[JST1963]

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

 

[steffo]

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.

 

[MinhSATx]

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.


BMW i4 M50: range measured at 100 km/h and 130 km/h
Finally, there’s a Tesla Model 3 and Polestar 2 competitor from BMW. The fully electric 4-series Gran Coupé is known as the i4 and is available in two grades. Today we are testing the top version with M badge. What remains in practice of his WLTP range of 520 kilometers. We measure the BMW i4 range at 100 km/h and 130 km/h.
View attachment 5485

There are now three players in the electric mid-range sedan segment: the Tesla Model 3, the Polestar 2 and the BMW i4. Here’s how they compare in terms of specs, range and price:

• Tesla Model 3 (287 pk, RWD, 60 kWh, 491 km) - 49.980 euro
• Tesla Model 3 Long Range (351 pk, AWD, 82 kWh, 602 km) - 57.980 euro
• Tesla Model 3 Performance (462 pk, AWD, 82 kWh, 547 km) - 63.980 euro
• Polestar 2 Standard Range Single Motor (224 pk, FWD, 64 kWh, 444 km) - 45.900 euro
• Polestar 2 Long Range Single Motor (231 pk, FWD, 78 kWh, 542 km) - 49.900 euro
• Polestar 2 Long Range Dual Motor (408 pk, AWD, 78 kWh, 482 km) - 53.900 euro
• BMW i4 eDrive40 (340 pk, RWD, 84 kWh, 590 km) - 60.629 euro
• BMW i4 M50 (544 pk, AWD, 84 kWh, 520 km) - 73.429 euro

The i4 is therefore a lot more expensive than both the Model 3 and the Polestar 2. You pay for the premium image of BMW, but also for the fact that the electric 4-series is a bit bigger than its competitors. The Polestar is the smallest of the bunch (4.60 meters long), followed by the Tesla (4.69 meters) and the BMW (4.78 meters). View attachment 5486

BMW i4 M50: range at 100 km/h

Anyway, we’re here to test a range. And we did that with the BMW i4 M50, which in theory should cover 520 kilometers. With the car in Comfort, the air conditioning at 19.5 degrees and the active cruise control at 100 km/h, we completed three test rounds, each almost 85 kilometers long.

The most favorable result was a consumption of 18.8 kWh/100 km. The net capacity of the i4 battery is 80.7 kWh, so we can calculate that the actual range at 100 km/h on average at 429 kilometers lies. In an earlier range test, the Tesla Model 3 Long Range at 100 km/h reached a distance of more than 440 kilometers. The Polestar 2 Long Range Dual Motor reached 395 kilometers.

It is striking that the Tesla is a lot more efficient with its electricity. It only needs 15.8 kWh/100 km to maintain speed. Interesting, because the Model 3 did its test at the same low winter temperatures as the i4. We drove the Polestar in the summer, but that apparently had no positive effect on its consumption. It scored a moderate 19.0 kWh/100 km/h.
View attachment 5487

BMW i4 M50: range at 130 km/h

On to 130 km/h and therefore to higher power consumption. The BMW clocks in no less than 24.1 kWh/100 km, which gives it a practical range of 334 kilometers gives. Once again, the Tesla does better (20.6 kWh/100 km) and the Polestar lags behind (25.0 kWh/100 km).


Conclusion

For the BMW i4 you have to dig deeper into your pocket than for the Tesla Model 3 or Polestar 2, but in terms of power consumption and range it is between the two competitors. Also when it comes to charging speed. Its maximum is 200 kW. And with that, it is exactly halfway between the Tesla (250 kW) and the Polestar (150 kW).

As an M50, the i4 is almost a counterpart of the spectacular BMW M3. With 544 hp and 795 Nm, it has enough instant power for a sprint from standstill to 100 km/h in 3.9 seconds. For the widest possible range, however, you should have the i4 eDrive40, which with 340 hp and a 0-100 km/h time of 5.7 seconds will not disappoint anyone.


Source English: Techzle
Source Dutch: Auto Review

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

 

[Ken7]

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.

 

[MinhSATx]

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

 

[Ken7]

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

 

[Rich9600]

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):
View attachment 5557
View attachment 5556
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.

 

[mpr]

@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

Not sure how Inside EV came up with the numbers, but they state rather small capacities for Tesla.
Which would explain the light weight

New Tesla Model 3 RWD (LFP 60 kWh) Gets Remarkable Winter Range

The latest Tesla Model 3 RWD (former Standard Range Plus/SR+) with about a 60 kWh LFP lithium-ion battery shines in Bjørn Nyland's range test.

insideevs.com

 

[MinhSATx]

Not sure how Inside EV came up with the numbers, but they state rather small capacities for Tesla.
Which would explain the light weight

New Tesla Model 3 RWD (LFP 60 kWh) Gets Remarkable Winter Range

The latest Tesla Model 3 RWD (former Standard Range Plus/SR+) with about a 60 kWh LFP lithium-ion battery shines in Bjørn Nyland's range test.

insideevs.com

@mpr, the Tesla Model 3 Standard Range has been evaluated to between 50 and 54kWh. So here's the deal: Tesla used to sell a Standard range with less cells, totaling 50 to 54kWh, and Long range and Performance where they fill up the battery space with 75 to 82kWh, using the same NMC (Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt) cathodes as BMW is using today. LFP (Lithium-Phosphate) cathodes have a lower energy efficiency (meaning less kWh in the same space and weight), however it is cheaper and can withstand more charge/discharge cycles. So Tesla had the fairly brilliant idea, for their low-end cars, instead of not filling the space with NMC battery cells, to fill it completely like the top tier Long Range and Performance but with lower energy density LFP battery cells - voilà! a bit more energy than previously (60kWh) but still a lot less than the NMC full battery of the Long Range and Performance, a lot less degradation over time, and lower cost overall.

 

[Bobak]

We do not know if this car is equipped with the performance tyres option on 861' or not. They give -8% range.
View attachment 5480

WOW -16% for 868M??

I mean I like the fender flares, but it's getting real hard to justify getting these for the extra $2500 USD.

If I keep my preorder, I'll have to change to 861.

Wonder how many keep 868 after seeing this....

 

[JST1963]

WOW -16% for 868M??

I mean I like the fender flares, but it's getting real hard to justify getting these for the extra $2500 USD.

If I keep my preorder, I'll have to change to 861.

Wonder how many keep 868 after seeing this....

868M => 285mm wide in the back => needs an extra "fat" lip on the rear wing to avoid the tyres being wider than the car body.
All others: 255mm

 

[Bobak]

868M => 285mm wide in the back => needs an extra "fat" lip on the rear wing to avoid the tyres being wider than the car body.
All others: 255mm

Yup good to note that. Still wonder how many are willing to take a massive hit to range.

Maybe track testing the non-868 vs. 868 would be helpful.

My guess, performance gains will be minimal.

 

[nicoouf]

Yup good to note that. Still wonder how many are willing to take a massive hit to range.

Maybe track testing the non-868 vs. 868 would be helpful.

My guess, performance gains will be minimal.

Yeah that’s a huge drop, sad because I love the look of the 868.
Wondering though why the 861 M have an 8% drop whereas the regular 861 only drop by 1%? I know the difference is in the tyres, but what explains it? What makes the performance tyres consume so much more energy? Are they heavier ?

 

[steffo]

Yeah that’s a huge drop, sad because I love the look of the 868.
Wondering though why the 861 M have an 8% drop whereas the regular 861 only drop by 1%? I know the difference is in the tyres, but what explains it? What makes the performance tyres consume so much more energy? Are they heavier ?

Performance tyres are designed for maximum grip - both longitudinal (for acceleration and brake grip) and sideways (for curve grip).

These features require more friction compared to eco-type tyres that are designed to prioritize low-friction roll and good brake grip in wet conditions.

 

[Gunninglike]

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.

This will only show how much of the battery you have available, not the actual battery size.
At some point they offered an OTA upgrade for the 60kwh to 75kwh.
If they are still working like this it could mean that OTA for range increase will be still possible OR they could use the spare capacity over the years to compensate battery degradation… I’m a fan of both.

 

[i4_Loe]

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

 

[JST1963]

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.

 

[Moovrr]

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.