There is evidence of ICE engineering design rules in the video (i.e., excessive use of steel.) It may take longer for VW to 'get it.' The EPA metrics for the ID.4 suggests the same (@Domenick.) Bob Wilson
I agree. The ID.4 is a nice car with a lot of features better than my Kona EV, including faster DC charging (125 kW), AC OBC 11kW and AWD version and would have more interest to me particularly with the price release information I just posted: https://insideevsforum.com/community/index.php?threads/canada-pricing-and-availability-released.10791/ however, equipped with a 82 kWh pack the range of 400 km (RWD) confirms the info on the posted video. Now if I could fit an 8' ladder in a Model Y, I could possibly be swayed Edit: it does fit in my Kona EV
If VW start listening to Munro .... et al, then they’d start building American quality products. There is a reason why consumers buy German made products .... the “sling the hash” mentality is Abhorrent to them. I have a reservation for ID.4 Pro S AWD, and would never consider a Tesla.
The video does show a compromise VW has decided to make. I personally like a good frunk, but I don't think it's something a lot of people coming from gas cars will miss. On the other hand, the MEB platform will sit under a lot of different types of vehicles and VW should have spent the extra money to engineer the empty space up front to allow for a frunk. He makes a decent point about steel in the hood and weight being the enemy of EVs, but cost is also the enemy of EV uptake so I think it's an ok compromise. Same with the hood struts. With no frunk, that's little need to open the hood, so I don't mind that it have a hood prop.
OK, the reason VW moved all that stuff out front (at the expense of a Frunk), is to give more usable interior space for driver and passengers; the reason for not using aluminum (or flimsy grade steel) for hood, back gate .... is to maintain body integrity, durability, and longevity. I’m sure VW could have shaved a good chunk of weight of their cars at the expense of safety, comfort, ... (and increased mileage), and they would have ended up with a Tesla-like product. But that’s exactly why I’m keen to get the ID.4 from Germany, not Waite for a compromised / optimized version from Tennessee. One look at the Passat made in Germany for European market and the ones designed for and made here make my point. Even the battery chemistry for the ID.4s will be different.
Looking at it, it seems like a front storage spot just wasn't part of the design brief, so they just didn't try to optimize the space under the hood. There are a lot of non-Tesla vehicles with frunks -- BMW i3, Mustang Mach-E, Lucid Air, Rivians, GMC Hummer. Lucid especially has a focus on maximizing interior. I don't think it's a big strike against the ID. 4 by any stretch. Definitely not a reason to not buy it.
Sandy Munro's latest on the ID.4: Now I'm wondering if the BEV MicroBus is going to hit with a 'thud.' Worse, "Alex Guberman" has never been high on my list of reviewers. Bob Wilson
When I picked up a company Model S from the Tesla showroom in Jan 2015, the salesman spent several minutes with me practicing closing the hood since it was so easy to warp since it was thin-ish aluminum. No idea how it is on the M3/Y. I've driven a bunch of EVs over the years (personally and for work): MS, MX, i3, XC40 Recharge, Kona EV. I never used the Frunk on any of the ones that had it. We didn't even keep the AC cable in there since in the MS, it wasn't clear it was really waterproof -- there's always a place under the load floor for it. Given the same storage volume, I'd much rather have that volume in the car, instead of under the hood. There's also just a lot of assumptions in these videos. "Oh, here's this cast aluminum strut piece. That must be a mistake." Really? There's no other explanation? I also don't really care whether VW saved money on a part or not. Overall, just seems like he drank the Teslaratti kool-aid: Tesla is awesome and and can do no wrong and if someone does it differently, its wrong.
I haven't seen all of his id4 vids yet, but I'm taking his comments with a grain of salt. I don't know suspension, but I don't know if he does either. Many of his comments are about manufacturing for lower cost, which effects VW profits more than it effects the consumer. He seemed really irritable because he hopped in a new car and tried to do a test drive video when he had a meeting to get to. That said, the UI may be crap, and the charging system has known flaws.
Mainly irritable about his inability to deal with the UI. Exactly as you observed, he’s looking for ways to have cheaper manufacturing not better product for the consumer ...... welcome to Detroit’s world. BTW, the UI is not crap, the software supporting the UI is crap. The charging system software is being sorted out as we speak, but charging speeds are actually respectable for both AC and DC (11kW, 125kW).
Maybe I'm the oddball on EVs. I don't do one-pedal driving. I don't like frunks. I don't so much care what the fast-charge rate is because it will be too slow anyway (let me know when it gets to 5 minutes of charge for 2-3 hours of driving).
The first model year of any car will have a lot of 'infantile problems.' Traditional automakers don't fix them until the second year and sometimes years later (aka. VW diesels.) All things considered: sycophant reviewers - perhaps trying to make sure they get 'press cars', they often have limited engineering depth and are easily impressed by 'sheet metal' art. comparison reviewers - next level up like Edmunds and Car And Driver, they have A-to-B reviews and sometime more vehicles taken over the same route. The EPA is the gold standard because they document the procedures and share engineering data often not found in other sources. For example, the EPA publishes roll-down coefficients for all vehicles. teardown reviewers - Sandy Munro is not the only one but they literally tear the car down to the base parts and review the costs in labor and material. A typical report will cost ~$100,000. So I remain in the Sandy Munro camp because his team know how to costing. That others may not understand Munro is no really Sandy's problem. Bob Wilson
Hello all: Engineer here w/ some admittedly EV Noob Engineering & Design questions specifically re: ID.4. All Qs were precipitated by Munro's "Jumper" discussion starting at 10:10 in movie in the OP. 1) On ID.4 are the onboard DC systems "grounded" using the chassis as the reference "negative"; standard in ICE designs? 2) On ID.4, if the answer to #1 is "yes" is the chassis commonly used as a negative conductor; as is also standard in ICE designs? 3) On ID.4 do the various auxiliaries accessories still generally operate at the "standard automotive " 12 VDC? -- and lastly -- 4) In Monro's "Jumper" discussion, what what would be the purpose of the 12 VDC jumper cables he's attaching? If the EV has no 12 VDC, I can only assume it's because it's main battery is "flatlined" and has gone into some sort of "conserve" mode such that it's no longer feeding the low-voltage / aux DC systems. In this case, one might think that nothing significant is going to happen until AC [or Fast DC] is re-applied via the charging connection to re-power the onboard rectifiers to charge the battery AND create aux DC. Please help me to "get up on the governor" here. Signed, "Listed" for AWD in Chattanooga
All EVs have two battery systems. First there is the high voltage battery which drives the traction motor and some other smaller motors and pumps. That system is completely isolated and is not grounded to the chassis for safety reasons. Second there is a 12 volt battery along with a DC to DC converter which charges the 12 v battery form the high voltage battery and runs accessories while driving. It is negative grounded to the chassis and is the same as an ICE. All of the standard accessories are 12 volts, including lights, wipers, door locks, window motors. heater fans, etc. EV occasionally have the 12 volt battery go dead from various causes. Like doors not being fully closed. If it does go dead you can't start the car without jumping the 12v battery. A lot of us on the forum carry a small jumper pack to start the car in case of a dead 12v battery. Once the car is started the high voltage battery charges the 12v battery and your good to drive the car.
Fastnf: Thank you for the very complete and informative reply. I fully understand the design imperative to NOT allow the main traction motor battery to be run-down by a low-VA - but extended-duration - Aux power draw. But I'm a bit surprised that there isn't a "built-in / under-the hood" mechanism to allow temporary utilization of the HV system to power-up the DC-to-DC converter to "self-jumper" the 12 VDC Aux system. That said, I'm sure there is a good technical rationale; I suspect it's all related to having the 12 VDC Aux (control power) to begin with. [An EV take on the "Chicken or Egg" paradox] Thanks again.
It is a good question. Mostly it boils down to a lack of monitoring and control. You don't want to energize the HV power rails (let power out of the battery) until you are sure the battery is healthy... and you can't check that the battery is healthy without the 12V rail working. So the relays that let power out of the battery are meant to be powered externally. This has other benefits like making the battery safer for shipping and maintenance. I did once design BMS components that were powered internally by the battery, but this results is constant vampire drain on the battery, and the little converters aren't efficient. Also, you still need a way to get 12V power outside the battery to power up the rest of the car systems, that those big DC-DC converters tend to have much worse quiescent (vampire) loads.
Aha ... there's the answer !!! I should have thought of this myself ... [Doh !] ... as I'm presently working at a 2.0 MW / 3.0 MWH Li-ion Battery Energy Storage project. And we can't discharge a single electron out of the battery w/o FIRST having 24 VDC Aux control power to close the Battery Protection Unit [BPU] output relays.
