L.A. Times writer Dan Neil's take on the MINI-E program.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,493059.column

 

Dan omitted the last part of my quote: "I am being punished for bad behavior," Bad behavior in the eyes of BMW for asking hard questions about the program. Like the tax credit, why we had to pay $850 while the latest city employee pioneers pay $10, and what they are going to do about battery over/under heat problems. What happens during winter when the range drops way down?
I was punished for asking questions. I don't want to see pioneers pay $850 a month for car when the $850 doesn't really matter to BMW at all. It unduly makes plug-in electric cars look more expensive than they really are. The $850 is a made up amount. I talked to Dan Neil about that in my interview with him and he said, "They should have just given the cars away."
I guess being misquoted is just par for the course.

 

The article claims MINI (BMW) is only doing it to satisfy the CA "high efficiency vehicle" requirement - so why can you also lease a MINI E in New Jersey?

If there had been zero or low cost for the MINI E, loads of folks would have tried to get one, who maybe weren't really very serious, wasting time/effort for MINI ... at the $850/month price, at least MINI knows the interested party is quite serious!


I think "field trial" is the key - in that situation it's not surprising that issues crop up ... a little reminiscent of the GP "launch" in 2006 where early buyers (for the Monterey delivery program) had almost zero information, and sudden surprises (like "oh, you might have to pay sales tax in CA, no matter where you live") ...

It seems that MINI realize their buyers are fanatics ("evangelistic"), yet they do not follow through with intense communications to keep those fanatics happy.

As for the $850/month, a prospective buyer knows up front that is the cost, and so that is the cost, it's not justified to complain later than someone else got a better deal ... prices for things vary generally over time / customer, and companies do not typically refund others (excepting when Apple gave a partial refund to early iPhone buyers).

 

The California ZEV mandate has a travel clause that lets cars in NJ count in CA.
The goal for the last 12 years is to bring cars like the MINI-E to market for sale. Not just pretend to test another mule. That's all. The negative is once again a car is offered that is not really available to the public.

The positive is that Nissan is really on the right track and that is very, very exciting. On August 2nd they will announce their from-the-ground-up production plug-in battery electric production car that they will start SELLING next year. Not a hybrid, full electric!

I'm glad that driving the MINI-E is fun and exciting, I think it is too.
But you have to look beyond the end of your lease. Sadly history has shown that we have to demand that these cars are made and sold.
There have been many MINI-E programs that have come and gone.

 

For the record, my quote in the article is more of an abbreviated quote than a misquote. Sorry Dan.

I thought it made me look bitter and I'm not. I'm disappointed with BMW. I'm an avid BMW fan. Or maybe was.

BMW retaliated and that's what happened.

The article is very meaningful, keeps the EV movement in the public eye.

The MINI-E shows how fast and easy an OEM can make a popular plug-in car if they want to.

 

I think it is unfortunate that some in the EV crowd are criticizing BMW for something that hasn't happened yet. If BMW doesn't follow the MINI-E program with movement towards full production, then criticize them. Ranting about something that hasn't happened just makes the EV crowd look like a bunch of nut cases. I think they are hurting cause more than helping.

Why aren't you ranting about Car companies who don't have any electric cars on the road? It seems counter-productive to jump all over a company that is making some effort and ignoring those who aren't. You are punishing BMW for a move in the right direction because it isn't far enough. The lesson BMW may take from this is that it is better to not take risks in this area.

 

Well if you have agreed to pay $926 a month plus tax plus $440 a year for insurance you have the right to criticizes. Maybe those who are paying $10 a month don't have the right to criticizes.

As for BMW, they are way behind the industry and they know it and that's their own punishment.

Let's see what happens. I'll bet they never make a production MINI-E.
Any takers?

 

And you are paying zero $, right?

Let's see, the auto companies that have cars currently on the street using lithium batteries are BMW, and Tesla Motors.

They probably wont, because the MINI-E uses someone else's power plant. If you mean never make an electric vehicle. I'd take that bet. However, that bet doesn't have an end date. Shall we end the bet when the Sun becomes a white dwarf?