Earlier today, I mentioned that Mercedes underperformed expectations from a financial perspective as an automaker over the last 12 months. A lot of the problems Mercedes faces have to do with competition from China, which is not unique to Mercedes, and the way Mercedes differentiated its electric product. In particular, Mercedes attempted to build a sub-brand called EQ during the EV hype bubble.
As the company’s recent nosedive in BEV sales shows, this wasn’t the right strategy. Mercedes never seemed to get over the main contradiction embedded within its approach, which is that it could charge a lot for a Mercedes EV because it was a Mercedes, and that a Mercedes EV needed to look fundamentally different than a normal Mercedes.
In its recent filings and an investor call, the company tacitly admits that this was a mistake by committing both to aligning products with different drivetrains and by continuing to develop gas engines.
Here’s what Mercedes said in its investor presentation:
Going forward a coherent design language will be used across the entire portfolio. BEV and electrified high-tech ICE models will exploit their respective strengths, without sacrificing space, elegance, convenience or efficiency. Thanks to intelligent modularisation, Mercedes-Benz will offer a unified tech stack in infotainment and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), a consistent customer experience as well as best-in-class roominess and perfect proportions while keeping a tight grip on costs and manufacturing flexibility, allowing Mercedes-Benz to tailor products to specific markets like China.
I think that’s fairly unambiguous, right? Motor1 read that and came to the same conclusion. This is probably the correct idea for a brand like Mercedes, though it does create a problem.
If you want to design a vehicle for the best range, you want something low and svelte that lowers the aerodynamic drag of the vehicle. This helps with gas-powered cars as well, but it’s extra important for BEVs. It’s one of the reasons why the first big Mercedes EQ car, the EQS, looked like this:
It’s not terrible. I don’t think I hate this design, though it doesn’t exactly scream Mercedes to me. When you put it next to an AMG S-Class I’m not sure it seems as desirable:
This is subjective, of course, but in my biased opinion, the upright S-Class just has a lot more presence.
I think this is even truer for the EQS SUV, which looks like this in Maybach trim:
It looks like a big jellybean. If you want to make an efficient big crossover thing, it probably helps to look like a jellybean. If you want to make a luxury car, I think it’s less appealing.
Here’s what the one really successful electric Mercedes looks like:
That’s right, other than the shiny one-piece grille, the new electrified G-Wagen just looks like a G-Wagen. Apparently, this is what Mercedes plans to do going forward, following somewhat in BMW’s footsteps. While BMW does have unique electrified products, like the BMW iX, the mainstream i4, i5, and i7 look very much like their internal combustion-powered counterparts.
Not only will this help resolve some of the inherent contradictions in the Mercedes strategy, but the company thinks it’ll also aid in bringing down the cost associated with development (with a stated goal of saving 15%). It doesn’t solve the issue of overall efficiency, though.
There has to be some happy medium between looking like a Mercedes and being slippery enough through the air to reduce the company’s dependence on large batteries.
The concept version of the Mercedes CLA, seen above, gives some hint of that direction. The CLA will debut in about a month and will look basically the same whether you’re getting a four-cylinder hybrid version or the full BEV experience.
Again, this is all a big retreat for Mercedes, but a sensible one given that most Mercedes EQ models lost market share last year in an environment where a record number EVs were sold.
What’s next? Mercedes is also going to keep the V8, which has long been the heart of its AMG offerings.
Mercedes-AMG plans to outgrow the performance market, thanks to a heavily refreshed model lineup from 2026 onwards and a strategic evolution of its portfolio, which will include a next-generation, high-tech electrified V8 and dedicated high-performance electric models based on AMG.EA.
AMG.EA is the EV platform that Mercedes is developing as the company hasn’t abandoned its EV ambitions fully, merely augmented them with more gas-powered vehicles than the company thought it would end up building.
It’s that bit about the “high-tech electrified V8” that interests me. Mercedes already has a hybridized inline-six in the form of the 603-horsepower AMG E 53 Hybrid. Mercedes, too, has a 4.0-liter V8 plug-in hybrid Mercedes-AMG S63 E Performance. With 1,055 lb-ft of torque on tap it’s technically the most powerful S-Class ever.
Details were a little thin so I went into the investor call and, hmm, what’s this? Here’s CEO Ola Kallenius:
You saw last night at AMG that maybe we’re kind of plugging some holes. Yeah. So the resurrection of the V eight, the brand new flat crank V eight, I mean, who is insane enough to do something like this at this day and age? Well, the AMG people are. And, if you carefully looked at the chart that Michael showed yesterday, you could see that there were other ICE variants also in the AMG portfolio coming.
Flat-plane crank you say? Mercedes did use one in the outgoing AMG GT Black Series, but I wasn’t invited to this AMG investor day event so I can’t say for sure what that is or if it’s related to the hybrid (I’m guessing it’s not).
Either way, it sounds like V8s are not going away at Mercedes and Intrepid-like jellybean cars are. Seems like a win-win-win to me.
They could start with offering electric wagon. C and E series still sell mostly as wagons here in the nordics, and personally I have no use for sedan.
Consisting the styling for their EVs was inspired by a Honda Civic sedan from the mid-to-late 1990s, no wonder these flopped. It’s also almost as if they wanted them to.
I always thought they looked more Dodge Neon, but yes, they very much have that 90’s ’roundness’ to them.
Something about combining the headlights with the fake grill into one giant shape was such, such an odd choice.
I drove one of their EQ vehicles (can’t remember which one) around Germany for a month a few years back. It was fine I guess but I found the interior cramped, the trunk pitifly small, and the infotainment an absolute pain in the ass to use. It drove fine but wasn’t what I would call fun. It was also absolutely butt ass fucking ugly as shit. My brother in law commented that it is a car for an old man with more money than taste and I completely agree with that sentiment. The range was good and the acceleration was plenty. That’s about the only good things I can say.
Mercedes-Benz also chimed in that it’s keeping V12 engine for “select markets”.
I have said many times that EV isn’t ready and the consumers aren’t ready for EV. The sales disaster shows, and more and more manufacturers have rolled back their conversions to the EV lately.
I. Told. You. So.
Everyone’s been saying this for years. Investors only care about what’s selling though, and now that EVs aren’t selling anymore, they don’t care about them so much.
Everyone’s been saying this for years
Pretty sure GM said it first.
Ive got a less-than-stellar record with my advice for manufacturers, but one thing I’ll take credit for was saying they were wrong for making their EVs look so weird. They should have kept their signature looks which is what their customers liked and drew them to the brand in the first place. Glad to see
Maybe it’s just me, but when I think of luxury car, I don’t think “give me more shiny plastic than a Toyota”. I mean, I also won’t drop big money on a nice suit if it’s made of polyester.
Separating their EV designs from their ICE/hybrid designs was their biggest mistake, their second biggest was creating new nomenclature for the electrical augmentation.
AMG S E-performance is ridiculous. If you added HP, just increase the number!
C250 – ICE
C300 – hybrid
C450 – PHEV
A big part of the issue for MB and a host of others is that BEVs in general, aren’t the best available product configuration. As such, they face issues in the market. Plugging in during low cost hours at home to handle your needs 90% of the time is great. But for most people that only requires a range of 50-100 miles max and a proportionally smaller battery. The rest of the time they are carrying around 2-3x more heavy battery than needed. Something that provides very little value relative to its high cost in money, weight, and things like tire wear.
PHEV or EREV hybrids provide far more function for less money. Standard hybrids haven’t been the maintenance nightmare many claimed they would be. The minor additional complexity of the ability to plug them in will likely be offset by the ability to access the lowest fuel rate in any given circumstance.
Plug-in hybrids literally provide the best of both worlds for a tiny increase in complexity.
On the EQS looks – The header image looks like a 2007 Civic, and the outline of the windows in other shots look like a Passat.
I figured out why I hate the EQS so much! Look at the stupid slope of the hood and how it meets the windshield. The base of the windshield is like… 4 inches higher than the bottom of the side window right next to it. It looks atrocious.
I didn’t specifically notice that, looks like it was designed by two people that never spoke or saw each other’s work.
Bmw is doing better because they already commercially failed with the i3 and i8. Mercedes has to take their lumps and learn what the market will stand for EVs. They tried to incorporate learning from the EQXX in the current lineup. No doubt they will figure it out.
As a biased owner of 2 V8 AMGs, yet dated, from the 2010s, I think the only thing Mercedes had to do was to add a clutch to disconnect the engine from the driveline and add a small electric motor behind the rear diff. Small battery at the bottom of the trunk and off you go zipping through town with 50 kW of power and perhaps a 10 kWh battery – enough to do nearly all city driving you have to do in a day. The main engine will still stay that V8 (or twin turbo V6 – also fine) and the outside also stays the same. Maybe the bottom of the car would be 2 cms lower to add more space for the battery, so it might even be a 20 kWh battery , resulting in say 60 kilometers of range.
Next allow the V8 on the highway to recharge the battery while you’re coasting or braking and by the time you arrive at your destination you have some new juice in that small battery so you can coast through the next city or town on battery again, making everyone and yourself happy.
What is needed?
A diff with an electric motor attached to it ; not particularly rocketscience, a smallish flat battery for in/below the trunk and a clutch just before the rear diff to disconnect the whole engine and driveshaft to the rear.
Depending on the parasitic loss of freewheeling front wheels and transmission you’d might want to think of a clutch there as well.
These clutches could be on/off instead ; only to change when the vehicle is stopped, to make it easier. Like at a traffic light or the exit ramp of the highway with a stop sign. To save space/weight/complexity.
My 2 cents.
Could have made fine S-series cars.
I don’t hate this idea. It effectively turns the battery in to a range extender, flipping what we now have as ICEs acting as battery extenders. But, you’d get the benefit of having a desirable ICE up front to satisfy people who want one. Battery power can also act as a power boost for max performabce situations.
An electric motor could boost power, especially when RPMs are low in an NA car, or just to reduce the load on a cold engine, so it doesn’t have to work that hard, enhancing its life. BUT I would be totally fine if it would be an extremely simple on/off system, hardly any integration, almost requiring you to flip a large toggle switch on the dashboard, from ICE to Electric, if that would reduce costs a lot, reduce maintenance costs and keep things more reliable.
I personally think cars have become WAY too complicated compared to the old days where you had an engine, you could swap your stereo yourself and had a real full sized spare wheel in the back.
S-Class, not S-series…that’s BMW.
I respect your classy comment 🙂
S-Klasse, if you’re being technical.
They made some really puzzling choices, besides the obvious styling/UI. First, no wagons, why? A large part of the market is still wagons. A tallet suv is less efficient and more expensive, and large part of the EU market is company cars, which typically have price limits due to company policies/taxation. Ever tried to fit a baby carriage through the EQE mail slot? So they gave up customers with families. Also leasing companies really like it when the future off-lease vehicle is not interesting to family buyers. Or dog owners. Of course, you could mitigate the problem by having a hatchback tailgate. So they gave EQS, the largest executive car one. But not EQE.
Then, EQA and EQB are built on the same platform, but EQA is smaller and has a tiny trunk. City car? EQB, on the other hand seems to be a van in disguise, relatively roomy, practical. So, if you had to choose, which one should have towing capability… Of course they gave EQA the towing hook. Now, the facelifted EQB has finally got one, but wtf. It is the same platform, shared with GLB even! Ok, if I would ever buy one, it would be used, but it seems they made it a priority to make their cars unsuitable for ”traditional” buyers. Kids, dogs, hobbies, gardens, cottages… Ok, Tesla must be copied and the US market is different, but aren’t the Merc wagon buyers the wealthiest etc.?
English is not my native language, but: “Mercedes attempted to build a sub-brand called EQ during the EV hype bubble”, to me implies that you think that, EV’s are hype and the EV transition is over.
I do believe that sentence will go down in time alongside hits like:
1. Not wearing seatbelts.
2. Driving while intoxicated.
3. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy.
Fossil fuels will run out, the ICE will die. No amount of synthesized fuels or burning hydrogen will save it.
A short interlude here:
Usually when demand for a commodity (crude oil in this case) goes down, so will the price. We will however have to consider two types of cost: Fixed and variable. As demand falls, the fixed cost of crude oil, having a drilling rig and general infrastructure like pipelines, refineries and filling stations, are the same (fixed). Electricity for pumping, rare earth metals and electricity for refining, trucking etc., are variable.
Very simplified and taken to the extreme. We are moving from a scenario where billions of drivers are sharing the fixed cost, to a scenario where you have to have your own oilrig and refinery in order to drive you classic Porsche. I am not sure exactly where we are in this transition, but China, Russia, EU and the US are currently starting wars over this.
WW1 and 2, where the great oil wars. Gulf 1 and 2 the minor oil wars, just in case you missed it. Future wars will be for those sweet, sweet rare earth metals.
The good news. No nuclear weapons, will be applied, since it makes it hard to mine those above-mentioned metals.
Interlude end.
You, both the authors on this site, and the US in general, will have to decide whether you want to be a leading part of this future, just as China decided 15+ years ago.
Keep in mind that the bestselling US EV uses Chinese batteries. (at least outside the US)
In all honesty, all the rest of the world can hope for is a 2nd place in this race, in the near future.
An ‘ostrich approach’ will simply not work.
I don’t disagree with a lot of your thinking. But BEVs aren’t a singular solution to reducing our environmental impact.
Unfortunately, the political question has already been answered. The. U.S. is officially in “ostrich approach” on any and all topics and there isn’t much chance of that changing in our lifetimes.
“But BEVs aren’t a singular solution to reducing our environmental impact.”
No, but it appears to be the cheapest for land based non rail transportation.
That is an oversimplification. Especially given PHEVs of various configurations can likely improve adoption rates, work in a higher percentage of use cases, and require far fewer rare resources.
But even beyond that, over-subsidization of transportation, in general, is a big part of the problem. It simply increases the consumption of all types of resources. Just the who “return to work” B.S. bad managers feel the need to implement has caused more damage than EVs can solve.
It isn’t that using electric power isn’t largely better than the alternatives, it is that when there are limits to what can be changed, implementing full EV compliance isn’t a great return on investment.
But the bigger issue is that the U.S. and its gluttonous consumption now has zero chance of implementing any policy that will move things in the right direction. If anything, it will implement policies that purposefully make things worse for everyone out of spite. There isn’t any real chance of that changing during a time frame where it could make a difference.
“but China, Russia, EU and the US are currently starting wars over this.Actually only Russia at this point. The EV hype bubble was real and is definitely over. But that doesn’t mean we won’t transition to EV sooner or later. If you add up all the people who want EVs and those of us saying “why aren’t we getting more PHEVS?!” You get a reasonable percentage of the US. I also disagree that we are taking a head in the sand approach. Just because the government isn’t willing to fund it, doesn’t mean they are fighting against it. The free market will work. The infrastructure wasn’t ready for the overnight mass adoption the manufacturers dillusionally thought was going to happen. It needs to be done incrementally at a pace.
Your first point isn’t necessarily wrong, but there absolutely was an EV hype bubble and that time is absolutely over. That’s not to say EVs won’t be the ultimate long term solution, but there is a palpable difference in the interest in EVs today than there was, say, during the covid years. That many brands are backing off of unrealistic EV timeline goals is indicative if this, likely for 3 reasons (that I can think of): 1- buyers didn’t adopt as anticipated, for myriad reasons. 2- the tech required to reach some brands’ goals is not present yet, or not financially attainable in the current climate, or 3- goverments have revised their expectations or in some cases outright removed funding to facilitate the transition.
It might not qualify as a bubble, but EVs are not yet the answer, judging by the markets.
Nonsense comment of the day, this one.
First, just because there was a hype burst doesn’t mean the EV transition is over, and I didn’t hear anyone say so. Go look up the Gardner hype cycle. Some people seemed to expect a linear path from ICE to EV, that was never going to be the case – but at worst, my take is we’re in a divot in the uptake. We’ll know for sure in a few years.
Second, WWI and WWII were about the balance of power in Europe and stopping the megalomaniacal dictators from trying to conquer the world, respectively.
Not really sure what you’re trying to say with the rest of your “interlude”, but if your point is that fossil fuels will one day run out, I also don’t hear anyone disagreeing with that.
Yes, of course, those “megalomaniacal dictators” all just had a fetish for land, and no interest in underlying ressources.
And yes I could have been a little more clear:
Cars will be electric (not sure when), the power source will be batteries (chemistry will vary) and not hydrogen.
Those with a head start will be ahead.
Those behind will be behind.
And you are absolutly correct, the path from ICE to EV is not linear, it is exponential, in the those countries that are ahead.
The remaning countries are behind.
The luxury and premium markets are always fleeting. The Europeans ate the big 3s lunch then the japanese came and ate all there lunch. Now the new ev guys are doing the same. Always trying to copy what they think is the secret sauce. I’m sure many pr, business, and accounting people are involved.
When you let engineers and designers do what they want you normally get a car that sells. If you let the business people call the shots you get something that no one really wants.
Hopefully they find themselves again and produce something that people actually want. 4.0 hybrid sounds promising
I miss the days when Mercedes-Benz styling was the equivalent of a nice suit. Now it seems like knock-off Adidas tracksuits, or worse, couture tracksuits.
I’m not sure if that’s even enough to describe them. I think words like, incongruous, puzzling, confused, garish and also ugly are how one might describe Mercedes’ current designs.
The grill looks like a sticker of a grill. The same kind that you might have on a toy car. If the thing doesn’t need airflow at the nose, then why not use that to one’s advantage rather than trying to make it look like something it isn’t? I always thought the original Tesla Model 3’s nose looked funny, but at least it’s not pretending. Now make the next move and restyle it so it looks appealing.
Even if I were a person with more money than sense and only really picked my cars on their status and presence, I cannot see any reason to pick a modern Mercedes when given any of the other luxury choices.
They are not good looking cars.
Actually ate really nice cars
Is that why it looks so bloated?
Merc’s EVs always reminded me of putting stickers on Easter eggs with my kids.
As someone who just purchased an EQS SUV (used, naturally! 22k miles on the odometer for $60k off original MSRP seemed a good tradeoff), I agree the look is … an aquired taste … But compared to the other available 3row EVs (EV9, Rivian R1, ID Buzz, EQB) it definitely has a nicer interior, more creature comforts, better presence. It’s not on-par with a traditional S-class, but for what they trade for on 2nd-hand market, they are pretty good deals IMHO. Especially now that they have Tesla Supercharger access.
Oh look, it’s exactly what everyone could see coming. Mercedes chased the Tesla dragon to an absurd degree, made their EVs into weirdly styled rolling tech blobs, charged obscene prices for them, and no one wants them, including their traditional buyers. I, for one, am shocked!
It’s such a uniquely German approach. “Nein! Ze customer does not know vat is best, only ve know vat is best!” This doesn’t just apply to EVs either. Look at the goddamn hellish monstrosity that is the C63 AMG. I’m still seeing articles years later about Mercedes executives defending that choice and swearing that sports sedan enthusiasts will eventually warm up to a six figure, 5000 pound “performance” sedan with a fucking 4 cylinder.
Get a grip. And now the 43 versions have a more complicated, less enjoyable 4 cylinder that’s barely more efficient than the V6s, if at all. Real brain genius shit. You want an AMG GT? Enjoy the turbo 4 cylinder that’s we put in our $50,000 front wheel drive hot crossovers….because nothing screams LC500 and 911 competitor more than a hot hatch engine!
Stop trying to be Tesla and give the people what they want. BMW got it right. They have multiple levels of electrification available and leave how much you want up to the customer. You don’t care? Okay we slapped mild hybrid systems on the ICE stuff that increases power and fuel economy with virtually no downside. You want an EV that looks, feels, and drives just like the ICE version?
We’ve got those. You want an overstyled rolling tech monstrosity to bring to the dick measuring contest with your model X owning neighbor? Have at it! PHEV? We’ve got those too….and the enthusiast models STILL HAVE ANTISOCIAL 6 AND 8 CYLINDER ENGINES BABY!!!!
“BMW got it right.”
Well, other than the grills…
They got the approach to electrification right. Design is a very different story…
I still just have no idea why they didn’t just tune up the I6 that they run in the E53 etc for the C63. It seems like a no brainer to do.
Is there enough space in the engine bay?
Definitely. They offer it in the new CLE coupe which is on the same platform.
It may be very German, but it’s not uniquely German, and it’s certainly been very GM (radically downsized Sevilles and Eldos), which is why we have New GM, which is still like that so that using Apple CarPlay and Android Auto will also be a big “Nein.”
Honestly I hear you. I understand you dont want the 4 cylinder. I do.
I would have bought the A45 AMG with a stick *all day long*. Making a higher performance spec version with the hybrid boost and electric turbo enhancements would work if the weight was kept down.
Considering the WRX has <300hp still these are the new hot hatch but the damn things arent sold here.
They tried pushing the 4 to people who didnt want one, while hiding it from those who do. Double fail.
The latest version of the 2.0 on the factory turbo with a tune is around 400wtq before 4krpm and 450whp. That is nothing to sneeze at but it belongs in a lightweight tossable chassis not a heavy GT car even if it can move it.
I should clarify-I don’t want the 4 cylinder in their rear wheel drive, $75,000+ cars. I think it’s absolutely sick in the front wheel drive cars. Every now and then I see a certified GLA45 pop up in low 40s and I’m tempted. I also think the CLA45 is cool as people sleep on the GLB35 because that’s a car that you can sneak past your discerning, non enthusiast partner without issue.
I have no beef with turbo 4 poppers, I’ve daily’d two in a row (a GTI and now my Kona N). I even think they can be pretty characterful if set up correctly, my car sounds shockingly good at wide open throttle and the AMG one in 45 state of tune is a rowdy little motor.
…but those are just bougie hot hatches. It fits in them perfectly. Unfortunately it does not make sense in very expensive, rear wheel drive cars when all of the competition has 6 and 8 cylinder motors….especially when it’s a car like the C63 that’s always had a V8. The V8 is what always made the C63 unique compared to its competitors.
And I agree with Rod-I think they could’ve handed their corporate inline 6 to the AMG sickos and wound up with a great setup. While I’m sure the MUH V8 crowd will never be pleased a move from 8 down to 6 is a lot more palatable for most people than 8 down to 4, and all of the C63’s competition has 6 cylinder motors anyway.
They just went too far, too quickly. Taking the 4.0TT V8 down to a hybrid 3.0TT I6 is the logical step, not a 2.0T PHEV. The technology wasn’t there yet to make it a believable ’63 model.
Also they need to be increasing the number when they add electric motors, that will help convince the armchair racers. The SL63 is awesome, the PHEV upgrade shouldn’t be the SL63 S E-performance, it should just be SL73. C43 with a PHEV instead of a standard hybrid? Now it’s the C53.
I think not trying to be Tesla is the best strategy any automaker can do
Agreed with everything up to the naming scheme mentioned. Disassociating the alpha-numeric naming from engine displacement hasn’t worked well for most who have done it. At least, I couldn’t tell you what the fuck model Infiniti a car is just by the name. A Q60? Oh, you mean what used to be the G35/37? Qsomething80? Is there an 8 liter in there? The SL73 example given, IMO, is particularly sacriledgous given there was an SL73, and it was a very rare V12 monster. To go from that to a 4 or 6 pot but keep the name just seems sadistic. “But the W211 E63 was only a 6.2 liter”. That’s right, and Mercedes got a little grief for that too, trying to tie the name to the venerable 6.3 of yesteryear. At least that was in the ballpark.
If anything, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, I think Cadillac had a better take on this- simply put the torque number on the back next to the model number. That’s not to say their actual naming scheme today is great, though.
We’ve had a 63 be a 4.0TT for over a decade now. Is it goofy that it doesn’t directly mean anything anymore? Yes. However, buyers understand that on Mercs, bigger number means more power and more money. It has to be simple and easy to understand.
63 S GT 4matic+ E-performance is too much, it doesn’t have to be ’73 but it has be a bigger number of some sort.
Does the 63 on a 4.0TT refer to anything? Like power level? If not, and it’s only to harken to the 6.3 designation as the top of the line model, then, to me, it’s telling that Mercedes thinks buyers are being wooed by the 63 number itself. If the former, I think that’s OK, if not a little silly. If the latter, then it’s just silly, in my opinion.
It’s the latter unfortunately, 63 just equals “the big one” in AMG land. A C300 is just a 2.0T and the previous C43 was a 3.0T. It’s definitely silly but at least it’s an easy-to-understand hierarchy.
The front of that CLA concept looks hideous. Why oh why do they keep putting massive grills on new cars? Especially EVs, that don’t even need a radiator. Tone that down by about 30%, PLEASE.
Now imagine how it would look with a half-dozen random pixels out to lunch.
New grille LED module: $14,000
All of the lease spec models will come with it so the terminally online 20 somethings eating ramen so they can afford their $799 a month payments can loudly announce how “rich” they are to passersby and their 300 followers!
EVs need radiators. You have a cooling system for the inverter with a particular max temperature, cooling system for the motor with potentially a different max temp, then battery cooling and cabin AC.
They just need significantly less air flow than an ICE’s cooling system as there is less heat to reject. Tiny grilles are all you need.
Correct, and thank you for the correction. I should have said “traditional” or “large” radiators.
Why does it look so pissed off?
I can see one of these parked in a two car garage next to a Jeep sporting an aftermarket “angry eyes” grill, owned by a perpetually unhappy married couple with misbehaving kids and a dog that wets the carpet every other day.
Pretty sure that’s the demographic they’re going for here.
I think you nailed it!
