I have no problem with lower power figures if that translates into better range, but we don’t see that here.

 

In EVs, the rated max hp is independent of range. If you drive a Plaid slow, it will get the same range as the standard version. The Plaid comes with bigger wheels and stickier tires so it's rated worse by Tesla on their website.

In the EQS, the 450 and 580 versions are about the same range (it's only about 10 miles different) and that's due to weight.

 

‘You are looking for anything to dislike this vehicle. The range is good and it s a solid achievement I think the S class does look better, but they both suffer from too many dumb screens.

 

how is it a waste? If they had 0.25 drag, it would probably get 10-15% range less?

It is what it is. They dont have electric technology on the pair with Tesla, so they cant beat Tesla at its own game. What they can do is do what they do the best - interior, ride, etc, etc.

Although, reality is that right now, for many people around the world, Tesla is only real choice because of SC network. A lot of people are realizing this only after they purchase first EV, that isnt a Tesla.

 

You're reading way too much into his comments. He's clearly stated (and I've basically said the same thing) that the only aspect of the EQS that he doesn't like is the exterior design. That's it.

 

"Waste" in the sense that all that effort they put into the Aerodynamics and it's only marginally better than a Model S in a package that does not look good at all.

 

Exactly, HP and range aren't mutually exclusive in an EV, in fact the high power often comes along with the long range.

Its the opposite, I really really want to like this vehicle...but I just don't and thats really frustrating. Everything but the styling is great, but the styling of a $120,000 car is important. I can't bring myself to pay $1,700 a month for something I hate looking at. If it looked good, I would buy it..full stop.

Having range that is "ordinary" is not an achievement at all. They have gotten to "typical", thats not an achievement. If this EQS had 500 miles of range, THAT would be an achievement. The Lucid Air is an achievement. Like I said in the Tundra thread, I don't need "revolutionary" though, and 350 miles of range would be fine if the package was compelling...but there isn't anything that is an "achievement" about this car. Range is very typical, power is adequate, luxury is very good for the EV space but not for the ICE ultra luxury space, pricing is okay. It has the "lowest cD" but no benefits to show for that.

 

It is butt ugly and looks stupid and goofy.

If you could take a regular S-Class and make it full EV with good range, that would be pretty cool.

 

American journalists just got their second drive in the EQS and the reviews have been universally positive outside of the exterior styling. As expected, despite the spec sheets not being class leading, the whole package is quite a compelling experience.


I liked this review from InsideEVs. It’s worth noting he made these comments about the EQS directly after driving the Lucid Air. And he’s a Model S and Model Y owner.

 

Build website keeps crashing when you try to move onto the interior page. Im curious what the interior looks like without the hypersceen option.

 

you've only typed this sentiment in about 20 times so far. ok, we've got it. YOU. DON'T. LIKE. THE. EQS. EXTERIOR. DESIGN. since you appear to be in the majority opinion, no need to keep stating it over and over.

 

Its a discussion bit, I'm not the only one participating in it either. The styling is just one facet of the discussion. The styling came up again in response to a question about the aerodynamics and what was gained out of its design.

 

ok, after seeing bmws i-ugly line up i think eqs is actually not bad looking.

 

The BMWs are pretty bad I agree

 

BMW isn't bad. Just butter face all around.