Audi e-tron v Mercedes-Benz EQC 2020 Comparison

There’s an apparently common consensus that electric vehicles are to the roads what the Dyson vacuum cleaner is to household carpet – all very advanced and sophisticated, but not especially engaging.

It’s way past time for EVs to enthuse motorists as well as environmentalists, and what we see in the Audi e-tron 50 quattro and the Mercedes-Benz EQC 400 4MATIC is the start of a concerted push by mainstream prestige brands to meet looming environmental legislation with electric vehicles that are sufficiently appealing to sell in viable numbers.

The car companies have twigged; what buyers want is a car that embraces the cachet of a prestige badge, the comfort to go with it, the practicality of an SUV and design that’s attractive rather than confronting.

Buyers will also appreciate the levels of safety, the flexible performance and the high-tech infotainment systems.

That’s essentially what you get with the e-tron and the EQC. And by Jove, they are all the more convincing products for it.

Electric vehicles promise lower running costs than conventional cars, which is a point worth mentioning first up where the Audi e-tron and the Mercedes-Benz EQC are concerned.

There are relatively few moving parts in the powertrain in need of regular servicing, and even for high-performance EVs like these two, the cost of recharging the battery pack in each is pretty reasonable.

The e-tron, for example, should cost less than $7.50 per 100km, assuming a household electricity tariff around 32 cents per kilowatt-hour. An Audi Q7 50 TDI, based on a current average diesel price of around $1.18 per litre and its combined-cycle fuel consumption figure of 6.8L/100km, costs around $8 to travel 100km. That's all rather academic though, with Audi currently offering free servicing and free recharging for the e-tron up to six years after purchase.

If there’s a problem with that comparison, it rests with the purchase price of the two Audi SUVs (e-tron 50 quattro and e-tron 55 quattro), the e-tron costing over $17,000 more than the Q7 – and it’s going to take a little while to amortise that price premium with lower running costs.

Original Australian pricing for the Audi e-tron 50 quattro was $137,700, but that has since been revised downwards to $137,100, the e-tron now undercutting the Mercedes-Benz EQC 400 4MATIC (recently bumped up to $139,700) by $2600.

We’ve already published standard specification details elsewhere for the e-tron and the EQC.

Both vehicles tested are notional entry-level models, although the two test vehicles came with extra-cost options fitted. The price as tested for the Audi finished at $140,450 with the inclusion of metallic paint ($2300 for Manhattan Grey) and privacy glass ($1050).

Priced higher still at $143,400 as tested, the EQC also featured ‘designo’ Hyacinth Red metallic paint ($1000), 21-inch AMG alloy wheels in a gloss-black/high-sheen finish ($1800) and augmented reality for the MBUX satellite navigation ($900).

While the EQC is currently only offered with a single powertrain option, the e-tron has a higher-output 55 version that is priced from $146,100 plus ORCs. This brings with it a 265kW/561Nm output (300kW/664Nm on Boost mode) and longer range of 463km (ADR) from its bigger 95kWh battery.

Both the Audi e-tron and Mercedes-Benz EQC were tested by Euro NCAP for crash safety last year, and both are rated five stars by ANCAP as well.

Adult, child and pedestrian safety scores are 91, 88 and 71 per cent respectively for the e-tron, and 96, 92 and 75 per cent respectively for the EQC.

The e-tron comes as standard with eight airbags, the EQC doing one better with nine – the ninth for the driver’s knee.

Both cars are fitted with adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring, autonomous emergency braking (AEB) with pedestrian and cyclist detection, intersection assist, driver fatigue monitoring, rear cross traffic alert, lane keep assist and tyre pressure monitoring.

The e-tron has turn assist and exit warning as well. For its part, the Mercedes-Benz EQC is also equipped with self parking and an alarm.

Very similar in powertrain configuration, the Audi e-tron and the Mercedes-Benz EQC both offer all-wheel drive via the means of an electric motor for each axle.

It’s the EQC 400 that ascends to the top step of the podium for performance, the combined power and torque delivering a 1.7-second advantage over the e-tron 50 in the 0-100km/h sprint – 5.1 seconds versus 6.8sec for the Audi.

Not only is the Benz faster in a straight line, it also delivers a 100km-longer range (434km versus 334km on official ADR testing) and slightly quieter running.

Audi has engineered some whine into the powertrain of the e-tron, presumably so that buyers on a test drive feel like they’re driving a 21st Century car – one without pistons bumping up and down.

In that respect the e-tron has more in common with a Jaguar I-PACE than the Mercedes, which is as quiet as the grave. The e-tron’s powertrain noise does settle down when cruising at freeway speeds, however.

According to each car’s trip computer, the Audi posted an energy consumption figure of 24.1kWh over 100km, versus 25.8 for the Mercedes, based on the same test loop over consecutive nights. Even so, the larger 80kWh battery in the EQC (compared with 71kWh for the e-tron) means the Benz will travel further before needing to recharge.

Official ADR figures put the EQC 400 slightly ahead of the e-tron 50 in terms of energy efficiency (21.4 versus 23.6kWh per 100km), while ‘lifecycle CO2’ estimates calculated by the federal government’s Green Vehicle Guide (which factor in emissions generated when manufacturing the vehicle, transporting it to Australia and from the generation of electricity used to power it) are also in favour of the Benz – 188g/km versus 208g/km.

The Green Vehicle Guide also includes annual ‘fuel’ cost estimates for EVs based on their energy consumption (travelling 14,000km, with 66 per cent of travel in urban driving conditions), and this measure puts the EQC 400 ahead of the e-tron 50 at $898 versus $991.

Of course, these are not real-world figures, and in the case of recharging, owners can achieve a zero emissions outcome by using 100 per cent renewable energy. But they are relevant benchmarks all the same.

Another point that deserves to be mentioned on the question of recharging is Audi’s claim that the e-tron will charge faster than its competitors was born out at a 350kW ultra-fast charger, which was supplying up to 120kW for the Audi, when the best the Benz could achieve was 109kW – which is still pretty fast though.

As already mentioned, both these cars are very quiet – which is to be expected from any EV – but the Mercedes-Benz EQC may have elevated noise suppression to a new level. Not only is the powertrain quiet, so are the indicators.

The indicators in the Audi e-tron are also hushed, but not to quite the same degree as the Benz.

Ergonomically, the Audi has the wood on the Benz. In terms of its interior layout, the e-tron is a more conventional design than the EQC. First-time drivers will likely feel more immediately at ease with the instrumentation in the Audi.

The EQC’s numeric data displayed in the instrument binnacle is quite fine, making it harder to read at a glance, and other datapoints and graphics are also small and don’t leap out at you. The high beam warning light (blue on, ‘A’ for ‘auto’ when off) is an example.

The Benz touchpads to select menu items in the infotainment screen can be literally a little hit-and-miss at times, compared with an old-fashioned rotary dial such as BMW uses for its single-point controller.

In contrast, the only trick for first-timers in the Audi is the need to press the touch-screen icons hard enough for an actual tactile click. This is at odds with parent company Volkswagen’s proximity-sensing touch-screens.

One other aspect of the Audi that will catch out those who haven’t driven one before is the drive selector; if you happen to pull back (for Drive) or push forward for Reverse with your left thumb resting on the Park button, you might be left without the drive mode you want.

Overall, however, the driving position is better in the e-tron. In the EQC the footrest is too low and near the floor, and the cowl is higher. The EQC’s seats are also quite aggressively contoured. They’re very supportive and keep you held fast in corners, but you don’t sink into them.

Accommodation in the rear seat is also superior in the e-tron, where there’s more legroom and more headroom. With lighter-coloured upholstery as well, the e-tron feels roomier and not as closed in as the EQC.

Longer in wheelbase and overall length, the e-tron provides more boot space, which is quite obvious when they’re lined up in parallel. The Audi’s boot is clearly longer, which is where the extra 160 litres resides (660 litres for the e-tron and 500 litres for the EQC).

Both cars feature finger-pull latches to lower the rear seats for extra carrying capacity.

As a final observation, the Burmester audio system in the EQC is exceptionally nice, picking up all the music notes, even on a low-volume setting.

Although these two premium electric-powered SUVs seem very similar on paper, they’re quite different in small but significant ways.

Judged on driveability, the Audi e-tron 50 quattro holds an edge over the Mercedes-Benz EQC 400 4MATIC, despite the EQC’s straight-line performance advantage.

Even with low-profile Michelin tyres on its optional 21-inch alloy wheels, the Mercedes-Benz EQC didn’t endear itself in the wet, with moderately strong understeer prevalent on the exit from bends with the power applied. In fairness to the EQC, it has a lot of power for the tyres and suspension to handle.

The Audi e-tron felt closer to neutral and more communicative. It also rode better on 50-series Bridgestones wrapped around its 20-inch alloys. Over speed humps the EQC felt overdamped, and would land on the other side with a crash at any speed much above jogging pace.

On country roads the EQC’s ride comfort is more measured. But by comparison, the e-tron boasts a better ride/handling balance across the whole spectrum of driving environments.

While the e-tron 50 doesn’t go as hard in a straight line as the EQC, the Audi does begin braking immediately from the lightest touch of the pedal, whereas the Mercedes pedal feels softer and slightly slower to bite.

So enthusiasts will likely prefer the drive in the e-tron, performance notwithstanding. There’s also free servicing and charging available for the e-tron over the first six years.

That said, the EQC overtakes the e-tron with a five-year warranty – two years more than Audi offers – and slightly better standing in Euro NCAP’s crash testing.

Take into account also the performance difference, the longer range and comparable pricing, and you’re left with one conclusion: by the narrowest of margins, the Mercedes-Benz EQC is a better choice for most buyers, and therefore the winner.

How much does the 2020 Audi e-tron 50 quattro cost?
Price: $137,100 (plus on-road costs)
Available: Now
Powertrain: Two asynchronous electric motors
Output: 230kW/540Nm
Transmission: Single-speed reduction gear
Battery: 71kWh lithium-ion
Range: 334km (ADR)
Energy consumption: 23.6kWh/100km (ADR)
Safety rating: Five-star (ANCAP 2019)

How much does the 2020 Mercedes-Benz EQC 400 4MATIC cost?
Price: $139,700 (plus on-road costs)
Available: Now
Powertrain: Two asynchronous electric motors
Output: 300kW/760Nm
Transmission: Single-speed reduction gear
Battery: 80kWh lithium-ion
Range: 434km (ADR)
Energy consumption: 21.4kWh/100km (ADR)
Safety rating: Five-star (ANCAP 2019)