Mercedes-Benz squeezes 620 miles of range from its latest concept EV

Shawn Knight

Posts: 14,043   +151
Staff member
In a nutshell: Mercedes-Benz has unveiled a new concept electric vehicle that looks to make range anxiety a permanent fixture of the past with more than 620 miles of range from a single charge. The secret sauce, you ask? Efficiency and an obsession with weight reduction.

Mercedes a year-and-a-half ago set out to create its most efficient vehicle ever. The result is the Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX, a concept EV boasting a range of more than 620 miles on a single charge. Energy consumption checks in at more than six miles per kWh from a battery small enough to fit into a compact vehicle.

The German automaker said it achieved this feat by rethinking the fundamentals from the ground up. Engineers utilized advanced digital tools to reduce weight and lower waste by removing excess materials “assisted” by 3D printing.

Mercedes is also employing ultra-low-rolling-resistance tires with optimized aerodynamic geometry mounted on lightweight magnesium wheels, aluminum alloy brake discs and ultra-thin solar roof panels to further shed weight and extend range. All told, the four-door EV tips the scales at 3,858 pounds. For comparison, a Tesla Model S Plaid weighs 4,766 pounds.

Max power output is rated around 150 kW although unfortunately, Mercedes didn’t cite any acceleration or top speed figures. We do know, however, that the vehicle has a slippery drag coefficient of cd 0.17, lower than the cd 0.18 to 0.2 of a typical football.

The Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX is little more than a concept at this point. Even if it doesn't make it to showroom floors in the current iteration, surely the automaker will borrow some of its clever engineering for other products that will eventually see the light of day.

Permalink to story.

 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,484   +6,275
Weight reduction is, to me, such an obvious "improvement" for range no matter whether the vehicle is powered by an ICE or is an EV, I have to wonder why the auto industry has never taken it seriously.

Silly me! Cost, of course. Carbon fiber composites/sandwich structures, can, in theory, be made far lighter and far more durable than metal, and price would come way down on mass adoption into the industry.

Come on, automakers, get with the program already. :rolleyes:
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 6,266   +7,191
Weight reduction is, to me, such an obvious "improvement" for range no matter whether the vehicle is powered by an ICE or is an EV, I have to wonder why the auto industry has never taken it seriously.

Silly me! Cost, of course. Carbon fiber composites/sandwich structures, can, in theory, be made far lighter and far more durable than metal, and price would come way down on mass adoption into the industry.

Come on, automakers, get with the program already. :rolleyes:

Weight reduction in an EV is definitely a good thing, but it really doesn't matter much.

EV have instant torque motors, and as Tesla has proven, 5000 pounds can be accelerated to 60mph in 3 seconds while still getting 300 miles range (at least).

The batteries are heavy. I doubt we will have a less dense, lighter solution anytime soon, even as battery technology moves from LiION to solid state (they may even get heavier).

My last 4 cars have all exceeded 4500 pounds: Chrysler SRT, Jeep SRT, Charger Hellcat, S560. I was considering the EQS as a replacement, but it's too small. Give it more length and I could care less how heavy it is.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,143   +1,036
Weight reduction in an EV is definitely a good thing, but it really doesn't matter much.

EV have instant torque motors, and as Tesla has proven, 5000 pounds can be accelerated to 60mph in 3 seconds while still getting 300 miles range (at least).

The batteries are heavy. I doubt we will have a less dense, lighter solution anytime soon, even as battery technology moves from LiION to solid state (they may even get heavier).

My last 4 cars have all exceeded 4500 pounds: Chrysler SRT, Jeep SRT, Charger Hellcat, S560. I was considering the EQS as a replacement, but it's too small. Give it more length and I could care less how heavy it is.
Inertia is inertia, and the handling of a 5000lb tank will be crap on a nice tight twisty road. I don't care how fast EV's are off the line, I don't spend my days accelerating from standstill as fast as possible. The real problem is the dinosaur battery tech, Until we get solid state batteries, EV's aren't even on my radar. I'll take a hybrid thanks where there's only a small battery and the electric motors are used to aid performance of the ICE and provide say 5km of pure EV range.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,484   +6,275
Weight reduction in an EV is definitely a good thing, but it really doesn't matter much.

EV have instant torque motors, and as Tesla has proven, 5000 pounds can be accelerated to 60mph in 3 seconds while still getting 300 miles range (at least).

The batteries are heavy. I doubt we will have a less dense, lighter solution anytime soon, even as battery technology moves from LiION to solid state (they may even get heavier).

