[Quadruple VANOS]

Originally Posted by spool twice

Range is at its highest in traffic / city situations.

It's literally published in every Google search you do...

Range CAN increase because of traffic, if you are at highway speeds and come to a sudden stop/crawl situation, it increases range. Top Gear even mentions this in their EQS range test when they hit stop/go/crawl on their highway drive.

That's all I'm saying. City/traffic is not a disadvantage to BEVs, it's actually one of the best case scenarios for it, it's not fake news.

I guess you do you. For me, I'm not planning for traffic increasing my range. Quite the opposite.
Merry Christmas.

[JustChris]

Instagram says it's an M

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by JustChris

Instagram says it's an M

BMW also says it's an M and in Europe it gets M seats and trim reserves for M.

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

BMW also says it's an M and in Europe it gets M seats and trim reserves for M.

Yup I know, as do the M performance cars now a la X3/4M40i etc I was just positing that as there was some discussion earlier on whether BMW was pushing this car as more of an M than other M Performance cars and for a resounding yes.

[spool twice]

Originally Posted by JustChris

Yup I know, as do the M performance cars now a la X3/4M40i etc I was just positing that as there was some discussion earlier on whether BMW was pushing this car as more of an M than other M Performance cars and for a resounding yes.

Seems to steer more of M with the marketing, they dont' mention M-performance but typically the M followed by two or more digits is the performance side on the ICE side.

Will that convert on the BEV side? who knows until they release something akin to the M3/M4 M5/M6 etc etc and call the i4M, i5M etc etc.

What it is doing though is drawing in much needed traffic to the i brand and shows that M is committed to having influence in BEV's and isn't going away just because BMW is moving towards BEV's. This car and the iX is a runaway sales success for BMW where they both are exceeding BMW's sales expectations. Hopefully maybe even spread new knowledge to those who are considering converting since it is different (miles/kwh vs mpg, kWh vs tank size, kW vs HP, range in city vs. hwy is opposite of ICE)

Whether or not M-faithful's will like that, I guess they will have to hold onto the current crop of cars since BEV's is where the industry is headed in for passenger vehicles.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by spool twice

Seems to steer more of M with the marketing, they dont' mention M-performance but typically the M followed by two or more digits is the performance side on the ICE side.

Will that convert on the BEV side? who knows until they release something akin to the M3/M4 M5/M6 etc etc and call the i4M, i5M etc etc.

What it is doing though is drawing in much needed traffic to the i brand and shows that M is committed to having influence in BEV's and isn't going away just because BMW is moving towards BEV's. This car and the iX is a runaway sales success for BMW where they both are exceeding BMW's sales expectations. Hopefully maybe even spread new knowledge to those who are considering converting since it is different (miles/kwh vs mpg, kWh vs tank size, kW vs HP, range in city vs. hwy is opposite of ICE)

Whether or not M-faithful's will like that, I guess they will have to hold onto the current crop of cars since BEV's is where the industry is headed in for passenger vehicles.

Well, I'm an M faithful and instead of buying an ICE M, I'm buying an M50.

My very first M car was an E30 M3.

[spool twice]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

Well, I'm an M faithful and instead of buying an ICE M, I'm buying an M50.

My very first M car was an E30 M3.

Similar, former 2 e46 M3, e90 m3, and currently an F82 M4cs. I'm ready for a change and nothing currently excites me in the lineup as much as the M50.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by spool twice

Similar, former 2 e46 M3, e90 m3, and currently an F82 M4cs. I'm ready for a change and nothing currently excites me in the lineup as much as the M50.

I also had an E36 M3 and my E90 was a N54 335i. It was Cobb Tuned, M factory limited slip, F30 Brembos, Bilstein B8, etc...

Nothing M really excited me except the M2 Competition and I was looking for one before the M50 was announced. The new M3/4 all more of the same. Nothing game changing. More évolution than revolution. Yeah, new body, additional tech but fundamentally not a game changer.

The i4 M50 changes the game. Does it have more HP and speed than a G series M4 AWD? No. But the point is I'm not really looking for that. At 500hp in the USA, I'm going to run out of road long before I run out of car.

