Home » Electric Car Owner Has Been Fighting BMW For A Decade Because His i3 Doesn’t Hit The Advertised Range. Who Is In The Wrong Here?

Electric Car Owner Has Been Fighting BMW For A Decade Because His i3 Doesn’t Hit The Advertised Range. Who Is In The Wrong Here?

Bmw False Advertising Ts2
ADVERTISEMENT

A Canadian man bought a BMW i3 after having seen on the automaker’s website that the car is capable of driving 124 miles per charge. Upon taking ownership, that man was unable to get the car to reach 120 miles of range, leading him to sue BMW. Now, 10 years have elapsed and though he won some money, in the end, he lost. Allow me to explain.

Do I think it’s possible to hit 124 miles of range in a 2014 BMW i3? Well, I happen to own a BMW i3 with a brand new replacement battery, and I actually put the car through a range test. What did I discover?

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

I managed to travel just under 100 miles on a single charge in almost optimal conditions — mild weather, no air conditioning, low vehicle speeds:

Of course, I had two extra passengers, and I did the test over two days, so it’s possible the battery needed to condition a bit to be most efficient on day two, which it wouldn’t have had to do had I done the test all in a single day. Still, getting 120 miles would have been insanely challenging, even if I hadn’t had passengers, even if I hadn’t had that heavy range extender in the back, and even if I had a heat pump (that doesn’t make much of a difference anyway, according to what I’ve seen online).

ADVERTISEMENT

I say this because if you look at ~2014 forum posts from then-new BMW i3 owners, very, very few folks were getting anything close to 124 miles of range even when they really went for it. But there are a couple of examples of folks who’ve pulled it off, like user “marfuh” on the German Going Electric forum. Here’s what he wrote back in 2014 (translated via Google Translate):

I’ve already complained a lot today but I’ve been pleasantly surprised. I thought I’d drive through the greater FMM area and just see what I can do with economical driving… and lo and behold, 212 km… 6 km to go…

Well, it works… the weather just has to stay like this

[…]

It was almost :|worth it…I just wanted to know

When asked if he drove slowly, marfuh said yes, replying:

Yes, like a grandma…but I just wanted to know….

You can’t drive like that…it doesn’t make a good impression on other road users about the i3.

Screen Shot 2024 09 26 At 9.38.14 Am

Back in July of 2014, a BMW i3 Forum user named “daoasis” posted: “Range Not As Advertised – Only 129km on full charge” That post read:

The marketed specifications on the i3 are 160/180/200km on a full charge depending on the driving mode based on the Canadian site: http://www.bmw.ca/ca/en/newvehicles/i/i3/2013/showroom/technical_data.html

And on the US site it shows as 190km with a 160km* mean custoemr value with no explanation of the astrisks: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/i/i3/2013/showroom/technical_data.html

However, everytime my i3 is fully charged it only shows up to 129km range.

Does anyone else have this issue and is it doing this just to be safe and fool you to not test the actual range?

Thanks,

Replies to that thread made it clear that 200 km is a bit of a stretch. Here’s what forum member ASUN wrote:

ADVERTISEMENT
200km seems far-fetched even in perfect scenarios.
Here’s BrianStanier:

The advertised range on the Canadian and US sites does seem out of line with the UK figures. Here they claim 80-100 miles and I get around 90 with our Rex. Some, such as Frank who must be a very smooth driver, get considerably more, some less.

Your 129km seems just about right to me. Though, as Frank says, the real range is almost always more than predicted. Unlike the Leaf we had previously where the guessometer was always optimistic, sometimes ridiculousl

Here’s alohart:

If one drives slowly in warm temperatures on level, dry roads without much wind and with the climate control system off, 200 km is certainly possible. In real-world driving conditions in warm, dry Hawaiian weather in our 2014 BEV, I have driven 160 km with 10 km of estimated remaining range. This included a 300 m ascent and descent and speeds ranging as high as 100 kph but mostly at 70 kph.

