GetOffYourGas said:
<Snip>
I am curious about your impressions on the car. It seems to fit (or come close to) a lot of your desirements for an EV. For example, I'm sure it will be long enough for you to sleep in.
As I haven't seen or driven it, I can only give you my impressions based on specs and photos, but here goes.
It's just slightly over the max length I'd prefer to limit it to, 180.5" vs 180"; my Forester is 175.2" which is plenty, and the Niro is 171.7?". OTOH, like most modern cars the wheelbase has been pushed out more towards the ends: the Forester is 99.4" vs. 108.9". This is good if you regularly carry passengers in the rear, but not so good if you want max. cargo space with the rear seats up. The ID.4 is 30.4? Cu. Ft. vs. 32 in the Forester. When carrying heavy, dense objects like scuba tanks I want an upright seat between my body and them, as well as strong tie-downs that will hold them in place in a serious accident.
Length is more important than max. width for me in the area behind the seats, as it's much easier to load/unload and access things like tanks and backpacks if stored lengthwise. I suspect the ID.4 will be a bit short in comparison, but will have to wait until I measure one.
I'll have to hold off on the control ergonomics until I can try them, but I consider having touchscreen rather than physical controls for any control I have to operate while moving to be unsafe and unacceptable. They have provided some physical sliders for temp and volume, and I'll have to see how the rest of the controls and displays work. This is at least a German car, and generally they put more emphasis on function than gadgetry compared to the typical Japanese car, or Tesla.
Similarly, German cars tend to have the ride, handling, seating, steering feel and feedback and driver visibility I want - of the 8 or 9 BEVs I've test driven, the e-Golf was the best in most if not all of those areas, so hopefully that will hold true here.
As far as performance, I'd probably be fine if the AWD version had the same total HP (201) as the RWD version instead of 302, especially if the range were boosted as a consequence. My Forester (165 hp, forget the torque, 3,095 lb curb wgt.) does 0-60 in 9.6 sec. and that has been adequate except on a few mountain roads at very high density altitudes - as a BEV has the same power)torque at any altitude, any accel equal or less than 10 seconds will be adequate, although I'll be happy to take quicker if it doesn't cost me something of more value to me. In any case, passing accel is more important to me than 0-60.
I've been driving Subarus for 32 years, so clearly looks have a low priority for me; how well I can see out and how practical the interior is are far more important to me than what the car looks like from the outside. The ID.4's looks are typical crossover and unobjectionable - enough said. The one thing I do have a question about is the roof slope - some photos seem to show a fairly flat roof, which I want, and others a sloped one which I don't. It's unclear to me if the latter are from the concept and it's now been given a more utilitarian roof. To me the main reason to buy a CUV/SUV is the 'U' function, and detracting from that for reasons of drag is schizophrenic.
I prefer cloth seats and VW tends to use vinyl or leather, but that's what seat covers are for.
Re charging speeds, faster is obviously better for trips. 38 min. 5-80% probably means about 30 from 15-80%, and that's about as low SoC as I'd want to go for both reserve and battery health reasons, although 20% would be better yet. That means about 2 hours at freeway speeds with allowances and reserve followed by 1/2 hour of charging and repeat, which is inadequate for serious road trips but about the best we can expect at current semi-affordable BEV prices, and usefully better than the Niro's 54 minutes from 5?-80% (42 minutes from 20-80%).
And that's about all I can say before we get some reviews or hands-on experience.
