It will always be a compromise. It will help lower the cost of the vehicle. Making money is the goal. Mercedes not using a dedicated EV platform gives it an advantage over its direct peers. Toyota will definitely bake an EV into its designs.

 

Well, there is a reason why Tesla out sells all of its competitors combined. Their designs lead to higher efficiency and performance for the dollar. The Mercedes EV has much lower range than a Model X and so do the rest of Tesla's competitors and range anxiety is still pretty prevalent outside of Tesla circles. Porsche with its dedicated EV platform is the next most interesting EV but it's a niche vehicle. I still haven't seen an EV under $50k that is remotely capable of being as good as the Model 3. There is a chasm of a difference still.

 

From what I know, the BEV versions will try to maximize the wheelbase and track to maximize the size of the battery packs - critical to lithium ion BEV's.
Sure the battery packs still compromizes the interior cabin height by 4", but just like CUV/SUV tall wagons - it is just about simply raising the waistline and roofline by 4" to compensate.
Hence, modular architecture allows the manufacturer to the majority of components, and to be assembled on the same assembly line.
Thus, modular architecture is very efficient, and it doesn't compromize too much - unless one needs to produce a vehicle with a completely different format like a truck, or a boat, or an Abrahams tank etc.

This may be a poor example, but did you know that we humans compared to mices - we share 80% of our DNA?
Meanwhile compared to the Great Apes, we humans share 98.8% of the DNA!
Between you and Jill - you two actually share 99.9% of DNA - though you both still have 3 million different genomes!
When the DNA is the same, the mRNA copy is the same, and hence the proteins are the same!

Sharing is efficient; sharing is smart.
Apart from the drivelines, there is not that much different between ICEV's and BEV's.


When you say that everything modular coming out of the Germans have been subpar compared to dedicated BEV platforms like Tesla & Taycan - can you be more specific, and give specific actual examples of where it has been subpar?

Teslas don't have any direct competitors at the moment do they?

I am not so sure about this, because Tesla has no real competitors at the moment.
Wait till Jaguar iPace, Benz EQC and Audi eTrons are released, and then we can comment.

The much lower range is NOT due to Modular Architecture.
The much lower range is because presently the engineers want it that way - whether their calculations are correct or incorrect is another matter - but they can easily increase their BEV's range.

There is nothing to stop them from adding more cells into the battery packs 12 to 24 months down the track...
.

 

IMO, they will never need to be as good (performance wise) and they don't need to be. They need to be competitive and somewhat cheaper, at least at the luxury middle of the road price points. . Some will argue that a Model 3 interior is not befitting of a $50K price range, I disagree and believe it is. And you will see, as competitors come to market, it will put the squeeze on Tesla, the upcoming Model Y will not have the range of the current Model X, the wing doors are not as cool. The new MB EQC in my opinion is a far more appealing vehicle than the X or Y

 

Exactly.
A car is the sum of its parts.
Consumers want a balanced package. An alrounder.

0-60 is only a niche.
Tesla would actually increase their sales volume if they stopped focusing on the 0-60 niche, and got the rest of the car right.

Jill is right about competitors from established marques coming in. This will certainly put the squeeze on Tesla...

 

Golf e (which is the modular design from the regular Golf) puts out 134 horsepower and draws energy from a 35.8-kWh battery pack. It offers an EPA-estimated driving range of 125 miles but Chevrolet Bolt and Model 3 offer twice the range for similar prices (and Tesla model 3 completely embarrases the Golf in performance). Mercedes-Benz’s EQC, the first model in the new EQ sub-brand which shares its platform with the GLC has an 80.0-kWh battery is said to provide up to 200 miles of driving range per charge (probably less once EPA gets their hands on it). The Model X with a smaller 75kWh battery will travel further (240 mi) and charge much quicker.

 

The e-Golf is a poor example, because the e-Golf is technology that was first released in February 2012.
The e-Golf has had a number of minor tweaks, but technology still dials back to 2012 when the current 7th generation Golf was first released.
The current 7th gen Golf is on its last leg.
The 8th generation Golf will be released very soon....

 

Thanks for the nice comments earlier. The E Golf in Canada a 18 month wait list. 50 colors. Not sure how it is not a success. It is still too expensive for what it is.

 

The much lower range per KwH of competitors is due to their engineering not being up to Tesla standards. Tesla is producing powertrains that are both faster and more efficient than their competition. The skateboard design maximizes Tesla's strengths which is low center of gravity for performance, specific battery layout for maximum cooling for both performance and charge times (which relieves range anxiety). The other modular designs shared with ICE do not have these specific advantages.

Edit: The iPace, eTron, and EQC are all out and none have Tesla's powertrain efficiency or performance as quoted in my earlier posts. Tesla's permanent magnetic motor technology is still a whole generation ahead of all the other manufacturers.

 

Just watched a review on the new MB EV suv. Review claims it is the quietest EV on the market exceeding Tesla. Is more luxurious. Also build quality is superior. And some of the driver tech is possibly more advanced.

 

I'm not debating on the merits of Mercedes making a better car. They are easily the most luxurious, quietest, and have awesome build quality making luxury cars. None of this is related to EV tech. As for EV related technology, their motor and battery technology is definitely behind but their driver assistance technology seems pretty good (debatable whether this is EV tech as all cars in general can have this). Also, 200 miles of range is pretty low. The current Tesla Model X is getting 350 miles.

 

Remember what I said a couple days ago about one of the rules being every conversation here must include Tesla? I rest my case. As for Lexus, you know the apparent topic, they need to make up their mind going forward can't be dithering around with fuel cells and hybrids while other brands go full EV.

 

The range of the new Mercedes is up to 293miles, on Europe spec. That puts it right in there with the model Y that is coming.

 

European spec is optimistic vs. EPA (Model 3 is rated at 338 miles Euro vs 310 miles EPA). The Model Y will be around 300 miles EPA which is already more than the 293 miles eurospec. Expect around ~250 miles on EPA for the EQC when it arrives here. They are in very different classes though...wouldn't compare the two as there is a large difference in price.

 

Yes, certainly the lower kWh battery capacity of competitors is due to Tesla's BEV lead, and the BEV catchup that the major manufacturers must do.
However, I was referring to your original claim that all the modular architecture from the Germans have been subpar compared to dedicated BEV platforms like Tesla.
I don't think Tesla's lead comes from their dedicated BEV platforms at all.

The major players will progressively add larger battery packs with concomitantly quicker 0-60 to their range...