Pretty cool! BTW, I know I could look it up, but does anyone know the top speed for the E?

 

The top speed is governed to 95 mph and 0-60 is also governed to 8 seconds.

 

I'm sure there will be more than enough people willing to pay the $850 per month.

If you like having folk come up to you in parking lots and ask about your MINI (happens to me frequently) imagine how many would ask about this one.

You would be driving one of a very limited number of cars.

You would be participating, and contributing to the green revolution in transportation. You could tell your grandchildren...

If you had a problem with it, I expect BMW/MINI would be eager to talk to you about it.

There are probably quite a few movie stars who would jump at the chance to have a car that would get more attention than a Ferrari. For the rich, what better status symbol than an exclusive "green" car. You can look down your nose at those driving gas guzzling Rollers, Ferraris, Escalades, etc.

Status with social conscience. That would do very well in certain markets.

 

Thank God electricity is totally free and in endless supply. It's a great thing that no oil, coal or gases are burned to create electricity. And it's so efficient. Almost as perfect a solution as ethanol. So what if food prices went up drastically because of the shortage of grains. The planet is saved!!!!

 

Aw c'mon, Gluhwein, quit peeking behind the curtain!

 

The high lease cost, I imagine, is also designed to make sure these cars are visible.

The last thing Mini would want is to have these cars garaged for long periods of time. People willing to pay that much money are going to use these vehicles, providing maximum visibility and maximum data on which to evaluate them fully.

 

I'm sure that down the road there will be no need to have a garage. As battery technology improves, as in smaller/lighter, better run time/less charge time, the charger will fit in the car, and then any outlet will work.

As to fossil fuels to generate electricity, Canada generates most of it's electricity by hydro dams. Not perfect, as large areas of land need to be flooded, but once running, impact on the environment is low.

Mark

 

Tell that to the salmon fisherman of the Pacific Northwest. Salmon don't spawn very well when they can't reach their birthplace. Fish ladders aren't very efficient and even barging the fish upstream, as they do here in Oregon, doesn't have a lot of success.

The dams also claim a lot of fish when they go through the turbines that produce the electricity.

A hot debate is over whether some dams should be removed to allow fish stocks to return.

 

In Maine (which is practically Canada) they have actually removed dams used for hydroelectric since it affected the spawing of the fish.

 

Electricity is the best path forward. There are many ways to generate it. Fossil fuels are not the way to do it long-term. California is already generating a considerable amount of electricity through geothermal; according to one source, enough to supply the entire San Francisco Bay Area. Wind and solar have potential. Spain is providing power to one city with a solar tower. The USA has a lot of wind that can be used. Solar panels will probably become more economical.

There is no carbon neutral way forward with internal combustion. Electricity can get closer.

Ethanol is an agribusiness scam. There may be future technologies for producing it so it doesn't take more oil to produce it than it replaces, but until that is developed, it is a step backwards. I hear that Brazil has destroyed vast amounts of rainforest to grow sugar cane. As a result, their local climate has changed somewhat drastically. Ethanol may turn Brazil into desert. That would make their economic surge a very brief one.

 

"I'm sure that down the road there will be no need to have a garage. As battery technology improves, as in smaller/lighter, better run time/less charge time, the charger will fit in the car, and then any outlet will work."

Just a guess on my part, but coming from a city where car theft is an occupation, I am thinking that BMW is seeking the protection of a garage for when the car more than likely would be left alone for long periods of time. Don't laugh and think that of course the car would be too visible for someone to try and steal it. Just for the fun of a joy ride or a prank by a group of engineering students who want an extended peek under the hood is more than likely going to occur. I am presuming it comes with an alarm and if they are smart, it could give a zap (ha ha) to anyone unauthorized to drive it away.

I have also read that our little beauties could be converted down the road which is nice to know since I tend to keep cars forever. This is my first car in over 20 years. By then however we might be talking HoverMINIs.

 

Well to wheel efficiencies of internal combustion cars is just over 10%. That's right, about 1/8th of the energy that was in the original oil is actually used to move the car.

The equivalent measure for electric vehicles? a bit over 20%. (about 24% now with lots of room to grow, unlike the IC vehicles that are close to tapped out).

So each joule of "original energy" content will go twice as far in an electric vehicle infrastructure than with a gasoline powered internal combustion one.

There are many opinions on the subject, that's for sure. But if one really takes the time to learn the details, electrics become more and more applealing. If battery tech were better, they'd already be the more common form of transport. Right now, we're in a transition period due to limitations in parts of the technology portfolio....

As for all the comments about how wacked Mini is at this price point....

"CDs are too expensive, I'll stick with LP records".

"DVD players cost too much, I'll stick with VHS tapes".

The list of examples like this is nearly infinite..... The examples against things like this (Betamax, HD-DVD) aren't about the basic shifts in technology, but more about the format that these technology shifts will use....

