Edmunds Range Test of Gravity GT

[Ron_Burgundy]

I'd put the number well above that.

Are these the same folks who insist 0-60 must be <3.5 seconds or the car is utter trash?

 

[Elfin]

I also don’t believe their numbers.

I believe them more than I believe EPA numbers (which aren't even measured by the EPA but are instead calculated by the manufacturer using a very simple model and then multiplied by an "adjustment factor")

 

[hydbob]

I saw this morning that Edmunds is Reddit flacking their test now

https://www.reddit.com/r/LUCID/comments/1nntgwt/lucid_gravity_tested_would_embarrass_most_sports

LOL nice how all the top comments are calling shenanigans on Edmunds because they aren't reputable anymore hahahahah

 

[Bdr100]

I find it interesting that with ICE cars, the EPA stat that is reference is Efficiency, but with EVs they always reference Range. That might have made sense back when everyone had Range Anxiety, but now with longer range cars, faster charging and better charging infrastructure, we need to go back to looking at Efficiency. Electricity may be cheaper than gas (when charging at home) but it tends to be comparable to gas when using DCFC. Driving that Escalade IQ on a road trip better not exceed 500 mile range round trip or you will spend 2 hour lunch topping it off and if you plan to charge at a hotel overnight, you will be lucky to 250 miles of range using a typical Level 2 charger. And your charging cost (home or DCFC) will be double for the Escalade vs the Gravity.

Finally, they seem to imply that if a car does not meet the EPA range that the manufacture cheated the numbers somehow. Having some cars exceed the EPA range and other fall short only shows the inaccuracy of the EPA range calculation. As they have always said - Your Mileage May Very.

 

[Elfin]

I find it interesting that with ICE cars, the EPA stat that is reference is Efficiency, but with EVs they always reference Range. That might have made sense back when everyone had Range Anxiety, but now with longer range cars, faster charging and better charging infrastructure, we need to go back to looking at Efficiency. Electricity may be cheaper than gas (when charging at home) but it tends to be comparable to gas when using DCFC. Driving that Escalade IQ on a road trip better not exceed 500 mile range round trip or you will spend 2 hour lunch topping it off and if you plan to charge at a hotel overnight, you will be lucky to 250 miles of range using a typical Level 2 charger. And your charging cost (home or DCFC) will be double for the Escalade vs the Gravity.

Finally, they seem to imply that if a car does not meet the EPA range that the manufacture cheated the numbers somehow. Having some cars exceed the EPA range and other fall short only shows the inaccuracy of the EPA range calculation. As they have always said - Your Mileage May Very.

The big battery GM vehicles can charge 84kWh in 15 minutes. They are definitely more expensive to drive on a road trip than a gas car but so is my Model 3...
For road trips what matters is the combination of charge speed and efficiency. The Gravity should be able to beat GM, still waiting for the 10% challenge results.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

The big battery GM vehicles can charge 84kWh in 15 minutes. They are definitely more expensive to drive on a road trip than a gas car but so is my Model 3...
For road trips what matters is the combination of charge speed and efficiency. The Gravity should be able to beat GM, still waiting for the 10% challenge results.

I think the new Escalade will just put batteries in the trunk. Like the extended range Cybertruck…oh wait…

 

[illopp00]

Out of Spec tested the G-Wagon on 10% challenge, and it basically went almost nowhere, I would be lucky to get to downtown Chicago and back to my home with it in winter....

 

[Elfin]

Out of Spec tested the G-Wagon on 10% challenge, and it basically went almost nowhere, I would be lucky to get to downtown Chicago and back to my home with it in winter....

15min to charge 47.8kWh to go 76mi at 80mph. Even worse than Rivian (between 91mi and 84mi depending on trim). Hoping Gravity gets to 160mi (looking less likely from the real world efficiency vibes of this forum.)

 

[hmp10]

15min to charge 47.8kWh to go 76mi at 80mph. Even worse than Rivian (between 91mi and 84mi depending on trim). Hoping Gravity gets to 160mi (looking less likely from the real world efficiency vibes of this forum.)

There are three things I demand of an EV on a road trip:

1. The ability to drive the speeds at which I am most comfortable (typically a few mph faster than prevailing traffic).

2. The ready availability of reliable and fast charging.

3. No need to stop for charging more often than for bathroom breaks.

Our Teslas gave us 1 and (usually) 2. Our Air gives us 1 and 3.

On the two road trips we've managed thus far in our Gravity, it gave us all 3 in spades.

It beats every over EV handily . . . and with the most comfort and pleasurable driving dynamics of any car I've ever owned, ICE or EV. Yes, even the Gravity takes a bit longer to charge than to fill an ICE vehicle tank, but once I have to stop anyway for a bathroom break, spending a few extra minutes at the stop does not bother me. (Since a gas tank usually fills in less time than it takes to use the bathroom and pick up drinks and snacks, I usually can't do the latter until after I fill the gas tank. With an EV, I can hit the bathroom store during the charging session, thereby recovering some of the time difference.)

And yes, charging stations still aren't as ubiquitous as gas stations. But the combination of Tesla Superchargers and CCS stations that the Gravity can use goes a very long way toward making that less relevant.

I'll still be interested in seeing the real-world range tests of the Gravity. But frankly, for the first time in 10 years of EV ownership, it will just be of academic interest rather than figuring into the question of whether to make a road trip in an EV.

 

[borski]

With an EV, I can hit the bathroom store during the charging session, thereby recovering some of the time difference.

You ever think you might optimize a little too much?

Breathe, man! Haha jk jk

 

[hmp10]

You ever think you might optimize a little too much?

It is my signature tune.

 

[MACOSTEON]

What does this light mean?

 

[hmp10]

What does this light mean?

You got me. We've been seeing it, too, and scratching our heads.

 

[jedwin]

EPA numbers (which aren't even measured by the EPA but are instead calculated by the manufacturer using a very simple model and then multiplied by an "adjustment factor")

The “adjustment number” used for that multiplication is 0.7…..so it lowers the modeled range, in an attempt to account for real-world conditions (and speeds) that the models don’t capture. This is for the more complex EPA model that Lucid (and Tesla among others) uses.

I’ve never really understood why the supposedly simpler model (used by most of the European manufacturers—and Korean?) generates a number much closer to real-world range. But based on many range tests, it seems to.

I get the marketing reasons that Lucid, etc, like to pitch the higher range, but why does the simpler model do better than the more comprehensive one?

 

[hmp10]

The “adjustment number” used for that multiplication is 0.7…..so it lowers the modeled range, in an attempt to account for real-world conditions (and speeds) that the models don’t capture. This is for the more complex EPA model that Lucid (and Tesla among others) uses.

I’ve never really understood why the supposedly simpler model (used by most of the European manufacturers—and Korean?) generates a number much closer to real-world range. But based on many range tests, it seems to.

I get the marketing reasons that Lucid, etc, like to pitch the higher range, but why does the simpler model do better than the more comprehensive one?

The EPA actually allows manufacturers to choose between two testing protocols: a 5-cycle test and a 2-cycle test.

The 5-cycle test usually yields a higher range estimate, which is probably why Tesla, Lucid, and most other U.S. automakers use it. The Germans tend to use the 2-cycle test.

The irony is that the 5-cycle test supposedly produces a more accurate range estimate for mixed driving, but the 2-cycle test ends up getting closer to highway driving range by virtue of being less accurate for mixed driving range.

This is why Porsche, for instance, routinely does very well against its EPA range in highway driving tests, while Lucid can look as if it's being more dishonest.

But the bottom line is that Lucids actually go further on a full charge than any almost any competitor in an equivalent vehicle class . . . unless they're up against a battery pack the size of a battleship, such as in the Cadillac Escalade IQ.

 

[Elfin]

The “adjustment number” used for that multiplication is 0.7…..so it lowers the modeled range, in an attempt to account for real-world conditions (and speeds) that the models don’t capture. This is for the more complex EPA model that Lucid (and Tesla among others) uses.

I’ve never really understood why the supposedly simpler model (used by most of the European manufacturers—and Korean?) generates a number much closer to real-world range. But based on many range tests, it seems to.

I get the marketing reasons that Lucid, etc, like to pitch the higher range, but why does the simpler model do better than the more comprehensive one?

0.7 is the most common but different manufacturers use different adjustment factors. WLTP also seems to way overestimate real world range. It's all very silly since I'm sure every manufacturer has an extremely accurate model of the vehicle. They could just use drive cycle that matches the average driver and feed it in to these more accurate models.

 

[prgarg]

That makes sense, that's probably why the BMW iX does better than its EPA rating

The EPA actually allows manufacturers to choose between two testing protocols: a 5-cycle test and a 2-cycle test.

The 5-cycle test usually yields a higher range estimate, which is probably why Tesla, Lucid, and most other U.S. automakers use it. The Germans tend to use the 2-cycle test.

The irony is that the 5-cycle test supposedly produces a more accurate range estimate for mixed driving, but the 2-cycle test ends up getting closer to highway driving range by virtue of being less accurate for mixed driving range.

This is why Porsche, for instance, routinely does very well against its EPA range in highway driving tests, while Lucid can look as if it's being more dishonest.

But the bottom line is that Lucids actually go further on a full charge than any almost any competitor in an equivalent vehicle class . . . unless they're up against a battery pack the size of a battleship, such as in the Cadillac Escalade IQ.

 

[jered]

What does this light mean?

It indicates a service warning. Normally the notifications list (little bell icon) will show you what it is, or the left side of the cockpit will have related alerts. (e.g. "rear wheel steering unavailable")

We've noticed the service warning icon lighting up without any related alerts or notifications. This is probably just a bug.

See page 76 of the owners manual:

 

[hank-iv]

It indicates a service warning. Normally the notifications list (little bell icon) will show you what it is, or the left side of the cockpit will have related alerts. (e.g. "rear wheel steering unavailable")

We've noticed the service warning icon lighting up without any related alerts or notifications. This is probably just a bug.

See page 76 of the owners manual:
View attachment 33461

Pretty sure it means there is a dog off it's leash half a mile up the road.

 

[MACOSTEON]

You got me. We've been seeing it, too, and scratching our heads.

I now have an audible constant sound