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? ... 65f4#p1525
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 itMalcolmReynolds wrote: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.
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 usMalcolmReynolds wrote:If you can get the efficiency from the car then the smaller pack is an advantage for weight, and charge times.
Don wrote: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
JoeS wrote: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
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 carsMalcolmReynolds wrote:If anything the Ioniq makes me hopeful that we might see more affordable EV's with real usable range and capability going forward.
Return to “Driving the iMiev - Range - Energy Efficiency - Operating Cost”