2004 Bmw 645 Coupe Convertible M6 Appearance Package on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Electric living with a BMW i3

Rarely in the 27-plus years I've been testing and writing about cars has any vehicle changed this much from my initial impression until I was later able to spend more time in one. Nearly two years ago, I got a brief test drive of the then-new BMW i3 EV on a selection of both flat and hilly, curvy roads west of Los Angeles the day before LA Auto Show press days. My impressions at the time were mixed: polarizing exterior and interior designs but roomy, easily accessible rear cabin; great twisty road handling but somewhat brittle rough-road ride; good performance but annoyingly strong (always on) regenerative braking. And there was no opportunity to test one with the optional range-extender (which BMW calls a "REx") engine. So I wanted an extended experience in a REx-equipped i3, and recently got one. And, I'm here to report that, driving it for a week like I owned it, the quirky i3 soon won me over. The quirky i3 soon won me over. The $42,400 BMW EV's unique, lightweight "LifeDrive" architecture features a Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) passenger cell on an all-aluminum chassis. Powered by a 22-kWh lithium-ion battery pack, its 170-hp AC synchronous motor spins out a healthy 184-pound-feet of torque through a single-speed transmission and offers three drive modes: Comfort, Eco Pro (which BMW says adds roughly 12 percent of range) and Eco Pro+ (another 12 percent). The optional rear-mounted 647 cc (0.65-liter) in-line 2-cylinder REx engine drives an electric generator, never the wheels. It increases the sticker price to $46,250 and curb weight from 2,860 pounds to 3,130 lb., and that 270-lb. weight penalty reduces its electric-only range from 81 to 72 miles and EPA-rated combined (gas-equivalent) fuel economy from 124 to 117 MPGe, and slows its 0-60-mph acceleration from 7.0 to 7.8 sec. But it nearly doubles the i3's official EPA-rated total range from an EV-only 81 miles to an EV-plus-gasoline 150 miles. The i3 arrived (from roughly 90 miles away) with its battery depleted but an indicated 75 miles of gas-powered range remaining. Wanting to experience it REx-only at first, I drove it on a 9.6-mile local trip and found little difference in sound or performance from what I recalled from that California battery-only test drive. When I returned home, however, the indicated gas range was just 55 miles, so I had used 20 miles of projected range in less than 10 local miles. My initial impressions were good, with a few quibbles.

AWD BMW M5 is headed our way

Remember the rumor about the BMW M5 going all-wheel drive? Well, there's definitely some truth there because these spy shots show BMW testing the Autobahn-storming sedan with the ability to spin the front and rear wheels. Our spy shooters grew suspicious when they saw this seemingly normal-looking M5 appearing to turn all four wheels during ice testing. They checked it out and snapped these shots underneath clearly showing power routed to the front axle. While this shows that the tech is at least being tested on a current-gen M5, all-wheel drive is probably not coming until the next 5 Series model, which is already being evaluated. The idea of power going to the front and rear axles for this sport sedan might polarize some hardcore brand fans as a break with tradition. However, the head of the M division thinks the change is a priority to actually put torque down effectively. The future vehicle is slated to get at least 600 horsepower and pack it into a lighter platform. Rear-drive M5 purists can take heart, though. The all-wheel-drive system would reportedly be an option, and it would be rear-biased to still let drivers hang the tail out, if the desire arises.

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.