Comparative Energy Efficiency

Mitsubishi i-MiEV Forum

Help Support Mitsubishi i-MiEV Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Phximiev

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,293
Location
Phoenix
Saw this comparison and couldn't believe that the iMiev was that much less efficient than the Ioniq, but then who know?

Any thoughts?

http://myioniq.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=266&p=1529&sid=c51ea96c185f3d7f5c084cdbcde765f4#p1525
 
The Ioniq appears to be knocking it out of the park. Proving you don't need a monster battery to get good daily range. This car appears to be schooling the entire EV market.

Honestly what I am shocked by is how inefficient the i-Miev is considering how light it is. It is kind of shocking that Mitsubishi has fallen that far behind. With such a light weight car, the i-Miev should be schooling the market on efficiency. So Mitsubishi needs to go back and do their homework here.

It appears the Ioniq is going to really propel the EV market. It should mean lower costs and greater real world daily range. Overall it appears to be very impressive.
 
MalcolmReynolds said:
Honestly what I am shocked by is how inefficient the i-Miev is considering how light it is. It is kind of shocking that Mitsubishi has fallen that far behind. With such a light weight car, the i-Miev should be schooling the market on efficiency. So Mitsubishi needs to go back and do their homework here.
To be fair, the iMiEV is all 2007 technology and to save money, the adapted it to an existing platform, rather than designing a whole new car around it from scratch, so they haven't 'fallen far behind' in any way - Quite the contrary, when it first came out, it was the leader of the pack in most areas . . . . but now it's 10 years old. It would be surprising (to me anyway) if anything designed and built today didn't surpass it

Don
 
Agreed, i-Miev is still based on real first gen technology. I am just surprised that it isn't closer in efficiency given it's weight advantage. Clearly it is time for them to refresh the car. The IONIQ appears to be showing the market what is possible and that maybe you don't need 60kwh battery packs to get real usable range. If you can get the efficiency from the car then the smaller pack is an advantage for weight, and charge times.
 
When the i-MiEV was introduced in the US in late 2011, it was the most energy-efficient production car ever (at least in North America), bar none (something Consumer Reports failed to mention in their scathing review). [Note: please prove me wrong on this statement, if you can].

Subsequent cars' efficiency numbers had me scratching my head, but I let it go. No question, with a Cd of 0.35 and a significant cross-section area, our aerodynamics affects even low speed performance. Combine that with lower quiescent losses and increased efficiency in more-modern electronics and probably more-efficient motors, it's no wonder that we're a bit outclassed after ten years on the market.

Wow, I just looked it up: Hyundai Ioniq Cd = 0.24 :shock:
 
MalcolmReynolds said:
If you can get the efficiency from the car then the smaller pack is an advantage for weight, and charge times.
Granted that's true . . . . and as more and more consumers learn what they actually need and quit comparing BEV's to cars which hold 400 miles worth of fuel, we'll see the market for small EV's really begin to take off. Every pound of battery you put in an EV, the less efficient the car will be, largely because you'll be hauling around extra battery power you will very seldom use. When the iMiEV was first introduced, I'll bet 90% of ICE drivers looked at any BEV with 'only' 65 miles of range as a pretty useless vehicle. But, as most anyone here will tell you, 65 miles will serve at least 80% of the average drivers daily needs, or more like 95% for some of us

If you really need an EV with 100 or 150 or 200 miles of range, by all means go out and buy one, but for the average person, that's way more than they need . . . . they just don't know that . . . . yet

It would be nice if we had a Cd of .25 instead of .35 and granted, that would definitely improve range, but it would also reduce the usability of the vehicle. We can haul 4 'real sized' adults and most of them would say this is the easiest car to get into and out of they've ever ridden in, plus we can put the seats down and haul really outsized cargo. Should we give most of that up for another 15 or 20 miles of range?? We wouldn't gain that much anyway - I would say no - I would vote to keep my cars just as they are because they better serve MY needs than a sleeker, less practical for everyday use vehicle

Mitsu is never going to 'redesign' the car - They didn't sell well enough the first time around and I'm sure they've tired of losing money on the platform

Don
 
Don said:
Mitsu is never going to 'redesign' the car - They didn't sell well enough the first time around and I'm sure they've tired of losing money on the platform

Don
Nope. They've given up on it in the US. The I-MiEV is no longer listed on the US website.
 
JoeS said:
When the i-MiEV was introduced in the US in late 2011, it was the most energy-efficient production car ever (at least in North America), bar none (something Consumer Reports failed to mention in their scathing review). [Note: please prove me wrong on this statement, if you can].

Subsequent cars' efficiency numbers had me scratching my head, but I let it go. No question, with a Cd of 0.35 and a significant cross-section area, our aerodynamics affects even low speed performance. Combine that with lower quiescent losses and increased efficiency in more-modern electronics and probably more-efficient motors, it's no wonder that we're a bit outclassed after ten years on the market.

