What's new
By:

Lucid Gravity GT 70MPH Range Test State of Charge Video - 345 Miles

illopp00

illopp00

Active Member

Verified Owner
Joined
Jun 22, 2024
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
1,269
Location
Naperville, IL
Cars
14 CR-V EXL, 26GravityGT
Referral Code
W772ZCOT

This video details a 70 mph highway range test of the 2026 Lucid Gravity Grand Touring (0:37-0:40). The test was conducted in cool weather (around 50-59°F) with a 10 mph wind (1:55-2:07), which the presenter notes might penalize the range by about 30 miles (8:27-8:42). The vehicle was driven in its most efficient "Smooth" mode with the suspension set to low for better aerodynamics (12:28-13:08).

Here's a breakdown of the results:

Initial Expectations vs. Reality: The Lucid Gravity has an EPA combined range rating of 450 miles (3:25). The presenter hoped to achieve close to 400 miles but quickly became pessimistic, expecting around 340-350 miles (10:45-11:50).
Test Segments:
100% to 75% State of Charge: Covered 89.1 miles, consuming 28.3 kWh with a consumption rate of 3.14 miles/kWh (9:44-10:06, 38:49-39:05).
75% to 50% State of Charge: Covered 84 miles, consuming 29.2 kWh with a consumption rate of 3.01 miles/kWh (13:37-14:27, 39:05-39:25).
50% to 25% State of Charge: Covered 86.1 miles, consuming 29.2 kWh with a consumption rate of 2.98 miles/kWh (16:31-17:38, 39:25-39:47).
25% to 1% State of Charge (then 0%): Covered 85.8 miles for a total of 345 miles, consuming 28.2 kWh (total 115 kWh accessed) with a consumption rate of 3.00 miles/kWh (21:34-22:00, 25:19-25:49, 39:47-40:22).
Issues and Post-Test Analysis:

The final range was 345 miles, significantly less than the 450-mile EPA rating (25:49-26:17).
The presenter noted that only 115 kWh of the 123 kWh usable battery capacity was accessed (28:42-28:49, 40:02-40:07).
After the test, Lucid informed the presenter that there was a problem with the vehicle's rear drive unit, which likely impacted the results (41:39-42:40).
Lucid also stated that the vehicle had about 6 kWh of usable capacity left when it read 0% state of charge, suggesting a potential miscalculation or a large low-end buffer (42:40-43:24).
It was also noted that the rear climate control was on during the test, which was not intended (44:20-45:00).
Lucid offered to provide another vehicle for a retest in better conditions, which the presenter plans to do in the future (43:26-44:10, 45:27-45:30).
Despite the issues and the lower-than-expected range, the presenter acknowledged that 345 miles at 70 mph in cool conditions is still a respectable range for a seven-passenger SUV (28:12-28:25, 30:24-30:31). The video also highlights the Gravity's impressive acceleration and quiet, smooth highway driving experience (19:04-21:00).
 
It seemed almost impossible on how the Cayenne almost 6% more efficient when everything (weight, size, wheels) is about the same. Rear drive train issues and BMS calibration could explain so much. It remains to be seen how widespread of a an issue this is.
 
illopp00 said:
After the test, Lucid informed the presenter that there was a problem with the vehicle's rear drive unit, which likely impacted the results (41:39-42:40).
Click to expand...

So, what if a normal person who doesn't do 100%-0% range tests had bought this car and drove it? And then complained about range? Would he have been able to get Lucid engineering to look at his car in detail and determine it had a "bad drive unit?"

My concern is that a prominent YouTuber with a company car doing a range test will get a LOT more attention than just a regular owner, even an owner on this board.
 
Smorgasbord said:
So, what if a normal person who doesn't do 100%-0% range tests had bought this car and drove it? And then complained about range? Would he have been able to get Lucid engineering to look at his car in detail and determine it had a "bad drive unit?"

My concern is that a prominent YouTuber with a company car doing a range test will get a LOT more attention than just a regular owner, even an owner on this board.
Click to expand...
I believe someone else here has actually had Lucid reach out and proactively ask them to come in because the drive unit data is concerning.
 
I note that both this test and the Notch EV test consumed 115 kWh as they hit zero. It's interesting to me that Lucid engineering says there should be 6 kWh more available, which would be 121 usable with a 2 kWh reserve. That would be an eminently reasonable way to partition the 123 kWh battery.
 
