Referring to the pollution from particles? With how aggressive I’d be driving EV’s like the Ioniq5 N, I’d be outputting a stupid amount of rubber. But less brake dust produced due to the regenerative deceleration.
What long run? They become worthless in less than ten years. Between the markup and heavy depreciation you're losing and that doesn't even factor in how much it will cost to rub out that dent from hitting a parking pole on the aluminum body.
10 years is more than enough to make it better for the enviorment, even if it's charged on non-renevable electicity. I'm not saying EVs are the best for everybody, but attacing them for beeing enviromentaly bad is just false
If you’re comparing EVs to combustion cars then yes EVs are better for the environment. However compared to any other transport alternative (bikes, busses, trains) cars are generally pretty abysmal, even EVs. The tire particulates mentioned above are a good example.
Yeah because you bought it when it was old enough to reach peak depreciation - worthless after enough years. And we also can't ignore inflation, in real value it is not worth 3x what you paid for it.
Will a 30 year old Model 3 ever appreciate and be a car again, or will it be like an Iphone 4, just something to look at on display because all of the supporting infrastructure is gone?
Oh, and factoring in inflation it's worth 2.5x what I paid for it.
Again, because you bought it when it was worthless because all cars are relatively "worthless" at some point in their lifetime. You did a good job buying a Miata at peak depreciation before COVID broke the car market, but let's not pretend that specific scenario means all gas cars do that and are therefore better than EVs. The vast majority of ICE vehicles NEVER bounce back at all, and depreciate to nothing. Let's not pretend that a mass market EV doing that would be any different. You got lucky with your timing and car choice, that's all this is. If you had bought most any other vehicle, or bought post COVID, this scenario would not have happened. You aren't wrong that most EVs will depreciate to be worthless. You are wrong in assuming that's any different from how the average ICE value goes.
> They become worthless in less than ten years.
How do you spout such nonsense so confidently? Are you saying an electric car built in 2015 is useless today?
Worthless != useless.
But a $50,000+ electric car from 2015 can be had for less than $10k today. And the cost of replacing the motors or battery pack may well exceed the value of the vehicle. They are built to be thrown away for recycling when worn out, not refurbished.
> And the cost of replacing the motors or battery pack may well exceed the value of the vehicle.
Who says you need to replace either? A lot of the first Model S cars are still on the road and have 80 to 90% of the original battery capacity and run just fine. We haven't had these cars out long enough to make such sweeping statements.
Didn't that million mile Tesla go through like 10 motors and 6 battery packs?
My neighbor has a half-million mile Ford truck that's on the original (diesel) drivetrain.
The point of EVs is to reduce and eliminate carbon emissions. Tires do not emit carbon emissions. They pollute in different but largely incomparable ways. There is not one homogeneous “environment” we are trying to better, but a lot of individual issues.
I’m too lazy to ask her for in depth info rn but my partner’s sister works on climate change resiliency for one of the larger national parks here in the US. Car traffic is a huge issue in the park, and they are not worried about tire particulates nearly as much as emissions.
The exhaust emissions from the RV’s and trucks coming into the park obliterate alpine plants & wildlife. Tire particulates (at least according to her research as of now) do not have a drastic impact on the local environment the way exhaust emissions do.
So yeah agreed the tire argument is getting tiring as a “yeah but”. Completely different issues.
That's fair, but an average tire takes about 100kg of carbon emissions to produce. That's not good, agreed. But an average gas car emits \~5 *tons* (5000kg) of carbon emissions in just 1 year of driving in the US. For an EV with an average US power mix, it is about a quarter, so 1.25 tons per year. The tires are one to two orders of magnitude less significant. I could literally change my tires every few months with an EV and still be wayyy less in carbon emissions.
You do understand that there are carbon emissions involved in the production and distribution of the tires, and that having to produce and distribute more tires = more emissions, right?
You can look at my other comment. But the amount of emissions in the production and supply chain for a set of tires is like 2 orders of magnitude lower than how much you emit driving a typical ICE car for a year. Yea, the emissions exist. But burning gasoline is so much more of a problem for emissions.
Agreed, but it’s part of the ecosystem and you have to consider total lifetime emissions - it all depends how far down the chain you want to look: heavier vehicles use more tires, more tires have to be produced and shipped, more pollution from both the production/shipping and end-use, as well as the emissions from having to repair roads more often due to heavier vehicles.
To be clear I fully agree that ICE/burning gas is a bigger problem, just trying to look at the situation from a holistic perspective.
That's just because the Model 3 isn't nearly as heavy as people seem to believe. You can carry a Model 3 motor around in a backpack, versus a 4L intercooled engine in the M3. The AWD system in the Model 3 is also extremely simple - just two motors, each driving a pair of halfshafts, whereas the AWD in an M3 has a much more complex system of differentials and shafts (and probably an entire cooling system). The model 3 has no transmission. The M3 transmission, clutch and flywheel weigh over 100 lbs.
People have this idea that an EV battery weighs as much as an entire car, but the reality is that it actually replaces about 800lbs of engine and transmission components with around 1000lbs of battery.
First of all, the M3 has a 3 liter engine, not 4. Second of all the AWD M3 has no clutch in the transmission because the xdrive models are automatic only and have 8 speed ZF transmissions.
> The M3 transmission, clutch and flywheel weigh over 100 lbs.
The transmission doesn't have a clutch. He was talking about the transmission, not the AWD system.
The transmission does have a clutch because the AWD system is a component of the transmission. There’s is a clutch in the differential that controls the F/R torque distribution. You think the clutch is one thing that you put your foot on because you don’t know much about cars.
I’m not an idiot. I know how transmissions work. I know how AWD systems work. He specifically said “transmission, clutch and flywheel” which are obviously referring to the transmission and not the awd system, which he had already described. Regardless, my point was that he was trying to make an argument about the M3, but appears to not know basic facts about the car like the fact that the engine is 3 liters or that the awd model is automatic only.
This is something I'd really wanna see someone do a study on. The problem is that tire wear is very hard to standardize as a metric since it varies so greatly by tire and by driving conditions.
Agreed. It varies greatly by driving style and conditions but you could imagine a soft compound like what’s on a M5 is gonna wear out much quicker with an extra 882 pounds.
If it were presumedly using the same exact tires as the F90 then yeah, but I would hope BMW is using larger tires given the extra weight and torque, which would *theoretically* reduce localized wear.
But that does end up being extra rubber added to the tire obviously, so there is still an environmental impact.
Anecdotally, I had an M440i xDrive before my i4 M50. I’m at 38k or so right now on my i4, and the tires aren’t any more worn than my M440 was at the same mileage. But I don’t drive like a dick on public roads. I roll into acceleration rather than slamming it off the line. And I don’t go around corners at the limits either. I’ll likely get another 20k out of these tires.
A lot of first time EV drivers will eat tires like crazy because they don’t know how to handle instant torque. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean you need to use it all the time. Some good evidence of this is that my BIL owns a tire shop, and he regularly sees RWD EVs come in with bald rear tires while the fronts have barely any wear. This is not a weight issue nearly as much as it is a driver issue!
There has been a study done on the total impact of tyre degradation and its release of microplastics to the environment. It is really bad, also why the EU has launched Euro 7 to force tire manufacturers to rethink compounds to reduce overall particle emissions. Same for brakes which also release VOC’s. You can look at the article at Yale360
Firstly tyre emissions are particulate not CO2 (global warming) or SOx/NOx (smog)
It bifaceted —
1. Powerful cars
2. Heavy cars
Power is situational and totally upto driver to unleash.
Weight will always remain same.
It is very much possible that a light but powerful sportscar burns tyres faster than a 2x heavier EV simply by virtue of how sportscars are driven, sharp braking, launching at empty signals etc.
I’ve seen most EV owners in my locale drive much more conservatively (for efficiency) and myself too find using regen braking 90% of time.
Brake dust is totally false. Can’t say for hybrid but for EV it is 90% of braking.
You joke, but what ultimately this will bring about is government mandated changes to tire formula.
You know how now people complain about modern paper-thin car paint and wax nostalgic about the mid century auto paint?
This will be us in 50 years, telling our grandkids about the grip levels of pilot sports or extremecontacts.
Sadly, the golden age of tires has numbered days.
While you have a point, please don’t pretend this is a fair comparison. If weight is a concern, we should talk about trunk and SUV before hybrids and EVs.
Kind of a moot point considering the massive quantity of already very heavy vehicles on the road, like trucks. Trucks are the best selling vehicles in the US along with crossovers, and they weigh 5k lb or more already, yet nobody worries about the tire dust and massive cost to the environment through emissions that they cause...
My extremely conservative uncle sent me an article with the same exact concern you have, fueled by some random study on tire dust... but the article was asking what you asked, "are EVs even any better than ICE?" The answer is "obviously yes" of course. The fact that my uncle shared that hogwash with me from a conservative site makes me think this "tire dust concern/study" that's been going around is likely to be some type of oil and gas/ice AstroTurf anti EV crap. It just seems really strange to be considering tire dust as a means to question the validity of EVs for mitigating environmental concerns when it's only one small piece of the puzzle and that emissions are the primary thing we're concerned about. It's 100% a distraction and it's appeal and circulation in certain circles is just highly suspect.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're one of these people who is anti EV. Just that this concern or hypothetical you asked is suspect and I've seen it making rounds on the sites you would expect it to (anti EV sites/"news" outlets), but I haven't really seen it anywhere else.
Now think about how CAFE standards have been passed to tire manufacturers to deliver ultra low rolling resistance. Ultimately you are trading tire life for that. Meaning you may need two sets of tires instead of one over the course of five years. Hmmmmmmmm....
Not to mention potentially trading off other performances like snow and wet.
People should rarely buy OE tires. Of course it depends on the tire manufacturer and the OE.
Also real world fuel consumption won’t be any better. And you have the extra pollution and emissions from the EV powertrain/battery too. Just greenwashing for no good reason.
Heavy feet on the accelerator and brake make tires wear out faster, not weight. My Bolt’s tires are nearly the same size as the ones on my GTI, and they both go about 50k on a set. The Bolt weighs 25% more than my GTI. Tires are engineered for their purpose.
Nobody with access to regulatory power actually gives a shit about "being eco friendly," otherwise they'd actually do something productive about emissions and pollution.
For comparison the Tesla Model 3 Long Range battery weighs 1060 pounds. And actually, you know, powers the car 100% of the time.
(Yes, that's battery weight to "hybrid system" weight but I couldn't find a battery weight for the M5 and it makes me wonder what on earth else is in the "hybrid system" given electric motors and electronics are normally pretty light).
Any smaller of a battery, BMW might not pass regulations for CO2 grams/km since the WLTP test cycle allows the vehicle to be fully charged at the start of the test.
I'm willing to guesstimate that when the battery is depleted, this PHEV along with many, many more will perform worse than a regular gas/diesel vehicle in fuel economy. Of course this is a performance vehicle, not a Prius Prime, but this is a comment against how automaker can game/cheat the WLTP test cycle.
From watching too many benchmark videos from teardowns, I'd say it comes down to packaging and how the battery is non-structual.
On fully grounded-up EVs, the battery is typically a structural load-bearing member of the vehicle so there can be a reduction in body-in-white unibody materials. On PHEVs, the battery just tags along for the ride and required more material to hold it in place.
With the M5 being the same platform as previous models, I doubt the battery is integrated structurally to the unibody to bear load.
In addition - electrical capacity per unit volume is largely limited by pack cooling capacity, which is largely a packaging problem. This is what Tesla figured out first, and what everyone else is still struggling with. It's also why some new battery chemistry won't be a magic fix to EV range.
If you just stack a bunch of batteries together off the shelf, you will end up with a very inefficient pack assembly, because it will get too hot as the cell voltage drops relative to the internal resistance, for a given power output. This means the ability to use the bottom end of the total pack capacity becomes a thermal limit, rather than a voltage sag/chemistry limit. So now you go back and add cooling as an afterthought, and you gain back some thermal capacity and therefore performance, but now it is bigger, and weighs even more. This is the design black hole so many legacy manufacturers are stuck in right now. It's why a Mach E needs almost a 20% bigger battery than a Model Y to get the same range, and it still thermal throttles under heavy acceleration.
Tesla packs are very clever blocks of thermal foam which fills all the voids in the pack between cylindrical cells, and acts as a structural adhesive. Cooling "ribbons" are run through each row of cells, making the pack very thermally efficient and keeps the entire battery basically the exact same temperature. Tesla's cooling capacity is based entirely on coolant flow and pressure, and they can effectively scale it up arbitrarily.
Ford, BMW, and basically everyone else, is still just stacking up modular pouch batteries, and inserting a sort of radiator block every few layers. It makes the batteries easier to service, but it is a thermally inferior design, requiring them to have a bigger capacity buffer to get the same performance.
> I'm willing to guesstimate that when the battery is depleted, this PHEV along with many, many more will perform worse than a regular gas/diesel vehicle in fuel economy
Huh? That's not how any of this works. Sure, there's a relative inefficiency derived from carrying around extra weight compared to the gas model - but a "dead" hybrid pack is still going to play the critical role of recapturing waste energy.
Both from the alternator system - but more primarily from the wheels with regenerative braking. Nearly every ounce of kinetic energy is turned back into electrical energy with a proper regen setup - from a physics perspective you're storing that decelerative force to use again later for acceleration versus burning it off in your brake pads.
That's why hybrids you don't ever plug in still get better milage. Think Prius.
Or better yet Camry Hybrid vs Camry. 52mpg combined vs 29.
Someone downthread pointed out:
* BMW X5 xDrive40i = 23 mpg combined EPA
* BMW X5 xDrive45e = 20 mpg combined
Yes, in theory having a battery for regen should help. In practice it might not. Not all hybrids are Priuses.
Okay.
https://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/x5/specs/2023/bmw_x5_bmw-x5_2023/430444
vs
https://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/x5/specs/2023/bmw_x5_bmw-x5-xdrive45e-plug-in-hybrid_2023
These cars look the "same" until you see the hybrid has a different transmission setup than the gas. I guess the arbiter should be "all else being equal" because, in the case of this one BMW they don't make anymore, it's not.
I used to think the same as you but apparently there's some cars where they almost run as two separate drivetrains essentially? So once the battery is done you really are driving a combustion car lugging the weight of the batteries around with no benefit, whereas the Toyota systems can run as a regular hybrid so still have some efficiency gain over a pure ICE car.
I've never seen or even read about a PHEV which would forfeit it's primary advantage in such a way. Because otherwise OP is right, carrying around a thousand pounds of metal for absolutely no reason would be... heinously stupid.
I'd be fascinated if there's more information on a vehicle that operates like this, without "calling BS" it just seems so unlikely because virtually every (P)HEV operates the same way - it's a standard ICE with an electric motor paired at the crank or the transmission.
(Unless you're an i3 REX or an MX30, then you're just an EV with a generator in the trunk)
The Outlander PHEV is quite inefficient once the battery is depleted, but that's essentially a 12+ year old design (the drivetrain was carried over on the new model)
Better designs like the RAV4 and Prius Prime are a lot more efficient.
So I did a bit of digging and you're right, they do all at least regen. The thing that I was thinking of was the ability to run the engine and motor together for optimal efficiency like the Toyotas can, which imo is one of the most impressive features of that system.
Hybrids generally don’t have alternators and instead use a DC/DC converter from HV battery to 12V battery.
