Still want an EV?

[shawnhayes]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Yep. I have a 19kw Tesla solar roof (the solar shingles-- not the panels) and 4 powerwalls, with zero regrets. The power grid can go offline indefinitely, and nothing about my house changes-- with no generator noise/upkeep/fueling.

...And when the grid's not offline, I get a check for $300-400 per month from the electric company, and have no gas/oil bill.

Hard to argue with this. How much did that system cost?

Shawn

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by shawnhayes

Hard to argue with this. How much did that system cost?

Shawn

$125,000, but that includes the roof.

... and then 26% of it was a tax rebate.

If you figure my roof otherwise would have been $50,000, and subtract the tax rebate, it cost me $42,500 beyond a normal roof.

Subtract a whole house generator cost from there (which I didn't get because this serves the same function), and it cost me $30,000.

... and $30,000 is a pretty fast payback period with no electric bill, no gas/oil bill, all of our EV charge bill, and the electric company writing me checks every month.

[Obioban]

For context of the electric company writing me a check each month, I'm on net metering with this as my price structure:



So, when the grid is online, this is how my house works

I charge the car and house batteries every night at super off peak-- so I pay $0.03 per kwh.

I drain the powerwalls to 20% into the grid every day, at peak pricing-- so I get paid $0.23 per kwh from the batteries. The powerwalls are smart enough to distribute the drain so they hit 20% at 6pm-- so any power we actually use during that time come from our own batteries. Our water heater is also programmed to avoid heating water during peak pricing. In short, that's ~43kwh/day just from the batteries charging overnight at super off peak and discharging on peak-- so $8.60 per day from that

In addition, much of my 19kw of solar production occurs during peak pricing-- so I'm generating 10-19 kw per hour in that period off solar when it's sunny-- ~45kwh per day when sunny, so ~$10 per day from that (on sunny days).

Combined, we get paid $250-400/month from the electric company, even with all our utilities being electric and most of our miles being on an electric car.
(this was what I meant earlier when I said it's tricky to calculate what the i3 actually costs us to drive)

I limit the battery discharge to 20% for two reasons:
1) batteries wear much faster if deeply discharged, and 20% seems to be a reasonable stop point to avoid that
2) if there's an unexpected power outage, I don't want to be without power. 20% of 4 powerwalls is generally enough to always get me through until the suns out to recharge them again.

The powerwalls have a feature called "storm watch". If weather is such that a blackout is more likely, they will fully charge themselves off the grid so that they're ready at 100%.


When the grid is offline, the house functions as you'd expect-- charges from the sun, uses power from the batteries. In the case of extreme cold and no sun, I do have a wood stove for backup heat, but that has not yet come up. The Tesla roof has a warming/self clearing function, so you don't have to worry about that.

[shawnhayes]

Originally Posted by Obioban

$125,000, but that includes the roof.

... and then 26% of it was a tax rebate.

If you figure my roof otherwise would have been $50,000, and subtract the tax rebate, it cost me $42,500 beyond a normal roof.

Subtract a whole house generator cost from there (which I didn't get because this serves the same function), and it cost me $30,000.

... and $30,000 is a pretty fast payback period with no electric bill, no gas/oil bill, all of our EV charge bill, and the electric company writing me checks every month.

Everyone has to do the math where they are. My coming system will be $88,000 with one PowerWall, but is panels. I just had a $9,000 roof put on, and panels are supposedly more efficient than the shingles.

But a $50,000 roof where you live? Sheesh. Either your roofers are driving really nice cars, or you have a really big house, or both.

Shawn

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by shawnhayes

Everyone has to do the math where they are. My coming system will be $88,000 with one PowerWall, but is panels. I just had a $9,000 roof put on, and panels are supposedly more efficient than the shingles.

But a $50,000 roof where you live? Sheesh. Either your roofers are driving really nice cars, or you have a really big house, or both.

Shawn

I wasn't comparing to asphalt shingles, as that's not what I would have otherwise used. Had we not gone with the Solar roof, it would have been either slate (probably this) or metal.

[x3sm]

Originally Posted by Obioban

$125,000, but that includes the roof.

... and then 26% of it was a tax rebate.

If you figure my roof otherwise would have been $50,000, and subtract the tax rebate, it cost me $42,500 beyond a normal roof.

Subtract a whole house generator cost from there (which I didn't get because this serves the same function), and it cost me $30,000.

... and $30,000 is a pretty fast payback period with no electric bill, no gas/oil bill, all of our EV charge bill, and the electric company writing me checks every month.

125k with installation? Including all necessary street lines? Also what is the shelf life on the batteries?

