BMW i8 and giving hybrids an easy ride

[ORD]

I just read Autocar's review of the i8. I remember an article from some months back in which Autocar promised to rate and rank electric and hybrid cars without applying any special treatment; they would, it was said, give electric cars the same rating as they would were a petrol or diesel car to perform in the same way (obviously taking into account the lower fuel costs, etc).

Well, that has well and truly gone out of the window. The i8 apparently handles very badly for a sports 2+2 and even quite badly for a GT, yet it is apparently nonetheless almost perfect because it looks nice and gets 40mpg as opposed to the high 20s that you would get in a 911 or similar...so 10mpg and lower tax makes up for bad handling in a sports car? Hmmmmm. 10mpg on the kind of miles that cars like this do is, what, a few hundred quid a year on a car that is depreciating by about £25k a year. Get real!

It looks a lot like special treatment to me, even leaving aside that the idea that any hybrid will have strong residuals is a complete joke. I bet no hybrid will be worth more than 20% of its current value in 3 or 4 years time, because it will be little more than a technological relic with no track record of medium term reliability. I wouldn't fancy driving around in a 5 year old car with two propulsion systems, two gearboxes and some very complex electrickery to mesh it all together.

[ORD]

daveco said:

In what way would it benefit Autocar to give the i8 a favourable review, considering just about every magazine/online source has given it the same?

I think there is positivity about the direction BMW are taking with the sport hybrid and the fact they made a 3 cylinder motor sound great and a car that could look and handle well, albeit with a premium price.

All the journalists are probably relieved it wasn't a sporty Prius!

Because it is new and shiny, they get all excited about it, I think. I am not saying that there is anything cynical going on - just that the commitment to not making excuses for hybrids seems to have been forgotten.

The engine note isn't real. It's pumped out through the sound system, which barely gets a mention, whereas VAG is rightly slagged off for doing the same thing with its high power 4 pots.

In response to the other poster, the difference is that an R8 has a lot of very goods sports car characteristics (lovely engine, manual box, etc). By contrast, the big pull for the i8 is that it is "state of the art", which it wont be for very long at all. As soon as the tech is outdated, what is its pull? Rarity is all that I can think of, but I don't know how much that is worth when it isn't matched with some kind of inherent charm (like a lovely V8 or top-draw handling).

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

+1.




As far as i can tell, having only briefly driven the i8 around Millbrooks Hill route, the "handling" is very good, but the overall chassis "tuning" leans towards a sports GT (think 6series) rather than a raw sports car like a 911. ie, the car basically understeers at the limit, rather than oversteers.

So if you're going to do Trackdays, you're much better off with the 911.

The other 99.9% of buyers, who won't be going anywhere near a track, will think it handles fine!

Personally, i don't think the i8 is a 911 competitor, as it's much more complex than that, i think it's more a competitor for the big GTs etc

Can anyone express a view on PH without being accused of having an axe to grind? How about that I am interested in cars, and sports cars in particular, and don't understand the rush to embrace technology that isn't quite ready to deliver seriously good cars at sensible prices? Is that a good enough reason to express a view?

The Autocar review says essentially what you say, MT - it handles like a big GT (and not a very good one). I cant be alone in thinking that this is a pretty massive failing for a "sports car" 2+2 that costs £100k.

Autocar say, in essence, that it understeers quite a bit and then, beyond that, is quite unpredictable and synthetic. It says a lot that its wet time on the track is far far slower than a 911, whereas its dry time is close - it is essentially not a very well balanced or composed car.

[ORD]

ManOpener said:

Can you post direct quotations from the article that make the "bad, big GT" handling claim? Because without that, this all sounds very much like another "electric cars are rubbish" rant.

Read it yourself! It's not available online. It says what I said it says.

[ORD]

ManOpener said:

ORD said:

ManOpener said:

Can you post direct quotations from the article that make the "bad, big GT" handling claim? Because without that, this all sounds very much like another "electric cars are rubbish" rant.

Read it yourself! It's not available online. It says what I said it says.

So is the printed one different to this one on the Autocar website?. Which says...

Autocar said:

On handling precision and that final sliver of driver engagement, the BMW falls short of brilliance. But it’s good, and almost there. Certainly good enough to consider the car an amazing success in its own hyper-specialised niche.

