BMW i4 Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Well-known member
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Test from a YouTube channel I like a lot


format 2 positive points / 2 negative points, i4 M50:

+: format, comfort, looks like a real car
+: fast recharge (when Ionity works)

-: doesn't deserve the M badge: no feedback, limited by its weight, driving too quiet, no emotion
-: too much instant power, not pleasant, no sense


He advises buying an eDrive40
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
Test from a YouTube channel I like a lot

format 2 positive points / 2 negative points, i4 M50:

+: format, comfort, looks like a real car
+: fast recharge (when Ionity works)

-: doesn't deserve the M badge: no feedback, limited by its weight, driving too quiet, no emotion
-: too much instant power, not pleasant, no sense


He advises buying an eDrive40
@Mycroft , thank you for posting, I was waiting for him to get his hands on an i4. I like his general comments, though I'm not sure I agree with him about the "too much power" being unpleasant, that's not the feedback of the other reviewers. I think the lack of feedback from the steering is unanimous from all reviewers, though most say that ALL modern BMWs other than the M2 have that issue. And I got the sense that he drove mostly highways from Paris to the Abbaye in question, he did not really go through curvy roads like the reviewers did in the Munich-to-Bavarian-Mountains BMW shindig, so I'm taking his comment of "no emotion" with a grain of salt. I really would like to see one of these reviewers go through, say, the Stelvio pass or the Gorges du Tarn road with DSC set on "Traction", that would be a real test of handling.

There is also a huge difference between "spectacular driving" and "fast-through-a-track" driving. Drifting is spectacular and certainly a lot of fun, but it's a very slow way to make a turn. The fast way is to brake at the very last minute and just enough not to blow completely the turn, thus loading your front wheels for the car to rotate, then accelerate out of the turn as soon as you can do that without overwhelming your tires. There, a well tuned AWD can be faster because it can accelerate earlier; and an AWD will be faster most of the time in the hands of a less experienced driver because extracting the maximum out of a RWD requires more finesse.

Add to that the faster acceleration in the straights, and I'm convinced the M50 will be faster through any track than the edrive 40. I can't wait until both cars are available in Canada for Thomas Holland and James Englesman from Throttle House to run it properly through their track.
 

·
Well-known member
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
@Mycroft , thank you for posting, I was waiting for him to get his hands on an i4. I like his general comments, though I'm not sure I agree with him about the "too much power" being unpleasant, that's not the feedback of the other reviewers. I think the lack of feedback from the steering is unanimous from all reviewers, though most say that ALL modern BMWs other than the M2 have that issue. And I got the sense that he drove mostly highways from Paris to the Abbaye in question, he did not really go through curvy roads like the reviewers did in the Munich-to-Bavarian-Mountains BMW shindig, so I'm taking his comment of "no emotion" with a grain of salt. I really would like to see one of these reviewers go through, say, the Stelvio pass or the Gorges du Tarn road with DSC set on "Traction", that would be a real test of handling.

There is also a huge difference between "spectacular driving" and "fast-through-a-track" driving. Drifting is spectacular and certainly a lot of fun, but it's a very slow way to make a turn. The fast way is to brake at the very last minute and just enough not to blow completely the turn, thus loading your front wheels for the car to rotate, then accelerate out of the turn as soon as you can do that without overwhelming your tires. There, a well tuned AWD can be faster because it can accelerate earlier; and an AWD will be faster most of the time in the hands of a less experienced driver because extracting the maximum out of a RWD requires more finesse.

Add to that the faster acceleration in the straights, and I'm convinced the M50 will be faster through any track than the edrive 40. I can't wait until both cars are available in Canada for Thomas Holland and James Englesman from Throttle House to run it properly through their track.
it is perhaps a problem of sensitivity of the accelerator pedal, or current ramp too steep (that could be corrected in an electronic way)

I think that experience will answer the question. If the power can only be used in a straight line, and it is impossible to push hard on twisty roads, then yes: the car is too powerful

in any case, it is too heavy, the fault of the ICE platform
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
it is perhaps a problem of sensitivity of the accelerator pedal, or current ramp too steep (that could be corrected in an electronic way)

I think that experience will answer the question. If the power can only be used in a straight line, and it is impossible to push hard on twisty roads, then yes: the car is too powerful

in any case, it is too heavy, the fault of the ICE platform
There is no doubt that lighter cars are more agile and more "alive". All BMW cars are heavier that, say, Hondas, Mazdas and Toyotas, and they compensate by having more power. However, a fascinating fact is, when low weight champion Toyota took on creating great handling, high luxury cars as Lexus, they ended up with similar weight as BMWs. The same phenomenon happened when the other low weight champion Honda built Acura.

