It’s probably not escaped your attention there’s been more weirdness than usual happening around here. David has gone full LA and become all fancy, buying himself an actual functioning modern vehicle to drive to the smoothie bar and yoga classes [Editor’s Note: Technically it has a failed battery, though I did recently get my first massage. -DT]. Torch has been expounding about car design, defending the unloved Mini Clubman. Me, supposedly the bougie artistic one? I’ve been getting my hands dirty wrenching. It’s like The Autopian have remade Freaky Friday, only more shit. David’s probably writing the screenplay right now.
David’s chariot of choice for his new LA lifestyle is the BMW i3, and as a designer, and out of concern for his general wellbeing, I wholeheartedly approve. Of course, being David he bought the cheapest one he could find, and it needs a battery replacement, but still it’s a start. I love the i3 (and its stunning i8 sibling), and you’d struggle to find a professional car designer who doesn’t agree with me. Both cars represented a tremendous leap forward in the way cars are engineered and constructed, a bright shining future of sustainability and ec0-friendliness. But it turned out to be a future never to materialize, a dead end fork in the road in the fast moving EV revolution. We’re constantly hearing legacy OEMs don’t take risks, don’t know what they’re doing, and are committed to peddling the same old shit year in, year out. BMW took one hell of gamble with the i3 and i8, but neither are being directly replaced, so what the hell happened?
The i3’s Roots: The BMW E1
The i3 didn’t totally appear out of the blue. Like most OEMs, BMW had been doing the usual half-assed attempts at electrification for years, starting with a 1602 with 12 12-volt lead acid batteries under the hood. Two were built, and one was used to pace runners in the marathon at the 1972 Munich Olympics, so the athletes wouldn’t be exposed to lung clogging exhaust fumes. BMW mucked about cramming batteries of differing chemistries under the hoods of various 3 series over the following decades, before in 1991 revealing their first purpose built electric car concept, the E1.
If you squint hard enough you can trace the genesis of the i3 back to the E1. A three door, four-seater city car, it sort of looked like a puffer fish E30; a pumped-up volume with a body of recycled plastic built upon an aluminum frame; similar to how the i3 would eventually be constructed. The Z11 E1 was only ever intended to be a concept; BMW wanted to see if such a car could be feasible for production, because looming California Zero Emission Vehicle legislation was scaring all the OEMs to death.
They tried again with a second generation Z15 E1 concept, which pulled up the belt line, reduced the glass to body ratio and pushed the wheels right out to the corners. It was lot uglier, but BMW were ingesting the good drugs and getting wild. They built two versions; a pure EV and get this–a four cylinder hybrid, years before Toyota had even dreamt of such a thing. At the time the BMW range consisted of three models for the discerning driver, not the bewildering array of wheeled circus freaks they offer now. So BMW coming up with an EV urban vehicle was like me suddenly wearing a color other than black – an actual WTF moment.
A Stunning Exterior Not Unlike That Of BMW’s Initial Concept
The i3 we’ve come to know and love was first shown as the Mega City Vehicle concept in 2011. In 2012, London surprised the world by not making a complete dog’s dinner of the Olympics, and BMW used the event to show the prototype i3, prior to a worldwide reveal of the actual car in 2013. A common complaint from the cheap seats is that concepts never make it into production unaltered, but the i3, aside from changes to the full depth glazing and lighting elements, was really as close as it’s feasible to get.
This is the first thing you notice about the i3–it’s utterly distinctive and looks like nothing else on the road. In my early days as a car design student I thought EVs and hybrids should look like “space cars from the future.” I later realized this was a bit naive, because the mainstream is pretty conservative in its taste. No one wants to look like they’ve just beamed down on an away mission to Earth when they’re out running errands.
Famed American industrial designer Raymond Loewe called this the MAYA principle – Most Advanced Yet Acceptable. This is what he said:
“The adult public’s taste is not necessarily ready to accept the logical solutions to their requirements if the solution implies too vast a departure from what they have been conditioned into accepting as the norm.”
In other words, your design should be advanced, but not so advanced as to alienate your customers. You need to ease in radical change gradually. This was what Tesla got right by making its cars anonymously handsome in a generic way – they didn’t really look that different from the norm despite being high tech EVs (early Tesla Model S’s had grilles). By doing things like making the carbon skeleton of the car visible when you opened the doors, BMWs approach was arguably more honest from a design theory point of view, and yet, as much as designers like me venerate them, the BMW pair were a step too far for the masses.
Sketched by Richard Kim (now the chief designer at Canoo) under the supervision of Benoit Jacob, the i3 is basically a monovolume – a one box design. By moving the wheels to the corners it gains a wicked stance. It has very bold graphics–the black hood and side glazing break up the shape, and continue to the roof which is also black because it’s made from left over offcuts of carbon fiber. Thus blackout continues all the way down the rear windshield and tailgate glass, giving a consistent appearance that separates the bodysides, highlighting how the car is constructed and making it look substantial and solid.
The dip in the window line on the rear doors is the one part I’m not sold on–I’d lower the glass on the front doors to match–but it stops the car looking too blobby and gives it a futuristic vibe, helped by the subtle use of blue as a highlight color. It’s a high tech version of body on frame construction rather than a monocoque, just this time the frame is aluminum and the body is carbon fiber with thermoplastic body panels. The thinking was this would allow BMW to swap a different shape onto the frame at a later date, something that never happened. Because it’s so light and strong, they were able to do away with the B pillar and have rear hinged back doors for better access into the interior.
What An Interior! (Also, Some Words On Sustainability)
And what an interior. Inside, BMW used recycled PET bottles for the plastics, plant based leathers and eucalyptus wood–one of the fastest growing trees. BMW wasn’t just paying the usual lip service to sustainability with the i3–they were all in. They built the carbon fiber plant at Moses Lake, Washington because it’s one of the largest sources of hydroelectric power in the world and working with carbon fiber has incredible energy requirements.
Traditionally, carbon fiber required laying up by hand before being baked in an autoclave, taking several days. BMW developed a process called resin transfer molding, where the material was placed in a mold, injected with resin and baked all at once, making it more suitable for volume (but crucially not mass) production. Extensive use of proprietary adhesives minimized the number of metal fasteners needed, again reducing material costs and saving weight. It has big but narrow wheels, to maintain the size of the contact patch while improving aero, especially important for EVs where a low aero count is crucial for efficiency. This kind of clever rethinking of how to build a car as sustainably as possible was central to the design direction of the whole car.
Carbon Fiber Means It Was Lightweight, But Expensive To Build
What resulted was a premium urban EV that was really roomy and light for its size. The non-range extender version only weighs about 2600lbs (1195kg). More importantly than that, it went and drove like a real BMW. This wasn’t some compromised eco-weenie medical appliance of a car like a Nissan Leaf. It was a genuine, driver focused RWD BMW. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Chevy Bolt is sort of an i3 drawn by someone being given a description over the telephone, unsuccessfully attempting to ape its surface but not its substance.
If all this sounds incredibly expensive, hooo boy. It’s estimated BMW spent nearly $3 billion in R&D costs alone. Both the i3 and the i8 were released under the i brand, which was BMWs brand for future alternative powertrain vehicles, like the fuel cell i5 that never appeared. The i3 wasn’t meant to be a massive seller; despite all the effort BMW put into developing carbon fiber manufacturing processes that could be used on a conventional production line, it could never be built quickly or cheaply enough for big volumes, totaling just under 230,000 units over nine years on sale.
If we include the i8’s rather less successful total sales of 20,000 or so, that R&D cost works out to about $11,000. Per car. So it’s a pretty safe assumption that BMW lost several shirts on every i3 and i8 sold. And this is why they’re not being replaced directly. BMW and other OEMs pretty quickly figured out the only way to scale profitable EV production is to have them share a platform with ICE models and have them come down the same line, even if that means an inherently compromised car that doesn’t take full advantage of the benefits an EV package can offer. Bleeding edge early adopters or weirdos like me apart, the buying public doesn’t want to stand out. They don’t want oddball space cars of the future any more than they want to wear a pair of Snapchat glasses, no matter how stylish they are.
The i3 Was A Failure, But A Special Failure
The BMW i3 and i8 are the kind of cars designers love, because they weren’t just a tinkering of the sheet metal but a wholesale ground up shift of both form and function, something we’re often accused of neglecting. Shit, the chair of my vehicle design course at the Royal College of Art got an i8 into the swanky Design Museum in London, so if that’s not a measure of their design credibility I’ll eat a marker. Great design never comes cheap, and when the margins are slim, cold hard commercial reality sets in, no matter how noble your intentions are. A good designer does well to remember that.
Photos: BMW
Love the i3, the i8 leaves me somewhat cold. It’s too easy when you get to design something with a supercar shape.
“I’ll eat a marker” is good, any other faux designer sayings? I like to threaten people with “I’m gonna flatten you like a pdf”.
Just came up with it while I was writing the piece!
Also, I would love to upvote this article, but the button doesn’t seem to exist anymore.
Key words here, “conditioned into accepting as the norm.” Advertising has a lot to do with this. SUVs/trucks/crossovers are advertised as safe and more rugged than smaller vehicles, even though that isn’t always the reality. People are being conditioned to waste money on obese appliances that are boring to drive, because that is how these companies increase their profits. It’s really predatory behavior.
The manufacturer that actually goes and builds something that stands out in a sea of bland, uniform, energy-hungry, money-pit products, even if only slightly, often will be successful if the product is actually good and functional. The reason is because there actually is a latent demand for something that is efficient, inexpensive, and high performing. This is a demand that has existed for decades, yet which no one has fully met. Tesla’s cars might have a certain blandness to them, but when they debuted, they also offered aerodynamics that the competition didn’t, as well as a driving experience that the competition didn’t, using a drive system that the competition didn’t, at a price that was accessible to the wealthy demographic able to afford to buy new cars. This is part of the reason they were successful. The Model 3 entirely lacked a grille and it used relatively small wheels by modern standards, and the manufacturer hasn’t been able to keep up with demand.
The first company to offer a relatively inexpensive slippery bastard with aerodynamics on par with a university-built solar race car, that still remains practical to live with and use on a daily basis, has the potential end up being massively successful. Keep an eye on Aptera, as it might be the one. The rest of the industry will have to scramble to keep up once the general public understands the benefits of building vehicles this way, because it has the potential to save them massive amounts of money while improving the driving experience. Of course, every dollar saved by the consumer is a dollar some industry isn’t getting, which is in part why regulatory hurdles and barriers to market entry are the way they are these days.
My father-in-law has been talking about how much he’d love to get one of these for a daily city car. I could honestly see him do it considering he deals with trying to park a Suburban in a city every day…
I would venture to say the i8 was a superior design. but I get your points.
I wonder if the lack of success is more related to the lack of range that is perceived to be needed by most people? I think it would be more successful now if it had range comparable to that of the Chevy Bolt.
I understand the range anxiety. Logically, I know there is enough juice to get me where I am going, but I am the type that fills up the gas tank when it gets down to 1/4, so seeing that range number drop would be nerve racking to me, even though I know it is not logical.
I think lack of success have to do with price and at that time oil prices (it was a lot cheaper back then). I am not sure fair to compare it even to the bolt as battery technology made leaps and bounds even in the few intervening years.
I love the 8. But the 3? Not so much.
Wow, I actually agree with you (for the most part). I’m not ready to call it stunning, but I like it a lot and think it’s a great design.
I’ve loved the i3 (& i8) since the concepts were first shown.
This very weekend, partly inspired by David’s own purchase, I finally bought one, a full EV, 94Ah, Protonic blue (like the image mid article with the altered belt line) with the extra large 20inch wheels, I think Adrian will approve.
As he said, at launch they looked like the future and still look unbelievably modern over a decade later. It’s very disappointing that EVs since have reverted to ICE proportions and styling, they mostly feel so compromised and half hearted in comparison. I keep hoping for another EV to launch which doesn’t follow the ICE conventions in layout and styling, for years we’ve been promised EV skateboard architecture will allow vehicles to be any shape and size, yet all we’re mostly being given are cookie cutter SUVs.
The interior is just as unconventional as the exterior with a row of buttons, a floating (in my case oak) shelf with the screen levitating above it, it’s a lesson in simplicity.
I’m still giddy with my purchase, the only other car I’ve longed to own for years before doing so was the Audi A2, which in many ways is the i3s spiritual predecessor, which I also loved for its use of unusual engineering solutions and concept car looks to create an intelligently designed, ultra efficient 21st century car
Agree with everything. From an aesthetic point of view, that kink in the window line is a bit of an eyesore, but having used the i3 with kids in rear seat, it makes a lot of sense. I really wish more designers and manufactures would acknowledge that need. Had a look a new Fisker Ocean where the designer(s) has done the exact opposite with the rear window line. Makes absolutely no sense for rear passengers, which very often are small kids.
Yes I get why they did it, I just wish it was more visually consistent with the front window line.
One of the best cars I have owned. Fun to drive and perfect for a commute. However, I also experienced that the carbon fibre structure can cause issues. I was parked at my job when some blast from a nearby construction site sent a stone right through the rear, side window as well as making a (according to me) not too bad dent in the roof construction just above that window.
When I dropped the car at the BMW workshop however, it turned out that this was a huge problem, as the carbon fibre structure was compromised, and they thus considered scrapping the car all together.
However, instead, they had a team of mechanics sent from Sweden to Germany for special training on this type of structural replacements and, after waiting for 3 months, I finally got the car back.
Researching this article I watched a video with someone from BMW customer experience, and he was saying the intention was you could cut out the damaged part of the frame, and glue a new part in. It was getting a bit outside the scope of the article to go into this, but from your experience it sounds like the reality was different.
Interesting. Perhaps it differs based on where the damage is. According to the crew at the BMW workshop here in Stockholm, the big issue was that this certain area of the roof was “the weakest link” of the structure, especially in case of a rollover accident.
I did not see how much of the roof they actually changed and where they did cuts though.
Other than that freak accident, it was a great car without issues. Had the Rex version for three years, doing 45 miles of daily commuting.
You had mentioned that the resin used in the carbon fiber is a thermoplastic (rather than a thermoset). Was the intention that the resin could be melted, removed, the carbonfiber repaired and then new resin put in place?
Love the new commenting system!
My limited understanding is the resins were stronger than the carbon fiber, so you’d cut out the damaged piece, and glue a new piece in.
Any time something happens to your car that is so freakish it requires a team of mechanics to get special training just to fix it, that seems like a bad day. It reminds me of the Seinfeld bit where Jerry is talking about doctors doing operations on patients in an operating theater so that other doctors can see the procedure. Jerry says, “You don’t want them doing anything to you that makes other doctors go, ‘I have to see this!'”
All hail the new messaging system!
I’ve loved the i3 (& i8) since the concepts were first shown.
This very weekend, partly inspired by David’s own purchase, I finally bought one, a full EV, 94Ah, Protonic blue (like the image mid article with the altered belt line) with the extra large 20inch wheels, I think Adrian will approve.
As he said, at launch they looked like the future and still look unbelievably modern over a decade later. It’s very disappointing that EVs since have reverted to ICE proportions and styling, they mostly feel so compromised and half hearted in comparison. I keep hoping for another EV to launch which doesn’t follow the ICE conventions in layout and styling, for years we’ve been promised EV skateboard architecture will allow vehicles to be any shape and size, yet all we’re mostly being given are cookie cutter SUVs.
The interior is just as unconventional as the exterior with a row of buttons, a floating (in my case oak) shelf with the screen levitating above it, it’s a lesson in simplicity.
I’m still giddy with my purchase, the only other car I’ve longed to own for years before doing so was the Audi A2, which in many ways is the i3s spiritual predecessor, which I also loved for its use of unusual engineering solutions and concept car looks to create an intelligently designed, ultra efficient 21st century car.
Yep, and the A2 was another car that lost a tonne of money.
I love the i3 (owned 3) and was weirdly excited to see some A2s in Europe when I visited recently.
I see the Bolt less as a copy of the i3 but a refinement of the concept to get it back to something resembling profitability and more like that “most advanced acceptable product”. Compromises like more steel and less carbon fiber on one end, and four real doors with roll-down windows in back (GM already made the mistake of omitting those way back in 1978…) on the other.
I dont have much good to say about the i3.It’s willfully ugly on a scale that beats even the mole rat models,and the decision to go with expensive materials is dubious.Other brands went with standard construction and they worked just fine.
I have respect for some of the design decisions such as the rigid upright stance,but in the end they could have done better.Far better.
It’s interesting you mention the Chevy Bolt.It has a shape that’s more in line with the i8 than the i3 is and almost looks attractive
Well it’s not the easiest form&face to love, but personally I kinda like it. And it drives amazingly well. I had no expectations when I test drove it, but was very positively supriced. I think it drove better than mini.
The materials are the shit here. I mean with traditional materials it would have weighted several hundred of kilos more with comparable range and performance. The materials themselves would have added like 200kg, but need for extra batteries and beefier components would have added even more. And that would have harmed the perf.
My gripe is that they should have made it tad larger, especially in the trunk section. The interior is acceptable for Golf class, but the trunk should be bigger. Then it would have suited the second car slot for families with kids and strollers, etc. I don’t think the weight would have gotten much bigger and usability would have been so much better.
Electric motors and their associated controls are bulky, and on a small RWD EV this eats into trunk space. The Honda e I drove have the same problem. Also the i3 has to package the Rex engine under there as well.
Lots of the controller and motor designs used in cars are outdated.
Due to the necessity to save space and weight, there are now e-bike controllers the size of a laptop computer battery weighing less than 2 lbs that can output 50 horsepower peak and 20 horsepower continuous without overheating, available off the shelf to hobbyists for less than $600.
Switched reluctance motor technology is now so efficient that a 110 lb electric motor the size of a 2L soda bottle could reliably output 400+ peak horsepower and 150+ continuous horsepower. Tesla is already experimenting with and producing for some of its models such a motor.
The components of an electric drive system have potential to become a lot smaller and lighter than what is typically used today, for a given amount of power capability.
Mjea, but there’s also the non-rex version. And no, it’s not the bulky parts, it’s the general shape and size of it. They made it tad too small and the read is too tapered.
Man this messaging system isn’t still quite there. I signed in and the top bar doesn’t show my account nor any new indications. However this commenting part shows me signed in :/. Well I guess it’s still early days :D.
The i3 is easily the most attractive car BMW has created in a while. And I mean aesthetically. Most if not all other models from back when it came out until today look like angry insects. Yes, the i3 could have had a friendlier face, but it looks far less menacing. And look at the kidney shapes, how well they work when they don’t look like humongous black holes!
It actually just looks like a bloated smart car to many.
Hey, the comment change is live!
and I just edited my comment!
the i3 has always intrigued me. But the battery situation is concerning when you’re talking about old battery tech.
And if what if whatever BMW dealer that David is dealing with can’t find a a solution?
and I just edited my comment twice.
And the
bold/underline/italicis right there, never seen it before. Kudos!The quote from Raymond Loewe alone was worth the entire read, everything else was just icing, well done.
I, for one, am still waiting on my space car and also getting a little impatient.
I feel like they should have designed the i3 by stretching and squashing the i8, or vice-versa.
In my opinion, although much ridiculed, the “same sausage, different length” theory of brand identification is always solid.
I think they did a pretty good job in this respect. How different from the production cars do you think a supercar stretched to supermini monobox proportions or vice versa do you think you’d end up? The two are undeniably of the same family.
Would like to see the binned i5 to see how consistent that was too.
I mean, they kind of did? Look at the picture of the blue i3 and i8 next to each other. There are a lot of shared styling cues, but they don’t work as well on the smaller, differently-proportioned i3. To me this is a perfect example of a design that works on one size car but doesn’t on another size.
As much as I understand not being able to retain the glass in the doors, I really wish they’d kept the character of the side and just painted that portion. The production model looks slab sided when compared to the concept and I cannot get past that rear side window no matter how much I try to.
The body panels are thermoplastic, so it wouldn’t have been too hard to have a black trim panel on the door replicating the look of the concept. Presumably they tried it in the studio but felt it didn’t work.m
Great article! Yes, it is very sad that BMW decided to hang the i3 to dry pretty much right after releasing it. My understanding is that the current Mini EV still uses the i3 drivetrain, so its spirit kind of lives on. Still, I would love to exist in an alternate reality where the i3 got a proper replacement. Even if we all have sausage fingers or something like that.
Yes it does. For brevities sake I left out the learning from the i3 and i8, but the lessons and experience will directly influence future BMWs. The new 7 has carbon joints in the Body in White for strength.
except the mini is FWD still so it might appeal more to the people not living in the armpits of the US. The heart of America tends to see snow. but that 100 mile range also gets zapped and I am pretty sure the REX is not available in Mini form.
People in Scandinavia drive tons of RWD EVs. The i3 is good in snow. The “engine weight over the drive wheels” advantage of FWD doesn’t exist anymore in EVs. The i3’s motor is in the rear and if the REx is there, it’s over the rear. Also, EV traction control resolution/reaction time tends to be better, so EVs do quite well in snow. Buying a FWD EV instead of RWD EV because of snow would be a silly choice.
I disagree, the instant torque tends to cause a fair amount of wheel slip. But in this case the Mini in EV form is still FWD, not RWD with a range extender like the BMW, so it is drastically different to most shoppers.
Disagree on wheel slip. Basically zero wheel slip in a Tesla even if you floor it from a stop in the rain. Even turning. The traction control is incredibly fast-reacting. i3’s TC wasn’t AS good, but it was just more intrusive. I stand by my claim that choosing FWD over RWD in an EV because of snow is of little to no value.
I kind of feel like we’re still seeing the i3’s influence today.
Like you said, the drivetrain lives on in the Mini, but also the carbon fiber continues (partially) in the BMW i4 and iX. The i3 was the first EV with standard heat pumps (the MY13 Leaf had one only as part of an optional $3k upgrade). The tall-but-narrow tires caught on for a while after the i3. And let’s not forget the i3 was the first CCS car, narrowly beating the e-Up to production.
Perhaps someone better informed can chime in about the materials, but I do not remember seeing wool seats or recycled ocean plastic or sustainable chassis materials advertised as desirable features before the i3. So I’m not sure if the i3 started those trends, but I know they were everywhere after the i3.
Basically, the i3 and i8 were concept cars that accidentally made it to production, and even if they weren’t terribly viable at the time, the combination of processes, priorities, and precedents set by them are still in use today.
Some thoughts, I wasn’t enamored of the i3’s egg shape but loved the B&O stereo on an Eames chair interior As a BMW motorcycle enthusiast I also liked the idea of a BMW scooter engine as a range extender.
On advanced yet acceptable I think the sales numbers for the second generation Prius are instructive. After slow sales of the very conservative 1st gen Prius Toyota introduced the futuristic looking second generation car and it sold like hot cakes because early hybrid buyers wanted to be seen to be green. This also explains why the Camry hybrid sold so poorly because it was not obviously a hybrid. I think that’s some of the reason for Rivian’s Oval headlights to make them immediately distinguishable from a Suburban or Silverado.
As a technical note I think the RTM molding was Lotus’ VARI system adapted from fiberglass to carbon fiber after the patents expired. VARI (vacuum assisted resin injection) involved laying up dry fiberglass in a mold, closing the mold and using a vacuum pump to pull liquid resin into the fiberglass. This was used to make bodies for the Esprit and Eclat and the base unit for the DeLorean.
I think the reason for the Camry Hybrid selling poorly had little to do with the fact that it didn’t “look like a hybrid.” The real problem was that people were just more aware of the Prius overall, which had a 15 mpg lead over the equivalent Camry Hybrid in the city and a 11 mpg lead on the highway. This, combined with the financial squeeze everyone was going through when the recession hit, made the Prius a much more compelling buy than the Camry Hybrid.
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=22825&id=23599
I’m usually a BMW hater, but I can give the i3 a bit of respect. I like the interior, especially the materials used. They feel good to the touch and look gorgeous. Oddly, the cabin feels *too* open to me though, I like a bit of claustrophobia in my cars. On the coolness side, Russell Mael is shown driving one in The Sparks Movie and I’m sorry but that is undeniable coolness.
On the down side, I had to write an engine air filter replacement for a range extended i3 last fall. The filter is genuine-only and instead of the usual book time of about a half an hour, it was something like 2 whole hours. The estimate ended up being something like $600. For a friggen air filter. So I think this one can be filed under “cool to drive, but wouldn’t want to own one.”
That first gen E1 makes me horny. Like a super cool geo metro.
Of course those monsters in the control room have published this just before I retire to my coffin to sleep. I’ll be around in the (new and improved!) comments on the morrow, design fans.
Is your coffin black with red velvet lining inside? Because that’s the best color combination, IMO.
He is a man of taste, it’s Claret coloured silk.
Isn’t red a whore’s color?
It is. But it doesn’t change my affinity for it as a choice of color for coffin liner.
Somehow my laptop is now playing Bela Lugosi’s Dead.
♪The bats have left the bell tower, the victims have been bled, red velvet lines the black box…♪
Stop with all the positive i3 posts. I want them to remain very cheap so I can get another one someday! The early BEV was the most fun with RWD, 2700lb, and 170hp, but I’d get a 2017+ for the aluminum motor supports, instead of plastic (!) for 2014-2016.
Also, it’s always interesting to me that there are two substantially different versions of the E1. The red one in the middle picture, and the later version (first and 3rd pictures). I prefer the 318ti-style chopped-off rear end of the original. Apparently, it was a one-off and it burned down while charging.
Ditto! I loved mine and would love to get me another one some day and we need to keep the prices reasonable 🙂
I just bought an i3 this weekend, and the plastic motor supports were highlighted on the pre purchase inspection as having cracked which got me discount. I’ll look into whether the aluminium ones can be swapped in.
You definitely can swap in the Aluminum ones. There was a TSB for it, I believe. Not sure how involved it is, though.
Great, thanks. What’s a TSB?
Technical Service Bulletin. It’s basically a heads-up to BMW service departments that there’s a common issue and what to do when they see it.
I believe this is the one: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2015/MC-10147076-9999.pdf
They probably will remain reasonably cheap. There’s plenty of them out there and EVs still don’t work for a lot of people because of the charging infrastructure.
Yes, I agree. I said that mostly as a joke. The relatively short range will probably keep them cheap, plus people scared of maintenance on an out-of-warranty carbon fiber BMW. But they’re wonderful cars. So much more character than, well, almost every other EV, or modern car in general for that matter. IMO, it’s still the most “clean sheet” design of a mass production EV, yet.
As far as charging infrastructure, Electrify America didn’t even exist yet when we did a 1500+ mile trip around the Southeast in our i3 in 2017. We used about 300 miles worth of gas in the REx to make that trip work, but might not have to use gas at all with a 150-mile 2019+ i3, now!
It’s not a trip car for mainstream buyers, though, for sure.
“Stop with all the positive i3 posts. I want them to remain very cheap so I can get another one someday! “
Well I did my part with my “I won’t buy one because BMWs age poorly” comment!