RE: Mercedes EQS revealed with 478-mile range
Discussion
Terminator X said:
Mr E said:
Two points;
1) that’s really not what it’s for
2) if you did, I suspect it might do better than we’d expect. I doubt very much it would be *fun* but it would be uncomfortably rapid.
My M5 was rapid although not particularly enjoyable as it weighed 1.9t. This monstrosity manages to be 700kg heavier ffs.1) that’s really not what it’s for
2) if you did, I suspect it might do better than we’d expect. I doubt very much it would be *fun* but it would be uncomfortably rapid.
TX.
whp1983 said:
PH_77 said:
Yet another awkward looking EV. This time with a ridiculous paint job.
That said, will somebody please think of the cobalt-mining children.
https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06...
Never! If you can’t see it it doesn’t happen! I’m all for 2.6 ton electric monsters that you lease for 3 years and dispose of like a torn pair of pants. Clean air and all that..... plus think of the tax savings eh eh- not so keen on that African child now are you?! That said, will somebody please think of the cobalt-mining children.
https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06...
Christ, and we’re talking about a cars RAM and CPU speed- what has happened to us!
I find this vehicle utterly dull. Its pistonheads not processor heads, and that is one of the most bland (and poorly delivered) designs I could imagine.
Edited by FaustF on Friday 16th April 07:33
Yet again Mercedes markets a beautiful design concept and then creates a production blob, the proportions are so awkward with this i don’t even know where to start.
The inside, granted, looks absolutely spectacular, a real game changer in terms of moving forward into genuine concept territory, however minority report looks are going to be a massive let down if the UX isn’t super smooth.
I can see this being merc’s panamera moment where the 1st gen ugly duckling becomes the second gen swan!
The inside, granted, looks absolutely spectacular, a real game changer in terms of moving forward into genuine concept territory, however minority report looks are going to be a massive let down if the UX isn’t super smooth.
I can see this being merc’s panamera moment where the 1st gen ugly duckling becomes the second gen swan!
We want a luxury ev as our ipace certainly isnt & our S63 certainly is.
Now they are at 400 mile real range with massage seats, we’re in, as soon as order books are open out deposit is down.
Exterior looks ‘ok’ but we’re not that bothered tbh, the interior is far more important and this one looks sublime.
We were going to order the new s class but after testing one we were left underwhelmed compared to our S63.
We have exciting cars, the eqs is not about excitement, most wont get that.
Now they are at 400 mile real range with massage seats, we’re in, as soon as order books are open out deposit is down.
Exterior looks ‘ok’ but we’re not that bothered tbh, the interior is far more important and this one looks sublime.
We were going to order the new s class but after testing one we were left underwhelmed compared to our S63.
We have exciting cars, the eqs is not about excitement, most wont get that.
Mr E said:
Do you think the target market for this car has any care what the thing will be worth in 10 years? Or even 3?
I will be interested to see the leasing costs for this, because that will give an idea of what MB think it will be worth in 3 years. It will also be interesting to see what the trade guides predict. I am not sure whether to expect massive depreciation (due to being obsolete tech in 3 years) or small depreciation (because as an EV, it should be less bork potential than an ICE car).
chrispmartha said:
Terminator X said:
Mr E said:
Two points;
1) that’s really not what it’s for
2) if you did, I suspect it might do better than we’d expect. I doubt very much it would be *fun* but it would be uncomfortably rapid.
My M5 was rapid although not particularly enjoyable as it weighed 1.9t. This monstrosity manages to be 700kg heavier ffs.1) that’s really not what it’s for
2) if you did, I suspect it might do better than we’d expect. I doubt very much it would be *fun* but it would be uncomfortably rapid.
TX.
if it really is managing 400 miles or so in testing that is very impressive from a 100kWh battery, I just don't understand why so many posters appear so taken with such an awkward looking, incredibly heavy car that's all about motorway comfort. Surely the antithesis of a PH car?
AmitG said:
Mr E said:
Do you think the target market for this car has any care what the thing will be worth in 10 years? Or even 3?
I will be interested to see the leasing costs for this, because that will give an idea of what MB think it will be worth in 3 years. It will also be interesting to see what the trade guides predict. I am not sure whether to expect massive depreciation (due to being obsolete tech in 3 years) or small depreciation (because as an EV, it should be less bork potential than an ICE car).Mr E said:
MiseryStreak said:
Whilst I don’t disagree with you, I predict these ‘early’ EVs will be obsolete by 2030. Once the majority of cars on the road are electric the investment into battery technology will be enormous and these 2.5 tonne leviathans with sub 500 mile range, costing £150,000 will be laughable.
There will be a technological breakthrough that permits far greater energy density OR an alternative chemical energy storage device that wont be described as a battery, but do exactly the same job.
Electric cars will be lighter, have greater range and cost less than their equivalent 2021 ICE cars by 2030.
I agree completely. There will be a technological breakthrough that permits far greater energy density OR an alternative chemical energy storage device that wont be described as a battery, but do exactly the same job.
Electric cars will be lighter, have greater range and cost less than their equivalent 2021 ICE cars by 2030.
Do you think the target market for this car has any care what the thing will be worth in 10 years? Or even 3?
Come to think of it, what proportion of new car buyers (of any sort) care about residuals past the GFV? 5%? Less?
I own an electric car (because it’s very cheap). It’s 5 years old. It’s already obsolete.
I wouldn’t buy something electric right now or in the near future. I’d rent it, for exactly the reasons you ably described.
But I’m not really sure anyone actually buys an S class either.
SWoll said:
It's not. They've managed to take quite a bit of weight out for the current S-Class and even the bigger engined models like the S500 are now < 2 tonnes from what I've read. 600+ KG is a lot of additional weight, think 5 rugby players + luggage.
if it really is managing 400 miles or so in testing that is very impressive from a 100kWh battery, I just don't understand why so many posters appear so taken with such an awkward looking, incredibly heavy car that's all about motorway comfort. Surely the antithesis of a PH car?
I think it looks awkward but then again im not in rhe market for such a vehicle, the interior however looks different and i would imagine a lovely place to be wafted around in - which is largely the point of these things.if it really is managing 400 miles or so in testing that is very impressive from a 100kWh battery, I just don't understand why so many posters appear so taken with such an awkward looking, incredibly heavy car that's all about motorway comfort. Surely the antithesis of a PH car?
I don’t understand why people are that interested in the weight of a large executive saloon that’s built to be luxurious and comfy, well i think people being bothered about the weight of certain cars is odd but maybe that’s just me, electric vehicles are heavy, does it need constantly pointing out?
myhandle said:
PH_77 said:
The C5 A6 was a pretty striking car when it was launched ... in 1997-8. Just because it’s old doesn’t make it ugly. The C5 RS6 is a particularly good looking car and goes like a train . This site just gets weirder ... cars on here have to be between 28- 55k, brand new, or modern classics made between 2000 and 2008, or £500 cars where people say “you’ve overpaid mate” for them not to get hate. I have bought a Vectra GSI from an auction for £100 (the homologation special with the vents in front of the front wheels); I have driven a 488. I like all sorts of cars. The A6 C5 was doing its best to look modern around the turn of the Millennium, just as the E65 7 Series did in 2001-2002. Those two designs influenced designs for many years. It doesn’t make the new designs, influenced by them, intrinsically good, but more does it make an old design a bad design because it has influenced a new design . See the NSU Ro80, which, rotary engine aside, led directly to the A6 C5. This new Mercedes should be happy to look like an A6 C5, but it doesn’t , as it it a one box design leaning to three, whereas as the A6 C5 is a three box design, leaning to two, like the Citroen C6.
Edited by myhandle on Friday 16th April 03:22
fflump said:
When was the meeting where it was decided that EV saloons had to look rubbish. And surely it is design 1.01 that two tone paint jobs only work if the panels provide a clear demarcation like the ghost.
I think it was the same meeting that decided that 100% of petrol powered cars are amazing to look at with no visual design flaws at all.Amanitin said:
Thanks for marking one of the first spots of a car I check, that "indended breaking point" at the root of the A-pillar.
Looks like the folks at Mercedes have retarded to the worst phase in their design history and copied what the did with 1st-gen SLK and CLK.
I quite liked the concept, but this thing? Not really.
forrestgrump said:
AmitG said:
driveontheleft said:
478 miles? Is this why Jag bailed on the electric XJ?
I was thinking similar. This is what the electric XJ would have been competing against.I surprise easily, though.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff