What's new
By:

Will marketing finally make a turn? Ex Hyundai executive hired by Napoli

doubletwist said:
No I'm not.

The EPA test that Lucid uses, while perfectly legal, is wildly inaccurate for how actual Americans actually drive.
Click to expand...
Your beef is with the EPA. There’s no reason for Lucid to discard or caveat the agencies results. Personally I’m not bothered by the issue. But I also haven’t been bestowed with the honor of speaking on behalf of actual Americans.
 
DeaneG said:
Between this thread and the Air UX3 thread, it seems we have a lot of people just waiting for Lucid to fail to meet their expectations. Counting down the days even.

In my experience, this usually means it's time to separate your life from this person or organization and move on. Or if you choose to stay with them, do some serious thinking about your attitude.
Click to expand...
Yes but
Then how can I short LCID
 
Northpointe said:
Your beef is with the EPA. There’s no reason for Lucid to discard or caveat the agencies results. Personally I’m not bothered by the issue. But I also haven’t been bestowed with the honor of speaking on behalf of actual Americans.
Click to expand...
It is a cop-out to call this an EPA problem.

Lucid's "implied" range (based on extrapolation of EPA's tests # on an avg test speed of 48mph) is not consistent with how people consider "range" on a road trip. On both the Air and the Gravity, the user realizable range on US highways is around 20% (or more) less than what Lucid suggests. Other EV manufactures are much more realistic in their interpretation of the EPA tests and inform their perspective buyers.
 
Pragmatic said:
They are accurate. They are just not measuring what you think they are measuring.
Click to expand...
They are consistent, that’s their value. Such as it is
 
BS8899 said:
...Other EV manufactures are much more realistic in their interpretation of the EPA tests and inform their perspective buyers.
Click to expand...
Wow, we've beat this to death.
From Consumer Reports:
1788208393300.webp
 
DeaneG said:
Wow, we've beat this to death.
From Consumer Reports:
View attachment 40849
Click to expand...
Truth in advertiszing.....I suggest the readers go see all the CR data.

Tests were done @70mph.

As a percentage, the 2023 Lucid Touring has one of the largest deviations (actual miles vs claim) of the EVs tested. I'd suspect the deviation is even more so @70+mph. Also, the Touring is one of the better trims on the Lucid line up when it comes to efficiency. My AGT, rated at 516-mile range, never got pass 400 actual miles when driver on the highway (I-10/I-5)/

You will also see that many of the German EVs met or exceed their EPA estimated mileage.

Link below:


https://www.consumerreports.org/car...s-models-that-beat-epa-estimates-a1103288135/
 
doubletwist said:
No I'm not.

The EPA test that Lucid uses, while perfectly legal, is wildly inaccurate for how actual Americans actually drive.

Lucid 100% has the legal right to advertise the EPA range they advertise. I'm not arguing that at all.

But the reality is, that the majority of people look at the efficiency and range advertised, and expect to at least get close to it in the real world, and with the version of the test Lucid uses to tout their incredible efficiency, almost nobody will actually see those numbers.

Other manufacturers have started using the version that gives more realistic numbers.

So if Lucid keeps using these unrealistic numbers in their advertising, we're going to reach a point (if we haven't already) at which every time someone researches Lucid vehicles to compare against others, they are going to see a bunch of reviews that say that the other makes get close to their advertised efficiency in real world driving (eg. Highway) or even exceed it, while Lucid consistently falls far (20%+) short. Most people with charge at home/with daily won't care what the overall range is. The people who drive long distances on highways for road trips (or think they constantly will) and long commute.

I'm merely arguing that Lucid needs to seriously consider whether or not they want to keep using (legal but) inaccurate numbers in their advertising to pretend that they are so much more efficient than anybody else, which I honestly don't think they really are any longer. If they do, I think it will hurt them more in the court of public opinion than they gain by claiming to be.
Click to expand...
I agree here. I think it would be bold and correct to use the 2-cycle EPA for the Cosmo GT so that it actually gets a competitive real world result with the IX3 and EX60 and Model Y instead of doing the R2 thing....

They should focus on range and not try to die on the efficiency hill. It's an important target and engineering parameter, but it's expensive to over-engineer against the competition for something that in the real-world isn't blowing away any of the new competition. Especially Tesla; I believe Lucid will have drivetrain efficiency title with Atlas, but their vehicle system efficiency in the real-world will be lower than Cybercab or Model Y. It's Teslas HVAC and ADAS is much more energy efficient. They have a custom-built ASIC with no redundancy camera only system vs a dual NVDIA and redundant camera, LIDAR, Ultrasonic and Radar system....
 
BS8899 said:
Truth in advertiszing.....I suggest the readers go see all the CR data.

Tests were done @70mph.

As a percentage, the 2023 Lucid Touring has one of the largest deviations (actual miles vs claim) of the EVs tested. I'd suspect the deviation is even more so @70+mph. Also, the Touring is one of the better trims on the Lucid line up when it comes to efficiency. My AGT, rated at 516-mile range, never got pass 400 actual miles when driver on the highway (I-10/I-5)/

You will also see that many of the German EVs met or exceed their EPA estimated mileage.

Link below:


https://www.consumerreports.org/car...s-models-that-beat-epa-estimates-a1103288135/
Click to expand...
CR had a fairly limited number of vehicles listed. But luckily there are quite a few credible sources running EV highway range tests. Aside from a vehicle too new to have 3rd party tests available, it's a bit puzzling to me that someone would be surprised by the highway range of their EV.
 
TahoeMichael said:
CR had a fairly limited number of vehicles listed. But luckily there are quite a few credible sources running EV highway range tests. Aside from a vehicle too new to have 3rd party tests available, it's a bit puzzling to me that someone would be surprised by the highway range of their EV.
Click to expand...
My 2022 AGT is rated at 516 miles range (referencing the EPA tests).

I drive the Phoenix to Sausalito trip many times, 780 miles. I have NEVERgotten more than 400 miles on a full (100%) charge.

Lucid's range is good, but not nearly as good as they claimed. The EPA extrapolation is faulty and unsubstantiated. EPA tests were done on a dynomoeter.

I am NOT debating the Lucid has good range. The point is, it is not 516 miles on US highways! And it is NOT EPA's fault!
 
BS8899 said:
Truth in advertiszing.....I suggest the readers go see all the CR data.
Click to expand...
I was just reacting to your statement that "Other EV manufactures are much more realistic in their interpretation of the EPA tests and inform their perspective buyers."
That's not exactly true, including some of Lucid's most notable competitors.
 
Hmm so difficult
Here test this car
Here’s the results
Publish those results
And now everyone bitches because they get different numbers

Look at my numbers I had a 13% improvement on range by simply driving different.
3.62 over 300 miles vs 3.16 over 15k miles
That’s one, 1, uno charge. 300 miles 81 kw out of 102. Than yields 370 miles on oversized (285&265) 21’s @ 55-60 mph with AC

And if distance rather than efficiency matters then just slap in more batteries like this

iplayerhd.com

#SNL - Julia Louis-Dreyfus Does Commercial For Battery-Operated Mercedes AA Class Car.mp4

iplayerhd.com
 
Last edited:
BS8899 said:
My 2022 AGT is rated at 516 miles range (referencing the EPA tests).

I drive the Phoenix to Sausalito trip many times, 780 miles. I have NEVERgotten more than 400 miles on a full (100%) charge.

Lucid's range is good, but not nearly as good as they claimed. The EPA extrapolation is faulty and unsubstantiated. EPA tests were done on a dynomoeter.

I am NOT debating the Lucid has good range. The point is, it is not 516 miles on US highways! And it is NOT EPA's fault!
Click to expand...
Someone who bought a 2022 Air may well not have had highway range tests to look at, so being surprised is understandable. But I'm not willing to completely absolve the EPA for their roll in designing a test procedure that arguably confuses or misleads consumers.
 
Aka-none said:
Hmm so difficult
Here test this car
Here’s the results
Publish those results
And now everyone bitches because they get different numbers

Look at my numbers I had a 13% improvement on range by simply driving different.
3.62 over 300 miles vs 3.16 over 15k miles
That’s one, 1, uno charge. 300 miles 81 kw out of 102. Than yields 370 miles on oversized (285&265) 21’s @ 55-60 mph with AC

And if distance rather than efficiency matters then just slap in more batteries like this

iplayerhd.com

#SNL - Julia Louis-Dreyfus Does Commercial For Battery-Operated Mercedes AA Class Car.mp4

iplayerhd.com
Click to expand...
Imagine the difficulty in manufacturing a car, any car, if you had to be responsive to everyone's individual gripe and perceived shortcoming. I bought my AGT knowing that it had the best range of any large sedan hands down. That hasn't changed. I drive the way I want to drive. Sometimes I get 3.5 kWh and I've also seen numbers north of 4.0. But if I don't achieve a magical range number it's not an existential crisis nor I do I feel compelled to mobilize a truth squad.
 
doubletwist said:
The EPA test that Lucid uses, while perfectly legal, is wildly inaccurate for how actual Americans actually drive.
Click to expand...
This is true for both kinds of EPA testing procedure, across all brands, because all must use one of the two, and neither matches how “actual Americans actually drive.”

doubletwist said:
Other manufacturers have started using the version that gives more realistic numbers.
Click to expand...
It does not give more realistic numbers. It underestimates significantly, because it is similarly flawed. In fact, the 5-cycle EPA test was developed by the EPA specifically to be more accurate than the 2-cycle test. Neither ended up accurate, but it is false to say one is more “realistic” than the other.
 
BS8899 said:
It is a cop-out to call this an EPA problem.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t, and repeating your opinion doesn’t make it more true.

It is simply true that this problem was created by the EPA.

BS8899 said:
Lucid's "implied" range (based on extrapolation of EPA's tests # on an avg test speed of 48mph) is not consistent with how people consider "range" on a road trip. On both the Air and the Gravity, the user realizable range on US highways is around 20% (or more) less than what Lucid suggests. Other EV manufactures are much more realistic in their interpretation of the EPA tests and inform their perspective buyers.
Click to expand...
This is simply wrong. There is no “interpretation.” There are two different tests. Both created by the EPA.

Neither is more “realistic” than the other. Both are inaccurate, as they are estimates based on various sets of assumptions.
 
Aka-none said:
They are consistent, that’s their value. Such as it is
Click to expand...
This is the correct take.

The unfortunate part is that they are inconsistent with each other, and so an informed consumer must do the due diligence of figuring out which testing procedure was used.

Yes, this is dumb. Yes, the EPA should fix this.
 
borski said:
No, it isn’t, and repeating your opinion doesn’t make it more true.

It is simply true that this problem was created by the EPA.


This is simply wrong. There is no “interpretation.” There are two different tests. Both created by the EPA.

Neither is more “realistic” than the other. Both are inaccurate, as they are estimates based on various sets of assumptions.
Click to expand...
Say what you will. Lucid has some of the worse actual range vs "EPA" discrepancies amongst EVs.

Comparing apples-to-apples, 2023 Touring, tested by Car and Driver at highway speed, in this case, 75mph, the results:

"While the Touring's rated range is quite good, we found the actual distance to be more speed dependent than we expected. Despite a stated range of 384 miles, our test car managed just 280 miles in our 75-mph highway test."

Link: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a42804648/2023-lucid-air-touring-by-the-numbers/


You can blame EPA's methdology all day long. But Lucid must know of these discrepancies. I am NOT asking Lucid to rationalize EPA. Informing the buyers of the actual realizable performance should be the right thing to do.
 
LVAGT said:
I mean, at the end of the day, do you believe Napoli can execute as well as RJ or Elon? I'm sorry, I just don't see it, and I hope I'm wrong. More competition is always better for the consumers.

Lucid sends a team of 5 to areas for consumers to test-drive their vehicle; however, their reps really don't know much about their own car they're showing. I just went to a similar R2 event; the rep there does know everything about the R2. It blows my mind how Lucid is run, but with the new CEO, I certainly hope it's gotten better. I've never seen a company so wasteful in my life until Lucid. From car presentations to car services with weeks of rentals.
Click to expand...
Lucid doesn’t need an Elon or RJ, what it needs now is a mature serious well experienced CEO. They just need to control costs while improving customer service. And get the Cosmos out without any issues.
 
doubletwist said:
I agree with all your points except this one. The Lucid EPA ratings are so inaccurate as to be laughable and if everyone keeps touting a range that almost nobody ever gets close to in the real world (esp the West 2/3 of the country where highway speed limits START at 70mph and are usually 75-80mph), then that's going to quickly give most people the impression that Lucid lies about that, why should I believe anything else they claim?
Click to expand...
Blame the EPA cycle……not Lucid. Drive like the EPA cycle in EPA conditions and you will get that range. But, nobody dies that!

Range is very speed dependent. If more so for Lucid, then drive slower if you want range. Or petition the EPA to change their cycle. Lucid is not deceiving anyone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top