[Jason]

In case you've missed it earlier, here are some of the highlights of the G01 X3 - both inter-model differences and compared to the outgoing F25 X3.

[Max Well]

Thank you for sharing this, Jason - very helpful.

Just one point of clarification regarding the Coefficient of Drag ('Cx') shown here. While/whilst it is indeed reported to be 0.29 in the base models, in the M40i it is actually 0.33, and since the same blue paint color is shown in the top and bottom X3s, and the top one shows the M40i emblem, it seems natural to make the connection that this is what the M40i has (I even did initially).

Although this seems like quibbling, it actually does make a distinct difference in the performance curves of the M40i at high speed (not that many of us will be able to have that opportunity to experience such).

I ran the Simulation with a Cd of 0.29 instead of the actual 0.33, and for sake of brevity I won't attach the graph unless anyone wishes to see it. As expected the 0-60 mph time doesn't change as flow dynamics aren't as prominent at this lower speed profile, but by around 110 mph the curves begin diverging, and instead of a Top speed at 88 sec of 157.9 mph and total distance of travel of 17,504 feet, those values become 164.2 mph at 17,990 feet.

It would have been nice to have that Cx (Cd) in our M40i, though!

[Arcades]

I'm really liking the new X3...

[Crashnbrn5]

Originally Posted by Max Well

Thank you for sharing this, Jason - very helpful.

Just one point of clarification regarding the Coefficient of Drag ('Cx') shown here. While/whilst it is indeed reported to be 0.29 in the base models, in the M40i it is actually 0.33, and since the same blue paint color is shown in the top and bottom X3s, and the top one shows the M40i emblem, it seems natural to make the connection that this is what the M40i has (I even did initially).

Although this seems like quibbling, it actually does make a distinct difference in the performance curves of the M40i at high speed (not that many of us will be able to have that opportunity to experience such).

I ran the Simulation with a Cd of 0.29 instead of the actual 0.33, and for sake of brevity I won't attach the graph unless anyone wishes to see it. As expected the 0-60 mph time doesn't change as flow dynamics aren't as prominent at this lower speed profile, but by around 110 mph the curves begin diverging, and instead of a Top speed at 88 sec of 157.9 mph and total distance of travel of 17,504 feet, those values become 164.2 mph at 17,990 feet.

It would have been nice to have that Cx (Cd) in our M40i, though!

You are always the smartest Max. Remember the wish list we made back 18 months ago. You should compare that list to the reality. Let us all know.

But yes .33 drag is not good compared to an amazing .29

[3M TAPE]

Why would you compare top of the line new model X3 with regular old model X3?

marketing people...

[M3anPower]

Originally Posted by Max Well

Thank you for sharing this, Jason - very helpful.

Just one point of clarification regarding the Coefficient of Drag ('Cx') shown here. While/whilst it is indeed reported to be 0.29 in the base models, in the M40i it is actually 0.33, and since the same blue paint color is shown in the top and bottom X3s, and the top one shows the M40i emblem, it seems natural to make the connection that this is what the M40i has (I even did initially).

Although this seems like quibbling, it actually does make a distinct difference in the performance curves of the M40i at high speed (not that many of us will be able to have that opportunity to experience such).

I ran the Simulation with a Cd of 0.29 instead of the actual 0.33, and for sake of brevity I won't attach the graph unless anyone wishes to see it. As expected the 0-60 mph time doesn't change as flow dynamics aren't as prominent at this lower speed profile, but by around 110 mph the curves begin diverging, and instead of a Top speed at 88 sec of 157.9 mph and total distance of travel of 17,504 feet, those values become 164.2 mph at 17,990 feet.

It would have been nice to have that Cx (Cd) in our M40i, though!

Good catch. So the "M inspired" vehicle got more drag than the regular X3? BMW, if you're seeing this I bought the M3 over C63S for one reason, which is everything in the car is function and not form, but this.... what do I know.

[JRobUSC]

Originally Posted by ///M1990

Good catch. So the "M inspired" vehicle got more drag than the regular X3? BMW, if you're seeing this I bought the M3 over C63S for one reason, which is everything in the car is function and not form, but this.... what do I know.

Yes, the higher performance model will often have a higher drag coefficient, as the fenders are flared, there are scoops and intakes directing air different places, it has wider tires than the base model, etc. Your M3, for example, has a higher drag coefficient than a 320 (0.34 vs. 0.26). In fact, at 0.34 your M3 has a higher drag coefficient than the X3 M40i. So the X3 M40 is pretty low, it just happens that the X3 30i is extremely low.

[BarlasaM]

Originally Posted by ///M1990

Good catch. So the "M inspired" vehicle got more drag than the regular X3? BMW, if you're seeing this I bought the M3 over C63S for one reason, which is everything in the car is function and not form, but this.... what do I know.

I am not a 100% sure, but this variation could be because the M-Performance model might not have the Active Kidney Grills, and also if you see the front bumper of the M40i, it has larger air intake opening for additional cooling, that will definitely add a bit more drag.

[BarlasaM]

Originally Posted by JRobUSC

Yes, the higher performance model will often have a higher drag coefficient, as the fenders are flared, there are scoops and intakes directing air different places, it has wider tires than the base model, etc. Your M3, for example, has a higher drag coefficient than a 320 (0.34 vs. 0.26). In fact, at 0.34 your M3 has a higher drag coefficient than the X3 M40i. So the X3 M40 is pretty low, it just happens that the X3 30i is extremely low.

Yea what he said......

[JJSchmooze]

I just don't understand the front-end, especially the kidney grille-headlight junction. I thought style continuity was desired and the predecessor actually shows the new direction of having the kidney grill meet the headlamp on the lateral sides.

Why go back to a separation and have a design that is not fluid throughout the brand???

[bjcarls]

Anyone else get a laugh on how many (option)'s are used

Drag and efficiency is more than just a .cd number that the makers publish.

[bimmercar]

still not as nice as macan

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

M Sport wheels look good. What the heck is light carpet?

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by JRobUSC

Yes, the higher performance model will often have a higher drag coefficient, as the fenders are flared, there are scoops and intakes directing air different places, it has wider tires than the base model, etc. Your M3, for example, has a higher drag coefficient than a 320 (0.34 vs. 0.26). In fact, at 0.34 your M3 has a higher drag coefficient than the X3 M40i. So the X3 M40 is pretty low, it just happens that the X3 30i is extremely low.

And this seemed counterintuitive to me as I was first researching this field a few years ago [while trying to understand how the larger X5 (which had just come out and had a better Cd than our X3 LCI) had better gas mileage numbers]. But it does make sense that these larger engines do need different air flow patterns, and at higher speeds surfaces probably do have to be present to provide more down force, thereby producing more drag.

What does seem to be one area other Mnfrs are addressing, however, is 'active ride height adjustment' by air suspension whereby a vehicle can be lowered at speed to reduce underbody drag, which if I recall correctly, accounts for up to 20% of a vehicle's drag. That BMW has not developed this technology for their line-up suggests to me that it may be fraught with repair/stabilization/... issues, or conflicts with their current xDr systems.

I am attaching what the speed differences are for the M40i in the Sim in a small sample showing usual highway speeds. This is nowhere close to what Automotive Engineers have at their disposal and I do not wish to imply such, but it at least illustrates how a lower Cd may benefit fuel efficiency.

A 2/10 mph difference early on is shown, with every other variable being identical in the calculations, and this difference increases with speed, so it would suggest this lower Cd should allow for improved fuel consumption. It would seem BMW and all other vehicle Mnfrs (including firms producing trucks) are looking at ways to maximize fuel economy without sacrificing performance, so an interesting future awaits, especially as hybrid and E systems continue their maturation.

[antzcrashing]

Bmw grills getting bigger and bigger, looks stupid

[brissim]

Thanks for this additional information and photos. Sort of answers one question I did have is that finally a picture of the underfloor storage area. Unfortunately doesn't look big enough to hold a space-saver spare tyre as the bin in the F48 X1 does. Another disappointment.

Tony

[BALL3N]

Originally Posted by JRobUSC

Yes, the higher performance model will often have a higher drag coefficient, as the fenders are flared, there are scoops and intakes directing air different places, it has wider tires than the base model, etc. Your M3, for example, has a higher drag coefficient than a 320 (0.34 vs. 0.26). In fact, at 0.34 your M3 has a higher drag coefficient than the X3 M40i. So the X3 M40 is pretty low, it just happens that the X3 30i is extremely low.

Look at a solar powered vehicle challenge racer and a DTM race car and you will see a vast difference in design. Though reducing drag-to a point-can help make a car fast, reducing lift and increasing grip do more to enhance racing performance than improving coefficient of drag. Wide tires increase turbulent airflow under the car-not just increase rolling resistance. An "aero" body kit reduces air under the body and reduces lift but doesn't reduce drag. You choose your priorities and spec accordingly. My 330e has M Sport and staggered performance tires. I knew it was less efficient but I enjoy the irony too.

[stylinexpat]

Originally Posted by bimmercar

still not as nice as macan

I have a Macan GTS. Be prepared for constant stops at the fuel pumps

[Zirenz2006]

Originally Posted by brissim

Thanks for this additional information and photos. Sort of answers one question I did have is that finally a picture of the underfloor storage area. Unfortunately doesn't look big enough to hold a space-saver spare tyre as the bin in the F48 X1 does. Another disappointment.

Tony

Space saving spare is an option.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by Crashnbrn5

Remember the wish list we made back 18 months ago. You should compare that list to the reality. Let us all know.

Thanks, Crash. I was thinking that the other day when I thanked all the Contributors on the 'Wish List'. It seems like just yesterday I started that thread but here we are, three years later!

I do plan on making a checklist once the BMW website has the G01 up and running with all of the options and when I get a chance to see one in person. Whether they were planning on certain changes regardless, or whether they did review the list from time to time to read our concerns is unclear, but it does seem on initial analysis that a fair number of our 'wishes' were granted.

I like to think the latter which, if true, suggests they are interested in listening to their customer base and bodes well for the future.

[SamS]

Surprised that's there's not any mention of the 48V electrical system, as found in all Gxx models?

Also, is there no CFRP in the G01? I thought the reason for the shorten lifecycle of the F15/F16 was so they could upgrade Spartanburg to support the fact that all Gxx X-models that have(?) an intensive CFRP chassis.

[bimmercar]

Originally Posted by stylinexpat

I have a Macan GTS. Be prepared for constant stops at the fuel pumps

haha... i know. and it has bigger gas tank than x3