[jplev]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

Seems pretty positive, asks if really an "M" as many others have also.

[gs6456]

So tired of the "Is it an M" question.

[AlexFL]

It’s an eM. End of discussion.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by AlexFL

It’s an eM. End of discussion.

That's been my point all along.
People keep wanting to make it an M3 with electric motors. It's not.

[BMW007CA]

Originally Posted by jplev

Seems pretty positive, asks if really an "M" as many others have also.

The transition from Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to Electric Vehicles (EVs) is rather a long one and we are no where near that goal for at least two decades. We must separate the HYPE around EVs:

1. In the USA, EVs represents about 2%-3% of the market share.

2. Of the 285 million vehicles on U.S. roads today, fewer than 2%
are EVs. It will be many decades before they outnumber traditional
vehicles.

3. The average price of an EV is at least $10,000 more than a
comparable ICE vehicle, that's no small cost the average consumer.

4. California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3
million new public EV chargers by 2030. Likely cost to ratepayers:
about $13 billion. Electricity prices are soaring not decreasing.
Electricity is derived from...you guessed it? OIL.

5. Oil is and will remain the main powerhouse source of energy that
drives world economies for decades to come. Wind, Solar, Electric,
Hydrogen, etc. will take decades to mature and there is no
guarantee they will match the indisputable power of oil.

6. California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3
million new public EV chargers by 2030. Likely cost to ratepayers:
about $13 billion. Last year, electricity prices soared by 7.5%
and California regulators expect rates to surge another 40% or so
by 2030. These cost increases are happening in a state with the
highest poverty rate and largest Latino population in America.

Industry consultants, such as AlixPartners, estimate that the true
cost of adding electric chargers is $50 billion to $60 billion.
ThatÂ’s because the price of a direct-current fast charger for public
use can be anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000.


7. The cost of an electric battery pack will continue to fall but likely
not fast enough to achieve price parity with most gasoline vehicles
before the late 2020s.

8. Electrifying transportation will put more of our energy eggs in one
basket and make our grid an even-juicier target for terrorists,
cyberthieves, or bad actors. It will also reduce resilience and
reliability in case of a prolonged grid failure due to natural disaster,
equipment failure, or human error.

9. EVs will also make the U.S. more dependent on China. Electrifying
just half of our auto fleet will require, in rough terms, about nine
times current global cobalt production, three times global lithium
output, and about two times current copper production. As the
International Energy Agency noted in a May report, China has a
majority share in the processing of cobalt, lithium, and the rare
earth elements needed to make EVs.

10. Electricity is derived from Oil. A simple fact most people ignore
or don't understand.

If EVs are so great, why havenÂ’t they taken over the market? Why do EVs still only account for 2% of all U.S. auto sales?

The simple truth is that oil’s century-long dominance of the transportation-fuel market is largely due to its high energy density. That density – along with oil’s versatility, quick refueling, ease of handling, and continuing improvements in internal combustion engines and hybrids -- assures that oil will be fueling our cars, trucks, ships, boats, snowmobiles, ATVs, bulldozers, excavators, and airplanes for decades to come.

Even if this infrastructure eventually gets built, at an enormous cost, the basic rationale for electric vehicles—that they help reduce climate change—is questionable. Electrics use fossil fuels, too: Power plants produce 60% of their electricity from natural gas, coal and oil. And trading combustion engines for plug-ins is trading oil-and-gas drilling for mining the lithium and other minerals that go into the vehicle’s batteries.

BidenÂ’s infrastructure bill proposes spending $65 billion to put up new transmission lines. That will take years because each line must go through lengthy approval processes, typically slowed by environmentalists worried about damage to the landscape and by nearby residents. But a complete modernization and expansion of the grid would cost at least $4.8 trillion, and until that happens, a major switch to electric cars is a non-starter. You read that right, $4.8 Trillion!

Electric vehicles are touted as carbon neutral, but that claim doesnÂ’t consider that their batteries need more materials to build than do combustion engines. One lithium-ion car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting some 500,000 pounds of material from mines. A combustion engine, in contrast, weighs an average of 350 pounds and uses a mere 25,000 pounds of petroleum over its entire life. Producing and processing these materials expends energy, and the more energy expended, the more heat-trapping carbon dioxide is released.

But even if, in some hypothetical world, electrics could be totally carbon neutral and every American made the switch, global carbon emissions would drop by only 2.4%. In fact, if the entire American transportation industry, including airplanes, switched to electric, global emissions would go down only 5%.

In the above example, you pay $75,000+ which is M Territory for what is in reality a 4-Series Grand Coupe with battery power on steroids and a rectangular touch screen. EVERYTHING else is the same, don't kid yourself. Hmmmm.....I wonder with this price tag did you save on fuel cost? lol.

[Vishal50028]

Originally Posted by BMW007CA

The transition from Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to Electric Vehicles (EVs) is rather a long one and we are no where near that goal for at least two decades. We must separate the HYPE around EVs:

1. In the USA, EVs represents about 2%-3% of the market share.

2. Of the 285 million vehicles on U.S. roads today, fewer than 2%
are EVs. It will be many decades before they outnumber traditional
vehicles.

3. The average price of an EV is at least $10,000 more than a
comparable ICE vehicle, that's no small cost the average consumer.

4. California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3
million new public EV chargers by 2030. Likely cost to ratepayers:
about $13 billion. Electricity prices are soaring not decreasing.
Electricity is derived from...you guessed it? OIL.

5. Oil is and will remain the main powerhouse source of energy that
drives world economies for decades to come. Wind, Solar, Electric,
Hydrogen, etc. will take decades to mature and there is no
guarantee they will match the indisputable power of oil.

6. California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3
million new public EV chargers by 2030. Likely cost to ratepayers:
about $13 billion. Last year, electricity prices soared by 7.5%
and California regulators expect rates to surge another 40% or so
by 2030. These cost increases are happening in a state with the
highest poverty rate and largest Latino population in America.

Industry consultants, such as AlixPartners, estimate that the true
cost of adding electric chargers is $50 billion to $60 billion.
ThatÂ’s because the price of a direct-current fast charger for public
use can be anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000.


7. The cost of an electric battery pack will continue to fall but likely
not fast enough to achieve price parity with most gasoline vehicles
before the late 2020s.

8. Electrifying transportation will put more of our energy eggs in one
basket and make our grid an even-juicier target for terrorists,
cyberthieves, or bad actors. It will also reduce resilience and
reliability in case of a prolonged grid failure due to natural disaster,
equipment failure, or human error.

9. EVs will also make the U.S. more dependent on China. Electrifying
just half of our auto fleet will require, in rough terms, about nine
times current global cobalt production, three times global lithium
output, and about two times current copper production. As the
International Energy Agency noted in a May report, China has a
majority share in the processing of cobalt, lithium, and the rare
earth elements needed to make EVs.

10. Electricity is derived from Oil. A simple fact most people ignore
or don't understand.

If EVs are so great, why havenÂ’t they taken over the market? Why do EVs still only account for 2% of all U.S. auto sales?

The simple truth is that oil’s century-long dominance of the transportation-fuel market is largely due to its high energy density. That density – along with oil’s versatility, quick refueling, ease of handling, and continuing improvements in internal combustion engines and hybrids -- assures that oil will be fueling our cars, trucks, ships, boats, snowmobiles, ATVs, bulldozers, excavators, and airplanes for decades to come.

Even if this infrastructure eventually gets built, at an enormous cost, the basic rationale for electric vehicles—that they help reduce climate change—is questionable. Electrics use fossil fuels, too: Power plants produce 60% of their electricity from natural gas, coal and oil. And trading combustion engines for plug-ins is trading oil-and-gas drilling for mining the lithium and other minerals that go into the vehicle’s batteries.

BidenÂ’s infrastructure bill proposes spending $65 billion to put up new transmission lines. That will take years because each line must go through lengthy approval processes, typically slowed by environmentalists worried about damage to the landscape and by nearby residents. But a complete modernization and expansion of the grid would cost at least $4.8 trillion, and until that happens, a major switch to electric cars is a non-starter. You read that right, $4.8 Trillion!

