Very strange looking BMW, but still better than giant beaver teeth it kept growing in the past. And still pretty recognizably BMW.
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
51 points (96.4% liked)
Electric Vehicles
2320 readers
226 users here now
Overview:
Electric Vehicles are a key part of our tomorrow and how we get there. If we can get all the fossil fuel vehicles off our roads, out of our seas and out of our skies, we'll have a much better environment. This community is where we discuss the various different vehicles and news stories regarding electric transportation.
Related communities:
- !automotive@discuss.tchncs.de
- !avs@futurology.today
- !byd@lemmy.world
- !ebike@lemm.ee
- !energy@slrpnk.net
- !geely@lemmy.world
- !micromobility@lemmy.world
- !polestar@lemmy.ca
- !rivian@lemmy.zip
- !teslamotors@lemmy.zip
- !xiaomi@lemdro.id
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They deserve the success, and honestly they've launched with perhaps too low price* for the specs. Example comparing price, WLTP range, 10-80% charge time.
- BMW ix3 50xdrive. £58.7k. 500 mile range. 21mins.
- Volvo EX60 P12 AWD. £64.8k. 503 mile range. 20mins.
- Mercedes GLC 400 4Matic. £60.3k. 444 mile range. 22mins.
- Audi Q6 etron Quattro. £69k. 388 mile range. 23mins.
- Telsa Model Y Premium AWD. £52k. 373 mile range. 29mins
Very exciting to see the this range of strong EVs (though the Audi is lagging a little). The GLC, Q6 and EX60 have great towing capacity as well (2400kg vs 2000kg for ix3 and only 1600kg for model Y).
*they are increasing the price in some areas, see here: https://www.electrive.com/2026/02/02/bmw-raises-price-of-ix3-50-xdrive-by-2000-euros/
Model Y is more than a generation behind now and it gets nowhere near the advertised range, Tesla are one of the worst for that. Obviously you aren't going to be getting 500 miles in real world driving in the other cars either but you will be a lot closer to the advertised range than the Tesla.
The Volvo is working on about 4.4 miles per kwh, which seems extremely optimistic for anything but hypermiling in the summer. I am expecting about 425 miles in the summer, or about half that if towing.
I tow with my Ioniq 5, just over half my annual mileage, so I have been waiting for this group to launch as its going to be a huge increase in range. The extra range means I can drive for four to five hours without a charge, which is more than I want to anyway as my (and my dogs) bladder wont last that long.
I cite WLTP because it is a standardised way to test and compare range. It's not perfect, but it allows us to compare one vehicle to another. None of these cars will achieve WLTP in winter nor at high speed.
Also - the model Y is arguably newer than the Q6 - Juniper came out less than a year ago here!
I am in the same position as you though - generally charging stops on long drives are now driven by bladders rather than batteries.
Nobody hits the WLPT but Tesla are usually the furthest from it.
I know the Tesla had a refresh but its not updated the fundamentals to the same level, its more than an actual generation with its current tech levels and specs vs. the latest competition.
it gets nowhere near the advertised range
EPA fixed that about a year ago.
These are WLPT, which is a European rating. No manufacturer hits this rating but Tesla are still the furthest off.
I was just speaking generally. In either case, OEMs don't just make these numbers up, they have to be certified by the relevant org. If said org doesn't have accurate tests, the results won't be accurate either.
Its been a consistent story with Tesla that they are always miles off regardless of the test, not suggesting that they might be cheating with software as with VW and dieselgate no sir
Optimising for the test is a widespread practice with everything from smart phones to cars
It's not consistent any longer, as I said, because EPA updated their testing procedures. So no, it is not regardless of the test.
Optimising for the test is a widespread practice with everything from smart phones to cars
My point precisely. The test needs to be updated and optimized or else the best cheater wins.
It wasn't consistent in the first place, EU cars usually had much lower ratings than Tesla, yet would be far far closer to the official EPA rating because Tesla got away with more optimisation before.
Tesla are the same in the EU despite it being a completely different setup thats been revised a few times over years.
No test is going to give accurate numbers, we all drive differently over different conditions with different loads in the car. We can just get closer than we are now, there is still too much space to hypermile in the current tests for WLPT.
