Mercedes-Benz is in the midst of a product onslaught with upcoming electric vehicles under the "EQ" moniker. We've already seen a few of these models, including the EQC and EQA, but more are coming. We'll soon see the flagship EQS, mid-level EQE, and even an electric Mercedes-Benz G-Class called the EQG. Recent trademark filings shed more light on the rumored EQG, revealing the names "EQG 560" and "EQG 580."

These names aren't too surprising, given that there will be an EQS 580 as well. We haven't spotted an EQS 560, but it would likely be a smaller battery model that won't be sold in the United States, if we had to guess. Though we don't know much else about the EQG, we thought we'd have our rendering artists take a crack at imagining what it could look like.

Our original rendering stays true to the G-Wagen's design, keeping it close to the existing gasoline model. In its extensive history, the G-Wagen has only spawned two generations, and it has changed minimally over several decades. Much like the Land Rover Defender, the G-Class only recently received a second-generation, albeit a much more faithful redesign.

We decided to leave the body mostly unchanged, though we did swap out the front grille for one that better matches the Mercedes EQA that was revealed earlier this year. Both the grille and headlights receive a subtle blue tone and those aggressive five-spoke wheels come from a different Mercedes off-roader.

Mercedes already proved that an EV drivetrain could work off-road with the one-off EQC 4x4 Squared design study. Built from an EQC 400 4Matic, the 4x4 Squared received a massive ride height increase from multi-link portal axles. We imagine that lessons learned from this design study will find their way onto the production EQG.

As for the powertrain, we expect the EQG 580 to pack the same dual electric motors found in the EQS 580, producing 469 horsepower and 560 lb-ft of torque. There is no way the EQG will boast the same impressive 400-plus-mile range as the EQS, given that it will be much boxier and, therefore, less aerodynamically efficient.