Electric vehicles are touted as carbon neutral, but that claim doesnÂ’t consider that their batteries need more materials to build than do combustion engines. One lithium-ion car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting some 500,000 pounds of material from mines. A combustion engine, in contrast, weighs an average of 350 pounds and uses a mere 25,000 pounds of petroleum over its entire life. Producing and processing these materials expends energy, and the more energy expended, the more heat-trapping carbon dioxide is released.

But even if, in some hypothetical world, electrics could be totally carbon neutral and every American made the switch, global carbon emissions would drop by only 2.4%. In fact, if the entire American transportation industry, including airplanes, switched to electric, global emissions would go down only 5%.

In the above example, you pay $75,000+ which is M Territory for what is in reality a 4-Series Grand Coupe with battery power on steroids and a rectangular touch screen. EVERYTHING else is the same, don't kid yourself. Hmmmm.....I wonder with this price tag did you save on fuel cost? lol.

Cool story dude. BTW Mississippi is the state with the highest poverty rate

[techwhiz1]

It's an interesting analysis but BMW.sources it's cobalt for batteries from Australia.

It uses no rare earth elements in it's motors.

Electricity is not solely derived from oil and California hit a milestone recently where for a period of time California was running solely on renewable power.

The cost of EVs is rapidly decreasing. The Chevy Bolt is below $25k.
The Fisker Ocean will be below $40k

The reason why EVs aren't a larger market share is because up until now they weren't being produced in the volumes that ICE cars were. You don't need more infrastructure in the form of transmission lines. You need local storage and energy generation.

Are electric cars inherently green? No, not unless the manufacturer decides to also manufacture green, which BMW, Fisker and others are doing.

Does it make sense to go dump your perfectly running ICE car for an EV? No, but it doesake sense to look at an EV when you get ready to buy new.

I have solar and during the day I send energy into the grid because my battery is completely charged and I run off that in the evening. I rarely but power at peak rates.

[TruthOne]

Originally Posted by BMW007CA

The transition from Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to Electric Vehicles (EVs) is rather a long one and we are no where near that goal for at least two decades. We must separate the HYPE around EVs:

1. In the USA, EVs represents about 2%-3% of the market share.

2. Of the 285 million vehicles on U.S. roads today, fewer than 2%
are EVs. It will be many decades before they outnumber traditional
vehicles.

3. The average price of an EV is at least $10,000 more than a
comparable ICE vehicle, that's no small cost the average consumer.

4. California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3
million new public EV chargers by 2030. Likely cost to ratepayers:
about $13 billion. Electricity prices are soaring not decreasing.
Electricity is derived from...you guessed it? OIL.

5. Oil is and will remain the main powerhouse source of energy that
drives world economies for decades to come. Wind, Solar, Electric,
Hydrogen, etc. will take decades to mature and there is no
guarantee they will match the indisputable power of oil.

6. California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3
million new public EV chargers by 2030. Likely cost to ratepayers:
about $13 billion. Last year, electricity prices soared by 7.5%
and California regulators expect rates to surge another 40% or so
by 2030. These cost increases are happening in a state with the
highest poverty rate and largest Latino population in America.

Industry consultants, such as AlixPartners, estimate that the true
cost of adding electric chargers is $50 billion to $60 billion.
That's because the price of a direct-current fast charger for public
use can be anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000.


7. The cost of an electric battery pack will continue to fall but likely
not fast enough to achieve price parity with most gasoline vehicles
before the late 2020s.

8. Electrifying transportation will put more of our energy eggs in one
basket and make our grid an even-juicier target for terrorists,
cyberthieves, or bad actors. It will also reduce resilience and
reliability in case of a prolonged grid failure due to natural disaster,
equipment failure, or human error.

9. EVs will also make the U.S. more dependent on China. Electrifying
just half of our auto fleet will require, in rough terms, about nine
times current global cobalt production, three times global lithium
output, and about two times current copper production. As the
International Energy Agency noted in a May report, China has a
majority share in the processing of cobalt, lithium, and the rare
earth elements needed to make EVs.

10. Electricity is derived from Oil. A simple fact most people ignore
or don't understand.

If EVs are so great, why haven't they taken over the market? Why do EVs still only account for 2% of all U.S. auto sales?