Is the M50 a "true M"? I guess the question is what is a "true M"? My E36 as nice as it was; some will argue it wasn't a true M in the US because it didn't have the M engine from Europe.

So whether the M50 is considered a "true M" can be left for others to argue. What isn't really open for debate is that it has some phenomenal tech if you read the full brief on the motor that is 93% efficient and doesn't use permanent magnets. The adaptive regen that is also GPS aware, etc....

The car is a beast and joins the e-Tron, Taycan, Lucid and others in the truly premium EV sector. Tesla is not in this sector. Look at it for what it is; an EV that has all the trappings of a BMW.

[TheStanman]

Originally Posted by Mike i4 M50

BMW i4 M50 EPA range of 270 miles when equipped with 19-inch wheels and 227 miles when equipped with 20-inch wheels.”

I'm always surprised how big of an impact wheel size has on EV range. I would think it has a similar impact on ICE efficiency too? For an ICE car, that'd be equivalent to getting 25 mpg vs 21 mpg moving from 19s to 20s.

If so, I'm surprised reducing wheel size is not a bigger part of achieving fuel efficiency standards. It'd also mean a significant increase in fuel costs for consumers.

Or is there something about EVs that make them particularly sensitive to wheel size?

Also, it's funny how much we sacrifice prioritize form over function on wheels. Smaller wheels are cheaper to buy and operate, ride better, less prone to damage, and more efficient. But we want those big wheels!!

[TheStanman]

Originally Posted by JustChris

270 miles hmm that's a compromise but good if it has risen.

Is it like Tesla where they recommend charging from 20-80% normally or different battery type as that's about 160 then.

As noted by soheil, that is now already built into the range figures. Battery management systems automatically only use a subset of battery capacity to maximize battery longevity.

In certain emergency scenarios, that unused capacity can be tapped into. E.g., Tesla has unlocked more battery capacity during hurricane evacuations.

[SteveinArizona]

EPA numbers are based on driving like Prius drivers. If one drives a BMW like a BMW, then the numbers will significantly shrink.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by TheStanman

I'm always surprised how big of an impact wheel size has on EV range. I would think it has a similar impact on ICE efficiency too? For an ICE car, that'd be equivalent to getting 25 mpg vs 21 mpg moving from 19s to 20s.

If so, I'm surprised reducing wheel size is not a bigger part of achieving fuel efficiency standards. It'd also mean a significant increase in fuel costs for consumers.

Or is there something about EVs that make them particularly sensitive to wheel size?

Also, it's funny how much we sacrifice prioritize form over function on wheels. Smaller wheels are cheaper to buy and operate, ride better, less prone to damage, and more efficient. But we want those big wheels!!

So I looked at the specs of the i4 e40 and M50.

So the weight difference between the two is 338lbs or about 7.2%. That is 4680 vs 5018. So adding the second motor and additional standard equipment adds about 338lbs.

The change from 18" to 19" wheels is an impact on e40 range. 301 down to 282 or about 6.3% The section width of the tires increased by about 8.7%.

But for 7.2% increase in weight only causes a 4.25% difference in range 282 vs 270. This assumes both on the 19" wheels.

The 20" wheels have a dramatic effect on range 15.9% decrease 270 vs 227. Now the rotational mass of the wheels have some effect but it's got to be the amount of rubber in contact with the road.

The section width on the 19" tires is 9.8" on the front and 10.2" in the rear. For the 20" tires the section width is 10.2" for the front and 11.4" for the rear.

This amounts to an increase of total section width of about 8% but about a 16% decrease in distance.

If we just assumed section width was linear in proportion to mileage lost we would expect about an 11% reduction in range. But we know it's not linear and the size of the contact patch is not just the section width.

Even on an ICE car, fat.and sticky tires will reduce gas mileage.

I guess I said all that to say, if mileage is important, those 20" wheels will cost. The sweet spot seems to be the 19" wheel/tire combo.

If the range is becomes an issue for me, I guess a 20" wheel with a narrower wheel/tire combo with the correct offset will get some mileage back. I ordered.my car with the 20" wheels.

[jeffc42]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

So I looked at the specs of the i4 e40 and M50.

So the weight difference between the two is 338lbs or about 7.2%. That is 4680 vs 5018. So adding the second motor and additional standard equipment adds about 338lbs.

The change from 18" to 19" wheels is an impact on e40 range. 301 down to 282 or about 6.3% The section width of the tires increased by about 8.7%.

But for 7.2% increase in weight only causes a 4.25% difference in range 282 vs 270. This assumes both on the 19" wheels.

The 20" wheels have a dramatic effect on range 15.9% decrease 270 vs 227. Now the rotational mass of the wheels have some effect but it's got to be the amount of rubber in contact with the road.

The section width on the 19" tires is 9.8" on the front and 10.2" in the rear. For the 20" tires the section width is 10.2" for the front and 11.4" for the rear.

This amounts to an increase of total section width of about 8% but about a 16% decrease in distance.

If we just assumed section width was linear in proportion to mileage lost we would expect about an 11% reduction in range. But we know it's not linear and the size of the contact patch is not just the section width.

Even on an ICE car, fat.and sticky tires will reduce gas mileage.

I guess I said all that to say, if mileage is important, those 20" wheels will cost. The sweet spot seems to be the 19" wheel/tire combo.

If the range is becomes an issue for me, I guess a 20" wheel with a narrower wheel/tire combo with the correct offset will get some mileage back. I ordered.my car with the 20" wheels.

The problem is, the 19" wheels come with either all season or performance tires. We don't know which was used to get that EPA rating of 270. The 20" comes with stickier high performance tires. The 18" only comes with all season.

For myself, I went with 19" with performance rubber. Even if that turns out to be worse than 270, it'll still be much better than 225, and that will be good enough.

[BimmerBahn]

Originally Posted by Quadruple VANOS

I guess you do you. For me, I'm not planning for traffic increasing my range. Quite the opposite.
Merry Christmas.

It’s all about Wh/mile…. Spirited/ traffic light racing, uses more power, reduces range….If you drive normally, in stop-go/city traffic, your consumption (Wh/mile) will be pretty low… or it is for me.

Driving over 70 MPH will also use more power and reduces range. As an example, I drive between Orlando and Gainesville pretty regularly in my Tesla - 113 (226 RT) miles door to door. If I run at my normal ICE car speed - 82 MPH, I have to stop and recharge to make it home. If I stay under 75 MPH, I don’t need to recharge and usually have ~15-20% SoC when I arrive home.

[spool twice]

Originally Posted by BimmerBahn

It’s all about Wh/mile…. Spirited/ traffic light racing, uses more power, reduces range….If you drive normally, in stop-go/city traffic, your consumption (Wh/mile) will be pretty low… or it is for me.

Driving over 70 MPH will also use more power and reduces range. As an example, I drive between Orlando and Gainesville pretty regularly in my Tesla - 113 (226 RT) miles door to door. If I run at my normal ICE car speed - 82 MPH, I have to stop and recharge to make it home. If I stay under 75 MPH, I don’t need to recharge and usually have ~15-20% SoC when I arrive home.

Does your Tesla use a heat pump? Curious what the impact is on that as I've read those are very very efficient in circulating heat.

From the looks of A/C itself, it looks like the electric compressor would use the most (1kW) during the initial cool down (that's if you are parked outside and there is a big temperature variance between interior vs exterior), but then dials back to about 250wH to maintain. Stereo's runs off the 14v battery, which takes like 600wH to maintain 14v (along with the other accessories).

I'm still learning as this will be my first BEV, but to me those items would represent than 1kW/hour over the range of the current charge.

Side note, I did do a rather simple calculation of that stop/go scenario 0-10, 10-0mph. The range would be over 400 miles

[BimmerBahn]

Originally Posted by spool twice

Does your Tesla use a heat pump? Curious what the impact is on that as I've read those are very very efficient in circulating heat.

Nope, mine is a 2019…. Heat pump wasn’t introduced until last year. I’ve heard that in milder climates, the HP is much better…. Not so much in very cold parts of the world.

