DonDakin
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:10 pm

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:52 pm

Hi guys,

Concerning the video from Jan 23rd

I agree it was a really harsh misleading type review. Full of comparisons to the what people are trained as must have features in a car namely ton's of speed/acceleration and handling.

I think most of the "negatives" in there can apply to any electric car. Low range compared to an ICE/long recharge compared to filling at a gas station/weak heat (Which I don't agree with)/heat taking away from range/ etc.... All dumb things to mention in a negative light for an electric car review.

These things are all electric car characteristics and common to all electric cars (today). Somehow he makes it sound like these are shortcomings of the iMiev in his "Review" it's pretty misleading.

When he says It's not fun to drive at high speed or at low I think he is pointing out that the iMiev is not a sports car. Well again great "review" I think we can all agree that the iMiev is not a sports car. But I would say it's really fun to drive at lower speeds Plenty of pep but it's not the king of the handling. I don't expect it to be it's a round town commuter car. If you want to have fun take off the traction control and drive it in the snow !!!!

59 mile range is basically what it's rated at so what's the beef ? He probably drove the hell out of the car to get 59 miles which is actually really good.

I think his comments on the ride are not that far off. The iMiev does not have a cushy ride. It's not really stiff but it's not fantastic on really bumpy roads. However he did forget to say that on a smooth road the iMiev's silent smooth pull puts any gas car to shame in terms of comfort. He actually didn't say a thing about how silent the car was. Funny since he seemed to be comparing it to an ICE alot.

As for the "slabs of foam" seats comment I think he is right, but the seats are fine. Would it be nicer to have a better seat ? Of course but again he is kind of harsh for no reason. You get used to a seat.

In terms of interior room, I just saw alot of small cars at the car show this weekend and the iMiev is on par with all of them.

He also missed a few top points in terms of head and cargo room. But he did mention the great driver visibility.

And since he was harsh how is this: In the video he is complaining about the radio in the video saying there are no volume or tuning knobs while he is pressing the volume up/down button duh ? I mean come on......

This is clearly a biased report they even go to lengths to show the car bouncing around on a bumpy road.

I can understand being harsh on a car to highlight problems and the iMiev has shortcomings/tradeoffs that make it a really efficient car to drive but you have to be balanced and not misleading. This report makes it sound like there are loads of electrics out there to choose from with better features when in fact there are only 2. (and one has no trunk !! still can't get over that)

Anyways I saw this review last week and just thought it was another irresponsible review of the iMiev and forgot about it but since it came up here in the forum I thought I would add my 2 cents worth.

Don....

fjpod
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:31 am
Location: NYC

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:06 am

Couldn't agree with you more.

NeilBlanchard
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:26 am
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Contact: Website

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:21 am

I wonder why they give credit for a car to get 40MPG over a car that gets 37MPG? But when they drive a car that gets 118MPGe, and cost about 3.4 cents per mile, they get all negative on us?

You can drive the i MiEV for about what it costs for just the regular maintenance on a typical car at the dealer. Really - it costs $3,000-3,400 for regular maintenance (12 minor services at $75-90, 3 intermediate at $250-275, and 3 major services at $450-500) gets you to the 90K mile mark. That is 3.3-3.8 cents per mile - for maintenance alone!

An average 23MPG car would use 3,913 gallons of gasoline that could cost an average of say $4.25/gal would cost $16,630.25, making the total cost to drive 90K miles: $19,630-20,030.
A 38MPG car would use 2,368 gallons of gas that would cost $10,064, making the total cost to drive 90K miles: $13,064-13,464.
A 50MPG Prius would use 1,800 gallons of gas that would cost $7,650, making the total cost to drive 90K miles: $10,650-11,050.

The i MiEV gets 118MPGe, so that is the equivalent of 762.7 gallons of gasoline x 33.7 (kwh/gal) = 25,703kWh x 12 cents/kWh (approximate average US cost) = $3,084.36

That saves you between $7,566 and $16,946 over 90,000 miles of driving! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, CR!
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

JoeS
Site Moderator
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:47 am
Location: Los Altos Hills, California

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:37 am

Consumer Reports (CR) has hit the iMiEV at least five times:

1. The magazine March 2013 page 58 with their written Review (that's what I was referring to when I started this thread)
2. The magazine March 2013 page 56 issue overview entitled "Electric cars - Ford shows Mitsubishi how it's done"
3. The Consumer Reports Online January 2013 video http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/01/video-the-electric-mitsubishi-i-miev-is-not-for-me.html
4. The ConsumerReports.org detailed review - http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/mitsubishi/i-miev.htm
5. The Consumer Reports inane article about their range anxiety with the iMiEV.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/06/with-the-mitsubishi-i-miev-electric-car-range-anxiety-is-included.html
which we addressed in this thread: http://myimiev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=457

Let me try to dissect the written review which is their attempt at summarizing their detailed report, which I hope to also address in the future. Following alohart's lead, I'll be quoting CR in italics, and I'll just go through the article sentence by sentence...

They start the article with -

Mitsubishi's i-MiEV is the most efficient car on the market. (boldface mine) And, at $33630 before tax incentives, it's also one of the cheapest electric cars.

Why didn't they highlight the fact that the iMiEV is the most efficient car they had EVER tested? (Please try to prove me wrong) Perhaps introducing an operating cost in terms of a ludicrously-low 2.5¢/mile (compared with the >15¢/mile for an average US car) would have put this into proper perspective.
Ignoring their poor grammar, why didn't they point out that the base model is $29,125? Instead, they chose the $2900 center-console option (which in my opinion makes no sense on this car) and higher-cost frills (not function) package car. As someone pointed out to me, CR has sure strayed from their cost-conscious roots! In the same breath they could have mentioned the $7500 federal and many state incentives which reduce the cost of the vehicle to the low-$20K's.

The i-MiEV is puny, tinny, slow, jouncy, and clumsy.

Incredible that such an inflammatory subjective opinion would even be published. Alohart addressed this nicely.

Its interior never gets warm enough in cold weather.

Hey, there's a heater knob: USE IT. It works, but it takes a few minutes for the liquid heating to warm up. There's also a MAX heater booster setting. Why not support this statement with a measured temperature relative to outside temperature?
Why didn't they also highlight that the car can be preheated and be toasty warm when you get into it while it's still plugged in at home (and the now-preheated heater continues to keep the car warm as you drive)?
In all fairness, they should also quantify the mileage hit as a result of using the heater. Yes, we don't have the luxury of all that waste heat that the grossly-inefficient infernal-combustion engine has.

It seats only four people, and they feel crammed together as in cheap theater seats.

Uh, it is designed to be a four-seater, just like the much-larger Chevy Volt.
On the preceding page in their review of the much larger FFE they stated about the Ford: the car is too narrow to seat three across comfortably.
Hey, it's ergonomics: measure your outside shoulder-shoulder dimensions and the available width and you can quantify just how much wiggle room you have. For myself, I think that there is too much wasted space and personally would have liked the narrower original iMiEV dimensions - allowing me to better squeeze into tight parking spaces.
The slap using cheap theater seats analogy is subjective - and just how many hours does one intend to sit in this urban vehicle?

It also can't go very far on its long charge times.

Using an L2 EVSE we can get 10-15 driving miles per hour of charge and well over 150 miles/day if we opportunity-charge. The EPA says it has a range of 62 miles which all of us can handily beat. That's the size of the fuel tank we are buying, which if you do the math satisfies the average American's daily needs twice over! With an overnight charge you always have a "full tank" when you leave home in the morning - this type of convenience is priceless!

Overall, this low-priced EV is awfully expensive for what you get.

At this point in time it is the lowest priced production electric car you can buy in the United States. What you get is zero emissions ... read my lips: NO fossil fuel consumption - get that through your head, Consumer Reports!! This alone distinguishes 100% electric vehicles from all fossil-fueled forms of transportation, including EV-wannabe hybrids. Please treat EVs (or any other zero-emissions vehicles) as a stand-alone category and review them starting with that fantastic distinguishing characteristic.

Dang, this is exhausting! That was only their first paragraph, and I plan on continuing through the rest of the review.

