EQS [Renders] 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQS

[RobbinYoHoodv2]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That is shocking, I was upset enough with how they passed the S /E class steering wheel buttons, as they are a step backwards, but this is nasty on a whole new level.I spend years mocking my Tesla friends build quality then we get this.....

 

[Mick Briesgau]

Like I’ve been saying; non optimal UI and cost cutting all over the place. Haven’t sat in EQS yet, but that seams even worse than the already low quality interior of W223.

 

[klugscheisser87]

Who else is thinking that they will go back to classic namings for their BEV’s sooner or later or once ICE’s will be phased out?
The EQS EQS SUV or EQGL will soon start to be kinda difficult to give new names.

 

[Merc1]

That’s exactly what they will do. It will simple be the S-Class, GLE, GLS etc once they’re all electric. EQ will be thrown away like it never existed.

M

 

[Merc1]

The traveling test drive tour cars.

M

 

[leylandi]

EQS 350 WITH 215 KW CAN NOW BE ORDERED FROM 97,806.10 EUROS

As of today, the EQS can also be ordered with the entry-level engine with 215 kW / 292 PS. The price for the vehicle without all-wheel drive and 90.56 kWh battery capacity starts at 97,806.10 euros including VAT.

EQS 350 with 215 kW

The new EQS 350 engine has 215 kW and accelerates to the 100 km / h mark within 6.6 seconds. Compared to the EQS 350+ for 106,374.10 euros with its 245 kW and 6.2 seconds, only slightly slower.

626 km range from 97,806.10 euros

Mercedes-Benz specifies a combined consumption of 16.8 kWh for the EQS 350 (EQS 450+ 16.1 kWh / 100 km), with a range of 626 km (EQS 450+ 768 km). With the charging time from 10 to 80% SoC on the DC quick charge function, the EQS 350 with 32 minutes is almost on par with the EQS with 31 minutes.

The current top-of-the-range engine in the series, the EQS 580 4MATIC, is 385 kW / 523 PS and has a base price of 135,529.10 euros with an electric range of 671 km (DC charging 10-80% SoC in 31 minutes), and Mercedes-Benz indicates the consumption 18.5 kWh / 100 km.

 

[Deleted member 57437]

"Some say, it's an electric luxury sedan.

Some say, it is a FACT that it is not a sedan.

Some say, it forages the seas in search of plankton.

FACT is: This is the Mercedes-Benz EQS."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Deleted member 57437]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Another interesting EQS review. I'm not familiar with the host :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuZ2MEU68I0

Incidentally, the host maintains that the EQS is a "liftback", alluding to recent confusion as to whether the EQS is a "sedan" or "liftback". Fair enough. He also later refers to the Tesla Model S as a "mid-sized luxury sedan". My head is spinning.:

Forget the pandemic, Russian troop concentration on Ukraines' border, China/Taiwan conflict and whatever. THIS is significant new shit coming to light.

And of course the EQS has a massive rear storage area. Those mountains of plankton have to go somewhere after all.

 

[CrunchSlaughtered]

AutoBild tested 12 cars for range at constant 130 kmh. The BMW iX 50 with a 105 kWh battery achieved 434 km, while the EQS 580 achieved the ridiculous (based on the promises) 444 km with its 108 kWh battery. What are the benefits of this ugly EQS shape (although both are ugly)? The BMW is a monstrous SUV and still manages the same efficiency.

 

[Serpens]

AutoBild tested 12 cars for range at constant 130 kmh. The BMW iX 50 with a 105 kWh battery achieved 434 km, while the EQS 580 achieved the ridiculous (based on the promises) 444 km with its 108 kWh battery. What are the benefits of this ugly EQS shape (although both are ugly)? The BMW is a monstrous SUV and still manages the same efficiency.

Test results aside, I think it’s a stretch calling the iX a monstrous SUV. The EQS is about 12 inches longer, within an inch of the iX’s width, and a well optioned EQS 580 is ~130lbs heavier. The iX is about 6 in taller (yet 2 less than a X5) but that should give you an idea of why aerodynamics were important. The EQS is a pig, much like other Benz products that weigh in higher than their peers.

For what it’s worth, reviewers here are having no problem matching or exceeding the more realistic EPA range estimates.

 

[CrunchSlaughtered]

Test results aside, I think it’s a stretch calling the iX a monstrous SUV. The EQS is about 12 inches longer, within an inch of the iX’s width, and a well optioned EQS 580 is ~130lbs heavier. The iX is about 6 in taller (yet 2 less than a X5) but that should give you an idea of why aerodynamics were important. The EQS is a pig, much like other Benz products that weigh in higher than their peers.

For what it’s worth, reviewers here are having no problem matching or exceeding the more realistic EPA range estimates.

It depends on the way you test it. EVs are very efficient up to 80 kmh. That's why they achieve their range in urban driving. AFAIK in many places in the USA the speed limit is 55 mph. So if speed limit is kept it should surprive no one that they exceed the EPA range estimates. But the question that I asked is based on the assumption that even if the EQS had a more conventional shape it could still be as efficient. 6 in in height is a huuuuuge difference when frontal area is concerned.

 

[Serpens]

It depends on the way you test it. EVs are very efficient up to 80 kmh. That's why they achieve their range in urban driving. AFAIK in many places in the USA the speed limit is 55 mph. So if speed limit is kept it should surprive no one that they exceed the EPA range estimates. But the question that I asked is based on the assumption that even if the EQS had a more conventional shape it could still be as efficient. 6 in in height is a huuuuuge difference when frontal area is concerned.

It is rare for auto journalists to stick to speed limits, but that aside I think it’s fair to say without that slippery shape the efficiency could’ve been even worse. Hard to for me to say without any proof but we do know engineers spend countless hours running models on exactly this topic. Also I agree about 6 inches being significant to frontal area.

Funnily enough, while viewing the latest Range Rover I had a chat with some LR guys about aerodynamics and what they were doing for the EV version. They expressed that everyone’s cd claims are to be taken with a grain of salt due to wind tunnel differences. When I was googling this subject later Car and Driver mentioned the same thing. Interesting. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15108689/drag-queens-aerodynamics-compared-comparison-test/

 

[GTA45E]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Rolf]

It depends on the way you test it. EVs are very efficient up to 80 kmh. That's why they achieve their range in urban driving. AFAIK in many places in the USA the speed limit is 55 mph. So if speed limit is kept it should surprive no one that they exceed the EPA range estimates. But the question that I asked is based on the assumption that even if the EQS had a more conventional shape it could still be as efficient. 6 in in height is a huuuuuge difference when frontal area is concerned.

Yeah EV's are the opposite of ICE, they are more efficient at lower city speeds and less efficient at higher speeds on the highway above 80km/h while the ICE is more efficient at speeds from about 60km/h up to 120km/h. I guess in future they will start making the BEVs more efficient at higher speeds.

This honeymoon period of BEV's with high consumption and not high range, sought of reminds me of the change in ICEs during the 80s and 90s when there was a big shift to fuel injection and 4 valves per cylinder and then direct common rail injection in diesel engines, where the consumption of cars dropped dramatically,

Remember the E models from VW and Audi (Passat and 100/200 models), the BMW 525e and Mercedes 380SE V8 changed during 1981 called Energy Concept they made detailed engine changes (with also 10kw less power but 10nm more torque) and also longer ratio final drive to reduce overall consumption by a massive 30%.

ECE 90/120/city (comb.):

11.1 / 13.3 / 18.8 (14.4) l/100km (Old 380SE from 1979 to 1981)

ECE 90/120/city (comb.):

8.7 / 10.8 / 13.9 (11.1) l/100km (New 380SE from 1981 to 1985)

 

[Deleted member 57437]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Wow-the EQS looks really good in this particular clip.

I enjoy Björn's videos-but I wish that he would leave that introductory "Yo-Wassupp" shtick .

 

[lukeswiss]

Wow-the EQS looks really good in this particular clip.

I enjoy Björn's videos-but I wish that he would leave that introductory "Yo-Wassupp" shtick .

I like his yo-wassup ?

 

[Deleted member 57437]

I like his yo-wassup ?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[J.E]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mick Briesgau]

That middle airbag between the front passengers is a great and useful feature.

 

[fortuner]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

me hen it comes to safety I much rather be in here then a Tesla