[i4m50Norway]

Disse elbilene er suverene i vår store ladetest

Flere og flere av de store bilprodusentene leverer biler som hurtiglader stadig bedre. Men når vi kombinerer lading og forbruk er Tesla i en helt egen klasse.

www.motor.no

How many km charge do you get, compared with charging time - charging from 4-6 percent :
(It must be something wrong with the i4 40 number - I have sent them a mail about it)

It looks like a 15 minutes charging session is best for the i4M50

update 22th June .
NAF/Motor has confirmed error, and updated the table:

 

[JST1963]

I don't really understand...take for instance the i4 M50.
According to the table (if I read it correctly) I would have a range of 413km after a charge of 30 minutes, right?
But how did you change (more kW than the car can handle I suppose)? And what are the conditions for the number of kilometers? Maybe the other tables in the article were important as was to understand this table, but I don't speak Norwegian, and I didn't feel like translating.

 

[Ken7]

You’re right, both the e40 & M50 should have the same charger and thus the same charging rates. Given that the range of the e40 is greater than the M50, if anything, more miles should be added per minute of charging for the e40. Something doesn’t look right.

 

[i4m50Norway]

Jst1963,

Sorry, should have mentioned that the consumption comes from this range test:

NAF/Motor (in Norway) Summer range test June 1st, 30...

Will be interesting to see what kind of tires it will run on.

www.i4talk.com

You’re right, both the e40 & M50 should have the same charger and thus the same charging rates. Given that the range of the e40 is greater than the M50, if anything, more miles should be added per minute of charging for the e40. Something doesn’t look right.

It might be that they have mixed up the i4 40 and i4M50. The i4M50 charging numbers looks almost to good to true. - I will report back, if I get a response from NAF (I am a paying member, its the norwegian version of AAA)

It is also interesting to compare with the EQS that get a better number, at 30 minutes, while the i4M50 is better after 15 minutes. An indication that the BMW has a limitation of the cooling system while charging - or is it only battery protection ?

The learning is that with the i4 - 2 charging sessions of 15 minutes is better than one 30 minutes,
two sessions of 10 minutes is quite close to the 30 minutes,
so two 11 minutes sessions might be comparable to one 30 minutes.

The most optimal is of course to do four 5 minutes charging sessions, with hard braking into the charging stations, and leave with spinning wheels - too loose as little time as possible.

 

[phchecker17]

I don't think it's the other way round, there must have been something wrong with the eDrive40, as it would've easily taken second place. Taking the values from their summer range test, I calculated around 106km for the M50 at 205kW average, but with charging ramping up 102km seems definitely reasonable for the M50.

Let's calculate the theoretical eDrive40 result based on both having same charging speed and the summer test results:
M50 consumption = 16,1kWh / 100km
e40 consumption = 14,3kWh / 100km
factor for recharging = 1,126 (i4 gets 12,6% more range for same time)

Car	5 Minutes	10 Minutes	15 Minutes	20 Minutes	25 MInutes	30 Minutes
M50	102km	199km	268km	322km	369km	415km
e40	115km	224km	302km	363km	415km	467km
kWh Charged / % of total	16kWh / 20%	32kWh / 40%	43kWh / 53%	52kWh / 64%	59kWh / 74%	67kWh / 83%
Charging power total	197kW	192kW	173kW	156kW	143kW	134kW
Charging power interval	197kW	187kW	133kW	104kW	91kW	89kW

So in theory it should even completely catch up to the Model Y! I've also added average Wattage during charging to my table for those wondering, based on their consumption number.

This is absolutely insane! Never dropping below 90kW until 80% charged (not 80% percentage, starting at 5% this is almost 90%) is completely bonkers, and as someone said, 5-10 min charging sessions will be absolute beast. Totally fits the "business driver" who just wants to get somewhere fast: 10 minute toilette and smoke break every 1,5 hours is probably the most efficient way of charging.
But also for me personally: Charging for 20-25 Minutes ever 300km will be more than enough for long trips, which - in reality - will top probably, because we usually take more breaks because of the dog. Means we won't even have to worry about charging for longer trips, just take all breaks next to HPCs and be fine with it

 

[i4m50Norway]

Thanks,

If you believe the i4M50 number is correct - they have just made a computational error, because they have computed some numbers :

(google translate)
PS: Kia EV6 RWD, Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, BMW i4 eDrive40, Audi Q4 e-tron 50 quattro and Polestar 2 LR Dual Motor are not charge tested separately. The estimates for these are calculated on the basis that they have the same battery pack as EV6 AWD, EQS 450+, i4 M50, Q4 40 and Polestar 2 Single Motor, respectively.

Then your i4 40 numbers should also be correct - we sill see if they update the numbers.

 

[phchecker17]

Ok they didn't separately test the eDrive 40 as written in the article:
"PS: Kia EV6 RWD, Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, BMW i4 eDrive40, Audi Q4 e-tron 50 quattro og Polestar 2 LR Dual Motor er ikke ladetestet særskilt. Anslagene for disse er beregnet med utgangspunkt i at de har samme batteripakke som hhv EV6 AWD, EQS 450+, i4 M50, Q4 40 og Polestar 2 Single Motor." -> "Kia EV6 RWD, Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, BMW i4 eDrive40, Audi Q4 e-tron 50 quattro and Polestar 2 LR Dual Motor are not tested separately. The allocations for these are calculated on the basis that they have the same battery pack as the EV6 AWD, EQS 450+, i4 M50, Q4 40 and Polestar 2 Single Motor respectively."

So they must've failed their calculation, because taking the lower consumption for the 40 with the same charging as the M50, the values should be way higher. Also it's the same for the other vehicles. EQS450 has lower consumption but same battery as EQS580, but same km per 5 min charging.

@i4m50Norway I guess you were faster Mine was translated by DeepL though. So yeah, errors have been made, they should fix that and give the eDrive40 its second place!

 

[i4m50Norway]

You have probably also seen this :

If my german understanding is correct - he believes that the EQS travel speed is faster because of faster charging ? But the i4 40 is the most efficient in its price class ?
Based of the numbers from Norway - the i4 40 could also beat the EQS on Autobahn speeds with shorter charging cycles ?

 

[Ken7]

So they must've failed their calculation, because taking the lower consumption for the 40 with the same charging as the M50, the values should be way higher. Also it's the same for the other vehicles. EQS450 has lower consumption but same battery as EQS580, but same km per 5 min charging.

That’s exactly what I was saying in my post above. I can’t understand why someone didn’t catch the error when they put this together. The illogic of their e40 result should have been very obvious. Very sloppy.

 

[phchecker17]

Ok after doing the calculations for the eDrive40 I thought it would be quite cool to get the real charging speeds for all the cars tested And here we are:

@i4m50Norway If you haven't notified them yet, you can add that there's an error with both Q4 numbers, as they are stating 556 and 557km at 25 min. So for calculating I had to remove both of them from 25 min onwards.

 

[Ken7]

The BMWs (not the iX) do tail off quicker than the Kias, Mercedes and a couple of others.

 

[i4m50Norway]

The BMWs (not the iX) do tail off quicker than the Kias, Mercedes and a couple of others.

Yes I have seen it, and based on other tests, it seems that the i4 start really fast, and them limits after something like 15 minutes. This is independent of starting on 10 percent charge or 50 percent - so I believe that it must be a thermal issue in the i4. maybe chargersystem that limits power based on battery temp. - or there could be components in chargingsystem that gets hot. comparing with thx iX40 and iX50, they are equal. iX40 is approx same size battery as i4. iX50 is approx 100KWH. based on the iX battery size - I believe that there is something in the charging system - or that the battery cooling system in i4 is the reason.

 

[i4m50Norway]

That’s exactly what I was saying in my post above. I can’t understand why someone didn’t catch the error when they put this together. The illogic of their e40 result should have been very obvious. Very sloppy.

Probably because we are the only ones that is really interested in the i4 - the people that put this together should of course have seen it. It will be interesting to see the feedback I might get from my eMail.

 

[i4m50Norway]

Another driver have had a consumption of just 14.3 - 16 with an i4M50 on 18 inch, on similar roads but dry and probably a little bit warmer. Based on this I will assume that my future i4M50 with 18 inch will be approx in the middle of the i4 40 (18 inch) and the i4M50 (19 inch) from the test.