In the old Tesla Roadster days, getting too low was considered a bad thing for battery longevity.
Why isn't that still true today? Cars are still using NMC and similar chemistries.
I for one wouldn't want to buy a car that had been taken down to zero, much less below 0, percentage SOC. Heck, below 5% and I get worried.
Is this just me being out of date on batteries and BMSs, or is this actually not good for the battery?
 
Smorgasbord said:
In the old Tesla Roadster days, getting too low was considered a bad thing for battery longevity.
Why isn't that still true today? Cars are still using NMC and similar chemistries.
I for one wouldn't want to buy a car that had been taken down to zero, much less below 0, percentage SOC. Heck, below 5% and I get worried.
Is this just me being out of date on batteries and BMSs, or is this actually not good for the battery?
Click to expand...
I think it;s just being down low and leaving it there parked or doing loaded activities. Draining it down and then recharging nicely isn't going to bother it.
 
I should have added that with the Roadster, if you took SOC down too low you had two issues:
1) The car would give up telling you remaining range/SOC. If you kept track of your remaining "ideal miles" before it went below 25, that was actually pretty accurate even though the car wouldn't update any more.
2) If you took it down past that (25 Ideal Miles remaining), then you would often need to charge with the L1 cable, not the L2, although sometimes you could get away with limiting the L2 charge current.

I don't think any current production car has those limits, but it was interesting to see how Electrify America's chargers still worked while the Tesla chargers didn't - with the bad drive motor. I note that Lucid uses the rear drive unit to up the voltage from Tesla's chargers from 400 to 800(not sure of the exact number), so maybe that EA's charger was already capable of supplying 800 volts meant it bypassed that boost need?

I know Tesla vehicles don't let you choose a limit on the charging rate from SuperChargers, only L1/L2 charging. Does Lucid have this charge limit feature? If so, lowering the charge rate might have enabled charging on the Tesla SC. At any rate, might be a good "hidden" feature to enable in the Gravity precisely for these kinds of situations.
 
Kinda burying the lead about the bad drive unit - less range would be concerning but a bad drive unit on a brand new car is no bueno
 
Smorgasbord said:
I should have added that with the Roadster, if you took SOC down too low you had two issues:
1) The car would give up telling you remaining range/SOC. If you kept track of your remaining "ideal miles" before it went below 25, that was actually pretty accurate even though the car wouldn't update any more.
2) If you took it down past that (25 Ideal Miles remaining), then you would often need to charge with the L1 cable, not the L2, although sometimes you could get away with limiting the L2 charge current.

I don't think any current production car has those limits, but it was interesting to see how Electrify America's chargers still worked while the Tesla chargers didn't - with the bad drive motor. I note that Lucid uses the rear drive unit to up the voltage from Tesla's chargers from 400 to 800(not sure of the exact number), so maybe that EA's charger was already capable of supplying 800 volts meant it bypassed that boost need?

I know Tesla vehicles don't let you choose a limit on the charging rate from SuperChargers, only L1/L2 charging. Does Lucid have this charge limit feature? If so, lowering the charge rate might have enabled charging on the Tesla SC. At any rate, might be a good "hidden" feature to enable in the Gravity precisely for these kinds of situations.
Click to expand...
Limiting the charge rate is about limiting the amperage. The voltage one charges at doesn't really change. As the rear Lucid motor is used to convert the voltage supplied by Tesla to what's needed by the Gravity's battery pack, there's a reasonable chance that no form of charge limiting would have worked around the problem, because voltage conversion is fundamentally required.

Regarding the difference between Tesla Roadster days and today: saying that a battery is NMC chemistry only gives the broadest picture of the battery technology in use. There as been a lot of evolution in the specific chemistry of NMC batteries, and physical structure of the battery components also matters a lot, especially in regards to preventing the irreversible physical changes that happen when a battery degrades.
 
TahoeMichael said:
As the rear Lucid motor is used to convert the voltage supplied by Tesla to what's needed by the Gravity's battery pack, there's a reasonable chance that no form of charge limiting would have worked around the problem, because voltage conversion is fundamentally required.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting thought, but I do wonder if the Boost is used all the time, or just when the battery pack is able to adsorb more power. And, I suspect it's not used at all for L1/L2 charging, so perhaps he could have charged at L2 with the bad drive unit as well.

