X3/X4 [Official] The All-New 2014 BMW X4

[Sank_ch]

You may be interested to know that the x4 catalog (27 pages) is now online on bmw.de
Here is the direct link to the pdf file
http://www.bmw.de/dam/brandBM/marke...BMW_X4_Katalog.pdf.download.1395046736232.pdf

 

[EnI]

Versus Evoque ...

 

[SKY]

The Evoque roof style is what german brands should go after, instead of the Sanyong Action style like the X4/X6.

 

[SCOTT27]

The Evoque roof style is what german brands should go after, instead of the Sanyong Action style like the X4/X6.

Sport Activity Coupe. Its apparently the same idea Mercedes and Porsche (yes Porsche) will follow for their Coupe's.
Yes the next generation Cayenne is to get a Coupe model also.

 

[Sayyaaf]

Evoque is over rated. Looks ok in fotos but crushed IRL. X4 is much better as complete package, including design if you wish.

 

[Sank_ch]

The Evoque roof style is what german brands should go after, instead of the Sanyong Action style like the X4/X6.

hi Sky, if the Evoque roof style is a priority in the choice of purchasing a new car, don't you think that the X3 will be then a better choice over the X4?

 

[Kilcrohane]

The Evoque roof style is what german brands should go after, instead of the Sanyong Action style like the X4/X6.

it's SsangYong Actyon.

The reason 'german brands' go for the implied naff Korean-look thing is not because McGovern and co. at JLR are design gods but because German cars have to be able to be driven at autobahn speeds.

The falling roof line is necessary for aero efficiency - approaching a teardrop shape. Yes you can drive a brick-shaped vehicle at 250 km/h and even higher, but the penalty is massively increased fuel usage, wind buffeting and wind noise.

Go to any Evoque owners forum and you'll read of owners complaining about fuel economy at the relatively low speeds of UK motorways. Once above 60 mph particularly, thanks to its dreadful aero drag real world Cd 0.35 plus, and not just its real-world 4,000 lb plus weight, the Evoque hits an aero brick wall, with even the 150 hp 4-cyl. diesel struggling to do more than 35 mpg on a 70 mph average run. Put the same car on an autobahn, at 150 km/h average, and the fuel economy and wind noise is unbearable.

As pleasing to the eye as this sloping roof may be, for the Evoque, R/R Sport and MINI Paceman, it is really an unsaid acknowledgement that these products are just fashion statements, bought in the main by women, like designer handbags, but are not serious high-speed sports vehicles. Their domain is cities, like London, not high-speed routes, where they out themselves as naff and faux.

 

[Serpens]

it's SsangYong Actyon.

The reason 'german brands' go for the implied naff Korean-look thing is not because McGovern and co. at JLR are design gods but because German cars have to be able to be driven at autobahn speeds.

The falling roof line is necessary for aero efficiency - approaching a teardrop shape. Yes you can drive a brick-shaped vehicle at 250 km/h and even higher, but the penalty is massively increased fuel usage, wind buffeting and wind noise.

I laughed a little at this post. I understand that you have an anti-JLR stance, but let's be serious that is not the motivation behind this shape. If that was the case the X6 would be seeing better fuel economy than the comparable X5, which it does not.

 

[Kilcrohane]

I laughed a little at this post. I understand that you have an anti-JLR stance, but let's be serious that is not the motivation behind this shape. If that was the case the X6 would be seeing better fuel economy than the comparable X5, which it does not.

so you think aero drag and the influence of the shape of the object moving through the air is a myth?

Are you referring to NEDC* when you say the X6 and X5 fuel economy is comparable? Then you will know that for this test vehicles are not driven above 120 km/h, and that for only 10 seconds, and of course all of this is usually performed in a lab, closed to wind gusts, with rollers substituting for dead-ahead aero drag.

Even an Evoque can manage to cleave through air reasonably at up to around 60 mph/100 km/h. It is at over 60 mph that aero drag really begins to take effect, not just on aero drag, but also high speed stability due to wind buffeting - non laminar air flow, eddy shedding and turbulent air flow from the rear and so on - and resultant wind noise felt by occupants, which is why Korean, sorry, German - Sky's hilarious joke! - vehicles are designed and engineered to withstand 250 km/h easily and efficiently, which requires an aerodynamic design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

 

[Deckhook]

The Evoque roof style is what german brands should go after, instead of the Sanyong Action style like the X4/X6.

It's nice to see a different approach instead of carbon copies of each other but my only negative towards the X4/6 design is proper boot usability, in my opinion you can still make something look sporty within resorting to a sloped roof line.

 

[EnI]

Cd (air drag coefficient) is just a one part of the AIR RESISTANCE formula (Cd * A) - the other part is the "A": the frontal area (usually given in m2).

For X4 the Cd is 0.33 or 0.35 (depends on specific model: eg. 0.33 for 20i, and 0.35 for 35d), and the A is 2.57m2 in all cases. Resulting in Air resistance of 0,8481 to 0,8995.

RR Evoqe has a Cd value of 0.35 or 0.36 (depends on being a 3dr or a 5dr model). While A value is not given by LandRover.

So, the drag coefficient isn't that much different.

BUT ... given the Evoque is a bit wider & taller than X4 (although being much shorter) I assume the A value is actually bigger on Evoque than on X4 - therefore resulting in worse air resistance values versus the X4. But not that much.

Cd ... the wedgey shape isn't the most important factor for low Cd - the biggest losses are usually made in the car's floor pan (the flatter & smoother it is, the better Cd is), in the front wheel areas, and around air intakes (especially the one in the grille - eg. therefore active grille flaps contribute to better Cd) , and also around side mirrors.

Much more than a general shape of the car the aero flaps are important - either being the ones integrated in the front (bottom & sides of the bumper) or in the back (bottom / sides of the bumper, roof end, tail end etc).

There was a pics somewhere (I guess it was by MB) where it was showed how much certain parts of the car contribute to the Cd. And the floor pan was like 30% or something. And the general shape was only 20% or so.

So, the roof design is not as important as it seem - especially today with (active) aerodynamic flaps added to the areas to compensate the visually less aerodynamic shape.

Btw, therefore some SUVs have same or even better Cd values than eg sedans etc.

 

[EnI]

It's nice to see a different approach instead of carbon copies of each other but my only negative towards the X4/6 design is proper boot usability, in my opinion you can still make something look sporty within resorting to a sloped roof line.

Boot usability is comparable to a hatchback, and it's better than the one in a sedan.
Sure it's not as usable for transporting tall boxy objects (for which an SAV or a wagon are more appropriate transporters) or a pet.
But for transporting bags, suitcases & baby trolleys ... Normally useful.
The only drawback is the deep floor (just like in a hatch or a sedan) - not being flat as in wagon or an SAV.

So, if you want to transport a pet or large/high boxy objects then SAC certainly isn't a good choice - just like Sedan isn't, or (small) hatch, or Gran Turismo (Progressive Activity Sedan).

But mind all those niche vehicles are more a fashion statement & more about form then function (when compared to more practical vehicles in the same segment). Sure eg. GT is perhaps less practical than a Touring, but it's more practical than Sedan! Sure GC is less practical than Sedan but more practical than 2dr Coupe. Sure SAC is less practical than an SAV but ... Still it's boot is HUGE. C'mon, X4 can still accommodate 500-1,400 liters of load in its boot (X6: 570 - 1,450 liters) yet not tall boxy objects though.

So, for someone who needs normal boot space but likes the commanding driving position & an exotic + sporty shape, SAC is a perfect choice. Although being less practical than a wagon, a GT or an SAV ... But for some style & commanding sitting position & bigger exclusivity outweigh the practicality issues - but still the SACs are still practical enough for normal use.

I'm a fan of SACs - although I find them all too big. I'm waiting for a smaller one. Something in Nissan Juke / Paceman size would be nice - without all the neoretro or space-fashion styling.

 

[Deckhook]

@EnI I don't disagree with anything you wrote above but it doesn't answer what I said, "my opinion you can still make something look sporty without resorting to a sloped roof line". To me the Evoque still looks sporty despite it's roof line continuing to the back of the car though due to packaging that boot isn't that great.

 

[klier]

@EnI I don't disagree with anything you wrote above but it doesn't answer what I said, "my opinion you can still make something look sporty without resorting to a sloped roof line". To me the Evoque still looks sporty despite it's roof line continuing to the back of the car though due to packaging that boot isn't that great.

Why don't you go talk about the Evoque in the Evoque thread?

Keep that ugly thing with retarded name out of this thread. I'm hearing that name waaayy too often.

 

[EnI]

@EnI I don't disagree with anything you wrote above but it doesn't answer what I said, "my opinion you can still make something look sporty without resorting to a sloped roof line". To me the Evoque still looks sporty despite it's roof line continuing to the back of the car though due to packaging that boot isn't that great.

It's all about product strategy & what you can do and can afford to develop & produce.

Therefore BMW, MB, Audi will offer 2 models: a regular more boxy & utilitarian SAV + a coupeish SAC.
While others like RR, Porsche, Alfa Romeo, Jaguar, Maserati etc offer one model only - looking like a very sporty SAV, with rakish roof & rounded tail.

X4 just wouldn't work along X3 with just a bit rakish roof yet still SAV-like tail (although a bit rakish & rounded). There would be not enough difference. I guess X3 sales would suffer quite a bit. So, one of the models would be completely redundant.

While current strategy works: a more utilitarian SAV + a totally coupeish SAC. The sales overlap just slightly - since both models are so different in character ... despite sharing almost the same front & similar / same character lines, not to mention the same interior.

The formula just works.

Sporty ... what's sportier ... a more aggressive looking regular sedan or a 4dr coupe. I guess still the 4dr coupe looks sportier ... although to many the aggressive sedan is just sporty enough + more useful.
So, it's all up to individual customer: what (s)he likes, needs, desires, wants, expects, dreams etc

 

[Deckhook]

Why don't you go talk about the Evoque in the Evoque thread?

Keep that ugly thing with retarded name out of this thread. I'm hearing that name waaayy too often.

You could also point the finger at Scott if you want to go down that route as he always posts BMW related stuff on just about every other thread. Oh and BTW I didn't bring this up first so direct your comments else where.

 

[Deckhook]

It's all about product strategy & what you can do and can afford to develop & produce.

Therefore BMW, MB, Audi will offer 2 models: a regular more boxy & utilitarian SAV + a coupeish SAC.
While others like RR, Porsche, Alfa Romeo, Jaguar, Maserati etc offer one model only - looking like a very sporty SAV, with rakish roof & rounded tail.

X4 just wouldn't work along X3 with just a bit rakish roof yet still SAV-like tail (although a bit rakish & rounded). There would be not enough difference. I guess X3 sales would suffer quite a bit. So, one of the models would be completely redundant.

While current strategy works: a more utilitarian SAV + a totally coupeish SAC. The sales overlap just slightly - since both models are so different in character ... despite sharing almost the same front & similar / same character lines, not to mention the same interior.

The formula just works.

Sporty ... what's sportier ... a more aggressive looking regular sedan or a 4dr coupe. I guess still the 4dr coupe looks sportier ... although to many the aggressive sedan is just sporty enough + more useful.
So, it's all up to individual customer: what (s)he likes, needs, desires, wants, expects, dreams etc

No doubt it work all I was commenting on was my own personal opinion.

 

[Deckhook]

Versus Evoque ...

In this comparison the X4 looks the more athletic but it's the Evoque which looks the most aggressive though this might be down to the black roof and rims.

 

[Serpens]

Cd (air drag coefficient) is just a one part of the AIR RESISTANCE formula (Cd * A) - the other part is the "A": the frontal area (usually given in m2).

For X4 the Cd is 0.33 or 0.35 (depends on specific model: eg. 0.33 for 20i, and 0.35 for 35d), and the A is 2.57m2 in all cases. Resulting in Air resistance of 0,8481 to 0,8995.

RR Evoqe has a Cd value of 0.35 or 0.36 (depends on being a 3dr or a 5dr model). While A value is not given by LandRover.

So, the drag coefficient isn't that much different.

BUT ... given the Evoque is a bit wider & taller than X4 (although being much shorter) I assume the A value is actually bigger on Evoque than on X4 - therefore resulting in worse air resistance values versus the X4. But not that much.

Cd ... the wedgey shape isn't the most important factor for low Cd - the biggest losses are usually made in the car's floor pan (the flatter & smoother it is, the better Cd is), in the front wheel areas, and around air intakes (especially the one in the grille - eg. therefore active grille flaps contribute to better Cd) , and also around side mirrors.

Much more than a general shape of the car the aero flaps are important - either being the ones integrated in the front (bottom & sides of the bumper) or in the back (bottom / sides of the bumper, roof end, tail end etc).

There was a pics somewhere (I guess it was by MB) where it was showed how much certain parts of the car contribute to the Cd. And the floor pan was like 30% or something. And the general shape was only 20% or so.

So, the roof design is not as important as it seem - especially today with (active) aerodynamic flaps added to the areas to compensate the visually less aerodynamic shape.

Btw, therefore some SUVs have same or even better Cd values than eg sedans etc.

Thanks for clearing this up. Great post. So essentially the X4's shape is driven by the need for a style difference from the X3, which is exactly what I originally suspected. It's not a bad thing, so no knock on BMW for that.

 

[EnI]

In this comparison the X4 looks the more athletic but it's the Evoque which looks the most aggressive though this might be down to the black roof and rims.

Yep. The M-Sport exterior trim is tricky ... massive front bumpers in full body color, whell arches & rocker panels in body color etc. In some color cases the X4 looks a bit too heavy. Eg. IMHO the best looking trim is the X-Line - featuring black parts + alu parts - so the look is less monotone.

What will look best IMO: white X4 M-Sport with some M Performance parts: with dark trim parts on the front (grille) & the side (rocker panel & side mirrors).

X4 also needs (it's mandatory for the car to looks superb) biggest wheels & LED headlights (much sharper & much more aggressive graphics).

The "problem" with such stylish BMW models is they are also usually offered in base "pedestrian" versions: with small wheels, halogen headlights etc