Sorry I'm on a tirade, but, for better or worse, Consumer Reports is a major source of information for the US car-buying public. As an experienced iMiEV owner (now with 11,000 miles on my odomoter) and a lifetime of driving at least 750,000 miles, I feel obligated to correct the horrible misconceptions presented in the CR review.
EVs: 2 Wht/Blu SE Prem., '13 Tesla MS85, 3 156v CorbinSparrows (2 Li-ion), 24v EcoScoot(LiFePO4)
EV Conv: 156v '86 Ram PU, 144v '65 Saab 96
Hybrids: 48v1kW bike
ICE: '88 Isuzu Trooper. Mothballed: '67 Saab (orig.owner), '76 MBZ L206D RHD RV

MLucas
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:52 am
Location: Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:20 am

JoeS - I would also like to add to your comments. How about they have journalist that have experience with EVs doing the reporting? It doesn't sound like this writer has a clue about EVs and how they work. EVs may look and operate similiar to an ICE, but they are not the same and need to be driven distinctly differently. CR is definitely not helping to educate the population about EVs and their benefits, seems they are married to the fossil fuel industry instead.

Like Dylan...I went electric.

  • Purchased: June 29th, 2012
  • Mileage on June 29th, 2013 - 25,431 km / 15,802 miles
  • Mileage on June 29th, 2014 - 51,286 km / 32,616 miles

List of Oil Spills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

danpatgal
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:21 am
Location: Ephrata, PA

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:24 am

I've just posted a rebuttal on CR for the video (item #3 in Joe's list). I tried not to flame the reviewer so that the blog owner might actually post it. We'll see.

I think if we can post there it would be more useful, since all of us here are the proverbial "choir" singing the same melodious tune about the iMiev.

JoeS
Site Moderator
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:47 am
Location: Los Altos Hills, California

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:57 am

Dan, I agree about preaching to the choir, and I think the comments both you and Jay posted on the CR site are excellent. I hope to contribute after I finish this rebuttal. The reason I'm writing here is that hopefully someone serious about buying an electric car and doing their homework will come across this thread.

Moving to the second paragraph:

Although the i-MiEV fulfills its mission as an efficient and basic commuter and urban runabout, (my boldface) we think most buyers would be better served spending a little more to buy a more substantial electric car such as the Nissan Leaf or buying a cheaper hybrid car.

They said it: it fulfills its mission. Isn't that the mantra of the Consumer Reports of past years? Why should we spend money on excess?

The small exterior and incredibly-tight turning radius of the iMiEV allows it easily scoot into urban parking spots ignored by SUVs. If one needs seating for five, then the Leaf meets that requirement; otherwise, it is an oversized vehicle for the intended purpose, in my opinion.

Cheaper hybrid car completely misses the point of zero emissions!

Next paragraph, titled On a short leash

The i-MiEV has a smaller lithium-ion battery than other electric cars we've tested, which gives the car a typical range of just 56 miles in our experience. (The EPA rating is 62 miles.) That's about 20 miles less than other electric cars.

So, the iMiEV is criticized for having a smaller fuel tank despite being a more efficient vehicle than the competition and getting better miles/kWHr? That's like saying put a big heavy gas tank into a highly efficient small gasoline car. Sure, a larger battery would be nice if I were to need it, but do I want to pay for it when I don't? (Tesla gives one the option). 62 miles is twice as far as the average car in the United States is driven on a daily basis. (ref: http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis.php)

I can see that lots of performance track testing would result in a reduced range of 56 miles, but the experience of most of drivers on this forum is that the iMiEV has closer to a 70-80 mile range when not using the heater. You just have to change your driving habits, as most internal combustion engine (ICE) drivers tend to be leadfooted - especially when they get into an EV and experience the silent full-torque acceleration. "Range" is an artificial number because reality is that one rarely approaches one's EV range limits in daily driving, and, besides, that number can be dramatically altered by just changing one's driving pattern.

Many of our drivers noticed that the range indicator didn't seem very accurate, but at least it erred conservatively, showing less range than they were actually left with.

First off, our collective experience is that our Range Remaining (RR) display (in miles) is more accurate than the Leaf's ignominious GOM (Guess-O-Meter). The fact that CR's showed what they believe to be an error is in reality a result of their inconsistent driving pattern, probably lead-footing at the outset and then easing up when they became concerned about RR. We've found that the RR display can be relied on without question, given consistent driving habits, speed, and terrain.

