Your range tests are among the best you can find on the web. Finally someone who takes tires, wind, temperature, altitude differences, etc. correctly into account so that there are comparable meaningful results. Especially the tires that have so much influence that others don't even mention which then leads to apples and oranges comparisons. Thank you, please keep up the good work. Great car by the way.
Oh my gosh, Tom - you absolutely smashed that 70mph range test...! WOW... You know what, for what 'should' be rather dry You Tube content - sitting in a car at 70mph non-stop on the Highway - you really do make these videos SO interesting. Brilliant data. Brilliant videos. 😎
Impressive vehicle. and the car tested here is literally the "worse" wheel package the car can be specced with. I think the 19in wheels on the i4 M50 looks better and that would be the one I'd pick of the bunch. Glad to see BMW like Ford tends to underrate their numbers and beat them in the real world.
Looks like the highest efficiency is at the end of the test. Penalty in the beginning as the battery warms up? Been driving an M50 with 19" wheels for a few weeks. Car reports and calculations so far consistent with claims: 3.3 mi/kWh and 270 mile range per EPA. Good chunk NOT in Eco pro mode. I do use "B" mode /comfort setting on local streets.
Awesome job, Tom!!! Sorry I bugged you so much about this range test, LOL. Can't wait to see the range test on the i4 eDrive40 which I ordered and should have by August.
I always find the people harping away on bespoke EV chassis to be very annoying. I already knew this car could compete with bespoke EVs and provide good usability to customers without being a bespoke EV. BMW are true engineers, I knew they could pull great numbers out of a car like this. And the e-drive 40 is even better.
There's been a lot of misleading information going around surrounding this car's range. Thanks for being clear about the tire package's impact. The default 19" wheel/tire package is significantly more efficient and has an EPA range of 270. When you add this 20" $2500 high performance wheel/tire package, which are significantly wider and use a high performance grippy wheel compound and tread pattern meant for grip, it increases rolling resistance and drops the range significantly to 227. The package also includes a spoiler and wheel arch moldings, which I imagine impact aero negatively. While I'd like to see the base i4 (RWD) tested, I'd also love to see the i4 M50 with the standard tires tested. If you're not taking this car to the track, then IMO there's no reason to ever get this high performance 20" wheel and tire set on this car, unless you're set on getting an electric car that does the absolute barest minimum for the environment. Electricity isn't carbon free. The more we use, the more energy production we need, and energy production always has an environmental cost, whether it's coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar, hydro, or wind. They all have environmental costs. Reducing the overall amount of energy we use is the fastest way to reduce emissions and all other forms of pollution. I also imagine those performance tires are expensive to replace, and likely don't last all that long; meaning they lose a lot of rubber to the road. If you live in a region with snow, you absolutely will need snow tires, as this high performance rubber essentially turns into hard plastic in the cold, and wide tires aren't good in the snow. You won't have any traction. Versus the model 3 performance (m3p), even the base 19" wheels and tires on the BMW are wider than what comes on the Tesla. If both cars used the same wheel / tire set, the efficiency and range of these vehicles would likely be very close in highway driving, and that's with the this BMW having a higher drag coefficient (same front surface area) and weighing 1000 lbs more. The BMW likely does need those bigger wheels and tires to handle its weight while maintaining BMW-esque handling abilities; so maybe not completely fair to suggest putting the same wheels/tires on each car. The BMW's weight will have less of an impact on the highway, and a far larger impact in city driving. When comparing this car to a m3p, it isn't just an issue of which car is more efficient / has more range, and which car is faster. People who buy new cars and have to live with them for years realize that there's far more that goes into a car that adds to its value. Things like comfort, quality, sound insulation, road compliance, audio, lack of squeaks overtime, and utility to name a few. IMO, the i4 M50 is very comparable to the model 3 performance, maybe even slightly ahead in overall driving quality, vehicle quality, and utility, thus justifying its price tag. When optioned equivalently (and no, that doesn't include the BMW's high performance wheel/tire package) the m3p costs $63,000. The BMW after $7500 tax credit costs $62,825. ($70,325 if you don't qualify). The BMW after credit is slightly more expensive after extra taxes and loan interest. To the BMW's benefit, I'd also point out that paint color options are cheaper than Tesla, there are multiple free interior color options (versus Tesla's one $1000 white interior option), there are multiple wheel and tire options, multiple free interior trim options, and a few paid options that Tesla doesn't have at all like HUD, front ventilated seats, real leather seats (if you want that), laserlight LED headlights, and a real high performance wheel/tire package as is tested here. Tesla doesn't give many options, mostly just appearance options and everything else is standard, but those appearance options are expensive! The m3p certainly has a lot of advantages in efficiency and performance, but I think the overall vehicle experience goes toe to toe with the i4 M50. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, so it's up to the individuals' use case as to what they want. Now that I look at the pricing again, I might argue you're getting more for your money with the I4 M50 , but it's certainly pretty close.
