Official Mercedes B-class EV thread

[cwerdna]

From what I've read, the problems with the RAV4-EV is a computer communications problem between the Tesla computer and the Toyota computer. This doesn't mean the Tesla hardware is unreliable -- just that there is a programming issue with one or both of the computers.

Sorry, but there are far more problems than that with Rav4 EV.
...
the cars die and won't restart, plus plenty of other quirks.

I recall for the cars for some of the above issues w/Rav4 EVs dying and not restarting along w/the check EV system warning message, for many (most?), it involved either replacing the (Tesla supplied) gateway ECU and/or firmware updates, right? Am I right about these being two threads tracking this?

http://www.myrav4ev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=576" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.myrav4ev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=338" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't had time to keep up w/the issues and whether it's been resolved for good.

It really is unfortunate as I'm somewhat of a fan of Toyota and unreliable Toyotas are unusual.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I recall for the cars for some of the above issues w/Rav4 EVs dying and not restarting along w/the check EV system warning message, for many (most?), it involved either replacing the (Tesla supplied) gateway ECU and/or firmware updates, right? Am I right about these being two threads tracking this?

The gateway / communications module (it has an AT&T phone in it) is certainly the number one culprit; I'm not sure that it's been the only failure related to this.

 

[GRA]

Via insideevs.com:

"Mercedes-Benz B-Class ED Battery Larger Than Expected – 36 kWh, 104 Miles Of Range Available"

http://insideevs.com/mercedes-benz-b-class-ed-battery-larger-expected-36-kwh/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that 36kWh is total capacity, not usable.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Via insideevs.com:

"Mercedes-Benz B-Class ED Battery Larger Than Expected – 36 kWh, 104 Miles Of Range Available"

http://insideevs.com/mercedes-benz-b-class-ed-battery-larger-expected-36-kwh/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that 36kWh is total capacity, not usable.

June 23, 2014 at 10:06 pm response:


Well, first, Mercedes isn’t the first to advertise useable capacity. Toyota does with the Rav4 EV, and also advertises the standard and “extended” charge levels of 35kWh and 41.8kWh without charging $600.

This battery size was my guess the last time this was debated… it seems that I got lucky again:

Mercedes B-Class ED battery

36.0kWh total – 100% SOC
33.2kWh usable- 95.0% SOC
28.0kWh usable- 80.0% SOC
1.0 kWh unusable- 2.7% SOC

I also predict 3.7 miles per kWh at 65mph on level roads without heater use (LEAF gets 4.0, Rav4 EV is 3.4).

Mercedes B Class ED:

33.2kWh usable- 122 miles (almost 200km)
28.0kWh usable- 103 miles (a bit over 160km)

For comparison:

Range at 65mph (100km ground speed) on dry, hard surface level road with no wind or cabin climate control with new condition battery at 70F:

LEAF – 4 miles per kWh (250 wattHours per mile) * 21.3kWh = 85.2 miles

B-Class ED – 3.7 miles per kWh (270 wattHours per mile) * 33.2kWh = 123 miles

Rav4 EV – 3.4 miles per kWh (295 wattHours per mile) * 41.8kWh = 142 miles

 

[ydnas7]

good call

 

[roperld]

I think Nissan has much to worry about with the Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive having 87-miles and 104-miles ranges. I am leaning toward leasing the MBCED when my LEAF lease expires in May 2015.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think Nissan has much to worry about with the Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive having 87-miles and 104-miles ranges. I am leaning toward leasing the MBCED when my LEAF lease expires in May 2015.

I'd say that with a CHAdeMO plug, this car is a knock out of the park on the west coast of the USA / Canada. But then, the Rav4 EV is, too.

 

[TomT]

Yep, if it had QC, it would be a no-brainer for me (though, with the increased range, it is a little less of an issue)! It remains to be seen when QC for it actually arrives (they are just saying next year publicly) and what form it will take (hint: SAE is not a given)...

I think Nissan has much to worry about with the Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive having 87-miles and 104-miles ranges. I am leaning toward leasing the MBCED when my LEAF lease expires in May 2015.

 

[evnow]

I think Nissan has much to worry about with the Mercedes B-Class Electric Drive having 87-miles and 104-miles ranges. I am leaning toward leasing the MBCED when my LEAF lease expires in May 2015.

We have to remember MBED is $15 to $20k more expensive than Leaf. The lease may come to twice that of Leaf ...

 

[lorenfb]

"We have to remember MBED is $15 to $20k more expensive than Leaf. The lease may come to twice that of Leaf ."

Right!

"Mercedes announces B-Class pricing to start at $41,450"

And this is competition to the Leaf? Kinda like the BMW i3 (starts at about $43K) is a competitor, right?
Then maybe the MS can be considered the Leaf's competitor at a starting price of $71K. I guess one
might consider any BEV at any price as a real Leaf competitor. If so, Nissan's strategic marketing need
not consider that the BEV market is segmented based on price.

 

[evnow]

Far better comparison is with i3.

If MB actually marketed this - they can potentially outsell i3. But Given that MB shows no signs of marketing this car - it could be like FFE - sold all over the US but still only 150 a month.

 

[redLEAF]

Some additional elaboration on 'temporary range extender' ... don't get too excited, it's only about 17 miles

http://transportevolved.com/2014/06...ctric-drive-explain-temporary-range-extender/

The other big news is that they now have online pricing configuration (colors, options, etc.) so the above 'range extender' includes an electrically heated windshield as part of it for $600; as that alone might give you more range versus using the main heater to defrost this would be worth considering in colder states. It comes is 10 exterior colors, 6 interior colors and 3 'trim' (kind of carbon fiber look and 2 wood types); like all MBZ's load it up with leather, etc. and it gets pricey but you have lots more choices ...

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/build/class-B/model-BED#tab=tab-exterior

 

[evnow]

Some additional elaboration on 'temporary range extender' ... don't get too excited, it's only about 17 miles

The funny thing is they use 28 kWh to get just 87 miles. Leaf uses 20 kWh to get 84 miles.

Is MB really that inefficient or are they being conservative ?

If it is the latter (I suspect it is partly that) - then, in "real life" we can probably get much more range in MB than in Leaf under same circumstances. Esp - at higher speeds since MB is more aerodynamic with a smaller CdA than Leaf.

 

[TomT]

Perhaps MB doesn't want to become involved in a range debacle akin to what happened to Nissan... I drove one for a day in Germany and was impressed... Unfortunately, I can't yet say more...

Is MB really that inefficient or are they being conservative?

 

[evnow]

Perhaps MB doesn't want to become involved in a range debacle akin to what happened to Nissan... I drove one for a day in Germany and was impressed... Unfortunately, I can't yet say more...

Is MB really that inefficient or are they being conservative?

You are perhaps referring to the "100 mile" ? We are not talking about that.

But when they say "EPA" range - it should be a std - not conservative or optimistic.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Range at 65mph (100km ground speed) on dry, hard surface level road with no wind or cabin climate control with new condition battery at 70F, battery capacity is "useable" amount, not advertised amount. All ranges are at the maximum permitted charge and all EPA values are also at 100% capacity.


Nissan
LEAF - 4 miles per kWh (250 wattHours per mile) * 21.3kWh = 85.2 miles / EPA 84


GM / Chevrolet
Spark EV - 5 miles per kWh (200 wattHours per mile) * 19kWh = 95miles / EPA 82


Mercedes
B-Class ED - 3.8 miles per kWh (263 wattHours per mile) * 33.2kWh = 126 miles / EPA 104


Toyota
Rav4 EV - 3.4 miles per kWh (295 wattHours per mile) * 41.8kWh = 142 miles / EPA 113

 

[fotajoye]

Some additional elaboration on 'temporary range extender' ... don't get too excited, it's only about 17 miles

The funny thing is they use 28 kWh to get just 87 miles. Leaf uses 20 kWh to get 84 miles.

Is MB really that inefficient or are they being conservative ?

If it is the latter (I suspect it is partly that) - then, in "real life" we can probably get much more range in MB than in Leaf under same circumstances. Esp - at higher speeds since MB is more aerodynamic with a smaller CdA than Leaf.

Both of these cars are heavy compared to the BMW i3 at 2700 lbs. The Leaf is about 3300 lbs and so is the Benz. But, none of them are a leap into the future simply because the current traction batteries are expensive, heavy and low in energy density; that causes the auto makers, even with sales incentives from the States and Federal Government, to compromise in order to sell the car at a price point acceptable to buyers.

Of the three cars, BMW is the one moving in the right direction by reducing weight and friction and improving aerodynamics while waiting for the next generation battery. And, of all the car makers, Tesla is the only one concerned with the health of the Planet instead of counting their beans. Nissan has been at parade rest for four years happy to sell a limited range car and to wait for the others to catch up.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Of the three cars, BMW is the one moving in the right direction by reducing weight and friction and improving aerodynamics while waiting for the next generation battery.

The BMW i3 is not that aerodynamic, sorry. There's nothing cutting edge there.

 

[GRA]

Some additional elaboration on 'temporary range extender' ... don't get too excited, it's only about 17 miles

The funny thing is they use 28 kWh to get just 87 miles. Leaf uses 20 kWh to get 84 miles.

Is MB really that inefficient or are they being conservative ?

If it is the latter (I suspect it is partly that) - then, in "real life" we can probably get much more range in MB than in Leaf under same circumstances. Esp - at higher speeds since MB is more aerodynamic with a smaller CdA than Leaf.

The B-class is quite heavy (3,924 lb) compared to most of the sub 100 mile BEVs, so that would hurt it on the EPA city cycles: 87 miles / 28 kWh is only 3.1 m/kWh. But as you say, it should do pretty well on the highway, as long as there's not a lot of climbing.

Here's a review by the always entertaining Dan Neil in the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304431104579549721309416240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[evnow]

Both of these cars are heavy compared to the BMW i3 at 2700 lbs. The Leaf is about 3300 lbs and so is the Benz. But, none of them are a leap into the future simply because the current traction batteries are expensive, heavy and low in energy density; that causes the auto makers, even with sales incentives from the States and Federal Government, to compromise in order to sell the car at a price point acceptable to buyers.

Of the three cars, BMW is the one moving in the right direction by reducing weight and friction and improving aerodynamics while waiting for the next generation battery. And, of all the car makers, Tesla is the only one concerned with the health of the Planet instead of counting their beans. Nissan has been at parade rest for four years happy to sell a limited range car and to wait for the others to catch up.

I don't quite get what you are writing - BMW hardly saves much battery by using CF. It has 2 kWh less - for 3 miles less on EPA range in a much smaller 4 seater compared to Leaf. What good is all that CF ?

Tesla is mostly concerned about selling expensive toys to rich people. Let us get real here.