Oh, I’m pretty sure the LV system on the Tesla is 12V, not 14V. Fingers crossed BMW uses a different/better setup for their LV system vs what Tesla has done…. Lots of Teslas getting bricked when their lead-acid battery dies without warning… and the jump is less than ideal, too.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by jeffc42

The problem is, the 19" wheels come with either all season or performance tires. We don't know which was used to get that EPA rating of 270. The 20" comes with stickier high performance tires. The 18" only comes with all season.

For myself, I went with 19" with performance rubber. Even if that turns out to be worse than 270, it'll still be much better than 225, and that will be good enough.

My calculations are normalized for the 19" size and make no assumptions about the coefficient of friction for the tires or shape of contact patch which are unknowns.

Also ignored is the fact that a tire inflated on the hard side will give better mileage than on on the low side.

I can tell you just from experience on the Fiat 500e and the two Chevy Bolts that we have owned tire pressure has a real effect on range.

But ultimately what I was trying to demonstrate that the weight difference between the eDrive40 and M50 isn't the driving force between the range difference. It's not even the diameter of the wheels, it's going to be the contact patch and how sticky the tires are.

So changing to a 20" tire with the same width at the 19" (assuming a tire type like the 19") should give similar mileage.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by BimmerBahn

It’s all about Wh/mile…. Spirited/ traffic light racing, uses more power, reduces range….If you drive normally, in stop-go/city traffic, your consumption (Wh/mile) will be pretty low… or it is for me.

Driving over 70 MPH will also use more power and reduces range. As an example, I drive between Orlando and Gainesville pretty regularly in my Tesla - 113 (226 RT) miles door to door. If I run at my normal ICE car speed - 82 MPH, I have to stop and recharge to make it home. If I stay under 75 MPH, I don’t need to recharge and usually have ~15-20% SoC when I arrive home.

All one needs to do is calculate the aerodynamic drag at various speeds to see how going from 60 to 80 MPH affects range. It's actually pretty dramatic.

The HP required to overcome drag as you increase speed is not linear. It's an exponential function.

[spool twice]

So this discussion is interesting. I linked a PDF document from BMW's press release.

It lists the M50's cd. of drag as .25 - .32, maybe the higher # is for the wider wheel/tires, wheel extensions, and spoiler of the 20" wheel package?

[Staszek]

Originally Posted by soheil

As an i3 driver (and I can only guess i4 and iX are the same) BMW has one of the if not the best battery management systems in any EV, for sure better than TSLA. Charging the i3 doesn't have any guidelines, you can just charge it up to the full 100%! In fact BMW itself recommends leaving the fully charged car still plugged in! The Battery Management System itself takes care of all the charging time and current and makes sure to have the least impact on battery life. I even read somewhere that the system artificially limits the maximum capacity so in reality even if it reaches 100% it is not actually the full capacity of the battery. All of this is so that the driver doesn't have to worry and think about any percentages

This is what I am interested in.

The M3P has great range in perfect conditions, my neighbor has one and said he gets nowhere near the advertised range, especially in the winter.

I am curious like most things BMW does with their posted numbers that yes it may be slightly lower than Tesla but its a real number that wont cut in half when the winter hits.

I have seen a few postings around the M3P lossing perfomance as the battery drains where the i4 doesnt lose much at all, which leads me to believe that their battery management is much better.

There is a difference between a posted number and an actual usable number, looking forward to seeing more real-world testing done.

That being said I saw this on BMWUSA site today, with the aero 19" wheels in all season the range is 370 on the M50, that seems like a very big jump, is that a misprint? I haven't seen that before.

[jeffc42]

Originally Posted by Staszek

That being said I saw this on BMWUSA site today, with the aero 19" wheels in all season the range is 370 on the M50, that seems like a very big jump, is that a misprint? I haven't seen that before.

It must be a misprint. Even the eDrive40 is rated for about 300 miles. I haven't seen milage numbers next to wheel choices before. They must've added that recently. Looks like it's 270 regardless of all season or performance.

As for battery management, there's going to be a hit in cold weather. That's guaranteed. It remains to be seen how much of a hit.

[jeffc42]

Checking the eDrive40, it looks like 19" wheels yield a range of 282 miles, again regardless of all season or performance. The 18" yields 301.