2024 Grand Touring changes and release

[momo3605]

Eh, nothing to be embarrassed about. I trust Lucid made these changes for good reason, even if I do wish they had been more transparent about it, and I think the cars still charge acceptably well even after the changes. I do have a fellow GT owner that's local that I could maybe setup a side-by-side comparison with if there's any interest.

It would be great to have more data. I think many people would find it useful. I don’t think I’ve seen a single GT charge curve that shows rates at every 10% checkpoint or something. I would do it for mine, but I have a Touring and it’s already documented by you!

 

[Genghis]

It would be great to have more data. I think many people would find it useful. I don’t think I’ve seen a single GT charge curve that shows rates at every 10% checkpoint or something. I would do it for mine, but I have a Touring and it’s already documented by you!

Thread 'Fastest EV Charging Study' https://lucidowners.com/threads/fastest-ev-charging-study.6024/

 

[hydbob]

Fastest charging is kind of useless for the majority of people. The Lucid can go over 300 miles without stopping, or you can go 450 miles with one 10 minute stop. What's the big deal? It's just a dick measuring contest, do you think normal consumers are trying to optimize charge times and whatever out of spec or any of these journalists do?

Also, speeds.

 

[LucidPez]

Well if you are going on a road trip, I will say that charging speeds do matter as you will want to be at a stop for not very long and to maximize your time on the road beyond the occasional pit stop/break.

I know some like to spend longer times in breaks but I'd like the flexibility of having a 15-20 minute one versus being forced into a 30-35 minute one only.

 

[momo3605]

Well if you are going on a road trip, I will say that charging speeds do matter as you will want to be at a stop for not very long and to maximize your time on the road beyond the occasional pit stop/break.

I know some like to spend longer times in breaks but I'd like the flexibility of having a 15-20 minute one versus being forced into a 30-35 minute one only.

I think it will be interesting to see if the 2024 GT can charge like the GTP/Dream. That will make 10-80% charging more than 50% faster.

 

[borski]

Since Lucid overstates their range more optimistically that most car manufacturers, it's really not as impressive as it sounds.

They don’t overstate at all. They use the 5-cycle test, which is actually *more expensive* and is the same test Tesla and others use. The German and Korean manufacturers use the cheaper 2-cycle test. Both are valid and defined by the EPA (and recently changed, lowering the range slightly), and nobody is “overstating” range. It’s just how the test defines it.

Technically they shouldn't since they have different batteries. I haven't seen any posts claiming this either. In fact every DC fast charge post i've seen in this forum is along the lines of "why does my lucid air gt drop down to 100kw charging rate so quickly??" lol

In fact the link posted above from insideev says the Lucid Air gains a "rated" 200 miles or 40% in 20 minutes. This is much slower than the Dream. Which will do 55% in 20 minutes

There is minimal difference in the charging curve between the GT and DE. I have used both (GT loaners) and they charge roughly just as fast as the DE. I also don’t care, because both charge insanely fast.

The reason there is a difference has solely to do with the 112kWh vs 118kWh packs. The DE has a slightly higher voltage as a result, causing it to charge slightly faster.

I think it's been well-observed that there was a definite weakening of the charging curve due to software updates at least for Touring and likely Pure.

There is not a “weakening of the charging curve.” The Touring and the Pure have smaller batteries. Fewer batteries means lower voltage, which means slower charging. That’s all.

Touring/Pure have 18 packs, each at 42V.
18 x 42V = 756V

GT/DE/Sapphire have 22 packs, each at 42V.
22 x 42V = 924V

I highly recommend watching this excellent talk by Peter, as it will clarify a lot of misunderstandings about the battery:

Anecdotally, I think that similar changes are being seen with GT.

Not by much - the battery chemistry is a little different so they have 112kWh vs 118kWh. You shouldn’t see a noticeable difference in charge rate between the GT and DE. Touring and Pure will be slower, yes, due to the lower voltage.

Thanks! Just looked up Edmunds Charging test. Lucid Air GT does quite poorly as suspected. Comes in #18. Great peak but mediocre average

Edmunds EV Charging Test: How fast does each EV charge? | Edmunds

How quickly can an EV put range back into its battery during charging? Edmunds performs its real-world testing to find out.

www.edmunds.com

The Edmunds test was not well conducted. “Miles per hour” is a nonsense metric, as how “miles” are defined varies wildly.

Electric car chargers are rated in Kilowatts. Measuring them in miles per hour would not be accurate because the EV’s energy efficiency would have to be taken into account, and that would vary depending on the EV. For example, a Porsche Taycan Turbo gets 201 miles of range, and a Tesla Model S 100D gets 373 miles of range, yet both vehicles have roughly the same size battery. If a charger can fill each battery in 1 hour, the Porsche is being charged at an average rate of 201 miles per hour, and the Tesla is being charged at an average rate of 373 miles per hour. But the Tesla isn’t *actually* charging any faster.

 

[Shane_SLC]

They don’t overstate at all. They use the 5-cycle test, which is actually *more expensive* and is the same test Tesla and others use. The German and Korean manufacturers use the cheaper 2-cycle test. Both are valid and defined by the EPA (and recently changed, lowering the range slightly), and nobody is “overstating” range. It’s just how the test defines it.


There is minimal difference in the charging curve between the GT and DE. I have used both (GT loaners) and they charge roughly just as fast as the DE. I also don’t care, because both charge insanely fast.

The reason there is a difference has solely to do with the 112kWh vs 118kWh packs. The DE has a slightly higher voltage as a result, causing it to charge slightly faster.


There is not a “weakening of the charging curve.” The Touring and the Pure have smaller batteries. Fewer batteries means lower voltage, which means slower charging. That’s all.

Touring/Pure have 18 packs, each at 42V.
18 x 42V = 756V

GT/DE/Sapphire have 22 packs, each at 42V.
22 x 42V = 924V

I highly recommend watching this excellent talk by Peter, as it will clarify a lot of misunderstandings about the battery:

Not by much - the battery chemistry is a little different so they have 112kWh vs 118kWh. You shouldn’t see a noticeable difference in charge rate between the GT and DE. Touring and Pure will be slower, yes, due to the lower voltage.


The Edmunds test was not well conducted. “Miles per hour” is a nonsense metric, as how “miles” are defined varies wildly.

Electric car chargers are rated in Kilowatts. Measuring them in miles per hour would not be accurate because the EV’s energy efficiency would have to be taken into account, and that would vary depending on the EV. For example, a Porsche Taycan Turbo gets 201 miles of range, and a Tesla Model S 100D gets 373 miles of range, yet both vehicles have roughly the same size battery. If a charger can fill each battery in 1 hour, the Porsche is being charged at an average rate of 201 miles per hour, and the Tesla is being charged at an average rate of 373 miles per hour. But the Tesla isn’t *actually* charging any faster.

Perhaps weakening of the curve wasn't the best choice of words. Also, thank you for adding the extra information and context. However, I have documented evidence that at least the peak charging speed of my car is lower now than when I first took delivery. Does this affect the curve or total time spent charging significantly? Not likely, but I've wanted to document that and show that there was a change to hopefully better understand why. Not so I can feel justified to complain about it, but because I'm interested in the nerdy details. I'm well aware of the physical differences in the battery packs, and I understand why my Touring physically cannot charge as quickly as a DE or GT. I'm just interested to see how the charging curves compare to each other just for the sake of comparison, and to see if or how the curve has changed over time. That's all.

 

[borski]

Perhaps weakening of the curve wasn't the best choice of words. Also, thank you for adding the extra information and context. However, I have documented evidence that at least the peak charging speed of my car is lower now than when I first took delivery. Does this affect the curve or total time spent charging significantly? Not likely, but I've wanted to document that and show that there was a change to hopefully better understand why. Not so I can feel justified to complain about it, but because I'm interested in the nerdy details. I'm well aware of the physical differences in the battery packs, and I understand why my Touring physically cannot charge as quickly as a DE or GT. I'm just interested to see how the charging curves compare to each other just for the sake of comparison, and to see if or how the curve has changed over time. That's all.

Sure, and all of that is valid!

The thing to be careful with is external factors - it is entirely possible that the very same EA chargers are also just slower now, because they got derated for whatever reason.

I’m not saying you’re wrong! I’m just saying there are other potential factors to take into account. A *real* test would mean doing it back to back at a known constantly fully powered charger, which is very hard to find.

 

[LucidPez]

And this is why I used borski's referral code lol

 

[momo3605]

The Edmunds test was not well conducted. “Miles per hour” is a nonsense metric, as how “miles” are defined varies wildly.

Electric car chargers are rated in Kilowatts. Measuring them in miles per hour would not be accurate because the EV’s energy efficiency would have to be taken into account, and that would vary depending on the EV. For example, a Porsche Taycan Turbo gets 201 miles of range, and a Tesla Model S 100D gets 373 miles of range, yet both vehicles have roughly the same size battery. If a charger can fill each battery in 1 hour, the Porsche is being charged at an average rate of 201 miles per hour, and the Tesla is being charged at an average rate of 373 miles per hour. But the Tesla isn’t *actually* charging any faster.

Ok this is wrong. The Edmund’s test is actually the best one. They’ve calculated kw as well as miles per hour based on actual real world 70mph tested range. It’s not accurate to say the Taycan gets 200 miles on a 100kwh battery and a model s gets 370 miles on a 100kwh battery.

Taycan range tests show they get 300 miles and Model S get ~340-350 on their respective batteries. The lucid air GT gets optimistically about 400 on its 120kwh battery in equivalent driving.

So use tested range to determine efficiency, not epa range. If you use epa range you make the wildly optimistic lucid GT and Touring look amazing when in fact, it average and mid pack.

 

[momo3605]

There is minimal difference in the charging curve between the GT and DE. I have used both (GT loaners) and they charge roughly just as fast as the DE. I also don’t care, because both charge insanely fast.

And please give proof of this. It’s not true. The dream takes 48 minutes to charge to 90% and the GT takes 80 minutes. And this is per actual press. I’d love to see a forum member post their actual charge curve ABOVE 30%

 

[xponents]

Ok this is wrong. The Edmund’s test is actually the best one. They’ve calculated kw as well as miles per hour based on actual real world 70mph tested range. It’s not accurate to say the Taycan gets 200 miles on a 100kwh battery and a model s gets 370 miles on a 100kwh battery.

Taycan range tests show they get 300 miles and Model S get ~340-350 on their respective batteries. The lucid air GT gets optimistically about 400 on its 120kwh battery in equivalent driving.

So use tested range to determine efficiency, not epa range. If you use epa range you make the wildly optimistic lucid GT and Touring look amazing when in fact, it average and mid pack.

Well first of all, I'd say those optimistic range estimates are wrong. If a LR model s can get 350 miles, then a GT WILL get 450+ with equivalent driving styles. Tesla exaggerates EVEN MORE with their range, after all...

Also, the 5 cycle epa test is more expensive and is meant to be more realistic by the epa(which has been exacerbated with the 24 model year changes). Yes, the 2 cycle(or was it three? somebody can correct me) gets more range than tested(even then, not in all cases, porsche actually took a voluntary reduction), however just because it does that doesnt mean the 2 cycle range is the most representative of real range. The 5 cycle is meant to be pretty close if you follow speed limits, and generally is here in the NE. Maybe it is different for you guys though in the land of "this product contains chemicals known to cause cancer in the state of california"

And please give proof of this. It’s not true. The dream takes 48 minutes to charge to 90% and the GT takes 80 minutes. And this is per actual press. I’d love to see a forum member post their actual charge curve ABOVE 30%

That was because Tesla paid edmunds after that DE test no but seriously, after the first de did good in range and charging for edmunds, the new trims started getting shit results and reviews!

 

[momo3605]

Well first of all, I'd say those optimistic range estimates are wrong. If a LR model s can get 350 miles, then a GT WILL get 450+ with equivalent driving styles. Tesla exaggerates EVEN MORE with their range, after all...

No…with the same driving patterns model s does 350 and GT does 400.

That was because Tesla paid edmunds after that DE test no but seriously, after the first de did good in range and charging for edmunds, the new trims started getting shit results and reviews!

Not sure what your point is. The 48 vs 80 minutes comparison was never posted on Edmunds. Dream was tested by Stare of Charge on YouTube and the GT was tested by car and driver for 0-90%

 

[LucidPez]

No…with the same driving patterns model s does 350 and GT does 400.


Not sure what your point is. The 48 vs 80 minutes comparison was never posted on Edmunds. Dream was tested by Stare of Charge on YouTube and the GT was tested by car and driver for 0-90%

I have a feeling we will never see consistent testing unless one group tests a Lucid DE and GT as opposed to different outlets. Each area/temp/charger will be inconsistent in a way. I'm just shocked OutofSpec never did a charging test themselves from 0%. They had a GT for months as Kyle's dad had one but I know that was during the wave of Signet surge issues and that forced/prompted them to sell it.

 

[borski]

Ok this is wrong. The Edmund’s test is actually the best one. They’ve calculated kw as well as miles per hour based on actual real world 70mph tested range. It’s not accurate to say the Taycan gets 200 miles on a 100kwh battery and a model s gets 370 miles on a 100kwh battery.

Taycan range tests show they get 300 miles and Model S get ~340-350 on their respective batteries. The lucid air GT gets optimistically about 400 on its 120kwh battery in equivalent driving.

112kWh battery, firstly, and no. For example, @Bobby just drove Casa Grande to San Diego and at his efficiency got close to 450 mi or so.

Even Edmunds’ test found 438mi. In the DE, they got 505mi, so something changed significantly between their tests. My guess? Weather.

So use tested range to determine efficiency, not epa range. If you use epa range you make the wildly optimistic lucid GT and Touring look amazing when in fact, it average and mid pack.

Fine, fair point, but only because the testing cycles are different - between Porsche and Lucid, for example.

Thing is, though, it’s still not mid-pack. It’s very hard to control all the factors, especially when charging at public charging stations, which is where all these tests were done.

But comparing Tesla to Lucid, it makes no difference, as they use the same EPA test.

Also, all of this implies that Edmunds did the correct thing to charge. For example, did they precondition? Was the weather the same? Was it the same charger? Was it back to back or months apart? Was the charger derated?

And please give proof of this. It’s not true. The dream takes 48 minutes to charge to 90% and the GT takes 80 minutes. And this is per actual press. I’d love to see a forum member post their actual charge curve ABOVE 30%

If my car is in service again, sure. But press or not, this is what I have personally seen, empirically.

And, again, see above about controlling confounding factors which is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Chargers get derated all the time.

 

[borski]

I have a feeling we will never see consistent testing unless one group tests a Lucid DE and GT as opposed to different outlets. Each area/temp/charger will be inconsistent in a way. I'm just shocked OutofSpec never did a charging test themselves from 0%. They had a GT for months as Kyle's dad had one but I know that was during the wave of Signet surge issues and that forced/prompted them to sell it.

Precisely.

 

[Bus Driver]

And please give proof of this. It’s not true. The dream takes 48 minutes to charge to 90% and the GT takes 80 minutes. And this is per actual press. I’d love to see a forum member post their actual charge curve ABOVE 30%

My evidence is anecdotal. A few months ago, while on a road trip, I pulled up to an EA 150 kWh charging stall, with my battery at 4% state of charge. I won’t bore you with all the details of why I allowed it to get that low in the first place. Upon the start of charging at such a low level the charger was putting out 174 kWh. I don’t know how long it stayed at that level since I walked away very soon after charging started. It took 42 minutes to get to 90%. Or was it 47 minutes… In any case, it didn’t take me anywhere near 80 minutes to get to 90%.

As a matter of principle I don’t bother with 350 kWh chargers anymore. I haven’t had good luck with any of them. Derated, noncommunicative, non-operational, buggered up, whatever. I can’t be bothered dealing with them anymore, so I stick with 150 kWh stalls.

Air GT.

 

[momo3605]

I have a feeling we will never see consistent testing unless one group tests a Lucid DE and GT as opposed to different outlets. Each area/temp/charger will be inconsistent in a way. I'm just shocked OutofSpec never did a charging test themselves from 0%. They had a GT for months as Kyle's dad had one but I know that was during the wave of Signet surge issues and that forced/prompted them to sell it.

I don’t think it’s necessary. Both car and driver and Edmunds and that independent test showed they got peak charge rate of 270kw. That means none of them were at derated stalls.

 

[Bobby]

Ok this is wrong. The Edmund’s test is actually the best one. They’ve calculated kw as well as miles per hour based on actual real world 70mph tested range. It’s not accurate to say the Taycan gets 200 miles on a 100kwh battery and a model s gets 370 miles on a 100kwh battery.

Taycan range tests show they get 300 miles and Model S get ~340-350 on their respective batteries. The lucid air GT gets optimistically about 400 on its 120kwh battery in equivalent driving.

So use tested range to determine efficiency, not epa range. If you use epa range you make the wildly optimistic lucid GT and Touring look amazing when in fact, it average and mid pack.

I just did a 350 mile drive today and got 3.9 miles/ kWh efficiency… That is very close to EPA. And the trip included a 4200 foot climb. Video upcoming.

 

[Shane_SLC]

I just did a 350 mile drive today and got 3.9 miles/ kWh efficiency… That is very close to EPA. And the trip included a 4200 foot climb. Video upcoming.

But you can only be that efficient by driving responsibly at reasonable speeds. If I'm not going 20+ over the limit in Sprint mode, am I really even driving?