Consumer Reports "Review"

Early comments from Consumer Reports: http://news.consumerreports.org/car...v-electric-car-range-anxiety-is-included.html

Not very flattering!

Jenn

I think we can guess where the full review will be going after reading their " fairly crude and uncomfortable" comment. Plus they've only been getting 56 miles per charge which means they're not driving/thinking of the car as intended. This car is about savings - saving the environment, saving money. Sure the Leaf feels more like a traditional sedan, but with more cost to the environment and more financial cost. Car reviewers who don't think about that will never like the MiEV. Oh well.

That's not much of a surprise considering what's happened to Consumer Reports in recent years. They have gone from being a well-respected product review organization to a sensationalist link-baiting website.

Based on that article... if the i-MiEV truly only uses 16 kWh for a full charge....and if the national average for electricity is 11 cents per kWh...that equates to a full charge costing $1.76.

For me...I have been driving 60.2 miles roundtrip from home to work for the past 16 years. That 60.2 miles had been costing me 2 1/2 gallons of gas a day...that's roughly 24.08 miles/gallon. Those 2 1/2 gallons at today's local price of $3.59 a gallon was costing me $8.97 to get to work and back. 5 days a week, Monday - Friday....gas was costing me $44.85 a week!

If a full charge costs $1.76 x 5 days, that's equal to $8.80 a week in electricity.

Therefore, the difference from gas to electricity for me is roughly $36.05 a week in savings. Over a month's time, that's a savings of about $144.20 in gas. This is more than worth the little bit extra I'm paying in a brand new car payment over what my gas powered vehicle was costing me.

Certainly worth the drive to me! Not to mention the pricetag on the savings to the environment it's creating in the process.

Next... I want to see the portable solar panels that flip out of the sides of my car doors, hoods & roof, to charge it anywhere, anytime and extending my drive range even further!

I haven't bought (or read) an issue of Consumer Reports in more than 15 years - What they say about any product doesn't interest me in the slightest. They proved to me long ago that their reports are not unbiased, so I'll make up my own mind without regard to what they think or publish

Don

jerks

I read this in the CR magazine a while ago and dismissed it. It's not as nice a car as the Leaf, and I've never claimed otherwise. But the price difference is pretty big, and the i is way more than good enough for its commuter and errand running missions. Speaking of missions, it sounds like the CR staff are trying to live with the car in the wrong place and use it the wrong way. If "that roughly 60-mile range proved quite a deterrent for every staff member setting off on a journey outside the greater East Haddam metropolitan area," then I'd say don't take the car outside the metropolitan area!! It isn't stated here explicitly, but I'd be willing to bet that some staff are taking the car home w/o having a Level 2 charger, a problem I've seen with a number of "range anxiety"-infused reviews.

Finally, calling the i "crude and uncomfortable" strikes me as terribly unfair - compared to what, I must ask. I certainly liked it better than the Scion iQ or the Prius C, both of which I've recently driven.

The car is not crude and uncomfortable. It is the most efficient car for what it is designed to do.

It has more front head and leg room than many larger cars I have driven. Have you ever tried to get in and out of a Corolla?

SirCaptainAhab said:

Based on that article... if the i-MiEV truly only uses 16 kWh for a full charge....and if the national average for electricity is 11 cents per kWh...that equates to a full charge costing $1.76.

For me...I have been driving 60.2 miles roundtrip from home to work for the past 16 years. That 60.2 miles had been costing me 2 1/2 gallons of gas a day...that's roughly 24.08 miles/gallon. Those 2 1/2 gallons at today's local price of $3.59 a gallon was costing me $8.97 to get to work and back. 5 days a week, Monday - Friday....gas was costing me $44.85 a week!

If a full charge costs $1.76 x 5 days, that's equal to $8.80 a week in electricity.

Therefore, the difference from gas to electricity for me is roughly $36.05 a week in savings. Over a month's time, that's a savings of about $144.20 in gas. This is more than worth the little bit extra I'm paying in a brand new car payment over what my gas powered vehicle was costing me.

Certainly worth the drive to me! Not to mention the pricetag on the savings to the environment it's creating in the process.

Next... I want to see the portable solar panels that flip out of the sides of my car doors, hoods & roof, to charge it anywhere, anytime and extending my drive range even further!

Click to expand...

for me it was 130.00 in diesel every week vs .06kW and i use about 96kW per week it comes out to be 5.76 dollars. AKA the car makes its payment in diesel cost.

There are now two comments on the CR review, one by yours truly. Just follow the link in the OP. I agree with the above posts that the CR reviewers have the wrong set of expectations for the i.

+1. You should have seen the hatchet job in autogreenblog. The review guy there also tried to run a comparison as if the iMiev was a regular gas powered car -- ran it hard (the way Motor Trend does), didn't opportunity charge it and drained it at the end of the day and then acted surprised that it wasn't fully charged 8 hours later on Level 1 charging. Thank you Mr. "Witz-less."

My iMiev has a mission and is performing it very well. I have an electric mower and fly electric planes so managing my iMiev is second nature for me. Mark

JrCRXHF said:

for me it was 130.00 in diesel every week vs .06kW and i use about 96kW per week it comes out to be 5.76 dollars. AKA the car makes its payment in diesel cost.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a great result. But the numbers make my head hurt a little - maybe there's a typo, or maybe my math's just getting fuzzy in my advancing years.

Should I read the above to mean you're somehow doing the equivalent of 6 FULL discharge/recharge cycles per week? At that pace, I can see how your fuel savings would add up far more quickly than average. But how many miles a week is that - like, at least 350 I'd think - but how much more? Exactly how do you manage that? Do you have access to several L2 chargers at different locations? Any Level 3? Or does the turtle just not scare you?

But then, even if it's 500 miles, how was that costing $130 in diesel? Even at $5/gal, that would be 26 gallons of diesel, or way less than 20 MPG - on diesel. What did you just replace - a RAM 2500 w/Cummins V-10?

Anyways, I'm really interested, cause it sounds like this could be a really positive story - let us know what I'm misunderstanding. Maybe just some slop in my rough calculations . . .

Thanks!

alexanmh said:

+1. You should have seen the hatchet job in autogreenblog. The review guy there also tried to run a comparison as if the iMiev was a regular gas powered car -- ran it hard (the way Motor Trend does), didn't opportunity charge it and drained it at the end of the day and then acted surprised that it wasn't fully charged 8 hours later on Level 1 charging.

Click to expand...

Duh!!! This stuff makes me crazy. I can't tell you how many EV reviews I've read where some ***** kid journalist is loaned an EV for a week, but doesn't have a garage, much less a Level 2 charger at home. Much of the "diary" then consists of bizarre tales of looking for places to steal a charge while trying to do their daily driving chores, with predictably negative results. I'm surprised one of 'em hasn't burned a house down using an extension cord.

But why would a reviewer at "autogreenblog" get all this wrong? Wouldn't EVs be pretty close to the core mission of such a concern? Mystifying.

btw, could you post a URL for that hatchet job? autogreenblog.com doesn't go anywhere useful, and the only review I found on AutoblogGreen (at autoblog.com):

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/26/2012-mitsubishi-i-first-drive-review/

. . . isn't half-bad, and doesn't include the clueless stuff you mention.

Here it is:

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/05/24/mitsubishi-i-miev-review/

I love these "issues" that reviewers bring up. They are imposing ICE attributes onto EVs.
"The car is short...". I love it. Parks real nice in NYC.

"The car should have a bigger battery" Like 80% of other Americans, I drive less than 50 miles per day. Why would I want to lug around more batteries than I need.

"It's a low speed vehicle" (which it isn't), but what's the fastest you can go in NYC??

Now let's look at cell phones vs. land lines...

Cell phones are smaller and flimsier looking, yet people want them.

Cell phones don't always work as well, yet people want them.

Sometimes cell phone batteries don't make it through the day, but people want them.

Why do people want them?...Because they free you up from a tether. But different people feel tethered by different things.

When people review an EV, they have to get over the assumption that all cars must be able to tow a boat, fit 7 passengers and their luggage, and run around on dirt roads at 75 mph. I actually have one vehicle that can do that...but why would I want to drive it to work every day? To support the far-off oil interests? No thanks, I'd rather support the American electric grid worker.

