2008ish Mini Cooper E: You're Missing the Point

The cost and source of electricity is certainly something to be discussed and explored in this test. -JR

While I agree producing enough electricity to power all the potential electric cars will be an issue, are you suggesting the current system of using vast amounts of fossial fuels is a better choice?

There are many ways to make clean electricity and more and more of them will become practical over time.

Oil will never be clean and it will just become more and more scarce (and thus more and more expensive) over time.

Electric cars will not replace gas cars in the short term. They will however become more and more common as city cars and 2nd cars replacing gas cars for all the endless commuteing and short trips that people do.

If you are really interested in doing less damage to the enviroment, the only other alternate is public transportation. Given the choice, I would prefer an electric car.

There are multiple studies that show that EV's, even powered from coal, are as clean or cleaner than traditional gas cars. In places with a large % of renewable energy on the grid (hydro in pacific NW, solar and wind in CA, wind in TX, some places like VT and NY in the NE have some hydro as well, etc), they are much cleaner. And as time goes by and that renewable % increases, the EV fleet gets cleaner. Any gas car sold today will actually get dirtier over its life of 10-20 years.

Also, if we're going to include the sources of "fuel" (electricity or otherwise) in these discussion, you also have to include the exploration, extraction, transportation (multiple times), and refining of petroleum. And we probably can't even account for the amount of $ spent on our need to be present in the Middle East to protect our vital national interest (I think there's only one main one) there.

It should also be pointed out that evil-OPEC doesn't control our ability to produce electricity.

James Rizwick,

Please explain the meaning of this post. I cannot understand your typing.

Is this review about electric power? Is it about the Mini E?

Where is the video of this car crashing into a tree?

I shouldn't have to ask twice.

Most on this site would gladley drive more the 40 miles just for the fun of it. Great cars, great roads are well worth the trip. Its the journey not the destination. 40 mile limit is not a journey.

Kissel! You've been missed :)

Breif & Others - It is 2009 and we are still producing vast quantities of our nation's electricity using coal, oil, and natural gas...i.e. petroleum products.

Furthermore, most of our Nuclear power plant designs are 30 years old.

We could be generating electricity using vastly cleaner (and cheaper, and more price stable) technology.

Wind & Solar are great, but they aren't reliable and they aren't cheap. They ARE a great supplement though, and Solar is continuing to make huge strides. (it would be incredible if someone developed a white-colored efficient solar panel too).

By the way, Canada, Australia, and the U.S. are some of the biggest producers of mined Uranium...

Electric cars right now have a HUGE probability of becoming prevalent within 20 years due to the price of oil, the likelihood of increased oil prices, and the regular improvements in battery technology we are experiencing.

We shouldn't worry about grid upgrades or capacity just yet: when we have a fleet of electric cars, and transformers are busting and brownouts are occuring, then we'll get political backing to upgrade the necessary systems.

But politicians don't act when there isn't an outcry; they aren't that pro-active. So there's no use worrying about an insufficient system when there's nothing to be done about it.

Better just to build the technology to make the problem exist :)

Joe

txmatt1,

Do not forget that coal needs to be mined and transported just as petroleum does. So does the fuel for nuclear reactors. Wind turbines and hydro plants only work well in certain areas, as you've stated. Also, time, energy, and resources would have to be expended upgrading the electrical infrastructure to accomodate EVs in mass quantities.

You also have to include the e-famous argument of the production of the electric batteries and the energy consumption of doing so.

I would be interested in seeing the data showing which energy source is cleaner, per capita.

I'm not trying to say electric cars are worthless, just that they are not the silver bullet that they are being hyped to be.

Wow... If you need to drop 50 big ones to figure out that:

1. Yes, this is a perfect commute car if you live in the city, work in the city, don't go far out of the city, and don't have a life out of city...

2. This will be a paint in the arse if you have to take a road trip and this is your only car...

Then I guess more power (or the lack of...) to you because I certainly don't need to dig deep into my bank account to figure those out.

If you guys REALLY want to test the usability of this Mini E then please assign ONE junior editor (poor kid...) to drive this thing for ONE YEAR. During that period he is not allow to drive his personal car so he can fully incorporate his life style with the EV. I think in that case you'll have a more meaningful "study" than hearing something like:

"I can tell you I didn't travel 40 miles this weekend in the Mini E."

I was one of the ones who bashed the MINI-E in another thread, so this post gave me pause.

Truth is, I don't actually hate the MINI-E. It is what it is, and for a first-gen electric motor that's been shoe-horned into a MINI Cooper. It's a decent engine. 100 miles is actually plenty of range for my daily commute. Two seats is annoying, but it's not like I have more than one passenger 99% of the time anyway.

What I resent, however, is the diversion of resources this vehicle represents. If BMW was truly interested in selling fuel-efficient cars, they would send over some of those great 4-cyl turbo diesel engines that are commonplace in Europe. The engine from the 123d with 200 HP and 296 TQ and around 35-40 MPG would be great in a MINI, a 1-series, or even a 3-series. I would much rather pay for ANY of those sorts of vehicles over the MINI-E.

But instead, the USA gets to pay BMW for the privilege of beta-testing an electric motor.

I can't say that I blame BMW entirely for this - most of the blame falls on CARB and the Obama Administration, for effectively allowing CARB to be the de facto regulator for the USA.

OK, you want this to be a discussion about the practicality of the EV concept? Fine. Game on.

Right now, ALL electric cars are toys, for the simple reason that they lack sufficient range to serve as anyone's primary transportation. Most drivers cannot afford to own one car for commuting and a separate one for long-distance driving.

What would make more sense, for people who actually travel less than the Mini E's range on a daily basis, would be to use public transport for the daily commute, and an appropriately sized gas or diesel powered vehicle for longer trips.

$50K USD seems like a lot of money for a mass produced car, but only some parts of this car are truly mass produced, others bits and tooling should be specific for this version, so they're going to mark up the price of the car, even more if it's a small production run. The fact that BMW has people willing to pay up and help them cut their losses (or maybe break even or post a profit) is a credit to them, also no matter how much testing they do, they'll get more out of having a lot of people with a lot of different driving habits take a stab at their cars.

That said, these are cars with a mature technology, but not one that is still at an acceptable level of performance. I don't really like the car, I'd have no business having one, but this post did get me not hating it.

"It's being made out to be some miraculous savior that it most certainly is not."

Why is it that I only hear electric cars associated with silver bullets and miracle cures when their opponents speak, and when I listen to the electric car proponents they are cast instead as a simple step in the right direction?

"This year-long test really isn't about the Mini E"

Yes it is. Let's try phrasing it this way:
"This year-long test is about more than just the Mini E"
That I can accept.

Also:
"This is about discovering the advantages and disadvantages of that concept"
In which case, it's about the $50K. $50K is a reality for mass produced (I suspect it costs them more than $50K to get the car to you) EVs. It is one of the disadvantages.

I'm all for this being an exercise in the EV and I'm glad you've decided to look at it that way. If all (most) upcoming articles look at it that way, I'm on board with you. I do like louiswei's suggestion of sticking someone with this vehicle (keep their paws of the Dodge Ram) for an extended period of time. I vote for Dan Edmunds. We can even wait until he comes back from vacation. :)

As a daily commuter, M-F, an electric car with a 100 mile range and 2.5hr - 30hr charging time is more than enough to suite my driving needs. So if the infrastructure were improved to handle the electricity demands of such vehicles and the prices of them became more affordable I can see myself buying one 10 or 20 years from now.

On the weekends, I'll stick to my gas guzzling sports car.

To me, the biggest problem with electrics isn't the range or the number of charge locations.

Range: Battery technology is on a faster curve than internal combustion technology, I think. The range will get there eventually.

Charge locations: In many respects, it's easier to set up a charging station than it is a gas station. Make electric cars commonplace and these will pop up overnight.

In my view, the biggest problem with EV's are refill time. It takes 5-10 minutes to refill a car's gas tank (a little bit longer if you are at Costco) but it takes several hours/days to refill an EV. And the longer the range, the longer it takes to refill.

I think one day, electric cars will have battery packs that you can swap out at "gas" stations. Or maybe they'll have special methods of getting an emergency mile out of a drained car, like rubbing a balloon on your head so you can make it to a power outlet.

considering that most of us commute under 40 miles per day, most of the year I'd say we need to start focusing on commuter cars. No, you cannot go on a road trip with this but who cares? That's what rental cars are for.

It's a stupid society we live in where people drive large SUVs as single occupant commuter vehicles. I think we should be moving to a setup where we all drive small commuter cars (maybe smaller than smart cars) and those of us with money keep an SUV in the garage for hauling kids, boats, whatever around on the weekends and the rest of us just rent those as needed.

I personally don't want to give up my own commuter vehicle but I don't think I need a huge truck for 90% of my driving. I want one of those awesome motorcycle/car hybrids that look like a jet plane cockpit as my commuter. Fast, fun, and fuel efficient.

@peejatx,

You want to pay for my rental car next time when I am going to Napa Valley?

Yeah, that's what I thought...

"I can't say that I blame BMW entirely for this - most of the blame falls on CARB and the Obama Administration, for effectively allowing CARB to be the de facto regulator for the USA."

Wow, he did all that in eight months? How many diesels did BMW export to the USA *before* Obama was elected?

As for CARB, the simple fact is that their standards have improved the quality of life in my region, and have prompted automakers to innovate (hello Bluetec & TDI). Just because the Euro's have never really cared about the problem of air pollution, doesn't mean that we should ignore it.

And for those of you who are arguing that the MINI-E wouldn't make sense as someone's only car -- can you please point me to where it's stated that the MINI-E is *supposed* to be someone's only car?

The arguement "it's not practical because it can't be an only car" doesn't carry much weight.

First I can't think of a single family I know that doesn't own more then one car. Even a lot of singles I know have more then one.

Most people have something large and practical and something small and economical (or sporty).

They use the large vehicle for trips and family stuff and the small one for running around, errands and commuting. Electric cars could easily replace the majority of the small cars once the price comes down.

Very few people drive a hundred miles a day. I normally don't drive that in a week.

I could replace my Subaru with an electric car and keep our Grand Cherokee for trips, towing the trailer, etc and never regret it.

It would even be almost completely green here as over 90% of our power comes from hydro.

Electric cars won't be the only solution, there is no one solution. They are an important part of the solution though.

@ misterfusion,

I am on board with you if the Mini E costs 1/5 of its current cost which means either $10,000 or $200/month lease. Because in that case a middle class family can easily afford other cars for longer trip purpose.

However this thing is at $50,000 or almost $1,000/month if you lease...

I can tell you right now that based on my current salary if I get a Mini E IT WILL BE MY ONLY CAR.

You're hoping Mini will release a version of the Mini for $10K?

Louiswei: To be honest, I couldn't afford a second car unless it was a Tata Nano -- and even then, the insurance costs would probably put it out of my price range.

I don't think BMW intends for $50000 to be the end-point for this car's sticker, if they decide to keep the program going. But even at this price, at least the Jay Leno's of the world can drive one, and maybe drum up interest in electrics.

How much is the Fisker supposed to go for when it's no longer vapor? I thought it was around the $50k mark -- and it will seat twice as many!

"You want to pay for my rental car next time when I am going to Napa Valley?"

That's kind of a silly counter-argument. If it were just about money, almost everyone would be better off buying a basic, efficient, used commuter and renting when a need beyond that came up (let's be honest folks, for the vast majority of the motorists out there, it rarely does). But it isn't really about saving money, and it isn't really about meeting only our basic needs, is it?

The auto industry is based upon this fact. We should just admit it and move on. I mean, do we really believe it when someone says he/she absolutely must have that Tahoe because there's just no way he/she could fit his/her family of four in anything less (meanwhile we are remembering those road trips we used to take in our family of five in the Dodge Duster - how did we ever survive)?

@ someguyposting,

Sorry sir, there is nothing silly about my previous statement because unless you are part of the top 5% on the pyramid that's the first thing went through people's mind when someone says "No, you cannot go on a road trip with this but who cares? That's what rental cars are for."

Now let's go back to the root and ask the most basic question:

What does BMW want to achieve for releasing these Mini Es at almost $1,000/months?

Is it purely for testing? Because if it it then why don't they just provide these to their employees world wide on their own R&D funding?

Is it that they want to make a profit because the Mini E is ready for production for the mass? If so why are they only offering an one-year lease program to a selective group but not sell it through the regular channel?

So apparently it's none of the two.

The real goal that BMW want to achieve is simply a marketing stunt. It's their way to mislead the public by saying "Hey, look at us BMW, we have an EV, which is better than the Prius because it doesn't use any gas at all!!"

If they are doing that while providing the test vehicle free to the customers then I really wouldn't have anything to b***h about. However, what's really annoying is that they are actually charging their lab mice a tremendous amount of money each month to test the vehicle out for them. That's what's lame about this Mini E.

Do I hate it? No. Shame on BMW? Heck yes!