BMW i4 Forum banner
21 - 27 of 27 Posts

·
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
i4 eDrive40 M-Sport - Aventurin Red - 859M
Joined
·
106 Posts
I'm certain they were. Every calculation I did made sense. Charging speed, consumption, range, etc. ~200kW Charging speed is still less than many youtube videos, but it makes sense to not be perfect. But taking their average consumption and recalculating it just to get <150kW Charging speed must be wrong.

So for me there's two possibilites:
a) Either they done goofed (is this how you write it, not so good with formal bad words) and miscalculated their results or
b) they done goofed and failed to preheat the battery for charging

After all these range tests and the quality of those, I'm really bummed they dropped the ball so hard on the charging test - especially after first having super plausible results. Also they explicitly stated the the results for the M50 were as tested and the 40 being calculated. Now they took the 40 as tested and recalculated the M50. WHAT.
 

·
Registered
i4 eDrive 40; 2021 Audi e-Tron Sportback
Joined
·
1,792 Posts
It almost makes you think they just made up numbers. I wouldn’t take their results seriously, they certainly didn’t seem to conduct these tests seriously.
 

·
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
i4 eDrive40 M-Sport - Aventurin Red - 859M
Joined
·
106 Posts
So after thinking about it and looking at other numbers as well as your diagram, truth must lie somewhere in between. 134kW average is not really possible, as this would mean around 25 minutes 10-80, which is too fast. With Bjorn Nieland measing around 29 minutes from 10 to 80 it would average around 120kW from 10 to 80.

Maybe they will post the correct result some time ;)
 

·
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 ?
 
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
Top