BMW CEO Explains Why He Thinks BMW i3 is Superior to Tesla Model S


BMW i3

BMW i3

Back in August, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk chuckled a bit (seemingly in disappointment) when he was asked to comment on the upcoming BMW i3.  Musk then made this comment:

Model S

Model S

“I’m glad to see that BMW is bringing an electric car to market. That’s cool. There’s room to improve on the i3 and I hope that they do.”

Musk had hoped that BMW would do the i3 justice by giving it well over 100 miles of range.  However, we know that’s not the case with the i3 and, in the mind of Musk, an EV with sub-par range is simply unacceptable.

It was mostly the range of the i3 that led to Musk’s laughter, as he believes that mainstream buyers simply have no interest in a vehicle that goes only ~80 miles on a charge.

It took several months, but now BMW is firing back at Musk in a less obvious way.

As Business Insider reports, President and CEO of BMW North America Ludwig Willisch made some comments at the 2014 Detroit Auto Show.  The comments were directed at Tesla, says Business Insider.  Though we’ll note that even Business Insider says Willisch only once mentioned Tesla by name.

Here’s what Willisch reportedly stated:

 “You need to look at the whole concept.”

BMW Carbon Fiber

BMW Carbon Fiber

“We start off by producing carbon fiber in Moses Lake, Washington, with hydropower. Then we use fully recyclable materials to build the car. We build the car with wind power. So the whole production cycle is fully sustainable.”

“…others build electric cars the conventional way…you need to look at the carbon footprint of the whole thing. I would dare say that nobody’s at this point in time where we are, as far as the whole production process is concerned.”

Note how Willisch avoids taking a direct shot at Tesla?  Business Insider asked Willisch how the i3 compares to the Model S and the words above are what followed.

And again we see the focus being on sustainability.  There’s no mention by Willisch as to how the BMW i3 (the vehicle, not the production process, which few consumers care to hear about) is better than the Model S.

In all honesty, the BMW i3 doesn’t really compare to the Model S – they are simply two different classes of cars.  These 2 vehicles simply do not compete against each other.  So, perhaps the silly comparisons and jabs should end.

Source: Business Insider

Categories: BMW, Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

73 Comments on "BMW CEO Explains Why He Thinks BMW i3 is Superior to Tesla Model S"

newest oldest most voted

I couldn’t care less if my car was build with wind or nuclear power.

I certainly would.

I’d prefer wind if I could choose. I still think BMW is a crappy car maker though along with Mercedes and VW/Audi……..

+10 to Alok One of the main lines of attack on EVs once Tesla’s success broke earlier attacks, has been that supposedly “EV production process is so dirty and carbon-intensive, that it drowns any environmental advantages they might have later on.” It started among some radical environmentalists who dislike any environmental solution associated with “consumerism” – but since 2013 has been quickly adopted by conservatives and anti-EV auto columnists, because “hey, there’s a good punchline, let’s use it, who cares if we deny global warming anyway?” I’d say if you talk to someone who’s heard and read a bit about EVs, chances are they’ll tell you EV’s environmental contribution is doubtful, b/c that’s the overall impression generated, mostly due to the production-footprint issue. I debunked this line of attack here and elsewhere, but it does have some merit: as long as lithium is not recycled and EV makers are not careful enough, EVs will come out of the factory with a bigger CO2 footprint to make up for. If the grid is where you drive the car is fairly clean, the production footprint might be larger than all the subsequent emissions related to using it. In the vast majority of… Read more »

Like Alok, I do too, and I commend BMW and others for making efforts in this area.
However, because most of the energy a vehicle consumes will be during its use, not its manufacturing, how efficient it is and how *I* power it, matter to me more.

That’s why I sold my ancient ICE and got an EV. Sure, lot of energy went into making it, but after almost 2 years and 1000 gallons of gasoline saved, I probably repaid that environmental debt already.

I was already on a 100% solar+wind electricity plan. I since added enough solar on my own roof to cover all my needs (transportation and domestic), bringing both my costs and carbon footprint close to zero.

I love my kids, I owe them this (and much more).

I would too. It is wise to make every effort to align human processes with nature as best as possible. If you take the 100,000 foot view, you quickly realize how tenuous our condition is. It is quite amazing how life friendly earth is, and how quickly those conditions deteriorate once you move away just a little bit. The atmosphere is to the earth what a coat of paint is to a bowling ball, or at least not that much more. We have radically transformed the earth is just a few centuries, which is a blink of the eye in geological time. The system is holding but some believe it is just out of pure inertia, and the dominoes will eventually start falling. I don’t know what to believe, but I think it is wise to try to minimize our impact as much as possible.

EVs are not going to solve the problems you listed. If you are willing to live like the Amish, work farmland, live small and use few resources and teach your children to do so, that is a start. Commuting to offices, eating in restaurants, vacations, imported goods from other countries and typical consumerism is the problem. Think in terms of BTUs per activity per person times those doing it. Imagine if we got rid of all auto racing and pro sports entirely and people stayed home. That would cut tens of millions of fuel consumed per year. Life gets more boring but the planet surely benefits.


It matters to me a little bit . . . but it is WAY DOWN the list. I’m much more interested IN THE CAR . . . not how it is built.

As someone who was very excited about the i3 during development, I was disappointed with the range and quirky look of the vehicle. I completely agree with Elon musk that BMW could and should continue to improve the i3. Just a few more KWh in the battery pack could have pushed it over the 100 mile mark, which would have differentiated it from the LEAF. A more conventional hood and window line would have made it much more attractive to the masses.

Bravo! I agree 100%

I also agree 100%. Not much they can do about the stupid design right now but they could at least offer more batteries as an option if you don’t get the Rex.

+1 to all three of you

Totally agree. The range was the deal breaker for me (the looks you can get used to). I expected it to be like the ActiveE (easily over 100 miles of range), so it was disappointing to see it have the same range as the Leaf. I wish it the best in the market (and that eventually BMW adds more range, at least as an option).

I want to get the frack off of oil. I want to breathe cleaner air and I strongly
want my kids and grandkids someday to breathe clean air and not be strapped
by oil dependency and world war turmoil over who has it and who doesn’t.

I recycle and I go so far as to take my fast food receptacles home if the store
doesn’t have a recycle bin. I compost and I’m slowly converting my home to
LEDs. So far I’m not wearing hemp sneakers and at the end of the day if
my electric car doesn’t have a dashboard made of Gadinghi wood sourced from
the barrels of sunken barges or seats sewed from recycled seat belts…. I’m
OK with that.

Of all the eco BS we put up with, the PR, the saved polar bears and the
green image makers who sell this stuff – we all have to set priorities. Believe
me, my buying decision for my next car or truck won’t be based upon
rainforest credits or whether all of the electricity made in it’s manufacture
came from wind. The elite eco message didn’t fly for Fisker and it wouldn’t
have even if their cars were built better than they were.

I’m with you on lifestyle (doing the basic things, but not hemp-sandaling it etc.).

But there’s one huge big picture here, and it’s global warming. Barring a World War getting started by someone, this is the biggest issue facing Humanity nowadays.

Making a new car emits some 5-10+ tons CO2. That’s a lot. Driving a typical ICE car generates at least several tons CO2 every year, so the production footprint is relatively small change.
An EV running on a clean grid might emit far less than 1 ton/year. So the bulk of our emissions are often up front with the auto-making. There are ways to mitigate this.

It’s a real tangible problem, not an Eco-Purity-test, and I’m glad that BMW (and other makers like Subaru who’s not even in the EV game yet) have been tackling it.

Global warming is not even close to the biggest issue facing humanity today.

Third world development is the number one priority, with orders of magnitude more suffering and death. It’s also orders of magnitude more cost effective to solve. Using values for the social cost of carbon (e.g. $30/ton, 2.2c/kWh for wind, etc) along with IPCC warming figures, it costs $1 trillion to prevent 0.02 degrees C of warming. You can solve world hunger for a fraction of that.

Only a fool believes that BMW is powered by Washington hydro or German wind. Hydro resources are limited: if BMW didn’t build that factory, another business would use that hydro, and therefore the marginal impact of BMW’s plant business is more natural gas, just like a business located a thousand miles away.

” it costs $1 trillion to prevent 0.02 degrees C of warming”

The question you should ask yourself is: at what timescale? 0.02 degrees 10 years from now? 50 years? 100 years? The planet is large and reacts slowly to change. Climate science confusers handily exploit this by obfuscating what they are really talking about. I can guarantee you that investing 1 trillion will have more than a 0.02 C long term. Climate change is a slow, but unstoppable disaster. That’s why the boiling frog analogy has been made so often.

Ignoring global warming will not save us money. It is simply penny wise pound foolish strategy. We will pay twice. Once for the reduction of emissions that are invitable anyway and once again for the adaptation because we aren’t doing anything now.

There is no cure for selfishness and arrogance. Just look at the major automakers!

They spend billions of dollars per year (combined, globally) on lobbying just to slow or prevent efficiency and pollution standards from becoming more stringent.

If anyone had any sense or vision, they would instead use that money to stay ahead of the regulations, leaving their foolish competitors in the dust!

That is what Musk is doing at Tesla Motors – not wasting resources at avoiding the inevitable, but taking the future head-on.

No, that question is irrelevant.

Radiative forcings on the earth affect temperature pretty quickly. There are heat capacity studies out there that peg the time constant at about 5 years. After that, the warming persists until the CO2 disappears, i.e. centuries. Long time scales for global warming are due to accumulation of GHGs, not the time it takes for any particular GHGs to affect the temperature.

Humanity’s problems need to be prioritized. Disease and famine cause far, far more death and suffering than global warming ever will. You pretty much have to be racist to deny that and enact measures such as attaching foreign aid to clean energy. They need that money for agricultural development, water infrastructure, vaccines, medicine, education, etc.

Fix that before rushing into CO2 emission reduction expenditures, especially since AGW will not be solved without participation from the poorest 90% of countries. There is only so much global goodwill to better humanity, and it needs to be used as effectively as possible.

We’re already getting poor returns from renewables by ignoring that filling in the gaps left by solar/wind requires less efficient gas generation (as opposed to steady state CCGT).

Yep. The eco-thing didn’t work well for Nissan either. They should not have named the car the ‘Leaf’ and they should not have gone so nutty about recycled materials. Offer people leather if they want it. And don’t name the car ‘Leaf’! (or butterfly, unicorn, rainbow, etc.)

What’s the problem with using recycled materials?!?!?!?!?!?!??

It’s great that it’s sustainable all the way. If more companies would think that way in all steps the progress would go so much faster. But what about the rest of the cars BMW produce? Oh… well… ehum… not sustainable all the way.

I would love to see a lot of carbon fiber in the Tesla though, that’s one area the i3 is superior in. It could shave quite a lot of weight of the Tesla and improve performance and efficiency.
Maybe in their 4th or 5th car (or when they decide to do another sports car/roadster).

The Model S uses mostly Aluminum for its body which is 100% recyclable and substantially lighter than steel. Renewal energy could be used for processing aluminum … creating pure aluminum and carbon fibre both require large amount of electric energy.

Something BMW ignores, is transportation of carbon fibre from Washington USA to Germany uses none renewable energy. (Truck, train, and/or boats are likely used) Little can be done improve on this current infrastructure other than manufacturing locally. (The driving factor for carbon production in Washington is cost of hydro-energy, vs. cost of wind energy in Germany, not because it is more eco)

While it is great to have a more eco-manufactured vehicle, the design and practicality of a product is what ensures a long useful life cycle. eg: an EV that has multiple battery capacities can later be upgraded to a larger capacity pack … to provide a longer life for the same manufacturing footprint.

Those are the 2 things I was going to mention
* aluminum is also 100% recycled
* how much energy does it cost to shop the carbon fiber from Washington to Germany?

I would not classify hydroelectric power as that sustainable energy in most places, because it disrupts river ecosystems.

You definitely have a point, but often it is a sunk cost, and sometimes the disruption is minimal vs. the benefit, or there are mitigation options.

For example, the Skagit River dam that’s Seattle’s 2nd-largest hydro power source, is placed at a waterfall that salmon could not climb anyway because it was too steep. So it did not destroy any salmon spawning grounds.

Salmon is only an umbrella species. River ecosystems are a lot more than salmons. E.g. land use is really big issue in many places.

No power source is perfect and hydroelectricity is one of those that you can look at from many different perspectives and that can be really disruptive at the wrong place and without proper care for the ecosystem.

But as long as we use coal, oil and natural gas everthing else fades away in comparison.

solar power is perfect and wind power is good overall, if wind conditions are favorable.

And hydro is often an ideal complement to those: it can ramp up or down quickly, and on some installations, water can be pumped back up when there is excess production from other sources.

Sustainable energy is problem of Government, communities and policy, no car makers. Tesla has done a clean marvelous green machine, if we want to provide wind power is up to us as energy policy no Tesla.

Count me into the group that doesn’t care much about the electricity used to power the factory that made my car. In the same way, I don’t really care much whether my electricity comes from natural gas, wind, or ground up puppies and kittens.

I want an electric car for the sake of an electric car and all of the benefits that come along with that. And I can assure you that if you can’t make an attractive electric car and be competitive with a gas car in both performance and price, even treehuggers will not buy them no matter how eco-friendly they are. The Mitsubishi i-Miev is a good example of that.

Haha…good point. But nothing stops them from doing both a car that people want and make it sustainable.

You have a point. Up to a point.

If they go about destroying rainforests to make their marvelous green machine, then it’s not green and not worth it.

We already have the industry that destroys rainforests and the globe itself to give us gadgets and toys, thank you very much.

Car makers and other companies exist as part of community and society, not as entities in outer space that can do WTF they wish.

“And I can assure you that if you can’t make an attractive electric car and be competitive with a gas car in both performance and price, even tree huggers will not buy them no matter how eco-friendly they are. The Mitsubishi i-Miev is a good example of that.”

Really?! Over 33,000 i-MiEV’s have sold worldwide including the one this tree-hugger bought in the U.S. That makes the i-MiEV the second or third best-selling EV in the world which pretty much invalidates your assertion. Many potential EV purchasers don’t want to buy a huge, heavy, inefficient (relative to other EV’s) car like the Model S or an expensive EV that doesn’t offer much utility over an i-MiEV (e.g., the i3).

I agree with alohart … and the iMiev has even had a decent following in the US, despite the FUD around safety, range, and quality . It’s a really useful and fun car that we’re glad has been offered at a low price (and lower in 2014) to help us reduce our overall impact without breaking the bank. I see resource use and the pollution that results from it as a moral and health issue. It’s not right to just consume without conscience and believe that somehow we’ll get some technological fix for dying species, denuded landscapes, and declining health for lots of people due to pollution. And though I can’t claim for certain that climate change is caused by human activity or that there won’t be some buffer or event to counteract it, if it is real and the buffer wears out, the claims of economic hardship from the fossil fuel industries (and all of us that currently depend on cheap energy) will seem paltry in comparison to the hardship that will ensue. Besides, by doing something (using renewables and reducing consumption) we improve a whole host of pollution related health problems. Yes, you’ll have to get to know… Read more »


Ouch. When the first thing you brag about with your new car sales pitch is the green production methods you used to build the car, you have already lost the argument.

Damn it. I wish they had learned from the Nissan’s mistake . . . don’t pigeon-hole your EV as just some tree-hugger car! UGH!

Nissans mistake? The same Nissan that sells most electric cars in the world?

The problem is that comparable ICE cars sell way more than Nissan Leaf. Therefore Leaf is a failure. Instead Tesla Model S is a best seller car in its class and therefore Tesla’s car is not a failure.

Yes, Nissan sells a lot of EVs . . . in blue states to eco-friendly people. But they make the car in Tennessee and they can barely sell them there. They allowed the car to become political thing and thus alienated nearly half their potential customers. It’s like all the nuts who won’t buy the Volt because that is a government motors Obamacar.

The eco people already know the benefits of EVs . . . so just sell it as a great car. Like Tesla does. Telsa doesn’t talk about wind energy and make ads with polar bears. The just make a great car. And yes, if you want, SolarCity will install a PV system at your home if you want.

Advertising does have a role, but the mainstream media salivates over anything “green” that they can smear every chance they get.

Nissan was particularly smart about:
1) having an assembly plant in the US;
2) using recycled materials; and
3) taking the EV path to begin with.

Nissan screwed up on:
4) range;
5) some commercials; and
6) battery thermal management.

Nissan and other ICE automakers have a difficult business decision: how to build an EV that doesn’t cannibalize their other product offerings. In “Revenge of the Electric Car” Ghosn is quite unapologetic about offering the Leaf as a limited range vehicle. I think they must do this to avoid a disrupting change that would be kill their very large capital investments in ICE cars.

Could you imagine if Nissan offered an EPA rated 150 mile car for $25,000 with infrastructure to support longer travel? Goodbye sales for any ICE car in that category and goodbye to a huge share of their profits.

Tesla doesn’t have to worry about that – but they do have the daunting challenge of ramping up production and getting efficiency of scale if they want to offer a vehicle to compete with the i3 or Leaf.

I’m not sure. Where I come from, BMW is associated with thugs and criminals that buy sporty cars for macho impression.

So BMW going all tree-hugger, is for me, like Arnold doing that movie in which he got pregnant.

In short, for them it might work as a marketing trick.

Haha… I know exactly what you mean. Black BMW = low-life.

Wow – I was born and raised in PA, and I have lived my entire adult life in the northeastern US (I think DC is “northeast” in culture if not so much in climate). BMW has always been a sign of wealth or success – just like Mercedes and Audi.

I have never heard the thug angle.

Well there is method to what some might consider madness. Surveys have shown that buyers of ev’s tend to be very eco-conscious. Bmw is most certainly aware of this and is playing to that strength of this vehicle.

Yeah, it may help you with your initial few sales . . . but at the expense of alienating a whole other potential set of customers.

Funny thing is – same hydropower from Columbia basic is powering both BMW’s CFP and part of Tesla factory.

While I am a fan of environmental causes, I often think the movement gets in its own way. If the big picture is to reduce GHG and climate change through EV adoption, then you need a car that appeals to the masses to have any kind of impact. If you insist on checking off every box in the green purity test, you are going to end up with a niche vehicle that appeals to a niche market and has niche impact.

I am with Eric on this – most buyers (i.e. the ones that have not bookmarked Inside EVs or Green Car Reports or whatever) are not going to give a rat’s ass about how sustainable the manufacturing process is unless shown to be directly dumping dioxin into the local river.

I find it ironic the the purveyors of “the ultimate driving machine” are circumspect about talking about actually driving the machine.


Companies want to reach everyone that they can, though narrow-minded marketing and penny-pinching leads to short-sighted conclusions, it seems. It is very important that every step in the lifecycle be as clean as possible. What’s wrong with marketing that? It can appeal to more eco-conscious people. BMW needs to rope us in, right? Besides, they have more commercials than simply touting how green the manufacturing process is. Furthermore, if that is enough to turn someone off of even considering the car, then they have been brainwashed by MSM and/or an agenda of their own. You can’t reach those people solely by advertising. They need to see their neighbors, friends, coworkers and family members driving these things. Plus, it is good that others, like Ford, have advertised how they are using recycled materials for upholstery and renewable sources for the seat foam (soy-based). It raises awareness. More and more people become aware of these issues. Some will scoff, and others will not. As the consciousness grows, more people will slowly come to realize that these things are important. It doesn’t take much – just take my hometown for instance – I see gun-toting, Obama-hating F-billion-50 pickups lined up at the recycle… Read more »

The fundamental flaw with marketing green stuff from liberals is the fact that they don’t turn the language being used against them to their favor – speak the language of the people you are trying to reach, don’t alienate them with esoteric arguments.

For example, recycling is a conservative thing to do. Conserving resources saves money. Why? Waste is inefficient. Inefficiency costs money. Conserving resources is cost-effective. Remember the expression, “Waste not; want not”?

There are a bunch of social and/or economic conservatives that drive hybrids, and for good reason – hybrids have come down in price, thanks partly to early adopters, and so they are cost-competitive. Hybrids are efficient. Efficiency saves money.

Even if the person in question can’t afford one, you have to be able to reach them to say, “Well, if I could afford one, I would get one. Hybrids are a good idea.”

You have to reach people by using their own language – it would blow a few fuses for some folks to hear liberals use the term “cost-effective” but being green IS cost-effective! And, you are speaking their language, so the truth is more likely to sink in.

Liberals have let the MSM dominate the airwaves and contaminate the issues. Liberals are not forcing values on anyone! Political conservatives do! Liberals, for example, are granting rights to those who currently do not have rights (gay marriage, for example – marriage is a legal term – everything from inheritance, qualifying for health coverage from a spouse’s employer policy, the amount of taxes a household owes – all comes from your marital status! Legalizing homosexual marriages grants those rights to homosexual couples who currently do not have those rights in many states). Nobody is making you believe anything. Nobody is forcing you to enter into a homosexual marriage. Liberals are simply tearing down the walls of discrimination! Meanwhile, the political conservatives are saying, no, you can’t do this, you can’t do that; you can’t marry that person! The fact of the matter remains that, if conservatives don’t want gov’t to define marriage, then they need to be willing to have marital status removed from all laws and rules. As long as marriage defines property rights, service privileges, and halving income tax rates, then the gov’t has every right to define marriage, since the gov’t defines and protects private property, rights… Read more »

Another example of propaganda getting out of control: the fact remains that gov’t incentives are much more efficient than the precious Free Market, at least because the market does not, nor is it capable of, incorporating all of the critical costs into a product or service. The market cannot be the final arbiter of the best decisions.

Coal is cheap, but only a market desciple would be blinded enough by faith to disagree with the fact that it is a really bad energy decision, knowing what we know today. From serious health problems of the miners and those who live downwind of the power plants, to global warming, coal has to go the way of the dinosaurs it came from.

Furthermore, most incentives usually do not target specific technologies, contrary to conservative bull. Gov’t incentives target minimums (minimum efficiencies) and maximums (maximum pollution levels). States are free to further narrow those limits…they just can’t expand them beyond the Federal max or min. The gov’t doesn’t care how you meet the limits, so long as you meet them! That pushes and fosters innovation faster than the free market could ever hope to achieve!

And were those US-produced carbon fibers transported to Germany for final fabrication by a sailboat? I think not – let’s talk total carbon footprint, including the cargo ship fuel for all this material traveling all over the world. The total carbon footprint in a global economy is a tangled web – I’m not interested in going there.

I got to drive the I3 over the weekend. I like the wood feature on the dash, but the recycled material just happens to look like a furry version of the gray carpet in the traditional BMW cargo hold. So it really makes the interior look cheap on top of the dash. Also the window is so far forward you are staring at the pillars was you drive like down a tunnel, so it cuts off your vision a bit if someone were to cross the street in a sidewalk. The ride is super smooth however. it is also very quick from 0 to 40, but 60-80 it was peddle to the floor with little acceleration. And as of right now the dealer quoted me $950 a month for a lease which is a COMPLETE JOKE. But what BMW is doing is testing the waters on the lease side. Its a game at this point All of this is a test phase. I’m sure from social media they will see its a showstopper. The idea BMW is going to hold on $2600 bucks of the federal credit is laughable too. The dealer claimed “hundreds” showed up at a previous demo.… Read more »

The great thing about EV’s is that compared to conventional car there is only really a limited amount of choice but within that choice there is an enormous customer mix everything from tree hungers looking for the ultimate low impact transport to Porsche drivers looking to pay less tax.

There is also massive diversity in the offerings with everything from NEV’s to Tesla’s. All this diversity creates a really odd market and you have to ask your self would a Tesla buyer cross shop to a i3 or is the Chevy volt the competition for the i3. Would you expect a Chevy buyer to buy a BMW? Who knows, but lets face there are those who want an EV not for it’s looks or its performance but for it’s greenness is an i3 greener than a Tesla, probably. Will an i3 do better with those who want a green car rather than a fast car or a big car or an American car, probably. Are they competing with each other? only in a very few cases, although really it’s like comparing Einstein to Newton, which one was smarter?

A whole lot of former BMW drivers are now driving Leafs. As more upper mid scale options (Audi A3 e-tron, Mercedes Benz B Class ED) become available, there will likely be another shift.

Fortunately for Nissan, there’s a lot more room for growth in the Leaf market.

And what happens when the Good Folks from Solar City cover every square inch of the Tesla plant in solar panels?

I’m surprised that hasn’t happened yet…I’ve been waiting for an article or something…hell, Walmart and other big-box stores have solar panels in solar-friendly states! Why can’t Tesla, in that massive plant they are using only, what, 25%?

Tesla has to control capex right now and every penny must go toward expanding capacity (production and support) and developing their model lineup. The solar panels can wait (they are also putting it off for the superchargers). Plus, given California’s grid is relatively clean in the first place, it’s not as urgent.

BMW, on the other hand, has plenty of free money to spend on this stuff.

Good points…they want solar panels and battery buffers at most, if not every, SC.

Many responses here, apologies if covered before. Model S has large amounts of aluminium in it’s build – Aluminium is sometimes referred to as solidified electricity.

It would be a great triumph if Tesla or any other car company could claim that their aluminium is sourced from renewable energy sources.

I say this noting that many smelters in my local area are likely to close even with low cost (but polluting) brown coal produced electricity.

That is the kind of response that makes me turn on my calculator.

The mass of an i3 is about 1.5 ton and that of the Model S is about 2 tons.
A standard gasoline vehicle will use about 25 tons of fuel for its 200000 miles over its entire life.
So we are now arguing over a difference of 0.5 tons versus an economy of 25 tons. That is arguing over a 2 % overall difference.
Frankly that doesn’t stand in front of the pure steel BMW is still using on 99 % of all its other 100% thermal cars.

That’s one thing that annoys me about the major automakers – they do green things, but only for their green cars – the rest are old and wasteful.

Ford is starting to change that – at first, the only vehicles that used recycled materials were their hybrids. Now, they are using more recycled and renewable components across their lineup. They advertise it, too, which is good (they don’t beat it to death, they just mention it from time to time).

I personally don’t see any of these statements as personal attacks by these people against each respective companies. It seems to me that waaaay too much is being read into these statements.

The BMW manager boasting recyclable materials. I always thought metals (like the aluminium in the Model S) is far easier and cheaper to recycle than composite materials likt the carbon fiber/resin that BMW is using. What am I missing?

what an idiotic newspaper article……and how much bmw i3 were sold in europe ?
10 time more tesla S !!!!
at first the french renault ZOE is better than this rotten BMW i3 .
this web site is a pure BMW media….a propaganda maker for the germans

Cool off.

Both the Model S and i3 are being delivered into Europe for only a few months. Far too early to draw conclusions. You might have to eat your words.

for only a few months –> since only a few months

I had the opportunity to test-drive the Tesla model S, and I must say that the car just goes against the most crucial point on an EV: the curb weight. To me, the car is just like a modern version of a muscle car, been able to spin its rear tires and smoke on the asphalt doing 0-60 faster than most of the petrol engined luxury saloons; people just gets amazed because of that, and of course, because it has the autonomy to go over 200 miles in range, but these people don’t realize how big its battery pack must be, and how much it will impact on their utility bills to fill that thing up every night. I just bought a Leaf to my wife, and have already placed a deposit with the local BMW dealership to order my i3. In my honest opinion, the i3 is by far the best EV ever built. Its concept is simple, the lighter you are, less battery you must have to drive up to 100 miles. Now, this is a City car, and studies say that most of the people that lives on the city, dive much less than that, so is… Read more »

The thing to be aware of if you are in this situation is that there could be alternatives which will cause you less trouble in the long run. The total cost of a bridge loan can be
staggering when not paid back inside a short period of time.
This will allow you to get an unsecured loan later
on without any trouble.