You have a lot of great considerations here I went through a lot of these myself when comparing them. Ultimately the kicker for me is the dealership. On paper the values make these super comparable but if dealerships are selling set packages that you weren’t considering and/or adding mark ups then it really starts killing the value of the bmw and pretty much any other competitor for that matter. I wish more competition would would selling directly to the customer like tesla. I want to like other vehicles but it’s hard to with the dealership model.
The weight of the car has minimal affect on the range if you are cruising at a constant speed on a level highway. The aerodynamics of the car matters the most but the width of the tire contact patch matters as well.
Nice review - I can't wait to pick up my i4 M50 later this week (picking up an unclaimed early order). With the 19-inch wheels, I'm cautiously optimistic that my highway range will be 280+ miles. Also, the charging curve is excellent and should make this a great road tripper (assuming that the VWs, Mach Es, and Bolts stay off the 350 kW units).
@Stefan Maintain contact with your dealership (maybe even checking with other nearby dealership). You may get lucky and get into an earlier unclaimed order. There are a lot of people finding EVs like this without waiting...just takes a bit of perseverance and willingness to have a *bit* of flexibility on specs.
Hey Tom! Long time Naunas customer and friend ! Good to see your channel, it’s great ! I drove this m50 and it’s awesome ! Trying to make a decision on an EV. -Fred
Toss those 20” wheels!!!! That’s a drastic drop in range based on wheels but very well captured and understood. Hurry and test drive the i4 basic model because that’s the one I’m looking to purchase.
A lot of the initial reviews of this vehicle when it first came out had this high performance wheel / tire package on and were done in colder weather. Grippy high performance tires like this turn into plastic in colder weather. They need warmer temps to soften and grip the surface. That's why in a lot of those initial reviews, you see a LOT of wheel spin in the 0-60 tests, and maybe even some complaints about handling the twisties. For overall daily driving performance for all 4 seasons, the all season 19" wheel and tire packages will not only be superior for traction, but superior for ride comfort... and they costs $2500 less. I doubt you're going to lose a whole lot in the 0-60 test, but you may lose some in the warm weather handling. This wheel / tire package seems to be more meant for people that want to take their car to the track, or who own two sets of wheels / tires. This set for summer, and an all-season set for the other 3 seasons. Maybe even a winter set for the snow.
16:00 It isn't a direct comparison to compare this to the model 3 long range which is rated at 353 miles EPA combined, but only managed to get 310 miles. Your model 3 missed its EPA range by 38 miles, or 10.7%, in nearly the same perfect conditions as you tested here. BMW doesn't actually have an AWD i4 that directly compares to the model 3 LR. This i4 M50, especially with the performance wheel/tire package, is far more comparable to the model 3 performance (m3p), which is rated at 315 miles EPA. If the m3p sees a similar 10.7% range miss, then it would get 281 miles (Kyle got 280 miles in colder temps, but at lower air density in CO)... or about 42 miles more than this i4 achieved with this optional wheel/tire package. This vehicle went 12 miles further than its combined EPA rating, or 5.2%. If it sees the same outperformance with its standard 19" wheel/tire set that are rated at 270 miles EPA, then it would achieve 284 miles. Well well well... look at that, the i4 M50 gets 3 more miles of range than the model 3 performance. (Obviously this would need to be confirmed in real world tests) Certainly smaller diameter 19" wheels on the BMW will be more efficient than 20" wheels on the m3p... but most of that inefficiency of larger wheels comes from accelerating the wheels up to speed and wouldn't play a huge part in constant speed highway range efficiency. There may be a small benefit of surface contact with the smaller diameter wheels. What's more important is that the base 19" BMW wheels/tires are still wider than the m3p's 20" wheels. That means more surface area contact on the pavement, leading to increased rolling resistance. If the BMW had the m3p's narrower 20" wheels/tires, I imagine it would see its range advantage increase by more than the 3 miles I mentioned above. This is why it's extremely important to acknowledge the differences in the vehicles you're comparing, especially the optional wheel/tire packages. You did a good job of pointing out that this car has the optional high performance wheel/tire set and what the standard tires EPA rating is, but you didn't really point out what the base wheel/tire set on this vehicle could do IRL, and just how efficient this vehicle can actually be in comparison to the model 3... which is the baseline of what every other car is compared to. After this result and this analysis, can we really say the Tesla range and efficiency is significantly better than BMWs? I don't think so. (Maybe BMW will become the new baseline) Tesla concentrates their efforts on getting the best efficiency and lowest cost; whereas BMW here is not only concerned with getting great efficiency, but also providing the best overall driving experience that they can muster. That's a difference that should never be overlooked. I do appreciate that Tom mentioned the driving quality of this vehicle in comparison to his own model 3 at 10:15 , because it's important to acknowledge that overall vehicle value isn't simply based on 0-60 times and range/efficiency stats.
