BMW i4 Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)

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

Font Line Number Pattern


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

Font Material property Rectangle Screenshot Pattern
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Jst1963,

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


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.
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
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 ?
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
@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.


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.
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Maybe the original i4M50 numbers was correct - I think so.
Then they mixed up when computing the i4 40 numbers from i4M50 by making them worse instead of better than i4M50 ?
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
I think they did the test correct - but then they mixed up the different tables. this is the charging curve - looks normal:

Rectangle Slope Font Line Parallel

Slope Font Rectangle Parallel Engineering

BMW AG numbers
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
I will try to call them on Monday - The article is now totally wrong first mentioning in the text that the i4 was one of the best charging - and them showing a table with it low down.

Could it be that the original table is correct for i4M50, or is it the i4 40 numbers that is shown as i4M50 ?
Or is the i4M50 numbers correct - and then when they computed the i4 40 numbers they made them worse instead of better ?
 

·
Registered
i4m50, 18inch 245/255 summer 18 inch 245/245 winter, order aug 21 - not delivered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Another interesting test with the i4 is start charging at 5% 10% 20% 30% 40% and 50%.
From other tests it seems that the above 200kw is possible for a few minutes at low to medium SOC.
So instead of running nearly empty and do a 10 minutes charge, it could be just as efficient to do a 10 minutes charge from 30 percent SOC ?
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top