[Stockholmarn]

Test drove one of these on track recently, very disappointing.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by MisterGoober

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.

I don't see a problem with not having a "frunk".
Just because Tesla does it doesn't mean everyone has to. The frunk is manual and not automatic.

As far as the transmission tunnel, I suspect even the Neue Klasse platform will have a tunnel since it will support ICE also.

[gs6456]

Originally Posted by Technic

What is this crap?

EV article hit the main page.

[Technic]

Originally Posted by gs6456

EV article hit the main page.

Crap as in the post is crap, not the thread.

[Haywood]

Originally Posted by Stockholmarn

Test drove one of these on track recently, very disappointing.

That's funny. That's like taking an 8 series on the track and comparing it to your M3C. The i4 is a 5000lb EV that doesn't compare to a dedicated M3 on the track. I personally think most people are not going to track their i4's.

[cfm56d7b]

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.

Very well described.

EV batteries need metals which are extracted from the earth's crust.

High purity Class 1 nickel is in demand by all EV manufacturers, including Tesla.

"At 1.9 million tons of sulfur dioxide emissions annually, Norilsk produces as much sulfur pollution as the entire U.S. — all concentrated in a city the size of Eugene, Oregon"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/n...earth-rcna6481

[deutsch100]

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.

100% As I mentioned we recently traded our 2020 Taycan for a 2022 Taycan (so much equity in the 2020....car market is crazy), and while the Taycan might be the most amazing performance EV with phenomenal build quality, materials, dealer network and support, it really CANNOT be compared to the i4.

As you mentioned the Taycan is $70,000 (and up to $150,000 MORE) than the i4. They are both German, they both have 4 doors, they are both electric..but they are not in the same category.

I will say in all honesty, that while both our Taycans are/were incredible, I am a BMW guy and I prefer the i4. Just the user interface alone in the BMW is light years ahead of Porsche.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by Haywood

That's funny. That's like taking an 8 series on the track and comparing it to your M3C. The i4 is a 5000lb EV that doesn't compare to a dedicated M3 on the track. I personally think most people are not going to track their i4's.

I have been doing my comparison between 5/8 series due to increased weight and handling characteristics.

The G26 is a lot bigger than my E90 was. Compare a current M3 to my previous E30 M3 and the current M3 is a dog. Yeah, it's got power but does not feel nearly as precise. The steering is vague in comparison to either my E30, E36 or E90 for that matter

Anyway, can we stop saying "but the M50 isn't an M3 and therefore not a real M"?

We know it's not an M3! BMW knows it's not an M3! Did BMW call this an EV replacement for an M3? No. Does BMW even mention an M3 as a comparison to the M50? No. The reviewers do that.

It isn't an M3 for a variety of reasons but neither is an M5, M8, X3M, X5M, etc. The benchmark is not an M3. The benchmark is every other "performance" EV on the market.

When you compare it in the category that it fits into, it provides the best overall EV performance sedan package for under $110k

Could BMW have made an EV that compares with the M3? Sure but most on this forum would not be waiting to get it because it would cost like a Taycan GTS.

I think BMW made some excellent trade-offs to get a great performance EV to market where people could still afford it.

[Antiseptic]

The X3/5M’s are NOT M cars….

(Start a new argument…)

🫣

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by Antiseptic

The X3/5M’s are NOT M cars….

(Start a new argument…)

Actually, you are right. They are SAV; sports activity vehicles.

I was incorrect in calling them cars. The implication was that they are not an M3 and should not be compared.

[hotrod182]

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.

But you miss the whole point of why many of us are buying electric.

Even if they had less efficiency than ICE vehicles, many of us would still buy EVs for their premium, effortless, torque filled powerband. The type of driving experience that actually allows you to accelerate and drive fast without making a scene with a loud thrashing engine that makes the other drivers next to you think you are trying to race them, or being aggressive.
The convenience of plugging in at home and waking up in the morning with a full charge. Avoiding wasting time at the gas station, dealing with greasy, smelly, gas pumps.
The supremely quiet, efficient and smooth electric propulsion system that allows you to drive into a town house, or apartment complex late a night without waking up people. Or if you are waiting in the drive thu, the vehicle takes virtually no energy, with no obtrusive start/stop systems that many of the ICE vehicles use.
One of the most awesome features is the ability to relax in my car on my lunch break with full air conditioned comfort without having to run and engine just to keep the car cool.
Again, these are just some of the things that makes the EV preferable regardless of eco related factors.

[Antiseptic]

Can we stop requoting this post…?

[G30 545e]

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 ICE's [...]

Now let's just change that around a small bit. Let's just say it's the year 1910.

1. In the USA, motor cars represent about 2%-3% of the market share........over horse's and carts.

2. Of the 285 million vehicles on U.S. roads today, (horse's and carts) fewer than 2% are motor cars.

Moral of the story: these motor cars will never catch on. Long live the horse and cart. We must separate the HYPE about motor cars.