Would you rather have a really low EPA range rating and beat it by a little bit or have a REALLY high EPA range rating and miss it by a moderate amount but still have 40+ more miles of range for a similar sized battery pack? The EPA range ratings are meaningless. That is why we really have to depend on great tests like this.
Tom are you going to test the i4 eDrive 40 on 18" wheels. That or the eDrive35 or even the xDrive40 on 18" wheels should do much better on efficiency. Also, do you ever test at 55mph, which is probably what we should all be highway driving at, to save boatloads of energy? Thanks.
Tom, if memory serves, you're testing in dead flat NJ. Is that right? Thanks for this test. It's good to confirm that as with the MINI SE, BMW Group was conservative and accurate in their self-stated EPA stats.
@@JayQuiles1 compared to what, the Model 3 Performance? Even in tires alone the BMW is a far more performance oriented car, whereas the Model 3 Perf wears Golf GTI width 235/35R20 all around, this i4 M50 as tested wears 255/35R20 front and 285/30R20.
The odd thing with a cross-wind for your test is that you actually end up getting headwind in both directions because of the effective incident wind. A full headwind would be better for absolute accuracy because this would turn to a tailwind on your turnaround and average out. Excellent test, cannot wait for the 40 test as I have one on order
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney Thanks Tom! We took delivery of an iX 2 weeks ago and are averaging about 3.1 m/kwh in mountainous 70-75 mph highway and around town driving in Western Washington state, which is exceeding my expectations. We are driving round trips through Snoqualmie Pass from Bellevue to Cle Elum 3-4 times per week with over 4500 feet of elevation gain in a round trip at temps ranging from 45-65 degrees without restrictions on HVAC.
We’re getting an i4 eDrive 40 with the M Sport package to get the good suspension. Unfortunately, that mandates 19” wheels and ~7% range cut. I hope the aftermarket comes up with lightweight, forged 18” aero wheels for this car.
I love how you guys use GPS to validate the speedo...but you should invest in a Vbox, as your cell phone is not very accurate in regards to GPS velocity readings.
Love these tests, nice work...too bad you couldn't test an M50 with the 19" wheels which is 'rated' for 270 miles. (factoring the 20" result here at 1.05 x the rated range, the 19" wheels should yield around 285 ish range) would be great to know if that's true since it would then 'compete' with Tesla real world range.
I only really care about the highway range of an EV, if I'm going to be pushing the range, it's going to be on the highway, weird that it doesn't always get disclosed.
BMW I M 50 con la llanta de 18 pulgadas que es la que trae de serie el coche pasa de las 300 millas a 75 millas de velocidad comprobado ida Bilbao Madrid aeropuerto 388 km a 18,6 -722 y Vuelta 388 km , con dos personas y ida y vuelta mismo dia ,creo que las llantas de 18 consume menos , esta claro las de 20 pulgadas son otra cosa pero todo no se puede tener, Los taxi Tesla MODEL 3 gran autonomia a esta velocidad ida y vuelta sobre 18 esto es lo normal cargas en Madrid y vuelta esta muy bien por que no hay que parar hasta Madrid .
So much M50 content on TH-cam, but all I want is to know about the eDrive40. Still an interesting video and I'm guessing it's BMWs fault for not giving out press versions of the eDrive40.
