Mercedes EQS vs Tesla Model 3 vs VW ID.7 Tourer S
LONG-RANGE EVS: BIG CLAIMS, BIG DISAPPOINTMENT
Three new electric cars show that a modest drop in temperature can wreak havoc with a battery’s range
The view from the spacious double-glazed cabin of the hushed Mercedes EQS is turning from green to white as we head north in the depths of the English winter. I’m feeling pretty toasty and relaxed in here, but outside we’re moving into snowier climes.
Our target is Wetherby services on the A1(M) – not anyone’s idea of a glamorous destination, with all due respect to the denizens of North Yorkshire, but I’m not on a pleasure trip. Along with some CAR colleagues, I’m putting to the test the efficiency and range claims of three recently arrived big-batteried EVs.
The official figures – which come from WLTP, the consumption and emissions testing body, rather than the manufacturers – reckon all three of today’s cars are capable of taking up more than 400 miles without stopping to recharge. So even if we were to add in some significant diversions, we should be able to do the 117 miles from Peterborough to Wetherby and back with loads of charge to spare, then head back up towards Wetherby and see how far we get before hitting zero. We’ll see…
We’re testing the EQS alongside the latest and longest-driving Tesla Model 3, and the biggest-batteried Volkswagen ID. 7 Tourer. We’re using our own test protocols, not WLTP’s, with the aim of replicating the kind of usage these cars actually get.
‘Even before we’ve turned a wheel, our batteries are being depleted as our cabins heat and screens clear‘
In all three cars, the climate control is set to 21ºC. Heated seats and heated steering wheels are in use. We’re sticking (more or less) to the speed limits, so up to 70mph for most of this journey. And we’re accelerating at the same sort of pace as the traffic around us, rather than flooring it. Nor are we crawling up to cruising speed in a manner that might maximise efficiency but is guaranteed to annoy everyone behind us.
It’s a cold day – English cold, not Siberian or Alaskan cold – so we know from experience that like all EVs these cars will offer less range than on a warmer day. Our start point in Peterborough is snowless but below freezing, with all three cars covered in ice. Even before we’ve turned a wheel, our batteries are being depleted as our cabins heat and screens clear. The highest temperature I see all day is 3ºC.
This isn’t the first time we’ve tested the updated ‘Highland’ Model 3, but it is the first time we’ve tried the new, larger battery with rear-wheel drive, boosting the WLTP range to an impressive 436 miles – the best you can get from a Model 3 currently. You get a heat pump as standard, which works more efficiently than a conventional heater, boosting cold-weather range.
On paper the Tesla’s range would be matched by the hatchback version of the ID. 7, if it’s fitted with the big Pro S battery, at 436 miles. But the less aerodynamic rear end of the Tourer version knocks the VW’s official range down to 424 miles. It’s our first experience with this body style, with a giant 605-litre boot that expands to 1948 litres with the rear seats folded. A heat pump is a £1050 option but isn’t fitted to our test car.
Our Mercedes is the 450+. Like the AMG 53 version of the EQS, it comes with a new 118kWh battery that’s good for up to 481 miles of range in official testing. This top Business Class trim with all the bells and whistles drops that to 444; you need to stick to entry-level AMG Line specification (which is plenty luxurious enough) for the headline range figure. Usefully there’s now a heat pump as standard.
The Merc’s broad, highly adjustable seats are wrapped in supple leather, and I love the ‘ship’s deck’ wood trim, if not some of the other materials used in the cabin – on the armrests and tops of the doors, for instance. Why you’d want something that feels like a wetsuit in a luxury car is beyond me.
‘You can go cross country in an EQS 450+ at a fair old lick, but neither you nor the car will be enjoying yourself’
All versions of the EQS now get the triple-display Hyperscreen across the front of the cabin, consisting of two 12.3-inch displays – one each for driver and passenger – and a massive 17.7-inch screen between them, all under a single giant sheet of glass. The centre and passenger screens are touch-sensitive, with the driver’s display operated by fiddly touch-sensitive steering-wheel controls.
It’s a sharp system in terms of both response and graphic quality, but the driver’s display especially seems to be pointed at the ceiling. This and the high beltline leave me winding the seat higher than I’d like and unable to get into a driving position that’s as recumbent as I’d like.
That’s a shame as otherwise I very quickly feel absolutely at home in the EQS, especially once we’re up to speed. Ride quality that can be upset by ridges and potholes at lower speeds becomes a gentle waft that helps the miles pass effortlessly beneath you. Wind noise is impressively low and motor whine almost non-existent, which makes the relatively high levels of road noise all the more noticeable.
Today is not the day for testing handling prowess, but I’ve already spent some time in all three cars when throttle management was less pressing. You can go cross country in an EQS 450+ at a fair old lick, but neither you nor the car will be enjoying yourself. While the sportier settings lower and stiffen the suspension to reduce roll and make it feel keener, you can’t get away from the weight of the car or the response of some of the controls.
Steering that feels stable on the motorway performs the trick of becoming much quicker through turns, thanks to the rear-wheel steering – sometimes a bit too quick, making the car feel unsettled. The brakes can add to this: there’s a lot of pedal travel before you get into the meat of the stopping power, because of the balance between regenerative braking and conventional disc-and-pad retardation. It adds up to a car that can feel unnatural and unhappy when asked to really get a move on.
But in tight traffic and car parks, the four-wheel steering gives a terrifically tight turning circle with few turns lock to lock. You feel the whole car pivot around the middle as the rear wheels turn, giving the manoeuvrability of a car with a much shorter wheelbase.
Tesla’s Autopilot might nab all the headlines when it comes to assisted driving – if not always for the right reasons – but the EQS is worthy of praise here. The adaptive cruise control is impressively grown-up, in that it doesn’t start slowing your progress hundreds of metres away from the car in front, and the steering doesn’t get spooked by corners or junction exits.
The Merc’s efficiency reading is looking perkier after a few miles on the road. Traffic is flowing freely, with only the odd HGV-on-HGV slo-mo passing manoeuvre hindering our early progress.
‘We’re running the cars to the point where they’re indicating that there’s zero miles of charge remaining.’
Time for the trip’s first stop for a coffee and a car swap, at Wetherby services. Talk turns to batteries as we wait for our barista. Only the EQS looks like it might get beyond 300 miles before it needs a charge, with efficiency of all three cars well short of the official figures. But the silver lining is that all three have adjusted their read-outs to show the greatly reduced range we can now expect, rather than persisting with an optimistic figure that might leave us stuck.
Hopefully that won’t happen today as we’re running the cars to the point where they’re indicating that there’s zero miles of charge remaining in the battery, not until they stop moving. Most manufacturers will have at least a couple of miles tucked away in reserve at zero, although you can’t always count on it.
Next I’m in the Model 3. Like the EQS, the driving experience feels a bit unnatural in places. There’s no rear-steer to muddy the waters, and no sudden ramp-up in steering speed. Instead, it always feels the most nervous around the straight-ahead because of its quick rack, there’s no communication coming up from the front tyres, and the steering weight feels more artificial than a PlayStation steering wheel from 20 years ago.
Interior rundown, clockwise from top: VW ID.7 Tourer; Tesla Model 3; Mercedes EQS
You can’t argue with the way it responds, though. At less than 1800kg, the Model 3 is hundreds of kilos lighter than the ID. 7 and undercuts the EQS by over a tonne. Even without clever dampers or air springs it feels keener and less lumbering, with minimal bodyroll and greater agility in the bends. Acceleration is in a different league to the EQS and ID. 7. Where those cars are pleasingly brisk, the Model 3 is outright fast.
Although you can’t feel it through the steering wheel, there’s plenty of grip to lean on and decent balance to the chassis, too. You’re certainly aware this is a rear-wheel-drive platform, although it couldn’t be persuaded to go as gloriously sideways as a BMW i4. While the Model 3 is undoubtedly the better electric car, the i4 is hands down the better driver’s car.
One prod of the Model 3’s middle pedal is enough to remind me how good EV brakes can be. There’s no obvious step between regen and friction braking, with a pedal that feels consistent and reassuring. It’s so much better than the EQS’s, with its long travel before you finally find the friction brakes and the car’s stopping effort suddenly ramps up.
Autopilot, if you disregard some of the ludicrous claims made for it, remains one of the best assisted-driving systems in normal conditions and makes light work of the motorway as the miles clock up and range tumbles down.
Model 3 ride comfort remains acceptable rather than exceptional. It weighs a hefty 1800kg, so agile handling requires stiff springs and tight damping that leads to a ride that’s on the firm side of comfortable. It doesn’t quite have the finesse of the best in class, but neither is it by any means the least polished.
Its interior divides opinion within the CAR team. Some praise the speed at which the 15.4-inch touchscreen works and its ease of use, but I find it busy and distracting to operate on the move and I miss Android Auto. I also dislike the button-free interior that forces you onto the touchscreen for absolutely everything, including the selection of Drive, Neutral and Park.
So there’s no column-mounted gear selector and no indicator stalk. You’ll find your indicators and main beam on the left steering-wheel spoke, and wash/wipe on the right. This isn’t a better alternative to conventional stalks, as small, sometimes rotating touch-sensitive icons are a much harder target to hit than a big, stationary object. It’s cost-cutting gone too far.
Money has been spent on ensuring the interior does now look and feel plush enough to challenge premium rivals, thankfully. The much more expensive Mercedes feels of higher quality overall, but it’s a bit over the top in places, whereas the Model 3’s simple lines, soft-touch materials and improved fit-and-finish make the cabin very agreeable.
Our journey back down south to Peterborough is almost complete, but a lane closure is making for very slow progress, and it feels like more energy is being used to heat the cabin than to provide forward motion.
Eventually we get to have another coffee, this one at Peterborough services, and we crunch some numbers. Our original intention had been to head back north towards Wetherby, and duck off the A1 in search of a suitable charger when the car’s range was getting close to zero.
But that’s looking a bit foolish now – none of these cars would be able to complete the whole 117 miles (making a journey total of 351 miles – well short of the official 400-plus).
Thanks to its gigantic battery the EQS will crack the halfway mark, according to its read-out, but the Tesla might struggle to make 35 miles and the ID. 7 isn’t even looking good for another 20.
So we switch to a new plan: head south on the A1 for half of each car’s projected remaining range and then (at the nearest junction) turn around, which should get us to the office chargers on zero.
‘Comfort rather than sharp handling is the priority when it comes to the suspension’
I’m in the ID. 7. For me, it’s the best resolved of all of Volkswagen’s ID products, and adding an estate option adds to its appeal. It’s a big car that offers more interior space than an Audi A6 e-Tron, BMW i5 or Mercedes EQE but at much less expense. It also has a more impressive range than those cars… well, in less chilly conditions at least.
Inside feels spacious and well-constructed, with a level of material richness reminiscent of a good Passat – nicer than mainstream rivals if not quite up there with the premium alternatives. I prefer the ID. 7’s more adjustable and comfortable seats to the Model 3’s, if not the Merc’s thrones, although after the lighter hues of the other car’s interior, the predominantly black VW feels rather sombre, if easier to keep clean.
Infotainment is no longer the weak point it was on earlier ID cars. Buttons would be better than temperature sliders, but at least they’re illuminated now. A row of shortcut icons makes various functions – such as disabling unwanted driver assistance – easy to access. I could complain about the driver’s instrument display that’s so small it can barely show any information, but at least it has one, unlike the Tesla.
Comfort rather than sharp handling is the priority when it comes to the suspension. The steering is far more linear and slower paced than the Model 3’s, which is great for the motorway, and you certainly don’t feel like you’re twirling the wheel endlessly when you’re parking.
Guiding the ID. 7 through a series of bends smoothly is easier and more pleasant than the other cars here. It feels precise and reassuringly heavy. And if you choose to switch off the stability control, you find that you can to some extent adjust the car’s cornering angle with the throttle.
It has the least grip and most bodyroll of this trio, but in a way that’s entirely appropriate for the kind of car it is. A twin-motor GTX is available if you want something sportier. That said, less fidgeting over imperfect surfaces and a bit less initial firmness over ridges and through potholes would be welcome.
Various warnings bong and flash, alerting me to the need to head back to the office. I’m able to keep pace with traffic despite the reduction in power as I near empty. The ID. 7 reaches zero only a mile or so from the office, and gets me there without fuss.
The trip computer shows some grim numbers. We’ve managed 3.2 miles per kWh and covered 253 miles. That’s against official figures of 4.4 miles per kWh and 424 miles.
While the range shortcoming is certainly not ideal, it’s no surprise. Current battery tech just doesn’t perform as well in cold weather, so you have to expect a reduced range. In the UK, weather rarely gets much colder than this. If necessary, you can significantly extend your range by turning off the climate control and relying on the heated seats instead, or just wrap up warm.
The next car to pull up is the Tesla. The 270-mile final figure is impressive given the relatively small battery. Efficiency is the Tesla’s superpower: for some EVs, 3.7 miles per kWh wouldn’t be a terrible figure on a warm day, so for the Tesla to manage it at zero to 3ºC is impressive. However, it’s still a long way from the official rating for this version of the Model 3 at 4.6 miles per kWh and 436 miles.
That leaves the EQS as today’s range champion. It finally rolls up after covering 298 miles at 2.7 miles per kWh – the worst efficiency figure by a chunky margin, emphasising that this victory is entirely down to having the biggest battery. The official figures, I’ll remind you, are 444 miles and 3.8 miles per kWh.
Range is of course only part of the picture; you must also consider charging speeds. An EQS 450+ manages up to 200kW on a rapid charger, giving a 31-minute 10 to 80 per cent charge in ideal conditions. The ID. 7 also hits 200kW, with its smaller battery reducing the 10-80 per cent time to 26 minutes. The Model 3 Long Range is good for 250kW, with a similar charge time to the ID. 7. Don’t expect to hit these figures in the cold, although the amount of charge you can get in while stopped for a coffee at a service station will still give you a decent boost.
Verdict
Three good cars – but not good enough
So, the EQS goes the farthest, and therefore wins, right? Or, looked at another way, the Model 3 is the most efficient, so that wins. Hmm…
Taken as a whole, it’s the ID. 7 that comes last. Yes, the EQS was significantly less efficient, but that’s to be expected from a bigger, more powerful car. (And the EQS got slightly closer to its official figures.) No doubt the ID. 7’s optional heat pump would have added some range, as would choosing the fastback instead of the estate. It makes a compelling case for itself as a spacious wagon that’s good to drive and live with. However, based on the day’s figures, it’s third out of three.
That nearly three tonnes of EQS can almost hit 300 miles on one of the coldest days of the year is impressive, but then its 118kWh battery is a whole 40kWh larger than the efficient Model 3’s. To put it in context, that difference is almost the entire capacity of the battery in the entry-level Renault 5 E-Tech. Its size means it will take a while to get up to 100 per cent on a rapid charger. Try getting a flat EQS up to full on a typical 7.4kW domestic wallbox and you’ll be waiting 18 and a half hours, or 12 and a quarter if you have three-phase and 11kW charging.
While the EQS can charge at up to 200kW, most public chargers aren’t that powerful, and those that are will frequently deliver well below that peak number. It’s not the EQS’s fault, but it is something the Model 3 has largely sidestepped with Tesla’s Supercharger network.
That’s not the only reason the Model 3 wins this test, although there’s a great deal to be said for access to plentiful reliable chargers with a single app to operate them, and the speed at which they charge is a selling point too.
It’s easily the most efficient on test (and the closest to the official figures), making it the cheapest to run. The smaller, cheaper battery that can be used as a result also makes it the fastest to charge whatever power source you’re plugged into. Yes, the driving experience still needs some polish, and the interior can infuriate, but there’s no arguing that it has the best EV powertrain here.
These are all good cars, but the disparity between their official range figures and the reality on a cold day shows there’s considerable room for improvement.
1st
Tesla Model 3
Efficient and easy to charge, if not the most pleasant steer
2nd
Mercedes EQS
Monster battery guarantees decent range whatever the weather
3rd
VW ID. 7 Tourer
A good car that desperately needs a heat pump
Facts & Figures | Mercedes EQS
What’s the line-up?
You get the choice of three powertrains with the EQS, two of which are good for a claimed 400-plus miles officially. The entry-level 350 makes do with a 96kWh battery and 288bhp for the rear wheels, with the 450+ we’re testing upping those figures to 118kWh and 355bhp. You need to jump up to the AMG 53 with 649bhp to get four-wheel drive, but the range drops to 378 miles at best, even with the big battery. Entry-level models go the farthest, with second-rung AMG Line Premium Plus knocking the range by a couple of miles. Our Business Class trim knocks a whopping 35 miles off the range of the 450+.
Data
Price £49,975 (450+ Business Class with Extended Rear Luxury Lounge and rear entertainment)
Powertrain 118kWh battery, e-motor, rear-wheel drive
Performance 355bhp, 419Ib ft, 6.2sec 0-62mph, 130mph
Weight 2760kg
Efficiency 3.8 miles per kWh (claimed), 2.7 miles per kWh (tested), 444-mile range (claimed), 298 miles (tested)
Length/width/height 5216/2125/1512mm
Boot capacity 620 litres
Facts & Figures | Tesla Model 3
What’s the line-up?
There are four versions of the Model 3 currently available and no bothersome trim levels to pick from. You select your driveline, then choose from a few options including Autopilot, colours and wheels. The line-up kicks off with a small battery and rear-wheel drive, and on to the Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive we have here for its ability to go the farthest. Long Range All-Wheel Drive and Performance double the driven wheels and motor count to help performance and hurt your range.
Data
Price £45,495 (Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive)
Powertrain 78kWh battery, e-motor, rear-wheel drive
Performance 315bhp, 332Ib ft, 4.9sec 0-62mph, 145mph
Weight 1747kg
Efficiency 4.6 miles per kWh (claimed), 3.7 miles per kWh (tested), 436-mile range (claimed), 270 miles (tested)
Length/width/height 4720/2087/1441mm
Boot capacity 594 litres
Facts & Figures | Volkswagen ID. 7 Tourer
What’s the line-up?
This is the estate version of the ID. 7 hatchback that exchanges a bit of range for an extra 72 litres of boot space. Like the hatch, there’s a 77kWh Pro or 86kWh Pro S with rear-wheel drive in a single Match trim, or the twin-motor all-wheel-drive 86kWh GTX. It’s just over a second quicker from 0-62mph than the other two but can’t even beat either for range.
Data
Price £56,170 (Pro S Match)
Powertrain 86kWh battery, e-motor, rear-wheel drive
Performance 282bhp, 402Ib ft, 6.7sec 0-62mph, 112mph
Weight 2172kg
Efficiency 4.4 miles per kWh (claimed), 3.2 miles per kWh (tested), 424-mile range (claimed), 253 miles (tested)
Length/width/height 4961/1862/1551mm
Boot capacity 605 litres