Fast Charging Comparison: Audi e-tron, Mercedes EQC, Jaguar I-PACE

JAN 27 2019 BY MARK KANE 62

Audi sets the bar for fast charging at 150 kW and there is no contender

The three latest premium all-electric SUVs/crossovers – Jaguar I-PACE, Audi e-tron (sales to begin imminently) and Mercedes-Benz EQC (technically pre-production version) showed interesting differences at the 175 kW fast charger tests performed by Fastned.

The results below could be very important for those who will often take long journeys – we would not be surprised by a difference of half hour between charging to 80%. Sadly, we don’t have data for Tesla Model X, because its full potential at Superchargers is constrained at Fastned’s station by the CHAdeMO adapters to just 50 kW. We will probably not get any new data for new models in quite some time as the 175 kW units were temporarily shut down.

Audi e-tron – 95 kWh battery, peak at around 150 kW (up to 1.6C)

First of all, the e-tron is so far in a class all its own because not only does it achieve the highest level of 150 kW, but also sustains the peak level over a wide state-of-charge window.

Together with 11 kW and 22 kW (optional) on-board three-phase chargers, the e-tron is currently #1 in terms of charging options.

“The charge speed is up to 150 kW at our 175 kW fast chargers and up to 50 kW at our other chargers. In the charge curve below you can see the charge speed at both chargers. On average the e-tron charges 100 km in 10 – 30 minutes. At a 175 kW charger the charge speed will slowly drop as of 80%. At a 50 kW charger this happens only at 98%.”

Mercedes-Benz EQC – 80 kWh battery, peak at around 110 kW (up to 1.4C)

The upcoming Mercedes-Benz EQC fits between the e-tron and I-PACE with 110 kW of peak charging power, but as you can see, the charging power decreases already at 40% state-of-charge.

“The charge speed is up to 110 kW at our 175 kW fast chargers and up to 50 kW at our other chargers. In the charge curve below you can see the charge speed at both chargers. On average the EQC charges 100 km in 15 – 30 minutes. At a 175 kW charger the charge speed will slowly drop as of 40%. At a 50 kW charger this happens as of 90%.”

Jaguar I-PACE – 90 kWh battery, peak at around 85 kW (up to 0.95C)

The Jaguar I-PACE, on the other hand, dropped the ball a little bit with 85 kW max, but maybe it will improve with some updates or next model year.

The issue is also with quickly decreasing power from around 50% SOC.

“The charge speed is up to 85 kW at our 175 kW fast chargers and 50 kW at our other chargers. In the charge curve below you can see the charge speed of the I-PACE at both chargers. On average the I-PACE charges 100 km in 15 – 30 minutes. At a 175 kW charger the charge speed will slowly drop as of 50%. At a 50 kW charger this happens as of 80%.

We understood that the I-PACE may receive a software update in Q1 2019 to enable fast charging up to 100 kW. Please check with your Jaguar dealer for more information.”

At 100 kW, the I-PACE charging rate will be up to 1.1C, still behind the EQC.

Source: Fastned

Categories: Audi, Charging, Comparison, Jaguar, Mercedes

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

62 Comments on "Fast Charging Comparison: Audi e-tron, Mercedes EQC, Jaguar I-PACE"

newest oldest most voted

Impressive Audi. Let’s hope the VW ID models also carry the 150 kW charging.

Good, the 150 kW charging might make up for the less efficient drive train and electronics during roadtripping given there is the the charging infrastructure on your journey to support it.

How would you know the electronics are less efficient? I guess the motors are at city driving. Induction motors are better at higher revs (see Model S and X)

It doesn’t make up for it compared to a model3 on the current model SC. You will still go from point A-B faster in the m3 assuming finding charging infrastructure is not an issue, (model3 wins again).
Of course the model3 is capable of higher charging rates which we are about to find out about when they start being charged in Europe.

VWAG have told that “ID Neo” has up to 125 kW DCFC. So not quite that high, but still not too bad IMO. “Neo” will not have the largest pack size for MEB platform (they have mentioned size >110 kWh) – maybe the largest packs will get higher DCFC power as well.

Yeah, they mentioned last year that the larger MEB variants will go up to 150 kW. Not sure where “larger” begins, though…

“size >110 kWh”

The ID Buzz (mini bus) will get the 400 MJ (111 kWh) battery. May later other models.

Wat is really impressive is that the charge rate drops to 125 kW at 80% which is the peak maximum for a Tesla… I believe that sustained high charge rates will become a strong selling point in the future.

So can also say : Well they took 6 years to achieve this.
And Tesla will start roll out their v3 charger which is believed to have a speedrate of 250kw.
The model 3 is also able to charge at 150kw or more. Soon with european deliveries and the CCS charger this can be checked

https://electrek.co/2018/11/19/tesla-supercharger-expansion-v3-delayed-elon-musk/

Model 3 can peak to 120 kW at 10-50% SOC only.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/19/tesla-model-3-is-the-most-efficient-electric-car-on-highways/
Audi does full 150 kW power up to 80% SOC.

Fast charging vs battery longevity, I know which I would choose……

This is yet another example of how critical individual usage scenarios are when it comes to EVs. I never take a long trip in my EV, and I can’t imagine doing so in the foreseeable future. So to me, personally, high speed charging performance means nothing, even though I recognize how important it is to the broader market and our dreams of seeing very high EV adoption by the mainstream public.

Why never take long trips? Over 5 years we’ve taken our S on about a dozen 4000 mile plus trips including MN > FL every winter. We’ve been to both coasts a couple of times as well as tour of National Parks. We still have over 95% battery capacity in our 2014 P85D.

What is a long trip? For some people I know 200km is already “so far away”. And I do that with great fun in my Zoe. Weekend over at moms house 240km away. In this weather we have to stop once but charging for a 30minutes and having something to drink/eat ourself and then continue our trip. With a Model S 100D I did a 890km trip and it was almost exactly the same time as in a Audi A6 two weeks earlier. Had a bit more traffic. But 3 stops 2 for tea and one bigger lunchbreak.

Too early to make assumptions. It has a 8 year 160 000km/100 000mi warranty which is ok but we don’t know what kind of restrictions there are for it.

With the amount of engineering Audi made and quick test drive feedback I can say that it is at the very least an ok choice for a 3 year lease. Beyond that we will have to wait for user data and feedback.

NMC (cell chemistry most car companies use) can handle higher charge/discharge currents while having a much better cycle life than NCA (what Tesla uses). NCA is the cheapest solution to get a lot of capacity at little weight in your car.

Regarding to fast charging and cycle life, NMC has an advantage. That is why you can get fast charging and a long enough battery life and you do not need to choose.
Tesla cannot simply increase their NCA C-rates to deliver the same performance as some on here seem to believe. If they do that because of market pressure, they really would lower battery life. They could increase battery capacity to increase the currents or switch the cell chemistry.

Not really an issue because the Tesla cars are so much more efficient in their use of energy than the E-Tron and besides model3 is capable of charging above 150kw. So far Tesla batteries have proven to be the most durable, best performing with the least degradation of any other battery currently on the market. So I’m not sure you know what you are talking about.
I would trust JB Straubel when he said that Tesla will be bringing faster charging(250Kw) with version 3 of the super charger but pushing beyond that there are trade-offs that are not worth it in his opinion, rather than some random person on the internet.

Have a look in studies and literature. My claims can easily be tested. I dont say Tesla has no options for future cars, but the other companies have a fast charge advantage for similar sized batteries right now due to NMC, which they pay with weight and money. So it has disadvantages and advantages. But claiming their higher C-rates will lead to bad battery life is just wrong.

Instead of appreciating Teslas current choice for a cheap and light cell chemistry, you chose to boot up your Tesla fanboy defense mode.

What advantage, which of the other cars charges more than the 170 miles in 30 minutes Tesla is claiming? Even e-Tron will struggle if I extrapolate Fastned’s numbers. And that’s before the Supercharger V3 that’s supposed to be coming pretty soon.

Don’t forget that efficiency also counts. e-Tron may be quick to take it in but it’s also quick to gobble it up.

Supercharger v3 was supposed to be here already.

Your comparing a mid-sized sedan to a full sized CUV? Of course the mid-sized sedan is more efficient. But if VW were to put this powertrain in a mid-sized MEB sedan It would certainly demonstrate much improved efficiency over the e-tron.

The e-Tron is inefficient even for its form factor, though. I have no doubt that the MEB-based cars will be more efficient — but than again, apparently they won’t have the same charge rate…

Not at all. I’m just calling BS when I see it. There is no better battery on the market than the Tesla, if there was I wouldn’t be defending it. The efficiency on the E-tron is terrible so they are no getting much from their so-called “espensive” battery. lol

As for longevity we will have to wait and see on that one.

That was my first thought when I saw the graph for the Audi.

Fast Charging vs Longevity do need to be balanced. Fortunately it’s not one or the other. I think for the average driver who does 2 or 3 longer trips per year that require fast charging and all of the other charging is slower overnight then I don’t think longevity is a concern, even when done as fast as Audi.

Someone who uses their car almost solely for longer trips that require fast charging might need to think about it some.
———-
If the charging is fast enough that there is a trade-off decision to be made I’d hope that the manufacturer would allow us to select from three or four curves as default (I’d choose longest battery life) as well as select a faster option for individual charges. Most of the time on trips we’re fine charging slower but there are perhaps one or two charges per trip where we might like faster charging for that one instance.

“I’d hope that the manufacturer would allow us to select from three or four curves as default”

You are welcome to charge your E-Tron at a CCS 50 kW charger there are lots of them available.

Longevity depends on the chemistry. It’s not a universal law.

I’d say they should also show the Tesla rate just for comparison. All do 120 kW now at Super Chargers . I’ve heard they have also been tested at 150. Yet as Elon has stated Fast can be harder and shorted life on the battery. It’s also hard on the GRID if you don’t have a large battery system to buffer rates at the Charging locations.
Cooled cables as we have seen with Electrify American can also be a weak spot. I can’t imagine the issues with the top 350 kW rate and loads on the GRID.

The electrify america units by me are soon to be turned up – 4 – 150 kw dispensers. I think they are also planning to install batteries, but the size of the electric service mystifies me at 1662 kw. They surely have room for plenty of expansion.

But not sure how many takers they’re going to get at $21/ hour billing. That is significantly more expensive than a gasoline vehicle.

But not sure how many takers they’re going to get at $21/ hour billing. That is significantly more expensive than a gasoline vehicle.

Fill up with 390 miles of range in 40 minutes = $14?

For the moment Fastned could only do that if Tesla had given them access to one of the very first Euro-spec cars that are here. Seems like they have not, so we need to wait until first end customers receive their cars. Should take max 4 weeks from now.

It sure will be very interesting to see how Model 3 charges at one of these HPC CCS-chargers.

When it comes to Teslas at current version of SCs, according to Better Route Planner data…
_M3LR tops at 117 kW, tapers at 50% SOC
_MS/X 100 tops at 117 kW, tapers at 58% SOC
_MS/X 75 tops at 100 kW, tapers at 50% SOC

So, at this very moment, Audi e-tron quattro is on a class of its own when it comes to charge speed in terms of kW over broad SOC window. Model 3LR however probably travels a bit faster given its lower consumption, assuming SCs and HPCs are available for charging (which is more likely for Tesla).

Yes, but you are forgetting that Tesla soon will be rolling out SC3 and that M3 is rated at a charging capacity of 185kw..we probably know more before summer. But for now Tesla dont the want to ruin the S and X sales, and is probably waiting with the reviel until the upgraded model S and X is ready for roll out.

I wrote “at this very moment” intentionally, knowing the rumors that SC3 is around the corner. 🙂

While the Model 3 is certainly capable of higher charge currents that still won’t extend it’s taper points. If anything if pushed at maximum current the initial taper point on the Model 3 might be much less than 50%.

“Cooled cables as we have seen with Electrify American can also be a weak spot. ”

No, they were not. It was an error in the connctor itself, not related to the cooled cable.

Not to mention the cost of charging at high rates. Same as gas prices according to Porche.
What’s the point? looks good on the marketing brochure i suppose.

Actually as faster charging cars come online they will be able to better utilise the charging infrastructure. On an Electrify America station on a per/KWh basis an e-tron will be much less expensive to charge than say a Bolt EV.

It makes sense to pay more if you are in a rush…

I can’t wait to see some data from the Taycan. Although Fastned doesn’t have 350 kW stations, their prices are already there.

We know from video of Taycan Cross-Turismo that it can charge at at least 248 kW. I tip it will max at 300 kW.

Very impressive for the Audi. Let’s see in time what the life length of these batteries are…

50 kW all the way to 100 percent is very impressive. Probably a reserve we the top.

All manufacturers are now offering 70% battery life over 100.000 miles or 8 years warranty. So that shouldn’t be a concern to anyone, regardless of how often and at what speeds they are fast charging.

It should be a concern to people who buy the car after 100k. We simply have no idea how these batteries will hold up longer term.
But we do know that Tesla batteries degrade very little over very long mileages. 10-15% at over 300k miles. And that is with the old Tesla battery tech.
The new models coming from Hyundia, VW group etc have to be around for five years before we know. Judging by other EV companies their batteries won’t last too well.

You mean Nissan with the wind cooled battery pack? yeah that was kind of lousy. We may assume LG know what they are doing with these battery packs. And will see similar degradation as Tesla.

E-Tron 55 Quattro has 95 kWh battery, with 83.5 kWh usable.

Looks like Kona electric/Niro EV/… with CCS has already no fast charging anymore (in that meaning, 70kW too slow…).

notting

Impossible at this point with the EQC not out yet and the e-Tron embargoed, but what would REALLY help is all of these curves on one graph and each one divided by the car’s consumption. 150kW in the e-Tron won’t do them any good if the thing uses 1.5 times as much energy as the EQC.

km/h is the only charging speed that really matters!

No, the C factor is the relevant value. For the e-tron it’s 1.6 and for the EQC it’s 1.4. So it’s very close to each other. The battery doesn’t care about the efficiency of the motor and the air resistance, especially during charging.

notting

Sorry, what? I mean, yeah, from an engineering standpoint c rates are interesting, but if I’m trying to get somewhere, high consumption is going to eat away any advantage I might have though fast charging and slow down my trip in the process. That’s why charging power is only interesting when weighed against consumption.

For a motorist, miles added for a given charging time is more relevant than kWh added. When charging on the road during long trips, an efficient car will have shorter charge times, since less energy is needed to be added.

I think he meant how fast you are getting KM charged. So for example “100km in 13 minutes” is quite a good measurement.

The preliminary numbers published by Daimler do not really suggest the EQC will be more efficient, though…

Why not overly all 3 in ONE chart so you can really see the difference?

IMHO the vehicles are too different for that. For every vehicle, the same percentage of the max. charging power and of the SoC is in kW resp. kWh an completely other value. E.g. when asking “My battery currently has x% SoC and I need ykm more range, how long does that take in best case?” the percentages e.g. of the max. charging power is irrelevant, the value in kW is needed (which the charger has to deliver).
But more like from the scientific view, like all rechargable batteries don’t like high power charging above 80% SoC, no matter what the absolute battery capacity or charging power is.

notting

I wonder how this ultra Fast Charge would affect the batteries in terms of Battery Longevity .

Badly! But I guess it keeps the dealerships happy because what they lose in servicing profits they make up for in regular expensive battery replacements.

Renault offered Zoes with 2C charging for rented batteries. At the beginning (around 2012/2013) there was a fee additionally to the battery rent for every time using 2C charging. After a few years they stopped that fee (ok, in the meantime it’s also harder to find a Zoe with 2C charging due to slower charger in the vehicle and bigger battery).
Here we’re talking about just 1.6C max with much more modern batteries! But Tesla limits charging power when fast-charging too often. We wil see if that BEVs also have something like that…

notting

Tesla has dropped the ball, unfortunately.

No they didn’t. But competition is only good.

Jaguar, Mercedes and Tesla all have similar charging curves that peak around 50% and taper off from there. Audi is very aggressive until 80%. It will be interesting to see how the Audi battery packs hold up over time, as they are clearly the odd man out with regard to charging curves.

What I find funny here is that some people call out on Jaguar as being slow charging and here the I-pace is on par with the Mercedes. All do around 100km in 15-30 minutes. Only Audi is a bit faster.
Overal it is quite good. Recently had a I-pace for a week and we did a 800km road trip without any struggle. And yes we had 3 stops, but just as I would normally drive. Somewhere a short stop for a cup of tea, a lunch somewhere and another stop for tea/toilet. It was fun and the Jaguar was a amazing car to drive on winding roads. And from te EV’s I drove it was the best handling one for now. And yes that is my opinion, handling excellent, Energie per km is a not that great but we reached around 320km with a buffer. Driving speed was around 110kmh which I normally do.

It was had to give the car back to it’s real owner. Our own Zoe is a fun little car but yeah, it’s a Zoe.

The answer was to give the Zoe to the original owner. Claim he needed to drive for a week to properly learn about his I-pace.

All this talk about fast charging but no information on battery management and impact on battery life. This is the not so easy part for traditional ICE manufacturers to get right.