That's fair criticism, I believe. Market conditions are different in Germany than here in the US. Renault Twizy has done remarkably well there for a reason. Unfortunately, it does not count towards the sales volume of EVs, since it's technically a quadricycle. Another interesting trend is the wide adoption of e-bikes by commuters and city dwellers. They are much cheaper to operate than a car, and more sustainable too. The BMW i3 could do well in Germany. It's still one of the largest car markets, and many people love their vehicles. I believe those are the clients Mr. Reithofer was wooing in his speech.

On the topic of carbon fibre: you appear to be referring to their high purchase cost, which is fair and indisputable. That said, have you ever had a serious repair performed and did you compare the cost of repairing a carbon fiber frame or sheet to more conventional methods? I have, and based on my personal experience, the traditional metal part would have to be replaced in its entirety and the carbon product was patched. The cost of patching was much less than the cost of full replacement. If this transfers to carbon-based production automobiles remains to be seen, but given some of the experience in racing, there is a chance that this will work out quite well. My comment above was prompting you to base your arguments on data, not opinion.

Xiaolong, no, I'm interested in factual and correct portrayal of these fascinating products. The only interest I have in the i3 is its technology, as it pursues not one, but several vectors of innovation. What struck me about your numerous, and perhaps even excessive posts, is that you appear to be biased and appear to take an overly negative stance towards the i3 for whatever reason. That said, I have read your arguments carefully, and have thus far never seen a shred of proof or real-world data. It's all based on your opinion, which is something you are entitled to, but please don't present this POV as "fact". I don't think that would be fair to anyone. On that note, let me mention that I do not appreciate ad hominem attacks.

Wasn't it the same 'common sense' which led to a statement that the i3 will be a limp-mobile in range extended mode, and not capable of going very fast?

When real-world data was presented from the LEAF, which showed that the i3 should be able to go up to 75 miles per hour on flat terrain, you changed to requirement to uphill driving to prove your point.

Did you own any products built from carbon fiber? I did, and they too a lot more abuse than aluminum would. When I needed to have it repaired, it was a lot more reasonable than I would have expected using the aforementioned 'common sense'. A comparable aluminum frame would have likely been junked.

Please don't use poorly constructed arguments just to talk down something you don't like.

Could you please post some concrete data about how carbon fiber will be vastly more expensive to insure and repair?

Curious, have you driven an EV for any length of time, Peter? If you did, you might realize that it's very disruptive technology. Although EVs are still in their infancy, it's a one-way street, and there is no going back. When I see a gas-powered supercar these days, I have to cringe. Seriously. I didn't anticipate this outcome when I was toying with the idea of purchasing a relatively affordable EV three years ago. It was motivated by curiosity and the desire to help save some gas, and perhaps make a modest contribution to prevention of future oil spills.

Mike, while that's true, the new 6 kW charger does not come standard on the S trim, and it has to be added via the charging package. It might be worth mentioning that.

Yes, you will get less than 30 mpg, but only if you take considerable liberty with the (sparse) data that's available to us. I would recommend to look at it objectively.

1. BMW indicated that the extended range of the vehicle approximately match its EV range.

2. The fuel tank size has been referenced with 9 liters (2.37 gallons).

3. The weight of the vehicles was referenced with 2,700 lbs.

4. The EV range should be comparable to the ActiveE, which implies slightly higher efficiency than the 2013 LEAF.

5. The efficiency of the Volt genset is about 33%.

If you pull all of this together, you will get an economy figure for the REx in the vicinity of 41 mpg. We don't know what test cycle was used for the C650GT data sheet I mentioned.

Xiaolong, I have seen a number of what I would characterize as "combative" posts here on GCR. I'm not sure if this is your intention or not, but that's how I perceive them. Please not that I said "similar" and not "the same". Are you an engineer? Do you have an appreciation of what estimates and models mean?

That said, I have posted enough data, which I believe is going to be relevant for the i3. Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball, but I think that this data gives us a good idea of what to expect.

I would encourage you to go and find your own data, which supports the conclusions you have been voicing here so frequently. I think that would be more helpful than opining on every i3-related article.

Good article. I'm planning to get the REx version, and fully expected that this would mean a longer wait based on earlier reports. It's surprising to hear that this has been now reversed, and the REx trims will be delivered first. It would be even better if the BEV option was available at the same time, which was apparently a possibility not long ago. That said, I would estimate the EPA range to be between 91 and 94 miles on a full charge. About 10% more than the 2013 LEAF. I found some data on the range extender engine, which is manufactured under a BMW license by Kymco. This engine takes premium fuel, and the fuel economy of the C650GT scooter, where it originates from, is 50 mpg. I would expect a similar number from the REx.