My last 4 cars have all exceeded 4500 pounds: Chrysler SRT, Jeep SRT, Charger Hellcat, S560. I was considering the EQS as a replacement, but it's too small. Give it more length and I could care less how heavy it is.
When you take an ICE SUV from 15mpg to 60mpg due to weight reduction, keep telling me it does not matter. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.n...ent-technologies/autosmart_factsheet_16_e.pdf
I have called you out on your handle before, do I really have to keep doing it?
Apologies.
 

Gmachine

Posts: 36   +49
Yes this is good news. 1000 kilometers from an electric vehicle really shows the progress it's made.

Within a few years this tech will trickle down to the entry level vehicles as well, where I'll bite.
 

dragosmp

Posts: 62   +63
Inertia is inertia, and the handling of a 5000lb tank will be crap on a nice tight twisty road. I don't care how fast EV's are off the line, I don't spend my days accelerating from standstill as fast as possible. The real problem is the dinosaur battery tech, Until we get solid state batteries, EV's aren't even on my radar. I'll take a hybrid thanks where there's only a small battery and the electric motors are used to aid performance of the ICE and provide say 5km of pure EV range.
Don't diss it yet. I used a rental Model 3 performance a few weeks ago for a day trip. It totally felt heavy in the steering, but gotta think with a better sustension setup that could be aleviated (steering felt very 70's) - but the speed OMG the speed. You're at 60 on a twisty road, end up begind a truck and guess what, push the pedal and - for my senses - I was instantly at 120-140 and way passed. Like by the time you think, you're already passed. Luckily my arms and legs seemed to handle the car by the time my brain cought up. After a few hours of this, the brain kinda gets used to the idea of "infinite power" and you drive differently, totally not slow. About this car though, better tires and better suspension for sure would go a long way making turns more pleasant and unlock the full potential.
 

dragosmp

Posts: 62   +63
Yes this is good news. 1000 kilometers from an electric vehicle really shows the progress it's made.

Within a few years this tech will trickle down to the entry level vehicles as well, where I'll bite.
Do we know the size of the battery? Strikes me that if one puts a big enough pack, anything is doable.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 6,266   +7,191
When you take an ICE SUV from 15mpg to 60mpg due to weight reduction, keep telling me it does not matter. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.n...ent-technologies/autosmart_factsheet_16_e.pdf
I have called you out on your handle before, do I really have to keep doing it?
Apologies.


#1 I don't think you have enough experience driving or owning these vehicles to opine.

#2 Calling me out is irrelevant. If not for the censors, we'd have a REAL conversation you'd be unable to handle. At the end of the day, I'm still saying exactly what I've been saying regardless.

#3 ICE SUV? Who's still talking about ICE SUV?

did you get the memo? It's all about EV now and for the future. The real powers that be have spoken.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 6,266   +7,191
Inertia is inertia, and the handling of a 5000lb tank will be crap on a nice tight twisty road. I don't care how fast EV's are off the line, I don't spend my days accelerating from standstill as fast as possible. The real problem is the dinosaur battery tech, Until we get solid state batteries, EV's aren't even on my radar. I'll take a hybrid thanks where there's only a small battery and the electric motors are used to aid performance of the ICE and provide say 5km of pure EV range.

Low center of gravity due to the battery placement completely disagrees with you.
I have to wonder how many of these cars you've owned or even driven.
The answer is probably 0.
Even the EXPERTS agree EV typically handle better regardless the mass.

Instant torque.
Instant acceleration.
Low center of gravity.
Reduced moment of inertia.

The list of the reasons you're incorrect go on and on.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,317   +5,508
620 miles is pretty good. That's the kind of range where the long charge time becomes less of an issue for long road trips, so long as the infastructure is built up. Longer range, charging infastructure, and price are the 3 keys to widespread EV adoption, and I believe this 620 mile range is enough to check the long range box.
Weight reduction is, to me, such an obvious "improvement" for range no matter whether the vehicle is powered by an ICE or is an EV, I have to wonder why the auto industry has never taken it seriously.

Silly me! Cost, of course. Carbon fiber composites/sandwich structures, can, in theory, be made far lighter and far more durable than metal, and price would come way down on mass adoption into the industry.

Come on, automakers, get with the program already. :rolleyes:
Weight is a major improvement, the other one is a transmission. Why on earth we insist that these cars maintain electric motors spinning 6-7K RPM at highway speeds when they hit peak efficiency between 0-4k RPM is beyond me. Give them a OD gear for highway driving and watch the range shoot up.

This is how tesla plans to get 600+ miles out of a roadster,a 2nd gear for highway driving. Which makes so much more sense. It's a lot easier too, if your car is AWD have one set of motors geared way taller for highway driving, since they are electric they dont have to be geared the same like an ICE powertrain.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,484   +6,275
#1 I don't think you have enough experience driving or owning these vehicles to opine.

#2 Calling me out is irrelevant. If not for the censors, we'd have a REAL conversation you'd be unable to handle. At the end of the day, I'm still saying exactly what I've been saying regardless.

#3 ICE SUV? Who's still talking about ICE SUV?

did you get the memo? It's all about EV now and for the future. The real powers that be have spoken.
Good god man. This is simple, like freshman year physics, or even high school physics, but you are in, what?, finance, securities, or at least claim to be?? And you are trying to tell me that your driving experience is more accurate than the proven equations of physics? I'd expect that from someone posting to a "Q" board, but not TS.

Did you even read the link I posted? So you get in your Tesla and step on the accelerator, and because it rockets you to some insane speed in a few seconds, has Musky somehow convinced you that his EVs have found a way around the laws of physics? 🤣 Earth to @QuantumPhysics Musky, nor anyone else, for that matter, has not figured out a way to circumvent the laws of physics, not yet anyway.

Why don't I want to have a regular conversation with you?? Because you rely on your subjective opinion, that's why, not proven science. In fact, I've seen other instances where what you have spouted is simply not at all consistent with science - I.e., the way things work in the real world.

Just in case you are actually interested in learning:

Work = Force * Distance which means that the work expended, (which can easily be converted to well-known units such as Watts I.e., Volts times Amperes) is directly proportional to the Force required and the Force is directly proportional to the Mass of an object times the Acceleration - meaning the more MASS that an object has, the more force is required to move it, thus the more work is expended in moving it.

Since it is a direct proportionality, if you halve the weight of the vehicle, you reduce the force required, and thus the work expended in moving the vehicle by two. Thus, for the same size battery pack, or for the same size gas tank on the same vehicle, you save enough energy expended, I.e.., WORK, to go twice as far by halving the MASS, I.e., WEIGHT of the vehicle.

Thus, if you replace all that steel in your Tesla, which likely weighs at least as much as the battery pack, with carbon fiber or a well-constructed carbon fiber or glass fiber composite material, and it halves the weight of your Tesla, or ANY vehicle powered by any source, all of a sudden, your vehicle goes approximately twice as far as it did when it had all that steel in it.

And if you read a much more detailed article on this Mercedes Concept Car barely described in this article, you will find that what Mercedes is doing is using "novel" materials - to me that means "composite" materials to reduce the net weight of the vehicle enough so that it is capable of this 620 Mile range.

It has nothing to do with, subjectively, how fast the car does 0-60, the number of 3090s you have in your PC, or the size of your bank account, and everything to do with science, real-world simple Newtonian physics, I.e., not quantum physics, materials, and material science.

And the same principles would apply regardless of whether it is powered by an ICE or is an EV.

As I stated, if automobile manufacturers had adopted a similar approach for vehicles powered by an ICE, extended, perhaps greatly extended range on the same amount of gas would have resulted, and perhaps all auto manufacturers would not be scrambling to reduce pollution. But, at the time, all automobile manufacturers were likely only interested in the overall cost of the vehicle - not the health of the environment.

Now Mercedes comes along and "discovers" Newtonian physics and, like Musky, claims they have discovered the fountain of youth. 🤣 Yep, the free market economy is always right. 🤣

EDIT: And note a bit of an objective, science based side-bar here, the more acceleration, which is related to Torque, the more energy is expended in moving the same mass. I.e., all that torque in a Tesla expends a significant amount of energy, in a much shorter time meaning it does more work, to move the same mass as an engine with a lower torque. Thus, it, in some respects, is self-defeating because it does more work, and in doing more work, it expends more energy doing that work.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,484   +6,275
620 miles is pretty good. That's the kind of range where the long charge time becomes less of an issue for long road trips, so long as the infastructure is built up. Longer range, charging infastructure, and price are the 3 keys to widespread EV adoption, and I believe this 620 mile range is enough to check the long range box.
Weight is a major improvement, the other one is a transmission. Why on earth we insist that these cars maintain electric motors spinning 6-7K RPM at highway speeds when they hit peak efficiency between 0-4k RPM is beyond me. Give them a OD gear for highway driving and watch the range shoot up.

This is how tesla plans to get 600+ miles out of a roadster,a 2nd gear for highway driving. Which makes so much more sense. It's a lot easier too, if your car is AWD have one set of motors geared way taller for highway driving, since they are electric they dont have to be geared the same like an ICE powertrain.
Yes. Agreed. Once you get the vehicle moving, it takes less energy, because of Newton's "First law of Motion" to keep it moving, but still, reducing weight is highly desirable. It will take much less energy to get a vehicle with substantially reduced weight up to speed.

Maybe someday, someone will find a way to reduce friction to zero because that, in vehicles, is essentially the only loss when the vehicle is moving at speed.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,528   +7,370
Maybe someday, someone will find a way to reduce friction to zero because that, in vehicles, is essentially the only loss when the vehicle is moving at speed.
The Muskster has already figured that out. You shoot your Tesla into space, with a dummy other than yourself behind the wheel. :rolleyes:

I'm loathe to correct you about that, unless you are counting parasitic air induced drag as, "friction". Which, BTW, isn't going away anytime soon.
 
Last edited:

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 6,266   +7,191
Good god man. This is simple, like freshman year physics, or even high school physics, but you are in, what?, finance, securities, or at least claim to be?? And you are trying to tell me that your driving experience is more accurate than the proven equations of physics? I'd expect that from someone posting to a "Q" board, but not TS.

Did you even read the link I posted? So you get in your Tesla and step on the accelerator, and because it rockets you to some insane speed in a few seconds, has Musky somehow convinced you that his EVs have found a way around the laws of physics? 🤣 Earth to @QuantumPhysics Musky, nor anyone else, for that matter, has not figured out a way to circumvent the laws of physics, not yet anyway.

Why don't I want to have a regular conversation with you?? Because you rely on your subjective opinion, that's why, not proven science. In fact, I've seen other instances where what you have spouted is simply not at all consistent with science - I.e., the way things work in the real world.

Just in case you are actually interested in learning:

Work = Force * Distance which means that the work expended, (which can easily be converted to well-known units such as Watts I.e., Volts times Amperes) is directly proportional to the Force required and the Force is directly proportional to the Mass of an object times the Acceleration - meaning the more MASS that an object has, the more force is required to move it, thus the more work is expended in moving it.

Since it is a direct proportionality, if you halve the weight of the vehicle, you reduce the force required, and thus the work expended in moving the vehicle by two. Thus, for the same size battery pack, or for the same size gas tank on the same vehicle, you save enough energy expended, I.e.., WORK, to go twice as far by halving the MASS, I.e., WEIGHT of the vehicle.

Thus, if you replace all that steel in your Tesla, which likely weighs at least as much as the battery pack, with carbon fiber or a well-constructed carbon fiber or glass fiber composite material, and it halves the weight of your Tesla, or ANY vehicle powered by any source, all of a sudden, your vehicle goes approximately twice as far as it did when it had all that steel in it.

And if you read a much more detailed article on this Mercedes Concept Car barely described in this article, you will find that what Mercedes is doing is using "novel" materials - to me that means "composite" materials to reduce the net weight of the vehicle enough so that it is capable of this 620 Mile range.

It has nothing to do with, subjectively, how fast the car does 0-60, the number of 3090s you have in your PC, or the size of your bank account, and everything to do with science, real-world simple Newtonian physics, I.e., not quantum physics, materials, and material science.

And the same principles would apply regardless of whether it is powered by an ICE or is an EV.

As I stated, if automobile manufacturers had adopted a similar approach for vehicles powered by an ICE, extended, perhaps greatly extended range on the same amount of gas would have resulted, and perhaps all auto manufacturers would not be scrambling to reduce pollution. But, at the time, all automobile manufacturers were likely only interested in the overall cost of the vehicle - not the health of the environment.

Now Mercedes comes along and "discovers" Newtonian physics and, like Musky, claims they have discovered the fountain of youth. 🤣 Yep, the free market economy is always right. 🤣

EDIT: And note a bit of an objective, science based side-bar here, the more acceleration, which is related to Torque, the more energy is expended in moving the same mass. I.e., all that torque in a Tesla expends a significant amount of energy, in a much shorter time meaning it does more work, to move the same mass as an engine with a lower torque. Thus, it, in some respects, is self-defeating because it does more work, and in doing more work, it expends more energy doing that work.


#1 I know what F= MA stands for so you aren't really saying anything new.

#2 I'd rather have safety and protection over higher acceleration.

#3 I remember asking about ownership of said vehicles. Through a lengthy physics diatribe, I think that was lost. I own and have owned: do you?
 

Underdog

Posts: 255   +153
Mr. Simplistic here. Just popped in to point out that aside from trying to reduce harmful emissions the push for electric vehicles is also driven by worries about an ever diminishing supply of fossil fuel. Reducing vehicle weight certainly is part of the solution for various reasons but, correct me if I'm wrong, don't the modern composites (ie. carbon fibre etc.) require the use of resins as a binder in their manufacture? Resins that come from oil? And once they reach the end of their useful life don't they present a very difficult problem of recycling and/or disposal? I'm thinking we are too obsessed with chasing after dream solutions resulting from technology to solve every problem. Maybe we should be looking at different solutions than every human on the planet having their own personal transport that nearly always goes from A to B with only one occupant and a weight carrying capacity 5 to 10 times what is ever really needed. If the doom and gloom of the dying planet scenario is as urgent as we are being told perhaps we should be thinking about altering our lifestyle and expectations rather than throwing more and more cash at short term fixes that are not the answer long term.

Talking out of my backside? Maybe Yes, maybe No.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,484   +6,275
#1 I know what F= MA stands for so you aren't really saying anything new.

#2 I'd rather have safety and protection over higher acceleration.

#3 I remember asking about ownership of said vehicles. Through a lengthy physics diatribe, I think that was lost. I own and have owned: do you?
Excuse me for poking your reality. I'm lost here. Somehow, your ownership changes physics? What does your ownership have to do with it, exactly?
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,484   +6,275
The Muskster has already figured that out. You shoot your Tesla into space, with a dummy other than yourself behind the wheel. :rolleyes:

I'm loathe to correct you about that, unless you are counting parasitic air induced drag as, "friction". Which, BTW, isn't going away anytime soon.
What about rolling resistance from the tires, friction in the wheel bearings, etc? It may be classified as "small" but it all adds up including that air resistance, which, I've noted, Musky seems to think forcing the air to divert around the car is a great solution to making his vehicles aerodynamic. From my observations, anyway, there is no path for air to go directly through the vehicle which would seem to me to be the path of least resistance.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,484   +6,275
Mr. Simplistic here. Just popped in to point out that aside from trying to reduce harmful emissions the push for electric vehicles is also driven by worries about an ever diminishing supply of fossil fuel. Reducing vehicle weight certainly is part of the solution for various reasons but, correct me if I'm wrong, don't the modern composites (ie. carbon fibre etc.) require the use of resins as a binder in their manufacture? Resins that come from oil? And once they reach the end of their useful life don't they present a very difficult problem of recycling and/or disposal? I'm thinking we are too obsessed with chasing after dream solutions resulting from technology to solve every problem. Maybe we should be looking at different solutions than every human on the planet having their own personal transport that nearly always goes from A to B with only one occupant and a weight carrying capacity 5 to 10 times what is ever really needed. If the doom and gloom of the dying planet scenario is as urgent as we are being told perhaps we should be thinking about altering our lifestyle and expectations rather than throwing more and more cash at short term fixes that are not the answer long term.

Talking out of my backside? Maybe Yes, maybe No.
I agree, actually, but some here think the free market is always right. In that sense, since the free market is mostly based on what is offered by manufacturers, it makes no difference what the people buying those offered products think. Manufacturer marketing trumps all - just ask P.T. Barnum. ;)

And on that flipside of "recycling" if we are expecting all the problems to be solved in a first pass, that is highly unrealistic.

Composites are a big part of what Mercedes is doing here, and new resins/composites are being developed all the time just like battery technology and other aspects of humanity's technology.
For example - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277229099_Plant_based_resins_for_fibre_composites

Humanity seems to have a pattern: Do something, fall on its sword, figure out the sword is not a good thing to fall on, try again.
 
Last edited:

Arbie

Posts: 363   +655
Excuse me for poking your reality. I'm lost here. Somehow, your ownership changes physics? What does your ownership have to do with it, exactly?
The same with GPUs, where he's "I own it so I know it". Interestingly, no hint yet of him being a brain surgeon.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,461   +2,642
#3 I remember asking about ownership of said vehicles. Through a lengthy physics diatribe, I think that was lost. I own and have owned: do you?
So wait, lets quote your post again:
My last 4 cars have all exceeded 4500 pounds: Chrysler SRT, Jeep SRT, Charger Hellcat, S560. I was considering the EQS as a replacement, but it's too small. Give it more length and I could care less how heavy it is.
So you haven't actually owned a sports car? Those are all pumped up sedans/4x4's or cars meant to only go in a straight line, you legit haven't owned a proper sports car yet are arguing about handling and weight?