BMW to launch new M Electric Sedan w/ 1,300+ HP

[jdhiro]

Originally Posted by 10"

Wake me up when someone has produced a lightweight, simple EV that is actually engaging to drive. Don’t care about HP numbers. I am sure I will be waiting a long long time…

That will probably by the Boxster EV first.

We really need solid state batteries to be real before it can really happen though.

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Hope they copy Hyundai and bring the simulated gears.

I hope they give their heads a shake and start copying BMW ///M circa 2000: the era in which they peaked.

[Powerwhee]

I would never replace my M8 with one, but I think this will be an interesting vehicle depending on price point. Although EVs are boring as shit. I had an i4 M50 and got bored of it after a few days honestly lol. All EVs have going for them is the speed in a straight line; the driving dynamics suck. So it makes sense why the M EV would just focus on the thing that makes EVs different: ridiculous acceleration.

And I really do think that an i4 M50 is not worth the premium over a new Tesla Model 3 at all.

[GuyOh]

We all know bmw can make great performance cars, the only issue i have is will it look good….

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

Maybe have a clue before you run your mouth and spew Green Insanity talking points.

Funny, because Asia makes pretty much all the solar panels and sells them to us, while they continue building coal plants.

Who are the suckers?

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

Everything China does is for China and screw everyone else. They're driving EV's because they have a lot of coal and almost no oil. If they can feed the gullible Green sheeple in the West some money to drive an industry they dominate, more than happy to.

Yessir. The West is doing itself a disservice by not being a little more selfish… our leaders have only figured that part out as it applies to themselves.

[BlkGS]

I didn't read the pages of stuff posted before, because frankly I don't care.

Let's look at this argument that EVs are the solution to a major environmental issue, and that the switch to them is truly an altruistic goal not any sort of financial scheme. Were that the case, you'd look at "how can I make the biggest impact with the least amount of cha ge" and pick those low hanging fruit first. That low hanging fruit is PHEVs
It's easy to sell a PHEV, it's just like your normal car now, except if you use it to commute in the city it doesn't use gas, and it has more power. We could haven chosen to funnel money into PHEVs and made them a no cost or nearly no cost option. Then you don't need some huge charging infrastructure, you don't need huge and expensive batteries, you can just find a spot for a modest battery, an onboard charger, and an electric motor thrown into the transmission assembly.

But that's not what the industry was told to do. They all went balls deep on big battery full electrics that weren't ready for primetime for most buyers. They created a stigma that electric cars were somehow just for rich city folk, and in doing so increased the amount of greenhouse gases emitted because a lot of people who could have been seated to a PHEV just went full ICE instead.

So either this was the worst roll out of a technology trying to save the planet ever, or it was rolled out for purely financial and control reasons.

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by rdown1976

0-60 in less than 3 seconds. Ugh, m5 cs and M8 comp can do that

Well so can the new $58K Model 3 Performance. But then again, if talking BMW factory specs, they tend to be conservative. I mean, what is the factory 0-60mph specs on the M5 CS and M8 Comp? I believe they are 3.0 secs. Saying a 1300HP AWD EV can't do 0-60 mph in under 3 seconds is just the engineers teasing you.

[Blue Angel]

EVs are “better”. OK, but only when looking at carbon emissions and maybe an impact on local air quality.

The issue with this argument is it’s based on the premise of CO2 being a pollutant. It’s not, therefore all the studies demonstrating how EVs are better for the planet are based on a fallacy.

I was 100% on board with buying an EV as my next daily driver, 10 years ago. Then I started educating myself. The “studies” backing this argument are being pushed, and the scientists in opposition are being censored. The “consensus” is a lie, a marketing term, a narrative designed to ruin anyone who gets in the way.

Wood stoves for heating homes are being banned, yet we’re clear cutting forests for use as “biomass” to burn for electricity (and green credentials) while the public believes it’s all industrial waste products.

Nobody wants the man behind the curtain to be exposed, but it’s too late… the secret’s out.

