So it is heavier.
And do you really need over 500hp and a 0-60 of <4s? I'm old enough to remember when the fastest, most exotic supercars in the world couldn't do that.
I'm sure it's fun, though, but I can't help wondering if weight could be saved and/or range extended if EV makers didn't chase such high performance. The entry-level eDrive35 will smoke a Miura 0-60.
I don't have the M50. It was just the closest comparison with the petrol M-series, because it is 4 wheel drive. The one I'm in is the e-Drive 40 (but only because the 35 wasn't available when they ordered mine). It does have the "M-Sport goody pack ,because it was a cancelled order, and to be honest, at my age, I'd rather it hadn't, because it makes it a bit less energy efficient and the ride (even in "comfort mode"), is a bit choppy. I'd rather have had the slightly taller tyre sidewalls, and less rolling resistance, even though it would mean slightly soggier handling and less ultimate grip. As it is, I'm having to "make do" with a rather more 'pedestrian' time of just over five and a half seconds to sixty...
. Oh the sacrifices we make for the planet, eh...!
But I think you raise an interesting point, which has cropped up on here before. I absolutely agree - nobody "needs" that sort of performance. I started my career in sports cars and drove some pretty bloody quick ones in my 20s. Back in the late 1980s, anything that could hit 60 in less than 5 seconds was a "supercar", and here we are, with ordinary family saloons bettering that! But how did we get here? Nissan, Vauxhall and Chevrolet (and others like Renault), offered modestly-powered EVs that didn't really take off. It was only when Musk arrived with "insane" acceleration figures, that EVs started to become "sexy". This kick-started volume interest in EVs, but it also started (in my view), something of an "arms race", whereby to be in the game, manufacturers had to offer similar levels of performance. The legacy of this, are some insanely fast, but very expensive EVs. No manufacture wants to be the first to lose out.
On the other hand, EVs aren't like ICEs. If you want an ICE car that can deliver that sort of performance, you have to spend an awful lot of money, and most of the time, in everyday traffic, you're throttling an immensely powerful petrol engine, reducing its (already poor) efficiency massively. With an EV, it's different. You can still have 90-odd% efficiency at part throttle, so there's little environmental disadvantage to having a powerful EV. If you drive it slowly, it will return much better energy consumption figures. (It's why ICEs get really thirsty in crawling traffic). Obviously, if you restrict performance, you could also reduce weight by having smaller brakes, and a knock-on effect, that then means smaller suspension arms, which all saves a bit of weight. You can then get away with skinnier tyres - saving more weight and also lowering rolling resistance), which means you can get the same range with a smaller battery, saving even more weight, which means you can use lighter springs, less crash structure.... etc.
But you can see what we're up against, here. Look at the number of folk who feel that life simply wouldn't be worth living without at least 600 miles of range! I'm nothing like as worried about range as I used to be, despite doing "big miles", because you just use EVs "differently". The trouble is, I had to run one for the best part of a year before that sunk in - and as you can see, it clearly hasn't sunk in for the majority of anti-EV folk on here. They're bombarded with YouTube videos from propagandists who delight in racing an EV and an ICE from Lands End to John O' Groats just so they can tell you how "bad" EVs are, and many people genuinely don't seem to be capable of stopping and thinking: "hang on! When was the last time I had to drive my ICE car from Lands End to John O' Groats? Oh! Now I come to think of it, I've never had to do that in my entire life"!