View Single Post
Old 06-30-2022, 11:16 AM   #42 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
aerohead's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 14,726
Thanks: 22,809
Thanked 6,757 Times in 4,289 Posts

Pages 70,71, August 2022, MOTOR TREND, 'MERCEDES' MEGAMETEREV', by Frank Marcus provides some specifics for the M-B Vision EQXX.
100 kWh, ( 2.9669-gallons-e )
713-miles range at average 56-mph ( Tesla's 'sweet-spot' ) 140.2 Wh/mi.
240.3 mpg-e
Cd 'sub- 0.17 '
Frontal projected area, 2.10-meters-squared ( 22. 6042-sq-ft )
Curb weight- 3870- pounds ( approx. 4160-lb test weight ).
Aerodynamic forces = 62% of Road Load.
Mass and rolling resistance = 20% of Road Load.
Drivetrain losses = 18% of Road Load.
10.002-hp Road Load.
5.57-hp aero.
2.00-hp RR.
Coefficient of Rolling Force= Cfrr- 0.00312355.
The nearly 8- inch ( 203.2mm ) diffuser extension = delta- Cd 0.010 ( ten counts )
Upon extension, the diffuser extension drops down 3-degrees.
In plan-view, the greenhouse is boat-tailed.
Propulsion efficiency = 95%.
Solar PV array provides up to 16-miles range/ day.( my daily commute is presently 14-miles/day )
The ECU interrogates sun angle, wind direction, aerodynamic load, road grade, and traffic to calculate instantaneous range.
Smooth wheel covers are unvented.
Rear tires are inset by 2-inches ( 50.8mm ).
Overall, the EQXX has 29% lower aerodynamic drag than the M-B EQ EQS sedan.
The EQXX side mirrors do not comply with existing 'size' and 'rain-shedding' requirements.
Marcus comments that the rear seating is unreasonable as well as ingress/egress.
The A-pillars would need rain gutters.
Roof would require raising.
Rear track would need widening.
Eroding some of the aerodynamic efficiency.
Photobucket album:
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
Joggernot (07-01-2022), Vekke (06-30-2022)