The epa has to rethink its stance by not printing the highway real world range hurts sales and grows resentment that the car they brought doesn’t meet there needs if they leave town or extra urban
Respectfully, these 70mph ranges tests have two problems. 1) They reinforce the belief and oversimplified focus that the longer the range the better the car. Range is important to a point and beyond that point, it is money and natural resources wasted, excess weight, added liability if a pack doesn't outlast the car. Road trips do not protect us from Climate Crisis. Road trips are a big part of the problem. People addicted to wasteful long distance road travel or trapped doing it for work should find a different hobby or refine their living situation. Driving a massive luxury car 301 miles daily (excitement about the RWD's even longer range) would be lunacy. So why do journalists reinforce that 301 > 250 in terms of range? Realistically, the 140 miles range of a Mini Cooper SE with a 32 kWh pack is enough for any daily usage for anyone not megacommuting. How do you get 140 miles range? That brings me to the second problem. 2) 70 mph range tests. We established a national 55 mph limit during the oil crisis for a reason. Power needed to overcome wind drag is a function of velocity CUBED. Yes CUBED. So excessive speed kicks the crap out of efficiency. 70 mph, by anyone's standard is excessive speed. It leads to more deadly accidents, requires and reinforces the need for straight multilane superhighways that are not compatible with our zero carbon future. We never should have built interstate highways and made them free, because they encourage the road tripping hypercommuting behavior noted above. If you want to show how efficient these EVs actually are, you should drive them at 55 mph, which is closer to the actual speed limit for most of the country and most of the world. You should test them on a mixed, repeated circuit, as Edmunds does, because starting and stopping and slow speed and curves, and climbing and descending hills on local roads is a part of everyone's drive. A 70 mph constant speed test only shows what it's like to drive these cars on interstate trips which in the future, we will do with electric rail. We cannot afford the embodied carbon (study the painful truth about LCA of the current luxury, long range EVs and those EV pickups) nor the excessive energy used by EVs that are still often powered by a grid we are decades away from fully decarbonizing. Each year the cars bloat and manufacturers and journalists reinforce longer range, we worsen the impacts that EVs have on the planet and on our ability to fully decarbonize. Appreciate the fun (and work) that you engage in with all these tests. But remember, it was a lack of pushback from journalists, and their agreement to engage in the horsepower wars and the rise of the SUV, that created the reason that transportation is our biggest emissions problem in the USA. Cars have always been smaller in Europe, first because post war austerity, then heavy gas taxes, CO2 impact labeling and penalty, and smaller car budgets, forced the auto industry to keep them small. Now they are bloating (witness the British Journalists gushing over the Model Y). Your job as it relates to Climate Crisis is to remind folks why we're moving to EVs and whether the move is actually doing what we want it to do. It's not if we buy $65,500 luxury cars that have a heavy carbon footprint to build, and that use 80 kWh batteries to skip one or two DC charges per year instead of using 50 or 40 or 30 kWh hour batteries. For an EV journalist, the big story is about how these large battery EVs are expediting the scarcity of battery materials. Solid state batteries are starting to look like fusion (always 5 years from production). Volvo and Polestar admitted their LCAs don't look good for EVs as a zero carbon solution. Kia certified their EV6's LCA with Carbon Trust, and then refused to publish the numbers. Even Carbon Trust wasn't permitted to publish them. There are unreported issues with EVs as a Climate mitigation technology. The F-150 Lightning might be a massive improvement over a standard F-150, but if it doesn't beat a hybrid compact on LCA, is it really sustainable? Or are we just celebrating bad solutions because the make us feel good that they don't run on gas. I'm not arguing we should drive gas cars/SUVs/pickups. We actually need to abandon personal large vehicles and move to electrified public transit and "Active Transportation" including e-bikes for local trips. I wish journalists would read the tea leaves better instead of cheerleading a worsening trend to build 600 mile range luxury EVs that most cannot afford, and that the planet certainly cannot.
It's all about range, Supercharger network and reliability. BMW is not known for reliability. Believe me, I've owned them many times before. I would NEVER buy a car from BMW. A lease? Sure. Just save yourself the sanity and get a Tesla. You're welcome.
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnlxo79cAqY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
Your range tests are among the best you can find on the web. Finally someone who takes tires, wind, temperature, altitude differences, etc. correctly into account so that there are comparable meaningful results. Especially the tires that have so much influence that others don't even mention which then leads to apples and oranges comparisons.
Thank you, please keep up the good work. Great car by the way.
Thank you!
Oh my gosh, Tom - you absolutely smashed that 70mph range test...! WOW...
You know what, for what 'should' be rather dry You Tube content - sitting in a car at 70mph non-stop on the Highway - you really do make these videos SO interesting.
Brilliant data.
Brilliant videos. 😎
Thank you! :)
Impressive vehicle. and the car tested here is literally the "worse" wheel package the car can be specced with. I think the 19in wheels on the i4 M50 looks better and that would be the one I'd pick of the bunch. Glad to see BMW like Ford tends to underrate their numbers and beat them in the real world.
Looks like the highest efficiency is at the end of the test. Penalty in the beginning as the battery warms up? Been driving an M50 with 19" wheels for a few weeks. Car reports and calculations so far consistent with claims: 3.3 mi/kWh and 270 mile range per EPA. Good chunk NOT in Eco pro mode. I do use "B" mode /comfort setting on local streets.
Awesome job, Tom!!! Sorry I bugged you so much about this range test, LOL. Can't wait to see the range test on the i4 eDrive40 which I ordered and should have by August.
Check Bjorn Nyland's channel, he's just done i4 edrive40
@@KDR816 Yes, I saw it. Glad I'm getting a eDrive40. Range is really good.
I am doing between 16 and 18 kWh/100 km at speeds around 110 km in my e40
At 200 km h maybe 35 per 100km ?
I always find the people harping away on bespoke EV chassis to be very annoying. I already knew this car could compete with bespoke EVs and provide good usability to customers without being a bespoke EV. BMW are true engineers, I knew they could pull great numbers out of a car like this. And the e-drive 40 is even better.
There's been a lot of misleading information going around surrounding this car's range. Thanks for being clear about the tire package's impact. The default 19" wheel/tire package is significantly more efficient and has an EPA range of 270. When you add this 20" $2500 high performance wheel/tire package, which are significantly wider and use a high performance grippy wheel compound and tread pattern meant for grip, it increases rolling resistance and drops the range significantly to 227. The package also includes a spoiler and wheel arch moldings, which I imagine impact aero negatively. While I'd like to see the base i4 (RWD) tested, I'd also love to see the i4 M50 with the standard tires tested.
If you're not taking this car to the track, then IMO there's no reason to ever get this high performance 20" wheel and tire set on this car, unless you're set on getting an electric car that does the absolute barest minimum for the environment. Electricity isn't carbon free. The more we use, the more energy production we need, and energy production always has an environmental cost, whether it's coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar, hydro, or wind. They all have environmental costs. Reducing the overall amount of energy we use is the fastest way to reduce emissions and all other forms of pollution. I also imagine those performance tires are expensive to replace, and likely don't last all that long; meaning they lose a lot of rubber to the road. If you live in a region with snow, you absolutely will need snow tires, as this high performance rubber essentially turns into hard plastic in the cold, and wide tires aren't good in the snow. You won't have any traction.
Versus the model 3 performance (m3p), even the base 19" wheels and tires on the BMW are wider than what comes on the Tesla. If both cars used the same wheel / tire set, the efficiency and range of these vehicles would likely be very close in highway driving, and that's with the this BMW having a higher drag coefficient (same front surface area) and weighing 1000 lbs more. The BMW likely does need those bigger wheels and tires to handle its weight while maintaining BMW-esque handling abilities; so maybe not completely fair to suggest putting the same wheels/tires on each car. The BMW's weight will have less of an impact on the highway, and a far larger impact in city driving.
When comparing this car to a m3p, it isn't just an issue of which car is more efficient / has more range, and which car is faster. People who buy new cars and have to live with them for years realize that there's far more that goes into a car that adds to its value. Things like comfort, quality, sound insulation, road compliance, audio, lack of squeaks overtime, and utility to name a few.
IMO, the i4 M50 is very comparable to the model 3 performance, maybe even slightly ahead in overall driving quality, vehicle quality, and utility, thus justifying its price tag. When optioned equivalently (and no, that doesn't include the BMW's high performance wheel/tire package) the m3p costs $63,000. The BMW after $7500 tax credit costs $62,825. ($70,325 if you don't qualify). The BMW after credit is slightly more expensive after extra taxes and loan interest.
To the BMW's benefit, I'd also point out that paint color options are cheaper than Tesla, there are multiple free interior color options (versus Tesla's one $1000 white interior option), there are multiple wheel and tire options, multiple free interior trim options, and a few paid options that Tesla doesn't have at all like HUD, front ventilated seats, real leather seats (if you want that), laserlight LED headlights, and a real high performance wheel/tire package as is tested here. Tesla doesn't give many options, mostly just appearance options and everything else is standard, but those appearance options are expensive!
The m3p certainly has a lot of advantages in efficiency and performance, but I think the overall vehicle experience goes toe to toe with the i4 M50. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, so it's up to the individuals' use case as to what they want. Now that I look at the pricing again, I might argue you're getting more for your money with the I4 M50 , but it's certainly pretty close.
You have a lot of great considerations here I went through a lot of these myself when comparing them. Ultimately the kicker for me is the dealership. On paper the values make these super comparable but if dealerships are selling set packages that you weren’t considering and/or adding mark ups then it really starts killing the value of the bmw and pretty much any other competitor for that matter. I wish more competition would would selling directly to the customer like tesla. I want to like other vehicles but it’s hard to with the dealership model.
Thank you, Tom!
The weight of the car has minimal affect on the range if you are cruising at a constant speed on a level highway. The aerodynamics of the car matters the most but the width of the tire contact patch matters as well.
Nice review - I can't wait to pick up my i4 M50 later this week (picking up an unclaimed early order). With the 19-inch wheels, I'm cautiously optimistic that my highway range will be 280+ miles. Also, the charging curve is excellent and should make this a great road tripper (assuming that the VWs, Mach Es, and Bolts stay off the 350 kW units).
@Stefan Maintain contact with your dealership (maybe even checking with other nearby dealership). You may get lucky and get into an earlier unclaimed order. There are a lot of people finding EVs like this without waiting...just takes a bit of perseverance and willingness to have a *bit* of flexibility on specs.
Fun fact: German i4 configurator gives the option of normal 20" tires with "862" aero rims which give 35 miles more range.
Superb vid Tom !!
Hey Tom! Long time Naunas customer and friend ! Good to see your channel, it’s great ! I drove this m50 and it’s awesome ! Trying to make a decision on an EV. -Fred
Pleasant surprise. Great testing Tom‼️
Toss those 20” wheels!!!! That’s a drastic drop in range based on wheels but very well captured and understood. Hurry and test drive the i4 basic model because that’s the one I’m looking to purchase.
It makes the interior of a Tesla look like a low level rental car. The general population isn't even aware that this car exists.
A lot of the initial reviews of this vehicle when it first came out had this high performance wheel / tire package on and were done in colder weather. Grippy high performance tires like this turn into plastic in colder weather. They need warmer temps to soften and grip the surface. That's why in a lot of those initial reviews, you see a LOT of wheel spin in the 0-60 tests, and maybe even some complaints about handling the twisties. For overall daily driving performance for all 4 seasons, the all season 19" wheel and tire packages will not only be superior for traction, but superior for ride comfort... and they costs $2500 less. I doubt you're going to lose a whole lot in the 0-60 test, but you may lose some in the warm weather handling.
This wheel / tire package seems to be more meant for people that want to take their car to the track, or who own two sets of wheels / tires. This set for summer, and an all-season set for the other 3 seasons. Maybe even a winter set for the snow.
Can't wait to see the rwd range test
Great overview Tom, it's impressive that you easily exceed EPA estimates at 70 mph, which is definitely not optimal for maximum efficiency
I'd rather see the range test with this M50 on the smaller 19" wheels and all season tires.
Thanks Tom. Love your videos. Peace, Calvin.
16:00 It isn't a direct comparison to compare this to the model 3 long range which is rated at 353 miles EPA combined, but only managed to get 310 miles. Your model 3 missed its EPA range by 38 miles, or 10.7%, in nearly the same perfect conditions as you tested here. BMW doesn't actually have an AWD i4 that directly compares to the model 3 LR. This i4 M50, especially with the performance wheel/tire package, is far more comparable to the model 3 performance (m3p), which is rated at 315 miles EPA. If the m3p sees a similar 10.7% range miss, then it would get 281 miles (Kyle got 280 miles in colder temps, but at lower air density in CO)... or about 42 miles more than this i4 achieved with this optional wheel/tire package. This vehicle went 12 miles further than its combined EPA rating, or 5.2%. If it sees the same outperformance with its standard 19" wheel/tire set that are rated at 270 miles EPA, then it would achieve 284 miles. Well well well... look at that, the i4 M50 gets 3 more miles of range than the model 3 performance. (Obviously this would need to be confirmed in real world tests)
Certainly smaller diameter 19" wheels on the BMW will be more efficient than 20" wheels on the m3p... but most of that inefficiency of larger wheels comes from accelerating the wheels up to speed and wouldn't play a huge part in constant speed highway range efficiency. There may be a small benefit of surface contact with the smaller diameter wheels. What's more important is that the base 19" BMW wheels/tires are still wider than the m3p's 20" wheels. That means more surface area contact on the pavement, leading to increased rolling resistance. If the BMW had the m3p's narrower 20" wheels/tires, I imagine it would see its range advantage increase by more than the 3 miles I mentioned above.
This is why it's extremely important to acknowledge the differences in the vehicles you're comparing, especially the optional wheel/tire packages. You did a good job of pointing out that this car has the optional high performance wheel/tire set and what the standard tires EPA rating is, but you didn't really point out what the base wheel/tire set on this vehicle could do IRL, and just how efficient this vehicle can actually be in comparison to the model 3... which is the baseline of what every other car is compared to.
After this result and this analysis, can we really say the Tesla range and efficiency is significantly better than BMWs? I don't think so. (Maybe BMW will become the new baseline) Tesla concentrates their efforts on getting the best efficiency and lowest cost; whereas BMW here is not only concerned with getting great efficiency, but also providing the best overall driving experience that they can muster. That's a difference that should never be overlooked. I do appreciate that Tom mentioned the driving quality of this vehicle in comparison to his own model 3 at 10:15 , because it's important to acknowledge that overall vehicle value isn't simply based on 0-60 times and range/efficiency stats.
Awesome review Tom!
Thanks for the video. Quite informative.
Another great video Tom, thank you for sharing! 🔌⚡🚘
Fantastic job as usual.
I’d like to see what it does with the 19” wheels
Would you rather have a really low EPA range rating and beat it by a little bit or have a REALLY high EPA range rating and miss it by a moderate amount but still have 40+ more miles of range for a similar sized battery pack?
The EPA range ratings are meaningless. That is why we really have to depend on great tests like this.
Yes, I'm really interested in the range of the RWD version. Thanks
Thanks for making this video. Did you ever manage to get an eDrive40 and make a range test with it? If not, when will you manage to do it?
Tom are you going to test the i4 eDrive 40 on 18" wheels. That or the eDrive35 or even the xDrive40 on 18" wheels should do much better on efficiency. Also, do you ever test at 55mph, which is probably what we should all be highway driving at, to save boatloads of energy? Thanks.