Autocar said:

The car’s handling stands up more stoutly to inspection – but not indefinitely. Body control is excellent; steering response equally immediate. Lateral grip levels could be higher, particularly at the front wheels, which begin to scrabble and scream under load if you harry them.

Drive intelligently though, using weight transfer to give the steering authority on turn-in, and the i8 responds for the most part like any good mid-engined machine should: with some balance and alacrity, but exceptional in neither.

The rear axle is always glued to its line, giving dependable stability. It declines any attempt to adjust your arc through a corner with a bit of throttle-steering. That's a typical facet of a car that just doesn’t respond well to being driven hard, and one that approaches its adhesive limits a bit early for our tastes.

I'm not the only person asking you to link to the article.

I'll try once more - the article is not available online (yet). It is in today's magazine.

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

You assume this^^^ is because the i8 is "not balanced" because it suits your viewpoint that the car doesn't "Handle" very well for a 100K sports car. Yet, in that case, it would be "not balanced" in the wet or the dry, that doesn't change the "balance" of the car.

So here's an alternate view: TYRES!! What sort of tyres do you think are fitted to the 911, and what sort to the i8, and why would they be different in the "wet"?

Think about the big picture: Porsche sells 911s. How many fewer will they sell, or what negative reaction will you get if they fit high performance sports tyres, which have a very broad grip window in terms of temperature and humidity, but, due to their high silica content, also are very draggy, and hence generate a few more g/km of co2.

Now consider the same decision making process on the i8? Do you come up with the same answer?


Consider that^^^ for a moment, then get back to me ;-)

In theory, maybe, but why would the tyres be so much worse in the wet than the dry? We aren't talking mid-winter versus summer - just wet track vs dry track.

[ORD]

ManOpener said:

Allow me to rephrase; as you seem to have direct access to the article and I don't, do you mind quoting, verbatim, the sentence or two where they claim it handles badly even for a GT? Given you've already written several hundred words on the subject, a couple of dozen lifted straight from it's hallowed pages shouldn't be too taxing?

Sure

"Ride and Handling
What's important with the i8 is to manage your expectations. Come at it hoping for a straight rival to a Porsche 911 or an Audi R8 and youre likely to come away if not disappointed, then at least slightly bemused. Expect it to be closer to BMW's own 6 series or another GT and the i8 is perhaps more likely to fulfil your remit

The steering, for one, is definitely more that of a tourer than sports car... It's far from unpleasant but less connected than you might have expected.

The chassis, too, feels more tuned for dabbing in straight line demolitions than it is for consuming corners...

Where the i8 is slightly less convincing is if you ask it to do the things you'd normally ask of a £100k sports car. It's not that its incapable...it's just that the balance isn't quite suited to outright sportiness."

"On the limit

A mixed bag here...In the dry, you drive up to where the front lets go and then manage things; in the wet., it's a slightly different story. The front end lets go first on a steady throttle, but its possible to push through that and unstick the rear...from then on the i8 doesn't behave like you might expect. The throttle pedal induces little but lag, and when the power does arrive, it's frequently biased to the front electric motors, which clumsily drag the i8 straight again. It can be quite quick, but its not always wildly entertaining."

"Verdict

...its dynamics fall short of the best we'd expect of a sports car (the balance is even a touch off for a GT car"

It handles like an average GT but, according to Autocar, that isn't a big deal because it has low CO2 figures.

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

ORD said:

It handles like an average GT but, according to Autocar, that isn't a big deal because it has low CO2 figures.

#


But isn't THAT^^^ exactly the point of the car? ie, what use is an i8 that handles just like a 911 but has poor fuel economy? (especially as you can already buy that car for a lot less money, it's called the 911.......)


Modern cars are about "compromise". if you personally don't like the compromise an i8 has to make to be "eco", well there's good news, no one is (yet!) forcing you to buy one. Buy the 911 instead. In effect, for you personally, you rate ultimate handling over ultimate fuel economy. That's fine, nowt wrong with that, but i fail to see why BMW (and maybe autocar) should have to pander to such an old fashioned audience?

Because it's a fricking sports car (or pretending to be one)!

I might just about put fuel efficiency somewhere in the equation for a mile-muncher, but this is supposed to be a fun car. In any case, it is losing you £25k a year in depreciation, so worrying about 10mpg here or there is faintly absurd.

Any £100k sports car that is being sold on the basis of its mpg is pandering to a different audience, yes, namely people who cannot do simple maths and work out that 10mpg is moving deckchairs on the titanic.


Autocar should "pander" to me to the extent of not insulting my intelligence by telling me that it doesn't really matter that a sports car handles very averagely as long as it emits low C02.

I would bet that almost nobody who buys an i8 will do so for eco reasons. It just isn't that kind of car - it isn't actually that low emissions, in the real world, and that is ignoring the obvious point that it is, taking into account production C02 and other pollution, probably very polluting indeed.

I do agree to this extent, though - it is good that BMW is trying to make performance hybrid cars kinda realistically affordable, and I am impressed that they have managed it. But it still isn't a great car by any stretch, and I don't see what is wrong with saying that - "We are glad BMW made this car. It is impressive in some respects, but ultimately not much of a sports car in ways that matter to keen drivers". Just don't tell me it is the 3rd best sports car for sale at the moment!

[ORD]

greygoose said:

I'm not sure why you are getting so heated about this, you have the choice to buy an i8 (or Autocar magazine) and the choice not to if you don't like them. BMW have sold out the i8 until next year so I am not sure your guesses at residuals are close to the mark. It isn't a 911 but it is an interesting, futuristic vehicle that obviously appeals to a lot of buyers.

Nor am I

I guess it is this - if there will be only porridge for breakfast in the future, I can cope with that (as I quite like porridge), but don't tell me that porridge is as good as a full English when it comes to being a full English.

But your point can be taken to extremes - why do any of us discuss cars? We don't have to buy them. Ultimately, your reasoning would mean that we can only discuss our own cars or cars we want and say why we like them (which, given how many people buy cars that they hate, might be boring )

Given that the car industry is moving in not-very-PH directions quite quickly, it is unsurprising that PH contains a fair bit of negativity.

Nonetheless, point taken

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

Er, not wanting to get too "classical PH" with my assertions, but have you driven an i8 ORD?


I mean, if i was really annoyed that autocar and BMW were "pulling the wool over my eyes" i'd probably want to see what all the fuss was about myself?


(also, it's worth remembering autocar is just a weekly car magazine. There articles have to be readable by their audience (hence the basic "star" marking system etc)

Reading their article it seems to me, within reason, to be a pretty fair review tbh. They've told you it doesn't handle quite as well as a 911, they've told you it gets much better fuel economy. They've told you how much it costs. I kinda fail to see what else they could have or should have written tbh?

You're doing the same thing, though, MT - the article does not say, in the detailed and objective bits, that the i8 doesn't handle "quite as well as a 911"; it says, in polite terms, that the i8 handles very badly indeed for a would-be sports car and not even well for a GT. But the conclusion is then that it is better than x,y,z and excellent sports cars because it has low CO2 figures.

I think my complaint is this - either the i8 should be evaluated (1) as a sports car (in which case it is very average) or (2) as a hybrid sports car (in which case it is excellent). Autocar pretends to be doing (1) but its conclusion is only really sane if it is, in fact, still doing (2).

Why would I test drive one? I know from the review that it handles badly, has synthetic engine sound and costs £100k Unless it turns out, on test driving it, that the i8 will iron my shirts, make my lawn re-seed on the bare patches or tidy my files, I cant see what I would get out of it.

I think my annoyance is the porridge/full English thing. A weird character trait, I guess

[ORD]

JonnyVTEC said:

Just looking at the tyres... even the 'performance' tyre option doesnt offer the girth of a 911 so the understeer/ grippy commentary is hardly going to be a suprise, is it?

See the GT86.

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

ORD said:

the article does not say, in the detailed and objective bits, that the i8 doesn't handle "quite as well as a 911"; it says, in polite terms, that the i8 handles very badly indeed for a would-be sports car and not even well for a GT.

Ok, i realise that we all read things differently, but where does it say "very badly indeed"?

You seem to be confusing a car that is "not set up to oversteer on positive throttle inputs" with "very bad handling"??????
In which case, there is also no such thing as a "good handling" front wheel drive car..........


The article i read says (and i've highlighted in bold what i think to be the important words, the words that the autocar writer choose to try to put across how the car handles):

autocar said:

On handling precision and that final sliver of driver engagement, the BMW falls short of brilliance. But it’s good, and almost there. Certainly good enough to consider the car an amazing success in its own hyper-specialised niche.

autocar said:

Right up until you go looking for that critical last fraction of driver appeal, in fact, the i8 does almost everything right

autocar said:

The car’s handling stands up more stoutly to inspection

autocar said:

Body control is excellent; steering response equally immediate. Lateral grip levels could be higher

And as a summary, the i8 is "for you" if:

autocar said:

you genuinely don’t mind compromising on sporting clarity of purpose for lower emissions, enhanced economy and of-the-moment desirability

Now, i've actually driven the car, and tbh, i pretty much agree with everything they have written! Personally, for this market, not being able to oversteer the thing till the tyres pop is irrelevant (especially for 99.999% of drivers who would frankly just crash trying)


So, i summary, it's not a 911, nor, imo, is it trying to be. I suspect, it might just be a "whole new thing" (sorry CH, stole your trademark there..... ;-)

That's the first drive review (and those are notorious for being nonsense). The full road test review says the stuff I quoted above, and I think "very badly" is a fair summary given what is said and remembering that it is a £100k sports car, rather than a 2 ton GT.

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

ORD said:

Why would I test drive one? I know from the review that it handles badly, has synthetic engine sound and costs £100k Unless it turns out, on test driving it, that the i8 will iron my shirts, make my lawn re-seed on the bare patches or tidy my files, I cant see what I would get out of it.

In effect, you've already decided you don't like it, so don't need to drive it, fair enough, although, I suspect other people might call it "blinkered" but ho, hey, we are all different eh!

Why don't you test drive a diesel Fiesta from 2000 when looking for a new car? You know it's a turd, so you don't bother, I expect. It's the same principle at work here, albeit that the i8 is far from being a turd and I am not looking to buy a 2+2 anyway, so would be wasting someone's time. So,um, actually a crap analogy

I don't think I have ever test-driven a car and thought "Autocar was a bit harsh in terms of its dynamics"; on the contrary, I have only ever found the magazines to be far too lenient when it comes to criticising BMW and VAG cars (and, to a lesser extent, Mercs). If Autocar says the latest big thing from BMW handles badly, I'll take their word for it given that they usually do their very best not to say that even when it is kinda obvious.

It is a different question with lesser marques, incidentally, which often get a hard time.

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

Ah, so your "marque-ist", now i see.

I drive a Porsche (almost a VAG car) and am soon to buy an M3, so I have nothing against VAG or BMW. My point is that they get a pretty easy ride from the motoring press, which may or may not have something to do with the fact that they probably account for 90% of freebies and parties.

Or do you mean the diesel Fiesta comment? I like Fords - my first car was a Fiesta, and I think the Focus is very underrated. It just so happens that the only diesel Fiesta that I have ever driven was from about 2000 (actually it must have been later as it was a Mark V) and was terrible. I think that generation was a low point in the otherwise very good Fiesta history.

[ORD]

Fidgits said:

I think ORD is getting upset over the fact he thinks the i8 is a sports car, and that Autocar seemed to have reviewed it more as a GT car and been very kind because BMW have created a low CO2, hybrid GT/Sports that handles well if not amazing, is reasonable economical but a bit pricey, yet still got a good review.

For me, its the first electric/hybrid car ive seen that i'd actually consider buying, i cant afford it, but it looks good, goes well, and personally, i'm impressed with what they have achieved.

Nope. It was reviewed as a sports car and ranked accordingly above lots of excellent sports cars.

In any case, I am not the only one to think it is supposed to be a sports car. See, for example, BMW's webpage for it:-

http://www.bmw.co.uk/en_GB/new-vehicles/bmw-i/i8/2...

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

So, to be a sports car, it must handle just like a 911? Is that what you are saying? And if it doesn't then it isn't a "sports car"


(sorry, i'm still slightly confused as to why you seem to be so annoyed by a car you have no intention of buying and one that doesn't seem to suit you at all?)

"Person disagrees with me therefore must be all emotional". One can criticise something without wetting one's knickers about it.

No. But it must be orientated towards dynamics and fun - see the GT86, MX-5, 911, F-Type. They all handle differently but are all a lot "sportier" than the i8. You know as well as I do what, in general terms, makes something a sports car and that chronic understeer isn't part of the equation.

[ORD]

Max_Torque said:

So, you say you're not "all emotional" but then use the phrase


"chronic understeer"? The i8 does not understeer in a "chronic" fashion. Yes, at the absolute limit, driven on track, the dynamic limitation is front end of the car. ie, the car understeers gently at the limit. For a road car, this is, imo, a very sensible thing!

Okie doke. Not what I took from the review, which was that it really was quite understeer-happy and unpredictable on the limit. I'm bored of trying to explain why I think that's a bad thing in something said to be a sports car.

[ORD]

toppstuff said:

I think the problem here is that you think the i8 is something it is not.

It is not a 911 competitor.

It is not a sports car.

I think it is more akin to a 6 series BMW or a Merc S class coupe.

I have had a brief go in one. I thought it was a lovely thing. The focus is on ease of use, effortless performance, refinement and design aesthetic. It is absolutely not a sports car. You may want it to be a sports car, in which case I can see why you are disappointed. But it isn't. In which case, it is doing exactly what the designers intended.

EV tech is not yet at the stage where designers are confident to start exposing the rough edges, with tight, snarly, unrefined drivetrains. They may be more exciting, but I think in an EV it would also be unacceptably harsh. The i8 is playing to the strengths of EV's - refinement and effortless delivery, rather than trousers on fire excitement. It isn't the car you think it is.

I agree with you entirely, so I must not have made myself clear.

I would have thought "Spot on" if the review had ended with "It isn't a sports car, so we are going to class it along with other GTs".

I don't doubt that it is a lovely GT. I have no interest in GTs, but that isn't BMWs fault and is no real criticism of the car.

As it was, I ended up whining about how Autocar needs to stick to its policy of testing hybrids fairly and not making excuses. I should really have said "Why not just class it as a GT?". Probably a wasted opportunity to bh and moan

[ORD]

Lowtimer said:

ORD said:

I bet no hybrid will be worth more than 20% of its current value in 3 or 4 years time, because it will be little more than a technological relic with no track record of medium term reliability. I wouldn't fancy driving around in a 5 year old car with two propulsion systems, two gearboxes and some very complex electrickery to mesh it all together.

Toyota's long track record of perfectly reasonable hybrid residuals proves you wrong. As do the hordes of apparently unkillable older Priuses forming the bulk of London's minicab fleet. The first generation cars were always fairly rare but the much more common second generation cars are now up to 11 years old and appear to go on and on and on.

Nope. All that proves is that London has a congestion charge that is subject to exemptions.

Various factors keep the Prius residuals reasonable - exemption and being an arguably rational purchase for Eco types. Neithe applies to a £100k state of the art halo product. Top end mainstream brand cars cars generally lose value extremely fast unless they have long term desirability, which I just don't see for a car that is reliant on being at the cutting edge.

Who would buy one once you can get 300 miles on electric power alone on an electric sports car that weighs 1200kg? You won't buy it for the engine note, the handling or the steering, so it will be a dinosaur. I think the credible all eclectic sports car isn't far off, to be honest, and I think it will make the wavy hybrid cars pretty much obsolete overnight. A purely electric car will be able to be very light and have immediate power delivery at any speed - it could be an excellent drive (apart from steering, but I bet even that is fixable in time).

I'm a real optimist for how good to drive electric cars can be, which is why I don't think cutting them any slack is helpful or necessary.

All that said, being produced in small numbers might help!

[ORD]

MrTrilby said:

You mean like a Tesla now? That doesn't seem to have stopped BMW thinking there's a market to sell a new i8 at £100k. I think your worries are very sweet, but a little unfounded. That said, it doesn't sound like the best car for you - A BMW 116d has reasonable residuals if that's your concern.

Kinda except actually 300 miles and actually 1200kg

I couldn't give a st about residuals or mpg, but I'm not trying to sell a £100k car on the basis that it is 'economical' !