[stein_325i]

[XsltAnalyst]

Not bad effort but for road trips this car is not practical. Reasons:
Single speed transmission EVs fail to achieve more than 65-70% of claimed EPA range at 75MPH, while most modern cars easily beat their EPA highway rating at that speed. Example, model 3 long range barely gets 200mile range at 75MPH.
https://www.caranddriver.com/shoppin...nge-explained/

With M50 you'll be lucky to get 160-180 miles doing left lane speed with some passengers and cargo on board. Then you hope that at the charging location there will be WORKING and available chargers to use, which you need to have membership cards. I won't even mention how the charging cost at those can easily match or exceed cost of doing the same miles in a 25 mpg petrol car.

[note46]

Originally Posted by stein_325i

Its the same with the iX. It was originally promised to have over 400 miles, then consequently got lowered with each teaser of the car.

I believe those were european rating standard. These numbers are US EPA.

[stein_325i]

Originally Posted by note46

I believe those were european rating standard. These numbers are US EPA.

The original claim was 435 miles, however even if using the WLTP cycle for that claim, that would still translate to a high 350+ mile range on the EPA. The point is that regardless of testing cycle, the range for the iNext which became the iX, has deteriorated as it became closer to reality.

Originally Posted by MotorTrend

During remarks today at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, BMW announced its iNext EV will have a range of up to 435 miles when it goes on sale in 2021.

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by pikcachu

Sure but 240 is much worse.

240 is what's realistic in the Tesla. So not worse. Same.

[CRtoE92]

I know BMW can make electric cars well. I have an i3 and love it

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by pikcachu

Would be nice to compare the weights

i4, Mustang, Model 3

I Agree, but I didn't see a weight listed for the i4 (either model), and Ford doesn't publish a weight for the Mach-E either. Third parties have weighed the long range, AWD Mach-E and report it to be about 4800Lb, and the GT models should be similar. But they do have some different hardware, so until they are available to weigh, we don't know for sure.

[note46]

Originally Posted by stein_325i

The original claim was 435 miles, however even if using the WLTP cycle for that claim, that would still translate to a high 350+ mile range on the EPA. The point is that regardless of testing cycle, the range for the iNext which became the iX, has deteriorated as it became closer to reality.

True, we'll know for sure once it gets tested by reviewers.

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by Encanto

There are batteries in the center tunnel.

Wrong cause/effect relationship. It's not there because BMW needed to find space for batteries. It's the other way around: the batteries are there because the center tunnel was already designed in for G26 ICE and the space was begging to be used.

[BMthusiast]

Pretty cool moment for BMW.

[Chrisss_GER]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I Agree, but I didn't see a weight listed for the i4 (either model), and Ford doesn't publish a weight for the Mach-E either. Third parties have weighed the long range, AWD Mach-E and report it to be about 4800Lb, and the GT models should be similar. But they do have some different hardware, so until they are available to weigh, we don't know for sure.

edrive40: DIN 2050kg / EU 2125kg
M50: DIN 2215kg / EU 2290kg

[Jbrock22]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

Let's quickly get "attention to sustainability" out of the way: it's just marketing, there are not enough real data to compare that to what other manufacturers, including Tesla, are doing.

Ride comfort: rear air suspension doesn't really do anything here and is probably there to compensate for weight issues. The real difference is adaptive suspension but I can guarantee you most people will be buying eDrive40s with standard suspension.

Overall quality I put under "bling": Tesla's build quality is no longer problematic, and the actual remaining difference is material quality and design.

An openable roof is not something a lot of people would miss. I actually found that with the completely unnoticeable AC system in my Model 3 I open any windows much less frequently than I did in my BMWs.

Tesla's headlights are extremely good with no special trickery. They are at least on par with BMW's adaptive LED, and the laser headlights again will not be standard equipment.

One real advantage that you didn't mention is the hatchback. Model 3's trunk opening is laughably small.

Summing up, an M50 optioned up to $70K will be better than a $57K Model 3 Perf though the latter will still handily beat the BMW off the line. A base eDrive40 at $55K will be on par with a $49K dual-motor Model 3, with that $6K difference paying for the nicer interior.

A car without a sunroof is a deal breaker for me.

[ghaffari46]

Originally Posted by Ibiza

The i4 M50 range is atrocious. You can't take a long trip past 240 miles as you'll waste time charging. That's around less than 3 hrs of usage on a full charge that range.

What will the range be of future M cars, 150 miles?

And remember, if you drive it in a winter with 2-3 passengers, you are probably looking for 150-160 max. No good even for a short trip

[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by Chrisss_GER

edrive40: DIN 2050kg / EU 2125kg
M50: DIN 2215kg / EU 2290kg

Is this a link for the weight data?

[BimmerBahn]

Originally Posted by stein_325i

I would wait till they fix their unreliable chargers first. While there are more locations than other networks, the chargers themselves don't work very well and have many issues.

well that's disappointing. I've only used Tesla SC's and the occasional ChargePoint L2's... BMW better get off their ass and make sure the charging network is acceptable. Tesla figured it out early and have made a significant investment and they're still gaps in coverage, albeit lessening every day. I'm not sure it ultimately makes sense for all the brands to roll their own network, but at least the ones they partner with need to have their shit together and offer a product that works...especially until there is one on every corner like petrol stations.

Cheers!

[Mako]

how close is BMW to the 200,000 US electric sales?

would suck to have one of these come in next year and be told you don't get the $7500 rebate as BMW just hit 200,000 in US sales

to me thats huge as I doubt dealers will discount anytime soon.

[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

This guy, at 195cm, is a bit shorter than I am, and he looks really uncomfortable in the rear seat. I remember I felt the same about the rear seat of the F36 I was seriously considering in 2015. So even though the G26 has grown compared to the F36 the rear seat is still not great.

Tesla's rear seat, otoh, is actually OK even with my height. For i4 to match it, BMW would have to give up the coupe shape and use a dedicated EV platform (center tunnel? really?)

Tesla rear is a tight squeeze for me, maybe my torso is too long.

The G20 rear is OK, given those seats are in board(and higher than front) and steal extra space from the middle seat.

[Encanto]

Originally Posted by ynguldyn

Wrong cause/effect relationship. It's not there because BMW needed to find space for batteries. It's the other way around: the batteries are there because the center tunnel was already designed in for G26 ICE and the space was begging to be used.

We are saying the same thing.

[bavarianride]

Originally Posted by Mako

how close is BMW to the 200,000 US electric sales?

would suck to have one of these come in next year and be told you don't get the $7500 rebate as BMW just hit 200,000 in US sales

to me thats huge as I doubt dealers will discount anytime soon.

This data from June 2020 says BMW cross 100k.

Under the current legislation, once 200k units are hit, the credit is still 100% for current and next quarter, then 50% for 2 more quarters, and then 25% for 2 more quarters before hitting 0%.

https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/fede...-by-automaker/

[Mako]

Wow so C&D said the M50 is 5,000 lbs

Tesla model 3 performance is 4,050 lbs

explains why the BMW is so much slower (3.1 vs ~3.7) despite having more "power"

why is the BMW so heavy???

[BimmerBahn]

Originally Posted by XsltAnalyst

Not bad effort but for road trips this car is not practical. Reasons:
Single speed transmission EVs fail to achieve more than 65-70% of claimed EPA range at 75MPH, while most modern cars easily beat their EPA highway rating at that speed. Example, model 3 long range barely gets 200mile range at 75MPH.
https://www.caranddriver.com/shoppin...nge-explained/

With M50 you'll be lucky to get 160-180 miles doing left lane speed with some passengers and cargo on board. Then you hope that at the charging location there will be WORKING and available chargers to use, which you need to have membership cards. I won't even mention how the charging cost at those can easily match or exceed cost of doing the same miles in a 25 mpg petrol car.

While I agree you'll likely get ~200 miles of range, the cost will be significantly less than petrol. I drove between VA and FL in my Tesla a couple times (~700 miles), stopping to charge five times. The total each way was ~$31. doing the same trip in my X5 is roughly $100 each way....downside is it was 16 hours vs the normal 10-12 hours. If you're good with taking more time to charge.... roughly 30-40 minutes (i.e. not on a mission to get to your destination), it's doable... however, longer trips will still be better in an ICE.

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Here's the problem with Tesla:

The car is TOO efficient. Yes, you read that right. Tesla gets their EPA mileage range because the car is so efficient when driven on the EPA test, it makes fabulous numbers.

But when you live with an EV for a long time, you start to learn of the drawbacks and pitfalls. Like aero drag. When you see how fast the consumption on a Tesla climbs at highway speeds, you realize that the level of mechanical drag is so low, that highway aero drag seems HUGE in comparison. And let me tell you what happens when you hit a headwind.

Don't forget that a 75kWh battery is carrying the equivalent of only 3 gallons of gas. And that at Tesla's EPA rated range, you're getting the equivalent of over 110 MPG. So when you hit a headwind while on the highway, now you're "only" getting 70-80 MPG. Which sounds great, until you realize you only are carrying 3 gallons of gas. And that's a FULL tank. Which you pretty much only use maybe 70-80% of normally.

Porsche's 800V system is the future. It allows much lower current draw and therefore less heat buildup. It also allows for much better charging curves. The Taycan charges over 100kW DEEP into the charge cycle. Like all the way to 90%. If you know EV's, that's unheard of.

Also, Porsche cheats at performance as well. They use a gearbox to improve launch times, but still maintain good highway miles. They also limit max power (overboost) to launch control mode only, and then only for like 3-5 seconds, then the power drops. So you don't get the Tesla degredation in power as the pack discharges, but the headline figure is only available in launch mode. If you stab the pedal from a rolling start, it's not as fast.

It's still plenty flipping fast though. But even the Taycan has limitations.

I've noticed you're in Texas. You have higher speed limits, so you're much more affected by the rapid increase in energy consumption any Tesla would show above 70mph. On your highways you basically have to drive dangerously slow to be close to the EPA rating. This is disappointing but not typical for the majority of the US population and even the world population.

Porsche's solution is great. It's also in a totally different price category. Maybe this is why the i4 uses neither extra gears nor the 800V system.