What's new
By:

Geely efficiency Vs Lucid efficiency

fadooly

fadooly

Active Member

Verified Owner
Joined
Mar 26, 2024
Messages
395
Reaction score
458
Location
Saudi, Dammam
Cars
Lucid Air GT
hi

check this out

their efficiency is 8.5 kwh per 100 km
Lucids Pure RWD best efficiency us 12.5 kwh per 100 km
but this is not the whole story

here is what chatgpt is parsing

MetricLucid AirGeely TT (Thunder 16-in-1)
Vehicle efficiency8.0 km/kWh (Air Pure RWD, EPA)12.2 km/kWh in a Guinness record drive (8.2 kWh/100 km)
Official vehicle efficiency12.5 kWh/100 km10.7 kWh/100 km (CLTC) = 9.35 km/kWh
Drivetrain efficiencyPeak ~95%, over 90% across a broad operating range93.8% CLTC comprehensive efficiency
ArchitectureSeparate high-performance motor, inverter and gearboxHighly integrated 16-in-1 system weighing only 75 kg
Voltage900V+ architecture800V architecture



Important comparison​


The headline 8.2 kWh/100 km (12.2 km/kWh) for the Geely TT is not directly comparable to Lucid's EPA rating.


Why?


  • Lucid's 8.0 km/kWh is an official EPA certification, one of the world's toughest efficiency tests.
  • Geely's 12.2 km/kWh came from a specially conducted Guinness World Record drive around Qinghai Lake under favorable conditions.

The more meaningful comparison is the official ratings:

  • Lucid Air Pure (EPA): 8.0 km/kWh
  • Geely TT (CLTC): 9.35 km/kWh
However, the CLTC cycle is considerably more optimistic than the EPA cycle. In practice, a CLTC value of 9.35 km/kWh would likely translate to a noticeably lower EPA-equivalent figure, making the two vehicles much closer than the raw numbers suggest.


Motor efficiency​

Geely's announcement of 93.8% efficiency refers to the entire integrated electric drive system (motor, inverter, gearbox, electronics, and software) under the CLTC methodology. Lucid's published ~95% peak efficiency refers primarily to the electric motor itself. These are not identical measurements, so they shouldn't be compared as if they were measured the same way.


Bottom line​

Both companies are among the industry leaders in efficiency:
  • Lucid remains the benchmark for EPA-certified real-world efficiency, with an unmatched combination of long range, high speed, and luxury.
  • Geely's new Thunder 16-in-1 system is an impressive engineering achievement. Its high level of integration, low weight, and very low reported energy consumption suggest Geely has significantly narrowed the efficiency gap, but independent EPA- or WLTP-style testing will be needed before making a definitive apples-to-apples comparison.
 
Funny, I have a short commute to work and this morning, I was so excited to get this efficiency that I actually took a picture
(ignore the smudges)
1784807249459.webp



I'm averaging about 4.9 km/kwh on the air GT, so that's about ~535kms year round, with harsh Canadian winters (about 330-335 miles). It's nowhere near EPA, but it's still good. My taycan (4s, battery performance plus, sedan) averaged about 4.3 km/kwh..so the lucid is about 15% more efficient in the real world with 4 seasons. Not great, and nowhere near advertised, but I expected as much based on the comments. It's still fine overall and still an improvement (also faster in a straight line, only slightly worse handling as the second best handling EV, and much much more space/room)
 
I'd like to see Munro tear this down, but I'm not seeing any major innovations in their hardware designs, at least in comparison to Lucid. Their marketing touts better latency in control software which makes me think they're simply dialing up tolerances to achieve these efficiency gains. Which has implications for longevity and reliability.

Guinness record number aside, their "real world" kwh number is pretty close to my best numbers in my AT. Except I've got considerably more power 😅
 
This Youtuber thinks anything that beats Lucid is amazing. Always saying something bad about Lucid except maybe one episode a bit positive about Gravity.
 
How I wish there was a global standardized testing routine so that we have a consistent ISO standard of range and efficiency across the entire world
 
Need4Sleep said:
How I wish there was a global standardized testing routine so that we have a consistent ISO standard of range and efficiency across the entire world
Click to expand...
True, but who is going to be the standard?
 
DeaneG said:
China, if you go by EV manufacturing and ownership numbers.
Click to expand...
Cool, CLTC average speed is 26mi/h. My GT can do 1,000km+
 
Ktw13 said:
True, but who is going to be the standard?
Click to expand...
That's why I said a methodology recognized by the International Standards Organization. I didn't say that the ISO-standard would have to be based on something like the EPA or CLTC
 
fadooly said:
hi

check this out

their efficiency is 8.5 kwh per 100 km
Lucids Pure RWD best efficiency us 12.5 kwh per 100 km
but this is not the whole story

here is what chatgpt is parsing

MetricLucid AirGeely TT (Thunder 16-in-1)
Vehicle efficiency8.0 km/kWh (Air Pure RWD, EPA)12.2 km/kWh in a Guinness record drive (8.2 kWh/100 km)
Official vehicle efficiency12.5 kWh/100 km10.7 kWh/100 km (CLTC) = 9.35 km/kWh
Drivetrain efficiencyPeak ~95%, over 90% across a broad operating range93.8% CLTC comprehensive efficiency
ArchitectureSeparate high-performance motor, inverter and gearboxHighly integrated 16-in-1 system weighing only 75 kg
Voltage900V+ architecture800V architecture



Important comparison​


The headline 8.2 kWh/100 km (12.2 km/kWh) for the Geely TT is not directly comparable to Lucid's EPA rating.


Why?


  • Lucid's 8.0 km/kWh is an official EPA certification, one of the world's toughest efficiency tests.
  • Geely's 12.2 km/kWh came from a specially conducted Guinness World Record drive around Qinghai Lake under favorable conditions.

The more meaningful comparison is the official ratings:

  • Lucid Air Pure (EPA): 8.0 km/kWh
  • Geely TT (CLTC): 9.35 km/kWh
However, the CLTC cycle is considerably more optimistic than the EPA cycle. In practice, a CLTC value of 9.35 km/kWh would likely translate to a noticeably lower EPA-equivalent figure, making the two vehicles much closer than the raw numbers suggest.


Motor efficiency​

Geely's announcement of 93.8% efficiency refers to the entire integrated electric drive system (motor, inverter, gearbox, electronics, and software) under the CLTC methodology. Lucid's published ~95% peak efficiency refers primarily to the electric motor itself. These are not identical measurements, so they shouldn't be compared as if they were measured the same way.


Bottom line​

Both companies are among the industry leaders in efficiency:
  • Lucid remains the benchmark for EPA-certified real-world efficiency, with an unmatched combination of long range, high speed, and luxury.
  • Geely's new Thunder 16-in-1 system is an impressive engineering achievement. Its high level of integration, low weight, and very low reported energy consumption suggest Geely has significantly narrowed the efficiency gap, but independent EPA- or WLTP-style testing will be needed before making a definitive apples-to-apples comparison.
Click to expand...

Lucid Air GT with 110kwh usable battery did 1,205km for Guinness record, thats 10.95km/kwh, beats small Geely.
 
Ktw13 said:
This Youtuber thinks anything that beats Lucid is amazing. Always saying something bad about Lucid except maybe one episode a bit positive about Gravity.
Click to expand...
His videos are garbage. He never actually sees or drives the cars himself just spouts nonsense that is rehashed posts from other sensational reporting. I stopped viewing his content a long time ago.
 
RajD said:
His videos are garbage. He never actually sees or drives the cars himself just spouts nonsense that is rehashed posts from other sensational reporting. I stopped viewing his content a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, he always immediately make a video about Lucid when he reads anything negative about Lucid even it is already proven to be false, a tesla fanboyz channel trying to cover other brand.
 
Truthlesshunter said:
Funny, I have a short commute to work and this morning, I was so excited to get this efficiency that I actually took a picture
(ignore the smudges)
Click to expand...

Like you, I had a short but heavy foot commute this morning, and was equally excited to share this picture. 😆

ShortCommute.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top