The debate over whether building electric vehicles (EVs) and gasoline cars on the same chassis is a viable strategy has been a topic of discussion for some time. This article takes a critical look at the approach taken by BMW with its i4, i5, and i7 models, and argues that it has led to compromises in design and practicality. The author, Mack Hogan, presents a compelling case through a comparison of the BMW i5 with the Tesla Model 3 and the Lucid Air, highlighting the advantages of dedicated electric platforms.
Hogan begins by expressing skepticism about BMW's decision to share underpinnings with its gas-powered counterparts. He predicts that this compromise would result in subpar vehicles, but admits to being wrong. The i4, i5, and i7, he notes, are actually quite impressive, with the i5 being a competent daily driver. However, the author emphasizes that these cars' success lies in their design and practicality, not in the shared chassis.
The article then delves into a detailed comparison of the BMW i5's hood area with that of the Tesla Model 3. Hogan points out that the i5's hood is significantly larger, taking up 35% of its length, and is stuffed with power electronics and HVAC components. In contrast, the Model 3's shorter hood efficiently accommodates a drive motor, power electronics, HVAC system, and a user-accessible frunk, providing an extra 3.1 cubic feet of storage space. This comparison highlights the packaging advantages of a purely electric, software-defined platform.
Hogan then shifts the focus to the Lucid Air, a comparably sized EV that offers more passenger and cargo space than the BMW i5. The Lucid Air's design and packaging are praised, with more headroom, legroom, a larger trunk, and a frunk. The author argues that the i5's longer and heavier design results in less practical space, especially when compared to the Tesla Model 3 and Lucid Air.
The discussion then turns to the implications of platform sharing for gasoline cars. Hogan mentions the latest gas-powered 530i, which is heavier and taller than its predecessor, and the M5, a plug-in hybrid that weighs an extraordinary 5,390 lbs. He suggests that the ability to offer various powertrains on a single platform is tempting, but it leads to compromises in performance and practicality.
Hogan concludes by praising BMW's recognition of the limitations of shared architecture. The company's future EVs will move to the dedicated Neue Klasse platform, which promises better driving dynamics, packaging, and software. The author argues that the i4, i5, and i7 were necessary steps in BMW's EV journey, and the iX, a dedicated-platform model, is the pinnacle of the current generation. Hogan expresses excitement for the upcoming i3 and larger sedans on a dedicated EV platform, predicting that they will be exceptional.
Throughout the article, Hogan's commentary is insightful and opinionated, offering a critical perspective on the industry. He provides a comprehensive analysis, connecting the discussion to broader trends and implications, making it a thought-provoking read for automotive enthusiasts and industry professionals alike.
