[mbanck]

Originally Posted by ian_i8_i3

The iX can be preordered from Monday so I expect the i4 to follow. I thought the i4 was being released before the iX.

I've seen people mention they've put a 1k/2k reservation on an iX in Germany several weeks ago (e.g. https://www.motor-talk.de/forum/disk...1#post60509762), but maybe preorder is something different?

[jmxtrem]

seem like a 3 or 4 series

[Sjokosaus]

BMW is considering moving production of the i4 to August or September, I'm happy BMW is pushing for a faster release considering the car has been tested for almost 3 years at this point https://www.electrive.com/2021/01/29...i4-production/

[cc3]

Rather have a Taycan.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by ParkNuts

I really hope they execute well on this. What I don't like is that it wasn't built as an electric car from the ground up. Why in the world did BMW try to use an ICE chassis for their launch into the segment? Stubborn? So short sighted. Huge mistake that set them back years, and they admitted as much several months back.

Interesting point, but I question the conclusion on timing. Let's dissect this and also be picky about language. "Chassis" is a term dating back to body-on-frame construction, regarding the frame. Modern light duty vehicles primarily have no frame, but are unibody design. The floorpan, cowl, and engine box components create a "platform", to which suspensions are attached and powertrains are inserted.

If we start at the front of the car, the front suspension doesn't care what type of powertrain is used. It has the same job to do for any powertrain. The lack of an ICE under the hood allows for a useful frunk and likely excellent frontal crush characteristics. The downside of the common platform is that the Design Office was not able to make the front much "swoopier" which an EV would otherwise allow.

Moving rearward from the engine box of the unibody to past the cowl, the floorpan becomes the major differentiator. In an ICE car, the floorpan usually has quite a bit of "topography" to allow for driveshafts, exhaust, and robust attachment points for seating. In an EV, the term "skateboard" has been used as it can now be quite flat. Within the CLAR platform program, we don't know if BMW developed a new floorpan middle section or figured out a way to package the battery in the existing space. Either way, the battery is low, which assists handling with a low Cg. How does this affect you negatively?

As we move to the rear of the floorpan where it kicks up for a fuel tank and to form the trunk floor in an ICE vehicle, we presume extra space may now be available, possibly for cargo or spare tire packaging. Perhaps some of the battery pack now lives there. We shall see.

If BMW was able to package the batteries within a common CLAR platform program for reduced cost, improved efficiency, allowing for plant load mix flexibility, and shortened product cycle time, how specifically does this affect your daily driving experience that you feel will be negative? How would undertaking a separate program for a unique platform have accelerated their development timing?

[VetteGuy]

Well explained, Sportstick.

[OM3RTA]

Originally Posted by cc3

Rather have a Taycan.

Totally different segment though, no?

[Sjokosaus]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

Interesting point, but I question the conclusion on timing. Let's dissect this and also be picky about language. "Chassis" is a term dating back to body-on-frame construction, regarding the frame. Modern light duty vehicles primarily have no frame, but are unibody design. The floorpan, cowl, and engine box components create a "platform", to which suspensions are attached and powertrains are inserted.

If we start at the front of the car, the front suspension doesn't care what type of powertrain is used. It has the same job to do for any powertrain. The lack of an ICE under the hood allows for a useful frunk and likely excellent frontal crush characteristics. The downside of the common platform is that the Design Office was not able to make the front much "swoopier" which an EV would otherwise allow.

Moving rearward from the engine box of the unibody to past the cowl, the floorpan becomes the major differentiator. In an ICE car, the floorpan usually has quite a bit of "topography" to allow for driveshafts, exhaust, and robust attachment points for seating. In an EV, the term "skateboard" has been used as it can now be quite flat. Within the CLAR platform program, we don't know if BMW developed a new floorpan middle section or figured out a way to package the battery in the existing space. Either way, the battery is low, which assists handling with a low Cg. How does this affect you negatively?

As we move to the rear of the floorpan where it kicks up for a fuel tank and to form the trunk floor in an ICE vehicle, we presume extra space may now be available, possibly for cargo or spare tire packaging. Perhaps some of the battery pack now lives there. We shall see.

If BMW was able to package the batteries within a common CLAR platform program for reduced cost, improved efficiency, allowing for plant load mix flexibility, and shortened product cycle time, how specifically does this affect your daily driving experience that you feel will be negative? How would undertaking a separate program for a unique platform have accelerated their development timing?

Good comment, I just want to add some comments of my own from observations.

I fully expect the i4 not to have a frunk. The iX3 which is based on X3, just like how the i4 is based on a yet to be announced 4 Series Gran Coupe, does not have a frunk, which is a strange decision considering there is a loot of room under the plastic covering. Another example is the iX which is built on a new BEV only platform, that does not have a frunk, you can't even open the hood, only the dealership service can do that. It seems to me BMW has decided not to include frunks for their EV line-up which is a bit of a shame.

As for the floorpan and transmission tunnel. I expect the i4 to have a transmission tunnel for a few reasons:

1: I'm pretty sure the transmission tunnel is a part of the structural rigidity of CLAR. Again I'm taking example from the iX3. the tunnel is left over from the X3 most likely because of structural reasons. in the iX3 the tunnel is left mostly empty, only housing a few cables and coolent lines. The floorpan is obviosly redesigned to fit the battery pack but BMW left the transmission tunnel. Probably for structural reasons and definitely so they could reuse interior components.

2: The concept of the i4 looks to be an actual CLAR i4 with some more concepty exterior and interior bits. But looking at the concept you can see that there is a transmission tunnel. I think this confirms it.


My opinion is that these are very small compromises and aren't really that important, but they are compromises. But as long as the i4 has good performance, good range and typical BMW interior meaning best in class build quality, that's what matters.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by Sjokosaus

Good comment, I just want to add some comments of my own from observations.

I fully expect the i4 not to have a frunk. The iX3 which is based on X3, just like how the i4 is based on a yet to be announced 4 Series Gran Coupe, does not have a frunk, which is a strange decision considering there is a loot of room under the plastic covering. Another example is the iX which is built on a new BEV only platform, that does not have a frunk, you can't even open the hood, only the dealership service can do that. It seems to me BMW has decided not to include frunks for their EV line-up which is a bit of a shame.

As for the floorpan and transmission tunnel. I expect the i4 to have a transmission tunnel for a few reasons:

1: I'm pretty sure the transmission tunnel is a part of the structural rigidity of CLAR. Again I'm taking example from the iX3. the tunnel is left over from the X3 most likely because of structural reasons. in the iX3 the tunnel is left mostly empty, only housing a few cables and coolent lines. The floorpan is obviosly redesigned to fit the battery pack but BMW left the transmission tunnel. Probably for structural reasons and definitely so they could reuse interior components.

2: The concept of the i4 looks to be an actual CLAR i4 with some more concepty exterior and interior bits. But looking at the concept you can see that there is a transmission tunnel. I think this confirms it.


My opinion is that these are very small compromises and aren't really that important, but they are compromises. But as long as the i4 has good performance, good range and typical BMW interior meaning best in class build quality, that's what matters.

Good observations and integration of recent history. I can only add that if BMW hasn't progressed and noted competitive entries re: frunk it would be a shame of wasted space and lost versatility.

[Sjokosaus]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

Good observations and integration of recent history. I can only add that if BMW hasn't progressed and noted competitive entries re: frunk it would be a shame of wasted space and lost versatility.

I very much agree. I hope BMW will incorporate frunks within the next 4 years, especially considering the i3 has one, albeit a very bad one. BMW could easily give the LCI iX3 a frunk, but considering the brand new iX on a brand new platform didn't get one, I'm pessimistic. But one can hope.

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

If BMW was able to package the batteries within a common CLAR platform program for reduced cost, improved efficiency, allowing for plant load mix flexibility, and shortened product cycle time, how specifically does this affect your daily driving experience that you feel will be negative? How would undertaking a separate program for a unique platform have accelerated their development timing?

It doesn't. It's just another talking point for people to say how behind BMW is. The CLAR platform was done with what BMW had in mind in terms of progression of technology they could realistically use and manufacture into their cars today while still producing ICE vehicles. No one from BMW ever said that the CLAR was going to the best platform for ICE as we know today while being able to also manufacture a car to rival the Model S.

The CLAR will eventually be phased out once BMW's lineup consist mainly of EVs but until then, I'm sure the platform is good enough to provide us with a competitive EV in terms of range while still being a BMW providing us with the things we expect to be in a BMW.

[ParkNuts]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

Interesting point, but I question the conclusion on timing. Let's dissect this and also be picky about language. "Chassis" is a term dating back to body-on-frame construction, regarding the frame. Modern light duty vehicles primarily have no frame, but are unibody design. The floorpan, cowl, and engine box components create a "platform", to which suspensions are attached and powertrains are inserted.

If we start at the front of the car, the front suspension doesn't care what type of powertrain is used. It has the same job to do for any powertrain. The lack of an ICE under the hood allows for a useful frunk and likely excellent frontal crush characteristics. The downside of the common platform is that the Design Office was not able to make the front much "swoopier" which an EV would otherwise allow.

Moving rearward from the engine box of the unibody to past the cowl, the floorpan becomes the major differentiator. In an ICE car, the floorpan usually has quite a bit of "topography" to allow for driveshafts, exhaust, and robust attachment points for seating. In an EV, the term "skateboard" has been used as it can now be quite flat. Within the CLAR platform program, we don't know if BMW developed a new floorpan middle section or figured out a way to package the battery in the existing space. Either way, the battery is low, which assists handling with a low Cg. How does this affect you negatively?

As we move to the rear of the floorpan where it kicks up for a fuel tank and to form the trunk floor in an ICE vehicle, we presume extra space may now be available, possibly for cargo or spare tire packaging. Perhaps some of the battery pack now lives there. We shall see.

If BMW was able to package the batteries within a common CLAR platform program for reduced cost, improved efficiency, allowing for plant load mix flexibility, and shortened product cycle time, how specifically does this affect your daily driving experience that you feel will be negative? How would undertaking a separate program for a unique platform have accelerated their development timing?

I think you understood what I meant about chassis development - meaning the body, suspension, basic overall shape, etc. But if you think cramming the batteries in an existing frame is an acceptable route, take a look at the Polestar 2. While it is a great car, the compromise is huge and leads to its enormous weight and ride height. Let's state the obvious - weight affects the driving experience, as does a suspension compromised by its intended components being removed and replaced with a totally unique powertrain.

Look at the Lucid Air. The packaging of that car is impressive. The wheelbase is extremely long despite the footprint of the car, leading to vastly superior interior room and cargo, and the suspension tuning and development must follow the geometry set by that starting point.

BWM starting with a huge compromise of an ICE chassis/frame/body, whatever you want to call it (let's not get pedantic) will undoubtedly set them back vs a package designed around the powertrain. I don't know why that's so hard to grasp or how it could be contested.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by ParkNuts

I think you understood what I meant about chassis development - meaning the body, suspension, basic overall shape, etc. But if you think cramming the batteries in an existing frame is an acceptable route, take a look at the Polestar 2. While it is a great car, the compromise is huge and leads to its enormous weight and ride height. Let's state the obvious - weight affects the driving experience, as does a suspension compromised by its intended components being removed and replaced with a totally unique powertrain.

Look at the Lucid Air. The packaging of that car is impressive. The wheelbase is extremely long despite the footprint of the car, leading to vastly superior interior room and cargo, and the suspension tuning and development must follow the geometry set by that starting point.

BWM starting with a huge compromise of an ICE chassis/frame/body, whatever you want to call it (let's not get pedantic) will undoubtedly set them back vs a package designed around the powertrain. I don't know why that's so hard to grasp or how it could be contested.

I think the generalizations are still not inherently valid. The shape of the sheetmetal and design of front/rear suspension are quite independent of the battery placement. Whatever compromises Polestar experienced are not predictive of what BMW may be able to accomplish. Otherwise, we would all agree that an S60 is as successful as a 3 Series. Competencies and priorities vary. In Polestar's case, their CMA platform was designed to accommodate an electric powertrain from its' origin. How well they did is subject for evaluation.

Using the word "cramming" doesn't make it so. The weight of the batteries is a constant, whether as a new platform or integrated into an existing one. The issue is the packaging capability (space, technology, and engineering talent) of that constant. The placement of the weight low under the floorpan provides a relative advantage in handling versus having an ICE up front due to the lower Cg. If the suspension components for an EV application needs to support more weight due to the battery, that would apply whether the platform to which the battery is attached is EV-only specific or shared with ICE, unless some independent additional variable occurred to reduce platform mass enough to cascade into thinning up other components. However, that same platform material technology could be used for an ICE program, again eliminating the issue of platform sharing.

BMW is certainly late to this technology. Creating a new, unique, dedicated platform would have added cost and timing, not saved timing as you suggested in your prior post. But, if BMW started with a clean sheet of paper, there is no technical reason they could not duplicate the proportions of the Lucid with a platform that could accommodate both an electric or ICE powertrain. Lucid may have "out-designed" BMW with this generation of product for various business/creative reasons, but that does not condemn platform versatility to an inherently less satisfying EV.

I understand your complaint as not that the platforms are shared, but rather that the platform used is not providing as "leading edge" an architecture as possible, regardless of the powertrain, shared or not.

[ParkNuts]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

I think the generalizations are still not inherently valid. The shape of the sheetmetal and design of front/rear suspension are quite independent of the battery placement. Whatever compromises Polestar experienced are not predictive of what BMW may be able to accomplish. Otherwise, we would all agree that an S60 is as successful as a 3 Series. Competencies and priorities vary. In Polestar's case, their CMA platform was designed to accommodate an electric powertrain from its' origin. How well they did is subject for evaluation.

Using the word "cramming" doesn't make it so. The weight of the batteries is a constant, whether as a new platform or integrated into an existing one. The issue is the packaging capability (space, technology, and engineering talent) of that constant. The placement of the weight low under the floorpan provides a relative advantage in handling versus having an ICE up front due to the lower Cg. If the suspension components for an EV application needs to support more weight due to the battery, that would apply whether the platform to which the battery is attached is EV-only specific or shared with ICE, unless some independent additional variable occurred to reduce platform mass enough to cascade into thinning up other components. However, that same platform material technology could be used for an ICE program, again eliminating the issue of platform sharing.

BMW is certainly late to this technology. Creating a new, unique, dedicated platform would have added cost and timing, not saved timing as you suggested in your prior post. But, if BMW started with a clean sheet of paper, there is no technical reason they could not duplicate the proportions of the Lucid with a platform that could accommodate both an electric or ICE powertrain. Lucid may have "out-designed" BMW with this generation of product for various business/creative reasons, but that does not condemn platform versatility to an inherently less satisfying EV.

I understand your complaint as not that the platforms are shared, but rather that the platform used is not providing as "leading edge" an architecture as possible, regardless of the powertrain, shared or not.

Not sure why you're trying to square a circle here. You asked how it affects the driving experience, and modifying a car to accept batteries (cramming) is not optimal. You can't tell me they wouldn't do it differently from the ground up. Hence, compromise. Both in geometry and weight.

And I never said it would save them time in getting this car out. That's exactly why they shortcut it. I said the exact opposite - it set their development back years. If they had a ground-up sedan going now, or soon (sure delays now) then they'd be climbing the curve much quicker. But they STILL need to develop a chassis designed specifically for batteries. This is where BMW goofed. They didn't have the foresight to see where the industry is going and wanted to do the mix/match platform.

Regarding your persistent argument that batteries are low in an ICE platform, I think that's quite obvious. But there are inherent advantages to a bespoke platform such as working the battery architecture in your favor for chassis rigidity and balance, not having to work around transmission tunnel, cabin placement relative to overall weight distribution (NO ICE engine up front - 3 series has a very long hood), etc etc ad nauseum. I get it, this is a BMW community and I love them, but I'm quite disappointed in their development approach here, despite their lack of a crystal ball. But nobody has those, so it's on leadership.

[uuni]

What is taking so long with revealing the damn thing? If it is not revealed very soon i will order Audi GT.

[USA-RET]

Originally Posted by uuni

What is taking so long with revealing the damn thing? If it is not revealed very soon i will order Audi GT.

Agreed. I'm waiting to see an UN-camoflaged i4. Indications were that only about a 15% variance from the concept design which is what keeps me interested in the vehicle.

Every spy shot I saw looks like a completely different "mule" under the camouflage.

With so many more manufacturers showing their new EV line, BMW could lose a good percentage of the market share by not showing (leaking) what the production car will look like.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by uuni

What is taking so long with revealing the damn thing? If it is not revealed very soon i will order Audi GT.

I could never imagine being that desperate to go back to an Audi showroom...even to use the men’s room...well, maybe that, as it would likely be reliable and trustworthy.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by USA-RET

Agreed. I'm waiting to see an UN-camoflaged i4. Indications were that only about a 15% variance from the concept design which is what keeps me interested in the vehicle.

Every spy shot I saw looks like a completely different "mule" under the camouflage.

With so many more manufacturers showing their new EV line, BMW could lose a good percentage of the market share by not showing (leaking) what the production car will look like.

It's essentially a Gran Coupe with an EV powertrain and maybe some minor trim variations. If you like the GC from the spy shots, you should have confidence in liking the i4. If not, then no.

[kaunitz]

As per BMWBLOG news the i4 will be revealed on Wednesday the 17th of March..
So the wait seems to be nearly over

[uuni]

So, BMW did listen me, good.

Audi GT is Taycan underneath and i expect GT to as reliable as Taycan. Also no shitty engines, so not much to go wrong.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by uuni

....so not much to go wrong.

[uuni]

Maybe I should have added THAT = so not that much to go wrong.