This tests also indicates that the optimal driving speed in norwegian summer temperatures (15-20 deg) ,is 70 - 80 kmh in the i4 40/M50 - if you are only thinking about consumption. In hotter climate or winter it might be more efficient to drive faster because a larger part of consumption is HVAC - so less consumption if shorter time.

 

[i4m50Norway]

@i4m50Norway If you haven't notified them yet, you can add that there's an error with both Q4 numbers, as they are stating 556 and 557km at 25 min. So for calculating I had to remove both of them from 25 min onwards.

NAF have had a lot of inconsistencies with the id.4/Q4/Skoda. In the Winter test the 2WD Skoda had higher consumption than the 4WD - they even retested with another car, and Skoda also did a new test with the same car. No explanation for this - there is probably more sw bugs to be fixed on that cars.

Skodamysteriet: Slik gikk det da vi tok den på ny rekkeviddetest

Hvorfor presterer bakhjulsdrevne Skoda iV80 så elendig i vår rekkeviddetest? Vi tok et nytt eksemplar av samme bil på samme rute. Men svaret var ikke egnet til å berolige noen.

www.motor.no

google translate

The range performance of the Skoda iV80 was so poor that we asked to take a new test with another copy of this model. We have never done this before with any of the almost 120 electric cars we have driven in this test.
For one thing, it went much shorter than promised. The WLTP range with 19-inch wheels and the relevant equipment packages was 509 km. The discrepancy ended at over 30 percent. In fact, this is the only car that has ended up on the wrong side of the 30's.
What was worse was that it went dramatically much shorter than the four-wheel drive version of what is otherwise the same car, the iV80X. Normally, cars with four-wheel drive, and otherwise the same conditions, are between three and six miles shorter than those with two-wheel drive. Now it was the other way around - with deviations from the stated WLTP for the iV80X of a respectable 15.5 percent.
And on top of everything: All the other cars from the Volkswagen Group, which are based on much of the same construction and electronics, also delivered largely good results.

At importer Harald A. Møller, they have scratched their heads over the results and asked to take the same model out for a third test on the same stretch this week.

More about that when those figures are available, but communications director Øyvind Rognlien Skovli says on a general basis:

- These tests are affected by a number of external conditions, and it is immediately difficult to say why this model got a different result in the test than other models built on the same technical platform. The result in the NAF and Motors test does not correspond to our own experiences or other tests carried out in other contexts. We will explore this further, to see what may be the explanation here.

 

[i4m50Norway]

NAF/Motor has updated the i4 numbers. see first post

 

[Ken7]

NAF/Motor has updated the i4 numbers. see first post

Now makes more sense.

You may want to change your revision date. You have July 22, I assume you meant June 22.

 

[i4m50Norway]

Now makes more sense.

You may want to change your revision date. You have July 22, I assume you meant June 22.

Thanks, imagine beeing in July and expection my i4M50 soon.

I think there must be more errors. Why is the BMW iX xDrive50 better/equal to i4 40?
Same charging max at 200KW, but iX has more consumption.
Another thing with the i4M50 - earlier, and in other test it does charge fast for the first (10?) minutes. Now it is nearly linear (and since the i4 40 is derived from that - same there).
I have sent them another mail - to ask about this.

 

[Ken7]

Yup, their work seems to be sloppy.

 

[phchecker17]

What, how do these new result make any sense? Especially in regards o the earlier results?

And also: Polestar almost same as i4 40? But higher consumption (14,7 vs. 14,3) and only 150kW charging? At least in the first 5-10 minutes it should be at max. 75% of what the i4 can do.

So basically: i4 with lowest (except tesla) consumption and highest (except tesla) charging speed for 400V is in the middle of the pack for charging miles per time? Makes no sense at all to me. Also contradicts literally ALL long range and charging tests on youtube as well.

Also regarding charging speed that would mean that max charging speed was 145kW in the second interval, even under 140 in the first. Contrary to almost all videos clearly showing >200kW for more than 5 minutes.