The guy who puts angry eyes on his Wrangler is the same guy who has a Punisher sticker and thin blue line flag on his All Black Dodge Ram. It’s definitely a cliche.
People like angry cars now for some reason. Even the Miata has an attitidinal face.
Do they? Or do car designers like them and don’t give anyone a choice?
Good question. Couldn’t tell you.
The Maybach looks like a minivan sans sliding rear doors.
Which is pretty much what it is.
If no one told me that was a multi hundred thousand dollar car, I would have guessed it was a couple year old lincoln crossover. Not exactly the vibe I think Mayback buyers want to be sending out.
I saw one yesterday and was…taken aback. I mean, I’d seen several of the EQS in the past, but this was next level. Looked aftermarket.
The factory isn’t too far from here and I would venture that more than half of my sightings have had MFR tags on them — which usually means “manager loaner” and not actual, organic sales.
I keep seeing the EQ crossover here in DC and they are hilariously bad looking. It wouldn’t surprise me if normies see them and assume they’re a Hyundai or Kia because they reach a similar intersection of overstyled but somehow still anonymous.
I think that MB should continue on with the mild hybrid/plug in hybrid vehicles as the way forward. I am an extreme use case for them in that I can drive up to 300 miles in 1 day. I would be able to charge at night to help out on that part, but I need to be able to get multiple places in 1 day without needing to stop for hours of charging.
The GLC 300 4Matic is not a bad way to go. I would be buying a CPO car due to their having a great warranty with no mileage restrictions. The problem is that most of those cars do not have the adaptive cruise control.
Well good news because charging takes a few minutes not hours on DC Fast charging.
Good news! Several current EVs have over 300 miles of range, including some that can be leased for cheap. Some older cheaper EVs have mid 200 mile range like the Chevy Bolt, Kia Niro, and Hyundai Kona. All can achieve 300 miles with about 15 minutes of charging during a day, and are available for $15k or less with reasonable miles.
Hi, EV owner here. Took it on a trip from NY to FL and back in December. I did 600 mile days and maybe spent an hour charging in total. I’m counting time spent hooked onto the charger and not the “let’s do touristy stuff like wander the beaver gas station visible from space” or “dammit dog, do your business so I can do mine!” time.
Ok aerodynamics, blah, blah, blah, we all get the spiel. But did none of the designers working on the EQ series take a step back and think, ‘Wow, these cab-forward ’90s economy car proportions are really going to take-off in the conservative executive segment!’? It smacks of hubris and the ultimate culmination of the last 20 years of Mercedes design where they produce progressively worse and worse looking cars as what must be a litmus test to see who’s really loyal to the brand.
That’s not even touching on what a shortsighted brand strategy the EQ line was in the first place—what, were they planning on discontinuing the ICE C, E, S Classes in a decade and building only EVeggs forever? I get that Mercedes wants to be seen as tech-forward and on the cutting edge but I fear the ‘vertical affinity’ they were once so famous for is well and truly dead, and the ‘horizontal homogeneity’ is no longer so horizontal.
I think they fell into the trap of standardization, which is where they had to make promises in the home country (and wider EU) and their diverse markets wouldn’t all support that idea.
I also still hate that designs are so compromised to gain 0.01 or 0.02 of Cd….for cars that really shine in city driving. The highway is going to kill efficiency anyway, so eking out another 10 miles of range doesn’t seem like the right tradeoff for making something fugly.
Eye of the beholder, but I think most of us be holding the same eyes 🙂
Exactly. And it’s not necessary at all. Look at the examples that buck the trend like the Ioniq 5. People act like blob designs are mandated by the EPA.
Now that you mentioned ’90s economy cars, what I actually think they look like is someone found some rejected second-gen LH designs in a drawer somewhere. Not economy cars, necessarily, but a definitely something extremely late ’90s.
These have always SCREAMED to me Dodge Neon/2nd gen Intrepid.
I could have told Mercedes-Benz years ago that making their high-end EV sedans and SUVs as German Teslas was a VERY BAD IDEA.
Literally nobody ever asked for a Ford-Tempo-shaped hatchback S Class with an enormous piano-black faux grille.
As stupidly ugly as the 7 Series is – BMW got it right by creating one platform and body style that accommodates ICE/Hybrid and full EV powertrains.
It’s brilliant on their end. Figure out which model best suits your needs then choose what degree of electrification you’re interested in.