The car's 63-horsepower electric motor delivers good response up to about 30mph, but beyond that it feels really sluggish. It recorded one of the slowest 0-to-60-mph acceleration times - 14.7 seconds - we've measured in recent years.

First off, using horsepower when discussing acceleration is misleading (it should be torque), and using this number when everyone is used to an ICE-referenced number is comparing apples with oranges (purposely to make it sound puny?). Sorry, but perhaps CR should run the test again, with another driver, as the number should have been around 12 seconds (ref: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1203&hilit=acceleration) - but that also does not tell the whole story: the iMiEV has a purposely built-in ramp-up delay when you first floor it (to limit peak currents out of the battery and it also keeps all that available torque from snapping your head back), but after the first second or so its transition times should be excellent so I simply don't understand what they mean by "it feels really sluggish" beyond 30mph. Certainly not my daily driving experience whereby I have no problems zooming up to speed and matching freeway traffic speeds well in excess of the legal 65-mph limit, and we often revel in quietly running away from unsuspecting ICE drivers.

Despite paying extra to be a Consumer Reports online subscriber, I still don't seem to be able to access their Full Track Report to see their data. This is important enough to me that I may have to pony up even more extra $ if that's what it takes; besides, one of the biggest variables in road testing is the driver and if the driver does not like a particular car then the results will sure reflect that.

The car won't coast downhill normally because it's recapturing regenerative braking energy.

CR, what do you mean by "won't coast downhill normally"? You make this sound like a negative, whereas in reality the iMiEV offers three different coasting levels (four if you include neutral) to perfectly be able to match the amount of retardation you wish to achieve on a downhill (including weak regeneration that mimics an ICE car). THIS IS A WONDERFUL OPTION, NOT SOMETHING BAD, and, as you pointed out, recaptures the otherwise-lost energy to recharge the battery. On long downhills, in addition to having the RR gauge increase dramatically, I have even had the fuel gauge go up!

In "B", or braking, mode it's possible to reach a stop without applying the brakes.

Well, that's stretching it, as regen stops below about 10mph at which point you have to lift your foot and apply the brake, barely. Brake pads/linings should last forever on the iMiEV.

I'm about 1/2-way through the CR magazine review. To be continued...
EVs: 2 Wht/Blu SE Prem., '13 Tesla MS85, 3 156v CorbinSparrows (2 Li-ion), 24v EcoScoot(LiFePO4)
EV Conv: 156v '86 Ram PU, 144v '65 Saab 96
Hybrids: 48v1kW bike
ICE: '88 Isuzu Trooper. Mothballed: '67 Saab (orig.owner), '76 MBZ L206D RHD RV

tonymil
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:50 am
Location: Latham, NY

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:37 pm

My biggest gripe is that they review the car as if it's supposed to do everything an ICE car does. You don't hold a corvette to the same standards you hold an Accord to; you don't hold an Accord to the same standards you hold a Caravan to; and you don't hold a Caravan to the same standards you hold an Escalade to. The MiEV is meant to be an all-electric commuter car - a car that get's you from home to work and back with some short stops in between; a car that is meant to save on gas and help the environment. Hold it to that standard.

JoeS
Site Moderator
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:47 am
Location: Los Altos Hills, California

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:07 am

Continuing with the Consumer Reports review -

All the following discussion about vehicle handling has to be put into context: this is not a sports car but a basic urban commuter vehicle.

The i-MiEV's ride is awful, with harsh impacts.

I have absolutely no idea what CR is talking about when they say awful. Deep potholes? I've never had the suspension bottom out on the iMiEV, despite some aggressive driving on poorly-surfaced roads and I've never impacted anybody or anything.

The car feels jumpy on uneven roads. And the ride is choppy even on the highway.

I've never ever felt the iMiEV to be uncontrollable, but she's certainly not as smooth as a heavy luxury sedan. Suspension compliance is what I think they're talking about and I wonder if CR recognizes just how short the wheelbase is on this car?- Don, maybe you can chime in here?

What CR failed to mention is the iMiEV's ASC (Active Stability Control) which tends to be quite aggressive on ruffled surfaces and keeps us from getting into any sort of trouble. The ASC has an OFF switch whenever we want to disable it for aggressive driving on rough surfaces.

In corners, the i-MiEV feels clumsy, and the slow steering requires a lot of input and offers almost no feedback.

