Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BMW Created the Most Efficient Electric Car In the US

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the turning-the-shaft dept.

Transportation 258

cartechboy (2660665) writes "You think of efficient electric car and you probably think of the Tesla Model S, right? Well, you'd be wrong as the Model S is only rated at 89 MPGe. As of today, BMW now has the most efficient electric car sold in the U.S., the 2014 i3. The ratings were just posted to the Internet via a window sticker, and at 124 MPGe combined (138 MPGe city, 111 MPGe highway), the i3 is currently king of the efficiency race. The nearest competitor? The 2013 Scion iQ-EV with a 38 mile range and 121 MPGe rating, but it's not even available to the general public. Other competitors are mostly compliance cars such as the Chevrolet Spark EV and Fiat 500e. So where does that leave us? Well, BMW just won the race, for now. But how long until a competitor takes away that top spot?"

cancel ×

258 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thank you summary guy (4, Interesting)

avandesande (143899) | about 5 months ago | (#46894141)

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

Re:Thank you summary guy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894149)

...that's because he's a Scion-Toyota fag.

Re:Thank you summary guy (1)

Ixtl (1022043) | about 5 months ago | (#46894175)

Hopefully the other ones can go further than 38 miles. You'd have to fill up 3 times to use up a whole gallon, apparently. I think we can thank summary guy for that too, though.

Re:Thank you summary guy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894415)

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

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

Re:Thank you summary guy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894585)

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

Re:Thank you summary guy (3, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | about 5 months ago | (#46894631)

MPGe is like MPG... It is cool for advertising, but in the real world... doesn't mean that much. What really counts is both gpm (or l/km) or even more generally, cost per unit distance. For example, new diesel vehicles are touted as great for mileage. However, if one factors in the repair costs, and the need to use DEF as a second fuel, the gap can close between a TDI vehicle versus a hybrid or even a plain old gasser.

This can vary for a person. For example, one cow-orker I work with lives fairly close. So, the relatively small range of a Leaf is good enough, since he never really taxes it. However, if the EV was an only vehicle, it might be that the greater CPM of a gasser might be a better fit.

Re: Thank you summary guy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894989)

cow-orker. Love it.

Re:Thank you summary guy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894987)

Well, since we are complaining - summary guy also didn't mention if the BMW comes standard with an asshole driver or if you need to supply your own asshole driver. It is well known around here that conventional models of BMW are only driven by assholes. Not sure if you need to be a special kind of asshole to drive these though (a tree-hugging asshole???)?

Re:Thank you summary guy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46895249)

That is something that they screen for at the BMW dealership. It's like the credit check for financing. Yes. Tree huggers are assholes by definition. Maybe a little different than the typical BMW driving asshole, but they are still assholes. The company sees this as a way to expand their asshole market share.

Range is the issue (5, Informative)

stewsters (1406737) | about 5 months ago | (#46894151)

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

Tesla s has 265 mile range
i3 has 81 mile range
Scion iQ-EV has 38 mile range

I would be curious to see how the numbers hold up if they all were designed for the same range.

Re:Range is the issue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894403)

Use to be when people mentioned range and EVs the peanut gallery would scream "How often do you need to go more than 50 miles in a day anyway?!?!?!" Now the same peanut gallery is defending the anti-EV rangers by proclaiming that range is the only thing that matters.
 
Fanboys will be fanboys.

Re:Range is the issue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894779)

ROFL!!!!! I'm so glad I got modded down and the guy who called someone else a "fag" didn't. Just more proof that the fanboys are butthurt that not everyone worships the Tesla bullshit.

Re:Range is the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894807)

Not me, I'd really like it if there was an EV with a modular battery design. Why carry extra weight when you don't need it?

Then again, I'd love a modular car design. Most days I could probably get by with a single vehicle compartment.

Wouldn't it be nice, if totally impractical, if I could choose how many passenger modules I had?

Modular batteries are the future (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894975)

I think the modular battery concept holds huge potential. I already mow my lawn using the same 100lb 4kwh lithium battery pack that runs my vintage truck. There is no reason you couldn't drop the same pack into a car or anything else in varying quantities depending on vehicle size and range needs. And it really opens up affordable possibilities for limited use vehicles too like snow blowers. Why buy a dedicated pack for something you use 5 times a year?

Re:Range is the issue (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 5 months ago | (#46895109)

Not me, I'd really like it if there was an EV with a modular battery design. Why carry extra weight when you don't need it?

Or, how about one that weighed less as the available energy ran down? Perhaps it could even be in liquid form. That way you could just pour as much as you wanted into a tank, and it would disappear as you used it.

Re:Range is the issue (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 5 months ago | (#46895339)

Perhaps it could even be in liquid form. That way you could just pour as much as you wanted into a tank, and it would disappear as you used it.

You're no doubt referring to gasoline, in which case the Chevy Volt (or any other plug-in hybrid) is probably the EV you have in mind.

OTOH, what would be really useful is for someone to come up with an efficient, economical method for creating gasoline (or something reasonably gasoline-compatible) from electricity and airborne CO2. Scale that up and now every old gas-powered car becomes a renewable-fuel vehicle; no need to replace them all.

Re:Range is the issue (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#46894619)

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

Re:Range is the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46895081)

But the 81 miles isn't enough for my daily drive. (Well, it is close - with very little margin for error or side trips). I have a pretty normal commute for around here - 38 miles each way, minimum of 76 miles per weekday. No chance to charge at work. I doubt it would actually be feasible to use this as I would imagine the 81 mile range is with new batteries and after say 2 years I would probably get most of the way home and then have it die.

Re:Range is the issue (3, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 months ago | (#46895237)

The Scion shouldn't even be mentioned, because it's not a real product [thecarconnection.com] :

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

Re:Range is the issue (3, Interesting)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 5 months ago | (#46894877)

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

Re:Range is the issue (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 months ago | (#46895035)

The Tesla is a much larger car all around, not just the battery.

A better comparison to the BMW i3 might be the Fiat 500e [fiatusa.com] (sold only in California). It's even a bit smaller than the BMW, and gets "only" 122/108 MPGe vs the 138/111 for the BMW. So, I do find the BMW impressive. However the Fiat starts at $32K which almost $10K less than the BMW. Making a car light without other sacrifices does require more expensive materials, so I would expect more from the BMW than the Fiat, and evidently it delivers.

Re:Range is the issue (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 5 months ago | (#46895107)

Likewise, it matters how many adults can be comfortably seated. I suspect that I, as a pretty tall guy, could very comfortably sit in the back seat of a Model S, even with tall front-seat occupants with the seats back. (That said, the specs aren't that different, with the BMW having more headroom: http://www.teslamotors.com/mod... [teslamotors.com] vs. http://buyersguide.caranddrive... [caranddriver.com] ).

As usual, though, apples and oranges!

Range for Tesla S is 265 miles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894157)

Nobody else comes close.

Tesla still wins (4, Funny)

blueturffan (867705) | about 5 months ago | (#46894161)

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

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame

Re:Tesla still wins (1)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | about 5 months ago | (#46894225)

At $43k, it's a bit cheaper than the Tesla @ $79k.

I'd have to charge it at my office, but as a commuter car the BMW seems a lot better fit for my budget / needs than a Tesla.

Re:Tesla still wins (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 5 months ago | (#46894727)

well that's why you buy two bmi i3's tow the spare, and siphon its battery -- duh?

OR you upgrade to the bmw i5 (or i7 if you're really loaded).

You'd think on a site for nerds people would realize that the i3 is underpowered, and the performance / price sweet spot is really the i5. (i7 being for the enthusiast market)

Re:Tesla still wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46895271)

You joke, but there's only the i3 and the i8. And the i8 (@ $135K base price) makes a fully loaded Tesla Model S look cheap. And even then, they have the same 0-60mph time -- 4.2 seconds.

I'm not sure what the range of the i8 is, but willing to bet any amount it's not even half the range of a fully loaded Tesla Model S.

Re:Tesla still wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46895313)

Apparently the i8 is a gas/electric hybrid (like the Chevy Volt) and not a pure electric vehicle, with 22 miles on electric and 310 miles overall.

Re: Tesla still wins (1)

Badblackdog (1211452) | about 5 months ago | (#46894837)

Yeah, but you will get way more "hot chicks" with the Tesla.

Re:Tesla still wins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894249)

BMWs are decent vehicles, but it is assumed that you go to the dealer quite often to keep it in tune. Dead battery, gotta go back to the dealer to have a new battery "registered" to the computer system.

I'd rather have a vehicle engineered to not be as economical, but with a lower CPM and easily repaired without needing the BMW-specific stuff only a dealer has. A new key can cost $600 (key and cost for dealer programming.) My friend's Chevy can have $10 keys from eBay added to the vehicle's computer with little issue.

So, nothing wrong with a BMW. However, giving up some finely tuned MPG for something more easily maintained is what is more in demand these days.

Re:Tesla still wins (1, Interesting)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#46894643)

Your friends Chevy can have $10 keys used by a car thief with a $100 pocket sized ebay programmer to bypass the immobiliser in under a minute.

Re:Tesla still wins (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46894901)

Your friends Chevy can have $10 keys used by a car thief with a $100 pocket sized ebay programmer to bypass the immobiliser in under a minute.

Wrong. Key recognition systems depend on several factors. The car's computer must accept certain non-programmable aspects of the key (the physical keying, resistance, etc.) that varies key-to-key, and then (in fancier systems) ALSO read / negotiate with a programmable chip in the key.
You need physical access to the car with a pre-registered master key to tell the car to accept new keys. On my car you have to insert the key, turn it, hit the odometer reset button for a while, sing "I'm a little teapot", then remove the key, then insert and remove the new key 3 times.

Regardless, your BMW with $retarded keys can just be towed away and sold for parts, which are worth more than the BMW whole.

Re:Tesla still wins (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46895263)

Regardless, your BMW with $retarded keys can just be towed away and sold for parts, which are worth more than the BMW whole.

That's what happened to my last Chevy.

Re:Tesla still wins (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#46895361)

resistance has nothing to do with any ignition system. Variation in the metals would be insignificant compared to oil, dirt, water and corrosion on the surface of the key.
All immobiliser systems communicate with a chip on the key. They can all be re-coded without a "master key". Unless you want to replace the entire ECU/Immobiliser system when a customer loses the key.

I also don't own a BMW but I do own a car with a keyless ignition.

Re:Tesla still wins (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 5 months ago | (#46894701)

Wow! You aren't kidding. That's Volkswagen Thing ugly.

Re:Tesla still wins (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 5 months ago | (#46895179)

If it works better, it's beautiful.

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

Re:Tesla still wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894869)

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame

So much money and they can't even include a radio?!?!?

Re:Tesla still wins (3, Funny)

tompaulco (629533) | about 5 months ago | (#46895139)

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

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

Skinny tyres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894185)

I'm not surprised. I was driving behind one yesterday and the tyres were skinnier than a mountain bike.

MPGe (1)

m2shariy (1194621) | about 5 months ago | (#46894197)

Miles Per Gallon of electricity

Re:MPGe (2)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#46894317)

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

Re:MPGe (3, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#46894435)

For the last year, I have driven a Nissan Leaf with an 80-90 mile range. On only two occasions I was not able to make a trip I wanted to make because of my car's range. Manufacturers are clustering around that range number because it's good enough for most people a vast majority of the time.

Efficiency doesn't matter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894213)

Efficiency doesn't matter for an electric car that can be powered for FREE by the sun... Range is king.

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter... (5, Informative)

fnj (64210) | about 5 months ago | (#46894457)

Efficiency doesn't matter for an electric car that can be powered for FREE by the sun

Completely naive fail. Apparatus to convert that sunlight to electric power costs money and has to be depreciated. Not only is photovoltaic power not free; its cost [wikipedia.org] ($130 / MWh) is higher than natural gas ($64 to $128 / MWh), coal ($96 / MWh) or advanced nuclear ($96 / MWh). Those estimates for systems coming on line in 2019, so they are not based on obsolete data. Solar thermal is even worse ($243 / nMWh).

Re: Efficiency doesn't matter... (1)

oblivionboy (181090) | about 5 months ago | (#46894899)

That article is highly suspect as it lacks citiations for many important sections, and the talk page discussing it is a mile long. Try again!

Re: Efficiency doesn't matter... (1)

fnj (64210) | about 5 months ago | (#46895167)

Get real. That chart comes directly from the Report of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [eia.gov] . But you know more than they do, right? How about the OpenEI Transparent Cost Database [openei.org] ? They reach the same qualitative conclusion. How about the UK 2010 estimates? The French 2011 estimates? The Analysis from different sources? They are all right there on my referenced page, complete with citations of the original sources.

Give up the starry-eyed stuff.

Not so naive fail (2)

garote (682822) | about 5 months ago | (#46895137)

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

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

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter... (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#46894543)

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

How long until saint Elon sues them too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894215)

He can do no wrong!

Re:How long until saint Elon sues them too? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#46894293)

Well said. He already pwned SAP [slashdot.org] . Let's declare war on all three-letter kraut bastards! Lead us to victory, Elon! Make us number one again!

Full-size, heavy car (4, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | about 5 months ago | (#46894261)

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

Re:Full-size, heavy car (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 5 months ago | (#46894679)

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

Actually, that's incorrect. Sure, it requires more energy to accelerate a heavier mass up to speed but you get that back when you hit the brakes (regenerative braking). What you don't (This, by the way, is why the Model S can get away with weighing ~600lbs more than my extended-wheelbase 7-series BMW...)

Re:Full-size, heavy car (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 5 months ago | (#46894697)

That should have read "what you don't get back are losses due to air (among other things) friction

Damn keyboard...

Re:Full-size, heavy car (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 5 months ago | (#46895205)

Regenerative braking is great, but it does not have 100% efficiency. (Do most implementations even get 50%?) So added weight still hurts overall mileage.

Re:Full-size, heavy car (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 5 months ago | (#46895397)

Do most implementations even get 50%

My guess is far greater than that, what with today's brushless technology... but that's just a guess. Nonetheless, it's great enough that that weight-adding batterypack is what's going to add range, losses-due-to mass notwithstanding.

Re:Full-size, heavy car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894755)

Don't fool yourself, the Tesla is expensive but it's not a luxury car.

Re:Full-size, heavy car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894887)

I dont think you know what Luxury is. The Model S is a full on luxury car.
Tesla does make a non luxury Roadster version, but even that is well appointed. you may want to sit in one first before spouting off this bull shit.

Re:Full-size, heavy car (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894985)

No, you're wrong and you're a faggot fanboy.
 
See, I can do it too!

Re: Full-size, heavy car (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 5 months ago | (#46895383)

How is it not a luxury car? It has the performance and features to compete with higher end Mercedes and BMW full size cars. What do you call those?

What is MPGe supposed to mean? (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 5 months ago | (#46894301)

As the subject says ...

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 5 months ago | (#46894347)

I believe that is miles per gallon equivalent. The vehicle carries 0 gallons of gas, so that's the best comparison they have.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 5 months ago | (#46894353)

Miles per Gallon equivalent is my guess, since there is no direct application of "gallons" when running as a pure EV.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1, Informative)

netsavior (627338) | about 5 months ago | (#46894389)

the EPA defines a gallon of gasoline as equivalent to 33.7 kWh.

This is based not really on chemistry or scientific properties of either, but on the cost of gasoline at the pump vs the cost of electricity at your house. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg... [fueleconomy.gov]

Basically it is done this way to make it easy to do the math in your head "hey, this costs 1/3 as much to fuel than my current car"

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (5, Informative)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#46894489)

The exact opposite of true. It's just a measure of energy. 33.7 kWh is about 120mj, which is the same as a gallon if gas.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46894753)

What's that in jigawatts?

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#46894819)

0.12 jigawatt-seconds.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1)

sribe (304414) | about 5 months ago | (#46894847)

It's just a measure of energy. 33.7 kWh is about 120mj, which is the same as a gallon if gas.

Hmm, wow. I knew what it was in principle. I just didn't know that it was that low. 124MPGe, for a guy who can get off-peak power at barely over $0.05/kWh. Wow. Take into account the 10% -15% loss from the charge/discharge of the batteries, and that's roughly equivalent to getting 124MPG and a discount card for $2.00/gallon gasoline.

Too bad I live in the middle of fucking nowhere, and need all-wheel-drive Oct through Apr, and need good ground clearance. Otherwise it would be tempting as the 2nd car in a 2-car household.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#46895083)

a better way to think of it is that EVs are usually around 2 kwh/mile. so for you that would be a dime per mile in electricity. but consider that EVs are currently putt-putt cars for in-the-city driving. no way there's an outback or similar for the country side, and the mileage would tank with high speed / freeway use.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894429)

MPGe = MPG Equivalent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894463)

Learn to use Google or Bing, you dumb fuck.