Trying to find a range test for the 2024 i4 xdrive40. Any plans to do one?
Tom, if memory serves, you're testing in dead flat NJ. Is that right? Thanks for this test. It's good to confirm that as with the MINI SE, BMW Group was conservative and accurate in their self-stated EPA stats.
Great video. What was the final wH/mi that you ended up with? I didn’t hear you say that in the final section.
I’d like to know as well. 2.9 miles per Kw is not great at all.
@@JayQuiles1 sure, it’s not impressive if you accept driving a flimsy poorly insulated car like a Tesla. This is a different breed of cat
239
@@JayQuiles1 compared to what, the Model 3 Performance? Even in tires alone the BMW is a far more performance oriented car, whereas the Model 3 Perf wears Golf GTI width 235/35R20 all around, this i4 M50 as tested wears 255/35R20 front and 285/30R20.
thanks for the work! coffee ready.
wow, great showing. now if only tesla could provide better real world estimates. our 240 mile MY can do maybe 140 at 70 mph, its pathetic.
The odd thing with a cross-wind for your test is that you actually end up getting headwind in both directions because of the effective incident wind. A full headwind would be better for absolute accuracy because this would turn to a tailwind on your turnaround and average out. Excellent test, cannot wait for the 40 test as I have one on order
Yes, I too think a cross wind is bad coming and going.
Nicely done. Will you do a range test on the iX xdrive50? I can't find one in your library.
Done. Look for it in 7-10 days
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney Thanks Tom! We took delivery of an iX 2 weeks ago and are averaging about 3.1 m/kwh in mountainous 70-75 mph highway and around town driving in Western Washington state, which is exceeding my expectations. We are driving round trips through Snoqualmie Pass from Bellevue to Cle Elum 3-4 times per week with over 4500 feet of elevation gain in a round trip at temps ranging from 45-65 degrees without restrictions on HVAC.
21 inch wheels BTW
@@tomshodge We had the 20s on the test car.
im here for the smooth "walk in frame" walk he does
I'm a cool character.
We’re getting an i4 eDrive 40 with the M Sport package to get the good suspension. Unfortunately, that mandates 19” wheels and ~7% range cut. I hope the aftermarket comes up with lightweight, forged 18” aero wheels for this car.
no word on over the air updates?
Thank you!
I love how you guys use GPS to validate the speedo...but you should invest in a Vbox, as your cell phone is not very accurate in regards to GPS velocity readings.
Great video. Subscribed!
Why are cars using 20" tires?
Great video thanks.🙂
Would much rather have this a Model 3
Love these tests, nice work...too bad you couldn't test an M50 with the 19" wheels which is 'rated' for 270 miles. (factoring the 20" result here at 1.05 x the rated range, the 19" wheels should yield around 285 ish range) would be great to know if that's true since it would then 'compete' with Tesla real world range.
great test. that car does look great minus the grille.
How is WHEEL got a little bigger and Range went all Downhill? 18Inch EPA 300+, 19Inch 270 Mile 20Inch 225 Mile
You have to remember, those rear 20" tires are huge 285 width performance varients.
18" is 225, the 19" is 255.
Impressive in every category except range.
Yes!! hopefully bmw loans you the more efficient i4:)
Why didn’t you just get the m50 with 19” wheels ? That’s what most of us will be buying.
I wonder if the speedometer will incorrectly pile on miles on the car. False mileage readings.
The only thing about it being from a combustion car would be the middle hump in the backseat...it would be nice if they'd remove it.
I only really care about the highway range of an EV, if I'm going to be pushing the range, it's going to be on the highway, weird that it doesn't always get disclosed.
BMW I M 50 con la llanta de 18 pulgadas que es la que trae de serie el coche pasa de las 300 millas a 75 millas de velocidad comprobado ida Bilbao Madrid aeropuerto 388 km a 18,6 -722 y Vuelta 388 km , con dos personas y ida y vuelta mismo dia ,creo que las llantas de 18 consume menos , esta claro las de 20 pulgadas son otra cosa pero todo no se puede tener, Los taxi Tesla MODEL 3 gran autonomia a esta velocidad ida y vuelta sobre 18 esto es lo normal cargas en Madrid y vuelta esta muy bien por que no hay que parar hasta Madrid .
So much M50 content on TH-cam, but all I want is to know about the eDrive40. Still an interesting video and I'm guessing it's BMWs fault for not giving out press versions of the eDrive40.
Haha, I commented before you talked about the RWD i4. Please talk to BMW and set up a drive with one.
Why does everyone keep testing with the 20in rims!!! They are the most inefficient
Love the car but no Frounk no V..T.L we love out i3S 42kw. .THANK YOU
The epa has to rethink its stance by not printing the highway real world range hurts sales and grows resentment that the car they brought doesn’t meet there needs if they leave town or extra urban
Seems like a paid ad
Frame rate seams edgy
Tom - Porsche is a two syllable word. You mispronounce it every time you say it.