Wow, I just looked it up: Hyundai Ioniq Cd = 0.24 :shock:

Not to mention that you would expect anything a few years old to be slightly less efficient than when it was new too. in 2010 I still had a Blackberry Curve, the Ionic is a Galaxy S8.
 
It really is too bad that Mitsubishi is giving up in the US market. The i-Miev has an advantage that the other manufacturers are spending a fortune trying to accomplish which is to reduce the weight of the car. Look at the money BMW is spending on carbon fiber and polymer to try and get the weight down. The i-Miev still spanks the i3 in weight and that is a big deal.

Clearly Hyundai has figured out how to get the most out of regen, and power use. It looks like people are getting a real world 120 miles from the car so that really is setting a new bar for the EV market in what would be a fairly conservative sized battery given the direction the market is heading. The battery pack in the Ioniq is 28kwh.

That .24cd isn't hurting things either. If anything the Ioniq just proves what can be done at a more reasonable price point than a Tesla. I completely agree with Don that form factor is a big deal so if you put that same power consumption and capability in a car like the i-Miev you would probably still see some pretty impressive range and ability since the i-Miev is so light. Sure it trades off some of the aero, but gets some back in the amount of weight it is hauling around. The world focuses on form over function much of the time.

If anything the Ioniq makes me hopeful that we might see more affordable EV's with real usable range and capability going forward. In a world that currently thinks an affordable EV is $30-35k frankly it makes me think I need to buy a horse or a really large dog so I can afford to get around... Or just maybe a nice lightly used i-Miev... :D
 
MalcolmReynolds said:
If anything the Ioniq makes me hopeful that we might see more affordable EV's with real usable range and capability going forward.
IMO, 65 miles *is* a 'real usable range' as it does at least 90 or 95% of what we need a vehicle to do - I suspect we'll still own an ICE for the forseeable future for our long range travel needs (currently a Ford Transit Connect) but it may only get started once a month or so . . . . until we head out on an Interstate trip. What we spend on gasoline has really dried up since we bought these cars

I personally would never spend $30K for a new BEV just to get 100 or 150 miles of range that I would seldom use . . . . and I'd be carrying that bigger battery around with me largely unused all the time - Not when a very nice, low miles used iMiEV can be had for 1/4 that amount

Don
 
I know we all have our own driving circumstances that fit our own needs. Speaking for myself I could certainly use a good highway range of 100-120 miles. From where I live today there are quite a few places that I drive several times a year in the local area that are 60-70 miles in distance one way. My circumstances are quite different than a lot of people and most days my vehicles sit in my driveway and don't move. Usually on the weekend is when I run to do my shopping, errands, and maybe a little wandering around for some fun. My vehicles sit all week and only get used on the weekends, but when I use them they do get used and depending on what I am doing could push the limits of a short range EV pretty easily. The ability to round trip those longer trips in the local area and have most of it be highway miles would be awesome to have a real usable distance and capability to drive similar to what we do with an ICEV. Again each persons needs and use is different.

It sounds like the Ioniq would be able to do that and that would be a pretty substantial improvement. I am still not convinced that it is a true 120 miles under "normal" driving conditions, but it appears to be better at it than most of the EV's on the road at the moment if the info we can see online is true.

Other factors that come to mind is the fact that EV winter range is dramatically less than that wonderful summer range so if that car is rated for 120 miles during the summer it is likely to be a 60-80 mile car in the winter. Of course all of that also assumes that the batteries are in good shape to begin with and have not degraded in performance over time. Wouldn't it be great of the car you bought today would still perform the same way in 10 years? We know from what we can see with the current generation of batteries that they won't have anywhere near the capacity they had when new and the cars were rated for 62 miles range or 74 miles range. What will the range be for an i-Miev that is 10 years old? An Ioniq that is 10 years old? A Bolt or Tesla that is 10 years old?

Having a car that starts out new with more capacity than I will use on a daily basis during the summer translates to a car that is about what I need in the winter. And if I want to factor in battery loss over time so that the car has a good useful life for the time frame I hope to own and use it then I certainly would want to anticipate some battery loss so that the vehicle will continue to meet my needs for the time frame I hope to own an use it. A car rated today for 100 miles when new really isn't a lot of range if you consider what it may be capable of in 5 or 10 years. Would that same car still be meeting your needs then? Those are the questions that everyone has to ask for their own driving circumstances.

Of course for the average person "enough" is never enough so we will have to see if the message can be driven home that a car with this kind of range will meet most peoples needs. I have my doubts. I can already hear people saying the range of the Bolt isn't enough. All I can do is shake my head and try to properly size up my own "wants" and measure them adequately against my "needs" and hope that I can keep my focus on practical real use and not wizbang stuff that really is useless for my own needs. About 3/4th of the "stuff" on these new cars is useless to me, but range? Now that is useful :)
 
Back
Top