So yes, we talked about this, Tesla is a very strong critic of cars "adapted from ICE architecture" because of course their car are "much better because they were designed from the ground up", and over time, they were able to convince everybody to repeat their mantra. But reality is that the only real downside to the CLAR architecture is that they kept the central tunnel used to house the transmission of the ICE car, which carries probably no more than 100kg of non-rigidity-contributing weight. The rest of the weight is necessary for the batteries, the chassis rigidity, the habitacle comfort and crash and ding resistance. By the way, one of the tests I do when testing a car is just a knock on the front fender with my knuckle, you will feel immediately that the BMW is thicker metal vs. the hollow sounding cheap Japanese cars (or Teslas).

I also had unfortunate events with a Volvo and an Audi crashing into Japanese cars. The Audi was still driveable (I drove it for 1,000 miles because I was on the way to meet my girlfriend, now my wife, before I got it fixed, while the Accord that was rear ended and rear ended me became a 2-seater. The Volvo was totally unscathed while the Toyota that rear ended me lost its bumper and its hood (bonnet) was folded up a telltale amount.

Not to defend BMW but their engineers are not dummies. Tesla just did a great job convincing everybody that "their approach was better", but is NOT 500kg better at equivalent handling, luxury and crash resistance. Also look at the Mercedes-Benz "from the ground up" EQS, it's also 500kg heavier than the S-Class.

Sorry, you can't fight physics! Now you know why Bugatti, McLaren and Ferrari have carbon fiber chassis...
 

·
Well-known member
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
There is no doubt that lighter cars are more agile and more "alive". All BMW cars are heavier that, say, Hondas, Mazdas and Toyotas, and they compensate by having more power. However, a fascinating fact is, when low weight champion Toyota took on creating great handling, high luxury cars as Lexus, they ended up with similar weight as BMWs. The same phenomenon happened when the other low weight champion Honda built Acura.

So yes, we talked about this, Tesla is a very strong critic of cars "adapted from ICE architecture" because of course their car are "much better because they were designed from the ground up", and over time, they were able to convince everybody to repeat their mantra. But reality is that the only real downside to the CLAR architecture is that they kept the central tunnel used to house the transmission of the ICE car, which carries probably no more than 100kg of non-rigidity-contributing weight. The rest of the weight is necessary for the batteries, the chassis rigidity, the habitacle comfort and crash and ding resistance. By the way, one of the tests I do when testing a car is just a knock on the front fender with my knuckle, you will feel immediately that the BMW is thicker metal vs. the hollow sounding cheap Japanese cars (or Teslas).

I also had unfortunate events with a Volvo and an Audi crashing into Japanese cars. The Audi was still driveable (I drove it for 1,000 miles because I was on the way to meet my girlfriend, now my wife, before I got it fixed, while the Accord that was rear ended and rear ended me became a 2-seater. The Volvo was totally unscathed while the Toyota that rear ended me lost its bumper and its hood (bonnet) was folded up a telltale amount.

Not to defend BMW but their engineers are not dummies. Tesla just did a great job convincing everybody that "their approach was better", but is NOT 500kg better at equivalent handling, luxury and crash resistance. Also look at the Mercedes-Benz "from the ground up" EQS, it's also 500kg heavier than the S-Class.

Sorry, you can't fight physics! Now you know why Bugatti, McLaren and Ferrari have carbon fiber chassis...
it wasn't tesla that put this idea in my head

the weight gain is played on absolutely all the elements of a vehicle, it's impossible to optimize if other constraints are added, like being able to integrate a thermal engine

I don't need a tank, lighter cars have very good results in crash test
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
it wasn't tesla that put this idea in my head

the weight gain is played on absolutely all the elements of a vehicle, it's impossible to optimize if other constraints are added, like being able to integrate a thermal engine

I don't need a tank, lighter cars have very good results in crash test
I'm only saying, Tesla's message is more pernicious than people think. Yes, you can optimize your chassis by removing the accomodation for an ICE engine, its mounts, the transmission tunnel, the tank. But you'll save 100, may be 150 kg, and then you'll start digging into the rigidity of the chassis, or you end up connecting the suspension directly to the unibody, which is much lighter than having a sub-frame, but much worse for comfort. There is no doubt that designing an EV from the ground up creates a lighter car, but not a 500kg lighter car like Tesla convinced us.

Again, look at the true comparables - The M-B EQS and Porsche Taycan WERE designed from the ground up as EVs, and they still in the 2200 kg range.
 

·
Well-known member
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I'm only saying, Tesla's message is more pernicious than people think. Yes, you can optimize your chassis by removing the accomodation for an ICE engine, its mounts, the transmission tunnel, the tank. But you'll save 100, may be 150 kg, and then you'll start digging into the rigidity of the chassis, or you end up connecting the suspension directly to the unibody, which is much lighter than having a sub-frame, but much worse for comfort. There is no doubt that designing an EV from the ground up creates a lighter car, but not a 500kg lighter car like Tesla convinced us.

Again, look at the true comparables - The M-B EQS and Porsche Taycan WERE designed from the ground up as EVs, and they still in the 2200 kg range.
ces bagnoles sont énoooormes!

some others sedan (don't know if they are on a pure EV platform)
Renault Fluence ZE: 1 605 kg
Citroën ë-C4: 1 541 kg
Polestar 2: 1 900kg
KIA EV6: 1 985 kg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
ces bagnoles sont énoooormes!

some others sedan (don't know if they are on a pure EV platform)
Renault Fluence ZE: 1 605 kg
Citroën ë-C4: 1 541 kg
Polestar 2: 1 900kg
KIA EV6: 1 985 kg
I can't comment on the Renault and the Citroën, these makes are not available in the US. The Polestar 2 is a converted ICE. The EV6 is interesting, the E-GMP platform is probably the truest form of EV designed from a blank sheet of paper. I have been looking at it; but be careful to compare apples with apples. Here are the curb weight of the different battery capacities. The size of the battery has an enormous impact on the weight of the car. Can't wait though to test it in the US. The 2 ends of the scale for each battery correspond to 1 vs. 2 motors front/back.
The EV6/Ioniq 5 is actually surprisingly close to the i4, even though it's a SUV; it's essentially the same width, 15cm shorter and 20cm higher. Very roomy interior (long wheel base, no central tunnel, the most iconic advantage of a pure EV platform), and about 100kg lighter than the equivalent i4.
Rectangle Font Number Screenshot Circle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
I was also reading about Tesla vs i4, and on thread "[Poll] Why i4 and not TM3?", @i4_Loe mentioned that the Tesla is lacking sound deadening, screws to feel more "substantial", and elsewhere we saw that both suspension comfort and road noise is an issue. So I believe the majority of the reasons the Tesla is much lighter than the i4 is because 1) they connected the suspension straight to the frame, no sub-frames, 2) they skimped on sound deadening, 3) the internal structures of the seats use thinner metal and 4) they use thinner sheet metal in the outer shell. When a car is properly built like an Ioniq 5, an EV6, a Porsche, a Mercedes or... a BMW, with a decent battery (80+ kWh) and 2 motors, you get into the 2 100 kgs and more. The EQS is much bigger and also much heavier.
 

·
Registered
2019 BMW M4cs
Joined
·
126 Posts
definitely.

Disclaimer, I do like how the suspension of the TM3P feels, it just sounds "junky." My G20 330i from a subjective substantial feel feels like a Model S compared to the Model 3. The Model 3's refinement reminds me of an E46 3 series with the sport suspension. Great feeling suspension, but why all of that racket over bumps? Car's with luxury nameplates (or even higher-end family sedans like a Honda Accord even...) have muted sounding suspension yet very stable handling.

Perhaps they will do so later on? But the I4 M50 right now checks all of the box, with acceleration that matters more to me as I don't stop-light race..
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top