BMW intends to unveil an all-electric 3 Series at the Munich Auto Show in September, according to German business newspaper Handelsblatt.
Will BMW report the intake of hundreds of thousands of $1,000 deposits for an all-electric, next-generation BMW 3 Series? Probably not.
But which car are you more likely to purchase: a 3 Series EV from long-heralded BMW with roughly 250 miles of range, or the much-hyped, oft-discussed Model 3 from nascent Tesla, production of which should be in full swing by the time the 3 Series EV appears?
This may be the next Mustang vs. Camaro, a quasi Accord vs. Camry battle to end all Accord vs. Camry battles, an F-150 vs. Silverado skirmish without the 87 octane.
If the next iteration of the 3 Series, codename G20, was designed from the get-go to utilize a pure electric drivetrain, the 3 Series, a global premium performance leader, could be poised to steal some of Tesla’s thunder.
Yet part of Tesla’s appeal is the anti-establishment tenor of the company.
Say what you will about the poor quality of construction, the flighty ambitions, the delays, the odd decisions, and the lack of clear sales reporting (there’s plenty to say). But it’s difficult to deny that Tesla has its finger on the pulse of a certain demographic, and it’s not a small demographic. Is a regular, entry-level BMW sedan that looks like every other 3 Series really going to make the same statement that a Tesla Model 3 could?
Moreover, Tesla is fostering a reputation, deserved or not, as the electric automaker, with some consumers perceiving Tesla to be at the leading edge of electric cars simply because Tesla doesn’t build anything other than electric cars.
The question in the mind of the average car buyer isn’t whether they want an electric car from an established automaker, an electric version of one of the world’s most popular premium vehicles. Rather, the average car buyer is attempting to determine just how badly he or she wants to buy a semi-affordable electric car from an electric car specialist.
But what about you? BMW 3 Series EV or Tesla Model 3?
And while you’re waiting on both, don’t forget that there’s already a BMW 33oe iPerformance, a $45,095, 248-horsepower plug-in hybrid that operates in EV mode for up to 14 miles.
That’s likely an insufficient partway measure for next year’s Model 3 buyer. 6 percent of U.S. 3 Series buyers in the first five months of 2017 chose the plug-in model, according to HybridCars.com.
[Images: BMW, Tesla]
Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and Autofocus.ca and the founder and former editor of GoodCarBadCar.net. Follow on Twitter @timcaincars.
I’ll pass on both. My driving needs preclude a pure EV. And while they are getting better, they’re still not ready for prime time. Moreover, the infrastructure to support them is a joke.
And for all of those smug EV drivers who think they’re saving the planet, I have a question: How do you think the electricity that you need is generated? The carbon may not be coming out of your tailpipe, but it most assuredly is being burned. And I’ll bet you’d have a problem if a utility wanted to build a nuclear power plant near your home.
That’s pretty much it. My next care is more likely to have a V8 than be electric or hybrid.
At the moment, my electricity is generated by a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, natural gas, and a few coal plants that haven’t been converted to gas just yet. In any event, pollution is much easier to mitigate at large point sources, versus millions of tiny combustion engines.
Mine is 60% natural gas, 25% coal, 13% nuclear, 2% hydro and other renewables. The utility I buy from is adding two units to Plant Vogtle, and is the only utility in the U. S. to attempt new nuclear construction. Considering the cost and time overruns, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the last. They’re also building a transmission line from Oklahoma so we can get some wind power. Since there’s a surplus of wind power overnight, which just happens to be when I charge my car, that works out very nicely.
What you’re missing out on in your calculations is how much less energy it takes to move an EV than does a conventionally powered car. I’m driving the PHEV version of the Fusion, and allowing for the amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline plus the amount needed to refine it from crude oil, I’m getting the equivalent of 70 MPG in city traffic.
I would think that a given car takes the same amount of energy to move regardless of source. Whether certain systems can deliver the energy more efficiently is another matter.
The fuel burning to movement end-to-end efficiency is lower for a pure EV than a hybrid, and it isn’t even close. Plus the BEV is hauling around an extra 1000 pounds of battery with it if it’s going to have 250+ mile range, which means using more energy all of the time.
The difference here is that ICE engines only use 30-40% of the energy in the fuel to propel the car. EVs have losses at the power plant, transmission lines, battery, and control equipment, but the cumulative efficiency is still quite a bit higher.
“The carbon may not be coming out of your tailpipe, but it most assuredly is being burned.”
Not only that, but CO2 does not matter since it is not pollution, nor does “the planet” need to be “saved.” Today’s gas-engined cars are extremely clean as far as real pollutants are concerned. (In fact they have been for quite a long time now.)
I would say that those who have really swallowed the CO2 blue pill and actually believe that hogwash should immediately off themselves in the name of lower carbon and saving the planet. With every breath they take they are assaulting and destroying poor Gaia.
the average idiot understands climate as well as they understand quantum physics.
which is to say, not at all.
but boy oh boy, are they damn well convinced they understand it.
And yet for some reason the only time time this argument is used is when the person in question is against sacrificing his well-being and prosperity on the altar of Gaia.
If he supports it, suddenly his lack of knowledge on climate ceases to be a problem.
“… against sacrificing his well-being and prosperity on the altar of Gaia.”
“…With every breath they take they are assaulting and destroying poor Gaia.”
Good grief. No one is asking anyone to take a vow of poverty, celibacy, and be a vegan. We just need to take baby steps forward to avoid problems in the future. EVs are one way to get there without
draconian sacrifices.
>EVs are one way to get there without
draconian sacrifices.
Lithium mining has more negative environmental consequences than CO2 ever could or will.
derekson: “Lithium mining has more negative environmental consequences than CO2 ever could or will.”
What do you base this claim on?
derekson: “The fuel burning to movement end-to-end efficiency is lower for a pure EV than a hybrid, and it isn’t even close. Plus the BEV is hauling around an extra 1000 pounds of battery with it if it’s going to have 250+ mile range, which means using more energy all of the time.”
What do you base this on?
Sounds like you are including transmission losses for electrucity. Are you including energy used to locate, obtain, refine and transport fossil fuels?
Did you factor in the energy recaptured when a hybrid or ev brakes? That energy includes the kinetic energy of the moving battery’s weight.
@WheelMcCoy
As for my part: Without getting into the political aspect of it, I am not opposed to EVs from a technical standpoint. In 10 years or so, I can see myself looking for one to use for quick jaunts around town.
I was merely referencing the fact that people that doubt or oppose the beliefs about climate-related issues that prevail in the West are often accused of not being educated enough to really take a stand on them, while the same accusation is never aimed at those that share those beliefs, despite often being just as ignorant.
I have PhD in Theoretical Physics, in quantum field theory to be specific, but still cannot understand Quantum Mechanics, but I know how to do calculations and tricks like renormalization in QFT. I am pretty sure climate scientists do not understand climate and play with toy climate models which like string “theory” can predicts anything they wish if you cook values of model’s parameters and initial conditions right.
“I am pretty sure climate scientists do not understand climate and play with toy climate models …”
When I was young and majoring in chemistry, I looked down on the softer sciences such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. I felt the soft sciences had too much room for interpretation. Afterall, Freud is quoted as saying “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
But as I grew older, I continued to learn, and am not so ready to discount those fields. I won’t ignore a 90+ % consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening.
CO2 is trapping more solar energy, just like a blanket, the Earth cools less at night. The more CO2, the heavier the blanket. We’ve made the blanket 50% heavier in a few hundred years of coal, oil and gas burning.
Our civilization as we know it can only tolerate 2-3 more degrees of global temperature rise before massive, accelerating changes (the “tipping point”) occur, which will probably result in property damage destroying the economies of the first-world countries, crop failures, starvation, political upheaval, etc. human death, suffering and misery at unimaginable levels.
I can understand why no one wants to believe that these things can remotely be caused by what we, as individuals, do on a day-to-day basis.
The fact that powerful economic and political forces are constantly at work to discredit the real science behind these predictions make me think that climate change is even more dangerous than nuclear weapons, because it is so insidious (not unlike cancer), and the first world will “feel fine” until it’s too late.
Unfortunately your wrong on a few counts. Not all electricity is fossil fuel based. 25% in the states is non-fossil fuel. Also, diesel/petrol cars are about 25% efficient. That is, the majority of energy is wasted as heat. The tesla model s is about 80% efficient. Electric cars are not entirely free of environmental damage but their is zero question that they are much, much better than conventional cars. Response?
Lets talk about pollutants that are used to produce electric car battery.
In any case, why worry about planet it few billion years down the road it will be burned by the sun?
slavuta: “In any case, why worry about planet it few billion years down the road it will be burned by the sun?”
Then do you mind if I dump some toxic sludge in your back yard?
You can try if you’re not afraid. That is my property. Planet is not.
Practically every bit of the planet is viewed as their property by someone or other. And yet, many people, including yourself, feel they have the right to have a say in what goes on beyond their property lines. And for example do you think the air or groundwater associated with your property is somehow separate from the air or groundwater beyond your property lines?
If you think your property lines isolate you from pollution, why do you fret about the production of batteries?
This. People who don’t know will latch onto what they see. They can see the cars emitting CO2, not the CO2 emitted by their homes or the knick-knacks brought over from China on diesel tankers.
Another article mentioning Tesla ( or electric cars), another outburst by the w&d.
How about this: every few days ttac could post a sacrificial article about ev’s, and the w&d could knock themselves out commenting. Having exercised their sacred cows, they could limit their comments on other articles mentioning Tesla, to addressing the subject.
Does every article mentioning performance cars attract a bunch of dumb comments attacking ICE technology? No, and just maybe that’s a reflection of the intelligence levels of the two camps.
Al Gore, is that you?
Do you have a problem with Al Gore, slavuta?
Steve Biro – – –
S: “I’ll pass on both.”
Me too. If it’s not a pickup truck, I don’t even look at it anymore.
And beyond that, I find the pure EV craze to by 90% hype and 10% reality.
If the full cost of manufacturing, insuring, fueling, driving, maintaining, and repairing ANY vehicle were ever done , — on a 15 year time line — we’d all be amazed that probably the most cost-effective vehicle for most folks would be a simple, small sedan with a modest ICE.
BTW: We should remember that ICE evolution is not over at all: there are now FIVE (5) advancements that have pushed, or will continue to push, gasoline-engine efficiencies up beyond their former Carnot-cycle limits:
1) Variable valves
2) Direct injection
3) Turbo-charging
4) Variable Displacement
5) Internal exhaust manifolds
Others on the horizon are (and there are yet more):
1) Multiple-charge injection
2) Ultra-high compression ratios
3) Ceramic valves and pistons for high temperatures
In the big picture, we should also remember that all motive force comes from an “engine” of sorts.
An engine creates motion by moving or reacting an oxidizer and reducer through electron interchange.
In this view, a “battery” is essentially an “engine” that moves electrons slowly through a circuit to a magnetic-field motion-generator, called a motor. The battery has to take BOTH its oxidizer and reducer along with itself, internally. The oxidizer and reducer are housed intimately in close proximity, not always a happy situation.
Also, in this view, an internal combustion engine (ICE) is an “engine” that moves electrons rapidly to generate heat that can expand internally trapped air to move pistons, which rotate a crankshaft. This type of engine only has to take along ONE component, the reducer (fuel, in a separate container), while sourcing the other, the oxidizer (oxygen), externally from the atmosphere. Here, the fuel and oxidizer stay separate until needed.
There is, however, another development that combines some (hopefully good) features from the two above: the Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle. Here, the engine is the fuel cell that “burns” a fuel (H2) slowly to generate electrons kept in small temporary battery, for the magnetic-field motion-generator (motor), — while sourcing O2 from the atmosphere. In the long term, this may represent the best motive solution, and may explain why Japan, always thinking far ahead, is committing immense resources to fuel cell technology and H2* fueling stations.
———–
* If H2 is generated by the wind-powered Audi e-gas process (please Google), it will not have come from petroleum sources, and will be a “zero-emissions” propulsion method (except for water coming out the tailpipe!)
———–
==============================
NMGOM:
Not sure why anyone would go to such lengths to equate a gas engine with an electric motor.
Most advances in ICE technology can be exploited in hybrids.
Bicycles are far more cost effective vehicles than even small cars.
The only advantage hydrogen offers over pure ev’s is fast refuelling. Even that could be overcome today with battery swapping. Other than that the infrastructure for hydrogen, compared to direct electricity, is expensive, inefficient, dangerous and leaky.
When you look at the existing use of electic drives in vehicles from e-bikes to mining equipment to golf carts to locomotives to ships; it’s very hard to square that with your claim that electric cars are 90% hype.
You might also note that Toyota is turning away from hydrogen. Odd they went that way to begin with. How can it make sense to use electricity to make hydrogen, then transport hydrogen to fuel cars, then use the hydrogen to make electricity for propulsion; when you could just transmit the electricity through an existing grid to store in cars and then use for propulsion? With the former having all sorts of losses and inefficiency and dangers and expenses along the way.
@brandloyalty: The 300/400kW charging technology has pretty much killed hydrogen’s fueling speed advantages. Cars that can take advantage of that speed like the Porsche Mission E are already in the pipeline.
http://www.chargepoint.com/about/news/chargepoint-enables-future-mobility-express-plus-electric-vehicle-charging-platform/
brandloyalty – – –
b: “Not sure why anyone would go to such lengths to equate a gas engine with an electric motor.”
Must be insanity on my part (^_^). I get carried away at times….
b: “Most advances in ICE technology can be exploited in hybrids.”
So? Why add the complexity and added cost of a second drive, an EV powertrain, to prostitute a perfectly good ICE vehicle?
b: “The only advantage hydrogen offers over pure ev’s is fast refueling.”
FALSE. Already covered above. You did not check the Audi article.
b: “Other than that the infrastructure for hydrogen, compared to direct electricity, is expensive, inefficient, dangerous and leaky.”
FALSE. This myth has been around forever. H2 is not significantly more leaky or “dangerous” than CH4 (methane, CNG) which we use all the time. You are suffering from the “Hindenburg Syndrome”..
b: “it’s very hard to square that with your claim that electric cars are 90% hype.”
90% of EV’s for general purpose automotive vehicles could not exist economically without government subsidies and rebates.
b: “You might also note that Toyota is turning away from hydrogen. Odd they went that way to begin with.”
FALSE. Japan is plunging full steam into becoming an H2 society:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2017/05/19/japans-big-carmakers-gang-up-in-support-of-hydrogen-at-least-officially/#3443614d1a9d
b: “How can it make sense to use electricity to make hydrogen, then transport hydrogen to fuel cars, then use the hydrogen to make electricity for propulsion; when you could just transmit the electricity through an existing grid to store in cars and then use for propulsion? With the former having all sorts of losses and inefficiency and dangers and expenses along the way.”
Simple. Read the Audi E-gas articles**. The Germans have already set up plants to do exactly that, and they, of all people, know what they are doing. The other issues you raise would apply to CNG as well, but no one complains about that.
