Electric cars love the sun. Spring has not yet started, but it is still 18 degrees Celsius when we do our range test with the Mercedes EQA. For those who like to know: this time we do the test at 100 km / h on the A12 between Utrecht and Arnhem, and then cross the German border for the 130 km / h test.
The route starts and ends at the same point to eliminate the influence of wind and elevation changes. Speaking of wind: The Mercedes EQA is a quiet and comfortable mileage eater, until you start driving 130 km / h because then the wind whistles annoyingly around the cabin. But we persist. For science!
Mercedes EQA: range at 100 km / h
With temperatures rising, power consumption is decreasing. The Mercedes EQA 250 scores 19.5 kWh / 100 km and with a full battery of 66.5 kWh, that equates to a range of 341 kilometer.
Power consumption of 19.5 kWh / 100 km is neatly in line with what the Ford Mustang Mach-E and Polestar 2 score. The Volvo XC40 Recharge is the major competitor of the Mercedes EQA and it consumes 23.0 kWh / 100 km. It was a bit colder then, but the electric XC40 is always thirsty.
Mercedes EQA: range at 130 km / h
Are Mercedes more economical when they drive in their home country? That would explain why the EQA 250 on the autobahn shows an average power consumption of only 26.6 kWh / 100 km at 130 km / h. After testing a series of electric SUVs that were all around 30 kWh / 100 km, 26.6 kWh / 100 km is a decent score.
The result is a range of 250 kilometer at 130 km / h. You can get that far with a Volkswagen ID.4, but it has a considerably larger battery of 77 kWh. It appears that Mercedes is working on a Long Range model of the EQA. Looking at these consumption figures, it can work out quite well.
Conclusion
These figures show that battery capacity does not say everything. An EQA 250 with ‘only’ 66.5 kWh comes with a battery charge of electricity more than a Volvo XC40 Recharge with no less than 75 kWh. That’s why these consumption and range tests are so instructive.
Footnote for the attentive reader: in the photo with the consumption figures at 130 km / h, the average speed is much lower. Strange, because apart from the turning point (off and on the highway) and one overtaking truck, we continuously drove 130 km / h or slightly above.