What should happen is manufacturers who are clearly missing by a lot should be heavily fined as with VW and dieselgate.
Most quoted ranges from reviewers are considerably under what I get from normal driving so they are no better, I presume they drive with a heavy foot.
Real world numbers from EV database tend to be my starting point
No test is going to give accurate numbers, we all drive differently over different conditions
This is the entire point of these benchmarks. To remove variables and create a even comparison across models.
What should happen is manufacturers who are clearly missing by a lot should be heavily fined as with VW and dieselgate.
Fined for what? Optimizing for the test?
Most quoted ranges from reviewers are considerably under what I get from normal driving so they are no better
You are looking at old reviews. Ones in the last year or so show the opposite.
But its perfectly possible to optimise just for the test and it no longer matches real life, this is exactly what VW did. When it gets to that point that the car is detecting the test (or otherwise put into a test mode) then its clear cheating and time for large fines.
I don't really buy the Edmunds test for this as it seems to be a sole one at the moment. It also has an average speed of 40. Also how are they accounting for environmental conditions as these are massive for EVs? It just feels like PR puff piece to me after Tesla had been slated everywhere for very obvious fixing of their range estimates.
But its perfectly possible to optimise just for the test and it no longer matches real life, this is exactly what VW did.
You just said this is not what VW did. Because it isn't. VW cheated by changing the parameters strictly while the test was running. That's not what's happening here.
I don't really buy the Edmunds test for this as it seems to be a sole one at the moment.
It is definitely not. I'll try and send you a bunch later. There are at least a dozen that all came to the same consensus.
Where did I say VW didn't cheat? I went back to check and I clearly said they did.
Only ones i have seen are quoting Edmunds that are standardised. If its not standardised then its garbage as its even easier to game. Even basic things like a heavier right foot, more use of the break pedal, turning down the regen, turning up the aircon all have an mpact.
Even with the Edmunds one I really have my doubts over the methodology as it would need to break 4 miles per kwh over actual mixed usage. Breaking 4 with hypermiling is easy, breaking it while driving completely normal in that size for car? Not easy.
Where did I say VW didn't cheat?
"This"= Tesla.
If its not standardised then its garbage
The standardized tests are the ones giving us garbage ratings. That's why people make all these "real world" tests.
The fact that I put in in italics and suffixed it with a no sir coupled with the fact that I have been very clear that they are always miles off should have given it away that I was being sarcastic, next time I will use a /s. But this is straw clutching at best as I have been consistently hammering them over their larger than average difference on range, how would this be happening without cheating?
The standardized tests are just that, standardized using an actual published method that's auditable. The issue is if the manufacturer is cheating, but outside of that you have confidence that the test is applied the exact same to all cars . If the test is suitable is irrelevant at this point, as its applied the same to all other cars so the same variance exists for all.
Whats wrong with "real" world tests is the lack of auditability and accountability for the ones I have seen. This single test has been spread far and wide, I notice you haven't shared other sources yet for this. It just smells of a cooked or lucky test. Lets be clear here, the car has to be doing close to 5 miles per kwh to achieve this amount of range with such a small battery, they are claiming 339 miles for the standard, that has a 60kwh battery.
5 miles per kwh with normal driving (which is what the test is advertised at), doing 70mph motorway speeds in a medium sized car is frankly unbelievable. Getting 5 miles per kwh out of a tiny EV doing low speed cruising in favorable weather is hard, not unachievable, but hard. Getting this out of that car for normal driving? I have massive doubts.
I was being sarcastic
I understand that. You're not understanding that "this"= Tesla. As in, they're not doing what VW is doing, which you said, but then also implied otherwise in the next comment.
have been consistently hammering them over their larger than average difference on range, how would this be happening without cheating?
And here you're doing it again. There's no cheating. It's a fixed set of criteria. They can optimize for those criteria in a way that might not reflect the "real world".
Whats wrong with "real" world tests is the lack of auditability and accountability
I understand they're not perfect, but clearly the standardized tests are even less perfect, because they're even less reflective of real world experiences that are reported by actual drivers. And you can't disagree with that, because that was the entire premise of your argument.
Getting 5 miles per kwh out of a tiny EV doing low speed cruising in favorable weather is hard
Not really hard in a vehicle that makes the necessary sacrifices to achieve it. Low roofline, low to the ground, LRR tires, 2 seats, sufficiently aerodynamic profile, efficient thermal management, etc. Something like the old Honda Insight could achieve this easily, and I expect Cybercab will as well.
Then explain why they have consistently been miles more optimistic when compared to their competition with their advertised range vs. both EU and US tests? Its always been a huge difference.
The car has not fundamentally changed shape with the latest model, its not suddenly had an improvement of more than 1kwh per mile, which is what would be needed.
Its a complete fantasy I am afraid as that sort of improvement is unheard of in modern EVs mid generation refresh, which this is. Other people would have reproduced the test results by now and be shouting it from the roof tops, do you have such results? As I see a distinct lack of them so far.
Then explain why they have consistently been miles more optimistic
I just did that, in the comment you just replied to.
The car has not fundamentally changed shape with the latest model
I honestly don't know what you're referring to here. The "latest model" of what? "Needed" for what?
You really haven't, VW demonstrated its easy to set a custom run routine because its a set criteria if you apply your mind to it. EVs are no different at all to diesels in that they can be optimized. All you've done is hand waving, "no they didn't", which isn't exactly proving anything. Meanwhile they have the furthest out set of results of any EV, so I know what we have more evidence for.
Its the latest model of the Tesla that's beaten the EPA mileage, the one you have referenced here:
You are looking at old reviews. Ones in the last year or so show the opposite.
and you said you would get more reviews for, but failed to do:
It is definitely not. I’ll try and send you a bunch later. There are at least a dozen that all came to the same consensus.
You need to show how a mid life refresh can result in an easy 25% improvement in efficiency from previous tests from the same tester, because to me thats just more hand waving using completely different cars. We are talking about Tesla here
You really haven't
I really have:
They can optimize for those criteria in a way that might not reflect the "real world"
VW demonstrated its easy to set a custom run routine...EVs are no different at all to diesels in that they can be optimized
I'm so confused. VW did not "optimize" anything, they cheated. You started out saying Tesla was not cheating (like VW) and now you repeatedly seem to suggest that they are. Which one is it?
Meanwhile they have the furthest out set of results of any EV
You are contradicting your own self. How do we know that? Based on "real life" testing/experience? Which you have suggested is useless?
and you said you would get more reviews for, but failed to do:
And I will but I also have shit to do so you're going to have to wait.
You need to show how a mid life refresh can result in an easy 25% improvement in efficiency
There was no improvement in efficiency. The improvement was in the testing methodology.
You're just hand-waving the more rational explanation.
You can't optimise for the test, thats what VW did, they optimised fuel flow, power, etc. A)and thats what got the huge fine because its cheating. They didn't get out and push the car round or fit hidden fuel tanks.
You're the one who defined these tests as real world, me i will take an average of results excluding outliers adding weight to real owners results.
For this, nobody was getting over 300 miles from normal, mixed driving. This test at 330 miles ish, lmao.
I also don't live in a fantasy land that the car can get this level of economy. Also the 2026 year did have some modest boosts to efficency, nowhere near a 25% increase that these results show.
Honestly this pedantry and lack of any evidence all you have? You haven't even looked at the details of the test for the 2026 car.
You can't optimise for the test
Yes you absolutely can.
thats what VW did, they optimised fuel flow, power, etc
Again, they did not "optimize" anything, they cheated by running a completely different fuel map in production than they did in testing.
You're the one who defined these tests as real world
Call them what you want, I'm not engaging in a semantics argument over it.
real owners results
LOL sounds a lot like "real world" results to me.
Also the 2026 year did have some modest boosts to efficency
Tesla does not have model years. They had small increases with the "highland" Model 3. This does not coincide with the changes from EPA.
Honestly this pedantry and lack of any evidence all you have?
Your failure to understand the situation is not pedantry.
I can't unsee that front as a bathroom scale with markings where to put your feet. 🤣
Anyways congratulations to BMW for doing well with EV.
We haven’t even received our first one yet and are sold out for this year already.
I chose the xpeng g6, slightly less range but better charging and far cheaper in price