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

So either this was the worst roll out of a technology trying to save the planet ever, or it was rolled out for purely financial and control reasons.

I have no issue with the existence of EVs, they’re just another consumer product. Buy what you want.

The issue is the sales pitch that EVs are necessary to save the planet. That is so laughably ridiculous it’s sad. Even IF CO2 was going to kill the planet (it’s not), the small improvement made by EVs is not enough to move the needle, let alone make a difference.

Buy what you want, but stop pretending you’re saving the planet. And for Pete’s sake, stop with the ridiculous mandates that will do nothing but put poor people out of reach of vehicle ownership.

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by rdown1976

The excavating for rare earth minerals, the heavier cars burn through tires quicker, it goes on and on. People buy EV’s thinking they are doing good, while they are destroying the earth even more.

A M3 is almost 4000lbs.
My i4 M50 is 5000lbs, but so is my X5.

The tired on my M50 are Pirelli Pzero and on an M3 or M50 are only good for 15k miles.

My daughter's Chevy Bolt is just needing it's first set of tires at 45k miles.

Tires aren't wearing faster and BMW doesn't use rare earth metals and don't have permanent magnet motors.

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by blockhead25

Again, it is 100% proveable that electric vehicles are better for the environment than non electric vehicles. Saying otherwise is a categorical lie.

Is it? What if you were lied to? What if CO2 is not a pollutant? How can you prove EVs are less damaging to the environment?

[G30M]

M traction control replaced w Drift angle selector? (was going to say dial but probably won't have knobs or blinker stalks)

[Blue Angel]

Originally Posted by techwhiz1

A M3 is almost 4000lbs.
My i4 M50 is 5000lbs, but so is my X5.

The tired on my M50 are Pirelli Pzero and on an M3 or M50 are only good for 15k miles.

My daughter's Chevy Bolt is just needing it's first set of tires at 45k miles.

Tires aren't wearing faster and BMW doesn't use rare earth metals and don't have permanent magnet motors.

X5 vs Bolt is kinda apples and oranges… they’re both fruit, and there the similarities end.

EVs do generate more particulates through tire wear. Some claim brakes too, but I doubt it given regenerative braking.

Fact is, if you want to be “green” you buy a small PHEV like a Prius Prime that has a battery just big enough for your daily use. A 60-100kWh battery on wheels that rarely gets used to anywhere near its capacity is truly a waste of resources.

Like Toyota or not, they’re right; the most sustainable approach with today’s technology and resources is PHEVs. Preferably small ones, but few people want that so really, very few people ACTUALLY care about reducing their environmental impact enough to let that drive their purchasing decisions.

[DavidXJ]

Originally Posted by rdown1976

0-60 in less than 3 seconds. Ugh, m5 cs and M8 comp can do that

Yes, quite; and they also can both be relied upon to sound pretty beautiful when you first switch them on in the morning...

[blockhead25]

Originally Posted by Blue Angel

EVs are “better”. OK, but only when looking at carbon emissions and maybe an impact on local air quality.

The issue with this argument is it’s based on the premise of CO2 being a pollutant. It’s not, therefore all the studies demonstrating how EVs are better for the planet are based on a fallacy.

I was 100% on board with buying an EV as my next daily driver, 10 years ago. Then I started educating myself. The “studies” backing this argument are being pushed, and the scientists in opposition are being censored. The “consensus” is a lie, a marketing term, a narrative designed to ruin anyone who gets in the way.

Wood stoves for heating homes are being banned, yet we’re clear cutting forests for use as “biomass” to burn for electricity (and green credentials) while the public believes it’s all industrial waste products.

Nobody wants the man behind the curtain to be exposed, but it’s too late… the secret’s out.

Do you realize there is no rationale debate that can occur when everything devolves into a conspiracy theory? Your implication is fundamentally that science does not matter any more. It is either being “pushed” or “being censored” or based on “marketing terms.” The process for peer review of scientific findings are extensive and designed to avoid conspiracy. Science contains data and facts. If a finding is released, and no one is able to collaborate that finding, it won’t be published by peer reviewed journals. However, that won’t stop it appearing as an op-Ed in the NY Post.