Look, the iMiEV is not a sports car, but this little puppy is certainly not clumsy and I have no idea what they're talking about as that steering is as quick and responsive as any I've driven.

Ultimately, the car's narrow width helped it thread our avoidance maneuver quickly and securely.

Let's repeat that:

Ultimately, the car's narrow width helped it thread our avoidance maneuver quickly and securely.

Uh, isn't that a testament to its decent handling? I had to dig, but CR shows the iMiEV was 0.5mph slower (52.0mph vs 52.5mph) through the avoidance maneuver than their highly-touted Ford Focus Electric or the Leaf which was also 52.5mph. This maneuver is very driver-dependent, and having driven the Leaf extensively in my opinion our iMiEV should have outperformed the Leaf as the iMiEV is more sprightly.

CR's reviewer's perhaps failed to appreciate the fact that, despite appearing to be a tall vehicle, the battery placement underneath the center of the vehicle results in a low center of gravity and reduces it's polar moment of inertia

But it felt ungainly and did not inspire confidence because the skinny front tires lost grip easily.

Efficiency what this car is about and skinny Low Rolling Resistance tires are the compromise solution.

The car may look ungainly, but it sure does not feel ungainly.

Having pushed the iMiEV on occasion (with ASC turned off) with a fair amount of spirited driving, I believe the iMiEV's handling is totally predictable and controllable. I, for one, have full confidence in its handling characteristics - and I live up a twisty windy road that I know very well. Remember, this is not a sports car but an urban commuter vehicle.

CR forgot to mention that the iMiEV stopped in 132ft (146ft wet) from 60mph vs. the Ford Focus Electric's 140ft (154ft wet) vs. the Leaf at 136ft (149ft wet)... gee, we stop sooner, skinny tires and all.

At low speeds the electric motor whines loudly. As speed builds, tire and wind noise become louder.

What an inane couple of sentences! As previously mentioned, whoever wrote that didn't realize they were listening outside of the car to the artificially-generated pedestrian warning noise. Inside the car it is SILENT - why didn't they put a db meter in there to quantify this parameter instead of making such a dumb statement? As speed builds, the iMiEV is still an extremely quiet car inside and normal conversations can be very comfortably conducted. To me, it looks like Mitsubishi put a lot of effort into attenuating wind, motor, and road noises.

The next paragraph CR entitled "Chintzy interior"

The cabin feels dated and cheap. Almost all of the plastic trim is hard, several screw heads are visible, and plenty of mold lines are evident in the trim.

So? This is a functional urban vehicle! A couple of days ago while we were taking a walk at a neighboring community farm, a harassed daddy was putting his kids into the back of his brand-new Tesla S (and two children into those wonderful seats in the trunk) - very muddy kiddy boots stomping all over that car's leather seats and beautiful upholstery! I, for one, am happy to have plastic surround, screw heads which mean I can take something apart easier if I need to fix it, and I could care less about mold lines. BTW, the only exposed screw heads I could find were the two screws holding the visor in place.

Sitting up high makes you feel less vulnerable, but the fixed steering wheel is too far away and the pedals too close, contributing to an awkward driving position. Plus the seat doesn't go back far enough.

This is so subjective -

What does sitting up high have to do with "feeling" less vulnerable? It's a great high-seating position with plenty of all-round visibility except for those darn headrests (all four of which I now remove when I'm driving solo).

How about the car's fantastically easy ingress/egress? - a 97-year-old lady I drive around repeatedly compliments this feature.

I happen to think the steering wheel position is perfect as I like to drive pretty much straight-arm but with a slight bend at the elbows and can never understand how someone can drive a car with the wheel crunched in their chest.

Never gave pedal proximity (to each other) a second thought, and I only use my right foot for both accelerator and brake.

What does pedal proximity have to do with an awkward driving position? Dunno what they're talking about.

I agree, I would like to move the seat back a bit further.

Most controls are simple, except for the radio and integrated navigation system, which has no knobs and can be very distracting. Ridiculously, the navigation system displays gas stations rather than charging stations. Bluetooth connectivity is standard.

This similar comment in the video has already been addressed. I won't defend it since I didn't buy it, but at least the gas station locations tell you where the bathrooms are to be found. :roll:

Moving right along to their summary table...