The simple truth is that oil's century-long dominance of the transportation-fuel market is largely due to its high energy density. That density – along with oil's versatility, quick refueling, ease of handling, and continuing improvements in internal combustion engines and hybrids -- assures that oil will be fueling our cars, trucks, ships, boats, snowmobiles, ATVs, bulldozers, excavators, and airplanes for decades to come.

Even if this infrastructure eventually gets built, at an enormous cost, the basic rationale for electric vehicles—that they help reduce climate change—is questionable. Electrics use fossil fuels, too: Power plants produce 60% of their electricity from natural gas, coal and oil. And trading combustion engines for plug-ins is trading oil-and-gas drilling for mining the lithium and other minerals that go into the vehicle's batteries.

Biden's infrastructure bill proposes spending $65 billion to put up new transmission lines. That will take years because each line must go through lengthy approval processes, typically slowed by environmentalists worried about damage to the landscape and by nearby residents. But a complete modernization and expansion of the grid would cost at least $4.8 trillion, and until that happens, a major switch to electric cars is a non-starter. You read that right, $4.8 Trillion!

Electric vehicles are touted as carbon neutral, but that claim doesn't consider that their batteries need more materials to build than do combustion engines. One lithium-ion car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting some 500,000 pounds of material from mines. A combustion engine, in contrast, weighs an average of 350 pounds and uses a mere 25,000 pounds of petroleum over its entire life. Producing and processing these materials expends energy, and the more energy expended, the more heat-trapping carbon dioxide is released.

But even if, in some hypothetical world, electrics could be totally carbon neutral and every American made the switch, global carbon emissions would drop by only 2.4%. In fact, if the entire American transportation industry, including airplanes, switched to electric, global emissions would go down only 5%.

In the above example, you pay $75,000+ which is M Territory for what is in reality a 4-Series Grand Coupe with battery power on steroids and a rectangular touch screen. EVERYTHING else is the same, don't kid yourself. Hmmmm.....I wonder with this price tag did you save on fuel cost? lol.

California the State with the highest poverty rate? Says who? We aren't even in the top 10. Please stop spreading bullshit. Oh by the way we also have a $97 Billion dollar surplus.

Here are the 10 states with the highest poverty rates as of the latest Census data:

Mississippi: 20.3% of population lives below the poverty line
Louisiana: 19.2% of population lives below the poverty line
New Mexico: 19.1% of population lives below the poverty line
West Virginia: 17.6% of population lives below the poverty line
Kentucky: 17.3% of population lives below the poverty line
Arkansas: 17.0% of population lives below the poverty line
Alabama: 16.7% of population lives below the poverty line
Oklahoma: 15.7% of population lives below the poverty line
Tennessee: 15.2% of population lives below the poverty line
South Carolina: 15.2% of population lives below the poverty line

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by TruthOne

California the State with the highest poverty rate? Says who? We aren't even in the top 10. Please stop spreading bullshit. Oh by the way we also have a $97 Billion dollar surplus.

Here are the 10 states with the highest poverty rates as of the latest Census data:

Mississippi: 20.3% of population lives below the poverty line
Louisiana: 19.2% of population lives below the poverty line
New Mexico: 19.1% of population lives below the poverty line
West Virginia: 17.6% of population lives below the poverty line
Kentucky: 17.3% of population lives below the poverty line
Arkansas: 17.0% of population lives below the poverty line
Alabama: 16.7% of population lives below the poverty line
Oklahoma: 15.7% of population lives below the poverty line
Tennessee: 15.2% of population lives below the poverty line
South Carolina: 15.2% of population lives below the poverty line

Highest poverty rates by far are Republican controlled states in the south that require enormous federal assistance.

[Technic]

What is this crap?

Originally Posted by BMW007CA

The transition from Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to Electric Vehicles (EVs) is rather a long one and we are no where near that goal for at least two decades. We must separate the HYPE around EVs:

1. In the USA, EVs represents about 2%-3% of the market share.

2. Of the 285 million vehicles on U.S. roads today, fewer than 2%
are EVs. It will be many decades before they outnumber traditional
vehicles.

3. The average price of an EV is at least $10,000 more than a
comparable ICE vehicle, that's no small cost the average consumer.