Technology needs to be used appropriately.

alexanmh said:

Here it is:

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/05/24/mitsubishi-i-miev-review/

Click to expand...

Oh, ok. I had seen this one - commented on it at that site a while back, actually, but forgot it was at autoblog. Thanks for the link - that review's buried a bit, the "good" one's more easily accessible (which is probably a good thing).

Now I see what you mean by "hatchet job." Gary Witzenburg, who wrote this "Reevaluating the Mitsubishi i-MiEV in context, at home" review, appears to be confused on multiple points. He not only provides a misleading characterization of the car (tippy, tinny, sparse, cheap - I swear you'd think he was reviewing an electric Yugo), but made a complete hash of describing the trim levels. He was obviously driving the SE, but described it as being a basic ES, and was telling readers that the SE included quickcharge, nav, backup cam, etc., when those only come w/SE Premium. While he did mention there was a Premium package, it was unclear what he thought might be in it, beyond saying it "piles on a bunch more" (no Gary, sorry - there is no more).

And like many other reviewers, Witzenburg obviously didn't understand the consequences of the D/Eco/B drive modes. Example: "B, which further maximizes range with aggressive regenerative braking" - really?? B is more of an on/off golf cart mode, handy for going downhill and maybe crawling in congestion, but NOT maximizing range. Regenerative braking is fantastic at recovering energy when you actually want to slow down, but it's far from 100% efficient, so "B" mode can be wasteful if you're needlessly toggling between accelerating and braking. I expect this kind of confusion from a regular newspaper's automotive editor, but it's hard to excuse in an "expert" writing for a "green car" web site.

Just a mess, a very misleading review for those who are trying to learn about the car.

It does seem that reviewers can be divided between those who understand what the i-MiEV is trying to do, and those that just don't get it. The first group respects the vehicle's intentions and evaluates its capabilities in that context, while the second insists on complaining about the car being ill-suited to do things for which it is clearly not designed. Consumer Reports seems to fall squarely in the second camp, along with AutoBlog's Mr. Witzenburg.

fjpod said:

I love these "issues" that reviewers bring up. They are imposing ICE attributes onto EVs. "The car should have a bigger battery" Like 80% of other Americans, I drive less than 50 miles per day. Why would I want to lug around more batteries than I need.

Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY the niche that this car fulfills so well

You put in a bigger battery (like the Leaf) and you have a heavier car, which needs a more robust suspension and brakes . . . . which adds even more weight. You wind up with a family sedan which goes about 10% farther than the i and costs several thousand dollars more

It's a vicious cycle. Keep it small, keep it light and you almost automatically wind up with the mileage champ. If your commute is more than 60 miles, then it's not the car for you, so buy something else. As you say, this really works for the daily needs of about 80% of the motoring public and at a price they can afford. Can it, should it be your only car? Not unless you never go farther than 60 miles, but then most families these days have more than one car - If you bought your other car as wisely as you bought your i, then you have a complimentary pair which will get the job done 99% of the time. For that other 1%, rent a pickup truck

Don

Vike said:

Regenerative braking is fantastic at recovering energy when you actually want to slow down, but it's far from 100% efficient, so "B" mode can be wasteful if you're needlessly toggling between accelerating and braking.

Click to expand...

I find the B mode delightful AND efficient. With just a little practice, you simply position your foot on the accelerator for the level of acceleration, coasting (in the middle), or regen-braking you want. Because B gives you full acceleration AND full regeneration, it's a beautiful simple ride with one foot and the occassional tap on the brake for full stops. Love it!

I find B mode a little hard to use, except when wanting to decelerate going down a steep hill. I find myself letting up on the pedal too quickly and slowing the car unnecessarily...but then again, I'm used to letting up on the accelerator from my Prius...pulse and glide. Hard to change as I still drive both. My Prius is my gas guzzler.

fjpod said:

I love these "issues" that reviewers bring up... "The car should have a bigger battery"

Click to expand...

The cool thing about the riff-raff is that they are so much smarter than the automakers and the years of research they put into their product. If only they had been consulted they could help them with the blindingly obvious:

- More range, and
- More power, and
- Reduce the price

How hard can that be?