Here’s the process: Wind-powered electrolysis of seawater to give H2 and O2 (the O2 is sold separately to hospitals, etc). Then the H2 can be used directly or reacted with CO2 extracted from the atmosphere to give CH4 (Sabatier process), which can be burned in an ICE vehicle. If the process is stopped with just H2, the H2 can be used in fuel cell vehicles. Electricity from constantly windy Baltic and North Sea generators is essentially “free”.
**
1) http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/08/audi-opens-renewable-energy-e-gas-plant-in-germany/
2) http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/03/20170307-audi.html
3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CnMHZYDg8s
Is it possible that you have some learning to do?? (^_^)…
=============================
@NMGOM: In your comprehensive rebuttal to bl’s statements, I feel I need to counter some of your statements and ask for clarification on others:
• b: “Most advances in ICE technology can be exploited in hybrids.”
• N: “So? Why add the complexity and added cost of a second drive, an EV powertrain, to prostitute a perfectly good ICE vehicle?”
—- While I agree some hybrids are needlessly complex, such as Toyota’s and Chevy’s, they can be made much simpler. Chevy’s in particular is grossly over-engineered as it becomes clear they don’t trust their transmission between the electric motor and the wheels (or they don’t trust their motor itself) as they included a redundant, fully-mechanical means to get engine power to the wheels adding incredible cost to what should have been an extremely simple system. I can assure you that modern diesel-electric locomotives do not include a mechanical drive system and they haul much heavier loads than a mere two-ton automobile. Toyota’s is worse, but then it’s an older design that has proven itself reasonably reliable but I think still wasteful as the engine has to drive a mechanical connection as well as the electrical one. K.I.S.S suggests dropping the mechanical system entirely and letting the engine power a generator to drive the wheels, eliminating much of the mechanical loss in transmission and drivetrain.
• b: “The only advantage hydrogen offers over pure ev’s is fast refueling.”
• N: “FALSE. Already covered above. You did not check the Audi article.”
—- I’ll admit I haven’t read the Audi article yet but I have to agree with bl’s statement about refueling speed. I would add to this that the fuel cell’s conversion rate in a stack small enough to fit a standard sedan/crossover offers at best about 150-180 horsepower equivalent when working alone and if the battery isn’t sufficiently sized to handle a long grade the vehicle will slow down to where the power supply and the power demand are equalized. Gasoline powered cars have the advantage of downshifting their transmission to meet some of that load variance but electric doesn’t have a way to up its torque so the vehicle will slow down until the torque balances the load. A BEV doesn’t have this drawback. Considering the small batteries put into most hybrids and fuel cell vehicles today, there simply isn’t enough cushion to meet the demand for some locations. The western slope of the Rockies approaching Eisenhower Tunnel is a relatively extreme example of the situations I’m describing.
• b: “Other than that the infrastructure for hydrogen, compared to direct electricity, is expensive, inefficient, dangerous and leaky.”
• N: “FALSE. This myth has been around forever. H2 is not significantly more leaky or “dangerous” than CH4 (methane, CNG) which we use all the time. You are suffering from the ‘Hindenburg Syndrome’..”
—- You need to study your chemistry, N. The hydrogen atom is much, MUCH smaller than the CH4 molecule. And as a free-floating atom it’s not bound to carbon or even oxygen to make a larger molecule, meaning that it’s very nearly impossible to prevent a leak. There’s a reason hydrogen isn’t loaded into rocket tanks until just before launch and that’s because those atoms can migrate through all but the densest materials over time. Cryogenically stored, it’s easier to contain as its energy is lowered but in a simple pressurized container it’s still energetic and will leak through fittings and valves over time.
—- And like an alcohol fire, a hydrogen flame is practically invisible until the fire reaches a critical point. It was a hydrogen leak that started the Hindenburg fire from that lightning strike, but it was a combination of that hydrogen and the highly-flammable coating of the balloon itself that propagated that fire as quickly as it did. A helium airship would not have burned in the same manner as the Hindenburg under the same conditions.
• b: “it’s very hard to square that with your claim that electric cars are 90% hype.”
• N: “90% of EV’s for general purpose automotive vehicles could not exist economically without government subsidies and rebates.”
—- That’s a specious argument at best. The BEV is proving itself economically; the subsidies and rebates are out there to entice people to try something they’re not used to. If you look at it from a different direction, nearly every new form of transportation has required some means of encouragement, usually through governmental means or other long-term demonstration, before it became a viable option for the average buyer.
The steam-powered locomotive was panned and absolutely laughed at when it was first introduced because first, it wasn’t any faster than a horse-drawn wagon on those same tracks and second, they were highly problematic because they were so complex. With a horse, you feed it, it worked for you. Horses were easily understood. However, it didn’t take the locomotive long to prove that even if it couldn’t travel faster than a running horse, it could travel at that speed for as long as it had fuel, while the horse was good for only a mile or two at speed. And last the technology advanced, those locomotives became even faster than the horse.
So, to counter your argument with a question here, if those steam locomotives were so good, why are they now electrically powered? Or rather, why do they have electric drives now? The answer? A single inventor’s demonstration of the power of the electric motor. The inventor tried many times to convince the existing railroads of the advantages of an electric locomotive and to be quite blunt ran into almost every one of the same arguments the BEV is facing today. And like Musk, that inventor had to demonstrate that power in a very visible way. He challenged a locomotive builder to a tug-of-war. On a one-mile stretch of electrified track (actually a third-rail system beside the rails) and using a boxcar between them as a kind of cushion, the electric walked away with the steamer before the steamer could even get started. Excuses were made to the point that the inventor even gave the steamer a head start… having to start a full mile away from the electrified portion of track so the steamer could build up speed and power. When the electric got power, it immediately started slowing that steamer and walked all the way back to the start of that third rail with the steamer’s wheels grinding at the track…
The final example? Of course there were excuses where the steam drivers insisted he had to be cheating somehow. They insisted one of their own try the same tug of war from a dead stop that they’d originally run at the controls of the electric. The inventor acceded and showed the driver what controls it had and how to use them. He also insisted that the driver NOT throw it to full power right away but rather to advance power gradually. Of course, the driver knew better, right? To get a load moving you HAD to feed full power as quickly as possible. Wanna guess what happened? At the first application of power, the boxcar broke in two and the driver panicked, unable to stop the electric until it ran off the powered portion of the track.
So no, EVs can absolutely exist economically but because of resistance like yours, people have to be convinced to try them out for themselves to see just how viable an EV can be.
I could address your final point but I think I’ve already pointed out enough errors in your reasoning. I don’t deny that HFC can have a place…especially in commercial applications such as OTR trucking and railroads…but I don’t see that HFC can be any more economical than gasoline or diesel and is potentially much more expensive over time. Hydrogen manufacture even through electrolysis is simply less efficient than using the electricity directly. That electrolysis process may be “free” because of its renewable source but it still takes energy to crack hydrogen from water and then transport it to storage and ultimately into the fuel cell. Each step is wasted energy both in the methods used AND from the inevitable leakage of hydrogen into the atmosphere no matter how ‘air tight’ that storage may be.
@vulpine
Thanks. You did that about 19x better than I could have. And without including or responding to the snark.
Speaking of which, to respond to nmgom, the eCVT used by Toyota to combine the gas and electric propulsion is a helluva lot simpler than today’s automatics and has proven to be vastly more durable. To describe the use of an ICE in a hybrid as prostitution merely discredits the argument.
IF hydrogen fuel gains any traction in the marketplace I think the insurance industry will take a dim view of it after a few huge explosions in underground parking lots.
Vulpine – – –
Thanks you for your detailed and thorough response.
I would like to get back to it during this weekend vacation, but I just can’t put the time into it right now.
Just want to let you know I appreciate your effort, and wish you (and “brandloyalty”) a good 4th of July!
“brandloyalty” – I apologize if I came across as “snarky”. Didn’t mean to do that…
================
The power where I live is generated by a mix of nuclear and hydroelectric power…the power where my business is located (in another state) is 100% generated by hydroelectric power and has been that way for a very, very long time (the Hoover Dam was built in 1931 after all). Just because you might live next to a coal fired plant doesn’t mean everyone else has dirty power.
It’s patently imbecilic to make it sound as if EV purchasers don’t know what their local power plants are powered by. Anybody can go and look up the energy mix in their state on the EIA’s website as well.
Eco-concerns aside, there’s other legitimate reasons to want an EV-the low end torque makes for pretty excellent acceleration for real-world scenarios.
The generation of electricity at a central source is FAR less polluting than little gas engines operating locally for individual people.
But you know that. And yet, you decided to ignore that and make some hyperbole statement that borders on clickbaity fake news.
jalop1991 – – –
j: “The generation of electricity at a central source is FAR less polluting than little gas engines operating locally for individual people.”
Hardly. Reference please? If both a power plant and individual vehicles were powered by the same total amount of CNG, which would result in the highest concentration of local pollutants? Think about it.
=========================
Tesla. Wouldn’t want to be caught dead in any BMW, unless it has chromed bumpers and chromed hubcaps.
I work with two people that own Tesla’s. They both like their cars but both say the build quality is awful. Mis shaped parts, squeaks and raddles is how they describe their tesla’s. It’s more about saying I drive a tesla.
Ermel – – –
The way things have gone between me and my BMW’s lately, I wouldn’t be caught dead in any of them, regardless of chrome bumpers and hubcaps!
========================
Does the 3 Series platform allow optimization of battery placement? If BMW nails the CG and weight distribution, I’d lean towards the BMW because of the presumably nicer interior and something other than a giant iPad for an instrument panel. (But I don’t think the BMW would necessarily have better long-term reliability, based only on my personal experiences as a past BMW owner.)
>>Does the 3 Series platform allow optimization of battery placement?
I’d buy a Tesla. The battery and motor placement optimizes space and handling, and creates a very useful Frunk which also serves as a collision buffer.
While I expect the BMW to be more luxurious, the Tesla is nice enough.
How do you know the Model 3 will be as “nice” as other, FAR more expensive Teslas?
Its their economy model. It isn’t intended to be a $100k toy for the rich like the Model S is. This is their Toyota Corolla, well, they hope it is anyway.
The Tesla is nice enough… for me. I’m easy — my 2010 Mazda3 is nice enough.
What early adopters — well, not so early anymore — look for is novelty and breaking boundaries,. Comfort and luxury, while welcome, is less important. And being EVs, I’m sure both will be sufficiently quiet, with road and wind noise areas for competition.
BMW says they will develop the drive train from the ground up. That means factory retooling. How much leeway will the BMW bean counters really give? I’m figuring not more than Tesla.
You know, I was mistaken, I read the above as its a fact that the BMW was designed from the ground up to support a BEV drivetrain, not if.
That indeed would be a major factor.
And, I see what you’re saying now about the Tesla likely being nice enough for you, as you’re used to a mainstream class of car. I had inferred that you were basing your Model 3 interior expectations on Tesla’s lineup to date, which does compare favorably with luxury brands (as well they should, for what they cost).
I do agree with the author in that it is debatable as to Tesla being the absolute best at pure electrics, although many assume they are, since they do nothing else but electrics.
Isuzu may be devoted to trucks and SUVs, for example, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all of their truck/SUV products are above all others.
It was said that it was designed from the ground up to incorporate a pure electric drivetrain, so I’m betting so.
It isn’t like BMW to ignore engineering.
Your experiences with past BMWs may be irrelevant to an all-new model with a massively different drivetrain.
Besides, Tesla isn’t immune to issues, not by a long shot.
Agreed, I think. I would expect the BMW to have better fit and finish than the Model 3, but I don’t know which one would be more reliable over the long run. I’ve seen many Tesla cars on the road but never sat in one and don’t know first-hand how a Model S interior compares to, say, the interior of an A7. Not well is my guess, but Tesla gains experience with each passing year.
AOTD: neither
Tesla. No way in hell am I interested in yet another BMW.
Although the real answer to this question is Chevrolet Bolt. Which I’m seriously considering for my next car.
Can you be interested in a used Cadillac ELR. They are dirt cheep with almost no miles on them. I’m thinking about one as a commuter car.
The problem with the ELR is that the newer generation of Volt exists, with better range and a pseudo 5th seat (unbelievably useless but hey, it’s technically a 5 seater).
I’m hoping the Bolt will plummet on the used car market like the Leaf. A two year old, off lease Bolt with around 20k miles would be hard to pass up at around $12-15K. You can get a Leaf today for under $10k, but I’m assuming the Bolt would be worth more because of its longer range.
I’m going to hazard a guess of $15-20k for the Bolt, unless a crop of 3-400-mile range EVs show up around 2020 to drive down the price of the 200-milers.
I think you’re being incredibly optimistic since the Bolt is not a compliance car which beats the hell out of its battery.
Neither. If I were to buy an EV with 200 + miles of range, I’d want one on a dedicated EV chassis but built by an established carmaker. Right now that would be the Bolt.
In Minnesota, I’d actually consider a used Cadillac ELR (their 30k). Since we have climate extremes, during the winter time, our EV range in vehicles is substantially diminished. It makes for a difficult driving experience especially mid evening before the car has fully charged. A college of mine refuses to drive her tesla in winter as she finds the range estimate is unreliable. Especially during that mid evening stint where it got mostly charged at work but not fully, your out running errands and dropping the kids off, etc, it gets to be dicey in a hurry. Heaters kill the electric range. Fill the seats with the spouse and 2 kids, everyone has their bum warmers on, heat at max, and suddenly your range drops 20 or 30 miles. Come back out from church or the grocery store and same deal each time. Especially at startup and that initial 5 minutes of running. I’d love to consider a model 3 or a 3 series electric but I don’t think either could get me through a day without range anxiety in the winter.
“…a quasi Accord vs. Camry battle…”
This is more like an Accord vs. Sterling 827 battle. The 3 Series is a known quantity in many ways, and the competitor is not so.
Don’t be like that.
hahaha
The meaningful step down from the Sterling reliability-wise is a late-’80s Hyundai Excel.
That’s awful.
Not as awful as a Yugo. But awful enough.
On the positive side, when Hyundais first came out, I went shopping for one for the heck of it, and ended up having a fine old time with a rather attractive fellow shopper. At least one deal got closed that day.
TMI in St. Louis!
St. Charles, actually, but close enough!
Mike, I knew someone who went back to a Datsun B-210 after their not-old Excel blew up. This was in 1991ish, so it could not have been that old.
He bought the wife an A body Century, which my childhood self found extremely plush (especially since our family car was a base model 1985.5 Escort 3 door with vinyl interior). I think the Excel was intended to be hers. I don’t know the reason she got the Buick, but I can only surmise that she didn’t like the Hyundai or didn’t trust it, or both. I remember my mom saying she was amazed at how much that lady had to “fight that [Buick] to keep it on the road”.
Gave the Datsun to his high school-age daughter, but it tended to sit for long periods of time. I remember because their little girl (who was my age) and I put many miles on that Datsun sitting right there in the little gravel extension on the side of their driveway.
Yeah, B-210s were insanely ugly, but they were cockroaches. One of my neighbors just bought one, believe it or not.
And I sure hope you weren’t driving unlicensed!
If you held a gun to my head, I’ll take the Bimmer. It’s a known quantity, you get what’s on the box. I also am confident that they know how to put a car together, can handle quality issues as a company, and I won’t run into any crazy problems with parts availability if the thing ever does need repairing.
Or just like, randomly change directions one day and start making power inverters instead of cars or something.
If I were in the market for an electric car, I’d take the Tesla. I like the styling more than BMW, and it’s made in America.
Tesla will be out of business by 2025, if not considerably sooner. In contrast, BMW has a strong reputation for supporting their older models and a very healthy financial position, so a 3 series EV is a much less risky proposition to buy. I also suspect that the 3 series EV will have subsidized lease rates that are more attractive than Tesla will be able to offer. So if forced to choose the BMW would definitely be my choice, but otherwise my choice is “none of the above”.
Tesla can’t die for the same reason Bugatti and Chrysler are still around: the Brand is too valuable. Even if Tesla goes bankrupt, Geely will buy it for the logo alone.
and then there’s the sister company that’s getting pretty damned good at launching satellites. In a few years, they’ll be sitting on a pile of cash.
SpaceX is privately held; mixing funds with TSLA sounds like it would be a great way to get the SEC to don the shoulder-length rubber gloves.
Tesla has reached the ‘too big to fail’ level. Its investors won’t let it go under.
“Tesla has reached the ‘too big to fail’ level.”
how so?
Tesla. I think the model 3 will hold its value more than any competing vehicle from a legacy manufacturer because of supply constraints and “cool factor”. Also getting to avoid the dealership experience is a huge plus, and honestly the fact that Tesla is the only make allowed to operate outside the dealer model is one of its biggest competitive advantages.
Tesla is THE electric car company. It almost doesn’t matter what BMW, Chevy, Ford, Benz, VW, etc do. In the consumer’s mind, Tesla has such a massive head start with a clear, strong brand image and strategy that they will dominate this market. A BMW is an internal combustion sports sedan. A VW is a European diesel commuter car.
Whenever a brand deviates from their core defining characteristics, customers are confused and sales are low.
Cadillac built a better BMW (the ATS). No one buys it. The Cadillac that people still buy is THE Cadillac (Escalade), or the crossovers that sell for everyone because no single brand owns “the crossover” image.
Building a concise consumer image takes years and millions of marketing dollars (or, in Tesla’s case, impressive press coverage) with a strong and consistent message. People who buy an electric car want others to know they have an electric car. They will not buy a 3-series for that purpose. The 3 series electric car will be a company car for middle managers in European cities with smog free zones (London, Paris). In this country it will be a footnote.
BMW, while it still has the cash, needs to create an electric-only brand and throw billions behind it to really compete with Tesla without damaging BMW. Otherwise they risk becoming the next Cadillac.
So…do I pick Total Unknown #1, or Total Unknown #2?
Only answer possible: unknown at this time.
The Tesla, even though I am a current F30 BMW 335i owner. I also fully believe the Tesla model 3 will kill the BMW 3 Series, Audi A4 or Mercedes C class. The Germans will rue their arrogance and complacency on electric vehicles.
The internal combustion engine is a technology that needs to die. There is no way a car that is designed for both powertrains will not be compromised, and I wouldn’t trust first-generation battery management from BMW compared to one that has over a decade to mature like Tesla. I would trust GM and Renault/Nissan over BMW on EV technology.
BMW has also no clue as to how tight the supply chain for lithium ion cells is going to get, not that it will matter since their EV sales are likely to remain immaterial.
can’t go with the BMW, because otherwise how could I bring up my Model 3 reservation every 10 seconds?
HA
You’d actually *have* a car in the driveway, which is not the primary goal of Tesla 3 shoppers.
BMW, I can count on them to design pedals that dont break (though they might require software updates).
BMW any day over a Tesla. Build quality has not gotten better for tesla. Would drive me crazy to drive a $85,000 car that has misshapen parts, and has can’t be fixed squeaks.
Between BMW and Tesla, probably Tesla. For me, BMW is a well-known quantity and my biggest problem was… the electrical system. Second the suspension. The solid charging network is another big factor in the Tesla choice.
That being said, my real choice will probably be a much more foolhardy one. The Porsche Mission E. I’m prepared for trouble and will keep my current or get a new Leaf. The Porsche is such a beautiful car that I think it’s worth the risk, but I think the Tesla P100DL would actually be a safer less expensive and more reliable choice.
The Mission E is rumored to start at less than a base Panamera. It does look great, but the AutoPilot and Supercharger network is very important to me so unless the other EV manufacturers have a solution that can compare, my money will still go to Tesla.
As much as I enjoy giving the devotees flack for their seemingly inexhaustible rhetoric, I do wish Tesla success (just like I wish GM and FCA success, even though they aren’t *my* choice to actually buy, usually).
That said, I think this comparison is unfair. The natural alternative for the Tesla is the Bolt, and its the one I’d have (as others have said).
I also wish BMW success, but I wouldn’t want a 3 series (no matter what drivetrain) this day-and-age.
The 3 series to have isn’t in production anymore, so its like a Lexus ES now, just RWD. Boring badgewhore sedan with few smiles per gallon, uhh, or kw. I know an electric 3 series would accelerate well and likely also handle pretty well, but it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that 3rd pedal. Might as well get the Bolt or an i3. I actually like how the i3 looks. In the world of goofy looking electric cars like the LEAF, its not bad looking at all. Looks like an electric BMW Element.
To those mentioning an ELR, it damn sure is a pretty thing. If ever there was a car that needed an LS swap, its that one, though you’d probably have to reengineer the whole car to do it. With that in mind, I’d choose yesterday’s Ace of Base with the “downgrade” manual trans over any BEV thus far.
“As much as I enjoy giving the devotees flack for their seemingly inexhaustible rhetoric, I do wish Tesla success (just like I wish GM and FCA success, even though they aren’t *my* choice to actually buy, usually).”
Same. I don’t care for Elon Musk’s personality, but then again I don’t think I can get along with any Type-A.
I just wish the company’s fans would put a sock in it. a great many of them didn’t care one whit about cars until St. Elon showed up, and now they go around acting like industry experts.
BMW may be able to build a very competitive vehicle at a competitive price (or maybe better than Model 3), but BMW does not have the Supercharger Network or the Destination Charging Network that Tesla does.
Unless that changes, I don’t think an electric 3 Series will be viewed as a true competitor to the Model 3 by most people actually considering considering a purchase.
BMW is at a huge disadvantage without the Supercharger network and Destination charging network.
I would take the Tesla, just a cooler, better looking car IMHO. In about 5-10 years when changing stations are more readily available and battery life is improved I will probably own one. Till then EVs just wouldn’t work for me.
Neither makes any sense to me. If you drive enough miles to justify the added upfront cost of an EV then you drive too many miles to lease, and both of these are a terrible idea to own.
Why would you have to justify the upfront cost? Sometimes it’s not about economics. Sometimes smooth quiet power is part of the equation and some of us think electric power is the way to go.
Knowing BMW, the all-electric 3 series will cost the same as an M5…
Gun to my head? Model 3.
In the real world? Buy and pay off a pre-owned Leaf in 36 months (1 – these things are a steal second hand, 2 – ev charger at my job) and I’d keep my petrol powered car as it’s paid off and better suited for long trips and ant-social behavior on back roads.
Unless the BMW has the equivalent of Tesla’s AutoPilot, I wouldn’t say it’s in the same league. Then you also have the lack of the supercharger network….
Of all the arguments in support of Tesla, this is the oddest to me. The assumption every e-car maker makes is that the vast majority of charging is at home, Tesla included. Since most people don’t drive more than 60 miles in a day, supercharger network is of pretty limited use unless people space it when they’re supposed to plug in when they get home.
It’s why the Bolt seems to make the most sense.
At this point the only BEVs even remotely on my shopping list would be the cheapest used Leaf or 500e I could find. Plenty for my wife’s 15 mile commute + occasional errands. Since the only place we have to charge is her work, a BEV would be useless for any other role.
What I want is a BEV compact, extended-cab pickup about the total body length of the Model S, dual drive and no less than 300 miles of range.
“This may be the next Mustang vs. Camaro, a quasi Accord vs. Camry battle to end all Accord vs. Camry battles, an F-150 vs. Silverado skirmish without the 87 octane.”
More like Iphone vs Android: Same thing, slightly different “interface” and branding.
Tesla. The design is not compromised to accommodate a traditional drivetrain, they have more experience on the riskier design elements (battery, drivetrain), have the supercharger network, and it’s made in USA. It’ll be tough for BMW to beat it on price, too. The BMW might have better dealer service and maybe slightly better reliability though.
I once leased an EV from a well-established mfr whose name is remarkably similar to a month in the Hebrew calendar.
The dealer was clueless, the nav was useless, and its battery aged like a banana. But it was great fun while it lasted, and was well-built and reliable.
Next time I’ll try the EV that comes with a supercharger option.
Yeah, while I think the battery and nav system have improved, the dealers still suck and the charging network and speed can’t touch Teslas.
There’s a dealer in Norwood MA that has a Quick Charger that’s been down since January 2016. There’s Bouchard Nissan in Lancaster MA that has a policy of only allowing quick charges for cars bought at their dealerships. The rest consider charging spaces as parking for used cars or cars waiting for repair. Those same dealers have makes other than Nissan, so who knows what it will be like. Hopefully the ElectifyAmerica chargers won’t be at car dealerships. If it wasn’t for EvGO and Chargepoint, life would be much worse. Fortunately for me, I can use those networks where I live.
you mean the supercharger option which degrades your battery if you use it too much?
I would choose Tesla. First it is local company and second BMW is for unwashed masses and hairdresser.
I know this site has it in for Tesla. But let’s also list some of the advantages including constantly improving software; the knowledge that if autopilot driving comes, you can have the stuff for it now; etc.
I am stuck with my mediocre Toyota interface until I replace the car. Other people are in the same situation.