Our spy shots of the next-generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class suggest that what's going to happen next with that car is what happened with the GLC over the summer: an end to the weird, soap bar-looking EQ electric models and an alignment with the combustion models.
"If you were told this was the next-gen combustion GLC, you would say 'yes, it's the next logical step: it looks like a GLC'," boss Ola Källenius said of Mercedes' new electric SUV last month. And I think it's now safe to assume that Mercedes' next E-Class-sized electric executive saloon will be very much integrated into the range as an identifiable E-Class variant too.
Internal documents apparently describe the EQE replacement as having an "iconic E-Class three-box design", with a "very status-oriented wheelbase offering maximum space and comfort". In other words, it will be a big Merc.
This strikes me as an inherently sensible move. Mercedes' ultra-streamlined EQ EVs haven't achieved the same resonance as its traditional-looking ICE cars. The E-Class, like the S-Class and to a lesser extent the SUVs, have such a strong reputation that they would be barmy not to tap into it.
In EQ, Mercedes created a new brand that didn't outwardly signal the values that existing models had spent - by individual model line - decades establishing. The first unibody Ponton-series Mercedes, whose lineage can be drawn directly to the modern E-Class, arrived in 1953. Why would one decide that reputation was no longer important?
Join the debate
Add your comment
In general, creating electric sub-brands with differentiated product lines is a huge risk for brands with a well-established heritage, while relatively new brands like the Koreans can afford much more commercial freedom. The Renault 5, however, in my opinion, is a completely different affaire, unrelated to branding issues. The styling of the new electric R5 is so well-crafted and attractive to succeed in persuading even those who wouldn't consider an EV to be worthwhile for their use case. The Renault 5 is chosen irrationally, because it just looks beautiful. It's certainly not the first case in the history of automotive industry. For example in the 1980s, many people living in big italian cities bought Suzuki Santanas / Samurais (rugged off-roaders, ancestors of the Jimny) because such cars looked cool and trendy, although they didn't need their off-road prowess. Even the R53 Mini Coopers - at least here in Italy - were massively bought only because they looked cool. Most customers were incapable - and unwilling - of enjoying their undoubted road qualities and used them as city cars despite their huge fuel consumption and their stiff suspension setup which made ride uncomfortable on bumpy city roads. Rare car models are so aesthetically pleasing or look so cool and fashionable to be chosen regardless of rationality. The Renault 5 is just the latest car of such ilk.
If it's well executed, without hideous info infotainment flaws, and isn't hideously expensive then I'm not sure it matters what you call it .... tho I do think a naming hierarchy works, gives the customer an obvious pathway to follow. I love cars and the industry as a whole but Polestar's Japanese Street naming convention (in the order you built them) makes no sense to anyone and doesn't help them.