A simple comparison of ranges in highway speeds.
Not tested simultaneously, and using adaptive cruise control, so probably not 100 % accurate, but who would anyway drive 100 % like the testers in real life.
I like the fact that they have the air condition on and are using proper speed for the test.

http://techzle.com/bmw-i4-range-measured-at-100-km-h-and-130-km-h

Real world 430km at 100km/h in non-optimal conditions is definitely not bad

 

Not at all.
But it is based on 85 km drive, and calculation. So there may be a good amount of difference to real numbers.

 

Based on this review I would sincerely expect to reach 500km in an e40.

 

If you look at the picture in the article (BMW Dash 70.5Km and 42:37min) you can calculate the real average speed, of 92.73Km/h
Since test were done on different time on a public road (difference in traffic), we have no clue on how the driving was done did they always stay in the same lane, did they use the breaks, how did they accelerate after the braking and how many times......I don't consider it very realistic AND they should have tested with the eDrive40 to.

 

true and agreed - well, sort of.. ..Why would you calculate something from the picture that is not inline with the writing, when you can just calculate from the picture that is infact showing what the writing tells? The first picture with 18,8 average consumption, that was referenced for beeing the best result of the three tests, shows 83,4km and 50:19mins, which exptrapolates to 99,5 km/h average speed.

 

Judging from the pictures, they were using 19" wheels 861M style. They did not mention anything about tyres or outside temperature, both of which can have considerable impact. Otherwise, they provide very useful data points.

 

Based on the date the test was done, in the Netherlands (a bit similar to Belgium), I assume the outside temperature would have been approx. 10°C on the 24th of Jan.

 

Although the methodology is not perfect, it's useful to see some testing at higher speeds (particularly 130 km/h). Longer trips (where you need to recharge on the journey) are likely to be done at higher speeds (motorway driving) so its nice to get some data on range for the trips where I won't be able to rely on home charging.

There has been quite a lot of reporting of range estimates. From reading all of these, my expectation is the best I will get for my i4 M50 with 19" wheels is about 270 miles (435 km) and the worst (low temp, high speed) is about 180 miles (290 km). Figures I can live with for my pattern of driving distances.

 

Thank you for sharing this. Information about the tires would have been useful though. Indeed, with the 19" 861M wheels that it seems the car is using, you have sport and non-sport tires and they have a 40km difference of range.

 

We do not know if this car is equipped with the performance tyres option on 861' or not. They give -8% range.

 

 

Very good: I think that this was a test done in the last few days. I think temp will have been at 5 degrees approximately.
now curious which tyres were mounted.
Happy with the result!

 

Same car AutoTopNL used. Its with the Pirelli P Zero performance tires.

 

That’s promising! My order is specifying pirelli or hankook efficiency level A. If I follow the link in the contract than it will be Pzero (like on this testcar) or veNtus S1 evo3.

 

The Hankooks are in my opinion no High-Performance tyres. And as for the Pirelli P Zero, you can have them in both versions; HP or not HP.
The High-Performance P Zero's are bad for the consumption but have more grip.

 

Both are class Y. That’s all I can see.

 

These are to my knowledge and according to the list I have, the only HP tyres BMW uses for their i4's in Europe. Be aware that tyres change constantly and that there are also EV-tyres on the market since a few years. So, it might be possible that the tyres on your car are different from what is written on a BMW web page.

Front	19"	245/40 R 19 98 Y XL HP	Pirelli	EPREL Public website eprel.ec.europa.eu
Rear	19"	255/40 R 19 100 Y XL HP	Pirelli	EPREL Public website eprel.ec.europa.eu
Front	20"	255/35 R 20 97 Y XL HP	Pirelli	EPREL Public website eprel.ec.europa.eu
Rear	20"	285/30 R 20 99 Y XL HP	Pirelli	EPREL Public website eprel.ec.europa.eu

 

If anyone has ordered the 19’ HP wheels (859M or 861M) you have the tyre specs in the order confirmation.

I did order the ”normal” 859 and got these tyre alternatives (front 245 / rear 255):

For best wet grip, noise comfort and range Hankook is the choice.

 

I test drove an e40 on 19” Hankook Ventus tyres at the weekend and it was decent at about 7C on the damp.
In normal road driving I did not feel any detriment vs the 20” HP Pirelli’s on the M50 I drove about a month previously.
However, my wife has these Hankooks on her Mini Cooper S in the Runflat variant. Great grip, but very soft and do not last very long. She got <9K miles to ~3mm.
Last summer I replaced hard as rock Bridgestones with Pirelli PZero‘s Runflats on the rear of my RWD 340i. Much more grippy than Bridgestones and look to be better wearing than the Hankooks on our granted different and differently used cars.

 

Great post, @mpr. Interesting that on paper, the Tesla M3 Long Range shows 82km better than the i4 M50 (602km vs 520km, 16% better), but in real life at 100km/h and in cold temperatures, the difference shrinks to 11km (440km vs 429km, 2.5%). Yet they claim an efficiency of 15.8kWh/100km, 20% better than the BMW's 18.9kWh/100km. Of course, Tesla does not disclose the size of the battery, but it always disturbed me that they can say whatever they want about their consumption because the only thing we CAN measure is the total range, the consumption is just what the car shows. And we are talking here about the long range, the 2.5% difference is nothing, more like measurement noise (or difference in temperature, note that the Tesla was not tested at the same time), the Performance which is more comparable is MIA.
Minh

 

MinhSATx, to determine battery size, what some thorough testers do in the case of the Teslas (and other EVs), is to totally discharge the battery and then charge it to 100%, determining how much power was transferred to the car’s battery. It’s still a bit of guesswork because of not knowing the precise efficiency losses that occur from charger to battery.

 

@Ken7, that's a good point. So I saw that such measurements shows the Tesla M3 Long Range battery is somewhere between 75kWh and 82kWh; however, if the 15.8kWh/100km reported for the 100km/h (62mph) test was accurate, this would translate to a real world range of 475km to 519km, a long way vs. the actual 440km reported by Auto Review NL, whereas the public domain 80.7kWh of the BMW and the measured 18.8kWh/100km do tie to the 429km of range. That's what disturbs me about all reviewers claims about Tesla's "superior" efficiency.
Minh

 

Wait until the Lucid shows up in these tests. It will blow all the others out of the water.

 

Wow, the results aren't bad considering the speed and the weather. Mine will mostly be city driving, under 70kph and in 25*c or above weather so this will be wonderful for me

 

Absolutely. You will also profit more from the regen function. On a highway at a constant speed of 120, regen is almost impossible.

 

I'm reading a lot of valid points about the tyres and they no doubt reduce range, but when comparing the M50 with the model 3 surely the most significant is the weight difference and hence why the e-drive 40 with less weight and similar wheels achieves better range.
Also I think the weight is way more of a factor when compared to the model 3 than BMW motors etc not being as efficient as Tesla's.