Mercedes-Benz To Charge $1200/yr for EQ Performance Upgrade

[DR.J56]

So I wonder if Ford ceased the 5 second limit for a yearly subscription cost how many people would go for it.

Edit: Yeah I know they won’t get rid of the limit.
People have been modifying Mustangs for years, myself included. I have personally dropped a LOT more than $1200 in a years time to modify one. But I’m not a subscription guy and won’t do it. Figure that one out…..

Sponsored

 

[nvabill]

Yep, $1200 a year to increase horsepower & drop 0-60 times on certain EQ models.

So, what exactly does Mercedes' $1200-plus-per-year performance upgrade get you? Depending on the model, it's said to reduce the EV's zero-to-60-mph time between 0.8 and 1.0 second. The only models the company lists are the all-wheel-drive EQE350 4Matic and EQS450 4Matic in both sedan and SUV configurations.

Along with quicker acceleration, Mercedes says the Acceleration Increase package increases the maximum output of the electric motors. Along with more torque, the EQE350 models gain 60 horsepower (349 total), and EQS450 models add 87 horsepower (443 total).

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a...on-increase-annual-subscription-1200-dollars/

Reminds me of a comedian who was riffing on the old Arm & Hammer ads suggesting consumers "sprinkle a little around the rim of the garage can" to remove odours. He pictured the ad team one-upping each other: "Hey, I bet I can get people to buy it, take it home, and throw it away!"

Merc marketing guys: I bet I can get people to pay for something they already bought!

I love it, a bunch of Ford folks sitting around debating the cost of something associated with a $125,000 Mercedes, PRICELESS!

 

[J-orange]

If an auto manufacturer wants to do this crap with subscription based features. I will vote with my wallet and not buy the product.

 

[Jimrpa]

No, my argument as an engineer that builds these things is that parts have ratings. If you are a good engineer you design under the limits of the part for a long life. If you start pushing closer to the limits more failures will occur. They did the math and determined that this is what they can charge to make some money and cover the warranty claims.
Take a turbo ICE car for example. There is always more power left on the table. Are you mad that they don’t have the boost cranked up to the absolute limit? I mean the hardware is there; use it right?

Boolean things like heated seats or ambient lighting should NOT be a subscription. The hardware is there and warranty claims should not be an issue with things like that. (Unless it’s like a MEGA HEAT or SUPER BRIGHT AMBIENT; where they start pushing parts to the limit)

Actually, you’re making my point for me. Of course I’m not annoyed with an ICE car if it could be tweaked to produce more power at the expense of component life/reliability. My expectation is for the manufacturer to design a vehicle properly (to meet performance and reliability specs). To essentially pre-sell me a warranty liability upper if I want improved performance, rather than designing the improved performance vehicle with components that meet the reliability requirements is, at best, disingenuous. The subscription seat heaters is a bare-faced money grab. This is his a more subtle grab.

 

[FamDocDon]

Bought my first Merc while living in Michigan in 2003, shortly after the Daimler Chrysler merger/takeover. Had a GLCe plug-in hybrid which was an EV gateway drug. Would have considered an EQC SUV but they never exported them to the US, so went looking for other options. Merc now sits at the bottom of the quality rankings. Then they pull something like this??? Have been a loyal Merc customer until I bought my MME. Can’t see buying another Merc at this point until they are under new management.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

I don't have any problems with subscription services at all. I see it as a plus. You pay for it if you want it and don't pay for it if you don't.

Its like option packages. Often time you only want one feature, but have to pay for the whole package to get it. I rather they charge me less for that one item. If I want something else, then I would pay more for it.

 

[Jimrpa]

I don't have any problems with subscription services at all. I see it as a plus. You pay for it if you want it and don't pay for it if you don't.

Its like option packages. Often time you only want one feature, but have to pay for the whole package to get it. I rather they charge me less for that one item. If I want something else, then I would pay more for it.

I split things into 3 categories:

• Static added functionality that has no impact on component life or future warranty costs. Seat heaters are a textbook example. They aren’t going to be adding new features or functionality to “seat heating” via continuous software updates, so making those a subscription item is a stupid money grab. May as well make the steering wheel a subscription item
• Ability to continually enhance features and/or add new features without impacting component life or future warranty costs. Map info is one example. Subscription radio services are another example. I have no issue with these types of subscription services.
• Adding one-time functional or feature changes, the addition of which would impact component life or future warranty costs. For example, making the 5 second limit removable by subscription. To me that’s a cheap money grab. I wouldn’t pay for it.
• Adding a functional or feature change, which would require a one-time charge for installation of new components, then have a subscription for adding new features over time once the new components are installed. For example, I believe Ford Performance sells super chargers for some models of ICE Mustangs. If they were to sell a dealer-installed accessory kit (replace the HVBJB? I don’t know) that would allow the elimination of the 5 second limit and not adversely impact component life or future warranty costs (because higher rated components would be installed), and the kit allowed ford to also deliver future performance enhancements, then I can see a case for a hybrid one-time cost & subscription model.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

I split things into 3 categories:

• Static added functionality that has no impact on component life or future warranty costs. Seat heaters are a textbook example. They aren’t going to be adding new features or functionality to “seat heating” via continuous software updates, so making those a subscription item is a stupid money grab. May as well make the steering wheel a subscription item
• Ability to continually enhance features and/or add new features without impacting component life or future warranty costs. Map info is one example. Subscription radio services are another example. I have no issue with these types of subscription services.
• Adding one-time functional or feature changes, the addition of which would impact component life or future warranty costs. For example, making the 5 second limit removable by subscription. To me that’s a cheap money grab. I wouldn’t pay for it.
• Adding a functional or feature change, which would require a one-time charge for installation of new components, then have a subscription for adding new features over time once the new components are installed. For example, I believe Ford Performance sells super chargers for some models of ICE Mustangs. If they were to sell a dealer-installed accessory kit (replace the HVBJB? I don’t know) that would allow the elimination of the 5 second limit and not adversely impact component life or future warranty costs (because higher rated components would be installed), and the kit allowed ford to also deliver future performance enhancements, then I can see a case for a hybrid one-time cost & subscription model.

What difference does it make to the consumer if the manufacturer installed an item, but does not activate it and not charge for it?

Would you rather they charge for and active every item whether the buyer wants it or not?

I rather have the option of lower cost to buy and subscribe or buy if I want versus forcing to buy something I don't want.

 

[mkhuffman]

What difference does it make to the consumer if the manufacturer installed an item, but does not activate it and not charge for it?

Would you rather they charge for and active every item whether the buyer wants it or not?

I rather have the option of lower cost to buy and subscribe or buy if I want versus forcing to buy something I don't want.

So do I have a right to activate it on my own without paying extra for it? I am not interested in purchasing a car that has a license agreement like software does, that prevents you from using it in a way not allowed by the license. If I buy a car, it is mine to change and modify as I wish, and MB should have no right to stop me.

 

[MellowJohnny]

What difference does it make to the consumer if the manufacturer installed an item, but does not activate it and not charge for it?

They've "charged" you for it. In the case of heated seats as a subscription, these were not free. Everyone paid for them when they bought the car. That's a ransom model.

A subscription to a pure software based service is quite different - you are paying to use something you have not paid for. But trust me, there are substantial costs to develop, maintain, and offer software services. This model I have no issue with.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

They've "charged" you for it. In the case of heated seats as a subscription, these were not free. Everyone paid for them when they bought the car. That's a ransom model.

A subscription to a pure software based service is quite different - you are paying to use something you have not paid for. But trust me, there are substantial costs to develop, maintain, and offer software services. This model I have no issue with.

The question is how much you "paid for them." Did you pay just manufacturer cost? or The Full price they were going to charge, etc.

Would the cost of the car be more if there were no subscription option? If the answer is yes, then I prefer the subscription option.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

So do I have a right to activate it on my own without paying extra for it? I am not interested in purchasing a car that has a license agreement like software does, that prevents you from using it in a way not allowed by the license. If I buy a car, it is mine to change and modify as I wish, and MB should have no right to stop me.

Sure, but if you bricked the car by "activating" something, MB is not obligated to fix it under warranty either.

This is how it's always been.

In the BMW world, you could load a different tune and make substantially more power, but I'm sure it voided your warranty.

 

[MellowJohnny]

The question is how much you "paid for them." Did you pay just manufacturer cost? or The Full price they were going to charge, etc.

Would the cost of the car be more if there were no subscription option? If the answer is yes, then I prefer the subscription option.

You'd need to ask MB that question - but my point is you paid for them. Even if it was "cost" you paid money.

Take it to the extreme - there is only one trim level. Regardless of whether you'd be happy with the base model, too bad, you're paying for everything. In this case you would clearly have paid more for your "locked" base model than you would have if the stuff you didn't want was left off.

Take the MME for example - everyone gets AWD, everyone get the ER battery. But you can only use it if you pay. That model would logically cost more than a car w/o AWD or the ER battery.

 

[mkhuffman]

Sure, but if you bricked the car by "activating" something, MB is not obligated to fix it under warranty either.

This is how it's always been.

In the BMW world, you could load a different tune and make substantially more power, but I'm sure it voided your warranty.

If you replace your carburator or add a supercharger, it voids the warranty. So if that is the only consequence, I could probably accept the approach. But I think MB and others are trying to implement a license model that may prevent you from modifying your own private property. And that is totally unacceptable.

Do you even know the answer to the questions I am raising, or just hypothesizing?

 

[Ghost Ryder]

You'd need to ask MB that question - but my point is you paid for them. Even if it was "cost" you paid money.

Take it to the extreme - there is only one trim level. Regardless of whether you'd be happy with the base model, too bad, you're paying for everything. In this case you would clearly have paid more for your "locked" base model than you would have if the stuff you didn't want was left off.

Take the MME for example - everyone gets AWD, everyone get the ER battery. But you can only use it if you pay. That model would logically cost more than a car w/o AWD or the ER battery.

that model does cost more to build but did they charge you as much as they could or did they avg the cost out over all the different models?

because there will always be profit. Question is how much and where they get it from.

theres also some cost savings to having less variations of builds for a manufacturer.

i can imagine that heated Seats are really low cost from a material standpoint. It may cost the manufacturer more money to have to build two different version of the same car. One with heated seats and one without the. To add heated seats to all cars.

you Say you paid for the seated seats so you should have them. But in reality you didn’t. You paid for the raw material for the heated seat but you didn’t pay for the program to activated it. Just because its software doesnt mean it doesn’t have value.

Sponsored