Matt

 

Most of the points have been covered but I wanted to add that this will not be the final iteration of an electric MINI. As you may have noticed, technology advances year over year and even month over month so it's just going to get more efficient from here. I think this test (HELLO! THIS IS ONLY TEST) is a great start especially since electricity can be generated many different ways.

And for those who think the price is too much, let's see what you have to say when these things get snapped up almost immediately.

 

They will have to pry my internal-combustion-engined vehicles from my cold dead hands.

 

LoL, I'll 2nd that.

 

I like the sound it makes, better then a turbo engine, very sci-fi. Hopefully they will come out with these in the future for purchase. I would hate to have to give something like that back. I have use of a garage now so thats not a problem at all.

 

Thats a shame...

 

the EV1 had over 1000 ft-lbs of torque at 0 RPM. Chevy can put that in their LSwhatever pipe and smoke it! I really wonder why there is so much anti electric hatred when the fact that it has torque at 0 RPM is really a drag racers dream! No clutch or torque converter needed. Simple, strong and efficient. Sounds good all around.

Matt

ps, I'm not an IC hater, I just learn about what technology has to offer. After all, it's not really about what you got, it's how you use it! This is a link to the AC Propulsion press release on the Mini E drivetrain.
http://www.acpropulsion.com/company/press-releases.php

 

So the advertised normal operating performance torque specs go up to 5000 rpm, but efficiency is rated up to 8500 rpm, power to 12,000 rpm, and the motor is rated up to a max of 13,000 rpm.

Does this imply a level of inherent, untapped capacity?

 

In addition to what a posted stated above(better efficiency with the same amount of power), you'd also have to take into consideration that a power plant's ability to convert a said amount of fossil fuel to electricity is ALOT higher than your current vehicle's ability to convert the same amount to motion. I'd gladly let them abuse economies of scale.

 

But I do for the Tesla. Torque is constant up to about 8 grand then falls off. Very different than the curve in our Minis for sure. That's why these electric suckers accelerate so fast to relatively decent speeds, but the 120+ MPH world is still dominated by IC engines. You could solve this with multi-speed transmissions, but a two speed with one of these motors is good to 120 or so...

Matt

 

What's interesting to me is that not long ago I read an article where a high-up mini executive dismissed any notion of mini developing an electric car. He said something to the effect that when your cars obtain around 40mpg already, there's not enough benefit to be had from investing in an electric powerplant. Yah, right. Donkey.

How about creating a nuclear-powered MINI!? That I could support!

 

Save the planet is admirable, but things happen quickly when the economics are there. We should be doing what they've done elsewhere: tax gas and diesel and use the funds to subsidize mass transit, alternative fuel technologies, etc. The MINI executive you were quoting, "...there's not enough benefit to be had from investing in an electric powerplant...", was no doubt referring to economic benefit, when gasoline was less than $2/gallon. At $4, the economics are different.

You've surely noticed all the purchases of smaller cars, use of mass transit, enthusiasm for wind energy, etc., as oil prices headed upwards from $125/barrel. Now that oil is around $50/barrel again, all that will disappear unless there is some other economic mechanism (other than supply/demand) to stabilize the incentives for change. The more the price fluctuates, the more risk there is for innovators. And investors don't like risk.

 

Yes, but the tax should be in the form of an imported oil tariff starting at $75 per imported barrel and adjusted to maintain a stable cost
and keep the incentive for improvement in fuel economy driven and our throats out of the foreign oil suppliers hands.

This would also please the 'drill-baby-drill' crowd, as they could put that 'tariff' in their pockets, or compete at an advantage.
The reduction in our import would lower the 'world price' per barrel.

The actual amount of the Import Tariff would be set to maintain a stable user price that would not drive our Economy into a tailspin.

Price stability for such a major expense as energy will go a long way in providing overall stability of our Economy.

80% of the revenue from such a tariff could be applied to development of alternative, renewable energy and
the other 20% could go to subsidise hardship for home heating, long commutes or others damaged.

I prefer to have price controlled by 'Free Market', but we have seen what happens with
a 'Free Market' controlled by Big Oil Company's who control 'supply' to drive 'demand' for their advantage.
__________________

 

Well, this is interesting. I think there is another upfront cost that people are missing. That charger that they install will probably need more than the standard 110V (although it states that it can use 100V, it says that a full recharge takes 26h). I think that they will probably want you to have a 240V outlet in the garage where the charge base is to be installed (at your cost).

The other drawbacks are:
2 seats only - rear seat becomes batteries
100-120mi range

I'd be willing to be a tester given the criteria apart from this mini doesn't fit my "mission" profile. Shame as I'm in NJ, have a garage and typically don't do long drives. The other kicker is that I'm about 9 months into a 2 year lease on a MCS.

Probably the best thing mini has done is individually number the 500 or so that are going to be on the road initially. That screams exclusivity and they'll easily lease the 500!

John.