Respectfully, these 70mph ranges tests have two problems.
1) They reinforce the belief and oversimplified focus that the longer the range the better the car. Range is important to a point and beyond that point, it is money and natural resources wasted, excess weight, added liability if a pack doesn't outlast the car. Road trips do not protect us from Climate Crisis. Road trips are a big part of the problem. People addicted to wasteful long distance road travel or trapped doing it for work should find a different hobby or refine their living situation. Driving a massive luxury car 301 miles daily (excitement about the RWD's even longer range) would be lunacy. So why do journalists reinforce that 301 > 250 in terms of range? Realistically, the 140 miles range of a Mini Cooper SE with a 32 kWh pack is enough for any daily usage for anyone not megacommuting. How do you get 140 miles range? That brings me to the second problem.
2) 70 mph range tests. We established a national 55 mph limit during the oil crisis for a reason. Power needed to overcome wind drag is a function of velocity CUBED. Yes CUBED. So excessive speed kicks the crap out of efficiency. 70 mph, by anyone's standard is excessive speed. It leads to more deadly accidents, requires and reinforces the need for straight multilane superhighways that are not compatible with our zero carbon future. We never should have built interstate highways and made them free, because they encourage the road tripping hypercommuting behavior noted above. If you want to show how efficient these EVs actually are, you should drive them at 55 mph, which is closer to the actual speed limit for most of the country and most of the world. You should test them on a mixed, repeated circuit, as Edmunds does, because starting and stopping and slow speed and curves, and climbing and descending hills on local roads is a part of everyone's drive. A 70 mph constant speed test only shows what it's like to drive these cars on interstate trips which in the future, we will do with electric rail. We cannot afford the embodied carbon (study the painful truth about LCA of the current luxury, long range EVs and those EV pickups) nor the excessive energy used by EVs that are still often powered by a grid we are decades away from fully decarbonizing. Each year the cars bloat and manufacturers and journalists reinforce longer range, we worsen the impacts that EVs have on the planet and on our ability to fully decarbonize.
Appreciate the fun (and work) that you engage in with all these tests. But remember, it was a lack of pushback from journalists, and their agreement to engage in the horsepower wars and the rise of the SUV, that created the reason that transportation is our biggest emissions problem in the USA. Cars have always been smaller in Europe, first because post war austerity, then heavy gas taxes, CO2 impact labeling and penalty, and smaller car budgets, forced the auto industry to keep them small. Now they are bloating (witness the British Journalists gushing over the Model Y). Your job as it relates to Climate Crisis is to remind folks why we're moving to EVs and whether the move is actually doing what we want it to do. It's not if we buy $65,500 luxury cars that have a heavy carbon footprint to build, and that use 80 kWh batteries to skip one or two DC charges per year instead of using 50 or 40 or 30 kWh hour batteries.
For an EV journalist, the big story is about how these large battery EVs are expediting the scarcity of battery materials. Solid state batteries are starting to look like fusion (always 5 years from production). Volvo and Polestar admitted their LCAs don't look good for EVs as a zero carbon solution. Kia certified their EV6's LCA with Carbon Trust, and then refused to publish the numbers. Even Carbon Trust wasn't permitted to publish them.
There are unreported issues with EVs as a Climate mitigation technology. The F-150 Lightning might be a massive improvement over a standard F-150, but if it doesn't beat a hybrid compact on LCA, is it really sustainable? Or are we just celebrating bad solutions because the make us feel good that they don't run on gas. I'm not arguing we should drive gas cars/SUVs/pickups. We actually need to abandon personal large vehicles and move to electrified public transit and "Active Transportation" including e-bikes for local trips. I wish journalists would read the tea leaves better instead of cheerleading a worsening trend to build 600 mile range luxury EVs that most cannot afford, and that the planet certainly cannot.
it's more beautiful than tesla!
239miles is impressive result?
First, It is sedan..
Second, It has 84kW.
It is soso result.. Compare other evs.
Still no base model i4 range test too many videos on the performance i4 what about the people who like their cars a little more efficient
Here is one:
th-cam.com/video/C44uTJdjnxU/w-d-xo.htmlm7s
The BMW exceeded Tesla M3 LR range due to the bigger usable battery.
@@abraxastulammo9940 thank you
Beautiful car but not getting my coin until they provide a grill option, 🤮🤢🤮🤢
It's all about range, Supercharger network and reliability. BMW is not known for reliability. Believe me, I've owned them many times before. I would NEVER buy a car from BMW. A lease? Sure. Just save yourself the sanity and get a Tesla. You're welcome.
DISGUSTING!!!! 🤮🤮🤮🤮