4. California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3
million new public EV chargers by 2030. Likely cost to ratepayers:
about $13 billion. Electricity prices are soaring not decreasing.
Electricity is derived from...you guessed it? OIL.

5. Oil is and will remain the main powerhouse source of energy that
drives world economies for decades to come. Wind, Solar, Electric,
Hydrogen, etc. will take decades to mature and there is no
guarantee they will match the indisputable power of oil.

6. California Energy Commission estimated the state will need 1.3
million new public EV chargers by 2030. Likely cost to ratepayers:
about $13 billion. Last year, electricity prices soared by 7.5%
and California regulators expect rates to surge another 40% or so
by 2030. These cost increases are happening in a state with the
highest poverty rate and largest Latino population in America.

Industry consultants, such as AlixPartners, estimate that the true
cost of adding electric chargers is $50 billion to $60 billion.
ThatÂ’s because the price of a direct-current fast charger for public
use can be anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000.


7. The cost of an electric battery pack will continue to fall but likely
not fast enough to achieve price parity with most gasoline vehicles
before the late 2020s.

8. Electrifying transportation will put more of our energy eggs in one
basket and make our grid an even-juicier target for terrorists,
cyberthieves, or bad actors. It will also reduce resilience and
reliability in case of a prolonged grid failure due to natural disaster,
equipment failure, or human error.

9. EVs will also make the U.S. more dependent on China. Electrifying
just half of our auto fleet will require, in rough terms, about nine
times current global cobalt production, three times global lithium
output, and about two times current copper production. As the
International Energy Agency noted in a May report, China has a
majority share in the processing of cobalt, lithium, and the rare
earth elements needed to make EVs.

10. Electricity is derived from Oil. A simple fact most people ignore
or don't understand.

If EVs are so great, why havenÂ’t they taken over the market? Why do EVs still only account for 2% of all U.S. auto sales?

The simple truth is that oil’s century-long dominance of the transportation-fuel market is largely due to its high energy density. That density – along with oil’s versatility, quick refueling, ease of handling, and continuing improvements in internal combustion engines and hybrids -- assures that oil will be fueling our cars, trucks, ships, boats, snowmobiles, ATVs, bulldozers, excavators, and airplanes for decades to come.

Even if this infrastructure eventually gets built, at an enormous cost, the basic rationale for electric vehicles—that they help reduce climate change—is questionable. Electrics use fossil fuels, too: Power plants produce 60% of their electricity from natural gas, coal and oil. And trading combustion engines for plug-ins is trading oil-and-gas drilling for mining the lithium and other minerals that go into the vehicle’s batteries.

BidenÂ’s infrastructure bill proposes spending $65 billion to put up new transmission lines. That will take years because each line must go through lengthy approval processes, typically slowed by environmentalists worried about damage to the landscape and by nearby residents. But a complete modernization and expansion of the grid would cost at least $4.8 trillion, and until that happens, a major switch to electric cars is a non-starter. You read that right, $4.8 Trillion!

Electric vehicles are touted as carbon neutral, but that claim doesnÂ’t consider that their batteries need more materials to build than do combustion engines. One lithium-ion car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting some 500,000 pounds of material from mines. A combustion engine, in contrast, weighs an average of 350 pounds and uses a mere 25,000 pounds of petroleum over its entire life. Producing and processing these materials expends energy, and the more energy expended, the more heat-trapping carbon dioxide is released.

But even if, in some hypothetical world, electrics could be totally carbon neutral and every American made the switch, global carbon emissions would drop by only 2.4%. In fact, if the entire American transportation industry, including airplanes, switched to electric, global emissions would go down only 5%.

In the above example, you pay $75,000+ which is M Territory for what is in reality a 4-Series Grand Coupe with battery power on steroids and a rectangular touch screen. EVERYTHING else is the same, don't kid yourself. Hmmmm.....I wonder with this price tag did you save on fuel cost? lol.

[cruzer666]

Originally Posted by BMW007CA

If EVs are so great, why haven't they taken over the market?

So you decide to create an account and come to an EV forum, write a mostly non-factual rant and tout you're anti-EV. In addition, you imply that all of us can't think for ourselves and we are making or have made an uneducated decision by getting one.

That is poor form, wouldn't you agree?

[TruthOne]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

Highest poverty rates by far are Republican controlled states in the south that require enormous federal assistance.

He obviously is a right winger with an agenda. I see it on all car forums about EV's. They constantly trash them then take random shots at California. Before anybody calls me a Lib or some other crap. I'm fairly conservative

[cruzer666]

Originally Posted by TruthOne

He obviously is a right winger with an agenda. I see it on all car forums about EV's. They constantly trash them then take random shots at California. Before anybody calls me a Lib or some other crap. I'm fairly conservative

They are trolling, this is their only post.

[deutsch100]

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by TruthOne

He obviously is a right winger with an agenda. I see it on all car forums about EV's. They constantly trash them then take random shots at California. Before anybody calls me a Lib or some other crap. I'm fairly conservative

I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative.

Anyway, I also hold multiple degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering along with being on industry committees that educate politicians on technology.

I call anyone out on these forums that don't know what they are talking about.

[TruthOne]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative.

Anyway, I also hold multiple degrees in Electrical and Computer Engineering along with being on industry committees that educate politicians on technology.

I call anyone out on these forums that don't know what they are talking about.

As am I .Yes I agree

[Kenny C]

I come to this forum to get away from this political crap. I don't care about anyones view on politics.

[Trojan4evr]

I'm not gonna quote this loser. But what the fuck does the Latino population of California have to do anything with their EV and infrastructure? Am I missing something here?

You really have to have an absolute useless and sorry existence to take the time out of your day and register in a forum just to type out whole bunch jiberish.

BTW, seek some help. You are exhibiting signs of Schizophrenia.

[techwhiz1]

Now back to cars!!!!

The review was interesting but I really stand by what I have said in other forums. BMW has a new category that they play in. It's the performance EV sedan market. For the money and what you get the M50 cannot be beat.

People will say Taycan, but you need to spend $140k to beat it.

[MisterGoober]

The biggest problem with EVs right now is availability (like many other vehicles).

Try to get an X3 allocation and it isn't too difficult. Try to get an i4 allocation and it's a different story. I'm hoping BMW continuously increases production capacity so we have better availability.

After incentives, pricing really isn't too far from an M440i or similar, also we're in a weird place with relatively few discounts.

For anyone curious, see if there's an Ultimate Drive Event near you. I did one a few weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed driving the i4 M50. While it's not a "true" M car, the instant torque is a game changer and for non-track use, I can't imagine needing more power.

As for the silly political debate, there will always be luddites who are resistance to change, even though change is constant.

The downsides IMO were that the i4 wasn't built on a dedicated platform, so doesn't have a "frunk" and still has legacy ICE infrastructure such as the transmission tunnel in the rear floor. Fit/finish and overall experience seemed better than the Tesla M3 to me at least (but i'm biased towards BMW). Overall, I still think it's a solid deal and isn't priced too far from a regular M440i even though there's a LOT more power.

[MisterGoober]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

Now back to cars!!!!

The review was interesting but I really stand by what I have said in other forums. BMW has a new category that they play in. It's the performance EV sedan market. For the money and what you get the M50 cannot be beat.

People will say Taycan, but you need to spend $140k to beat it.

The BIGGEST issue with EVs today for us enthusiasts, is that we really don't have a lot of options if you don't want an SUV type vehicle:

Tesla M3P, S: Have their own issues, spend $100k+ on the S or get the M3P and don't have a dedicated screen for the driver. Fit/finish, etc. Spartan Ikea type interior.

Audi E-Tron GT/Taycan Twins: If you want dual motor you're at $110k+, otherwise they're great.

Lucid: More of a grand tourer/cruiser, unknown future

The i4 is one of the few enthusiast electric choices that's well south of $100k.

I don't see the market changing because we're a small piece of the pie, and the market demands SUVs. It's probably also why the iX is on a dedicated platform and the i4 is shared for now. Hopefully we continue to get more enthusiast options in the market.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

That's been my point all along.
People keep wanting to make it an M3 with electric motors. It's not.

Yeah, it's pretty simple actually. It's an M car if the VIN is WBS. If not, not a full M car. Should be obvious from the naming "M50" though, since no full M car has ever been named like that.