RE: Mercedes EQXX does 746 miles on single charge
Discussion
AC43 said:
pSyCoSiS said:
700+ miles on a single charge is mental - more than most cars can do on a tank of diesel.
If this tech comes into the mainstream in the future, a lot more people will be considering electric.
EQXX does look decent.
Yeah, that sort of range would mean French driving holidays would become feasible.If this tech comes into the mainstream in the future, a lot more people will be considering electric.
EQXX does look decent.
Or that I could do London to Edinburgh with loads to spare.
Impressive stats indeed. When will manufacturers stop having knob swinging contests and just build a cheap, everyday electric car that people can actually afford without being financed upto the eyeballs and gives a guaranteed 300 miles range no matter what the weather or road conditions?
Filibuster said:
Tough crowd …. I think this looks fantastic! Seriously impressive stuff that takes a s
tload of engineering to achieve.
Well done Mercedes!
Agreed. I love this - finally a car designed for efficiency (and not another SUV). I'd love one...tload of engineering to achieve. Well done Mercedes!
but I suspect that most would prefer the SUV and they would struggle to sell this if it ever comes to market.
Adrian250 said:
Impressive stats indeed. When will manufacturers stop having knob swinging contests and just build a cheap, everyday electric car that people can actually afford without being financed upto the eyeballs and gives a guaranteed 300 miles range no matter what the weather or road conditions?
Because it's not possible to sell you the battery pack cheaply, let alone the rest of the car. Raw power figures are fairly cheap to deliver in an electric car (just package a slightly larger motor and cooling) - but range is expensive (larger battery and reduced weight).Edited by ChrisCh86 on Friday 24th June 13:16
LasseV said:
Toyota Mirai does have a longer record run. And it is a production car with reasonable price tag (for EV)
https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/toyota-mirai-mak...
Bev's are not good in this game.
Disingenuous comment I'm afraid.https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/toyota-mirai-mak...
Bev's are not good in this game.
The Mirai used around 190 kWh to do 845 miles, and AFAIK, speed was kept to the bare minimum to achieve maximum range.
The EQXX did 746 miles at normal driving speeds, AVERAGING 56 mph for the entire journey, including autobahn stints at 86 mph.
When it arrived it had used 85 kWh, and still had 15% left in the battery.
If the Mirai had attempted to follow the EQXX and keep up it would have run out of hydrogen long before the end, probably around the 500 mile mark.
The Merc averaged an equivalent economy of 300 mpg at normal driving speeds for 1000 km.
Just read that again to let it sink in.
The Miria would not get near 100 mpg on the same journey.
Credit where it is due, even though it's not a production car, the Merc's energy efficiency is a huge achievement.
Olivergt said:
What I want to know is how did they manage the 7.5 miles per kwh when a good EV can only manage 3?
This is like a manufacturer who's cars normally do 50mpg all of a sudden coming out with a car that does 100mpg.
How have they managed to double efficiency?
A very slippery prototype car body, probably taped up wherever possible. This is like a manufacturer who's cars normally do 50mpg all of a sudden coming out with a car that does 100mpg.
How have they managed to double efficiency?
A trick prototype energy recovery system from the F1 team.
Carefully assembled battery and motor, to minimise losses.
A professional driver, with extensive briefing and not caring about anything except efficiency, probably drafting a lorry for most of the motorway mileage.
Olivergt said:
What I want to know is how did they manage the 7.5 miles per kwh when a good EV can only manage 3?
This is like a manufacturer who's cars normally do 50mpg all of a sudden coming out with a car that does 100mpg.
How have they managed to double efficiency?
Firstly please understand the difference between "efficiency" and "consumption"This is like a manufacturer who's cars normally do 50mpg all of a sudden coming out with a car that does 100mpg.
How have they managed to double efficiency?
You can have a car that is 100% efficient in converting the energy stored in its fuel to use as useful motive force and yet still has a very high consumption.
Consumption is majorly defined by the vehicles roadload, ie how much force does it take to push that vehicle along at any given speed. Then the efficiency of the powertrain defines how much actually energy must be used to provide that force.
In this case, they have NOT doubled efficiency, they have halved consumption!
Because BEV's don't have much parasitic friction in their powertrain and don't have complex effects such as pumping losses or emisisons controls requirements, there powertrain is not just very efficient in absolute terms, but has hardly any change in efficiency vs vehicle speed.
What that broadly means is that a BEV consumes energy pretty much in a direct relation to speed. Ie at zero speed they consume no energy, and at max speed they consume max energy. This is not the case for ICE vehicles, fo which the lowest consumption is achieved at around 40 mph and increases again below that
For a BEV under typical mixed road driving conditions approximately 75% of the energy in the battery is used to "push air out of the way" ie lost to aero drag. So, if you halve your aero drag, your consumption falls and your range climbs massively.
Small, light, high efficiency BEVS (like my i3 :-) are incredibly low consumers, and ultra low drag ones (like this EQXX) can also travel long distances on not much energy (btw, something like an Aptera makes this EQXX look positively glutonous)
Driven carefully, my i3 can easily get to 6 or 7 ml/kWh, the same as this EQXX, but because it has a much poorer aero drag, it has to travel significantly slower to do so.
The problem as i have previously mentioned is that very low aero drag is pretty much directionally contraindicating to practicality when considered for a motor vehicle, ie cabin size and shape, sight lines, etc, where the most practical shape (a square box) is also the highest drag shape.
GT9 said:
Disingenuous comment I'm afraid.
The Mirai used around 190 kWh to do 845 miles, and AFAIK, speed was kept to the bare minimum to achieve maximum range.
The EQXX did 746 miles at normal driving speeds, AVERAGING 56 mph for the entire journey, including autobahn stints at 86 mph.
When it arrived it had used 85 kWh, and still had 15% left in the battery.
If the Mirai had attempted to follow the EQXX and keep up it would have run out of hydrogen long before the end, probably around the 500 mile mark.
The Merc averaged an equivalent economy of 300 mpg at normal driving speeds for 1000 km.
Just read that again to let it sink in.
The Miria would not get near 100 mpg on the same journey.
Credit where it is due, even though it's not a production car, the Merc's energy efficiency low consumption is a huge achievement.
EFA!The Mirai used around 190 kWh to do 845 miles, and AFAIK, speed was kept to the bare minimum to achieve maximum range.
The EQXX did 746 miles at normal driving speeds, AVERAGING 56 mph for the entire journey, including autobahn stints at 86 mph.
When it arrived it had used 85 kWh, and still had 15% left in the battery.
If the Mirai had attempted to follow the EQXX and keep up it would have run out of hydrogen long before the end, probably around the 500 mile mark.
The Merc averaged an equivalent economy of 300 mpg at normal driving speeds for 1000 km.
Just read that again to let it sink in.
The Miria would not get near 100 mpg on the same journey.
Credit where it is due, even though it's not a production car, the Merc's
totally in agreement with your important point however!!! :-)
Sandpit Steve said:
Olivergt said:
What I want to know is how did they manage the 7.5 miles per kwh when a good EV can only manage 3?
This is like a manufacturer who's cars normally do 50mpg all of a sudden coming out with a car that does 100mpg.
How have they managed to double efficiency?
A very slippery prototype car body, probably taped up wherever possible. This is like a manufacturer who's cars normally do 50mpg all of a sudden coming out with a car that does 100mpg.
How have they managed to double efficiency?
A trick prototype energy recovery system from the F1 team.
Carefully assembled battery and motor, to minimise losses.
A professional driver, with extensive briefing and not caring about anything except efficiency, probably drafting a lorry for most of the motorway mileage.
There is no tape, but there is an active rear diffuser that extends downwards and rearwards at speed.
Drag coefficient is 0.17 and frontal area is kept to a minimum, this is where the single biggest gain is made.
Weight is also a bit lower, from the use of exotic lightweight materials, at 1750 kg.
There is no trick KERS, it's just normal regenerative braking.
The battery and the electrical system are of course state-of-the-art, including air-cooling for the battery using underbody air-flow, to eliminate the parasitic losses associated with liquid cooling.
They intentionally travelled at normal speeds, including up to 140 km/h on the autobahn.
Max_Torque said:
Firstly please understand the difference between "efficiency" and "consumption"
You can have a car that is 100% efficient in converting the energy stored in its fuel to use as useful motive force and yet still has a very high consumption.
Consumption is majorly defined by the vehicles roadload, ie how much force does it take to push that vehicle along at any given speed. Then the efficiency of the powertrain defines how much actually energy must be used to provide that force.
In this case, they have NOT doubled efficiency, they have halved consumption!
Because BEV's don't have much parasitic friction in their powertrain and don't have complex effects such as pumping losses or emisisons controls requirements, there powertrain is not just very efficient in absolute terms, but has hardly any change in efficiency vs vehicle speed.
What that broadly means is that a BEV consumes energy pretty much in a direct relation to speed. Ie at zero speed they consume no energy, and at max speed they consume max energy. This is not the case for ICE vehicles, fo which the lowest consumption is achieved at around 40 mph and increases again below that
For a BEV under typical mixed road driving conditions approximately 75% of the energy in the battery is used to "push air out of the way" ie lost to aero drag. So, if you halve your aero drag, your consumption falls and your range climbs massively.
Small, light, high efficiency BEVS (like my i3 :-) are incredibly low consumers, and ultra low drag ones (like this EQXX) can also travel long distances on not much energy (btw, something like an Aptera makes this EQXX look positively glutonous)
Driven carefully, my i3 can easily get to 6 or 7 ml/kWh, the same as this EQXX, but because it has a much poorer aero drag, it has to travel significantly slower to do so.
The problem as i have previously mentioned is that very low aero drag is pretty much directionally contraindicating to practicality when considered for a motor vehicle, ie cabin size and shape, sight lines, etc, where the most practical shape (a square box) is also the highest drag shape.
How much effect does the weight have on the efficiancy? The quoted 1755kg sounds quite good compared to what I'm used to seeing for this type of ev.You can have a car that is 100% efficient in converting the energy stored in its fuel to use as useful motive force and yet still has a very high consumption.
Consumption is majorly defined by the vehicles roadload, ie how much force does it take to push that vehicle along at any given speed. Then the efficiency of the powertrain defines how much actually energy must be used to provide that force.
In this case, they have NOT doubled efficiency, they have halved consumption!
Because BEV's don't have much parasitic friction in their powertrain and don't have complex effects such as pumping losses or emisisons controls requirements, there powertrain is not just very efficient in absolute terms, but has hardly any change in efficiency vs vehicle speed.
What that broadly means is that a BEV consumes energy pretty much in a direct relation to speed. Ie at zero speed they consume no energy, and at max speed they consume max energy. This is not the case for ICE vehicles, fo which the lowest consumption is achieved at around 40 mph and increases again below that
For a BEV under typical mixed road driving conditions approximately 75% of the energy in the battery is used to "push air out of the way" ie lost to aero drag. So, if you halve your aero drag, your consumption falls and your range climbs massively.
Small, light, high efficiency BEVS (like my i3 :-) are incredibly low consumers, and ultra low drag ones (like this EQXX) can also travel long distances on not much energy (btw, something like an Aptera makes this EQXX look positively glutonous)
Driven carefully, my i3 can easily get to 6 or 7 ml/kWh, the same as this EQXX, but because it has a much poorer aero drag, it has to travel significantly slower to do so.
The problem as i have previously mentioned is that very low aero drag is pretty much directionally contraindicating to practicality when considered for a motor vehicle, ie cabin size and shape, sight lines, etc, where the most practical shape (a square box) is also the highest drag shape.
Despite its somewhat challenging rear-end looks, if this step-change filters down to more of the cars folks actually are likely to purchase and gaps between charges increase regularly to 300-400+ miles, I can see the tipping point of adoption. Charging points at home/on street, notwithstanding.
Don't understand the negative comments about lack of emotions, etc.
I'm very ecited about this car, as I see it a successor of cars like the Audi A2 3L, which are cars with pure efficiency focus.
I used to enjoy driving these kind cars and still do alongside sportscars or motorcycles.
Because these cars fullfil the purpose of bringing me relaxed and efficient from A to B, I enjoy my sports cars or bikes even more.
Driving an exciting car on a day to day basis will ruin every eciting car(Believe me, I did this execise), as you don't see how good or exciting it is any more. We are humans and we're getting used to everything, when we drive it as a daily.
Therefore, I celebrate that these cars exists as they have a purpose and make driving more exciting cars even more exciting.
I'm very ecited about this car, as I see it a successor of cars like the Audi A2 3L, which are cars with pure efficiency focus.
I used to enjoy driving these kind cars and still do alongside sportscars or motorcycles.
Because these cars fullfil the purpose of bringing me relaxed and efficient from A to B, I enjoy my sports cars or bikes even more.
Driving an exciting car on a day to day basis will ruin every eciting car(Believe me, I did this execise), as you don't see how good or exciting it is any more. We are humans and we're getting used to everything, when we drive it as a daily.
Therefore, I celebrate that these cars exists as they have a purpose and make driving more exciting cars even more exciting.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff