Class action lawsuit against BMW i3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
The engine is actually the Kymco-built 650cc twin used in the C650GT scooter.


They hit the bottom of the barrel with that one. The thing sounds like a toilet right from the get go.
 
Kymco? Whats good about it? 34HP from 650 cc is a certifiable pig, a Yamaha twin makes 66HP which may have actually produced the desired result.
IMO they used a real POS trying to save a buck and now they are going to pay the price.

IMO they would have been better served by using a smaller displacement 2 cyl water boxer they already build but that would have cost them more than few bucks they paid for this thing.
 
Last edited:
Trav,
from the following quote, it appears that they have no choice but to make the gasoline operation as painful as possible...maybe the class action should be extended to the regulators if it has lead to an unsafe situation.

Originally Posted By: MCompact
The real problem is that BMW has to hamstring the charging capabilities of the i3 REx in order for the car to qualify as a ZEV for CAFE purposes. As delivered to the USA, the range extender is programmed to only operate when the battery range drops to below 6%. Then it comes on automatically and extends the range another 50 miles or so running on gas, which turns a generator and feeds the electric motor. Also, the gas tank in the USA is programmed to shut off after 1.7 gallons is used, leaving about 1/2+ gallon unused in the 2.4 gallon tank.
 
Yes I can see that now you mention it, a more powerful engine might classify it then as a hybrid. You are right they should include the regulators in this law suit.
 
Originally Posted By: MCompact
The real problem is that BMW has to hamstring the charging capabilities of the i3 REx in order for the car to qualify as a ZEV for CAFE purposes. As delivered to the USA, the range extender is programmed to only operate when the battery range drops to below 6%. Then it comes on automatically and extends the range another 50 miles or so running on gas, which turns a generator and feeds the electric motor. Also, the gas tank in the USA is programmed to shut off after 1.7 gallons is used, leaving about 1/2+ gallon unused in the 2.4 gallon tank.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Trav,
from the following quote, it appears that they have no choice but to make the gasoline operation as painful as possible...maybe the class action should be extended to the regulators if it has lead to an unsafe situation.

To qualify as ZEV to the state of California the gasoline(or diesel) range must be less than battery range.

There is no provision about gasoline size or power to qualify or disqualify for ZEV. The use of 34 HP 650CC 2-cyl engine was BME's choice, it has nothing to do with ZEV regulations of California. The 1.9 gallons gasoline tank was the result of ZEV regulations.

The 2017 i3 with stronger battery pack with longer range up to 114 miles and the gasoline tank is now 2.4 gallons to increase gasoline range from 70 miles.

Originally Posted By: caranddriver.com
The i3 will continue to offer a two-cylinder range-extending gasoline engine tucked under its cargo floor, and that model will come with the 33-kWh battery plus an increase in the fuel tank’s capacity from 1.9 to 2.4 gallons. It’s actually the same tank the i3 has always used, but BMW had “locked out” the tank’s last half-gallon of capacity, as the car had more gasoline-powered range than EV range, which would affect its status as a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) in California. Since the restated range now exceeds its gas-powered range, BMW has unlocked the full tank so that i3 owners don’t have to.


http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2017-bmw-i3-revealed-more-range-leads-the-updates-news
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Trav,
from the following quote, it appears that they have no choice but to make the gasoline operation as painful as possible...maybe the class action should be extended to the regulators if it has lead to an unsafe situation.

Originally Posted By: MCompact
The real problem is that BMW has to hamstring the charging capabilities of the i3 REx in order for the car to qualify as a ZEV for CAFE purposes. As delivered to the USA, the range extender is programmed to only operate when the battery range drops to below 6%. Then it comes on automatically and extends the range another 50 miles or so running on gas, which turns a generator and feeds the electric motor. Also, the gas tank in the USA is programmed to shut off after 1.7 gallons is used, leaving about 1/2+ gallon unused in the 2.4 gallon tank.


The buyer knew about the 34 hp generator before signing. I would throw such a case out.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Kymco? Whats good about it? 34HP from 650 cc is a certifiable pig, a Yamaha twin makes 66HP which may have actually produced the desired result.
IMO they used a real POS trying to save a buck and now they are going to pay the price.


It's drastically detuned (for emissions, I suspect) in the i3; the same engine makes 60HP@7500RPM in the C650GT.

Quote:
IMO they would have been better served by using a smaller displacement 2 cyl water boxer they already build but that would have cost them more than few bucks they paid for this thing.


It's not a boxer...it's a parallel twin.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Trav,
from the following quote, it appears that they have no choice but to make the gasoline operation as painful as possible...maybe the class action should be extended to the regulators if it has lead to an unsafe situation.

Originally Posted By: MCompact
The real problem is that BMW has to hamstring the charging capabilities of the i3 REx in order for the car to qualify as a ZEV for CAFE purposes. As delivered to the USA, the range extender is programmed to only operate when the battery range drops to below 6%. Then it comes on automatically and extends the range another 50 miles or so running on gas, which turns a generator and feeds the electric motor. Also, the gas tank in the USA is programmed to shut off after 1.7 gallons is used, leaving about 1/2+ gallon unused in the 2.4 gallon tank.

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
The buyer knew about the 34 hp generator before signing. I would throw such a case out.

The 34 HP gasoline engine is to charge the battery when it is down to below 5%. The electric motor is to drive the vehicle and rated 170 HP.

It is very difficult for most drivers/buyers to actually see the connection between range extender 34 HP gasoline engine can only charge the battery that much and the speed can be reduced from 70-80 MPH to 40-45 MPH.

I bet that the i3 can't even sustain 45 MPH going up steep hills on I15 near Death Valley in summer, if 4 person are in the car and the A/C is on.

BMW should market this i3 as strictly city vehicle, it should never get on highway or at least only when battery is fully charged and for short distance only.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Ah, the "wisdom" of buying a 34 HP BMW. Makes a great golfcart I suspect.


It makes all the sense in the world if you're not an imbecilic idiot with no ability to read the specifications and understand them. The average idiot buying a car just looks for which numbers are bigger for less money, what makes them feel "sporty", and then if there's a way to imply that you're not your mother and you have a pair.

A small engine can charge a larger battery at an acceptable and non-abusive rate reasonably quick, still leverage liquid infrastructure, and maximize operational efficiency.

These lawyer thieves are trying to line their pockets by fear mongering the same idiots that couldn't properly comprehend the concept of operation and the specifications' alignment to their use when first buying it. This same set of thieves makes the average citizen's use of the legal system so expensive, yet the average parties' claim to any suit once the lawyers line their pocket is practically worthless.

What trash.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Ah, the "wisdom" of buying a 34 HP BMW. Makes a great golfcart I suspect.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
It makes all the sense in the world if you're not an imbecilic idiot with no ability to read the specifications and understand them. The average idiot buying a car just looks for which numbers are bigger for less money, what makes them feel "sporty", and then if there's a way to imply that you're not your mother and you have a pair.

A small engine can charge a larger battery at an acceptable and non-abusive rate reasonably quick, still leverage liquid infrastructure, and maximize operational efficiency.

These lawyer thieves are trying to line their pockets by fear mongering the same idiots that couldn't properly comprehend the concept of operation and the specifications' alignment to their use when first buying it. This same set of thieves makes the average citizen's use of the legal system so expensive, yet the average parties' claim to any suit once the lawyers line their pocket is practically worthless.

What trash.

Average consumer doesn't have any idea how electric vehicle works, they don't even know how ICE works either.

When there are 2 engines/motors, one is to drive the car and the other is to charge the battery the confusion is there for average consumer to understand.

When BMW promotes this i3 as a "range extender", this term indicates the gasoline engine would extend the range of electric battery by x number of miles. This is the main problem, BMW didn't do their homework and wrongly advertised their vehicle.

Just talking about "range extender" alone, what does this mean to average consumer ?
 
All that aside, the i3 is rather complex, costly and incapable. All while providing the low-end cockpit interior feel of an economy car.

I initially liked my test drive. Right up until I pitched it into a corner. At which point, the car had all the cornering prowess of a 1970's era American automobile. Ugh. In other words, acceptable until pushed.
 
There is nothing new here. This has been pointed out in reviews from the very beginning. And there is nothing wrong with the range extender idea as long as the owner has at least half a brain. What's next? Are Tesla owners going to sue when they find out their Model S has decreased range in the cold because it didn't meet the advertise range?
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR


Just talking about "range extender" alone, what does this mean to average consumer ?

Not just to the average consumer, I see "range extender" it sounds to me the feature that allows it to continue on as is for X number of miles.
I wouldn't think it meant X miles @ 70MPH and X miles @ slow as a mofo just barely crawling around.

If they said X miles @ 70 with limp home or limp to charger feature so your not left stranded I wouldn't think twice about what it meant.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Just talking about "range extender" alone, what does this mean to average consumer ?

Not just to the average consumer, I see "range extender" it sounds to me the feature that allows it to continue on as is for X number of miles.
I wouldn't think it meant X miles @ 70MPH and X miles @ slow as a mofo just barely crawling around.

If they said X miles @ 70 with limp home or limp to charger feature so your not left stranded I wouldn't think twice about what it meant.

That was what I thought about i3 range extender, until this lawsuit came up.

If we are car enthusiast and still confuse(misunderstand) about BMW's range extender, I don't blame average consumer for not knowing what the range extender gasoline engine actually does.

One thing I don't understand is why didn't BMW have a slightly stronger gasoline engine to charge the battery with higher rate to sustain reasonable highway speed of around 70 MPH ?
 
The more I think about it, if they said limp home/to charger mode I would see it as a desirable feature. "Range Extender" while factual just seems a bit of a fraud to me.
I'm sure it is relegated to an under powered/detuned engine for reasons to do with zero emissions, which make no sense at all either as it has a gasoline engine which regardless of its size still puts out emissions.
I would think that the fact it does have a gas engine onboard would classify it as more of a hybrid like the volt.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
The more I think about it, if they said limp home/to charger mode I would see it as a desirable feature. "Range Extender" while factual just seems a bit of a fraud to me.
I'm sure it is relegated to an under powered/detuned engine for reasons to do with zero emissions, which make no sense at all either as it has a gasoline engine which regardless of its size still puts out emissions.
I would think that the fact it does have a gas engine onboard would classify it as more of a hybrid like the volt.

It is a mess with CARB in creating a new class of battery vehicle BEVx, it isn't a plug in hybrid likes the Chevy Volt.

This is the requirements of the BEVx, there is no restriction on engine size and/or power. But CARB recommends the use of APU is to enable the vehicle to go to a charging station with reduce power.

Quote:
The basic criteria for the BEVx’s are:

. The APU(auxiliary power unit) range is equal to or less than the all-electric range;
. Engine operation cannot occur until the battery charge has been depleted to the charge-sustaining lower limit;
. A minimum 80 miles electric range;
. Super ultra low emission vehicle (SULEV) and zero evaporative emissions compliant and TZEV(Transitional Zero Emission Vehicle) warranty requirements on the battery system.


Quote:
Here in California we passed a law requiring a certain percentage of automobile sales from each manufacturer to be zero emissions vehicles, in order for the manufacturer to continue doing business in California. That simple law has been twisted around in many ways until now it is a complicated mess of special cases. One of those special cases will allow for a new class of “extended range electric vehicle” (plug-in hybrid) to exist that, even though it has a gasoline engine on-board, will still be qualified for the highly coveted white HOV sticker. The white HOV sticker is supposed to be reserved for all electric vehicles, making it highly puzzling why the CARB is planning to gift BMW’s i3 (the only qualifying vehicle) with the white HOV stickers.


Quote:
In Jan. 2012 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) created a new class of vehicle, the BEVx, which is an electric vehicle carrying a sort of range extender engine. The CARB published an extensive report which included the BEVx definition (see ADVANCED CLEAN CARS 2012 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE PROGRAM REGULATIONS).

BMW is set to exploit this new class of vehicle with the BMW i3, set to be introduced for sale in 2013.


Quote:
In section 2.1.1 the report claims that some manufacturers have lobbied for a new class of vehicle, the BEVx, or “range extended battery electric vehicles.” While the phrasing is similar to words General Motors uses to describe the Chevy Volt, this class of vehicle is expected to be very different. First, it is expected to have an electric range of about 80 miles (or more), and to have a tiny gasoline engine to provide an ability to limp to a charging station. The gas engine is an “auxiliary power unit” (APU) and would “allow drivers to find a charging location, and discouraging non-zero emission driving.”



http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/zev2012/zevisor.pdf

http://longtailpipe.com/2013/01/01/the-carb-zev-loophole-big-enough-to/
 
Cool, you two have clearly got my point.

"range extender" implies that you keep doing what you are doing.

"limp home" implies exactly that, they won't leave you stranded...uncomfortable, but notstranded.

Mt old man was not dumb by any stretch but if he had "120 miles on battery" and then "50 miles on gas", he would plan on using every single one of them...if he was told he would be stuck at 35MPH for that 50 miles, he'd have never though of that as part of his range.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top