UPDATE: 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC Revealed: Range Estimated At 200 Miles

SEP 4 2018 BY MARK KANE 220

Mercedes-Benz has just unveiled the EQC after a long series of teasers.

The first all-electric car under the technology brand EQ (EQ stands for “Electric Intelligence”) was unveiled today by Mercedes-Benz in Stockholm, Sweden. The full proper name of the car is Mercedes-Benz EQC 400 4MATIC.

***UPDATE: It seems the initial 200-mile estimate given by Mercedes was wrong. Details here.

EQC: In-Depth Powertrain, Range & Battery Coverage Here

The German manufacturer says that the EQC will benefit from the quality, safety and comfort expected of Mercedes-Benz vehicles, but at the same time “is a pioneer for an avant-garde electric look while representing the design idiom of Progressive Luxury“.

The 80 kWh battery (10 kWh more than in the concept version) is expected to last for up to 200 miles (320 km). Then, the car will be able to recharge at 110 kW (from 10% to 80% in 40 minutes).

According to the press release, the 80 kWh is the usable amount: “The lithium-ion battery, which has a usable energy content of 80 kWh supplies the vehicle with power.”

“The EQC is equipped with the latest generation of a lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery serving as the energy source for both electric motors. The battery consists of 384 cells and is located in the vehicle floor, between the two axles. The battery system is modular in design, consisting of two modules with 48 cells each and four with 72 cells each. The powerful high-voltage battery has a nominal voltage of approx. 350 V and a nominal capacity of approx. 218 Ah, for an energy content of 80 kWh (according to NEDC/WLTP).

The integral overall cooling concept of the EQC, consisting of a heat pump function and two electric PTC heater boosters, not only includes the power electronics, the electric motor and the rotor, but also the battery. The entire battery system is liquid-cooled. At low temperatures a battery heater ensures outstanding performance and efficiency (see Climate control section).”

2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC battery

For powertrain, Mercedes-Benz decided to go with two asynchronous motors – one for the front axle and one for the rear axle. System output of the all-wheel drive EQC stands at 300 kW and 564 lb-ft (765 Nm). Acceleration from 0 to 60 mph (almost 100 km/h) will be possible in 4.9 seconds.

Intelligent Drivetrain: The EQC features an all-new drive system with compact electric drivetrains at each axle. These give the EQC the confident and dynamic driving characteristics of an all-wheel drive vehicle. To reduce power consumption, the electric drivetrains are configured differently: the front electric motor is optimized for best possible efficiency in the low to medium load range, while the rear e-motor adds sportiness.”

ECO Assist System: Gives the driver comprehensive support when driving predictively: by prompting the driver when it is appropriate to lift off the accelerator–for example when the vehicle is approaching a change in speed limit, and by functions such as coasting and specific control of recuperation. For this purpose, navigation data, traffic sign recognition and information from the intelligent safety assistants (radar and stereo camera) are linked and processed.”

2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC

The driver will be able to choose between many modes:

“The following programs are available:

  • COMFORT: Default setting; accelerator pedal characteristic supports a comfortable driving style, but also automatically becomes more dynamic depending on the driving style.
  • ECO: Driving program focused on high efficiency and low consumption.
  • MAX RANGE: Intelligent driving program that can help the driver achieve the maximum possible range.
  • SPORT: Driving program focused on the best response for the highest driving performance.
  • INDIVIDUAL: Allows the driver to customize each individual parameter separately.

One-pedal driving: manual selection of braking recuperation

The driver is also able to influence the recuperation level using paddles behind the steering wheel. The paddle on the left increases the level of recuperation, the paddle on the right reduces it. The following stages are available:

  • D Auto (recuperation via ECO Assist to suit the situation)
  • D + (coasting)
  • D (low recuperation)
  • D – (medium recuperation)
  • D – – (high recuperation). This makes one-pedal driving possible, because in most situations the recuperative deceleration is enough to not require use of the brake pedal.”

One of the interesting things is the new head unit generation from Mercedes-Benz called MBUX (Mercedes-Benz User Experience). It features a new user interface and natural speech recognition and a touchscreen.

Mercedes-Benz User Experience (MBUX): A completely new multimedia system featuring innovative technology based on Artificial Intelligence and an intuitive operating system. MBUX technology is pioneering a new level of in-car experience. MBUX can be operated by Voice Control, the Touchscreen (a first for Mercedes-Benz vehicles), Touchpad and Touch Control Buttons on the steering wheel. The system has learning capabilities and intelligent Voice Control with natural language understanding and a verbal cue of “Hey Mercedes.””

2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC

Among other features, the EQC is equipped with a heat pump:

“Pre-entry climate control: This ensures that the vehicle interior is at the desired temperature on departure. It can be programmed directly via MBUX or via the Mercedes me connect App. A sophisticated system with a heat pump and electric heater boosters pre-climatizes the interior for optimal comfort in the cold winter or hot summer days.”

Production of the EQC will start in the plant in Bremen, Germany from 2019 and later in Beijing, China by Beijing Benz Automotive Co. Ltd. (BBAC). In the U.S., sales of the EQC will begin in 2020. The prices are not yet know.