Once can not debate with conspiracy theorists. The entire premise of conspiracy theories is that facts ultimately do not matter.

I happen to believe in science. It is one of the foundations of my very being. Science matters. Facts matter. Research matters. I am also a believer of Occam’s razor. The simplest explanation is likely the best explanation.

Either there is a mass conspiracy by some unknown group producing wind mills that has created a network of scientists who validate each others data to create thousands of peer reviewed studies on the impact of man made global warming…or it is that a bunch of research independently lead to the same conclusion and therefore is likely to be accurate.

Science and research have hard costs associated. You need labor, you need tools, you need subjects, a lot goes into it. Therefore, scientific studies are funded by many many things. There are scientific research studies funded by oil companies. There are scientific research studies funded by electric vehicle battery makers. Science is typically about proving theories, and those that are funding science research are trying to prove their own theories.

But that’s where peer review comes into play where independent scientists look at and review other data to see if it can be collaborated. It is up to us to research the sources for this material, and know what we are reading and where we are reading it. We should know the difference between an op ed article in a far right conservative newspaper and be able to understand why that might have a different conclusion to an article published in a journal requiring several levels of peer review and data collaboration before they will publish it.

[yousefnjr]

Originally Posted by Blue Angel

I hope they give their heads a shake and start copying BMW ///M circa 2000: the era in which they peaked.

Those cars are still available and they’re cheap. They’re also super slow. Just drove my Z4M yesterday and it’s a fun experience but can barely get out of its own way. Sometimes that’s cool, sometimes not. It’s great to have options and I’m glad they do new things.

[buckybadger]

I need more road feel and engagement.

[rdown1976]

How bad are Tesla batteries for the environment?
Most importantly, the production of EV batteries generates far more emissions than the production process for ICE vehicles. Producing the battery alone for a Tesla generates between 5,291 and 35,273 pounds of CO2 emissions, which is up to three times higher than the emissions to manufacture a gas-powered car.May 14, 2024
https://www.leafscore.com › tesla
How Sustainable is Tesla? - LeafScore

[techwhiz1]

Originally Posted by Blue Angel

X5 vs Bolt is kinda apples and oranges… they’re both fruit, and there the similarities end.

EVs do generate more particulates through tire wear. Some claim brakes too, but I doubt it given regenerative braking.

Fact is, if you want to be “green” you buy a small PHEV like a Prius Prime that has a battery just big enough for your daily use. A 60-100kWh battery on wheels that rarely gets used to anywhere near its capacity is truly a waste of resources.

Like Toyota or not, they’re right; the most sustainable approach with today’s technology and resources is PHEVs. Preferably small ones, but few people want that so really, very few people ACTUALLY care about reducing their environmental impact enough to let that drive their purchasing decisions.

Actually the statement about EV and tire wear.
My M50 weighs as much as an X5 and has similar tire wear.

While my bolt that weighs about 3000lbs get 40k miles on a set.

You made a gross statement about tire wear that was blatantly wrong.

And to evenention brakes in an argument about EV tech when I can't think of a single EV that had brakes that do not last at least 2-3x their petrol counterpart.

The Bolt has 40k miles and shows almost no brake pad wear.

Stop being dishonest. It's clear you don't like EV.

[rdown1976]

https://europe.autonews.com/article/...r-ev-batteries

Child labor and kids dying, leaving massive craters after destroying the land…..but I saved a little carbon output today (that plants and trees use). Seems logical. Great trade off.

[x622]

Hi I don't give a shit about anyone's comments about how bad EVs are (I know!) I'm just in here waiting for an iX5M with 1300+ AWHP and at least a 500 mile charge.

Sign me up. If we're gonna go BEV lets at least be saucy about it. I desire torque vectored 4 wheel slides late at night when nobody is around, and even further increasing my annual tire budget.

Hopefully BMW can manage to make it no look like shit like the rest of their product stack as been recently.

Carry on the pointless bickering.