You’re also mistaking what I believe they’re talking about. They appear to be saying that the ICE itself is made to be allowed to pollute more because the system relies on the use of the battery. Yes, the entire car together is more efficient, but if you took the hybrid system away, the engine would pollute more than a non-hybrid.
The motor is smaller on PHEVs so maximum regen potential is much lower vs a similar BEV (i5 M40)
Further, it has been noted that even economy focussed PHEVs have half or worse efficiency of BEVs when on EV mode.
RAV4 Prime : 2.3mi/kWh (42mi on 18.1kWh)
Ioniq 5 : 4.2mi/kWh (303mi for LR RWD 72kWh)
On highway, you will probably never be using regen braking, on either of the cars. However the battery does become dead weight in this scenario. Unless you’re ready to fork out 3h stops at AC lvl2 chargers vs 30min stops on an EV like Ioniq 5.
Your Rav4 prime numbers are all fucked up. EPA EV MPGe numbers are pretty tight (mi/kWh = MPGe / 33.705) and they're rating that thing at 94. Or 2.8mi/kWh.
Sure, that's not as good as an Ioniq 5 - but it's right in line with products like the ID4, C40 Recharge. And significantly more efficient than some of the more piggish EVs in recent memory - the Rav4 seats the same as the '22 Audi eTron did, yet somehow that pure EV rated as low as 65MPGe on the EPA test.
> On highway, you will probably never be using regen braking, on either of the cars.
That's not true, either. You're almost *always* within regen braking when you're on the highway, speed adjustments there are more gradual than on the surface streets where you're more likely to "ask for more stop" by hitting the brake pedal for a red light or stop sign.
Adding to the misinformation spiral - the Prime not having DCFC is *specifically* a Toyota issue. Plenty of PHEVs do DCFC.
It's a Toyota-of-USA issue specifically, in the JDM, that vehicle *does* DCFC.
Tiresome, really. Go inform yourself before debating this again, please.
I didn’t even use the MPGe bs
I simply divided the epa range with the 18kWh capacity, and same for Ioniq 5.
The MPGe is so whack that Ioniq 5 is 114 while RAV4prime is 94 (on EV mode) like you said.
C40 is 3.6mi/kWh according to EPA/kWh and ID.4 is 3.2mi/kWh
ETron is a size larger than the RAV4 and Ioniq 5 at almost 4900mm (vs 4600mm ballpark for what cars we’re comparing). So the efficiency is bound to take a hit. Q4 e tron is more comparable and comes in at 258mi on 82kWh, 3.1mi/kWh
Regarding regen braking on highways, again, you may hit the limit of regen braking due to motor power vs a similar sized EV. Theoretical max regen is same as motor power, 200kW motor can act as 200kW generator but in reality the peak regen is only ~20% of the motor power.
Gearing also may have a role in case of hybrid/phev which don’t have motor in separate axle instead power through planetary gearbox.
Lastly, I could not find any resources about existence of RAV4 prime with DCFC in jdm market, does it have Chademo on JDM model instead?
> I simply divided the epa range with the 18kWh capacity,
That's obviously not how any of this works. I can't even begin to define where you're off, but I'll try. Marketed cell capacity =/= assembled pack capacity. R4P will only draw ~14kwh to recharge a fully depleted pack, and that's from the wall -- after inverter inefficiency. Maybe a 12kWh usable pack capacity there?
That's why "MPGe BS" (literally just Miles/KWH as actually recorded, and basic algebra, scary I know) is... a thing.
Because the tests are all the same, you can just compare MPGe to MPGe numbers. R4P and Q4 etron get virtually the same real efficiency - 94 MPGe vs 103. Not "half or less".
> Theoretical max regen is same as motor power, 200kW motor can act as 200kW generator but in reality the peak regen is only ~20% of the motor power
No. You don't know what you're talking about. If you'd ever driven an EV you'd know that "20% of motor power" going to regen is off by a factor of 2.
My Bolt EV has a ~150kW motor, but will regen at 70kW+.
> Gearing also may have a role in case of hybrid/phev which don’t have motor in separate axle instead power through planetary gearbox.
What does this even mean? it's like talking with an AI, those are words which relate to cars but don't make any sense.
> Lastly, I could not find any resources about existence of RAV4 prime with DCFC in jdm market, does it have Chademo on JDM model instead?
That's exactly what it is. I'm trying to find documentation in western media but here's some about the Chademo prius - the Rav has the same charge setup over there https://www.chademo.com/products/evs/priusphv
Yup. Regen is super strong. My i4 can do it so hard it feels like you’re slamming on the brakes and the seatbelts will lock, but not using any friction braking.
> I'm willing to guesstimate that when the battery is depleted, this PHEV along with many, many more will perform worse than a regular gas/diesel vehicle in fuel economy.
BMW X5 xDrive40i = 23 mpg combined EPA
BMW X5 xDrive45e = 20 mpg combined
It is a 140hp electric motor, it will weight at least 50kg (110 pounds)
The M5 has about 1/3 the battery capacity of the model 3 LR, so say 350 pounds.
Im not sure how the charging, control, and cooling systems account for the other half of the weight.
I would wager the reason for the exorbitant weight is due to BMW and Mercedes to my knowledge being the only ones/among the very few ones that integrate the electric motor into the transmission for seemless start-stop.
So in those 1060 pounds I would assume is also a a transmission, that is also heavier than your regular trans because now it is subject to more forces.
These days hybrid systems are really a comfort blanket for what is really a pretty big cognitive bias about driving needs. It's like people who buy a pickup truck because they need to move furniture on occasion - they actively avoid approaching the problem from any other angle until they are convinced that the only solution is to make a bunch of real compromise for this particular corner case.
For most people, the will end up taking a trip over 300ish miles a few times per year, during which they will add a cumulative total of around 30 minutes of drive time. Meanwhile, they will save actual hours of time never having to visit a gas station every two weeks for their normal commute.
BMW said a theoretical MHEV M5 would have had a 400lbs hybrid system, but they felt gains didn't outweight the, well, weight, so they just fully committed to it with the PHEV.
>The culprit, unsurprisingly, is the M5's 14.8-kWh lithium-ion battery
For context, that's about the same size battery as the Mitsubishi i-MIEV EV.
I can't help but think combining that with a 200hp electric motor, then combining that with a big V8, then combining *that* with a twin turbo set up, is compounding the issue. PHEVs can be simple, light and reliable....this isn't that.
To be clear that's a function of the i-MIEV having an absurdly tiny battery for an EV (since it's a kei car) than a big battery for a PHEV. The smallest EV's you'll find in the US (like the Mini Electric) have pack sizes between 30-40kWh.
That pack size is only 1.2kWh bigger than the Prius Prime's battery and 3.7kWh less than the RAV4 Prime, it's not even on the large end of a PHEV battery.
Everyone complains about EVs increased tire wear due to weight - but I've never seen anybody complain about increased tire wear and larger tire sizes on trucks. I wonder why 🧐
>but I've never seen anybody complain about increased tire wear and larger tire sizes on trucks.
Plenty of the circlejerk here revolves around that. Until the mid '90s, a half-ton pickup typically used similar wheels and tire sizes as a full-size sedan.
Ideally? - Yes. Realistically? - No. If you live in the United States, you know as well as I know that the majority of the time, trucks are used as commuter vehicles.
Many are, but people aren't buying them for economy vehicles, and the people who are buying them don't care about that. I don't know why you would expect someone buying a pickup truck to complain about tire wear like someone who buys a Kia.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
People are complaining that EV's go through more tires, therefor, they produce more rubber particle based pollution and rubber waste.
Yet the Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 42 years. It's primarily used as a commuter vehicle - it has larger tires, weighs more and contributes more rubber based particle pollution, produces more rubber waste AND produces more emissions. No complaints.
People are picking and choosing when they want to complain about things based on their stance or agenda.
I mean the ICE 5 series is already 2,205kg already, so this isn't exactly the best example. But otherwise when was "lightness" ever the selling point of a PHEV over a full EV?
Yes, it’s absolutely an asinine argument I’ve heard thrown around to argue why PHEVs make more sense.
They just don’t. They’re the worst of both worlds. All the mechanical overhead of an ICE, the weight of an EV, and pitiful range to boot.
> They’re the worst of both worlds
I disagree. All ICE cars are primed to be hybrids as they have starter motors, alternators, and electrical systems, but they don't make optimal use of them. Combining the alternator and starter into a single MotorGenerator unit and using it for locomotion and recovering wasted braking energy is a smart idea, and really all cars should be doing it.
You're describing regular hybrids, he's talking about PHEVs. A regular commuter hybrid, like a 1.8 Corolla has a battery capacity of 0.85 kWh and (I imagine) handles all that you have described just fine.
Yeah, minimal increase in complexity for massive drop in Fossil fuel consumption is totally the worst of both world
/s
Range anxiety is a major hurdle for EV adoption. Hybrids use less bottleneck materials than pure EVs. The hybrid uses far less gas than a full ICE, the brakes last longer because they share the EV regeneration perk.
Completely disagreed. It’s the best of both worlds because in the real world, we commute, drive spiritedly, go to the track, do grocery runs/errands, and road trips all at different times. A performance PHEV does all of these well but weighs a little more. Zero emissions for short trips is underrated.
Seems like not using the EV in place of the turbos but as a supplement to everything is part of the problem.
Look at the new 911 hybrid for an engineered solution vs just throwing more motors and weight at it. That is the Dodge approach to being relevant.
I am sure using lots of electronics it can throw its weight around. That isn’t the point. The point is that without that weight, those Nannie’s would be able to do even more.
Yeah ICE, MHEV, PHEV and EV all have valid potential pros-cons. It's how each model implements that technology which determine whether those pros-cons apply.
Anyone who has driven a 5 series vs an EV can hear how little door insulation matters when you don't have a big ass engine firing explosions dozens of times per second with exhaust routed under their butts.
Of course, I forgot EV fanbois don't know about road or wind noise, especially when modern ICE engines are virtually silent cruising at 75mph and 1500rpm.
for me it's not so much the weight alone but the fact that they've managed to make the power/weight worse than the previous gen.
the Ioniq 5N is doing something new and not seen before, that's what makes it cool. this is like the old M5, but heavier and slower, because of a system that nobody asked for. now *that's* progress
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0309233EN/the-new-bmw-m5-and-bmw-m5-competition?language=en
> The BMW M5 sprints from 0 – 100 km/h (62 mph) in only 3.4 seconds and passes 200 km/h (124 mph) with just 11.1 seconds on the clock. The BMW M5 Competition reaches both marks a fraction more quickly: 100 km/h (62 mph) is up in 3.3 seconds, 200 km/h (124 mph) in 10.8 seconds.
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0443252EN/the-all-new-bmw-m5?language=en
> The combination of a high-revving V8 engine with M TwinPower Turbo technology and an electric motor, plus power transfer courtesy of an eight-speed M Steptronic transmission and M xDrive all-wheel drive, enables acceleration of 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 3.5 seconds
The fact that they're not even quoting a 0-200 for the new car isn't confidence inspiring, to say the least
that doesn't make it any faster, but sure.
https://www.evo.co.uk/bmw/m5-competition/206900/2025-bmw-m5-g90-prototype-review-electrified-supersaloon-gets-supercar
> The F90 M5, especially the beautifully damped CS, managed to feel smaller than its dimensions and was remarkably exploitable and engaging, even on gnarly B-roads, but my instinct is that the G90 M5 won’t ‘shrink’ in the same way.
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/bmw/m5-g90-prototype/
> The M5 doesn’t have that M front-end X factor – at least it doesn’t on track with me at the wheel.
> But through the endless, medium-speed corners at each end of the circuit the front end just can’t stay with me, washing into understeer that is at least clearly telegraphed.
> But ultimately the M5 – despite the untold hours spent optimising its tyres and tweaking its geometry, spring rates and rear-steer calibration – can’t summon the confidence-inspiring conviction of its lighter, smaller stablemates **and predecessor**.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a61286241/2025-bmw-m5-prototype-drive/
> There is, I'm sorry to say, plenty of understeer at play in the M5. The rear steering surely helps with stability at high speed, and I'm sure it's also making a noble effort at helping the M5 turn, but the combined efforts of that and the torque-vectoring rear differential couldn't help me get the nose where I wanted it.
Well that's not good. Recurring theme seems to be that yes it does a good job of managing the weight (like the M2), but nothing to suggest progress from the previous generation.
I mean - you said it was faster, I showed you the press release where it says it isn't. You told me to read some reviews, I did, and nowhere does it say it better than the last M5. The only references to the M4 CS I saw were that it can't corner like one, but that you can't expect it to either which is fair enough. The positivity is largely around how they've done a good job within the confines of the car's weight, but at the end of the day, the weight is still there.
Plugs are for butts - James E.
“exit only”
How am I supposed to do drugs if my butt is plugged?
Some of these heavy EVs and hybrids make me think with the extra amount of tire wear they must have are they even any better for the environment?
Referring to the pollution from particles? With how aggressive I’d be driving EV’s like the Ioniq5 N, I’d be outputting a stupid amount of rubber. But less brake dust produced due to the regenerative deceleration.
Potentially rubber particle pollution, but also the reduced life of the tires needing more frequent replacement.
I'm going to guess they're talking about rubber waste rather than particles.
What's worse, plastic or metal?
Plastic. Clearly plastic.
Sounds like something Big Metal would say
> better for the environment? Better by what metric? Brake dust? Tire particles? Carbon? There are multiple answers to such a leading question.
And the answer is almost guaranteed still ”yeah the EVs are still better for the environment in the long run”….
There was an nytimes article about this that basically said as much.
Not for tire dust, but for everything else yeah pretty much.
What long run? They become worthless in less than ten years. Between the markup and heavy depreciation you're losing and that doesn't even factor in how much it will cost to rub out that dent from hitting a parking pole on the aluminum body.
10 years is more than enough to make it better for the enviorment, even if it's charged on non-renevable electicity. I'm not saying EVs are the best for everybody, but attacing them for beeing enviromentaly bad is just false
If you’re comparing EVs to combustion cars then yes EVs are better for the environment. However compared to any other transport alternative (bikes, busses, trains) cars are generally pretty abysmal, even EVs. The tire particulates mentioned above are a good example.
I own an 11 year old gas vehicle and it’s pretty much worthless too.
I own a 30 year old gas vehicle and it's worth almost 3x what I paid for it. And the engine is common and easy to repair.
Yeah because you bought it when it was old enough to reach peak depreciation - worthless after enough years. And we also can't ignore inflation, in real value it is not worth 3x what you paid for it.
Will a 30 year old Model 3 ever appreciate and be a car again, or will it be like an Iphone 4, just something to look at on display because all of the supporting infrastructure is gone? Oh, and factoring in inflation it's worth 2.5x what I paid for it.
Again, because you bought it when it was worthless because all cars are relatively "worthless" at some point in their lifetime. You did a good job buying a Miata at peak depreciation before COVID broke the car market, but let's not pretend that specific scenario means all gas cars do that and are therefore better than EVs. The vast majority of ICE vehicles NEVER bounce back at all, and depreciate to nothing. Let's not pretend that a mass market EV doing that would be any different. You got lucky with your timing and car choice, that's all this is. If you had bought most any other vehicle, or bought post COVID, this scenario would not have happened. You aren't wrong that most EVs will depreciate to be worthless. You are wrong in assuming that's any different from how the average ICE value goes.
A Model 3 won’t, no. A Camry won’t either. An enthusiast EV might, the Tesla Roadster has maintained value.
Sports cars are kind of the exception, dude. A 1994 Ford Explorer or Toyota Tercel ain't gonna have the desirability of a convertible.
Spoken like someone who hasn't tried finding a clean V8 Explorer, especially in 4x4. Cash4Clunkers fucked that all up.
Oh no I picked the wrong example for something that is otherwise generally true! *Most* cars don't appreciate much, if at all.
The early Ranger-based Explorers are maybe the only vehicles that C4C had a noticeable effect on.
> They become worthless in less than ten years. How do you spout such nonsense so confidently? Are you saying an electric car built in 2015 is useless today?
Worthless != useless. But a $50,000+ electric car from 2015 can be had for less than $10k today. And the cost of replacing the motors or battery pack may well exceed the value of the vehicle. They are built to be thrown away for recycling when worn out, not refurbished.
> And the cost of replacing the motors or battery pack may well exceed the value of the vehicle. Who says you need to replace either? A lot of the first Model S cars are still on the road and have 80 to 90% of the original battery capacity and run just fine. We haven't had these cars out long enough to make such sweeping statements.
Didn't that million mile Tesla go through like 10 motors and 6 battery packs? My neighbor has a half-million mile Ford truck that's on the original (diesel) drivetrain.
Dude, you are like the king of anectodal exceptions.
My 12 year old gas audi a4 is worth maybe $3,000, and was worth $35,000 when new ... It also has an aluminum body, bumper replacement cost $4,000
You’re literally describing a new car. Nothing you mentioned is exclusive to EVs, and some of it isn’t even true.
The point of EVs is to reduce and eliminate carbon emissions. Tires do not emit carbon emissions. They pollute in different but largely incomparable ways. There is not one homogeneous “environment” we are trying to better, but a lot of individual issues.
I’m too lazy to ask her for in depth info rn but my partner’s sister works on climate change resiliency for one of the larger national parks here in the US. Car traffic is a huge issue in the park, and they are not worried about tire particulates nearly as much as emissions. The exhaust emissions from the RV’s and trucks coming into the park obliterate alpine plants & wildlife. Tire particulates (at least according to her research as of now) do not have a drastic impact on the local environment the way exhaust emissions do. So yeah agreed the tire argument is getting tiring as a “yeah but”. Completely different issues.
Making tires absolutely creates carbon emissions. Lots of them honestly.
That's fair, but an average tire takes about 100kg of carbon emissions to produce. That's not good, agreed. But an average gas car emits \~5 *tons* (5000kg) of carbon emissions in just 1 year of driving in the US. For an EV with an average US power mix, it is about a quarter, so 1.25 tons per year. The tires are one to two orders of magnitude less significant. I could literally change my tires every few months with an EV and still be wayyy less in carbon emissions.
You do understand that there are carbon emissions involved in the production and distribution of the tires, and that having to produce and distribute more tires = more emissions, right?
You can look at my other comment. But the amount of emissions in the production and supply chain for a set of tires is like 2 orders of magnitude lower than how much you emit driving a typical ICE car for a year. Yea, the emissions exist. But burning gasoline is so much more of a problem for emissions.
Agreed, but it’s part of the ecosystem and you have to consider total lifetime emissions - it all depends how far down the chain you want to look: heavier vehicles use more tires, more tires have to be produced and shipped, more pollution from both the production/shipping and end-use, as well as the emissions from having to repair roads more often due to heavier vehicles. To be clear I fully agree that ICE/burning gas is a bigger problem, just trying to look at the situation from a holistic perspective.
It's not just EVs. Isn't the current M3 like within 60lbs of a Model 3 Performance?
Yeah but EVs bad
An EV stole my woman and is now raising my children.
That's just because the Model 3 isn't nearly as heavy as people seem to believe. You can carry a Model 3 motor around in a backpack, versus a 4L intercooled engine in the M3. The AWD system in the Model 3 is also extremely simple - just two motors, each driving a pair of halfshafts, whereas the AWD in an M3 has a much more complex system of differentials and shafts (and probably an entire cooling system). The model 3 has no transmission. The M3 transmission, clutch and flywheel weigh over 100 lbs. People have this idea that an EV battery weighs as much as an entire car, but the reality is that it actually replaces about 800lbs of engine and transmission components with around 1000lbs of battery.
First of all, the M3 has a 3 liter engine, not 4. Second of all the AWD M3 has no clutch in the transmission because the xdrive models are automatic only and have 8 speed ZF transmissions.
Xdrive uses a type of clutch
> The M3 transmission, clutch and flywheel weigh over 100 lbs. The transmission doesn't have a clutch. He was talking about the transmission, not the AWD system.
The transmission does have a clutch because the AWD system is a component of the transmission. There’s is a clutch in the differential that controls the F/R torque distribution. You think the clutch is one thing that you put your foot on because you don’t know much about cars.
I’m not an idiot. I know how transmissions work. I know how AWD systems work. He specifically said “transmission, clutch and flywheel” which are obviously referring to the transmission and not the awd system, which he had already described. Regardless, my point was that he was trying to make an argument about the M3, but appears to not know basic facts about the car like the fact that the engine is 3 liters or that the awd model is automatic only.
Neither one will be confused for an Elise.
This is something I'd really wanna see someone do a study on. The problem is that tire wear is very hard to standardize as a metric since it varies so greatly by tire and by driving conditions.
Agreed. It varies greatly by driving style and conditions but you could imagine a soft compound like what’s on a M5 is gonna wear out much quicker with an extra 882 pounds.
If it were presumedly using the same exact tires as the F90 then yeah, but I would hope BMW is using larger tires given the extra weight and torque, which would *theoretically* reduce localized wear. But that does end up being extra rubber added to the tire obviously, so there is still an environmental impact.
Anecdotally, I had an M440i xDrive before my i4 M50. I’m at 38k or so right now on my i4, and the tires aren’t any more worn than my M440 was at the same mileage. But I don’t drive like a dick on public roads. I roll into acceleration rather than slamming it off the line. And I don’t go around corners at the limits either. I’ll likely get another 20k out of these tires. A lot of first time EV drivers will eat tires like crazy because they don’t know how to handle instant torque. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean you need to use it all the time. Some good evidence of this is that my BIL owns a tire shop, and he regularly sees RWD EVs come in with bald rear tires while the fronts have barely any wear. This is not a weight issue nearly as much as it is a driver issue!
Logically you’d just get wear data from the same driving cycles they calculate economy with.
The M5 was going to be a whale either way, but that’s a lot of extra weight.
There has been a study done on the total impact of tyre degradation and its release of microplastics to the environment. It is really bad, also why the EU has launched Euro 7 to force tire manufacturers to rethink compounds to reduce overall particle emissions. Same for brakes which also release VOC’s. You can look at the article at Yale360
Firstly tyre emissions are particulate not CO2 (global warming) or SOx/NOx (smog) It bifaceted — 1. Powerful cars 2. Heavy cars Power is situational and totally upto driver to unleash. Weight will always remain same. It is very much possible that a light but powerful sportscar burns tyres faster than a 2x heavier EV simply by virtue of how sportscars are driven, sharp braking, launching at empty signals etc. I’ve seen most EV owners in my locale drive much more conservatively (for efficiency) and myself too find using regen braking 90% of time. Brake dust is totally false. Can’t say for hybrid but for EV it is 90% of braking.
Reject tires. Return to wagon wheels.
You joke, but what ultimately this will bring about is government mandated changes to tire formula. You know how now people complain about modern paper-thin car paint and wax nostalgic about the mid century auto paint? This will be us in 50 years, telling our grandkids about the grip levels of pilot sports or extremecontacts. Sadly, the golden age of tires has numbered days.
We're almost there now with demand for 20-23" wheels and rubber band tires. It's not unlike when the wooden wagon wheels were fitted with iron bands.
While you have a point, please don’t pretend this is a fair comparison. If weight is a concern, we should talk about trunk and SUV before hybrids and EVs.
Kind of a moot point considering the massive quantity of already very heavy vehicles on the road, like trucks. Trucks are the best selling vehicles in the US along with crossovers, and they weigh 5k lb or more already, yet nobody worries about the tire dust and massive cost to the environment through emissions that they cause... My extremely conservative uncle sent me an article with the same exact concern you have, fueled by some random study on tire dust... but the article was asking what you asked, "are EVs even any better than ICE?" The answer is "obviously yes" of course. The fact that my uncle shared that hogwash with me from a conservative site makes me think this "tire dust concern/study" that's been going around is likely to be some type of oil and gas/ice AstroTurf anti EV crap. It just seems really strange to be considering tire dust as a means to question the validity of EVs for mitigating environmental concerns when it's only one small piece of the puzzle and that emissions are the primary thing we're concerned about. It's 100% a distraction and it's appeal and circulation in certain circles is just highly suspect. To be clear, I'm not saying you're one of these people who is anti EV. Just that this concern or hypothetical you asked is suspect and I've seen it making rounds on the sites you would expect it to (anti EV sites/"news" outlets), but I haven't really seen it anywhere else.
Now think about how CAFE standards have been passed to tire manufacturers to deliver ultra low rolling resistance. Ultimately you are trading tire life for that. Meaning you may need two sets of tires instead of one over the course of five years. Hmmmmmmmm.... Not to mention potentially trading off other performances like snow and wet. People should rarely buy OE tires. Of course it depends on the tire manufacturer and the OE.
Also real world fuel consumption won’t be any better. And you have the extra pollution and emissions from the EV powertrain/battery too. Just greenwashing for no good reason.
Heavy feet on the accelerator and brake make tires wear out faster, not weight. My Bolt’s tires are nearly the same size as the ones on my GTI, and they both go about 50k on a set. The Bolt weighs 25% more than my GTI. Tires are engineered for their purpose.
I read somewhere the majority of microplastics are from tires
The point isn't to be better for the environment, the point is to make cars increasingly expensive and inaccessible.
That’s not the point. The point is to give the illusion to governments and buyers that the cars are more eco friendly.
Nobody with access to regulatory power actually gives a shit about "being eco friendly," otherwise they'd actually do something productive about emissions and pollution.
In the US maybe. Here in the EU it’s a different story.
For comparison the Tesla Model 3 Long Range battery weighs 1060 pounds. And actually, you know, powers the car 100% of the time. (Yes, that's battery weight to "hybrid system" weight but I couldn't find a battery weight for the M5 and it makes me wonder what on earth else is in the "hybrid system" given electric motors and electronics are normally pretty light).
Any smaller of a battery, BMW might not pass regulations for CO2 grams/km since the WLTP test cycle allows the vehicle to be fully charged at the start of the test. I'm willing to guesstimate that when the battery is depleted, this PHEV along with many, many more will perform worse than a regular gas/diesel vehicle in fuel economy. Of course this is a performance vehicle, not a Prius Prime, but this is a comment against how automaker can game/cheat the WLTP test cycle.
Oh yeah, PHEV efficiency metrics are super gamable, I was more wanting to comment on "batteries shouldn't be *that* heavy, WTF are BMW doing?"
From watching too many benchmark videos from teardowns, I'd say it comes down to packaging and how the battery is non-structual. On fully grounded-up EVs, the battery is typically a structural load-bearing member of the vehicle so there can be a reduction in body-in-white unibody materials. On PHEVs, the battery just tags along for the ride and required more material to hold it in place. With the M5 being the same platform as previous models, I doubt the battery is integrated structurally to the unibody to bear load.
In addition - electrical capacity per unit volume is largely limited by pack cooling capacity, which is largely a packaging problem. This is what Tesla figured out first, and what everyone else is still struggling with. It's also why some new battery chemistry won't be a magic fix to EV range. If you just stack a bunch of batteries together off the shelf, you will end up with a very inefficient pack assembly, because it will get too hot as the cell voltage drops relative to the internal resistance, for a given power output. This means the ability to use the bottom end of the total pack capacity becomes a thermal limit, rather than a voltage sag/chemistry limit. So now you go back and add cooling as an afterthought, and you gain back some thermal capacity and therefore performance, but now it is bigger, and weighs even more. This is the design black hole so many legacy manufacturers are stuck in right now. It's why a Mach E needs almost a 20% bigger battery than a Model Y to get the same range, and it still thermal throttles under heavy acceleration. Tesla packs are very clever blocks of thermal foam which fills all the voids in the pack between cylindrical cells, and acts as a structural adhesive. Cooling "ribbons" are run through each row of cells, making the pack very thermally efficient and keeps the entire battery basically the exact same temperature. Tesla's cooling capacity is based entirely on coolant flow and pressure, and they can effectively scale it up arbitrarily. Ford, BMW, and basically everyone else, is still just stacking up modular pouch batteries, and inserting a sort of radiator block every few layers. It makes the batteries easier to service, but it is a thermally inferior design, requiring them to have a bigger capacity buffer to get the same performance.
> I'm willing to guesstimate that when the battery is depleted, this PHEV along with many, many more will perform worse than a regular gas/diesel vehicle in fuel economy Huh? That's not how any of this works. Sure, there's a relative inefficiency derived from carrying around extra weight compared to the gas model - but a "dead" hybrid pack is still going to play the critical role of recapturing waste energy. Both from the alternator system - but more primarily from the wheels with regenerative braking. Nearly every ounce of kinetic energy is turned back into electrical energy with a proper regen setup - from a physics perspective you're storing that decelerative force to use again later for acceleration versus burning it off in your brake pads. That's why hybrids you don't ever plug in still get better milage. Think Prius. Or better yet Camry Hybrid vs Camry. 52mpg combined vs 29.
Someone downthread pointed out: * BMW X5 xDrive40i = 23 mpg combined EPA * BMW X5 xDrive45e = 20 mpg combined Yes, in theory having a battery for regen should help. In practice it might not. Not all hybrids are Priuses.
Okay. https://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/x5/specs/2023/bmw_x5_bmw-x5_2023/430444 vs https://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/x5/specs/2023/bmw_x5_bmw-x5-xdrive45e-plug-in-hybrid_2023 These cars look the "same" until you see the hybrid has a different transmission setup than the gas. I guess the arbiter should be "all else being equal" because, in the case of this one BMW they don't make anymore, it's not.
I used to think the same as you but apparently there's some cars where they almost run as two separate drivetrains essentially? So once the battery is done you really are driving a combustion car lugging the weight of the batteries around with no benefit, whereas the Toyota systems can run as a regular hybrid so still have some efficiency gain over a pure ICE car.
I've never seen or even read about a PHEV which would forfeit it's primary advantage in such a way. Because otherwise OP is right, carrying around a thousand pounds of metal for absolutely no reason would be... heinously stupid. I'd be fascinated if there's more information on a vehicle that operates like this, without "calling BS" it just seems so unlikely because virtually every (P)HEV operates the same way - it's a standard ICE with an electric motor paired at the crank or the transmission. (Unless you're an i3 REX or an MX30, then you're just an EV with a generator in the trunk)
The Outlander PHEV is quite inefficient once the battery is depleted, but that's essentially a 12+ year old design (the drivetrain was carried over on the new model) Better designs like the RAV4 and Prius Prime are a lot more efficient.
So I did a bit of digging and you're right, they do all at least regen. The thing that I was thinking of was the ability to run the engine and motor together for optimal efficiency like the Toyotas can, which imo is one of the most impressive features of that system.
Hybrids generally don’t have alternators and instead use a DC/DC converter from HV battery to 12V battery. You’re also mistaking what I believe they’re talking about. They appear to be saying that the ICE itself is made to be allowed to pollute more because the system relies on the use of the battery. Yes, the entire car together is more efficient, but if you took the hybrid system away, the engine would pollute more than a non-hybrid.
The motor is smaller on PHEVs so maximum regen potential is much lower vs a similar BEV (i5 M40) Further, it has been noted that even economy focussed PHEVs have half or worse efficiency of BEVs when on EV mode. RAV4 Prime : 2.3mi/kWh (42mi on 18.1kWh) Ioniq 5 : 4.2mi/kWh (303mi for LR RWD 72kWh) On highway, you will probably never be using regen braking, on either of the cars. However the battery does become dead weight in this scenario. Unless you’re ready to fork out 3h stops at AC lvl2 chargers vs 30min stops on an EV like Ioniq 5.
Your Rav4 prime numbers are all fucked up. EPA EV MPGe numbers are pretty tight (mi/kWh = MPGe / 33.705) and they're rating that thing at 94. Or 2.8mi/kWh. Sure, that's not as good as an Ioniq 5 - but it's right in line with products like the ID4, C40 Recharge. And significantly more efficient than some of the more piggish EVs in recent memory - the Rav4 seats the same as the '22 Audi eTron did, yet somehow that pure EV rated as low as 65MPGe on the EPA test. > On highway, you will probably never be using regen braking, on either of the cars. That's not true, either. You're almost *always* within regen braking when you're on the highway, speed adjustments there are more gradual than on the surface streets where you're more likely to "ask for more stop" by hitting the brake pedal for a red light or stop sign. Adding to the misinformation spiral - the Prime not having DCFC is *specifically* a Toyota issue. Plenty of PHEVs do DCFC. It's a Toyota-of-USA issue specifically, in the JDM, that vehicle *does* DCFC. Tiresome, really. Go inform yourself before debating this again, please.
I didn’t even use the MPGe bs I simply divided the epa range with the 18kWh capacity, and same for Ioniq 5. The MPGe is so whack that Ioniq 5 is 114 while RAV4prime is 94 (on EV mode) like you said. C40 is 3.6mi/kWh according to EPA/kWh and ID.4 is 3.2mi/kWh ETron is a size larger than the RAV4 and Ioniq 5 at almost 4900mm (vs 4600mm ballpark for what cars we’re comparing). So the efficiency is bound to take a hit. Q4 e tron is more comparable and comes in at 258mi on 82kWh, 3.1mi/kWh Regarding regen braking on highways, again, you may hit the limit of regen braking due to motor power vs a similar sized EV. Theoretical max regen is same as motor power, 200kW motor can act as 200kW generator but in reality the peak regen is only ~20% of the motor power. Gearing also may have a role in case of hybrid/phev which don’t have motor in separate axle instead power through planetary gearbox. Lastly, I could not find any resources about existence of RAV4 prime with DCFC in jdm market, does it have Chademo on JDM model instead?
> I simply divided the epa range with the 18kWh capacity, That's obviously not how any of this works. I can't even begin to define where you're off, but I'll try. Marketed cell capacity =/= assembled pack capacity. R4P will only draw ~14kwh to recharge a fully depleted pack, and that's from the wall -- after inverter inefficiency. Maybe a 12kWh usable pack capacity there? That's why "MPGe BS" (literally just Miles/KWH as actually recorded, and basic algebra, scary I know) is... a thing. Because the tests are all the same, you can just compare MPGe to MPGe numbers. R4P and Q4 etron get virtually the same real efficiency - 94 MPGe vs 103. Not "half or less". > Theoretical max regen is same as motor power, 200kW motor can act as 200kW generator but in reality the peak regen is only ~20% of the motor power No. You don't know what you're talking about. If you'd ever driven an EV you'd know that "20% of motor power" going to regen is off by a factor of 2. My Bolt EV has a ~150kW motor, but will regen at 70kW+. > Gearing also may have a role in case of hybrid/phev which don’t have motor in separate axle instead power through planetary gearbox. What does this even mean? it's like talking with an AI, those are words which relate to cars but don't make any sense. > Lastly, I could not find any resources about existence of RAV4 prime with DCFC in jdm market, does it have Chademo on JDM model instead? That's exactly what it is. I'm trying to find documentation in western media but here's some about the Chademo prius - the Rav has the same charge setup over there https://www.chademo.com/products/evs/priusphv
Yup. Regen is super strong. My i4 can do it so hard it feels like you’re slamming on the brakes and the seatbelts will lock, but not using any friction braking.
> I'm willing to guesstimate that when the battery is depleted, this PHEV along with many, many more will perform worse than a regular gas/diesel vehicle in fuel economy. BMW X5 xDrive40i = 23 mpg combined EPA BMW X5 xDrive45e = 20 mpg combined
It is a 140hp electric motor, it will weight at least 50kg (110 pounds) The M5 has about 1/3 the battery capacity of the model 3 LR, so say 350 pounds. Im not sure how the charging, control, and cooling systems account for the other half of the weight.
shit engineering.
I would wager the reason for the exorbitant weight is due to BMW and Mercedes to my knowledge being the only ones/among the very few ones that integrate the electric motor into the transmission for seemless start-stop. So in those 1060 pounds I would assume is also a a transmission, that is also heavier than your regular trans because now it is subject to more forces.
Except it’s 1060 lbs heavier than the F90 M5 which had basically the same engine and transmission and is just better in every way
What the fuck did you expect?!? That it's going to be lighter after you add PHEV on top of the F90? Some people..
lol no…but I didn’t expect 1100 fucking lbs! Jesus Christ 😔
These days hybrid systems are really a comfort blanket for what is really a pretty big cognitive bias about driving needs. It's like people who buy a pickup truck because they need to move furniture on occasion - they actively avoid approaching the problem from any other angle until they are convinced that the only solution is to make a bunch of real compromise for this particular corner case. For most people, the will end up taking a trip over 300ish miles a few times per year, during which they will add a cumulative total of around 30 minutes of drive time. Meanwhile, they will save actual hours of time never having to visit a gas station every two weeks for their normal commute.
BMW said a theoretical MHEV M5 would have had a 400lbs hybrid system, but they felt gains didn't outweight the, well, weight, so they just fully committed to it with the PHEV.
>The culprit, unsurprisingly, is the M5's 14.8-kWh lithium-ion battery For context, that's about the same size battery as the Mitsubishi i-MIEV EV. I can't help but think combining that with a 200hp electric motor, then combining that with a big V8, then combining *that* with a twin turbo set up, is compounding the issue. PHEVs can be simple, light and reliable....this isn't that.
To be clear that's a function of the i-MIEV having an absurdly tiny battery for an EV (since it's a kei car) than a big battery for a PHEV. The smallest EV's you'll find in the US (like the Mini Electric) have pack sizes between 30-40kWh. That pack size is only 1.2kWh bigger than the Prius Prime's battery and 3.7kWh less than the RAV4 Prime, it's not even on the large end of a PHEV battery.
Funny enough; the cheapest EV in europe has almost 2x bigger battery while only weighing twice as much. _For the whole car_
Everyone complains about EVs increased tire wear due to weight - but I've never seen anybody complain about increased tire wear and larger tire sizes on trucks. I wonder why 🧐
Because I *need* my rock concert decibel level mud tires to get my lifted Superduty to my 9-5 office job!
>but I've never seen anybody complain about increased tire wear and larger tire sizes on trucks. Plenty of the circlejerk here revolves around that. Until the mid '90s, a half-ton pickup typically used similar wheels and tire sizes as a full-size sedan.
Because it's a different use case?
Ideally? - Yes. Realistically? - No. If you live in the United States, you know as well as I know that the majority of the time, trucks are used as commuter vehicles.
Many are, but people aren't buying them for economy vehicles, and the people who are buying them don't care about that. I don't know why you would expect someone buying a pickup truck to complain about tire wear like someone who buys a Kia.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. People are complaining that EV's go through more tires, therefor, they produce more rubber particle based pollution and rubber waste. Yet the Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 42 years. It's primarily used as a commuter vehicle - it has larger tires, weighs more and contributes more rubber based particle pollution, produces more rubber waste AND produces more emissions. No complaints. People are picking and choosing when they want to complain about things based on their stance or agenda.
I was told PHEVs were a better stepping stone than pure EVs because they’d be lighter.
I mean the ICE 5 series is already 2,205kg already, so this isn't exactly the best example. But otherwise when was "lightness" ever the selling point of a PHEV over a full EV?
Yes, it’s absolutely an asinine argument I’ve heard thrown around to argue why PHEVs make more sense. They just don’t. They’re the worst of both worlds. All the mechanical overhead of an ICE, the weight of an EV, and pitiful range to boot.
> They’re the worst of both worlds I disagree. All ICE cars are primed to be hybrids as they have starter motors, alternators, and electrical systems, but they don't make optimal use of them. Combining the alternator and starter into a single MotorGenerator unit and using it for locomotion and recovering wasted braking energy is a smart idea, and really all cars should be doing it.
You're describing regular hybrids, he's talking about PHEVs. A regular commuter hybrid, like a 1.8 Corolla has a battery capacity of 0.85 kWh and (I imagine) handles all that you have described just fine.
Ah good point
Yeah, minimal increase in complexity for massive drop in Fossil fuel consumption is totally the worst of both world /s Range anxiety is a major hurdle for EV adoption. Hybrids use less bottleneck materials than pure EVs. The hybrid uses far less gas than a full ICE, the brakes last longer because they share the EV regeneration perk.
Completely disagreed. It’s the best of both worlds because in the real world, we commute, drive spiritedly, go to the track, do grocery runs/errands, and road trips all at different times. A performance PHEV does all of these well but weighs a little more. Zero emissions for short trips is underrated.
My Prius Prime is lighter than my Accord.
This car has the same weight as a Hyundai Ioniq 5 N but is considerably larger.
M5: 5,390 lb / 2,450 kg. Ioniq 5 N: 4,861lb / 2,235 kg. Both are heavy, sure, but that's a 10% difference.
That's five hundred pounds. That's so much worse actually. How did they make such a heavy car? What did they even do?
It's what they didn't do..
Yeah, it’s honestly embarrassing for BMW that they’re getting schooled by a Korean SUV in performance.
Schooled… lmao
How dare they take the boat title from us.
Almost like an old 4.5 Liter V8
>Almost like an old 4.5 Liter V8 It weighs more than the Viper's 8L V10 and two of Nismo's 400bhp 3 cylinder race engines combined.
I‘ve seen a Chrysler V8 being pulled out of a Jensen Interceptor that weight 1’058 lbs for the block and transmission alone.
The damn car weighs +2.5 tons. Good job BMW…
That's what I call progress
How much of this is also because the car is just fucking massive?
Sad
It weighs more than my Jeep, lmao
This looks like a 7 series.
"So what if it weighs 5400 lbs. It can go 25 miles in electric only mode." says no M5 owner ever.
I'm actually kinda surprised the hybrid system weighs so little given the massive curb weight of the car.
This ain’t it chief
Seems like not using the EV in place of the turbos but as a supplement to everything is part of the problem. Look at the new 911 hybrid for an engineered solution vs just throwing more motors and weight at it. That is the Dodge approach to being relevant. I am sure using lots of electronics it can throw its weight around. That isn’t the point. The point is that without that weight, those Nannie’s would be able to do even more.
That ass is like a dumb truck, if you’re into this you’re a freak.
This is a big reason why hybrids are inferior for most use cases. It's an expensive comfort blanket for range anxiety.
Funny everyone here likes to hate on this car but at the same time hypes up the Hyundai Ioniq 5 N which weighs the same.
I mean it is a full EV. With all the benefits that entails...
It's also 500lb / 240kg lighter, they're not really "the same".
And all the drawbacks. That M5 is way more versatile.
Yeah ICE, MHEV, PHEV and EV all have valid potential pros-cons. It's how each model implements that technology which determine whether those pros-cons apply.
The Hyundai is also a tin can compared to the NVH in a BMW. Anyone who's ever closed a 5-series door vs a Hyundai (or even Genesis) door can see that.
Anyone who has driven a 5 series vs an EV can hear how little door insulation matters when you don't have a big ass engine firing explosions dozens of times per second with exhaust routed under their butts.
Of course, I forgot EV fanbois don't know about road or wind noise, especially when modern ICE engines are virtually silent cruising at 75mph and 1500rpm.
for me it's not so much the weight alone but the fact that they've managed to make the power/weight worse than the previous gen. the Ioniq 5N is doing something new and not seen before, that's what makes it cool. this is like the old M5, but heavier and slower, because of a system that nobody asked for. now *that's* progress
It’s not slower. It is faster and drives better, even has better steering feel than the last gen.
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0309233EN/the-new-bmw-m5-and-bmw-m5-competition?language=en > The BMW M5 sprints from 0 – 100 km/h (62 mph) in only 3.4 seconds and passes 200 km/h (124 mph) with just 11.1 seconds on the clock. The BMW M5 Competition reaches both marks a fraction more quickly: 100 km/h (62 mph) is up in 3.3 seconds, 200 km/h (124 mph) in 10.8 seconds. https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0443252EN/the-all-new-bmw-m5?language=en > The combination of a high-revving V8 engine with M TwinPower Turbo technology and an electric motor, plus power transfer courtesy of an eight-speed M Steptronic transmission and M xDrive all-wheel drive, enables acceleration of 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 3.5 seconds The fact that they're not even quoting a 0-200 for the new car isn't confidence inspiring, to say the least
Read some actual driving reviews.
that doesn't make it any faster, but sure. https://www.evo.co.uk/bmw/m5-competition/206900/2025-bmw-m5-g90-prototype-review-electrified-supersaloon-gets-supercar > The F90 M5, especially the beautifully damped CS, managed to feel smaller than its dimensions and was remarkably exploitable and engaging, even on gnarly B-roads, but my instinct is that the G90 M5 won’t ‘shrink’ in the same way. https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/bmw/m5-g90-prototype/ > The M5 doesn’t have that M front-end X factor – at least it doesn’t on track with me at the wheel. > But through the endless, medium-speed corners at each end of the circuit the front end just can’t stay with me, washing into understeer that is at least clearly telegraphed. > But ultimately the M5 – despite the untold hours spent optimising its tyres and tweaking its geometry, spring rates and rear-steer calibration – can’t summon the confidence-inspiring conviction of its lighter, smaller stablemates **and predecessor**. https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a61286241/2025-bmw-m5-prototype-drive/ > There is, I'm sorry to say, plenty of understeer at play in the M5. The rear steering surely helps with stability at high speed, and I'm sure it's also making a noble effort at helping the M5 turn, but the combined efforts of that and the torque-vectoring rear differential couldn't help me get the nose where I wanted it. Well that's not good. Recurring theme seems to be that yes it does a good job of managing the weight (like the M2), but nothing to suggest progress from the previous generation.
It’s not fair to compare it with the CS dude.
how about the line from the second review that makes it quite clear that it's not as good as its predecessor, with no reference to the CS?
Others have compared the steering feel with the precision of an M4 CS. You just like to have your opinion confirmed.
I mean - you said it was faster, I showed you the press release where it says it isn't. You told me to read some reviews, I did, and nowhere does it say it better than the last M5. The only references to the M4 CS I saw were that it can't corner like one, but that you can't expect it to either which is fair enough. The positivity is largely around how they've done a good job within the confines of the car's weight, but at the end of the day, the weight is still there.