No, we won't start with the price. The car puts us in such a good mood that we don't want to spoil it right away. After all, the price also reveals all the other data, which deserves explicit praise. Those who want to know can do so, and those who want to compare can do so too.

Let's do that. The wheelbase is difficult to classify because it is the same for the ID.3/ID.4 and only slightly smaller for the EQA. But in length, with only 20 cm more, it of course tends towards the ID.3, slightly higher and wider.

In terms of battery capacity, it's pretty much between VW's medium and large batteries. Strange though that it then exceeds the weight of the ID.3 with the largest battery by 100 kg. The c_W value is also 2 points worse.

Both are actually far behind a Tesla Model 3 with 0.23. Its lower height is an additional factor. However, with an additional 20 cm in length, it is easier to achieve this c_W value. The prerequisite for all this is, of course, honest figures, which are doubtful in the case of the Tesla with the large battery and another 100 kg less than the large ID.3.

Actually, we should be cheering because the EQA has front-wheel drive. What an opportunity to install a decent luggage compartment in the back. But with 340 litres it is another 45 litres smaller than that of the ID.3. Even in the single-engined one, the space in the back is left free for the second engine. No, then rather rear-wheel drive with a smaller turning circle and better load on the drive axle uphill.

Let's come on to the biggest annoyance: the range. We have become accustomed to some exaggerations, but this one is brazen, counterproductive as an advertisement for more electromobility. 486 km are promised, of course using the completely outdated NEDC test cycle. Why is this still allowed?

If we leave that aside, 426 km are given in WLTP mode. Again, the problem is that with the 17.7 kWh/100 km also multiplied, this would result in over 75 kWh of battery capacity, which the EQA does not have. Completely incomprehensibly, the charging losses are included. In other words, an even more unrealistic consumption of 15.6 kWh/100km is assumed.

The heavy, large, not particularly aerodynamic vehicle could hardly manage this on the motorway, for example, if it were only driven at a maximum of 100 km/h, even with the commendable heat pump and recuperation when the accelerator pedal is released and the brake applied (!). Moreover, we do not see how up to 140² kW according to the manufacturer's specification can be fed into the battery.