What's new
By:

Anyone here have a Gravity Touring? (not the GT)

mfdutra said:
I think it's a shame they don't mention the difference in efficiency. It seems like people only care about range, even if it's by brute force, like GM does with the Escalade. The GT is a lot heavier, hence less energy efficient, and that's not mentioned anywhere.

With electricity rates only getting higher and higher, that matters more than it used to.
Click to expand...

Gravity Grand Touring123 kWh pack (usable similar) edmunds+1Up to 450 miles EPA estimate (2‑row GT) lucidmotors+2≈3.6 mi/kWh from EPA cycle evdances+1
Gravity Touring89 kWh usable capacity caranddriverUp to 337 EPA miles from 89 kWh pack facebook≈3.8 mi/kWh (337 ÷ 89) caranddriver+1


Perplexity calculation
 
ke2 said:
Here's a comparison of the Grand Touring and the Touring from Lucid's comparator https://lucidmotors.com/compare?vehicles=gravity-grand-touring-2026,gravity-touring-2026. Main differences are the motors and the charging (there's a section halfway down with the differences in charging architecture which are significant)
Click to expand...
Yes but the real world charging differences are basically nil. There are so few 400kw chargers around, and many more Tesla SCs which charge the Touring faster.
 
illopp00 said:
Yes but the real world charging differences are basically nil. There are so few 400kw chargers around, and many more Tesla SCs which charge the Touring faster.
Click to expand...
But there are plenty of 350KW chargers around (at least where I live). Touring maxes out at 300KW
 
mfdutra said:
I think it's a shame they don't mention the difference in efficiency. It seems like people only care about range, even if it's by brute force, like GM does with the Escalade. The GT is a lot heavier, hence less energy efficient, and that's not mentioned anywhere.

With electricity rates only getting higher and higher, that matters more than it used to.
Click to expand...
Mildly less efficient, not significantly. And the range, imho, makes up for it, given the 30% haircut or so for “real world driving”

Add on to that the additional HP, which more than makes up for the added weight, and I don’t see much of a compromise, personally.
 
mfdutra said:
I think it's a shame they don't mention the difference in efficiency. It seems like people only care about range, even if it's by brute force, like GM does with the Escalade. The GT is a lot heavier, hence less energy efficient, and that's not mentioned anywhere.

With electricity rates only getting higher and higher, that matters more than it used to.
Click to expand...
For someone spending in the $100K range, efficiency is usually not a major driving force. Yes they may avoid Hummer due to absurd efficiencies, but will prioritize HP, range and charging speeds over efficiency. Now as you move down to $50K range, buyers will be more efficiency minded.
 
I had the Touring for a day, to test non-DHP handling and loved it. I'd be curious if anyone with DHP notices spring rate adjustments mid-turn? I did the "Mall test", in a GGT DHP and couldn't try curves (4WS and Tri-Chamber, in Sprint).

Range for me, too, is why I would pick a GT. I get that improvements in infrastructure are a serious reason not to, but I have some version of PTSD from triangulating on more than one occasion in an aged Model S. Dropping 100KWh into it, I went from ~70KW and 200mi, to 118-130KW (to 50%) and 260 mi. With Touring @>200KW (SCs&othrs) and ~290(?) real world range, I guess I wouldn't be disappointed. But I gotta go for 38% more battery, when priced [15k/(123-89)]=$441/KWh each. Since dropping in more, fresh KWh, "opportunity charging" or "always be charging" have drastically reduced my time HAVING to stop and charge. The point is, the benefits in charging and range are at each person's margin of travel. Your decision. I still remember CEO Winterhoff commenting an expectation the Touring will outsell the GT. The Touring could be the "smart" buy, while people shop on a memory of how bad things were.
 
while I wanted the GT, $15-20k more was too much for me. Touring has more than enough power and has been great. Extra 100 miles of range on the GT would have been nice but probably not worth the price tag. At least for me
 
mfdutra said:
Are people actually getting anywhere close to 3.6?
Click to expand...
Don't shoot the messenger! :)

The chart does show relative differences. Apples to Apples. Just EPA apples, which rarely taste as good as they're supposed to....
 
jz788 said:
Got my touring a week ago and have 300 miles on it. Currently getting 3.38
Click to expand...
Where are you located ? What’s the temperature around you ?
 
Picked up the Gravity Touring yesterday. Moving from an AGT to that is giving me some range angst but haven driven EVs for 6+ years, I know it will be fine. Also needed to wean myself off the habit of taking off at every red light, though that doesn't get old and the Touring still does that very respectfully.
 
mfdutra said:
I think it's a shame they don't mention the difference in efficiency. It seems like people only care about range, even if it's by brute force, like GM does with the Escalade. The GT is a lot heavier, hence less energy efficient, and that's not mentioned anywhere.

With electricity rates only getting higher and higher, that matters more than it used to.
Click to expand...
Cadillac Lyriq or even the slightly smaller Optiq could be a consideration. Lyriq's been around awhile and everybody I know who has one loves them. My boss before my recent retirement had a Lyriq. Loved it but wound up getting a Macan electric because her dealer pissed her off on the lease return. After two months with the Macan she says she's going back to Lyriq when the Macan lease is done.
 
@jz788 and @mfdutra I'm impatient and couldn't wait 4-6 months to build one and originally wanted a GT fully loaded; however, waited a month or two and no inventory with the config I wanted. Settled for a Touring and picking it up this Friday. You both stated 3.38/3.2 mi/kWh but what wheel configuration do you guys have? I opted for the 22"/23" which drops the EPA from 337 to 301.

I am also located in the Bay Area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top