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Just no.

EPS in the F22 (and all bmws) is garbage, turbo engine dynamics are boring and annoying, and you get much less useable space in a similarly sized car in the F22 than e90 (meaningful because smaller cars always drive better, all else equal, but practical needs exist).

Somewhat disagree. I owned an E90 335i N54 ZSP, Z4M, and M2 Comp. The E90 328i loaners I would get for service were not good. The N52 engine is one of the least inspiring engines BMW has ever put in a passenger car - it's fine but not exciting at all and lacks torque. It just has very little character. The best non-M E9x engine was the turbo by a mile. The suspension harshness vs handling capability tradeoff in E90/E92 were also pretty bad, even if you ditched the RFTs.

I know what you mean about the turbos and the steering in some ways, but the regular E9x steering was already a step down from E46 and is faux-heavy. I find the M2 Comp steering to be overall as good as the regular E9x, but different. I can't comment about E92 M3 because I don't have enough time in one to judge it. Frankly, the Z4M destroys all of them in most categories, but you already knew that. I would definitely take an F22 M235i over an E90 328i or 330i. It might be a question against an N54 335i. The E82 135i N54 is what I would pick of that era anyway if we're talking non-M cars.

Engines I've driven, excluding the V8s:

S54 > S55 > B58 > N54 > N55 > N20 = N52

The manuals in all of them suck in different ways but the Z4M was the least bad. I suspect M2C will be best after installing an SSK and CDV delete.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by x3sm

125k with installation? Including all necessary street lines? Also what is the shelf life on the batteries?

I'm not running any unusual lines from the street for this setup, so I did not include that in my solar/battery cost.

Yes, that price included install.

So, of that, the batteries are $7500 each (free install with solar roof), minus 26% tax rebate = $22,000.

Batteries are warrantied for 10 year, so that's their shortest possible life.

That is part of why I'm doing the charge when cheap, drain into grid when expensive thing, though-- batteries do age out, so they need to pay for themselves before then. At $8.60/day, I'm break even on the batteries in 7 years, so everything beyond that is gravy.

I expect them to be considerably cheaper by the time they need replacement:



I think it's also reasonable to compare the battery expense to a whole home generator, which never breaks even, requires service, requires fuel, and is annoying when running (though much less annoying then not having power)... and, in my experience, often doesn't actually turn on when needed.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by chris719

Somewhat disagree. I owned an E90 335i N54 ZSP, Z4M, and M2 Comp. The E90 328i loaners I would get for service were not good. The N52 engine is one of the least inspiring engines BMW has ever put in a passenger car - it's fine but not exciting at all and lacks torque. It just has very little character. The best non-M E9x engine was the turbo by a mile. The suspension harshness vs handling capability tradeoff in E90/E92 were also pretty bad, even if you ditched the RFTs.

I know what you mean about the turbos and the steering in some ways, but the regular E9x steering was already a step down from E46 and is faux-heavy. I find the M2 Comp steering to be overall as good as the regular E9x, but different. I can't comment about E92 M3 because I don't have enough time in one to judge it. Frankly, the Z4M destroys all of them in most categories, but you already knew that. I would definitely take an F22 M235i over an E90 328i or 330i. It might be a question against an N54 335i. The E82 135i N54 is what I would pick of that era anyway if we're talking non-M cars.

Engines I've driven, excluding the V8s:

S54 > S55 > B58 > N54 > N55 > N20 = N52

The manuals in all of them suck in different ways but the Z4M was the least bad. I suspect M2C will be best after installing an SSK and CDV delete.

IMO the last car BMW made with a truly great driving experience potential was the 128i.

The N52 came in a lot of specs and chassis-- from 174hp to 268hp, and in chassis from 3050 to 4300 lbs. So, you can come away from it with a lot of varied experiences.

But, in the 128i in particular-- if you add BMW's 3 stage disa (from a higher trim N52), headers, and a tune, you're at 300 factory reliable NA BMW horsepower in a i6 that weights freaking 328 lbs. Almost 150 lbs ligher than an S54! I'd kill for that kind of weight off the nose of my M3!

Combine that engine with a properly optioned 128i, and you have a car that is 3050 lbs stock- and sub 3000 lbs with just runflat delete and light weight wheels.

Add M3 subframe bushings, so the body is actually connected to the suspension, and you have a great driving little car. More factory mods possible if you want more, beyond that-- all the M3 control arms are bolt on, as done on 1M.

128i steering is great as stock-- none of the fake heaviness stuff they did on the e9X.

135i is a 300+ lb penalty over 128i, and all the turbo engine dynamics I don't want.

But, yeah, put a low factory trim N52 (e.g. the 228hp one in the e9X 328i) into a heavy chassis (sadly the e9X is a fairly heavy chassis-- e60 is only 72 lbs heavier optioned like for like), and I could see why you came away not overly impressed.

The suspension harshness vs handling capability tradeoff in E90/E92 were also pretty bad, even if you ditched the RFTs.

This is the stock subframe bushings in the e9X non M. They just ruin the handling, especially once you ditch the RFTs that they're there to hide. Replacing them with M3 subframe bushings brings the entire chassis up the the level of non M BMWs before e9X.

The manuals in all of them suck in different ways but the Z4M was the least bad. I suspect M2C will be best after installing an SSK and CDV delete.

I suspect you'd like the N52 manual. Manuals from the same manufacturer generally have shift feel inverse to how much torque they're rated to handle. The Z4M was exceptionally good because they couldn't physically fit the 420g, with its higher torque rating, from the M3 (which was over rated, but does make it nigh indestructible, so... track offs)-- so they used the 330i manual instead. The N52 manuals are similarly low rated, and feel great as a result.

Engines I've driven, excluding the V8s:

S54 > S55 > B58 > N54 > N55 > N20 = N52

You should drive some more NA M engines

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by Obioban

IMO the last car BMW made with a truly great driving experience potential was the 128i.

The N52 came in a lot of specs and chassis-- from 174hp to 268hp, and in chassis from 3050 to 4300 lbs. So, you can come away from it with a lot of varied experiences.

But, in the 128i in particular-- if you add BMW's 3 stage disa (from a higher trim N52), headers, and a tune, you're at 300 factory reliable NA BMW horsepower in a i6 that weights freaking 328 lbs. Almost 150 lbs ligher than an S54! I'd kill for that kind of weight off the nose of my M3!

Combine that engine with a properly optioned 128i, and you have a car that is 3050 lbs stock- and sub 3000 lbs with just runflat delete and light weight wheels.

Add M3 subframe bushings, so the body is actually connected to the suspension, and you have a great driving little car. More factory mods possible if you want more, beyond that-- all the M3 control arms are bolt on, as done on 1M.

128i steering is great as stock-- none of the fake heaviness stuff they did on the e9X.

135i is a 300+ lb penalty over 128i, and all the turbo engine dynamics I don't want.

But, yeah, put a low factory trim N52 (e.g. the 228hp one in the e9X 328i) into a heavy chassis (sadly the e9X is a fairly heavy chassis-- e60 is only 72 lbs heavier optioned like for like), and I could see why you came away not overly impressed.



This is the stock subframe bushings in the e9X non M. They just ruin the handling, especially once you ditch the RFTs that they're there to hide. Replacing them with M3 subframe bushings brings the entire chassis up the the level of non M BMWs before e9X.



I suspect you'd like the N52 manual. Manuals from the same manufacturer generally have shift feel inverse to how much torque they're rated to handle. The Z4M was exceptionally good because they couldn't physically fit the 420g, with its higher torque rating, from the M3 (which was over rated, but does make it nigh indestructible, so... track offs)-- so they used the 330i manual instead. The N52 manuals are similarly low rated, and feel great as a result.

You should drive some more NA M engines

If I were to replace my E36 M3, I would get a 128i and do exactly what you outlined. Hoping to sell the M3 this year and if I can get into a house where I can store more than 1 car, I just might pick up a 128i.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The E82 128i is an E90 underneath.

Yep.

... but 300 lbs lighter. And smaller. Both of which means it drives significantly better.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Yep. I have a 19kw Tesla solar roof (the solar shingles-- not the panels) and 4 powerwalls, with zero regrets. The power grid can go offline indefinitely, and nothing about my house changes-- with no generator noise/upkeep/fueling.

...And when the grid's not offline, I get a check for $300-400 per month from the electric company, and have no gas/oil bill.

And this is why I haven't done solar on our roof yet. In Oklahoma, they are happy to have your excess feed back into the grid, but they won't pay you for it.

Gotta love the good ol' boy oil and gas lobbying here.

We have a relatively small home but large roof that faces directly south with no shade blocking it anywhere I'd put on panels.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

In searching for the E82 chassis weight to refresh my memory, one can find numerous references to the E82 being heavy for its size. 3,200 pounds seems to be a wet weight number, which is in the range of a lightly equipped E90 like mine. Near 3,000 pounds is the E86 coupe chassis.

The 135i is heavy, and that's the one people talk about normally.

A no sunroof (50 lbs for sunroof), no idrive (40 lbs for idrive), manual trans (60 lbs more for automatic) (that's what I meant when I said properly optioned earlier) 128i is 3050 lbs. I know this because my brother had one and we put it on my corner balancing scales.

I haven't had a Z4MC on my scales, but according to BMW it's curb weight is nearly 3300 lbs.

... unless you meant non M. Those are lighter. I'm assuming that's not what you meant, because very few (<300?) were sold in this country.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Obioban

IMO the last car BMW made with a truly great driving experience potential was the 128i.

The N52 came in a lot of specs and chassis-- from 174hp to 268hp, and in chassis from 3050 to 4300 lbs. So, you can come away from it with a lot of varied experiences.

But, in the 128i in particular-- if you add BMW's 3 stage disa (from a higher trim N52), headers, and a tune, you're at 300 factory reliable NA BMW horsepower in a i6 that weights freaking 328 lbs. Almost 150 lbs ligher than an S54! I'd kill for that kind of weight off the nose of my M3!

Combine that engine with a properly optioned 128i, and you have a car that is 3050 lbs stock- and sub 3000 lbs with just runflat delete and light weight wheels.

Add M3 subframe bushings, so the body is actually connected to the suspension, and you have a great driving little car. More factory mods possible if you want more, beyond that-- all the M3 control arms are bolt on, as done on 1M.

128i steering is great as stock-- none of the fake heaviness stuff they did on the e9X.

135i is a 300+ lb penalty over 128i, and all the turbo engine dynamics I don't want.

But, yeah, put a low factory trim N52 (e.g. the 228hp one in the e9X 328i) into a heavy chassis (sadly the e9X is a fairly heavy chassis-- e60 is only 72 lbs heavier optioned like for like), and I could see why you came away not overly impressed.



This is the stock subframe bushings in the e9X non M. They just ruin the handling, especially once you ditch the RFTs that they're there to hide. Replacing them with M3 subframe bushings brings the entire chassis up the the level of non M BMWs before e9X.



I suspect you'd like the N52 manual. Manuals from the same manufacturer generally have shift feel inverse to how much torque they're rated to handle. The Z4M was exceptionally good because they couldn't physically fit the 420g, with its higher torque rating, from the M3 (which was over rated, but does make it nigh indestructible, so... track offs)-- so they used the 330i manual instead. The N52 manuals are similarly low rated, and feel great as a result.



You should drive some more NA M engines

I may not have driven a N52 with a tune, but I doubt I would be that impressed. It's no S54, or even S52. I would take an N54 any day of the week. If I wanted a mediocre NA engine I'd just get a Nissan VQ . Turbo is different, not always worse.

I'm sure you're right on the transmissions. MT usually feel better inversely proportional to the torque they need to handle. Z4M shift into second is awful but it's good other than that.

I've driven other NA M engines, I just left the V8s off as I noted. S65 is a gem and S62 is great. The only 2001+ M engine I haven't ever experienced is S85.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Obioban

The 135i is heavy, and that's the one people talk about normally.

A no sunroof (50 lbs for sunroof), no idrive (40 lbs for idrive), manual trans (60 lbs more for automatic) (that's what I meant when I said properly optioned earlier) 128i is 3050 lbs. I know this because my brother had one and we put it on my corner balancing scales.

I haven't had a Z4MC on my scales, but according to BMW it's curb weight is nearly 3300 lbs.

... unless you meant non M. Those are lighter. I'm assuming that's not what you meant, because very few (<300?) were sold in this country.

There's zero way iDrive is 40 lbs, unless you're counting speakers that come with the package or something. I've held a head unit from an E90. The head unit and LCD assembly cannot possibly weigh that much. I looked at a retrofit thread and it's barely anything.

https://www.1addicts.com/forums/show....php?t=1273385

[wdb]

I personally think an N52 is a positive selling point in a BMW. I'd take one all day over any of the turbo cars. BMW + turbo = $maintenance$.

[StradaRedlands]

Originally Posted by wdb

I personally think an N52 is a positive selling point in a BMW. I'd take one all day over any of the turbo cars. BMW + turbo = $maintenance$.

Count me on Team N52! I won't say never, but I can't imagine having an ICE car without one. I actively sought out the one year that F10 Fivers have the N52 (2011) for my wife's car (everything else is bad in it, but engine is good!), and am casually looking at 2010 E70 X5s as that's the last year they had the N52. The N52 perfectly meets my needs, and other than gaskets made of crepe paper, a great mass-produced engine.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Yep.

... but 300 lbs lighter. And smaller. Both of which means it drives significantly better.

On what world does a stock 128i weigh a crack over 3050lbs? BMW lists the curb weight at 3208lbs and the 135i at 3370lbs which is what one would expect with the additional weight of the turbos, ancillary cooling systems, larger brakes, wheels, and tires. It is not 300lbs. LOL. It's not like the N54 has an iron block or something.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by wdb

I personally think an N52 is a positive selling point in a BMW. I'd take one all day over any of the turbo cars. BMW + turbo = $maintenance$.

It really depends on the year and model of turbo BMW. I've owned my 2016 M235 for 6.5 years and 65k miles. It's been crazy reliable. Nothing as broken on it. Nothing. No leaks, no weeping seals, etc. I've done oil changes and filter changes, coolant change, a spark plug change, and preventative maintenance like a belt tensioner replacement, belt replacement, and coolant overflow line, all work done under an hour less than $300 in parts. My front brakes are needing replacement after 65k miles. I ordered all OEM BMW rotors, pads, and a wear sensor for $500. This car is driven hard and has been making 50whp and 70wtq more than stock for years. I really can't complain. I've owned lots of Japanese cars and the M235 has been more reliable.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm not sure why you are pissing all over the N52. Does it compare in power output to an M engine? No of course not because it's not an M engine; BMW builds M engines for M cars. Does that make sense?

The N52 was designed as the replacement for the M52/54, where the M52 was a replacement for the M20. It's BMW's regular street fair engine meant for powering mass-production economy cars like the 3-series and their SUV (barf) offshoots. I've owned the M20, M54 and N52. Not that anyone asked but choosing between all three, I'd have a hard time choosing between the M20 and the N52. The M52/54 just seems not to have the BMW in-line 6 DNA. The beautiful and romantic mechanical sounds of the M20 are hard to come by in most car engines, especially modern-day, emissions-tight versions. Some of us Bimmerheads like the I-6 configuration because of the inherent balance, which leads to long engine life with low maintenance requirements.

Not everyone wants a M car. Replacing big-end bearings every 50,000 miles is not a requirement everyone wants to sign up for.

It's not an M engine, I know. My original point was only that I don't see what's special about it. Every time I drove a car with one, I wished the car had an N54 or N55. I even prefer N20. There are engines to wax poetic about, but I just didn't see that as one of them and certainly don't think it's a high water mark or anything of BMWs "good old days". BMW has changed direction in some aspects, but engines are not one of their problems. It's a perfectly fine engine, but nothing I'd ever go out of my way for.

Just a secondary point, the I6 balance helps with harmonics, but I dobut there's any real world correlation to reliability. BMW has produced several unreliable I6 engines, and I'm not sure any of their engines are up to Toyota standards when you compare like-for-like. N55 is "reliable" if you don't care about PITA things like the oil filter housing gasket, valve cover gasket, oil pan gasket, etc. I suspect the same is true for N52.

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm not sure why you are pissing all over the N52. Does it compare in power output to an M engine? No of course not because it's not an M engine; BMW builds M engines for M cars. Does that make sense?

The N52 was designed as the replacement for the M52/54, where the M52 was a replacement for the M20. It's BMW's regular street fair engine meant for powering mass-production economy cars like the 3-series and their SUV (barf) offshoots. I've owned the M20, M54 and N52. Not that anyone asked but choosing between all three, I'd have a hard time choosing between the M20 and the N52. The M52/54 just seems not to have the BMW in-line 6 DNA. The beautiful and romantic mechanical sounds of the M20 are hard to come by in most car engines, especially modern-day, emissions-tight versions. Some of us Bimmerheads like the I-6 configuration because of the inherent balance, which leads to long engine life with low maintenance requirements.

Not everyone wants a M car. Replacing big-end bearings every 50,000 miles is not a requirement everyone wants to sign up for.

Most people that poo poo non M-cars are also the same type of people that don't hold onto their cars past 25k miles, so they don't care about premature maintenance and wear items.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Cos270

Most people that poo poo non M-cars are also the same type of people that don't hold onto their cars past 25k miles, so they don't care about premature maintenance and wear items.

That's not my experience.

Other than S65 and S85 which are fatally flawed designs, there's really not that much more maintenance. N52 will still be a pain in the ass with the same OFHG, valve cover gasket, oil pan gasket, etc. as an N55 and S55 but it's still an N52. If I wanted N52 output from a car in 2022, I sure wouldn't put up with the normal BMW BS. N54 is one of the least reliable designs in modern BMW history and it's not an M engine. At least it's a pretty nice engine when it works, but still no longer worth the trouble.

What premature maintenance does an S55 require that your N55 doesn't? If anything, the gaskets seem to last longer on the S55, especially the oil filter housing.