I’m guessing that BMW’s initial range estimates were based on the unrealistic NEDC standard used in Europe

Two and a half years later, and daoasis provided an update on that thread (I added the bold):

So 2.5 years in and now I need the car to make it at minimum 114km in an Ontario Canada winter. That’s the distance from the last charging station to my cottage. Unfortunately, at 4.5 celsius, the car will only make it 100km in eco pro + mode.

I’ve contact both BMW Toronto and BMW Canada and let them know that they falsely advertised the range on the 2014 i3. When I purchase the vehicle, the website said the following:

When I purchased the vehicle, it was advertised with the following ranges in the different driving modes:
Comfort: 160km
Eco Pro: 180km
Eco Pro +: 200km

Somewhere between Nov 8, 2014 and Dec 10, 2014 BMW updated their marketing material on the same web pages to the following:
Comfort: 130km
Eco Pro: 160km
Eco Pro +: 156km (20% above Comfort Mode)

They acknowledged that their previous material was bogus and that 160km is the top limit in Eco Pro +, which has been my experience. Now with the cold weather, I’m getting less than half of the marketed 200km range when I purchased the car.

It there are any other Canadian 2014 i3 owners that purchased their vehicles prior to Dec 3, 2014 (approximately when their web site was updated) please let me know as I a likely to file a suit against them. I have given them every opportunity to make this right for me but they have both decided to not take any responsibility for their false claims.

I haven’t confirmed it, but I’m fairly sure this “daoasis” is a man named Ronen Kleiman, who has been legally battling it out with BMW since 2017, as CBC News reported back then:

From the article that goes with the video above:

He did a lot of research before locking onto an $970/month, four-year lease for a new 2014 BMW i3 — an all-electric vehicle, the first model of its kind for automaker.

“It was the first fully electric car, kind of lower, more affordable price range… This car, as advertised, filled all the needs that I required of the vehicle,” Kleiman says.

“But right away I knew something was wrong.”

The article notes how BMW changed its car’s advertised range from 200 km down to 160 km. CBC even provides a Wayback Machine link that shows BMW’s old claim:

ADVERTISEMENT

Screen Shot 2024 09 26 At 9.17.01 Am

This review by Autotrader.ca even makes mention of the possible 200 km of range in EcoPro+ mode. Here’s BMW’s response in that 2017 CBC article:

 “Battery-electric vehicles can be significantly impacted by driver behaviour, the vehicle’s external environment, and the consumption of on-board features,” Barb Pitblado from BMW Group Canada wrote in an email to Go Public.

Fast forward to this month, and we have a new story by Automotive News Canada, and it turns out, Kleiman actually won his case. Sort of. From the news site:

After years of litigation, an Ontario judge has ruled in favour of a lessee who accused BMW Canada’s marketing material of misrepresenting the electric range of his 2014 BMW i3.

After a nonjury trial, Deputy Judge James Minns of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the automaker and dealership BMW Toronto liable and awarded Ronen Kleiman $5,000 in damages.

But Minns’ June 13 order requires Kleiman to reimburse BMW $11,140 for attorney fees and litigation expenses because he rejected the automaker’s pretrial offer to settle for $10,000.

Per the story, Kleiman turned down the offer because he didn’t want to sign an NDA. As the news outlet states, he was looking for $25 grand in damages, though there were other options. From Automotive News:

[Kleiman] said Minns didn’t consider the “numerous ways BMW could have rectified the issue but chose not to because it would have been too costly,” including rescinding the lease, refunding $18,000 in lease payments and replacing his 2014 i3 with the 2017 i3, which had a larger battery.

“Although I am satisfied that the judge found BMW misrepresented the vehicle, his damages award contradicts the reasons for this finding and fails to hold BMW accountable for their actions,” Kleiman said.

So after a decade of fighting — and seven years of fighting in the courts — Kleiman got at least…something. But it sounds like he lost out financially.

ADVERTISEMENT

David Bmw I3 Club Ts2 (1)

As a BMW i3 owner and engineer, my view on this is fairly simple: I think both parties are at least somewhat at fault, and I think BMW should probably shoulder a bit more of the blame than Kleiman. On Kleiman’s part, it’s up to the owner to understand the classic acronym: YMMV — your mileage my vary. The expectation that a car will get a certain range independent of a driving condition is unrealistic. If a car says it can do 124 miles of range in EcoPro+ mode, your next thought should be: But under what conditions (weather, speed, driving style, etc.)? But I’m sympathetic to the realization that a brand new EV owner — especially in 2014 — wouldn’t necessarily know just how large range fluctuations can be.

On BMW’s part, listing a range that’s clearly a stretch is probably not the move. In fact, I’d argue it’s foolish to list anything that isn’t the federally-listed range of your vehicle. Why open yourself up to potential litigation? State simply “This vehicle scores X miles of range on the EPA cycle.” And be done with it. To say “You can actually get up to 124 miles under certain circumstances” is just going to lead people to think they can get that range on their normal commute. Stick with the EPA/WLTP figures, label the ranges as such, and if you want to say “You can exceed these ranges if you drive carefully,” then fine. But definitely don’t throw out a range figure that isn’t based on — and clearly labeled as — a government certification. That’s I think where BMW went wrong here.

I understand why the company fought this — it would have set a bad precedent that could have led to lawsuits from any EV driver who didn’t achieve the advertised range. But man, just give the guy a 2017 i3 for goodness sake or just put in a newer battery. You replaced my battery free of charge!

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TXJeepGuy
TXJeepGuy
2 hours ago

I’d be mad too if I signed a lease for one of these for $900+ a month. Of course I’d be mad at myself, not BMW.

My 0.02 Cents
My 0.02 Cents
1 hour ago
Reply to  TXJeepGuy

Right, I’m pretty ticked off at myself for leasing an EV6 for 3 years at $590 a month, when the same lease is now half that 18 months later…
On bright side I can get about 220-230 miles at freeway speed, with some hills and the A/C on, with a full charge (100-10%). And it charges on a DCFC 10-80% in just under 20 minutes for the next 180 miles, it charges faster than I can stop for lunch.
It’s a decent car and unless there’s a better range option for the price, that isn’t a Tesla (I like turn signal stalks) I’ll lease another one. Hopefully for a lot less…

EricTheViking
EricTheViking
11 hours ago

Jeremy Clarkson grudgingly complained about the BMW i8’s less-than-advertised range in this Top Gear episode. The i8 used the petrol engine more often as to “extend” the range.

CanyonCarver
CanyonCarver
14 hours ago

I snapped a picture of an i3 the other day while I was on the highway and the guy driving had put on wheels that stuck out probably 6-8″ on all corners. I knew DT would get a kick out of it but I guess you can post pictures on here yet. If that can change, Ill update it

behindTheTimes
behindTheTimes
15 hours ago

There’s no way that $11k USD made a dent in BMW’s legal expenses for an issue that dragged on for 10 years.

EVDesigner
EVDesigner
14 hours ago
Reply to  behindTheTimes

The BMW legal department is probably salaried(personal experience in automotive legal department) so they probably did this to keep themselves employed or possibly prevent a class action lawsuit from happening.

Bre Rud
Bre Rud
15 hours ago

Slightly O/T: This afternoon I merged on the 405 northbound off of Burbank Ave. Ahead of me I saw a sharp looking color on a car in a world of gray. A quick 2nd glance, as I upshifted my red Abarth and I saw it was a gold and Black i3. So, I said the myself, Self, cuz that’s what I call myself, that there is a very rare i3. There is only one person in the world that I have heard of that owns that car I pushed my 500c a little more as best I could to catch up in lovely LA traffic. With one eye on traffic and the other Marty Feldman style on the little BMW, I got close enough to see it was indeed put on David Tracy. I tried to make visual with him, but traffic was getting gnarly for both of us.
TL/DR: that’s a beautiful car. If it makes you happy. Keep it. If it cost you a lot of money to maintain, keep it. We need weird cars and we need weird drivers to drive them

SNL-LOL Jr
SNL-LOL Jr
5 minutes ago
Reply to  Bre Rud

Darn with luck you could have had a glimpse of the elusive “Elise.”

70
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x