Re:What is MPGe supposed to mean? (1)

Andy_R (114137) | about 5 months ago | (#46895323)

Miles per gallon of electricity of course, tell you how far you'll get on a one gallon leyden jar. America is *really* committed to not going metric.

Won what race? (5, Insightful)

FF-Loucks (1671330) | about 5 months ago | (#46894309)

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

Re:Won what race? (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#46894561)

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

Re:Won what race? (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 5 months ago | (#46894715)

The Leaf is starting to look PRETTY good.

Re:Won what race? (3, Interesting)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#46894891)

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

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

Chevy Spark EV (1)

afidel (530433) | about 5 months ago | (#46894363)

The Spark EV isn't a compliance car, it's available for sale, today, even in non-California emissions states (though they have only sold 369 as of end of April so I guess it misses one of their metrics on a technicality). That article is 2 years old.

Re:Chevy Spark EV (3, Informative)

damnbunni (1215350) | about 5 months ago | (#46894549)

The Spark is only sold in California and Oregon, according to GM's official page on it.

Oregon's ZEV/LEV legislation is based on California's.

Looks like a compliance car to me!

Don't worry, Tesla fanboys will move the goalposts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894371)

You think of efficient electric car and you probably think of the Tesla Model S, right? Well, you'd be wrong as the Model S is only rated at 89 MPGe.
 
The Teslas is da best car evah made!!!!!11111!!! HERP!!!!!
 
No matter what metric you throw at the Tesla the fanboys will tell you that you're wrong because of something else. Just about every EV out there is more efficient than the Tesla. All the Tesla has is range and the fact that they're the penis of any geek out there wanting to prove how much of a man they are. There are vehicles out there that better cover absolutely every single standard better than the Tesla.
 
Start throwing dung balls, fanboys. I know you hate the truth that the Tesla is just like Apple products; pricey and shiny. Hell, Tesla even has a proprietary charging plug!

Whatevs, yo (3, Interesting)

garote (682822) | about 5 months ago | (#46894459)

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

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

Re:Whatevs, yo (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | about 5 months ago | (#46894627)

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

Re:Whatevs, yo (4, Interesting)

unrtst (777550) | about 5 months ago | (#46894791)

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

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

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

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

Heh (1)

garote (682822) | about 5 months ago | (#46895305)

Well, neither are cars. I can't fit one through a door for example. :D

Aside from just being playful (sorry if you don't enjoy that sort of thing) , the point I was making was that there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement even still, and people might benefit from a wider perspective in that the answer _may_ not be to buy a shiny new car, but to buy a shiny new bicycle instead.

Re:Whatevs, yo (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 months ago | (#46894651)

bullshit, what's your electric and gas and food bill? you take more energy than a fucking SUV

Re:Whatevs, yo (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 5 months ago | (#46894851)

Electric, gas, and food bills do not go away when you own a car.

Re:Whatevs, yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894815)

Even if the end result is the same all your values are kilocalories, not calories! A calorie is the tiny amount of energy needed to rise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree celcius.

Re:Whatevs, yo (1)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 5 months ago | (#46895103)

How many Calories would you expend on a bicycle to peddle it fast enough to go 60 MPH?

I found a chart that showed that a 180 lb person at 16 - 19 MPH cycling uses 981 Calories. Your efficiency figure is cut by almost half just going up to ~20 MPH. I suspect that a person pedalling at 60 MPH would actually be less energy efficient than "912 MPG", if it were even possible.

Well (1)

garote (682822) | about 5 months ago | (#46895273)

I'm sure a cyclist's efficiency drops dramatically with 60mph of wind! You could mitigate that with a fairing and a fancy recumbent bicycle. (Cyclists have actually achieved that speed, with such equipment.) But they kept that up for a matter of minutes, not hours.

That said, you can always put your chosen system on top by messing with the parameters.

For example: BMW's 2014 i3 has a 38 mile range, but I've been known to go over a hundred miles on a bicycle in one day. So, factor in two charge cycles, and not only use less fuel, I might actually outrun the vehicle as well.

