Mercedes-Benz EQC Battery, Powertrain & Range Explained: Video

SEP 5 2018 BY MARK KANE 50

Here we present a more technical view of the Mercedes-Benz EQC

The Mercedes-Benz EQC was already unveiled, so we can now take a look at the specs and see what’s up with the first EQ model.

First of all, the EQC inherits from the GLC, so the German manufacturer was limited to a non-ground-up build. Regardless, Mercedes-Benz did all that was possible to adopt the skateboard design with two motors – one at each axle – and battery packs between the axles. The front trunk wasn’t able to emerge though.

Mercedes-Benz EQC went with two asynchronous (induction) motors. The total system output stands at 300 kW and 765 Nm of torque. The front motor is optimized for the best possible efficiency in the low to medium load range, while the rear one determines dynamism.

Acceleration for car that weights 2,425 kg is 5.1 seconds (0-100 km/h) or 4.9 seconds (0-60 mph). The top speed is limited to 112 mph (180 km/h).

2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC

Now, let’s check the battery. The battery is 80 kWh, which sounds decent, but somehow the range of around 200 miles (320 km) doesn’t. There are no official results, so perhaps we can have hope for more, but as the NEDC value is 280 miles (450 km), we think 222 miles EPA (up to 360 km) in the real world is possible.

The official press release contains an NEDC efficiency number of 22.2 kWh per 100 km (62 miles), which is quite high we think. The question now is why?

The battery is liquid cooled. The weight of the entire pack is around 650 kg, so 123 Wh/kg.

The battery consists of 384 cells – two modules with 48 cells and four modules with 72 cells.

2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC battery

The weak point of the EQC, especially in Europe, is the on-board charger – single-phase 7.4 kW, which needs 11 hours for the full charge. There should be at least an 11 kW three-phase charger in Europe to make it suitable for the grid, but there is no word on such a charger being made available.

On the other hand, the DC fast charging at 110 kW – 40 minutes (110kW, 10%-80%) – sounds reasonable. There is no big splash here, but it does the job.

2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC

Whether or not the Mercedes-Benz EQC will outsell the Tesla Model X 75D/100D, Jaguar I-PACE or Audi e-tron (not unveiled yet) is in the hands of consumers, but for sure there will be plenty of choices in the high-end SUV segment.

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 (0-100 km/h in 5.1 seconds)
  • top speed of 112 mph (180 km/h)
  • 80 kWh battery (384 cells – two modules with 48 cells and four modules with 72 cells)
  • up to 200 miles (320 km) of all-electric range (prelim est.) or over 280 miles (450 km) under NEDC
  • DC fast charging (CCS Combo) in 40 minutes (110kW, 10%-80%)
  • AC on-board charger – 7.4 kW
  • towing capability – 1,800 kg (3,968 lbs)

Categories: Mercedes, Videos


Leave a Reply

50 Comments on "Mercedes-Benz EQC Battery, Powertrain & Range Explained: Video"

newest oldest most voted

Almost ten years of “other companies” perfecting the layout of EVs and this is what a company like MB comes up with?

it s a compromise, they have to use their current manufacturing lines to control cost/risk (stick to GLC dimension).No doubt they will build dedicated lines for future EV if there is a demand.They are not in loss making business.

Fully agree, not every company can risk their existence for a new product. It’s a a reasonable and right step for MB. Of course this is not going to have people jump up and down. However if every OEM does this we have a different world tomorrow.

Everyone keeps saying that Tesla will not survive the onslaught from the traditional manufacturers with their decades of manufacturing knowledge and massive R&D budgets but yet here we stand with these legacy companies just still making mediocre compliance cars that hardly compete with a 2012 Model S. It’s almost 2019 and there STILL is no real competitor for Tesla.

I don’t think Tesla will be beat by any one manufacture anytime soon. But as each of these manufactures start producing competent EV’s Tesla will no longer have the market to themselves. Many people only buy Mercedes, BMW’s, Jags, etc… If they wanted an EV with equal performance they basically had to buy Tesla.

Still have for the next few years.

“Everyone” keeps saying Tesla is going to crush the traditional manufacturers and make many of them bancrupt. “Everyone” is just a bunch of fanboys/haters.

In the real world it’s usually something in between. The market is big enough for Tesla to flourish and the traditional manufacturers to keep pumping out cars (EV/PHEV/ICE) for decades to come.

I agree that the truth will be in the middle: Tesla won’t be without competition, nor will it go out of business.

However, I *do* suspect that some of the laggards will go bust in the tumult…

Sorry, this will be fully available in 2020, is the size of a Model Y (only 10cm longer than Model 3), is 30kph slower on the Autobahn than the X 75, of detabale range ( Mercedes got the estimated range wrong during the event, 🤣).
It is too late for compromises.
If they were available today they would sell a lot. But 2020?

comes out in 2019 for the 2020 model year

I think, this Benz is a bit dissapointing, technically speaking.

Agree with the comments here, this is not super exciting innovation. But maybe this is actually good that it is just a car. Look at the BMW i3 which was really a long shot design wise and build from carbon elements. In the end it cost BMW a lot of capital and was not a super hit with buyers. The Model 3 is also just a quite boring Sedan with a battery, but a good car to own. If MB can move 30% of their SUV buyers to EVs, this would be fantastic for a start

They even increased the i3 production volume so clearly they are selling more of them than planned.

The actual sales numbers say otherwise.

Look beyond the US: the i3 is actually one of the top-selling EVs in the world. (18337 units this year up to July — about 2,000 ahead of the Bolt; some 6,500 behind Model S or Model X.) For a niche model from a medium-sized premium car only maker, that’s an amazing performance. It’s likely to sell more than 30,000 units this year — more than the originally planned *total* over its entire production run!

It was not meant as an attack on the i3, but it clearly did not became the next BMW3, which the uncontrollable cost and special design had a big play in. BMW envisioned a carbon chassis future, those plans are now long burried

The i3 was never meant to be the next 3-series. Ignoring the fact that it’s in an entirely different class: according to Munro, the i3 was designed to optimise costs for a fairly small production run of 30,000 or maybe 50,000 total. They already sold more than that if I’m not mistaken.

For the small volumes they planned, the technology made sense. For larger volumes, it’s too expensive.

(The fuel cell i5 was to use a somewhat different type of carbon fibre chassis, for better costs at the intended somewhat larger volumes…)

MB doesn’t care if they move buyers from the current ICE products to EV’s. What they care about is they don’t lose buyers to another manufactures EV’s.

Yep. Metoo car, not a revolution.

The i3 makes the Aztec look like a masterpiece. It’s a blight upon automotive design, hilariously overpriced and has the range of a leaf.
Yeah, I can only wonder why it doesn’t sell well?!?

The i3 was not a long shot. It was *meant* to be niche — yet far exceeded expectations.

Definitely not setting a new standard on any metric. Looks like for now Tesla is the Mercedes of EVs.

Look at the Model X. It should outsell the S manifold considering the SUV craze, but Tesla decided on useless falcon doors and a cross between minibus and SUV.
Sometimes a bit of the old winning formula is not so bad. Wouldn’t be surprised if Model X sales will suffer (and Tesla keeps growing with S and 3)

Guess MB does set the standard for not fitting falcon doors on long range electric SUVs. Oh wait, Audi and Jaguar beat it to it. Oh well, at least owners have plenty of time to revel in not having falcon doors when they are trying to get their cars charged at 50KW infrastructure.

Someone needs to put a sign up in every office at Tesla that says: “New isn’t better, different isn’t better, only BETTER is better.”

Tesla will mature as a company and get beyond this self-indulgent engineering/design stage. But I wish they’d do it sooner.

No, Tesla’s entire brand image is built on being an innovator. Let others build boring old-fashioned cars (with poor efficiency).

Saying the Model X “should” outsell the Model S, ignores the fact that EV buyers are a different demographic than average car buyers. While the average doesn’t give a s*** about efficient form factors, EV buyers tend to do.

It will probably never hit the shores of NA.

Won’t they need to sell it in CA and the other CARB states at least?

I suspect that’s what it was in fact primarily created for originally… (Before the project was raised in prominence when they started taking EVs more seriously.)

So I guess we can charge three of these at once on a 350 kW charger?

What’s up with the gigantic motor in the front? Ever seen a Model X, MB? Ever seen their frunk?

For a BEV coming out in 2019, these specs are terrible for a top end competitor.
The specific energy at the pack level is worse than a 2012 Model S 85 kWh pack which was around 150 Wh/kg (81 kWh/544 kg). A Model 3 LR’s 80.5 kWh pack has a specific energy around 175 Wh/kg once the extra stuff is removed from the penthouse. This EQC’s pack is around 123 Wh/kg which is far, far worse. We can see this in the resulting efficiency.
The DCFC rate on a kW basis is ok, not better than a Model 3 LR’s pack. But combined with very poor efficiency, the mph charging is very bad.
And just like the I-Pace, Mercedes skimped on the AC charging. These vehicles should target 8-9 hours to charge from empty to full so that it is possible to pull into a hotel late at night and charge to full by the morning.

Exactly. A new to market premium EV should not even consider being under 300 miles of range.

You’re speaking like a plughead (which we all are on this site), not a member of the intended audience for this vehicle. Those people don’t care a bit about the techie details, even though you and I and others here immerse ourselves in them.

As EVs continue to go mainstream, the customer set will increasingly care more about style, being able to buy a familiar brand from a dealer they’ve bought several cars from over the years, etc. We won’t like a lot of the decisions these newcomers make; heck, I hate a lot of the ICE decisions they make now. But it’s an inevitable price we enthusiasts will have to pay to get where we want to be in terms of broad EV adoption.

Very well said, Lou!

Why is this article still using the 200 mile range figure out of interest? MB USA have already said it was sent out in error and is incorrect.

“(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.”)”

Another article on the way ASAP

Problem is that these new folks who don’t care about details like speed of recharge and avail of particular types of charger will matter the first time the low info ev buyer tries to make a long trip. Then they will whine to all their low info friends and give the market a black eye… We need to be very harsh on manufacturers who promise the world and then deliver mediocrity. That is what MBs first EV was and this one is still far behind the vanguard. YAWN.

Let me amplify my comment above. This relationship between early adopters and enthusiasts on one hand and mainstreamers on the other is a very old story we see play out again and again, especially with technological products. I was very involved with PCs in their early days, and the people I worked and associated with were hard core computer types. We agonized over CPU clock speeds, RAM speeds, BIOS details, etc. When the early IBM PCs came out we were horrified by many design decisions, yet that machine totally reshaped the industry even though Apple was there first and was The Standard. But those “terrible” PCs succeeded because of the IBM logo and the availability of Lotus 1-2-3 (a must-have for anyone trying to justify a desktop computer in an office back then). Right now, we’re still seeing new EV buyers and potential buyers face a lot of hurdles. Even if you want to buy a Bolt or Leaf, in most parts of the US you still have to deal with almost comically bad salespeople who can barely get beyond, “And you never need to put gas in it!” For many car buyers this is bad enough, but the additional… Read more »

While these are interesting observations, I don’t see how that excuses Daimler for hyping an EV that is already on the verge of obsolescence by today’s standards…

Especially Mercedes drivers want/need fast and long range.
This might be just not enough.

What is the useable capacity of the battery?

Daimler said that 80 kWh was the useable amount, not the nominal amount.

Which however contradicts the claim of 210 Ah (video) or 218 Ah (press release) *nominal* capacity at 350 V nominal (408 V max)…

Humm, I guess this is the specs if they are taken Verbatim. I can’t take that seriously since that would mean in some continental Euro countries with limitations of 15, 16, and 20 ampere imbalance that they could only charge at less than a 5 kw rate at home, and could only utilize the 7.4 kw capability at a public docking station. I doubted the published specs initially since BMW brochures for the I3 seemed to go through too many English Translations – and then they mixed Euro currents with American voltages. On the other hand, they may say that the Austrian designed I-pace does exactly the same thing, as well as the Opel rebadged Ampera-E, which is only 1-phase , 32 amperes, and so this is exactly the same thing. But I would think some Swiss or Italian customers would be a bit frustrated charging at only 15 amperes , or around 3450 watts. That’s rather slow charging for a 80 kwh battery – but perhaps MB will say “Hey – Jag has a 90 kwh battery and its no faster”. Tesla always offered polyphase charging after running into so many complaints with Roadster 1-phase charging limitations. 70 ampere… Read more »

That’s WLTP range. EPA will be lower.

Interested in replacing my C240 Wagon – When is it available to order in Minnesota

I Really, really, really appreciate and enjoy what they presented.
That was all the info I wanted with wonderful CGI to demonstrate.
I’m over the comparisons range BS which no one knows until it his the road, same as every EV.
Now can I get one of those for the affordable EV’s? The terrible YouTube reviews can be put on a shelf.
To me this level of effort shows an actual corporate approach to pushing EV’s. This really excites me as the first company outside of Tesla that just might have a board room bringing together their various corporate divisions to push an electric vehicle.
I have a leaf and it took the weeks of cursing an shouting to get a new window ordered. They don’t support their software/nav for any updates. Trying to talk to them about repairs or when I went looking at a new leaf was a joke.
This looks like a wonderful entry into the EV market, with a well engineered and optomized power train, a well done battery pack, a great compromise on chassis and an integrated effort from Mercedes.

The renderings give a pretty good picture of the pack architecture; but it’s hard to make out the module architecture… It *seems* they have metal enclosures containing a pair of long pouch cells each, and a large cooling plate on top, much like the Bolt. (Except of course the plate is at the bottom in the Bolt.) But how does the cooling work exactly? If the renderings are at all realistic, it’s not clear that they are using the metal enclosures to transfer heat from the cell surfaces to the cooling plate: rather, it looks to me like the cooling plates are bolted to what seem to be metal blocks at the ends of the cell enclosures — which would suggest tab cooling?…