New rendering of electric BMW Isetta
They're doing it again. Somebody out there has come up with yet another rendering of what the new electric Isetta from BMW might look like. In contrast to the other ones we've shown you, this looks more like the BMW of today rather than the Isetta of yesteryear. The fancy speculative drawing appeared on AUTOCAR.co.uk along with conjecture that the city car could be powered by a rear-mounted petrol (or possibly diesel) engine in addition to the battery model. It could even have a BMW motorcycle engine. Since there is a strong possibility the car will be based on the underpinnings of the Mila Alpin concept and that its maker, Magna, is currently hard at work on a plug-in hybrid, we feel this seems a likely powertrain option as well.
The article goes on quote BMW CEO Norbert Reithofer as saying, "co-operation [with another car maker (*cough* Mercedes)] is possible" and added that the decision would be made by the end of 2008 "whether to go it alone". With a target production date of 2012 we expect an officially official announcement and drawings any day now.
[Source: AUTOCAR.co.uk]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Marz 5:17PM (4/30/2008)
can you say VW UP!
Reply
Kevin Nugent 7:11PM (4/30/2008)
If the car actually looks anything like that i wud buy it . It looks sexy
Reply
rob 11:50PM (4/30/2008)
Photoshopped Toyota Aygo?
Reply
Dan 1:24PM (5/01/2008)
OMG... please make it look like that. I'm sick of all these green vehicles looking like a "care bear" swallowed a "my little pony" and puked it into a giant teacup from the ride at Disney World.
I drive a thirsty sports car right now and the only reason keeping me from buying a greener vehicle is their pansy-ass aesthetics.
Make it agressive and add lots of performance and swanky interior upgrades... and I'll buy two of 'em. Guaranteed.
The fact that we DON'T have a bad-ass green car right now only serves as proof that the auto companies have too much vested interest in the oil industry.
I suppose the Tesla fits... but with not enough practicality.
Reply