They do show a picture of the remote and tell us it can heat the car while it's plugged in (by the picture but not in the text where they derided the heating).

Highs - Low energy-consumption, zero emissions, turning circle

Good, they picked up on our London taxi-like maneuvering ability, but the turning circle CR shows on their data sheet is two feet more than shown on the Mitsu data sheets (33ft vs. 30.8ft). Guess I'll have to measure it myself.

What about the iMiEV's huge cargo capacity and flat floor with the back seats down?

Lows - short range, long charging time, weak heat, spartan interior, acceleration, ride, agility complicated radio, headlights, driving position

Headlights? Further on down they say: Weak low beams don't shine far enough. High beams are only slightly brighter, but they reach a good distance.

Are these guys talking about the iMiEV or some other car? Our headlights are not LEDs, the low beams have a very sharp cutoff that avoids blinding the oncoming cars, and the high beams are a veritable floodlight (I drive home on a winding dark mountain road and think they're wonderful!).

Braking - Stops are short, but the regenerative brakes make the pedal feel touchy.

Their opinion on the touchiness. The transition from regeneration to actual hydraulic brake application is so smooth and seamless that I can't distinguish between the two.

Access - Easy to the front; more difficult to the rear because of a narrow footpath.

I didn't realize there was a footpath meandering through our car. Isn't that a function of front seat position?

Visibility - Feels like a fishbowl, but the rear window is small.

I think being in a fishbowl is a compliment by them(?) The rear window is full height and full width. Are they talking about the iMiEV? If so, they forgot to point out the terribly-intrusive headrests.

Cabin Storage - Modest: the glove box is about the only available storage.

...if you ignore the pockets in the doors or the little doodad holder in front of the shift lever or the three cupholders, two of which I bet they never even discovered.

Head Restraints - All are sufficiently tall for protection

Yeah, but they intrude too much on the car's panoramic view.

Child Seats - Difficult to fit in a car so small. Rear belts might not secure rear-facing seats adequately.

I don't know what they're talking about as I had no problem installing my granddaughter's seat and securing it to the built-in attachment points in the iMiEV.

All right, that about addresses the CR commentary and a few of the numbers in the CR review. I'm befuddled as to what Consumer Report's reviewers' motivation was for what seems to be such a negatively-biased and seemingly-vindictive review of what we know to be a great little urban car.

I'm going to start reading some of theCR review material available online and see if I can excerpt and comment on some of that.

I'm being really defensive of this car because after almost a year of ownership and over 11,000 miles this car has met all of our needs and I think we appreciate it even more now than when we first bought it.

Notice they didn't talk at all about EV-specific items (other than bitching about the range) such as power inlet port location and instrument panel. They completely missed the superiority of the iMiEV's regeneration control compared to the other EVs.

To anyone contemplating a purchase of the iMiEV all I can say is go drive it and investigate it thoroughly for the purpose you intend to use it for and do the math for all the cost elements as well as real-life driving distances and then be your own judge.
EVs: 2 Wht/Blu SE Prem., '13 Tesla MS85, 3 156v CorbinSparrows (2 Li-ion), 24v EcoScoot(LiFePO4)
EV Conv: 156v '86 Ram PU, 144v '65 Saab 96
Hybrids: 48v1kW bike
ICE: '88 Isuzu Trooper. Mothballed: '67 Saab (orig.owner), '76 MBZ L206D RHD RV

MLucas
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:52 am
Location: Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

Re: Consumer Reports Got It So Wrong!

Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:12 am

tonymil wrote:My biggest gripe is that they review the car as if it's supposed to do everything an ICE car does. You don't hold a corvette to the same standards you hold an Accord to; you don't hold an Accord to the same standards you hold a Caravan to; and you don't hold a Caravan to the same standards you hold an Escalade to. The MiEV is meant to be an all-electric commuter car - a car that get's you from home to work and back with some short stops in between; a car that is meant to save on gas and help the environment. Hold it to that standard.


I like this, sums up it very nicely.

Like Dylan...I went electric.

  • Purchased: June 29th, 2012
  • Mileage on June 29th, 2013 - 25,431 km / 15,802 miles
  • Mileage on June 29th, 2014 - 51,286 km / 32,616 miles

List of Oil Spills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

Return to “iMiev Reviews”