Interesting story here:

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/07/mercedes-says-the-world-wasnt-ready-for-the-eqs/
I think Wagener is right. Equating the EQS with the s-class was dumb. It should have been a CLS replacement. I also think they EQE should have been an SUV exclusively. There is too little difference between all the EQ models.

I also think he’s right that it was ahead of the market. That much said, I love my EQS and enjoy its uniqueness.

 

There's an interesting point in this quote. The S Class being a chauffeur limousine. I've made this point many times before. I think the comparing of the EQS to the S Class happened particularly in the USA, because many S Class owners seem to buy it to drive it themselves, but the S Class has always been a chauffeur limousine. I've pointed out that in places like Germany and Switzerland for example, the S Class is the equivalent of the yellow cab. In Munich if you hail a cab you may even get picked up in a Maybach. The place you wanna be in an S Class is the rear seats. That was never the case with the EQS.

 

That's a fascinating article, and @Quackledork, your analysis is spot on. Wagener's admission is a masterclass in corporate PR, but the story behind the story is even more interesting.

This isn't just about a car. It's a case study in psychology, brand identity, and the high-stakes gamble of innovation.

Part 1: The Psychological Diagnosis - A Violation of Expectation

Wagener is right. The core issue was never the quality of the EQS; it was the violation of a deeply ingrained psychological model. For a century, the "long hood" on a flagship Mercedes sedan has been the unspoken signifier of status and power. The EQS, in its pursuit of aerodynamic perfection, abandoned that century-old visual language. This contrasts sharply with competitors like BMW, who chose a more evolutionary design path for their flagship EVs like the i7, retaining a more traditional luxury sedan silhouette. Mercedes's bolder, more radical aerodynamic statement underscores the magnitude of their initial conviction—and the subsequent market's resounding response.

The marketers were then handed this aerodynamically perfect but philosophically alien shape and told, "Sell this as an S-Class." This created a fundamental disconnect. The car's design was communicating "futuristic efficiency," but the marketing was promising "S-Class status."

The irony of this design-driven misstep is that its very form, while alienating to some, contributes to a remarkably serene and quiet cabin—a testament to the pursuit of acoustic and spatial sanctuary that aligns with the core Mercedes luxury promise, albeit through an unconventional visual language.

Part 2: The "Innovator's Dilemma" & Its Unintended Consequence

This is a textbook example of the "Innovator's Dilemma." Mercedes was caught between protecting its legacy and embracing the future. But the dilemma wasn't just philosophical; it had a massive, real-world financial consequence.

By pricing the EQS in the same stratosphere as the S-Class while it was still fighting for its own identity, Mercedes created a fundamental value proposition problem. This strategic oversight, while a windfall for astute buyers, represented a significant, multi-billion-euro bet for Mercedes-Benz, forcing a substantial re-evaluation of their future EV roadmap.

This "problem," however, became a golden opportunity for savvy buyers.

This is the direct reason for the "unicorn" lease phenomenon we've seen over the past couple of years. I, and many others on these forums, have been able to capitalize on it. My own three incredible deals were a direct result of the market correcting for this initial miscalculation. The high MSRP, combined with the massive manufacturer incentives needed to move the metal, created a perfect storm for leasing that many of us were able to benefit from.

Part 3: The Forward-Looking Correction

Wagener's comments are not an apology; they are a signal. The 2025 facelift, with its return to a more traditional grille and the upright star, is the first, tangible step in a strategic course correction. It is an admission that while the world may one day be ready for a purely aerodynamic luxury sedan, that day is not today.

My take is this: The original EQS was a brilliant answer to a question the market wasn't asking yet. The irony is that its "failure" to be an S-Class is precisely what makes it, as you said, so unique and, for those of us who "get it," so special.

 

With the EQS, Mercedes made the fatal mistake of allowing the engineers drive the design. That worked 60 years ago when their clientele was more serious minded. Like the guys who were willing to go to war to stop the spread of fascism. But now Mercedes serves the desires of the lowest common denominator. Like the Louis Vuitton toting G Wagon drivers.

 

To be fair, form should follow function. Traditional cars look the way they do, because of function. The long hood is not some kind of a statement. It's there to fit a long V12 engine, or an inline 6. There's isn't much of a point to have a hood in an EV beyond a certain level of nose shape for aerodynamics, but it certainly doesn't have to be long. It's just a waste of space. BMW has chosen a shared platform, so their cars still look traditional in order to fit an engine, but they are strangely tall now, because of the space reserved in the floor for the battery in the electric models. Most EVs these days try to look like traditional cars for no functional reason. Sure the frunk gives extra space, but if you move the cabin forward you can have a larger trunk in the rear or even more interior space.

 

That notion was lost on my younger (at the time) kids

 

Exactly.

 

2 days ago MBUSA had a news release regarding the all new VLE and VLS coming in 2026, and stated those are the chauffeur limousine

https://media.mbusa.com/releases/rel...-flying-colors

The EQS design is at least 10 years ahead of the game and most people don't understand that.

 

It was a marketing error in that they literally used “s” or “e” or whatever other currently marketed vehicle they had instead of just marketing a new letter. Mercedes design language has made too many models look similar.

 

Guess they shouldn't had named it the EQS if they didn't want to market it as the S-Class. EQCLS would be an interesting name but is it a little too long?

 

Most people don't get what the EQS is about and only let car reviewers tell them what they want in an EV. But that's OK with me. I get it on the cheap and love it. I hope the new AMG EV will be the same. Nobody wants it, and I'll definitely get that on the cheap, too.

 

Then they just released the EQVLE and EQVLS :-D

 

I wonder if all vehicles like the EQS, anything European, anything North American will be a moot point in a few years. I've been doing some reading about BYD and Xiaomi both from an owner and investor point of view--western automakers have lots more to worry about beyond where the EQS should have been marketed in their lineup stack. They are in serious trouble if our protectionist impulses fail to keep the Chinese out of Europe and North America. Even the Ford CEO didn't want to let go of his su7. The way BYD and Xiaomi have integrated their vertical manufacturing, applied AI, and seamless integrated the car's OS into their lives are unmatchable for western automakers in their current format. The days of MB saying 'this is what we offer and you're going to like it' are coming to an end, probably soon. And I say all this as an enthusiast and someone who really enjoys his EQS and EQB and old CL.

Here's an article, but there are so many others to pick from...https://insideevs.com/reviews/764893...-review-china/

 

At this point, I don’t care. I love the EQS 580. It has many improvements over the 2022 MY.

 

Oh yes they did

 

Who is this jerk?

 

I'm not convince until these Chinese made car go through the NHTSA crash test. Call me old school, old fart, but things can go south very fast if these things are more dangerous on American roads. Now I do understand that politics play a role in preventing these vehicles from coming to the States, which I think is a sad story. That needs to change. However, as cheap as they are, there are good reasons for it that a typical "car review" will not tell you or have full knowledge of. In some aspects, car reviews are just marketing ploys. Not really journalism.

 

many are on europe roads now do they have crash tests?

 

As an S Class consumer I will say that when I came to the understanding that the EQS was not an S Class and was not the future of the S Class, I appreciated it more. My initial disdain for the car (I REALLY hated it) I think came from the fact that it was presented to me as what the S Class was going to be, and what an "electric S Class" was. As someone who wanted an electric S Class, that really pissed me off because its just not an S Class on any level. Now that I understand this will not be the case, I actually kinda like the EQS...

 

awesome !!!

 

I think I am where you were. I might get to where you are right now at some point.

 

Given EVs prices is usually higher than the ICE equivalent, the EQS is priced pretty similar to the ICE S-Class so some sort of cost (adjustments) must be made when building it.

Us forum members are also aware that when the true S-Class comes it will simply be called S-Class and not EQ something. I mean, we can also blame the media and journalist of also calling it the S-Class EV in the reviews, I guess I won't remember which ones but there were quite a bit. It is either they are misinformed or Mercedes did not specifically deny out in the public or marketing material that it is not an S-Class. As the S-Class idea might also helped with sales (or maybe it didn't, as seen).

 

Looks like they are very popular in Europe, how are the test results on EURO NCAP? What are the differences and similarities of that and the NHTSA's test?

 

Speaking of which, given they are a budget phone brand (from what I heard), to create the fastest car and as a cellphone company... I wonder where they cost cut on to achieve it, this is especially given the fact that Japanese Sony once had an idea of making a car but did not have much success I guess they also canceled the project altogether and Sony is a huge company as well.

 

Being in Sales with Mercedes, we were forced to find our own "explanations" for the EQ products without high levels of explanation, demonstration, or support from corporate until well after we had the cars on lot and being sold. Literally months after. That being said, we deemed the EQS "the S-Class of all Electric Vehicles" and drew distinctions between it and S-Classes. We did that for multiple reasons. The main one being our ability to introduce and describe yet another model in the extremely crowded MB model line up. The unicorn leases in our market were mostly taken advantage of by employees, so there's that. However, I don't know that the EQS is "ahead of its time". I do believe it to be an incredible EV for NOW with a horrible job done of helping the mass public to understand why.