When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As an additional data point, I've got an EQE 500 sedan and just did a 30 mile round trip. Traffic was moderate which kept speeds lower but never came to a complete stop. It's been my best result ever at 274 Wh/mile. This is actually approaching my average in my Model 3!
Gotta think that the average speed of the M3 was higher than the 30 mile trip in the EQE 500 plus the M3 average may have included winter driving.
Sure it's one data point vs an average over thousands of miles. It was still surprising to me since the EPA estimate for the 500 is 346 Wh/mile and every trip I've taken so far is significantly below that.
If nothing else, it sets an upper bound for what efficiency I can expect.
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
This dataset is from an EV6 but it clearly illustrates how drag force increases with speed. Range goes up a whopping 41% if you slow down from 75 MPH to 55 MPH. Car and driver said that using the heater in the winter without a heat pump used 35% in their worst-case test vehicle. So speed is clearly the primary factor.
I doubt Sammy Hagar will be buying an EV any time soon.
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
Originally Posted by guess2098
I wonder his heater is set on what temp, and which mode? comfort, eco, eco+?
..dont take the words from internet, everyone driving differently.
Yeah, that's the problem, everyone drives differently. That's why it's helpful to get two sets of data from the same guy under identical conditions. Bjorn gained 30% range slowing down from 120 KMPH to 90 KMPH. The EQS SUV has a drag coefficient of .26 vs .28 for the EV6 so that also gives me a great idea of how much .02 less drag actually matters at high speed. It looks like it really is a bigger deal in an EV than a gas car after all. I suppose that's because there arent any gears and the power is delivered more or less linearly so no point keeping RPMs in the middle. Anywhosies, my analysis is done and I'm ready to hit the road! Slowly!
And now for a little musical interlude since I've completely hijacked bytemaster's thread (sorry)
The reason the Cd matters more in an EV is that the EV's are a far more efficient propulsion system ie that aren't pissing away a lot of the onboard energy in heat. Said another way a much bigger fraction of the onboard energy is being used to move the car than with an ICE powered car.
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
Yeah, and it would appear MB's electric motors aren't as efficient as Hyundai's. MB might need to move to in-wheel motors like Aptera is using in their 1000 mile EV to be the most efficient. Can't get any closer from where you generate the power to where it needs to be delivered anyways. Was just watching a video about SAAB coming back as a 600 mile EV and it uses in-wheel motors too:
2022 Taycan GTS, 2023 EQS580 SUV, 2023 EQS580 sedan
the fact that you can't really compare like that. weight of the car, hp of the motor. wheel size. too many variables.
buying MB is not for best efficiency tbh. if you really want efficiency then Tesla model 3 with 57.5kw battery pack maybe is the best.
Originally Posted by Crito
Yeah, and it would appear MB's electric motors aren't as efficient as Hyundai's. MB might need to move to in-wheel motors like Aptera is using in their 1000 mile EV to be the most efficient. Can't get any closer from where you generate the power to where it needs to be delivered anyways. Was just watching a video about SAAB coming back as a 600 mile EV and it uses in-wheel motors too: https://youtu.be/-1VAkXNTR1Y
MB might need to move to in-wheel motors like Aptera is using in their 1000 mile EV
The big problem with in-wheel motors is the extra unsprung weight. No way to get around the driving comfort problem if it's truly in-wheel. If it has a CV joint after the motor, going to the wheel, that works, but in-wheel has just been too fraught with driving comfort issues. Even top-notch axial motors would be too much weight to add in, hence the continued mounting in the middle of the vehicle. Also, moving lots of mass to the outside of the vehicle affects handling as well.
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
Yeah, in-wheel might not be the best way, I don't really know. What I do know is the Lucid Pure has about the same drag as an EQS and a SMALLER battery pack (grand touring's is little bigger) yet it gets MORE range. And Hyundai's Ioniq 5 got 4.1 mi/kWh in 55 MPH range test, above. So looks to me like Mercedes' electric motors just aren't as efficient as the competition's for whatever reason. Of course, MB's comfort can't be match tho... every time I almost buy a second vehicle I ask myself if it was sitting next to the Mercedes in the garage right now would I want to drive it? The answer is always no, I'd rather be driving my EQE SUV.
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
Oh, one more point I'd like to make. Efficiency doesn't necessarily make a car better for road trips. The Mini EV easily gets 4.6 mi/kwh because it's so small and light. But because the battery pack is tiny and it charges slow as molasses it's actually the worst to drive 1000 miles:
every EV needs between 15.3 hours (Lucid Air, 65.4 mph average) and 23.5 hours (Mini Cooper SE, 42.6 mph). That means driving a kilomile in that Lucid only takes 4 percent longer than in a combustion vehicle, whereas in the Mini you'll spend 60 percent longer on the road.
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
I really enjoy driving my EQE 500 SUV around as a daily driver / grocery getter. I used to find people circling like vultures around the GV80 every time I went to Kroger. The Mercedes doesn't attract as much attention, until I put the hammer down and blow the socks off some smelly old muscle car that tries to cut me off at the highway on-ramp anyways. And have a feeling it won't be so bad on my road trip thanks to what I'm reading about the charging curve on MB EQ vehicles. The Cadillac Lyriq does 190 kW but took this guy 40 minutes to go from 20-80% though because the curve kinda sux, for example:
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
Mini rant... the way info is being presented is backwards IMHO. I need to know how much energy my car is actually using when I'm stopped at a traffic light, like 500 W with A/C off and 1.25 kW with A/C on. That would be much more useful than infinity wh/mi or 1999 wh/mi which is what I believe MB is using for their average number. And it would be much more useful to know what the average rate was for my charging session, like 105 kW avg to charge a Lyriq from 20-80%, rather than peak rate and total amount dispensed. Just my 2 cents, keep the charge.
Mini rant... the way info is being presented is backwards IMHO. I need to know how much energy my car is actually using when I'm stopped at a traffic light, like 500 W with A/C off and 1.25 kW with A/C on. That would be much more useful than infinity wh/mi or 1999 wh/mi which is what I believe MB is using for their average number. And it would be much more useful to know what the average rate was for my charging session, like 105 kW avg to charge a Lyriq from 20-80%, rather than peak rate and total amount dispensed. Just my 2 cents, keep the charge.
Agreed - the more stats and the nerdier, the better.
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
Well I'm still trying to adjust and understand all this EV stuff as this is my first one. I just find some things unnecessarily confusing. Just give me a plain ole watt meter for the electric motors and I'd be happy. And it still boggles my mind how two electric motors with the same 300 kW output (402 HP) can have wildly different torque numbers. So I'm not so sure my MB has the worst efficiency making 317 lb-ft of torque anyways, as that'd only be 50% "power" for me, I think. It's all very confusing...
EDIT: Never mind, I should have googled a little harder. Looks like more torque means MB's electric motor is spinning slower to produce same HP. All 633 lb-ft is available all the time.
Last edited by GreasedFolgore; Jul 30, 2023 at 04:21 PM.
Reason: oops
Just posting another round trip performance on EQE350V4 sedan, we drove to the smokies, with some considerable elevation changes (1500 ft elevation changes for sure). We stopped in Williamsburg, KY at the EA station prior to crossing the KY/TN border, everything was flawless. Plug-and-charge worked first try, and while we didn't see much above 125kW for some reason, we only needed 15 or so minutes to get up to 80%. We could've made it in one charge, but better not risk it with 5-10% left in the battery. The resort we stayed at had a Tesla destination charger, I used a Lectron J-1772 adapter which worked perfectly. Round-trip efficiency was 279 Wh/mi, or about 3.6 mi/kWh. I drive in "no recuperation" mode to maximize what MB calls "sailing", which also regens as much as possible when you do use the brake pedal, saving the discs for the very last bit of brake travel. Same Williamsburg station on the way back, no problems the second time either. All in all, a very easy road trip to do in a BEV. This is our fourth road trip in the car this summer, and it's absolutely doable. I'm so excited to see the major charging infrastructure changes coming!
Fun fact - while in "no recuperation" and going down a basically empty 4% grade on I-75, the air resistance is so low in the sedan, that I can neither confirm nor deny that the car may have reached 101 MPH, starting from 70, just by going down hill, no power. Simply incredible how little drivetrain and aerodynamic drag the cars have. And that's without the front-axle DCU that's coming in the 2024 cars.
Another update, I did a more careful drive to and from work today, which is 85% highway at 70MPH. I tried to keep throttle response lower than usual, but no hypermiling by any stretch of the imagination. There was definitely one power stomp in there due to a merge situation that had to be handled. Temperature was 92+°, winds less than 5MPH, round trip. Averaged 269 Wh/mi, or 3.71 mi/kWh. Total drive was about 30 miles. The garage was already at 87° when I took the car out at 9AM (crazy heat dome over us until tonight), so the AC was on full tilt cooling down the cabin from the start. Pretty good!
2025 Maserati Grecale Folgore and 2024 Jaguar F-PACE SVR
Here's another interesting dataset. Though it's a Cadillac Lyriq he does identical runs at 70 MPH and 80 MPH which is unusual. Spoiler:
@ 70 he got 3.15 miles per kWh
@ 80 he got 2.34 miles per kWh
Some long-term stats: With a 1200+-mile trip computer average, I including a 650-mile road trip at 70MPH, I averaged 287 Wh/mi - roughly 3.5 mi/kWh. Recent 300-mile+ average with no road trips is showing about 278 Wh/mi, or 3.6 Wh/mi. This is with about 8200 on the car so far.
I may have missed it in this thread or elsewhere, but I would be grateful to learn if anyone knows where I can find the Total kWh Consumption since odometer reading "0".
I am aware of "From Start" and "From Reset", but neither of these give me what I want -- I have unfortunately re-set both since it was driven out of the showroom.
I can see a Total kWh consumed for the life of the car in the Mercedes Me Eco Coach app under Statistics>Personal Balance>Total. I would like to cross-check the number I'm seeing for this in the app with the same number in the car (if it exists).
Thought I'd post again on winter consumption figures. As one would expect, range has decreased, and it is very temperature dependent. While these values will only apply to V295.112 (EQE350 4matic), and specifically the 2023 model year as 2024s will get a heat pump system, they may still be useful.
The biggest thing I've noticed is that the predicted range has dropped to somewhere around 260-280 miles depending on temperature. It's between 25 to 45 degrees F here this week. Wh/mi is usually somewhere in the upper 300s to 400s depending on how cold it is. If you go to Range forecasts in MBUX, I can see that the range impact of climate control varies depending on outside temperature, as well as by how long I've been driving. Though the 2023 sedan doesn't have a heat pump, it *can* scavenge waste heat from the drivetrain, just not as efficiently as with a heat pump. For instance, if it's 21 degrees outside and I've just started driving, I've seen range hits as high as 39 miles predicted. However, once waste heat starts building up and the cabin warms up, this can drop to the lower 20s of miles, or even better. If the temperature reaches over 40 degrees (F), climate control range drop is predicted to be between 7-14 miles when having driven for a while. So, all quite manageable. I'm sure the heat pump will help the climate control-related range rather significantly, maybe by 10-20 miles. The rest seems to be range reduction due to the battery being cold, as well as air resistance increases, and the like.
From Consumer Reports, a very interesting comparison of EPA vs Actual - EQE 350 4Matic sedan was the highest outperformer, exceeding its EPA range by 72 miles according to CR. The 330 mile range tracks nearly perfectly with summer-time range figures that I've seen. I'll have a post about a 350 sedan vs SUV (no heatpump vs heatpump) performance here today or tomorrow that has some interesting findings. In the meantime, here's the chart!
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Slideshow: A one-of-one U.S.-spec Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster became even rarer after a factory-backed transformation at McLaren's headquarters.
