Gravity vs BMW iX5

[WildRide47]

So they really though? I'm in a rental ICE BMW right now while my AT is in for service and I've not been terribly impressed with the software reliability.

The wireless charger, if I put my phone on it, pops up with a message every 30 seconds telling me not to put any payment cards on it.

And the speed limit warning dings and pops up as soon as I hit 6mph (yes, 6, not 60) even though I have that feature turned off.

It also reads every single speed limit sign as 10 or 15mph slower than the sign actually is.

So I guess from the standpoint of "it's reliably wrong" you could say it's reliable...

I have a 2022 Lucid AGT. My wife has a 2023 BMW i4M50. My Lucid has been one of the ones that have had relatively few problems. My wife's BMW(coming up on 4 years old) has never been to the dealership because nothing has ever gone wrong and everything works perfectly. It has excellent fit and finish and gets the mileage that is advertised. Both of us are pleased with our choices. I guess it depends on what model you have and how your particular car corresponds to the average of the brand . You may have had problems with your BMW. My wife's BMW has had outstanding reliability. I have heard from others on this board that other BMW i4 owners have had the same results as ours.

 

[gaskiller]

I have a 2022 Lucid AGT. My wife has a 2023 BMW i4M50. My Lucid has been one of the ones that have had relatively few problems. My wife's BMW(coming up on 4 years old) has never been to the dealership because nothing has ever gone wrong and everything works perfectly. It has excellent fit and finish and gets the mileage that is advertised. Both of us are pleased with our choices. I guess it depends on what model you have and how your particular car corresponds to the average of the brand . You may have had problems with your BMW. My wife's BMW has had outstanding reliability. I have heard from others on this board that other BMW i4 owners have had the same results as ours.

Same thing goes with Lucid. Many had exceptional vehicles.

Still, you can’t argue the Lucid EV engineering is much better than BMW.

 

[APSenec]

I have a 2022 Lucid AGT. My wife has a 2023 BMW i4M50. My Lucid has been one of the ones that have had relatively few problems. My wife's BMW(coming up on 4 years old) has never been to the dealership because nothing has ever gone wrong and everything works perfectly. It has excellent fit and finish and gets the mileage that is advertised. Both of us are pleased with our choices. I guess it depends on what model you have and how your particular car corresponds to the average of the brand . You may have had problems with your BMW. My wife's BMW has had outstanding reliability. I have heard from others on this board that other BMW i4 owners have had the same results as ours.

I keep hearing the phrase " XYZ vehicle achieves the claimed milage". Obviously, LUCID has chosen to copy the Tesla model. But if the consumer is just focused on that, it is a pretty easy engineering formula. Pile battery cells into the car and low ball the range. It could not b e more simple engineering. Energy used per mile is understood physics: power train efficiency, rolling resistance, air drag, etc....

 

[TahoeMichael]

I keep hearing the phrase " XYZ vehicle achieves the claimed milage". Obviously, LUCID has chosen to copy the Tesla model. But if the consumer is just focused on that, it is a pretty easy engineering formula. Pile battery cells into the car and low ball the range. It could not b e more simple engineering. Energy used per mile is understood physics: power train efficiency, rolling resistance, air drag, etc....

My impression is that it is a little more complicated than that. You're right about the physics being understood, but manufacturers do have to report a range that complies with the EPA's procedures for calculating it.

 

[exxxviii]

My impression is that it is a little more complicated than that. You're right about the physics being understood, but manufacturers do have to report a range that complies with the EPA's procedures for calculating it.

This is the actual problem with the EPA protocol for electric vehicles. A manufacturer can post any made up range it wants, as long as it is less than the tested range. Several automakers sandbag the range by 20% or more, so it looks better to consumers.

 

[Leftlane]

This is the actual problem with the EPA protocol for electric vehicles. A manufacturer can post any made up range it wants, as long as it is less than the tested range. Several automakers sandbag the range by 20% or more, so it looks better to consumers.

Nobody is disappointed if their new EV goes a lot farther than what they thought they bought. Everyone is disappointed when their new EV goes a lot less than what they thought they bought. Which strategy is smarter?

Makers stating less than what buyers will actually get hurt themselves in marketing a lower number but delight their customers with the actual results. That’s the opposite of Tesla, Lucid etc who trumpet a huge number that no one actually gets.

 

[mfdutra]

Even though the iX5 isn't as good as the Gravity, especially on packaging, that's my next car and I can't wait.

I really like my Gravity when everything is working, but dealing with service (or lack thereof) is becoming unacceptable to me. I'm having window issues (not closing properly) and service can only schedule me 5 weeks away. That's ridiculous, especially at this price level.

I've very rarely needed service on any of my several BMWs, and every time I needed, they took me within days, not several weeks.

 

[APSenec]

Even though the iX5 isn't as good as the Gravity, especially on packaging, that's my next car and I can't wait.

I really like my Gravity when everything is working, but dealing with service (or lack thereof) is becoming unacceptable to me. I'm having window issues (not closing properly) and service can only schedule me 5 weeks away. That's ridiculous, especially at this price level.

I've very rarely needed service on any of my several BMWs, and every time I needed, they took me within days, not several weeks.

The real story is in the statistics. But who really knows that.

BMW's don't appear perfect according to google.

 

[mfdutra]

BMW's don't appear perfect according to google.

That's the whole point! And that's why reliable access to service is crucial.

 

[exxxviii]

An iX5 versus Gravity comparison is really just an early proxy for an iX7 versus Gravity coming late next year. From a luxury standpoint, the current X7 is crazy nice, so its next generation electric alongside a then 3-year old Gravity will be the center ring matchup. The Gravity will almost certainly be quicker, way better packaged (storage galore), and probably handle better. But the iX7 will probably win the luxury appearance and experience. I am curious if BMW will up the iX7 performance to be closer to the Gravity?

 

[gaskiller]

An iX5 versus Gravity comparison is really just an early proxy for an iX7 versus Gravity coming late next year. From a luxury standpoint, the current X7 is crazy nice, so its next generation electric alongside a then 3-year old Gravity will be the center ring matchup. The Gravity will almost certainly be quicker, way better packaged (storage galore), and probably handle better. But the iX7 will probably win the luxury appearance and experience. I am curious if BMW will up the iX7 performance to be closer to the Gravity?

It will be much heavier. That goes against performance.

 

[illopp00]

It will be much heavier. That goes against performance.

Yeah it will probably have Escalade IQ style battery to get the mega range...

 

[Random715]

I have a BMW iX and a Lucid Air, the air is way more fun to drive, but the BMW handles the little things way better. For example, I can reset the infotainment while driving and it doesn’t remove the critical information. Digital key and the BMW fob are also substantially better compared to what lucid offers. Granted I don’t have UX 3.0 in my air, but the BMW software feels production ready where lucids has felt like a beta test.

Overall I prefer my Air, but my BMW gives me a lot less anxiety about something going wrong and being stuck

 

[Saksak]

[..] A manufacturer can post any made up range it wants, as long as it is less than the tested range. Several automakers sandbag the range by 20% or more, so it looks better to consumers.

Automakers cannot make up numbers. There are two EPA standards and neither of them reflect pure highway. See posts:

• threads/gravity-efficiency-is-low-for-me.16249
• threads/will-marketing-finally-make-a-turn-ex-hyundai-executive-hired-by-napoli.16772

And there are many more.

 

[exxxviii]

It will be much heavier. That goes against performance.

Yeah it will probably have Escalade IQ style battery to get the mega range...

Yes, BMW makes extraordinarily heavy cars, even gas and regardless of battery size.

 

[exxxviii]

Automakers cannot make up numbers. There are two EPA standards and neither of them reflect pure highway. See posts:

Yes, they absolutely can and do. Your posts only cover half the problem, that the EPA protocol is based on a 38 MPH mostly city driving. This is peak efficiency for a BEV. The other half you may not know is that after the automakers conduct the tests that follow the protocol, the automaker can arbitrarily de-rate their numbers. This is fully allowed by the EPA standards. So the result is that the test is doubly-meaningless for consumers.

Car and Driver did an excellent story on the process, and how this all works.

 

[Saksak]

Yes, they absolutely can and do. Your posts only cover half the problem, that the EPA protocol is based on a 38 MPH mostly city driving. This is peak efficiency for a BEV. The other half you may not know is that after the automakers conduct the tests that follow the protocol, the automaker can arbitrarily de-rate their numbers. This is fully allowed by the EPA standards. So the result is that the test is doubly-meaningless for consumers.

Car and Driver did an excellent story on the process, and how this all works.

I agree that there is a derate applied to the “2-cycle” (legacy) test, typically 0.7, as described in the EPA’s web site. However, manufacturers cannot arbitrarily come up with a derate. It’s strictly regulated under Title 40/Chapter I/Subchapter Q/Part 600/Subpart C/600.210-12 (look for 0.7). Manufactures can petition for a different number by supplying data, but they cannot arbitrarily select a number to make their EPA range look better. They can make it worse, but would any manufacturer do that?

Lucid uses the "5-cycle" (modern) test, along with Rivian and Tesla. In this case, there are exact formulas that must be followed. No one is allowed to "arbitrarily" select a number they want (except to publish numbers worse than testing that is reported to the EPA).

Bottom line: The EPA range number is city+highway. It does not represent pure highway driving, so stop expecting pure highway driving at 75 mph to match the EPA city+highway number. Apples and oranges. When those numbers don't match, no company is "lying" or distorting their numbers. We want pure highway range, but there is no EPA standard for that test, so we must rely on independent user tests.

Youtubers have done us a disservice setting expectations that pure highway should match EPA city+highway. They should just state: "This is EPA city+highway, and here is what we get for pure highway." ICE cars used to have separate City and Highway numbers; EV's need the same. Petition the EPA.

I'm looking forward to independent tests of the BMW iX5 (144 kWh usable) pure highway numbers to compare against the Gravity (117 kWh usable).

 

[doubletwist]

They can make it worse, but would any manufacturer do that?

This is exactly the thing we're taking about!!!

They would do it because they know that for 99% of actual owners, the real world range is NEVER going to match what the test shows. So they derate the final value so that when buyers and reviewers get in a real production car and drive it, they see a real world range that matches, if not beats, the advertised EPA range.

This results in a positive emotional reaction to the buyer, making them trust the carmaker more in general.

When they don't, you end up with what Lucid has, everybody who tests the car gets 20+ percent less range, which comes across to potential buyers as a lie (whether it legally is or not DOESN'T MATTER in the court of public opinion!) and thus they have a negative first impression of the car and carmaker.

 

[FirstLucidFL]

I agree that there is a derate applied to the “2-cycle” (legacy) test, typically 0.7, as described in the EPA’s web site. However, manufacturers cannot arbitrarily come up with a derate. It’s strictly regulated under Title 40/Chapter I/Subchapter Q/Part 600/Subpart C/600.210-12 (look for 0.7). Manufactures can petition for a different number by supplying data, but they cannot arbitrarily select a number to make their EPA range look better. They can make it worse, but would any manufacturer do that?

Lucid uses the "5-cycle" (modern) test, along with Rivian and Tesla. In this case, there are exact formulas that must be followed. No one is allowed to "arbitrarily" select a number they want (except to publish numbers worse than testing that is reported to the EPA).

Bottom line: The EPA range number is city+highway. It does not represent pure highway driving, so stop expecting pure highway driving at 75 mph to match the EPA city+highway number. Apples and oranges. When those numbers don't match, no company is "lying" or distorting their numbers. We want pure highway range, but there is no EPA standard for that test, so we must rely on independent user tests.

Youtubers have done us a disservice setting expectations that pure highway should match EPA city+highway. They should just state: "This is EPA city+highway, and here is what we get for pure highway." ICE cars used to have separate City and Highway numbers; EV's need the same. Petition the EPA.

You’re conflating an EPA 5-cycle-equivalent label value with physically running all five cycles. 40 CFR §600.210-12(d)(3) explicitly gives EV manufacturers multiple permitted methods: actual 5-cycle testing, 2-cycle testing with the 0.7 adjustment, or an EPA-approved manufacturer-specific adjustment based on in-use data. So no, manufacturers can’t arbitrarily invent a number, but they don’t all necessarily use the same test pathway. And none of those EPA procedures is equivalent to a constant 70-mph highway-range test, which is why different vehicles can achieve dramatically different percentages of their EPA rating in independent highway testing.
That’s why in one of the OOS videos, the Rivian R2 Performance went roughly 255 miles at 70 mph when it’s rated for 330 EPA and the Tesla Model Y Performance went roughly 310 miles at 70 mph when it’s rated for 303 EPA. Rivian chose different cycles to get to 330.

 

[exxxviii]

This is exactly the thing we're taking about!!!

They can make it worse, but would any manufacturer do that?

So no, manufacturers can’t arbitrarily invent a number

Because it is a poor brand experience when customers have range that is lower than EPA range and efficiency. It is a marketing strategy. It never occurred to you that some cars meet or exceed their EPA rating at 65 MPH or 70 MPH. That is impossible, unless the EPA range and efficiency are derated.

This has nothing to do with 2-cycle and 5-cycle.

Car and Driver walk through the EPA protocol and compared a Taycan and Tesla IIRC. They contrast the two different methods. But they also illustrate and explain how Porsche voluntarily de-rates their range while Tesla does not. That is allowed in the EPA protocol. It is a “voluntary reduction factor” separate from the EPA andjustment factor dictated by the two different cycle tests.

They can absolutely arbitrarily invent a number, as long as it is lower than the outcome of whatever cycle they used.