Fun aside:

Cheetahs are significantly faster than humans, but over a long range, humans on foot can actually catch up with a cheetah and overtake it. Somali tribesmen recently did this to catch a cheetah who was attacking their livestock. (Reference: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com] ) Walking on two legs is a hell of a lot more efficient than walking on four.

America #1 fuck yeah!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894667)

except you ain't except in criminals jailed or military spending.

Re:America #1 fuck yeah!! (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46894971)

except you ain't except in criminals jailed or military spending.

and enemies nuked
and porn created
and internets invented
and celestial bodies landed on
etc

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ... (3, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | about 5 months ago | (#46894683)

German auto brand Volkswagen's XL1, which it claims is the most fuel-efficient production car ever made, has been named the winner of the Transport category at Designs of the Year 2014.
http://www.dezeen.com/2014/05/... [dezeen.com]

You may have seen this advert in the Goodwood Festival of Speed programme and are wondering how we determined that the XL1 was the worldâ(TM)s most fuel-efficient hybrid production vehicle.
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/ab... [volkswagen.co.uk]

And it's a looker.

Re:Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46895017)

uh... its a hybrid. Also why are we comparing 2 seaters to 4 seaters like the tesla s? Might as well compare it to a bus and point out the obvious in efficiency.

Re:Meanwhile, in the rest of the world ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46895095)

And it's a looker.

I agree it's just as ugly as the BMW i3.

Who the fuck wrote the summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894693)

"You think of efficient electric car"

YOU RACKA DISAPRIN!

wtf?

Zero S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894833)

I think I'd take a Zero S 2014 model over any of these any day of the week and twice on Sunday:

The sport one is 462mpge city and 236mpge highway. The range is 137 miles city, 85 miles highway @ 55mph, 70 miles @ 70mph. 0-60mph is 3.3 seconds.

Won the race ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894853)

I'll consider an electric when:

They're comparable in price to their gas counterparts.
I can drive to and from work in it. ( Round trip = ~100 miles )
When they fire the designers who make them the ugliest damn things ever to roll upon the roadway.

( The Tesla roadster gets the win for looks, but loses the race due to price )

apples to apples (1)

illestov (945762) | about 5 months ago | (#46894879)

Lets wait until a 3rd party company measures its efficiency in similar conditions as Tesla S instead of taking the number off of a BMW dealership sticker. also the i3 comes with a internal combustion engine range extender, wonder what the efficiency drops to when that kicks in..

Re:apples to apples (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46895185)

Lets wait until a 3rd party company measures its efficiency in similar conditions as Tesla S instead of taking the number off of a BMW dealership sticker.
 
  Those numbers [insideevs.com] ARE from a third party [wikipedia.org]
 
  the i3 comes with a internal combustion engine range extender, wonder what the efficiency drops to when that kicks in..
 
Care to show me [bmw.com] the stats on the ICE range extender you speak of?
 
What the fuck are you Tesla fanboys so afraid of? That another company out there can do better? I thought that was the idea of the EVs to begin with! Jesus fuck, get over yourselves.

Check the sticker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46894897)

$0 engine oil services included.

Well that's a relief!

Cost? (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 5 months ago | (#46895149)

It would be nice to know how many of these super electric cars have to be sold for the manufacturer to break even. With and without the tax credits.

Tesla lost $74 million on sales just short of $2 billion in 2013. Cumulative losses from 2009 through 2013 were about $935 million.
http://quote.morningstar.com/s... [morningstar.com]

More importantly... (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 months ago | (#46895311)

The BMW didn't win by chance, but because it is based on a totally different construction method [cars.com] to makes it lighter:

What makes the i3 different from every other car on the market is under the skin - it's almost entirely made out of plastic. This is no ordinary plastic, mind you - it's carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic. It's basically the same stuff used to make Formula One cars and stealth bombers. What's remarkable about the i3 is that it's the first mass-market car made out of carbon fiber. There's no metal in the car's body - all the bumpers, doors and skins are plastic as well. The only major metal parts are the drive unit and suspension components. The result is a four-seat, four-door city car that weighs only about 2,700 pounds - or nearly 500 pounds less than a BMW 1 Series.

This actually quite a bold and innovative new product. It's a shame they made it so ugly. I'm really curious to see crash test results.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>