When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yeah I don't think this gen will look that good.. long front overhang and a bloated/tall mid-rear section due to the compromise-platform designed to support both EV and ICE.
Specs for range also don't seem to be too impressive if this is based on the WLTP standard.
But today we're not interested in coasting or in exploring the max range (estimated at up to 307 miles for the eDrive40 and 272 miles for the M60). Today is all about having fun with fully charged batteries, two motors giving their all, and wringing out a state-of-the-art chassis.
I am impressed that they managed to keep the drag coefficient at 0.23 despite the 3-box design. Makes the EQE/S even less excusable for being as blobby as they are- though if this ends up being as awkwardly proportioned as the spyshots, I'm not sure if I'll like it more than the EQE.
EDIT: It seems BMW is gunning for a 295 mile max range on the EPA cycle for the eDrive40. That's a bit optimistic if 307 is the WLTP range.
Yeah I don't think this gen will look that good.. long front overhang and a bloated/tall mid-rear section due to the compromise-platform designed to support both EV and ICE.
Totally agree.
Originally Posted by Motorola
Specs for range also don't seem to be too impressive if this is based on the WLTP standard.
I am impressed that they managed to keep the drag coefficient at 0.23 despite the 3-box design. Makes the EQE/S even less excusable for being as blobby as they are- though if this ends up being as awkwardly proportioned as the spyshots, I'm not sure if I'll like it more than the EQE.
EDIT: It seems BMW is gunning for a 295 mile max range on the EPA cycle for the eDrive40. That's a bit optimistic if 307 is the WLTP range.
The range isn’t going to be great and the E-class is actually just as aerodynamic. The EQE is barely more aerodynamic than either but that small difference does show up in range. Luckily better batteries and efficiency that are coming shortly will make such dedicated designs unneeded.
I have long considered BMW to be a master at nailing sedan proportions, so seeing this, it's disappointing. Hopefully it'll appear better without the camo and in real life.
The range isn’t going to be great and the E-class is actually just as aerodynamic. The EQE is barely more aerodynamic than either but that small difference does show up in range. Luckily better batteries and efficiency that are coming shortly will make such dedicated designs unneeded.
The jellybean shape does little if anything to help the EQE with range. The EQE's range is quite poor for its battery size (260 miles EPA for both non-AMG AWD versions) and got its butt handed to it by the ICE-converted platform Genesis G80 EV with a smaller battery. We also don't know how large the battery is in the i5 compared to the EQE.
The current 5 is one of the last traditionally shaped sedans with a formal trunk. Everything else has gone to droopy-butt styling, which in my opinion is a soft, weak look. Oh well, it was nice thirty year run.
The jellybean shape does little if anything to help the EQE with range. The EQE's range is quite poor for its battery size (260 miles EPA for both non-AMG AWD versions) and got its butt handed to it by the ICE-converted platform Genesis G80 EV with a smaller battery. We also don't know how large the battery is in the i5 compared to the EQE.
The efficiency is poor on the EQE, which the aerodynamics partially help mask. This is obvious given the RWD model hits 305mi. It also doesn’t get as much light weight materials like EQS so it unnaturally porky. MB decided to cost cut this model so it could still make a profit. Regardless, the front motor disconnect on 2024 model year will pay dividends for the AWD especially. The Electrified G80 already has it.
Back on topic, we actually do know the i5 has a 83.9kwh battery.
I'm no car design expert but this doesn't seem to be an issue for my eyes. Lol. But is it possible they made this change because...
1. Some believe a longer hood is a better design? I remember reading here someone (Steve?) said that the hood of the X5 is longer GLE's. And that is a favorable design to make the car look better/stronger. Did I read it wrong? Or only the part from front wheel to the nose is the concern here?
2. I have walked by some Toyota trucks, SUVs. The space from the tip to the radiator is huge. Could this be design for safety?
I keep forgetting that this car is still coming, thanks OP for bringing it to attention. It's been a long 3 years since I first heard about details regarding the design and then first mules shortly after that discussion on GermanCarForum. Oddly enough both i5 and i7 still ride on CLAR, not yet Neue Klasse dedicated BEV architecture debuting on i3. Not sure what that means for the G20 replacement in 2025, which I guess might be a heavily modified G20 instead according German media.
04-27-23, 11:49 PM
