MB EQXX Cd=0,1716 1000km in one charge
 

Few videos just released:
VISION EQXX – Episode 1: The Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_O70MOK-Cg


VISION EQXX – Episode 2: The Struggle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btUMyorKm9A

You can see roof siluette in the picture of the second video.

Vision
 

* Bio-mimicry
* Morphology
* Cab-forward
* Perhaps double-ended
* A fastback
* Exposed front wheels
* Air Curtains
* Active diffuser
* Not so much plan-taper so as to require a narrower rear track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High theatrical value.
Look forward to next installment.
Thanks!:)

They have darkened that roof siluette picture, but if you adjust ligth settings you migth be able to get to see the groundline and put the template on it. At the moment that is a guess with 90% accuracy where the ground is. If I find the length details of the car its easy to verify the height with that by adjusting the dimension.
https://scontent-dus1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...4g&oe=61D3E58F

That roof curvature has that downward kick/dip section. In the ID3 aerodynamic video they were able to get lower drag in CFD if you put that kind of a dip to the end of the curvature.

edit: Found a high res picture at MB pages. Based on this I would guess there is coming active extension.

https://scontent-dus1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...ew&oe=61D399CC


World digital premiere is 3.1.2022: https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaS...l?oid=52215629

active extension
 

* The Cd 0.19, 2016 M-B IAA's extension appeared to intersect the AST-II contour, resulting in a backlight- to-trailing edge slope of 14-degrees.
* The Cd 0.19 Bionic Boxfish was a dead match for the AST.
* The EQS is at 17.5-degrees.
* The Cd 0.18, 1997 Mercedes-Benz F300 development vehicle was more 'conventional' in appearance, although, from the only photograph in existence, it appears that they've removed some of the 'tricks' from the car ( rear skirts, wheel covers, ). This photograph was shot from above and to the front, with no true-length dimensions available to us.
* And while the 'pointed-nose, 1978 Daimler-Benz, M-B C-111 III, finless, long-tail was Cd 0.178, it had very little rear plan-view taper, and could have had less drag, had it not been designed for transonic velocity.

Just saw the presentation of EQXX - it is beautiful, they did a presentation like Apple do.

So, the car is very nice.
Cd is 0.17 - impressive.

Premier was out the Cd number is 0,17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2SvJ2vwNUs

My takes from the video compared to EQS which should be 0,20:
- Air exit scoops on the bonnet
- Closed wheels so no venting for brake cooling
- Bigger air curtains and taller in heigth
- wheelwell exit vents on rear edge in front and back tires. Nicely designed specially the front ones look neat
- Rear diffuser lowers and extends about 120mm rough estimate
- Mirror legs even thinner ones like they use in their sports or race cars.

Car propably has air suspension which lowers the car a lot, but it was not mentioned

The first 16 seconds is the best opening to a car ad I can recall.

Few more videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_blENLlvb1c

I made my own drag evaluation comparison to EQS model VS EQXX

https://youtu.be/eist2CeXifM

I am sure there many other details also that make it little bit lower than the EQS like the narrower rear track has impact, but thats tricky to estimate how it actually effects as its not visible to the eye so easily without seeing the car in person.

Rough specs
Cd 0,1716
Weigth 1,750kg
Wheelbase 2800mm
Ground clearance about 130mm
Length 4630mm
Tires 185/55R20
max engine power 150kW
Range 1000km

Some of the mods there can be done to all cars pretty easily. That front wheel rear venting is one of them which has actually quite big impact. I havent seen rear venting yet at the rear tires. That was just my first impression that there was holes where air would come out, but not visible in any videos yet is it there or not.

https://i.imgur.com/LLNtA.jpg

I wonder how it does driving through mud puddles.

Found a great wind tunnel video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MioALN0Nkk

You can download official materials from here: https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaS...173#toRelation

I wonder if the lower front "grill" opening provides some cooling air to components that might need it; e.g., the battery. Or, is it there for some aerodynamic purpose?

Also, I wonder if those hood vents have ducts to bring air from the lower front grill through the vents. When the smoke wand is placed to the left part of the grill, the smoke comes through the left hood vent. And when on the right, smoke emerges from the right vent. This seems to be done for aerodynamic purposes and likely keeps the front end from rising at speeds.

grill
 

The battery is air-cooled.
Nothing is said about the power electronics or motor.
If nothing else, the grille opening would supply air to the air conditioning condenser coil.
Positioning the extractor slots where they are, taps into faster-moving, lower-pressure flow, allowing passive flow, without artificial delta- pressure power requirements.
There is a likelihood that one side is for motor cooling, and the other, AC.
And it's possible that the forebody generates zero lift / positive downforce. That was the case for my truck.

>>> The result, it claims, is an astounding 95% battery-to-tires efficiency.

95% - there is literally nothing to cool:D

95%
 

That would put the combined inverter and motor at 97%, same as the Tesla 'Raven' motor in the Model Y and Model 3.
Good news!:)

Especialy considering that even in highway driving this car does not require much power to sustain its speed.

I think its 95% battery to motor efficiency. Drive axles and their tripods are not very efficient. I think rear drive axle efficiency is around that same 95% percentage.

The crazy part is they had a facebook ad for this car and eveybody was pissed calling it and all of the aerodynamic cars ugly. I think it looks pretty good so I was surprised. Bascially just a bunch of people saying they want boxy SUV's with their hard earned money. lol

Really? Isn't that what Facespook is for?

True lol

air suspension
 

According to Edmunds, in 2010, M-B had what they call an 'Airmatic' suspension system, claimed to reduce drag by 3%.

screen save
 

We froze the video as near we could, sideways to the car, and made a print of it. I won't know until I get it home, if I'll be able to extract any useful information from it. Until they publish a formal technical image of the car, it will be 'way out ahead of nothing.'
Thanks for all the digging!:thumbup:

high rez image
 

https://www.netcarshow.com/mercedes-...llpaper_03.htm
With the tail extension, the EQXX may become Mercedes-Benz first 'double-ended' automobile, something General Motors swore it would never touch at one time.

EQXX data tidbits
 

1) cooling system drag= 0.007 when open
2) Frontal area is less than CLA, which for the Euro Spec CLA 180 was 2.2272 meters-square ( 23.9741 sq-ft )
3) Bridgestone tire sidewalls carefully matched to wheel covers.
4) 'slightly less than' 100-kWh

EQXX photographic analysis
 

1) Backlighting the photograph revealed enough contrast to establish perimeter of the car.
2) Using the Length of 4630mm ( 182.28-inches )as a reference, according to the photo, the EQXX is:
3) Height = 1300mm ( 51.28-inches )
4) Body height (h) = 1180mm ( 46.45-inches )
5) Ground clearance = 120mm ( 4.72-inches )
6) aft-body = 2188.58mm ( 86.161-inches ) [ 47.27% ]
7) V = 1.85363
8) Active diffuser = 99mm ( 3.897-inches )
9) L/H = 3.56153
10) L/h = 3.92372
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) I'll try for a width from the plan-view photograph.
B) Some estimated frontal area is a target ( we can't calculate without it )
M-B has left us a few breadcrumbs to follow.;)

Is that after active suspension or before?

before or after
 

I can't answer with any clarity. I'm presuming that the EQXX is depicted in its low-drag configuration in the photograph, however, I can't vet it one way or the other.

What picture did you use for your overlay?

I got 130mm ground clearance in my measurements

Car has composite springs so I think its not adjustable.

You're both within a margin of error for your display devices which could be inflated due to the method of magnification and measurement

Considering this thing weighs about 4,000 lbs, the efficiency it gets is damn impressive. If it had half the mass and cut drag another 20%, 100 Wh/mile would be possible. Then they'd be able to strip all the luxury electronics crap and make an affordable sub $25,000 200+ mile range EV sedan that the lower middle class could comfortably afford.

Mercedes could have done something like this during the 1970s fuel crisis and used a 5-cylinder 3L turbodiesel to get 70+ mpg highway, but they kept this knowledge shelved and away from production cars all these decades. The C111-III proves it.

pic
 

I used the NetCarShow.com image, at an 11-inch by 17- inch image scale.
On the light table I was able to get enough contrast to reveal the entire outline of the car.
It won't be 'true-length' though, and I don't know if they'll ever publish an actual technical drawing.

EQXX dimensional deeper dive
 

1) After printing the plan-view photograph, and using the published length, here's a list of estimated dimensions and ratios for the car:
Length ( L) - 4630mm
Width ( W) - 1679mm
Height (H) - 1300mm
Body height (h) - 1180mm
Ground clearance ( GC ) - 120mm
Wheel-base - 2799.08mm
Maximum body width ( @ front axle ) - 1679mm
Minimum body width ( @ greenhouse maximum width ) - 1530.7mm [ the car is more narrow than Subaru Justy, Renault Vesta-II, SMART ED, VW Beetle, Chevy SPARK )
Secondary maximum body width ( @ rear axle ) - 1624mm
Greenhouse length - 3275mm
Greenhouse width - 1355mm
Forebody - 2441.4mm ( 52.73% )
Aft-body - 2188.5mm ( 47.27% )
Verjungungsverhaltnis ( V ) - 1.85363
Active diffuser elongation - 99mm
Wake area = 35% Af
L/H - 3.56153
L/h - 3.92372
L/W - 2.75759
--------------------
Ave - 3.41428
L/ sq-root of Af = 3.37562
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensionally, the EQXX cross-section is similar to the 1992 Dodge Colt, 1990 GEO Storm, and 1985 Chevy Cavalier Z24.
Its length is similar to the 1988 Mercedes-Benz 300 CE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan-view boat-tailing - 1230mm ( 25.5% total body length )
Tire width - 185mm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EQXX contour matches the 1922 Wolfgang Klemperer basic half-body, Cd 0.15.
A long-tail, with low-drag diffuser would require 1320mm elongation.
With full wheel skirts, maybe Cd 0.143.
With wheel fairings, lower.

Chiseling EQXX down to Cd 0.121
 

The Lucid Air thought experiment led to this:
A) 166.6 Wh/mi drops to 141.1 Wh/mi
B) 11.89 bhp-e falls to 10.597 bhp-e
C) Road-Load drops from 11.296-hp, to 10.067-hp
D) 6- miles/ kWh improves to 7.08-miles/ kWh
E) 208.97-mpg-e climbs to 238.8-mpg-e ( gasoline )
F) 284.2-mpg-e ( diesel )
G) 620-miles range is extended to 708.6-miles
H) almost five (5) of these cars could drive on the electricity of one (1) GMC HUMMER EV

Cool video I found on linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/roger...er_desktop_web

EQXX outdoor display venue malfunction
 

It's unfortunate that D-B/M-B chose to showcase their most efficient vehicle surrounded by the least efficient gas outdoor heating fixtures, perhaps burning Putin's GazProm natural gas, as their Ukraine adventure unfolds.
Maybe M-B could use a continuity director.:o

They successfully drove 1000km on one charge with pretty nice avg speed.

https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/ima...3T5x8jsHH1rkdI

average speed
 

* 87.398- km/h ( approx. 53.32-mph )
* Tesla Motors published that their 'sweet-spot' is 57-mph, level, no AC, calm.

I can't see a Tesla driver being calm at 57 mph with no A/C. But YMMV

frontal area
 

I've read a few reviews of the EQXX in the popular auto press that praise the car's low Cd, but NONE of them ever mention that a significant contributor to its efficiency is that it's quite a small car (by North American standards).


None of them emphasize that: total aero drag = Cd * A!



One video of the car being driven showed an interior view of 2 people up front, and their elbows were practically touching. The rear seat appears to be even narrower. It's quite a small greenhouse.



I think the designers have done a masterful job designing the car to appear larger than it really is, absent other visual references.



In that way it reminds me of the VW XL1.

EQXX frontal area
 

It's actually a little smaller than Ford's 'mirrorless', 1985, Cd 0.137 Probe-V.
A smidgeon bigger than EV1, which was also Cd 0.137, modified for the closed-course land speed record in 1993. Also 'mirrorless.'

Cd 0,193 https://scontent-dus1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...TA&oe=62A386F2

Cd 0,177 https://scontent-dus1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...gw&oe=62A41D1C
WOW what a impact with the 170mm extended spoiler Cd now0,177 vs no spoiler 0,193-->8% savings with that tiny extension!!! seems that its important to have just one backswirl on the wake.