RE: (Not) Driven: BMW i8
Discussion
georgetuk said:
This is their first attempt so the idea restrict it to a high end market, enable the cash to finance the project and use these as a mule before possibly rolling out elsewhere. Its a bit brave to go from nothing to mass market.
Besides, carbon fibre tubs = serious dosh = won't be seeing this technology on euroboxes anytime soonBMW have opened up an 'i' showroom in Park Lane - I walked past last night when it was shut but they have an i3 and an i8 in the window.
I think the i8 looks stunning in the flesh and was like kid taking pictures through the showroom window.
And to those who keep repeating the mantra 'someone who can afford a car of £xxx isn't worried about running costs' needs a reality check. Sure, there will be some buyers for whom money is no object, but the majority of people who spend a large amount on a car will be concerned about running costs and fuel consumption. Or they may be stepping up from a £75K car to a £100K car by stretching their budget to get a car they want and day to day running costs could easily be an important part of the buying decision.
But a more interesting thing I haven't looked into yet, but maybe relevant on the fuel consumption side is that for those who run a car on their business and pay for their car through the Benefit in Kind system, the i8 may be a lot less expensive in personal tax than, say, an F type that costs about half the price (or an i3 may be a more interesting proposition than a Golf).
I think the i8 looks stunning in the flesh and was like kid taking pictures through the showroom window.
And to those who keep repeating the mantra 'someone who can afford a car of £xxx isn't worried about running costs' needs a reality check. Sure, there will be some buyers for whom money is no object, but the majority of people who spend a large amount on a car will be concerned about running costs and fuel consumption. Or they may be stepping up from a £75K car to a £100K car by stretching their budget to get a car they want and day to day running costs could easily be an important part of the buying decision.
But a more interesting thing I haven't looked into yet, but maybe relevant on the fuel consumption side is that for those who run a car on their business and pay for their car through the Benefit in Kind system, the i8 may be a lot less expensive in personal tax than, say, an F type that costs about half the price (or an i3 may be a more interesting proposition than a Golf).
georgetuk said:
This is their first attempt so the idea restrict it to a high end market, enable the cash to finance the project and use these as a mule before possibly rolling out elsewhere. Its a bit brave to go from nothing to mass market.
don't agree with this.they're probably going to lose money to get this on the market as a halo product. i can't see why they can't put the engine tech in a smaller car without a carbon tub. get the unit cost down by producing hundreds of thousands of them and make a profit.
Edited by astra la vista on Wednesday 27th February 21:07
topcat924 said:
garypotter said:
Also looking at the figures supplied, not sure how they get that amount of BHP from a turbo charged 1.5 engine and a battery cell??
96kw Motor = approx 130 bhp354 minus 130 = 224bhp
224bhp from a 1.5 turbo doesn't sound TOO improbable does it?
BMW has made a 1.5 engine with 1300bhp, so small change really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M12Edited by RemarkLima on Wednesday 27th February 23:05
topcat924 said:
96kw Motor = approx 130 bhp
354 minus 130 = 224bhp
224bhp from a 1.5 turbo doesn't sound TOO improbable does it?
You can have much more if you want to, like over 1k bhp 1.5 formula 1 engines of old.354 minus 130 = 224bhp
224bhp from a 1.5 turbo doesn't sound TOO improbable does it?
Question is how reliable it's going to be.
I'd hazard an answer: "not reliable".
Bladedancer said:
topcat924 said:
96kw Motor = approx 130 bhp
354 minus 130 = 224bhp
224bhp from a 1.5 turbo doesn't sound TOO improbable does it?
You can have much more if you want to, like over 1k bhp 1.5 formula 1 engines of old.354 minus 130 = 224bhp
224bhp from a 1.5 turbo doesn't sound TOO improbable does it?
Question is how reliable it's going to be.
I'd hazard an answer: "not reliable".
Let's see, old 1950's engines, 20k miles and they were shot... Now, 400k miles and still strong.
Do you honestly think, if engineers were to make a 1.5l engine make 350bhp they would make it so fragile as to break every 10 minutes? Or do you think they would use forge pistons, cranks, con-rods? Titanium valve springs etc?
Plenty of modified motors run that kind of specific output all day long without a problem, so not sure where you're getting the not reliable from *sigh*
Interesting car. It says they're still working on the engine sound and haven't decided whether they'll do it "passively" as in the M5 -- faked engine sound played through the audio speakers. That totally turned me off the M5, which I would otherwise consider. If they do it that way with the i8, I simply won't buy it.
Seb d said:
garypotter said:
+1, nail on the head, |BMW should be looking at this tech in the crappy mini and 1 series,
Also looking at the figures supplied, not sure how they get that amount of BHP from a turbo charged 1.5 engine and a battery cell??
probably the same way manufacturers work out their MPG figures.
Someone far cleverer than you or I designed the propulsion system, which is why and how they can and do get that much from the engine/battery combo.Also looking at the figures supplied, not sure how they get that amount of BHP from a turbo charged 1.5 engine and a battery cell??
probably the same way manufacturers work out their MPG figures.
And you do realise that manufacturers don't work out their figures? Stated figures are the figures that cars achieve during the EU test:
"The urban economy is measured using the test cycle known as ECE-15, first introduced in 1970 by EC Directive 70/220/EWG and finalized by EEC Directive 90/C81/01 in 1999. It simulates a 4,052 m (2.518 mile) urban trip at an average speed of 18.7 km/h (11.6 mph) and at a maximum speed of 50 km/h (31 mph).
The extra-urban driving cycle or EUDC lasts 400 seconds (6 minutes 40 seconds) at an average speed 62.6 km/h (39 mph) and a top speed of 120 km/h (74.6 mph)."
The figures a car achieves in that test cycle are the figures stated, they are not down to the manufacturer's discretion.
All manufacturers, and BMW perhaps more than most, map the cars to 'win' at the EU tests, and achieve great scores - when real world performance will not match it.
RemarkLima said:
Bladedancer said:
topcat924 said:
96kw Motor = approx 130 bhp
354 minus 130 = 224bhp
224bhp from a 1.5 turbo doesn't sound TOO improbable does it?
You can have much more if you want to, like over 1k bhp 1.5 formula 1 engines of old.354 minus 130 = 224bhp
224bhp from a 1.5 turbo doesn't sound TOO improbable does it?
Question is how reliable it's going to be.
I'd hazard an answer: "not reliable".
Let's see, old 1950's engines, 20k miles and they were shot... Now, 400k miles and still strong.
Do you honestly think, if engineers were to make a 1.5l engine make 350bhp they would make it so fragile as to break every 10 minutes? Or do you think they would use forge pistons, cranks, con-rods? Titanium valve springs etc?
Plenty of modified motors run that kind of specific output all day long without a problem, so not sure where you're getting the not reliable from *sigh*
Look at diesels. Before CR systems they did starship mileages. Now you're lucky getting to 150k without injectors, DMF, DPF, EGR, fuel pump or turbo going wrong.
Parts that are known to break and on their own are cheap to replace bounded with expensive ones to force you to pay a lot more.
You are comparing 90s cars (probably japanese I take it) to modern ones. Good try but won't quite work. Type into google 'vag 1.4 tsi engine problems' and enjoy your reading. In fact, it's one of 4 things google will suggest when you type in 'vw 1.4', so a lot of hits there.
A lot of problems with today's wonder-child 1.0 and 1.2 highly stressed turbo engines won't be that apparent till they hit 100k or so in a few years.
Bladedancer said:
1.5 3 cylinder with 350 bhp?
Life expectancy of what, 20k miles? And that's probably being generous.
From the looks it should be called R8 not i8.
Remember the 350hp output quoted is the total for the whole drivetrain, not just the 1.5-litre 3cyl petrol turbo.Life expectancy of what, 20k miles? And that's probably being generous.
From the looks it should be called R8 not i8.
From official spec sheets:
260Kw/550Nm system output
of which petrol engine: 164Kw/300Nm
of which electric motor: 96Kw/250Nm
And BMW hinted, rather than explicitly confirmed, with a wink in the eye that the figures (performance, economy etc) will be better when the car hits the showroom floor.
Personally I don't believe that Harry is right when he says €100,000 since as everyone says that's close to M6 money. No way this car, with the technology on board, will be that cheap. I'd suggest at least £100,000 but frankly any figure has to be plucked out of the air at this stage.
herebebeasties said:
Interesting weight figure; the old M6 was only a couple of hundred kilos heavier than that, and that had a thwacking great V10 engine in it and no carbon-everything.
Whereas this has a full hybrid drivetrain including ~200kg of batteries. Take the hybrid stuff out and you'd probably have a full 2+2 car weighing less than 1200kg, yet fully compliant with all of today's safety requirements, and presumably fully specced with gadgets. Now that is impressive. 
king about BMW, give it an extra 3, 5, 7 or 9 cylinders, ITBs and remove the eco crap.Bladedancer said:
The way new cars are deigned, no they will not be reliable because it is not in manufacturer's interest.
Look at diesels. Before CR systems they did starship mileages. Now you're lucky getting to 150k without injectors, DMF, DPF, EGR, fuel pump or turbo going wrong.
Parts that are known to break and on their own are cheap to replace bounded with expensive ones to force you to pay a lot more.
You are comparing 90s cars (probably japanese I take it) to modern ones. Good try but won't quite work. Type into google 'vag 1.4 tsi engine problems' and enjoy your reading. In fact, it's one of 4 things google will suggest when you type in 'vw 1.4', so a lot of hits there.
A lot of problems with today's wonder-child 1.0 and 1.2 highly stressed turbo engines won't be that apparent till they hit 100k or so in a few years.
Ah. Rose tinted specs. 20 years ago the engines might have had a chance of getting huge miles (In SOME cars)because the engines were massivley over engineerd and horrifically inefficient compaired to a modern engine. The body would rot long before that anyway. Cars are massively more reliable than they ever used to be. There is no conspiracy for stuff to brake, just things are far more complex and people are no longer willing to put up with the lack of reliability they used too, and will complain on the internet about anything.Look at diesels. Before CR systems they did starship mileages. Now you're lucky getting to 150k without injectors, DMF, DPF, EGR, fuel pump or turbo going wrong.
Parts that are known to break and on their own are cheap to replace bounded with expensive ones to force you to pay a lot more.
You are comparing 90s cars (probably japanese I take it) to modern ones. Good try but won't quite work. Type into google 'vag 1.4 tsi engine problems' and enjoy your reading. In fact, it's one of 4 things google will suggest when you type in 'vw 1.4', so a lot of hits there.
A lot of problems with today's wonder-child 1.0 and 1.2 highly stressed turbo engines won't be that apparent till they hit 100k or so in a few years.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff