Mercedes Now Says 200-Mile Range Estimate For EQC Isn’t Correct


Range should be equal to its competitors.

When the Mercedes-Benz EQC 400 4MATIC launched yesterday, there was a palpable sense of disappointment among many observers. Instead of focusing on the fact that a significant player was launching a brand new all-electric vehicle in the popular crossover category, much of the surrounding discussion was focused its range, which was given in press materials as “up to 200 miles.” Turns out that number should have been higher. Oops.

Contacted by Green Car Reports,  Mercedes spokesperson Michael Minielly advised that the 200-mile figure was a not right. Said he to the publication,

Our colleagues in Stuttgart have advised us that the preliminary estimated range figure for the EQC of 200 miles for the U.S. market is incorrect. For now, we ask that you please use the 450-km NEDC figure (approximately 279 miles). The official U.S. range will be communicated closer to market launch.

So, that clears all that up, right? Well, not quite. the 450-kilometer (279-mile) number is rather meaningless. The archaic, wildly inaccurate NEDC testing procedure has been replaced by the much-better WLTP (Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure) and though it’s still not as accurate as our own EPA system, it’s a huge improvement. So, what might the range figure actually be?

Our own Mark Kane, familiar with how the different testing systems correspond with each other, estimates that the EQC will be given an EPA rating of approximately 222 miles. Seeing as the battery-powered Benz has an 80-kWh battery (usable — the actual capacity is probably around 90 kWh) and its efficiency stated as 22.2 kWh per 100 km (62 miles), we feel that this reinforces our estimate.

While the reality is even 222 miles can’t be seen as a breakthrough for a vehicle only arriving in 2020, it certainly does roll off the tongue better than the original figure, and it does match up with its competitors. The Jaguar I-Pace is estimated by its makers to have an EPA range of 220 miles, downgraded from an earlier estimate of 240 miles, while its other two declared contenders, the BMW iX3, and Audi e-tron, both have ranges of 249 miles (WLTP).

The elephant in the room, of course, is the Tesla Model Y. Although the Silicon Valley automaker doesn’t have the manufacturing capacity to even build the yet-to-be-revealed mid-sized crossover SUV, it is expected to (eventually) be based on the Model 3 platform and so will likely have a range of at least 280 miles. In our opinion, 300 miles should have been the target range for the established premium brands to hit if they really wanted to impress.

Still, with the distance on a single charge being so greatly improved over sub-100 miles of the first (non-Tesla) generation of lithium-powered electric vehicles, we think it makes more sense to focus on other aspects of the vehicles for now, since 220 miles is plenty of range for the everyday needs of the vast majority of customers. Ultimately, range will climb as battery technology improves, but for now, to torture an idiom, a 222-mile bird in the hand is better than two 300-mile birds in the bush.

Mercedes-Benz EQC

Mercedes-Benz EQC (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge)
17 photos
Mercedes-Benz EQC (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge) Mercedes-Benz EQC (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge) Mercedes-Benz EQC (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge) Mercedes-Benz EQC (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge) Mercedes-Benz EQC (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge) Mercedes-Benz EQC (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge) 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

Source: Green Car Reports

Categories: Mercedes

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

122 Comments on "Mercedes Now Says 200-Mile Range Estimate For EQC Isn’t Correct"

newest oldest most voted

It’s a bit sad that with all the hype, teasers, press and all, they couldn’t even get the range right. It seemed low to me too, but I figure it will all come out the wash once people are actually out driving them.
It also seems a bit a low side on the top end at 112 mph.

Another Euro point of view

I don’t know all the details of it but I kind of agree. Seems rather unprofessional on behalf of Mercedes. Now those WLTP regulation/testing protocol seems a complete last minute mess according to (I admit) the little info I could gather so Mercedes might only be partially responsible.

It makes sense to me: this is not the product for those who want long range. It’s all about market segmentation. Mercedes has a longer range version of this EV in the wings:

This one can be refueled in three minutes and makes use of the grill.

Another Euro point of view

I don’t know which markets does Mercedes target but I suspect that for example for the German market the EV buyers are such a specific niche market that range may not matter that much. Here explanation: if you want an autobahn cruiser no EV will fit your requirements as even if you fit a 120 kWh battery it will still deliver a bag of peanuts of miles of range (very little) at the 100 mph speed which is deemed adequate for a EUR 80k German car. So those people being anyway put aside you address the EV niche market, then you will likely find people that are in favor of electric cars but do want the luxury and the service/maintenance support of an established car brand, those are your customers.

It’s electronically limited, like most of German premium marques (although usually higher). The reality is it’s a road going SUV, not a race car, so why does it need to go above 112mph anyway? As long as it’s got good acceleration up to 90mph then there’s no issue in my books.

Unless of course you’re German and live next to an autobahn, in which case it’s still an SUV… 😉

“The reality is it’s a road going SUV, not a race car, so why does it need to go above 112mph anyway…”

Yeah, I’m scratching my head over that one too. Why in the world would anyone making (or buying) an SUV think it needs to have a top speed over 100 MPH?

If you want a high-performance sports car, then buy one. Just because Tesla makes high-performance CUVs that have a top speed of 125 or even 155 MPH, that doesn’t mean other auto makers need to aim for such extreme performance in a “utility” vehicle.

Tesla needed to establish a name brand. Mercedes already has done so. IMHO there is no need for any SUV/CUV maker to compete with Tesla on that one particular characteristic of its cars.

One reason to have a top speed over 100 mph is Autobahn in Germany. It’s not uncommon to drive 120 mph in the fast lane. I’ve seen many SUVs on Autobahn drive way over 100 mph.

The Mercedes AMG, BMW M-power high end SUV are cut-off at 250km/h and Porsche goes up to 280km/h with their top SUV, so there is a obvious market.

As is evident – the Germans are still not serous about EVs — even as they get their lunch eaten by Tesla in the sedan market….

It’s too bad the Model 3 is not available in Germany yet — I know so many people there who really do want one! Only when they begin to take over the streets of Germany will BMW & MB take real notice.

They can «launch» and change all the stats as they like, since the car only excist on paper

The EQC is already existing as prototype and InsideEVS was linking to some test drive videos in a Spanish desert 2 weeks ago, so its more than existing on paper only. The launch in Europe is announced for Q2-2019 too early to just have a ‘paper-car’ only.
If the US launch is some-when later in 2020, maybe battery chemistry has improved 10% until the EPA range has to be officially calculated.

Q2 2019? I think that’s the date production is supposed to start; for deliveries in late 2019 or early 2020…

I’m not going to quibble over the various different WAY OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT top speeds of various EVs. That’s just not relevant for consumer vehicles that will be driven legally.

Yup. Doesn’t even make any sense for driving on those stretches of the Autobahn with unlimited speed. For a BEV, driving at such a very high speed just means you run out of range very quickly.

Yes, the increased battery discharge rates at high speed are the problem here. BEVs are not (yet) suited for extended periods of driving over 100 mph.

except they’re not a problem here at all, because less than 0.1% of the world’s population regularly drive at speeds above 100 mph.

less than 0.1% of the world population will buy this car. So what’s your point?

IIRC per Bjorn’s test
for X driving ~150 km/h is fastest counting in charging, for S ~160

Agreed. Last year MB was saying $45k with 300 miles! Now it’s $70K for only 220 miles! Who are you fooling MB?

Good write up Dominick, I agree with everything you wrote.


Steven and Dominic,

Keith ran these numbers this morning and our computer model. He gets 220 miles EPA range for the Mercedes etron with 80 kilowatt-hours usable.

The model predicts 240 miles for the Jaguar I pace.

We got 222 and published an update article. So, we agree!

Design is clearly made for China market. Front is ugly as hell…

Generic ICE design.

Translates as “conventional car design”. Doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Aesthetically, it still works with many. Aerodynamically, it’s TERRIBLE.

They could have made it any shape they wanted. The design team clearly had more important tasks.

Yet presumably they wanted it to look like a Mercedes SUV, rather than say, a Tesla, or another non Merc like vehicle.

Did you even watch the premiere video?
Dieter Zetsche spent the first 15 minutes talking about how Sweden influence the EQC design.

I agree with David. Anyone that designs a pure EV with a monster grille is just doing it wrong. In a couple years, it will look just like all the fake wood paneling on 70’s car. An effort to cling to obsolete design aspects from a bygone era.

100% True.

And yet if fake wood paneling is what it takes to attract Mercedes buyers to get an EV instead of an ICE car the next time they go in to buy a new car, then Long Live Wood Paneling!!

I honestly don’t understand why people complain about a large grille. Okay, so it has little if any useful function in an EV. But many elements of car designs are ornamental or esthetic rather than useful, so why single out the grille for that?

In China, they just love big arse grilles. So why not put one on your car if you plan to sell it in China?

I think they are ugly but the main thing is that they are aerodynamic drag that MAKE THE PERFORMANCE WORSE. It just seems like dragging a bathtub behind the vehicle just because some people think it looks “normal”.

Some of them are at least smooth & closed such that they are just for looks. The I-Pace one seems really loopy.

You know nothing about aerodynamics.

as opposed to all the ugly Nissan and Toyota SUVs that have been successful for them in America?

222 Miles sounds a lot better than “up to” 200 miles EPA range.

I’m not 100% with you on 300 mile base range – 250 is more of my floor, and I live in the desert where my Volt’s range is routinely reduced by the car sitting outside in the 115F heat in direct sunlight all day plus A/C blasting on the drive to and from work. 250 miles of EPA range is plenty to go 150 miles at highway speeds with A/C.

Point taken.

250 miles, I believe is a great range for crossovers of mainstream brands like Hyundai and Chevrolet. I believe premium brands really need to offer more.

I think the premium brands could differentiate themselves with faster CHARGING, rather than longer range. Personally, I’d rather have 250 miles of range and 150kW charging than 300 miles of range (and the weight/battery volume associated with that) and 100 kW charging.

Another Euro point of view

Agreed. Range is less of an issue if a good network of (at least) 150 kW is in support and you have an EV that can withstand this charging rate. Seems Audi & Porsche got this better than Mercedes (150 kW charging rate for Audi eTron as opposed to 110 kW for Mercedes EQC). Now lets see how fast charging networks like Ionity do expand.

I totally agree. Less kWh and better charging speed is the key, leading to lighter, more efficient EV with better handling. But as it’s more stressful on the battery pack, it may needs to wait for a better tech.

For me, 300 would be the point where I’d consider giving up my PHEV as this would be a car I’d use on road trips. It’s going to be 10 years before the charging infrastructure is there in the Western US (at least anything East of I5) where I could comfortably take a 250 mile vehicle from central Oregon to Arizona, a trip I do annually. Tesla is there now with their super chargers where 250 would work, but no one else. Maybe for just me but definitely not if my wife were along.

Something like a Bolt is perfect for around town. But you have to be really dedicated to use something like that for any distance.

Agree with @ekutter
300miles rated range is preferable. Remember, that’s just RATED range when the vehicle is NEW.

You need to account for battery degradation with age, winter heating, summer AC and freeway speeds (nobody drives at 65mph on I-5, not even trucks) and elevation changes. After all that, I’d want my BEV to still reach 200miles in order to make trips realistically feasible (compared to ICE).

Actually in CA the trucks drive about 60 because the speed limit for 3 or more axles is 55. Cross into Arizona and the trucks go 75.

Ahh…it seems just like yesterday when we were pining for an EV that would get a 120 or 150 mile real world range so it could be a real vehicle. Seems so quaint. BTW, I think there still should always be a class of low-cost EVs with 120 to 150 mile range EVs that can be purchased as low-cost 2nd cars for a family that will be used just for commuting & errands. Another family car can have the ~300 mile range which is used for the long trips.

(This font doesn’t have a squiggly tilde! It comes out as a dash! (“~”) Grr.

Good rule of thumb is to multiply NEDC figures by 0.7 to get actual realistic range.

So 279 miles NEDC is actually 195 miles in the real world…. well done MB even worse than the 200 mile figure!

NEDC figures are always very unreliable. I don’t think you can deduce the real world mileage based on that.

“NEDC – Not Even Darn Close” 😛

But you can almost certainly get a lot closer to the real-world range rating by multiplying the NEDC rating by 0.7.

Approximating without knowing the error margin is a sure way to produce unreliable data.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Let’s just say 279 is peak and 279 * .707 = 197.15 RMS Miles……lol

It’s a rule of thumb, not a law set in stone, it depends on the vehicle.

So kind of funny all the speculation, as you could role some dice and have just as much confidence in the numbers. Not to mention range as a single number is kind of bogus since there are so many factors that play in such as temperature, road conditions, speeds, hills. I have friends that think they should be able to make it 17 miles up to a ski area in their Volvo XC60 (rated at 17 miles per charge) because that’s the range they were told they can get. Then they expect to make it home with a full charge because it’s all down hill.

May we please have their names and contact info? I’ve got some perpetual motion free energy device startup stocks I’d like to sell them. 😉

NEDC range of the Model X 75D is 417 km (259 miles), with an EPA range of 237 miles (380km) so the numbers are all over the place in reality. It’s certainly not 0.7 across the board.

That said Tesla are known to under range their vehicles so maybe that’s one of the reasons?

Hehe, I always use NEDC values in km, convert them into miles, and this number is „my“ eeal world, quasi EPA range in km.
Wich, of course, is almost exactly the same as your 0.7 factor.

I’ve found 0.8 x NEDC to be closer to the mark. This puts the Benz EQC in a 224 mile range guesstimate….from an 80 kw-hr battery. Competitive with a Jaguar I-Pace but not with the Tesla offerings. Apparently, Tesla has maintained it’s lead through 2020 in BEV range.

Frunk there?

No, frunk is not what MB does.

It’s a decent range, range is not everything, there are ICE car that can do 1000Km with one gas tank.
Some peoples will buy it because it is a Mercedes even if it means paying more if you ever go to the dealer after the warranty

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

“a 222-mile bird in the hand is better than two 300-mile birds in the bush”

What’s in the bush is a 3.
Most likely with the price of an MB it will be the same price as a non optioned LR TM3.

Most will buy it just because it’s a Benz.

Personally, I doubt that MB would be less than $75k. That’s closer to the TM3 Performance model price.

They’re completely different vehicles though. You’re comparing a pheasant with a sparrow…

You don’t buy a GLC because you want a BMW 3 Series for example. The only similarity is they’re both EV’s.

The Tech Spec Video article stated the car’s range is 248 miles.

248 miles WLTP, which is lower than the Jaguar iPace, which in real world driving conditions will do below 200 miles (topgear review). I think the up to 200 mile range is accurate, and this press release is an attempt to massage that negative aspect of the EQC.

Looks like the Germans are struggling to catch up with Tesla. One exception: Porsche. *If*Taycan really charges 80% in 20 minutes and *if* it really costs about the same as Model S and *once* comprehensive 350KW charging infrastructure is in place, that’s when we’ll have a very serious German Tesla competitor on our hands.

At least the German makes are finally doing something on the BEV front. Porsche, MB, the upcoming BMW and Audi, that’s not bad at all.

Thank you Tesla for shaking up the German auto industry.

I guess it’s much more about China. This is their largest market.

This is not entirely surprising. Porsche built nothing but tiny sports cars for its first 30 years of history. It respects weight reduction and aerodynamics. The Taycan seems to be way ahead of the other German luxury EVs in this respect; most of those are SUVs. Most car companies have forgotten the very qualities that EVs need; keep it light and aerodynamic.

The really should have given an „estimated WLTP“ range.
Using NEDC numbers 4 days after they have become obsolete / are illegal to use is pitiful.

Yip, another reason to question their morals and sense of right.

Hard to dispute facts …

• driving efficiency is 2.8 miles/kWh (22.2 kWh/100 km)
• 80 kWh pack

If 90% of pack is usable; then we know
72 kWh * 2.8 miles/kWh = 202 miles.

That 80 kWh is the usable portion of the pack.

Still 224 miles

Would hope for a little better than 2.8kWh/mile but it is a bigish car.

It’s a big-ish car without competitive aerodynamics. The 2012 Toyota Rav4 EV (6 years ago) got about 2.8 EPA miles per kWh… 113 miles range on 41.8 kWh, with about 41kWh usable when new.

And another thing……not that I am a fan of making an EV stand out (like the hideous i3) — but did they have to make it look like every other crossover in the market? For god’s sake — DUMP THE FRONT GRILLE — EVs DO NOT need them. Tesla dropped the fake front grille several years ago — and frankly it looks so much better without it! Even the leaf never had one — if you want to make an EV statement – do it up front!

I think people get too hung up about the grill aesthetics. Having a flat painted panel up front has its own issues since it quickly becomes a stone chip magnet. A grill of some kind does reduce the incidence of paint chips on the front end.

It is likely grills will stay and evolve more as a styling element rather than being an functional air duct.

I agree. As here is a lot of edges that are purely for aesthetics on a car. For example only few bonnets are plain flat.

This shows how the traditional ICE companies are rushing their press releases out. They are finally beginning to sense the urgency of falling behind.

With that said, the difference between a 200 mile range EV and a 250 mile range EV is meaningless without also comparing commonly available charge rates. Not hypothetical charge rates, but actual observed rates at commonly available chargers. A 200 mile range EV can be a better road trip car than a 250 mile range EV if it charges more miles per minute. And there actually has to be a charging network available to charge at those rates for it to have any meaning.

It will be interesting to see what the charge rate will be, and what taper will be. I made the mistake of believing that the Bolt charged at 80 kW due to fuzzy specs, now all I want to see for every EV is a nice graph showing SOC and kW charging rate. Exact miles of range matters less.

If interested, remember to lease, do not buy. The car is okay, on par with others in MB ICE line.

There is not a single spec of EQC is on top of any luxury brand in 2018. If MB is keeping the released spec when they sell this car in 2020. It is bad, very bad.

Uh, where did the I-Pace figure of 220 mile range come from? Sources? It’s still believed to be around 240 miles.

Jaguar cited 220 miles as its official estimate of what the EPA rating will be… contrary to what you see claimed by others.

Jaguar’s website says “up to 240 miles”, which of course means somewhat less than 240 miles for a real-world/EPA range rating.

Which makes 200 miles EPA for the EQc seem quite realistic. If it’s under 200 miles EPA, it’ll be embarrassing for MB.

It came from the Jaguar website. They had originally said 240, and recently downwardly revised it to 220 miles. The USA website still says 240, but the main site now says 220 miles.

«and it does match up with its competitors.»

Actually, it doesnt. In 2020, with around 400 ionity chargers across Europe, and the stats of a 2012 Model S it doesnt match anything.

Unknowing Daimler fans is first customers in my book, which makes this car at best a diesel-killer.

Of course, on a forum not specific too ev’s, this is a big Hooray from MB, but ev only, its kinda «meeh, about time you popped generation 1»

The Model S is a saloon… The Model X is a more realistic comparison. It appears to match the 75D fairly well. How it compares against the Y is another question. Not that electronic tech specs are the most important part of a vehicle for the majority of people, just as HP is not the most important part of a vehicle for the majority of ICE owners.

Does it look good?
Does it go the required range they want?
Is it the right price?
Does it fit their idea of a vehicle they want?
Is it practical for their needs/ wants?

If yes then they’ll buy it. The real world is not a game of Top Trumps.

When range is *everything* on an EV, how do you screw up the range estimate in your press release?

That’s like getting the payload rating or towing capacity wrong on a new pickup truck.

The didn’t screw it up. They didn’t like the reaction to the truth so they started massaging the numbers.

please use km instead of miles, it sounds more… *haha*

Anyway, Who cares because we won’t see this car for another 2 years. 2020 will bring other choices.

“For now, we ask that you please use the 450-km NEDC figure (approximately 279 miles).”

I really REALLY hate Europe & Japan’s garbage mileage statistics. They are so completely bogus and not connected with the real world.

However, you are now going to see a zillion articles comparing Mercedes’ bogus NEDC range number with Tesla’s Model S&X EPA range numbers thus giving a completely false impression to every single reader that doesn’t know about this HUGE discrepancy.

Yes, this was an intentional launch of FUD.

Sadly, way too many articles will simply let it happen by saying “Mercedes says…” and then not even trying to dig into it.

Interestingly, one of germany’s most respectable newspapers gives a range of 450km nedc *or 400km WLTP*. That would be 249 miles. It doesn’t indicate anywhere that this is an estimate by the author.

Nothing beats a Tesla

What I’m reading here: “Wah waaahh, not a Tesla, wah wah wahhhhh, not a Tesla.”

That’s because Tesla does a better job designing EVs.

They failed on range, how sad. As much as they bring quality they should have invested more on range because their price will be insane that we do know. It’s their first EV to go into production, let’s forgive them.

Mercedes has some of the smartest engineering talent in the world, so they can easily calculate what the EPA range will be, +/- 1 mile. So why use the wrong numbers? Damage control. Heads are likely rolling behind the scenes over this PR disaster.

100% damage control. Never seen it executed so obviously before.

WANTED — A dedicated Electric SUV Vehicle that must achieve 300 miles range. It must also have a hatchback opening that has a 48 inch clearance across or diagonally. Extra’s needed are reliability, maintainability and low insurance / operating costs. A mix of soft and hard controls would be nice too. Proposed purchase date Jan 2020.

Make that 250 miles of winter range (not Californian winter, actual winter) and I’ll back you!

Also needs to be able to fit four pairs of skis inside, and four people.

“Our colleagues in Stuttgart have advised us that the preliminary estimated range figure for the EQC of 200 miles for the U.S. market is incorrect.”

It’ll be hilarious if the EPA number is 190 miles.

Regardless of WLTPs, nedc, … Mercedes says the consumption is 22kwh/100km, model X 100D tested consumption was 23kwh/100km.
If Mercedes is right range between the eqc and the X 75D will be similar.

It’s irrelevant if this is from a premium maker or not, in the end capabilities, quality and price is what matters. I-pace is a bit cheaper than the X, let’s see where the eqc will be price wise.

EVs also “lie” about consumption. Autocar magazine got 180 miles from a model X 90D in its test, far from the specs.

22 kWh/100 km on what test? WLTP, NEDC or something else? Consumption is just as meaningless number as range without knowing the test method.

Talk about transparent. No, this Mercedes car doesn’t go 279 EPA miles, and we don’t care what it does otherwise.

By the way, the Tesla cars go:

335 EPA miles – Model S 100D
310 EPA miles – Model 3 Long Range / Performance
295 EPA miles – Model X 100D
259 EPA miles – Model S 75D
238 EPA miles – Model X 75D

They might be lucky to break 220 EPA miles. Of course, the Daimler / Mercedes folks don’t want to expose that number until the very last minute. By the way, the data is probably already sent to EPA, or will be shortly. That information is public.

Certificate Of Conformity

Certification Summary Certification Report

Official EPA figures are generally established only close to US release.

This is the 400 version. MB models usually go up to 560-600 AMG models. So I fully expect an AMG model with more power and more range (and more money). Maybe even a Maybach version around $200k.

The elephant in the room is the Model X. Because that is what this big SUV will be priced against. It has a platform equal to an E-Class, which I don’t understand why they call it the EQC.

The base X offers 237 miles at $83k which MB can’t get close to with this vehicle. It should be priced closer to the P100D that offers 295 miles of range at $99k, but I see the EQC at a price closer to the G at $123k. This should be their low volume flagship SUV EV until the electric C-Class, whatever they will call that, is launched. BMW is already testing the electric 3-Series.

The X is a lot bigger than this. It’s called the EQC because it’s meant to be the electric version of the GLC (and it’s about the same size), which in turn is the SUV equivalent of the C-Class, not the E Class.

Anticipated prices range from £55,000-65,000 ($57,000-67,000 without tax), so way lower than the P100D pricing. The closest competition would be the 75D, which it seems to be reasonably similar to (range and performance wise anyway), but realistically it’s main competitors are going to be the I Pace and the E-Tron.

It will be in the $70k range (it is a 400 model after all).

Nice. First EV and they release the wrong stats.

They’ve had at least two other EVs in the recent past. The Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Electric Drive and Mercedes-Benz B-Class B 250e.

Three if you count the Smart EV.


Off to a good start! For me, it is the efficiency and not the range *per se* that was a big disappointment. There’s not much evidence to go by yet, but I am starting to wonder if perhaps (as Pedro Lima over at pushevs appears to think) the incumbents has made a fundamental blunder in simply not considering efficiency particularly important. I find this idea a bit difficult to believe, though. To the engineers, I think it must be somewhat obvious that efficiency in an electric car has a very direct impact not just on running costs, but on basically all the important parameters. For a given range, a more efficient vehicle needs a smaller battery pack. That obviously has a very direct impact on what it costs to make, not just to run. And on weight, and therefore vehicle dynamics. And on performance, from acceleration numbers to cornering ability. And, slightly less obvious, on charging speed (in mph or kph, which is what really matters). The i-Pace definitely would have been a better car if it was more efficient. And now the EQC seems to make the same mistake. To me, it is just about plausible that this is… Read more »

jep, it’s certain that the body shape can not be changed by the ingenieer. The ingeneers start off with a inefficient vehicle. This is the same at MB, VW, Autdi, … The management says the customer wants big cars. Then they start producing big car.

450 km NECD are roughly 341km WLTP (based on Nissan Leaf NECD -> WLTP)

341 km WLTP is 213 miles (WLTP). The leaf has 20% less consumption in WLTP than in EPA. So the Mercedes EQC will be around 180 miles EPA.

Read that again 180 MILES EPA range. This is even below their quoted 200 miles range. I think they might be lucky and accieve 202 miles. So they can claim 200+ miles range…

CEO to marketing head “You had ONE job….”
Marketing head “ummmm…………”.
CEO “here’s a cardboard box get packing”

Somebody at MB is incompetent.

The I-Pace will have a WLTP range of 300miles (480km).
You cannot compare the 220mile EPA of the Jag with the WLTP range of the EQC and E-Tron. Different regulations, different cycles.

Tried to explain this to all the “FUD” spreaders in the last article

“…(approximately 279 miles). The official U.S. range will be communicated closer to market launch.“

It might help if the EQC were launched before the end of 2019. 279 miles is already surpassed by the 295 mile Model X. In a year and a half Tesla will certainly offer a much longer range using their newer battery cells. Plus, the Model X is considerably more interesting than the conventional-looking no-frunk EQC.

I would say that, after now having 4 years of experience with my Model S and 2 years with the Wife’s Model X, the 200 mile range is probably the realistic daily distance. Both the NEDS and the WLTP is no way near any realistic distance when it comes to actual battery usage.

I do know that my wifi is waiting for the Mercedes EQGLE that should come out around 2022 to replace her Model X. We both think the EQC (GLE) is not large enough for our needs.