RE: Mercedes EQXX does 746 miles on single charge
Discussion
DaveyBoyWonder said:
Said before but to aid range in EVs, do you build a car that looks like this:
Or a car that looks like this:
And yet where are the low slung, sleek, aerodynamic EVs? Tesla? Taycan? e-tron GT? It seems that the world started to want SUVs at just the time EVs started to take off so what did car manufacturers do? Build leccy powered 2 ton brick shaped objects.
Maybe the rise in SUV’s is the state of the roads? Or the proliferation of speed bumps and traffic calming? A bit more ride height and supple suspension seems like the perfect vehicle for the UKOr a car that looks like this:
And yet where are the low slung, sleek, aerodynamic EVs? Tesla? Taycan? e-tron GT? It seems that the world started to want SUVs at just the time EVs started to take off so what did car manufacturers do? Build leccy powered 2 ton brick shaped objects.
Essarell said:
You’re last sentence is why a lot of people will hold off on an EV. Lots of comments like “I just stopped off at the services for a quick recharge, a coffee and a sandwich “. I’d like to see a real world test, 4 seats occupied, dog in the boot, roof box and bikes on the back. We may not make those kind of journeys every day but our household vehicles need to cover a variety of roles over there lifetime.
We have an E220 4matic saloon, it’ll easily do 60+ on a run loaded which is a real world 800 miles before reserve. I’d be really interested to see just how far it could go if it had the EQxx’s Aero. Or rather why doesn’t it already have a much lower drag coefficient?
He's annoying but there were some good "real world" range examples in this: https://youtu.be/mmQJUW-VyRY?t=405We have an E220 4matic saloon, it’ll easily do 60+ on a run loaded which is a real world 800 miles before reserve. I’d be really interested to see just how far it could go if it had the EQxx’s Aero. Or rather why doesn’t it already have a much lower drag coefficient?
Definitely don't use EVs for towing !
Presently EV tech is clearly inferior hence I (and I suspect many others) will be holding off until the energy storage issues are sorted out. Pricing also needs to fall significantly to make it viable for the masses imo.
Presently EV tech is clearly inferior hence I (and I suspect many others) will be holding off until the energy storage issues are sorted out. Pricing also needs to fall significantly to make it viable for the masses imo.
[/quote]
This is the exact same reasoning that preceded the so called “renewables” rollout 25 years ago. How’s that working out for us in the UK?
I think the future will be Hybrid vehicles running on some variant of synthetic fuel, we would need significant (immediate) infrastructure investment to allow full BEV uptake and I’m not convinced our current incumbents of No 10 are capable of that kind of forward planning.
Essarell said:
We have an E220 4matic saloon, it’ll easily do 60+ on a run loaded which is a real world 800 miles before reserve. I’d be really interested to see just how far it could go if it had the EQxx’s Aero. Or rather why doesn’t it already have a much lower drag coefficient?
The simple answer is because fuel is cheap, so we can (could) afford to waste lots it in the name of practicality and capability. So the choice of a long aero tail for min aero drag or some nice big comfy rear seats with plenty of headroom, and and easy to park car wins out!This is changing however, as the cost of energy rises and we realise just how wasteful our cars (and society) really are
Max_Torque said:
Essarell said:
We have an E220 4matic saloon, it’ll easily do 60+ on a run loaded which is a real world 800 miles before reserve. I’d be really interested to see just how far it could go if it had the EQxx’s Aero. Or rather why doesn’t it already have a much lower drag coefficient?
The simple answer is because fuel is cheap, so we can (could) afford to waste lots it in the name of practicality and capability. So the choice of a long aero tail for min aero drag or some nice big comfy rear seats with plenty of headroom, and and easy to park car wins out!This is changing however, as the cost of energy rises and we realise just how wasteful our cars (and society) really are
London is a regular journey for us, cars paid for and it’s running costs already figured into our expenditure. It’s 600 miles round trip or 45 litres, that’s £90, we can’t do that journey any more cost effectively using any other so called mass rapid transport solution currently available. Even if fuel keeps rising to £3 a litre that’s there and back for £60 each with none of that range anxiety and the ability to make a spontaneous detour without having to calculate the equivalent of a flight plan.
I genuinely look forward to future vehicle tech but is it really going to be batteries?
Essarell said:
I genuinely look forward to future vehicle tech but is it really going to be batteries?
Yes, it is.You’ve said synthetic fuels is the future, others think hydrogen is the future.
The problem with that thinking is that it is based on the completely false premise that they represent a replacement for fossil fuels.
What you’ve got to consider or how these alternatives started life. Fossil fuels already exist, the energy is already stored in the crude, it’s simply a case of extracting it.
Conversely, these alternative fuels are still to be created by converting electricity, very inefficiently. And that electricity needs to be renewably generated from resources that don’t yet exist.
For this reason the only mass market solution is the one that doesn’t waste 2/3 or more if the electricity. And that’s batteries.
Essarell said:
London is a regular journey for us, cars paid for and it’s running costs already figured into our expenditure. It’s 600 miles round trip
Is that in 1 day? Or would there be an overnight stay during which an EV could be recharged?ICE and hybrid cars will available to buy new until 2035 for the tiny % of people that really need such a long range. Battery tech and infrastructure have another 13 years to make this kind of journey viable and easy in a BEV.
braddo said:
Essarell said:
London is a regular journey for us, cars paid for and it’s running costs already figured into our expenditure. It’s 600 miles round trip
Is that in 1 day? Or would there be an overnight stay during which an EV could be recharged?ICE and hybrid cars will available to buy new until 2035 for the tiny % of people that really need such a long range. Battery tech and infrastructure have another 13 years to make this kind of journey viable and easy in a BEV.
That sort if range is deffinately what is needed to allay the fears of many of the currently unconverted.
The manufacturers now need to put 80%+ of that capacity into a four or five seater family car, at sub £40k.
It would also be nice if the automotive world stopped referring to electric cars as "clean energy", it may well confuse many, but it currently isn't true.
The manufacturers now need to put 80%+ of that capacity into a four or five seater family car, at sub £40k.
It would also be nice if the automotive world stopped referring to electric cars as "clean energy", it may well confuse many, but it currently isn't true.
It would also be nice if the automotive world stopped referring to electric cars as "clean energy", it may well confuse many, but it currently isn't true.
[/quote]
We definitely need a bit of honesty or at least some real data from manufacturers and Government alike, we got a train last weekend, according to the website I saved tons of carbons by using the train instead of my car.
When I looked into the small print they use Gov figures for the train being powered by European Energy Mix which as I understand it is nuclear from France. The train we were on was a diesel electric………… too much smoke and mirrors around so called “environmentally friendly policies “
Long range is only an issue for those with strong bladders! My XJR couldn’t do home to Goodwood non stop either.
I took my Enyaq 80x the 596miles from home to Goodwood last week, with 2 adults and a load of camping gear, had 4 stops on the way there and 5 on the way back. Drive 2hours, rest & charge 30minutes, repeat.
Had a good look at the EQXX, the back end is reminiscent of the DB6 Kamm tail, it shows a way ahead for EV’s, perhaps not the way ahead.
The McMurtry car is something else, wait for the Road version,
Alex Summers’ eyes on Saturday told a tale! Talking to Max and Alex on Friday was interesting, it’s a mega fast car!
I took my Enyaq 80x the 596miles from home to Goodwood last week, with 2 adults and a load of camping gear, had 4 stops on the way there and 5 on the way back. Drive 2hours, rest & charge 30minutes, repeat.
Had a good look at the EQXX, the back end is reminiscent of the DB6 Kamm tail, it shows a way ahead for EV’s, perhaps not the way ahead.
The McMurtry car is something else, wait for the Road version,
Alex Summers’ eyes on Saturday told a tale! Talking to Max and Alex on Friday was interesting, it’s a mega fast car!
LD334 said:
Long range is only an issue for those with strong bladders! My XJR couldn’t do home to Goodwood non stop either.
I took my Enyaq 80x the 596miles from home to Goodwood last week, with 2 adults and a load of camping gear, had 4 stops on the way there and 5 on the way back. Drive 2hours, rest & charge 30minutes, repeat.
Seriously? We drive to and from Northern Italy four times a year. About 660 miles. Apart from the tunnel, we stop twice, each time for as long as it takes to fill up. Are you really saying you can't hold your wee for four hours? Your plan would turn a 10.5-11 hr journey into something like, what, 14-15 hours? 3-4 hours spent hanging around dreadful filling stations, presumably repeatedly gorging on rubbish plastic food out of boredom. And, much more importantly, it would mean not being able to get there in time for the traditional arrival pizza.I took my Enyaq 80x the 596miles from home to Goodwood last week, with 2 adults and a load of camping gear, had 4 stops on the way there and 5 on the way back. Drive 2hours, rest & charge 30minutes, repeat.
The EQXX probably wouldn't cut it either (we average about 70mph and are travelling four-up with luggage) but it's definitely a step in the right direction. If I could buy an EV that did a reliable 450 miles at 140kph on one charge even at sub-zero temperatures, took less than 30 mins to recharge, could accommodate the family and kit, and I had more confidence that the Ionity stations en route were both working and not occupied, then all that would remain as a hurdle is the total lack of working charging infrastructure at our destination. Last time we were there, there were a total of 2 chargers, both 22kw max and both broken (we have a PHEV and like to do the local resort runs electrically, so it sort of mattered).
We're stuck with BEV as the future of motoring for now, it seems, but it simply doesn't work for proper continental motoring. Ironic that the carbon footprint of driving down even in our petrol PHEV is so much lower than flying but at some point we'll either have to become one of these "ooh no I couldn't possibly drive for that long" merchants and turn our journey into the modern equivalent of the Oregon trail - or take the plane, assuming we can find one that isn't cancelled.
964Cup said:
Seriously? We drive to and from Northern Italy four times a year. About 660 miles. Apart from the tunnel, we stop twice, each time for as long as it takes to fill up.
Of the tens of millions of cars on UK roads, your example journey is done by a tiny, tiny percentage of those cars. A fraction of 1%.In what way does such a rare use case demonstrate that BEVs are not a viable mass solution?
braddo said:
Of the tens of millions of cars on UK roads, your example journey is done by a tiny, tiny percentage of those cars. A fraction of 1%.
In what way does such a rare use case demonstrate that BEVs are not a viable mass solution?
It’s the 1% argument that I find interesting, I have a Renault Trafic for work, 99% of the time it’s realistically too big for my business needs and I often think I’ll downsize it. Then I’ll get one of those jobs where it’s size is a lifesaver and it pays me back. That 1% is a massive deal breaker to an awful lot of people. In what way does such a rare use case demonstrate that BEVs are not a viable mass solution?
Essarell said:
It’s the 1% argument that I find interesting, I have a Renault Trafic for work, 99% of the time it’s realistically too big for my business needs and I often think I’ll downsize it. Then I’ll get one of those jobs where it’s size is a lifesaver and it pays me back. That 1% is a massive deal breaker to an awful lot of people.
Your example relates to space and work requirements, which is a completely different context to journey times of leisure driving on the continent.These 1% examples are utterly irrelevant for the mass adoption of EVs. There are 13 years left to buy hybrids new, so at least 20 years where non-BEV vehicles will still be commonplace for the tiny proportion of the UK population who do such long trips without breaks.
964Cup said:
Ironic that the carbon footprint of driving down even in our petrol PHEV is so much lower than flying
A plane is actually quite efficient at long distant transport precisely because it is able, unlike your car, to get away from most of the "air" in the atmosphere. You car has to push itself through very dense air and uses an engine with a lot of friction to do that. An aircraft flys high, in very thin air, and uses engine with very low friction. Given that your PHEV isn't going to be using it's battery for a cross continent trip, and given there is not much ability to regen at a constant cruise, i think you might be suprised at how low an emitter the aircraft actually can be.Estimates / calc for aircraft CO2 emissions obviously vary heavily on the plane type and the flight profile, but mid haul flights on something like a 737 or 777 look to sit at between 80 and 130 g/km per passenger.
Now depending how many people you jam in your car will make a huge difference to the per passenger emissions, but 130 g/km is equivalent to doing around 51 mpg, and 80 g/km equivalent to 82 mpg.
So, if you have a full car, then yes, the emissions might be lower for the car, but not actually that much lower.
I guess it's also worth noting the plane is probably going anyway, whereas you car only goes when you want too, which although airlines don't tend to fly empty planes these days, could be a significant factor in the real world...... It's certainly not clear cut in reality as to which is a lower emitter and i suspect the actually real world results might be very similar
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff