RE: 400hp BMW M140e hybrid due next year

[nuttywobbler]

How long would it take to drain the battery when giving it the beans eg on a track? My guess is not very long at all? And when it goes flat, you’re left with 320bhp, plus all the weight of the batteries to lug around. So likely slower than the regular m135i.

Sounds complicated and compromised to me?

[Court_S]

BFleming said:

A few comments on the banter so far. CarWow tested the new 135i against the outgoing 140i, and the 140i destroyed the 135i performance-wise. I know the subject of the article is the incoming 140e, but I can't help but feel this is the one BMW of recent years that's going to take a while to gel with brand fans.
I was talking to a fleet manager last night, and he has just bought a load of Skoda Octavia's despite his senior's insistence to 'go green'. His successful counterargument was that hybrids are only good in the city, but doing 25000+ miles per year they're useless. He himself ran a 530e for a short while, couldn't plug it in at home, so ran it on petrol. It was very juicy, and he wished he could have had a 530i but paid BIK on a 530e.
Lastly, as a BMW F20 driver, I think this new 1 series is probably a fine car; if I were replacing my current example with a new car, I'm not sure I would choose one though. I'd probably choose a used 330e. The cheapest one is £12k on Autotrader, and given my 24 mile commute, and my ability to plug it in, I think it would fit the bill nicely.

Pretty much what my colleague has done; Golf GTE was about £4K cheaper over four years compared to the other cars he was looking at but he can’t actually plug it in at home because he has to park on the street, so he’s mostly driving an overweight Golf with 150bhp.

The potential 140 though would work for those who can plug in and do mostly shortish trips but need something for the odd longer trip.

[Court_S]

Chestrockwell said:

yonex said:

Chestrockwell said:

I drove a friends mapped M140i last night and my god what a car, a sledge hammer, a hot rod hot hatch, It’s the last of its kind and I’ve been thinking about selling the Civic and buying one ever since I drove it.

This new one will be quicker, more economical etc but nowhere near as fun or brutal as this.

I preferred the slower, but much more characterful 130. I’m sure the hybrid will be very clever but it does little for me.

Haven’t driven the 130i so can’t comment but what I loved about the M140i compared to the few modern 2.0 turbo hot hatches I’ve driven was the fact that it’s a straight 6, it responds so well to remaps, decats and exhausts. I’m not the one to modify cars but if I did, I’d much rather modify a a 3.0 straight 6.

My Honda isn’t very loud and there’s a lot of exhausts and downpipes for sale, it’s a big market but I just don’t see the point in trying to make a 4 cylinder engine sound good. It just makes it louder. The M140i I drove yesterday however, wow!

The point is, I finally understand the PH uproar whenever a new car is announced, it’s a damn shame but times change and this is the future!

I’m six or seven weeks into 140 ownership and really like it so far; the engine dominates the car. Yes the steering is a little woolly and the damping does get a bit confused when pushing on, but I don’t think it’s a bad package overall. It certainly does more for me this the Golf R.

One thing I really like is that the B58 engine doesn’t feel all that turbocharged because it’s a big engine anyway, so the turbo doesn’t need to add all that much.

Noise wise, it’s a bit strangled because of the PPF, but it still sounds pretty good to me. It’s got a bit louder since I first got it...although I’m still tempted by a trip to PCW for an exhaust mod to liberate a bit more noise.

[Notanotherturbo]

evo2073 said:

Hybrids are pointless. The added power by the battery negating the extra weight.
I realise that the ICE is on its way out, ultimately, but these hybrid solutions are just bridging the gap while bringing no real world benefits.

And they are seriously trying to ape the A35 and A45 here. Let this die, please

Latest Lexus hybrids (IS300, RC 300 etc) are £10 a year to tax and you don't have to pay the congestion charge etc. Also very very economical if you do the right mix of driving. Not PH stuff but for a lot of people these are important.

[unsprung]

kambites said:

If you look at the US or China's coal-dominated energy mixes it's a more debatable point.

Believe it or not, the largest source of electricity in the US is natural gas.

In the nation’s most populous state, California, 50 percent of electricity is generated from renewables.

[Poppiecock]

I'd seriously consider downsizing from a 5-series sized company car if these come in on budget! (ie. less than £40k).

[JD]

This is surely going to be a £40k+ car by now.

This reinforces to me that my next car will be all electric, further dumbing down of powertrains means there will be nothing that has an exciting engine in it anymore (I've done that with an S3 and its bland) - the only exciting part of this new car will be.... the electric bit, so why not go the whole hog and get a proper electric car, not a crap electric car with a dull ice attached.


Also to add, whilst the current M140i isn't going to win any beauty competitions, this new thing is almost like they deliberately tried to copy an A-class, and then make it as ugly as possible so they didn't get accused of copying.

[kambites]

unsprung said:

kambites said:

If you look at the US or China's coal-dominated energy mixes it's a more debatable point.

Believe it or not, the largest source of electricity in the US is natural gas.

As is ours, but they use a hell of a lot more coal and, overall, less renewables. From what I can see, the US mix averages about 450g of CO2 per kwh generated; the UK's mix gives about 250. China's average is more like 750-800g/kwh. That's direct emissions rather than power station life-cycle, which is rather harder to calculate.

Edited by kambites on Saturday 10th August 11:09

[unsprung]

kambites said:

unsprung said:

kambites said:

If you look at the US or China's coal-dominated energy mixes it's a more debatable point.

Believe it or not, the largest source of electricity in the US is natural gas.

As is ours, but they use a hell of a lot more coal and, overall, less renewables. From what I can see, the US mix averages about 450g of CO2 per kwh generated; the UK's mix gives about 250. China's average is more like 700g/kwh.

It’s an interesting comparison because California and the UK achieve a similar GDP. But the UK has 50 percent more inhabitants. And a lower percentage of electricity generated by renewables.

The 15 most-populous US states account for more than two-thirds of the entire US population. And each of those 15 states prioritises natural gas and/or renewables and/or nuclear over coal.

Even petro-minded Texas generates more electricity from renewables than from coal.

https://www.eia.gov/state/index.php#tabs-4

[Dave Hedgehog]

Notanotherturbo said:

Latest Lexus hybrids (IS300, RC 300 etc) are £10 a year to tax and you don't have to pay the congestion charge etc. Also very very economical if you do the right mix of driving. Not PH stuff but for a lot of people these are important.

£145 or £465 if retail price incl options and delivery is over 40k

plugin hybrids are exempt from the LCC until October 2021 then they pay

[Ardennes92]

fido said:

evo2073 said:

Hybrids are pointless. The added power by the battery negating the extra weight.
I realise that the ICE is on its way out, ultimately, but these hybrid solutions are just bridging the gap while bringing no real world benefits.

If it can work for F1 cars, it can work for road cars - the battery technology is contantly improving - yes they are a bit heavier but you get instant torque at from 0 revs, then the turbo takes over ..

Not sure it works in F1; last few races show that external unpredictability is required to make things interesting and the sound is absolute rubbish

[kambites]

unsprung said:

It’s an interesting comparison because California and the UK achieve a similar GDP. But the UK has 50 percent more inhabitants. And a lower percentage of electricity generated by renewables.

The 15 most-populous US states account for more than two-thirds of the entire US population. And each of those 15 states prioritises natural gas and/or renewables and/or nuclear over coal.

Even petro-minded Texas generates more electricity from renewables than from coal.

https://www.eia.gov/state/index.php#tabs-4

The actual mix isn't really the point. The point is that each kwh of electricity in the US results in the production of roughly twice the CO2 of each kwh in the UK.

[unsprung]

kambites said:

unsprung said:

It’s an interesting comparison because California and the UK achieve a similar GDP. But the UK has 50 percent more inhabitants. And a lower percentage of electricity generated by renewables.

The 15 most-populous US states account for more than two-thirds of the entire US population. And each of those 15 states prioritises natural gas and/or renewables and/or nuclear over coal.

Even petro-minded Texas generates more electricity from renewables than from coal.

https://www.eia.gov/state/index.php#tabs-4

The actual mix isn't really the point. The point is that each kwh of electricity in the US results in the production of roughly twice the CO2 of each kwh in the UK.

I don't doubt that, as CO2 has (almost) never been the focus of US emissions regulation, which makes a priority of directly harmful gases and particulate matter. Which is why, for example, the catalytic converter was required from 1975, some two decades before most of Europe.

Which is why, for example, tourists traveling west across the Atlantic almost never say, when they deplane, "Thia city has so much soot and smog." While the reverse is often true.

Regarding hybrids and BEVs, which is the subject of this thread: Your statement that the US is coal-based like China, and that hybrids and BEVs don't actually do much to improve the emissions outlook in America, is not accurate.

[kambites]

That's not quite what I said, or at least not quite what i meant to say.

I meant that the picture (end-to-end ICE vs EV greenhouse gas emissions) is considerably less clear-cut in the US and China than it is here, and that that is primarily because they use a lot more coal for power generation than we do.

Coal makes up about a quarter of the US's energy mix; it's about 5% of ours.

If you assume about 5 miles per kwh generated at the power station in real world usage, direct emissions in the UK from an EV come out at about 50g/km; in the US it's more like 90g/km which is much closer to what a good ICE powered car can achieve. In China that pushes to about 150g/km which is well into ICE terratory.

Of course there are other advantages to EVs, most obviously improved localised air quality, but the primary political focus seems to be on CO2.

Edited by kambites on Saturday 10th August 12:32

[unsprung]

kambites said:

That's not quite what I said, or at least not quite what i meant to say.

I meant that the picture (ICE vs EV greenhouse gas emissions) is considerably less clear-cut in the US and China than it is here, and that that is primarily because they use a lot more coal for power generation than we do.

I understand. If we consider, however, that the most populous parts of the US -- locations which are most likely to have hybrid and BEV users -- are dominated by natural gas / renewables / nuclear... then each "purely ICE" car that is replaced with something with a large battery in it is truly creating an unequivocal benefit. At least in terms of air quality.

Crucially, some of those big states use no coal. California? New York State? Zero coal.

[kambites]

unsprung said:

Crucially, some of those big states use no coal. California? New York State? Zero coal.

I thought the US had a nationalised power grid much like ours rather than each state providing its own power?

I guess the question really is if you add to California's grid load, where in reality is the extra energy coming from. Does California itself have spare low-emission capacity which would otherwise be sitting idle or are you in practice firing up some horrible dirty coal fired station in Arizona?

Looking at the figures, it's appears that California's g/kwh figure is pretty similar to the UK's.

Edited by kambites on Saturday 10th August 12:37

[unsprung]

kambites said:

unsprung said:

Crucially, some of those big states use no coal. California? New York State? Zero coal.

I thought the US had a nationalised power grid much like ours rather than each state providing its own power?

US states can trade electricity among themselves. And some states choose to agree regional solutions that weave together parts of multiple states.

But, no, in the US, the federal government does not manage a power grid.

This is why one state or city jurisdiction can choose to tax itself to invest in a new or different form of power generation. Additionally, while in some jurisdictions there is only one provider of electricity, other jurisdictions choose deregulation and a certain embrace of laisser-faire such that consumers can buy electricity from one of several brands.

The ability to levy tax or fees that are local or regional is one of the distinctions of the US economy and to the "patchwork quilt" of differences that one experiences in commerce and culture in the US.

[Jaroon]

QuattroDave said:

Jaroon said:

Looks aside, this makes sense to me, for me. I'm actually saving for an R8 V10 but enjoying the summer in an old 135i M Sport convertible with a remap. It's a hoot, never seen more than 15mpg. I'm moving a little further from work, 7/8 mileish commute and a driveway for a change. I'm either stop/start driving to work or hooning and the irrelevant fuel costs of my previous commute now become relevant so, in concept at least, this solution bares thinking about, all be it in a different package.

How on earth did you manage to achieve such low mpg, did you steal your own car each day?! My lifetime average is well over double that in my m140 and once topped 50mpg on a commute.

As for this car it's an amorphous blob, it could be anything from a Kia/Hyundai/Mercedes/Ford but with a nasty ass grille. Not trading mine in any time soon.

Don't know chap. It's had a health check at BMW and a stage one map, it's no better on fuel than my XFR was with about the same driving style. Auto might not help and it's never had a decent motorway cruise just stop/start to work and hooning but it's terrible on fuel and not poorly, N54 engine.

Edited by Jaroon on Saturday 10th August 15:20

[Jaroon]

kambites said:

DoubleByte said:

Am I reading this right?
A 7/8 mile commute makes fuel costs relevant.
Wtf

At 15mpg it probably does!

Why the wft? I should have said that's each way and twice my current commute. I average 4k mile a year atm but as this moves up to 6/7k at 15mpg damn right fuel costs are becoming relevant. I don't have to drive every day but safer to calculate that senario, anyway thanks for your input, good man yourself.

[roadsweeper]

Putting aside that (to me at least) this is an ugly thing, it's actually a really interesting car for some use-cases.

I currently own a Golf GTE (30 miles electric range) which I purchased in preference to a 'sporty' 1-series because Mon-Fri I tend to only drive the three miles to the train station and back. I hated the inefficiency of that from a petrol-powered perspective and the wear on the engine which wouldn't even get warm by the time my journey was over (also precluding me from really putting my foot down). A pure electric car was out because of the occasional long trips I undertake for business which don't give me practical recharging options.

The Golf GTE is cheap to run - I put petrol in it every couple of months, despite using it most days - and I can put my foot down as much as I want in those three miles, enojoying that it's quite sprightly at low speeds. As our household buys only electricity from renewable sources, I don't have the 'simply shifting the emissions' issue, though I would agree with earlier posts that shifting them to power plants is likely preferable anyway. Quite apart from that, I also avoid emitting fumes in urban areas and city centres; anyone who has walked around in London or Manchester will appreciate the value of that from a public health perspective.

Given the above, and that the Golf GTE is really a warm hatch at best, if I can get past the styling this could be a great fit for me (and I suspect many others).