2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 400 4MATIC preliminary specs

  • dual motor (asynchronous), all-wheel drive
  • system output of 300 kW (402 hp) and 564 lb-ft (765 Nm)
  • 0-60 mph in 4.9 seconds
  • top speed of 112 mph (180 km/h)
  • 80 kWh battery (384 cells – 218 Ah each – two modules with 48 cells and four modules with 72 cells)
  • up to 200 miles (320 km) of all-electric range (prelim est.)
  • DC fast charging (CCS Combo) in 40 minutes (110kW, 10%-80%)
  • AC on-board charger – 7.4 kW

Check out the EQC in the gallery of images below:

2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC
21 photos
2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC battery

Categories: Mercedes

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

220 Comments on "UPDATE: 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC Revealed: Range Estimated At 200 Miles"

newest oldest most voted

What is the price?!

Expensive EV “Progressive Luxury” Liner!

MB is having a rough year in the US. July sales were down like 23% and in August they were down 20%. Coinciding with Model 3 ramp (June sales were pretty normal). They claim that it is lack of inventory, but my hunch is Model 3. This will spread to other countries as the Model 3 starts shipping elsewhere.

BMW seems less rough, but their only saving grace was the X3. The 2, 3, and 4 series were down 30-40% vs last year (likely Model 3, possibly BMW’s own X3).

BMW’s 2/3/4 range peaked in 2014/5 and has been dropping significantly since. I did some number crunching last week and it looks like they’ve only really dropped a couple more percent this year than last year.

What is wrong with you??

If it was related to the Model 3 then you’d expect other premium manufacturers to be affected. BMW is up (minorly), Audi are up. Volvo has shot up. MB on the other hand has dropped significantly and month to month sales are all over the place. MB C class sales have dropped though, but they also did last year (and outside of the Model 3 the market has shrunk significantly over the last 4-5 years, coinciding with the rise in SUV/CUV sales). The sales of their SUV’s have shot up though.

There’s probably some influence from the Model 3, but it’s a lot more complex than that. If it isn’t supply related issues then it may well also be their Sedan:SUV ratio.

BMW is the largest car exporter in the US, followed by Mercedes. They are feeling a double burn, by the trade war.
First they have to pay extra for steel and aluminium. For special steel they have to pay extra tariffs for too. Since the US factories are designed to be big, and export cars to Europe, China and the rest of the world, they have to pay extra fees there as well.
So cars are more expensive to make, and more expensive to export as well.
Hyundai Genesis and so on becomes even cheaper compared to these models. Just to mention one.

You are delusional 😂🤣

After reading that, now I’m curious if MBZ will be releasing two battery options, a 70 kwh rated for 200 aer, and second with 80 kwh rated closer to 250 ….. hmmm, guess we’ll just have to for the final word from them.

For $80,000 I could have my 2018 Leaf ($28,000) PLUS any $50,000 ride I want, like hopefully a new Supra.

Sounds like a plan, LOL

80 kWh battery and only 200 miles? What?

That’s only 2.5miles per kWh, crazy, get over 5 currently in our Bolt.

Bolt is about the size of the i3. It is a much, much smaller car. You can probably get 50 miles per kWh on an e-cycle too but it is just as irrelevant a comparison. Compare it to what an i-Pace, iX3, e-Tron, or a model X can do. All of those cars have efficiency in the same ball park, plus or minus.

While true the Model X gets 237 miles on a 75kWh battery.

..and convert 75KWh to maybe (90%)(75KWh)=67.5KWh “usable”, and one way of seeing the Model X’s efficiency is 237/67.5, or 3.5miles per KWh. That’s what is suggested, anyway.

My view, efficiency isn’t as much an environmental thing, as a range thing for “2XX” mile EVs. Tesla stopped 60KWh Model S sales. When you upsize to their SUV, and go with 75KWh it is only a little better than something they discontinued. Everyone’s uses EVs differently, but few regret paying more for higher range Teslas. Another reason why is because the resale value gives you most of that extra battery-money back.

Yes…the efficiency of EVs is not really an environmental thing….just being an EV makes it far more environmental than any ICE car. It is a COST and RANGE thing. You need to be efficient to build an EV that has a decent range and doesn’t not cost too much.

If your vehicle is not efficient, you’ll have to stuff it full of batteries to get a good range…and thereby price the vehicle out of the market.

Ok but a more efficient EV means it can have a smaller, lighter battery pack for the same range and even better performances. And it will be better environmentally speaking for needing less materials and less recycling to do at end of life.

U mean Driving @ 55 MPH. My modelX 90D gets only 180 highway speeds @ 10 % left.

Look at EPA, that is about 4 vs 2.5. Yes, quite bad, worse than IPace. No Tesla competition here.

I think it’s larger than the I-Pace?

OTOH, the Model X is even larger, and still gets better efficiency… Just shows how much aerodynamics really matters.

Yeah my T S 60D gets 218 – hm..

Your S is a sedan…

For me I’d say that range isn’t actually as important as efficiency and charging speed, once you’ve got a certain base range, say 300-350 km, maybe 200 miles. But as you say, 320 km out of 80 kWh means a hefty 250 wh/km consumption which is essentially the kind of numbers that the pre-update I-Pace is getting pilloried for right now. Paired with a competent but not really headline-worthy 110 kW charging speed, that means that this is not really built for the long haul. Unless you’re patient. Here’s hoping that the taper isn’t too bad. The Jag has very flat curve, fwiw.

At 110 kW, 10%-80% should take ~30 minutes. The 40 minutes they claim suggest taper is indeed fairly gentle…

Jaguar-like 25kWh/100km. Crazy.

A french magazine has test thé ipace and at 130kmh, it s 35kw/100

That was my first imppressiin as well. It puts the MB in direct competition with the iPace.

Then it occurred to me that maybe we are seeing the difference between the cylinderical 2170 cells vs the pouch cells from LG et al. Maybe the reduced energy density of the pouch cell just doesn’t allow for sufficient pack capacity for more than 240 or so miles given the size of the car. Would this also explain the lesser performance as well?

Nothing to do with Pouches. This is bad aero or inefficient motors. Bolt EV, Ioniq, Kona all do very well with LG pouches.

10% loss from big wheels and sticky tires as well.

Plus since MBZ didn’t disclose the curb weight, certain that factors into this as well.

Tesla is all about “energy density”, all the time, with its NCM chemistry. WK057 has tested Tesla batteries at higher ~7 C-rates, where I think software BMS limits are closer to 5X. George Bower may also know. In contrast, the Germans seem to reach for power dense, higher weight, lower range cell formulas. From PHEVs, to the ID R VW Pikes Peak car, the C-rates climb as high as 10X (~450KW / ~43KWh, if true about hill climb). I can only say anecdotally, that electric mode times seem better, per KWh, from their PHEVs. Of course, you also need lots of KWh, to get the **range** job done.

The Roadster’s 200KWh shows Tesla won’t be going up the Peak any time soon. A low C-rate multiplied by this many batteries is still a crap-ton of power, but far heavier than a 50KWh sprint machine.

Tesla is NCA, but otherwise good points.

If Roadster2 uses solid state cells, as I expect, its 200 kWh pack may not weight that much more than the ID R’s 43 kWh. Roadster is a street car, though, and would not challenge the Pike’s Peak record without a near-total redesign.

I’m very disapointed with tech specs.

Yep. Once again, it is proven that Tesla is the only company that really understands EV design.

You speak of Tesla like it’s one entity. Talent is shared throughout the industry and I’m sure the Germans have hired even more than Tesla can afford (albeit a bit too late).

I find it really hard to believe that Mercedes Benz is spending $8+ billion a year on electric vehicles and batteries or has 25,000+ people working on it like Tesla does. Also, talent isn’t shared in the industry. Tesla had the only fast-charging, long range EV, with all the associated tech for half a decade. Unless Mercedes Benz is trying to put out a Prius or Leaf or Bolt/Volt-type vehicle, they’re going to have to go to the drawing board and their reverse engineered Teslas to figure things out. As it stands, this 2020 vehicle doesn’t seem to even match a 2014 Model S on any statistic.

The Model S is a sedan, this is an SUV. Most sedans outperform SUV’s on road, that’s their point.

And that $8b, is it only on the EV drivetrain, or is that inclusive of the rest of the design of the vehicles? Big difference there.

I’m not seeing the technological advantage of this 2020 MB electric vehicle in any category compared to any vehicle Tesla has built including the Model X, which is larger in EVERY physical dimension and has an extra row of seats. This includes driving and non-driving measures such as DC charging rates or user interface. I’m certainly not seeing an advantage in the drive train unless you’re referring to something specific.

It doesn’t really matter how much MB is spending on electric vehicles per year until they catch up to the status quo.

I’m not suggesting there is any technological advantage, just pointing out that the $8B tesla spend will be spread over non drive train related items. How much do they actually spend on the EV side of things? Quite possibly no one but themselves know.

The talent B. Cosby mentions could be working on a variety of items, not just on EV’s.

They do not need to match Tesla.

Nicer interior, doors that work, the ability to take a roof rack, door pockets and more buttons in the cockpit (yes that is a selling point for some people)… Yes, the drivetrain doesn’t blow Tesla out of the water (or even land any significant hits), but it’s unrealistic to claim that the EQC has nothing to recommend it over the X.

EV people seem to overestimate some tech numbers while price and the programming of the car matter more,I’m giving them poor marks because it is so late,it should do well.

I’m sure MB has lots of talent. But something is not quite right when your big reveal is a vehicle that doesn’t quite match Tesla’s current specs and won’t be available for another 2 years.

They understand aero and how it impacts everything to do with making an EV easier to live with. Less time spent charging, greater distances between stops and less range anxiety.

Yep….Tesla is the only company with extremely aerodynamic designs. And when you combine that with all the work they’ve put into having the Gigafactory crank out batteries at low cost, Tesla ends up as the only company with reasonably priced EVs that can go long distances.

They say 200 but MB claimed 310 on the old cycle which would be closer to 250 real world. Is someone underinflating the number on this site or is that the press release?

Yes, disappointing. Hopefully they are under-promising. To me it seems like a premium EV should at least OFFER a +/- 300 mile version. Also, efficiency counts, both for the range it enables and cost of operation.

the vehicle’s prodigious weight of around 5000 pounds.

Better not cost more than the I-Pace which has a longer range and around the same performance. It will be interesting to see what the specs will be for the Tesla Model Y which will likely start production around the same time in 2020 or 21.

It is a substantially larger car than the I-Pace, I think…

Pretty close in size I’d say:

I-Pace = 117.7 wheelbase, 184.3 length, 84.2 width with mirrors
EQC = 113.1 wb, 187.4 length, 82.5 w

Buuut, you conveniently left out the height.

The smaller wb for a bigger length show the bad choice of Mercedes to use the GLC base.

The good point of this EQC is that it showed me Jaguar did a better job than I thought with its I-Pace. Between the EQC and the I-Pace, my money would go to the latter.

I don’t think so. It has few luggage space and doesn’t look very large. I guess Model 3 is not smaller.

Those wheels are huge. WTF?

Larger wheels = less range.

Depends on your rim. I3s big slim wheels are highly efficient.

Renault has done the same thing on its Scenic (not an EV). Only narrow 20 inches wheels available.

Not impressed at all by range.
Not impressed by the layout of the „drivetrain“.
Looks like: How can I fit that electric stuff into an ICE layout.

What’s wrong with the layout?

It is not a pure EV layout. It would probably be able to take other drivetrains such as hybrids or even an ICE. It makes the car weigh more and have less space, particularly at the front. Center of gravity looks also a bit higher than a pure EV skate would have

It is a GLC with a custom mid section. At least it has a skateboard battery.

Really? Didn’t they always claim it’s their first car to be designed as a BEV from the ground up?…

A bit more specific please? What exactly makes it not a “pure EV layout”?

Look Viking79 post.

They said that 80% are designed new. With only the most basic stuff the same as the ICE so they can be produced on the same line. How much percent have to be reinvented, before you call something “new”?

What a lame presentation, 10 minute talking about Sveden and no spec talk.

Sweden even. I thought the presentation was rather good, building up excitement and then revealing such a cool car!

This presentation blows Tesla’s average presentation out of the water.

Give us some criteria on the presentation evaluation.

I’m still keeping my Jaguar I-Pace order. MB, next! Audi, your turn!


Not mind blowing specs but very nice.
Glad to see more BEVs from other manufacturers.

Familiar skateboard + penthouse design. Thank goodness Apple is not (yet) in the automotive business otherwise the lawsuits will fly.
Nobody else can a skateboard powertrain.
Heck, if they did it first, nobody else can have a round steering wheel.

What are you talking about? Jeezas!

Real world range of 200 miles equals tesla model 3 as tested by caranddriver

ayy lmao, drove a 280 mile round trip with 26% charge left this weekend. and you are telling me i can’t go beyond 200miles?

Not me, caranddriver. Go and read the review

I just read it. Below is the exact text: “When we ran the Tesla on this loop, it achieved only 84 MPGe, far from its 123-MPGe EPA highway estimate. Both this number and the observed 200-mile range that results from it, however, come with a significant caveat: they were achieved on a day when the temperature was 28 degrees Fahrenheit.”
How come you FUD spreaders always omit key information to misled people?

That’s an extremely useful test for us that live in cold climates. All ranges seem to be based on a nice warm day in summer, rather than the other 6 months of the year where it’s at or below freezing. I’d rather buy a car knowing the range was X on a cold day, rather than the range on an ideal range. No one ever complained about having too much range!

Perhaps can reviewers need to start reviewing vehicles twice. Once in summer, once when it’s below freezing. Or perhaps even the EPA should provide cold weather range along with warm weather range.

Ha! I get a kick out of the comments from Southern Californians that think 28 deg F is cold.

Haha, yeah. Come up here where it’s -30, then ask why we want to know what the real world cold range is.

Stop spreading FUD troll, you know clearly from their review they tested range going 75mph in BELOW FREEZING cold weather.

Driving an electric car the way a car magazine tests them is a great way to prove that “the technology just isn’t ready yet”. But I’m sure that anyone who wants to and isn’t a complete idiot can comfortably outperform C&D’s range numbers on most cars.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Did you bother reading the review??? or even understand it?

They drove 75mph in the freezing cold… lets see what the Mercedes can do in those conditions!

“When we ran the Tesla on this loop, it achieved only 84 MPGe, far from its 123-MPGe EPA highway estimate. Both this number and the observed 200-mile range that results from it, however, come with a significant caveat: they were achieved on a day when the temperature was 28 degrees Fahrenheit. The Bolt EV’s results, on the other hand, were achieved on a 56-degree day. When it comes to testing real-world EV range, we’ve observed a difference of greater than 20 percent between cold- and warm-weather test results. We hope to get our hands on another Model 3 in warmer temps to test it again.”

Consumer report review “our Long Range Model 3 met its EPA rating of 310 miles. The car’s range extended to 350 miles when using Tesla’s higher regenerative braking mode.”
Here is the link.

I’m easily getting 300+ miles out of my TM3s and that includes driving 75 mph for extended periods of time.

130 MPGe versus Model S’s 103 MPGe. Even for those not familiar with the metric, the Model 3’s nearly 30% better efficiency than Model S is something not enough are talking about.

Well, at least it beats in range the Model S/40 that existed for a short while back in 2012 (well, until one unlocked the remaining of it’s 60KWh battery that is, but I digress) so I guess that’s pretty good for a product from the incumbents.

OTOH: up to 200 miles from 80KWh doesn’t make a lot of sense, I expect EPA numbers to be much better than that.

Depends on how large it is. For a LARGE SUV (if so) this is ok.

AutoNews just called the car a ‘Compact SUV’.

Any “premium” EV better be in the upper 200 mile range to be a serious player.

Disappointing performance… so much for “Tesla killers” ..

Performance isn’t the only thing that they are competing on. I don’t believe Mercedes called their SUV a “Tesla Killer” either.

Also, what part of the performance are you disappointed by?

Just type “Tesla Killer” into a search engine and get a zillion stories. The performance aspect that most find lacking is efficiency. That means it ends up with a short range, a high price, or both.

To rearrange the Tesla cultists words: Stop spreading FUD against Mercedes-Benz! EeeEEeeh. Bully!

Are you talking about the range, or that you can’t buy one?

Meh – I expected better than this from MB.

I had higher hopes for this. How on earth do you only get 200 miles out of 80 *usable* kWh?! If that’s accurate this thing is an energy hog.

Big and heavy?

I suspect the aerodynamics are the biggest problem. Drivetrain may not be that efficient as well.

Sounds like US PR department messed up and 200 mile range quoted in the article is not correct. Should be higher.

Very nice design and good specs. 0-60 in 4.9 secs is insane in a premium SUV 😮 Me wants 🙂

0-60 in 2.9 sec is ludicrous in the Model X

The base Model X 75D does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds and gets 237 miles.

Fair enough, this doesn’t match the worst Model X for specs. How are they expecting to sell it? On sale it looks like. It better be cheap, but 90 kWh battery means their costs are likely thousands more than Model X.

Maybe their customers buy MB because they actually want a vehicle with a quality interior, comfortable chassis, and better durability. Hmm..

MB has not built durable cars in decades.

Because performance isn’t everything. It’s a MB. It’s going to be far more luxurious than a Model X. As much as 200 miles is a bit disappointing for the North American market it’s likely to be a much smaller issue in Europe, where they sell twice as many GLC’s.

It’s a high performance electric Mercades Benz. Rather than questioning why anyone would buy it over the larger, different Model X, the question for buyers will be whether it’s a better bet than the Audi E-Tron, which will be a direct competitor, with a lot of cross purchasing, or the I Pace, with slightly less cross purchase.

I agree that it is different than the X, but my fear here is Audi, BMW, Jaguar, and MB will be duking it out, my thought is they showed up at the wrong fight. These all look like great cars, but have relatively slow max charge rate, short ranges, etc.

If the Model Y comes out at the same time (which is likely more similar in size) it might have a distinct range and cost advantage making it hard to ignore, plus the brand name. It might not be as big with some more mature users, it has appeal to the important younger generation.

Agreed. Price and range are going to be very important for the Y, much more so than Teslas other releases. With the updated (estimated) 230-250 mile range of this Tesla are going to have to produce something either head and shoulders above what they have already produced (doubtful as it will be based on the Model 3) or make it economically attractive. It’s a shame about the charge rate, but will that make much of a difference for most buyers?

That said, there’s plenty of space for all EV’s on the market right now. I’m not sure even the Y would be a direct competitor to the EQC (assuming a $5k premium on the 3), but it may be one for the cheaper ICE versions (the GLC, Q5).

I am fairly positive the Y will be better specs and much cheaper. The Model X is already the same price and specs (maybe less luxury features but better tech features). I feel sorry for the German makes…

Tech isn’t everything. The premium German manufacturers have never competed on tech specs, so why should they start now. They have the following they do because of their interiors and brand cache, something that you’re admitting is still there.

You don’t buy an SUV for the 0-60, it’s quick, that’s all that really matters to most. The charging rate is something that may be a negative, but for most markets (especially the european market) a range of 200+ miles is likely to be plenty enough for most people.

Prediction. Like Jaguar, Audi and Tesla they will sell as many as they can make in the next couple of years.

When the Model Y comes out T will be done with tax credits, while MB, BMW, Audi Jag will still have full credit at least for a while…..unless the law is revised????

I was really looking forward to this car to change my perception of MB, but the changes since the concept and I have lost any interest in the car.

Yeah but at what price?

Slow and crap range. This will be slow charging due to terrible efficiency.

The design is conservative but elegant, about 5+ seconds to 100 km is sufficient and a comfortable ride, but not insane, I think they are also being conservative on the range, energy consumption seems quite high, I will wait a bit more until we get some real life experience. Hope Bjørn Nyland will get a hold of one.
Happy that battery is 80KW and not 70 KW, but hoped it would be 100KW

They aimed for the 2015 Model X for specs for a 2020 model. Not sure that is a great idea. I suspect Tesla will update current Model X with more efficient motors and larger battery by then so this will not even compete well when it releases.

Those are good specs for five years ago…

Good looking design overall, but if the pricing is higher than the I-Pace, this is DOA.

While I applaud the detailed ‘US Centric’ specifications, you’d think they’d list Europe or Asian models first since that is likely where the cars would be first released. You mean to tell me, just like the Austrian I-pace, there will be no polyphase home charging for the Euro version? Also, the charging ‘specs’ rather like BMW brochures, seem to confuse European currents with USA voltages. 10 amperes is a ‘standard’ household charging rate in Europe, especially if polyphase. 8 (think I-Miev) or 12 is more standard in the states.

Anyone have any feel for how large this vehicle is? I suppose the overall length gives you a hint.

It’s built on the platform of the GLC, so it should be about that size.

Clue me in please – how big roughly is a GLC? compact, midsize or Large?

Midsize comparable to Q5 X3 (and iPace?)

OH ok, thanks. AutoNews just called it a ‘compact SUV’, but I assume it is still much larger than a BOLT ev. Perhaps that is why both it and the I-Pace have somewhat mediocre mileages.

Curious that they are using old-fashioned Induction motors at both wheels. Although lately companies like Siemens And Asea Brown Bovari (ABB) have been slightly improving the efficiency of the old designs, so might be fine from an efficiency standpoint, just not as good as the typical PM motor.

Via dathomir :
I-Pace = 117.7 wheelbase, 184.3 length, 84.2 width with mirrors
EQC = 113.1 wb, 187.4 length, 82.5 w

40 minutes to go from 10% to 80% with 80 kWh means an average charging power of 84 kW. So the taper must be about normal, probably instantaneous power down in the 60s at 80% to end up with that kind of average after a peak of 110 kW…

Efficiency means it will recharge fewer miles in that same time. This will not be good at all for longer travel.

Relatively low pack voltage also means it will need a 175kW charger to get that peak of 110kW even.

The Model X 75D is actually packing an 85 kWh battery. That car is only hitting around 240 miles. So this isn’t too far off the mark. Will need to see what the actual curb weight is.

Model x75 has a range of 417 km nedc, this one 450 km


For tesla see tesla site, choose an European country, and for this see their press release

According to Tesla website, X75D has a range of 237m vs. 200m for this Benz.
Couldn’t find the NEDC of 417km you are quoting.

According to other sites Daimler say it will get up to 280 (450km) miles of NEDC range. No idea where the 200 miles from this article comes from.

The X75D has a range of 259 miles (417km) NEDC.

So if accurate you’d expect the EQC to have the same range as the 75D in the EPA testing, and way more than the 200 miles (perhaps range of the concept?) mentioned in this article.

It seems MB US jumped the gun and released a much lower range than the official release. So 200 miles is wrong.

The Model X 75D’s battery is 75 kWh nominal capacity, 72.6 kWh usable.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Range seems off for a 80kWH pack.
If that’s true and it’s only 200AER, then the price better reflect that otherwise this car is DOA.

The pack looks almost like the Bolts….

It’ll likely be closer to 230-250.

Glad to see more EVs getting closer to production.

I also like how they don’t mention the Model X as a competitor. And a Tesla Model X 75D isn’t the most efficient EV, but it gets 383km of range, and is way more efficient than the ECQ and the i-pace. For the ECQ to get 320km from 80kwh probably means MB didn’t do very well with the aerodynamics here, and maybe the motors aren’t as efficient as Tesla’s either.

It looks like they are rounding up on pack wattage. 218 Ah * 350 V = 76,300 Wh or 76.3kWh. I bet 200 is also a soft number. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the EPA range shakeout a little closer to the mileage of the Model X.

I think it’s the same kind of maths GM is doing on the Bolt: the battery itself is labelled as 57 kWh, but they sell it as 60 kWh. (Indeed it seems the specs of the cells are pretty much *identical*, except for 50% higher C rater during charging…)

In another discussion, someone claimed that this is because the nominal capacity is measured at 1 C discharge, while actual driving usually discharges slower, resulting in smaller losses (and thus slightly higher available capacity).

Model X has excellent aerodynamics… likely the real world 70-80 mph range on the EQC is much worse than the X.

The other manufacturers are quickly finding out how hard it is to build a *competitive* BEV.

No-one has exceeded the specs of Tesla’s vehicles yet.

Mercedes likes to be at or near the top… and probably would rather not release this vehicle with its also-ran specs.

But the market is quickly moving to BEVs and Mercedes like the rest of them, knows that they have to get involved, even if it’s from the back.

There exists brand loyalty for Mercedes, and there will be buyers for this vehicle. However the ones that like better specs will go elsewhere (i.e. to Tesla). Lastly, Mercedes has not stated their intended production numbers yet. We look forward to hearing if they will make more than 20,000 per year or not.

Agree. At 2020, questions still apply: production? will they only be CARB state, Korea, China..?

It’s too bad history, like that of Mercedes electric B-Class distribution, often repeats itself.

Hmmm, maybe the “up to 200 miles” range is a case of MB underpromise / overdeliver? Maybe they think they can get 200 at the very least, so if it comes in at 210 or 220 then it looks better than if they promise 250 and come in lower?

Let’s say they only use 90% of the available 80 kw-hrs, so 72 kw-hrs. At 330 wh/mi, that’s a range of 218 miles. For the full 80 kw-hrs, at 330 wh/mi that’s 242 miles. I’m using 330 wh/mi as that is about what the Jaguar I-Pace did on Bjorn’s hour long test. Ah well, it will be interesting to see what it actually is rated at when it is released next year.

80 kWh is the usable, not the total battery pack capacity. It wouldn’t make sense to rate an EV’s range based on 90% of the usable capacity.

It seems there was a PR mistake.

“Mercedes-Benz USA initially sent out press materials that said the EQC’s estimated range was both “around” and “up to” 200 miles. A representative for the company told The Verge after publish: “Our colleagues in Stuttgart have advised us that the preliminary estimated range figure for the EQC of 200 miles for the U.S. is incorrect.””


So the 200 mile range is wrong. MB are saying 280 NEDC, so probably closer to 230-240miles, in line with the Model X75D and I Pace.

Thanks for finding this.

Going by the specs of the onboard charger, it is a single-phase 32A job. A big mistake imo for such an expensive vehicle and large battery. They should have fitted a 3-phase charger. Certainly not compatible with their slogan “Das beste oder nichts”.

Otherwise, a decent car but nothing ground-breaking.

Yup, *maybe* they can do two-phase charging at 2x16A.

I’m pretty sure that they’ll offer a two phase charger, since 16A is the standard limit per phase for non three phase power in Germany.

I’m pretty sure they don’t. My leaf has 7.4 kW too: 1-phase 32A. But who knows….

I suspect that like the BMW brochures, Daimler is mixing USA and EUROPEAN figures in their US Centric ‘Specs’. 10 amperes polyphase would be 7 kw, so this would be fine with Euro households with 40 ampere polyphase service that have either a 16 or 20 ampere imbalance limitation depending on the country. Also, the 32 ampere 1-phase charger, could be used in Britain as well as the States since some neighborhoods in Britain lack polyphase power, and they have a 32 ampere limitation anyhow which fits in perfectly with the I-Pace.

“10 amperes polyphase would be 7 kw”

That would be ridiculous, meaning that on a 1 phase charger it would only charge at 2.3 kW or so.

I have never heard of a charger limited to 10 A. It’s always 16 A or 32 A (Zoe can go to 63A). 10 A is what you can draw continuously from a standard wall socket, but dedicated wall chargers always provide the full 16A, and you’d want to use that.

233 1/3 volts times 3 times 10 amperes equals 7,000 watts. Or if you prefer, 404 volts times 10 amperes times sqrt(3) equals 6997 watts. So if your 240Y/416 power point (as the Aussie’s say) can provide 16 amperes the car will only draw 10 amperes from it if the limitation is 7 kw.

Might be good to change the batteries in your calculator. I have no idea what the current limitation is on the Mennekes version of this car – and it looks like you don’t either.

Very boring looking. But nice to see some entries from more manufacturers.

Specs much better than same priced model x75. Tesla shares down 4% after reveal

Have they announced the price???

Which specs, exactly, are “much better”?…

I doubt that this reveal has anything to do with T stock decline. BTW, Benz stock sells at about 7x earnings. At that PE Tesla would have to make 7 B/ year to justify its current price. Tesla is simply overvalued (even at +/- $290 not to mention $420).

It’s valued on growth prospects, not current earnings.

Yes, I agree, but eventually the growth prospects have to turn into real earnings of a more mature company. Microsoft hit $500+ billion market cap in 2000 as a classical growth play then dropped a lot and did not exceed its year 2000 value for 15 years or so.

As long as they are growing 50% or so every year, with no end in sight, I don’t think that’s a major worry at this point 🙂


Not a chance. Conversion design.

Looks to be full of electronic modules and a large tubular structure that extends back into what would be an ICE vehicle’s transmission hump. What’s that about? If it’s crash protection, why does it extend so far back? Maybe there was unexpected flexing in the front body section so a stiffening structure had to be added.

200 miles for a BEV that doesn’t look like it was pooped out of a dinosaur, like the X? That’s the cost of good looks for you.

And likely inefficient motors.

Well, no one complained about the “S” or “X” which uses similar motors.

Daimler has their own reasons for doing things – for instance – their first Semi Truck concepts used 1 or 2-quadrant inverters so that they had to have HUGE resistor banks to dispel the regenerated energy from steep hills (didn’t use the German’s catch phrase of ‘Recuperation’ since all they’re getting is HEAT).

Way to taunt the rest of us: put “poop” next to Tesla, as well as dinosaur.
Personally, I hate the rims, they may as well be the spoked hubcaps on an olde tyme Cadillac.

Something that gets pooped out generally will have good aerodynamics. If you are trying to push something soft out of a small hole, it forms a cylindrical shape…like a jetliner. So, something “Pooped out” is actually good.

I think that was the point?…

Though I personally don’t agree about this having better looks than Model X.

Worse specs than Tesla Model X 75D.
Top speed 180 km/h? (vs 210 km/h)
Range 200 miles??? Terrible efficiency considering it’s a smaller car than Model X and it has 5 more kwh in the battery!
AC charge rate : 7,4 kw vs 16,5 kw

At least Jaguar I-Pace , although with low efficiency too, has a 90 kwh pack and better performance. Audi e-Tron will have a 95 kwh battery and 150 kw charge rate.

Personal taste, but also the design I think is worse than Model X, I-Pace and e-Tron.

And this EQC will also be the last to be produced and sold! I feel bad for Mercedes.

It looks decent, but the specs are atrocious. How is it gobbling 4kWh/mile? I hope that’s a cold weather highway range quote.

4 kWh/mile. Yeah. Right.

Handsome car, but why is it so amazingly inefficient?

It uses induction motors like Tesla S/X, but manages to be even more inefficient, aerodynamics likely. My hunch is Tesla updates S/X by the time this thing launches with even more efficient models. This thing is just sad in comparison (hitting Tesla 2016 specs in 2020, a full generation behind, really).

As expected since several month the total capacity for the EQC is ~89kWh by using the cell 63Ah from SK innovation. (Same cell planned for the Kia Niro EV).
With 80kWh (Usable battery), the DoD is 90%
Moreover we can see that the prototype is able to charge at 132kW on ABB charger at 30% of SoH.
With SoH at 70% and a battery pack voltage at 380V we can expect to reach 142kW (Max DC current allowed on ABB charger : 375A)

If they indeed used 63 Ah cells, why would they announce 218 Ah nominal capacity for the pack instead of 252?

218Ah is the usable capacity

That’s not how I read it. What makes you think that?

(I don’t think I have ever seen usable capacity specified in Ah…)

Well, the official early specs has much slower charging. Presumably they were testing the limits of their battery chemistry. One can always turn up the charging rate and sacrifice on the cell degradation front. Seems that for production, they are going with more conservative charging rates.

With a battery pack at 90kWh, the charging rate is still low at 132 kW : ~1.46.
Don’t worry about cell degradation at this rate for NCM cell.

it looks such a boring car

Meh…underwhelming. Clunky boring nonaerodynamic design. Not great range. Too cowardly to give a price.

It’s not terrible but I would much rather get a Tesla.

This is my thought, nice looking vehicle, but relatively slow charging and likely a high price means it is probably DoA (or they have to sell it at a loss).

“Nonaerodynamic”. Uh huh, sure. MB has more aero resources than Tesla so we’ll see. I’m sure it’s below .3

Aero is just as much about design as anything else. Tesla seem to have decided aero first, design second on their vehicles. The established manufacturers seem to be aiming to fit their EV’s into their existing design language so they don’t stand out as different. Both ways have merits.

I don’t see the merit of the less aerodynamic designs…but I guess I have no attachment to traditional car designs. Give me what provides the best performance.

Having a more boxy design, means more interior space for people and cargo, without sacrificing headroom, or making it look like a weird mobile bubble car.

They all have access to wind tunnels & designers. The difference is that Tesla explicitly makes aerodynamics a high priority. Every Tesla after the Roadster is way more aerodynamic than other cars in the same class. The ICE auto companies just STILL haven’t figured out how important the aerodynamics are for EVs. They are critical for cost & range.

I doubt they can’t figure it out. It’s a pretty basic premise. It’s more likely they don’t care. Most people seem to dislike “aero” styled vehicles and it’s likely they’ve had lots of focus groups guiding them on the preferences between aero and range on an EV vehicle.

There’s enough space in the sector for lots of different designs and attempts, and if the worst thing about this vehicle is lack of aero then MB are doing pretty good – redesigning a body style is going to be a lot easier and cheaper than redesigning the electroncs and drivetrain.

Is it me or does the rear look exactly like a new Cayenne.

A very conservative design and specs, I hope MB price it right, and sell it in larger numbers than other plunged-in MB ever produced.

Definitely not a “Best or Nothing” car, MB didn’t beat anyone in any category, but not the worst in any category either. Overall is pretty good and not a flashy car.

200 miles was most likely for the 70kwh prototype, this one should go further with 80kwh

Two async motors, interesting choice.

Good with more choises. I’m sure they will sell all they can manufacture, like all EVs.
I would line to test it, and check out noise, comfort and just see how it’s made.

oof… that’s not good at all.

In a Norwegian newspaper, the range was said to be up to 450km.

“up to” is marketing speak, be careful with that.

My LEAF has a range “up to” 250 km. Never got more than 170 km on a charge.

NEDC. I have no idea why people are still quoting that terrible standard. It should be illegal. WLTP is probably around 350.

The 200 mile range is an errenous press release by MB US, who have since announced it’s wrong, Someone really should update the article. It’s actually 280 miles NEDC, so probably in the range of around 230-250 miles EPA.

Bring on the EQA

Dieter is having a great week. Sunday his vegan F1 driver(Lewis Hamilton) won the Italian grand prix. Now this, yes I know, 200 miles is not the best for a ev in 2019. Now it’s your turn Audi.

no more powerful than if the bolt offered dual motor. good to know.

Specifications are fantastic, but why only 200 mile range.
4 Wheel drive as standard with 2 motors will bring lots of CUV folks into the showrooms. But the price will certainly be above $90,000 given its bigger size and 4WD functionality. EQ 400 will certainly be bigger in interior space than S Series and will also have a smooth drive and faster pickup.

I’m not convinced that the German luxury brands have any intention of producing electric cars in volume as they are doing nothing to secure a source of battery production. Tesla understood, as anyone would who was seriously thinking about making electric cars in volume, that obtaining enough batteries is a serious obstacle– therefore they set out making a partnership with Panasonic and begining construction of the Gigafactory years before the Model 3 went into production. Tesla now makes about 1/2 of the all EV batteries in the world. I don’t doubt that Merecedes COULD make such a deal, but it would be a major commitment of capital for them and they would have to be doing it NOW if they were serious about producing cars in volume in 1 – 2 years. I have not found any information that they have or are pursuing such a deal.

My conclusion therefore is that they are only trying to grab some publicity, make a small number of electric cars to bring people in to the showroom where they can pull the classic bait-and-switch.

Looks like a solid EV entry for the luxury crossover segment.

The charge port is in the wrong bloody place again! For the UK anyway that is… I’m not hopeful that they will swap that over when they swap the steering wheel.

This really needs to be standardised

Wonder why headline is 200 miles – WLTP cycle for this is 450 km = 280 miles..I am quite sure that production spec is better..of course in winter and high speed in practise it will be 200 miles https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/vehicles/passenger-cars/eqc/the-eqc/

Where did you get that? According to the promotional material, the 450 km range is a provisional figure, without specifying which cycle was used, if any. Given marketeers’ propensity for boasting, the 200 mile figure seems more likely in a real-world scenario.

MB has a long way to go but at east they’re getting started. I expect a lot more from BMW given their relatively long experience with plugins. Experience counts for a lot for example the Honda Clarity which is a very respectable and usable package at a reasonable price after a couple of questionable efforts.