Mercedes EQS flagship
It's actually pretty easy to give a car a decent drag coefficient, just lower it, give it flat door handles, smaller side mirrors, and a sloped back- that's all it takes. Turning the car into a jellybean is a conscious design choice.
EQS is selling in the U.S. decently for what it is, its Q1 sales were half of the ICE S-Class, and I'm assuming that's supply constrained. But in China I bet its sales are at least double what it is here.
EQS is selling in the U.S. decently for what it is, its Q1 sales were half of the ICE S-Class, and I'm assuming that's supply constrained. But in China I bet its sales are at least double what it is here.
We're talking about the EQS, but I haven't seen anyone make excuses for the EQE and its 0.22 CoD yet. 
Based on size, the EQE is the one that's supposed to be compared to the Model S. Says a lot when a slightly tweaked version of a standard sedan shape from 2012 still has a better drag coefficient than a jellybean released a decade later.

Based on size, the EQE is the one that's supposed to be compared to the Model S. Says a lot when a slightly tweaked version of a standard sedan shape from 2012 still has a better drag coefficient than a jellybean released a decade later.
We're talking about the EQS, but I haven't seen anyone make excuses for the EQE and its 0.22 CoD yet. 
Based on size, the EQE is the one that's supposed to be compared to the Model S. Says a lot when a slightly tweaked version of a standard sedan shape from 2012 still has a better drag coefficient than a jellybean released a decade later.

Based on size, the EQE is the one that's supposed to be compared to the Model S. Says a lot when a slightly tweaked version of a standard sedan shape from 2012 still has a better drag coefficient than a jellybean released a decade later.

The EQE definitely looks less jelly bean and has a more traditional slope in the rear end because it doesn't have the length and still needs to provide good rear headroom. Also, it doesn't have length in the front, so it doesn't have the more gradual one bow design of the EQS
In reality, the drag coefficient only tells part of the story of how aerodynamic a car is as it leaves out frontal area measurement. The EQS' shape was focused on minimizing that as well. Further, manufacturers know that every wind tunnel can produce different results. Most manufacturers love touting these metrics as if they're directly comparable and consistent for bragging rights knowing they're not. It's kind of like magazine db measurement comparisons; seems like they should be directly comparable but in reality they're not unless measured the same day on the same roads. Car and Driver talked about this once in the past: https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...mparison-test/
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 42,474
Likes: 320
From: California
Saw my first EQS on the highway today. I was really underwhelmed. I'm sure the interior is nice, but the the exterior lacks a stately presence one would associate with a six figure car. Very disappointing
I've seen several of them at fast chargers, and I've talked to a few owners. I think more than anything else, the tech is overwhelming, one owner struggled when he started to talk to me about it. Otherwise everyone I've talked to really likes them. I myself am not a fan of the looks either
I've seen several of them at fast chargers, and I've talked to a few owners. I think more than anything else, the tech is overwhelming, one owner struggled when he started to talk to me about it. Otherwise everyone I've talked to really likes them. I myself am not a fan of the looks either
LOL one guy I was talking to was praising the car, but when he got to the infotainment screens, he stopped talking and got quiet. He then began to stutter and instead of explaining the features, told me that he was totally overwhelmed by all the stuff they put in it. Looking at the "screen(s)", I could see that they could be a huge distraction
















. I would have expected higher sales than that.