You're absolutely correct about physical changes - under high SOCs and high temps, batteries can literally expand, and the expansion/contraction can cause internal cracking that degrades the batteries, even if the pack has space to accommodate cell swelling (and if it doesn't that's even worse). So, I do agree there have probably been improvements in the past almost 2 decades, but it would be interesting to see if the owner's manual has any warnings about driving to too low an SOC.
 
The actual charging of the battery is always DC so we need to separate DC fast charging (L3) from AC charging (L1/L2). Physics teaches us that current will only flow into the battery if there is a potential difference in voltage. In other words the voltage of the DC charger output must be higher than the battery voltage. For Gravity with a 900V battery, charging from a 450V to 500V DC charger will always require voltage boost regardless of how much power the battery can take. The DC to DC boost circuit in the Gravity uses the rear drive Inverter FETs along with the motor windings to boost the voltage. The defective rear drive unit almost certainly is the reason that Tom's Gravity would not charge on the Tesla Supercharger. When charging from a 1000V source like EA, Tom's Gravity charged fine since no DC to DC boost was required.

L1/L2 chargers are AC and also require a voltage boost and conversion to DC. This conversion is done in the Wunderbox and not part of the rear drive unit. I believe that you are correct in that Tom's Gravity would have charged fine on a L2 AC charger.
 
Also in this video, several of you all are famous as Tom showed a few seconds scrolling thru this site! Goes back to understanding our words in here have power and a LOT of people are watching and reading!
 
So, if i am doing long road trips and only getting in the mid 300s, does that mean i have a drive unit issue? Like i should be getting in the 400s, no matter what?
 
Jeffgtx said:
So, if i am doing long road trips and only getting in the mid 300s, does that mean i have a drive unit issue? Like i should be getting in the 400s, no matter what?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. It depends on a lot of things. Do you have a 400+ spec'd Gravity? Do you drive over 70mph? Do you have a lot of weight in it? Is it cool/cold (50 degrees or below)? it all depends.

I think if you take your rated EPA range and put it on highway, you should be getting within about 30-50 miles of it in warmer temps. Move up to 80mph, and you could lose more than 50 miles of that range. Add in cold/headwind/rain/snow and you could well lose 100 miles or more. I think these cars have a great amount of range and fantastic charging speed to suit the vast majority of people's road tripping needs. The 350 range, while not ideal to what Lucid advertises, is shown in Tom's video to be about 4 hours of continuous driving. Yeah, that's more than I'm capable of anymore before bathroom, food or just tiredness takes over. If you have kids, forget about it! You are not getting anywhere near that long before a break is needed.
That said, I would like to see a max range spec get relatively near that 450 (something like 410+ miles at highway speeds) range number, bc that's what Lucid sells it as. If that's possible to do at 70mph, with a a normally functioning Gravity Tom will do it. I also like the NotchEV is also trying to independently verify it as well. We will see...
 
Looking at Gravity's EPA numbers:
• Lose 13 miles just by adding the third row seats:
Remember, EPA ratings do not include passengers/passenger weight. The general rule of thumb is that economy decreases by about 1–2% for every 100 pounds of added weight. So that's like 3%, or about 150 lbs. OK, makes sense.

• Lose 47 miles with wheel/tire change from 20/21 to 21/22:
Probably mostly tires here. The 20/21s are 265/50R20 (Front) / 285/45R21 (Rear) Hankook Ion EVO AS (All Season). Here's TireRack's page on them: https://www.tirerack.com/tires/hankook-ion-evo-as
And here's TireRack's review (Great range, good in snow, iffy wet handling):
Saying:
Not every tire in this test has been specifically built for EVs, but the iON evo AS, from the very composition of its compound to the sound-minimizing patterns molded into its grooves, is dedicated to serving as an electric vehicle tire. It was a bit mixed in practical application on the road, handling big hits well but failing to dampen smaller cracks and undulations, resulting in noticeable up-and-down movement. Noise too, was low volume over smooth surfaces and blended tones nicely, with only minor pitter patter or wind noises muted but noticeable. Even concrete noise only rose to moderate levels with a slightly higher pitch but without any strong resonant sound. The steering was nicely weighted once it was spurred into action, only suffering from some lethargy immediately off-center that made it feel momentarily behind the driver. With 263 Wh/mi, the iON evo AS was handily the most efficient tire tested.

In wet testing, the steering felt lighter, with less weight behind it than on-road, though it remained accurate and precise. Properly separating inputs and not trying to force braking or throttle during turns was important to keep it from drifting away or stepping out, which could be a concern for unprepared drivers during emergency situations. The lower overall traction also required a bit more lead time for braking, leaving little margin for error anywhere. On drier surfaces, most of those issues evaporated along with the water, and the iON evo AS showcased some genuine athleticism and solid braking and was significantly more forgiving.

When it came time for snow testing, the iON evo AS provided a noticeable improvement over most of its competition. The steering response was sharp, requiring little additional intervention to maintain speed through corners. Braking too, was strong and consistent, with confident front-end grip that allowed for precise cornering. Even oversteer under power was actually useful, contributing to forward movement rather than just sliding. Even braking on the ice was handled well, for the category, by the iON evo AS - taking 53 feet to come to a stop, among the top tires in the test.
Click to expand...
The larger 21/22s are: 265/45R21 (Front) / 285/40R22 (Rear) Michelin Primacy Tour A/S (All Season). Here's TireRack's page on them:
Considered "Ultra High All Season Performance"
Here's TireRack's review:
It's been a few years since we last reviewed the Primacy Tour A/S back in 2019, and while it might not have taken the world by storm at that point, we found it to be a decent category option with few weaknesses but little to stand out either. It's time for another look to see how it fits in the tire world of today. The real-world road ride was on the firmer side of the spectrum, which made the larger impacts more noticeable, but it managed to smooth over a good portion of the ride. It did a nice job keeping the volume of noise down, blending tones down to a soft, generic hum on most smooth surfaces, but it did pick up some additional tones when rolling over coarse concrete or chip-and-seal roads. The steering was accurate and light, with a fairly minimal on-center feel.

Putting the Primacy Tour A/S through its paces on a wet track felt very good - helped significantly by some impressive traction. Coming to a straight-line stop in the wet from 60 mph yielded the shortest braking distances in the test. The steering was responsive, eager to move and follow commands, with enough traction to take full advantage of it without understeering or wandering into unpredictability. The steering felt just as good once the track dried off, crisp and reactive, almost performance-esque, which was a bit surprising for this category. The traction fall-off over the limit felt a little more knife-edged and less progressive than some of its peers. It did pass the Emergency Lane Change every time, even if it felt a little close during a couple attempts.

The Primacy Tour A/S was not quite as encouraging during winter testing. It struggled to put power down, requiring careful steering and patience with throttle to avoid pushing wide at corner exit. Ascending the track's hill was difficult, with the car crabbing sideways under throttle. The 180 demanded significant slowing to stay on line. Objectively, it took just over 70 feet to come to a stop from 25 mph in the snow, and was one of the weaker tires in the test. Ice braking was at least reasonable for the group, taking 52 feet to come to a stop from 12 mph.
Click to expand...
So, the Michelins are better in the dry and wet, Hankooks better in the snow.
Both tires good on noise, the Hankooks have that EV range optimizing design.

Makes the decision tough for me. Dry is most important given I live in NorCal, but we have wet winters. We don't do much snow (just a trip or two to Tahoe), so that isn't as important.
 
illopp00 said:
Lucid also stated that the vehicle had about 6 kWh of usable capacity left when it read 0% state of charge, suggesting a potential miscalculation or a large low-end buffer (42:40-43:24).
Click to expand...
6kwh of reserve is not unusual. Teslas have 4.5% of reserve, so this only a little bit more. Lucid Air hits 0% at 482mi in OOS 70mph range test but didn't stop moving until 523mi, that's 8%, more than 6kWh.
 
9point81 said:
I don't think so. It depends on a lot of things. Do you have a 400+ spec'd Gravity? Do you drive over 70mph? Do you have a lot of weight in it? Is it cool/cold (50 degrees or below)? it all depends.
Click to expand...

I have a 437 EPA config. 7 row with smaller tires.
I haven’t been disappointed per se, but i am not getting 400, even on what i would consider 65-70mph trips with little to no elevation change, in moderate temps.

If i should be getting better, i would love to get better.
 
I’m really curious what a 386 mile spec is actually getting. If the 450 mile spec is only achieving 77% of what is advertised, would that mean the 386 would only get 298 miles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top