing starts...
 
Is there official news about the i1 and i5?

I wonder if the range extender of the i3 is worth while the extra money?

Also, the tires of the i3, aren't these expensive tire because the size is not that common?

The only forth-coming i variant confirmed officially so far is the i8 Spyder. BMW seem to be focusing on eDrive (plug-in Hybrid) variants of standard models utilising new 'XB' series engines, such as the X5 eDrive40, 328e, 223e Active Tourer, and 530Le, rather than the i5 at the moment.
 
Excuse the double post but also this might be interesting @kikie

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...vs-volkswagen-e-golf-german-magazine-compares

The BMW i3's styling has been divisive since its launch earlier this year but one thing that most agree on is its abilities--it's among the best electric cars yet.
When Volkswagen launches its e-Golf though, BMW will face tough competition--and worldwide, the Nissan Leaf is still a best-selling electric car.

German magazine Auto Bild has now compared all three together--and the result is more or less as you might expect.

Comparing a BMW with its more humble (and more conventional) equivalents isn't as pointless as you'd think, either. While it's the most expensive on test, at 36,310 Euros (just under $49,000) it's only around 1,300 Euros more expensive than the Leaf--and the Golf is cheapest, at under 35,000 Euros.

That means drivers shopping for an electric vehicle may be tempted to compare all three. The Golf and Leaf are most similar of course--conventional four-door hatchbacks with five seats apiece--but some may well take the plunge on the dramatically-styled BMW.

BMW most efficient, Nissan least

It's the BMW which went furthest on a full charge, in the test. Light weight helped the BMW stretch its 22 kWh battery pack for a 105-mile range.

The 24.2 kWh Golf followed with 102.5 miles, and the 24 kWh Leaf struggled on 90 miles, despite Nissan claiming the longest range in official testing--in Europe, it's rated at 123 miles, compared to the 118-mile BMW and Volkswagen.

Auto Bild goes into more detail on the efficiency of each car, listing both actual energy efficiency and real-world CO2 emissions, based on the German electricity mix output of 575 grams per kWh and Germany's "green" electricity equivalent of 42 g/kWh.

MORE: 2015 Volkswagen e-Golf: Drive Report, First U.S. Sale Details

The BMW used 12.8 kWh per 100 kilometers--20.6 kWh per 100 miles. That's better than the 27 kWh/100 miles the i3 attains in EPA testing, though the magazine's test was mainly city based, with a short highway stint.

CO2 output is rated at 74 g/km on a regular electricity mix--around the same as a Toyota Yaris Hybrid, analogous to the Toyota Prius C sold in the U.S. On a cleaner energy mix though, that drops to 5.4 g/km in Germany--showing the value of low-carbon electricity.

The VW and Leaf followed--23.3 kWh/100 miles and 26.7 kWh/100 miles respectively. The latter figure too is actually better than the 30 kWh/100 miles the Leaf attains in EPA testing, once again taking a largely city-based route into account.



BMW best to drive, too
The BMW's weight also gives it handling benefits over the Leaf and Golf, and at 7.2 seconds to 62 mph it's also the quickest.

The Golf fares well too though, even compared to the illustrious GTI model--the low-mounted battery helps it feel nimble and the ride is better than the stiffly-sprung BMW. The Nissan, by comparison, is described as feeling like a generation behind--which by now, it is.

It's noisiest too, although it's all relative with quiet electric cars. The Golf is actually the most refined, with just 68 decibels of cabin noise at 80 mph--about as loud as if the car simply passed by you on the street.

Ultimately, all the cars displayed impressive efficiency and low noise.

Those seeking the best car though should still look towards the BMW. For those wanting a little more practicality, it looks like the e-Golf will soon oust the Leaf from its position as the best conventional electric car option on the market.
 
@MatskiMonk
Never take the Auto Bild seriously when it comes to VW, especially to the Golf. I have read that test myself and it was just trying to find random reasons to put the i3 into negative light, while making it sound like all the disadvantages the e-Golf has are not important.

A few months earlier they tested several economical hybrid electric vehicles (Prius etc.), yet they also included a Golf TGI (= running on CNG) and obviously the Golf won thanks to cheap CNG prices, its reach etc.
 
@MatskiMonk
Never take the Auto Bild seriously when it comes to VW, especially to the Golf. I have read that test myself and it was just trying to find random reasons to put the i3 into negative light, while making it sound like all the disadvantages the e-Golf has are not important.

A few months earlier they tested several economical hybrid electric vehicles (Prius etc.), yet they also included a Golf TGI (= running on CNG) and obviously the Golf won thanks to cheap CNG prices, its reach etc.

That's possibly true, since I don't read German I was thinking that the blog site that reposted it might have taken out any bias though.

@kikie Just had a look online, the i3 uses Bridgestone Ecopias, at 155/70R19 size... seem to be about £140 each, so not crazy, but certainly not cheap.
 
Back