Brand new Lucid owner, serious range concerns after first trip 2025 AT

[ppjoshi21]

Lucid should display SOC at arrival instead of miles which is not real.

I think if we are to compare with all EVs against each other we should look at efficiency not just stated EPA miles vs real world miles. We all know Battery sizes differ on each EV. Also segment / size of the car matters. Also I think comparing SUV to Sedan won’t be fair unless we look at efficiency. What kind of miles per kWH are you getting for your EV. And there I think lucid beats all other EVs.

 

[BS8899]

I think you’re missing my point or I’m not expressing it well. Sure you can meet Lucid’s EPA rating, but it’s not easy as you’ll eventually find out. For cars like my BMW and several other German makes, it’s actually quite easy. It’s not just about the fact that the Lucid ‘can’ outdistance other EVs and that becomes very obvious when you’ve been reading posts here for as long as some of us. As an example, my i4 had a stated range far less than my Lucid, but guess what, in actual day to day usage there was far less of a difference between the i4 & the AWD Lucid Pure than it appeared on paper.

It’s not a big deal to me since both my cars provide adequate range, so you won’t find me complaining about this now or in the past. However that doesn’t make this any less of a valid point of contention

I think if we are to compare with all EVs against each other we should look at efficiency not just stated EPA miles vs real world miles. We all know Battery sizes differ on each EV. Also segment / size of the car matters. Also I think comparing SUV to Sedan won’t be fair unless we look at efficiency. What kind of miles per kWH are you getting for your EV. And there I think lucid beats all other EVs.

Here is a survey done by this forum about a year ago. The average range was ~75% of the claimed range. This, of course, comprehends both city and highway driving.

 

[Bobby]

I think you’re missing my point or I’m not expressing it well. Sure you can meet Lucid’s EPA rating, but it’s not easy as you’ll eventually find out. For cars like my BMW and several other German makes, it’s actually quite easy. It’s not just about the fact that the Lucid ‘can’ outdistance other EVs and that becomes very obvious when you’ve been reading posts here for as long as some of us. As an example, my i4 had a stated range far less than my Lucid, but guess what, in actual day to day usage there was far less of a difference between the i4 & the AWD Lucid Pure than it appeared on paper.

It’s not a big deal to me since both my cars provide adequate range, so you won’t find me complaining about this now or in the past. However that doesn’t make this any less of a valid point of contention for many.

The real issue here, in my opinion, is a need for EPA testing to become more realistic and uniform across-the-board. That way, consumers can make more educated decisions.

 

[borski]

Obviously some manufacturers (e.g., the German EVs) took the high-road and used the more conservative 2 cycle, whilst Lucid decided to benchmark against Tesla.

As noted by many, the German manufacturers stayed away from this charade and their vehicles generally met/exceeded their EPA range claims.

Fair point! I don't know why@

Because this isn’t the reason they do it. They do it because it is cheaper to run the 2-cycle test. That’s it. That’s the reason. It is not “taking the high road” or “staying away from this charade.” It is cheaper. That’s it. That’s the reason. Nothing else.

Source: I know the person that makes these decisions at Hyundai/Kia personally. I see absolutely no reason that the German manufacturers would make this choice for any other reason. They are not inherently more honest, and exaggerate plenty of other things all the time; it is cheaper. That’s the reason.

Furthermore, the Lucid is likely to finish behind the Ionque and the Tesla 3, both have significantly lower range and smaller batteries.

I own both an Ioniq 5 and a DE. I can guarantee you, with absolute 100% certainty, that I can drive the Lucid far further and faster than the Ioniq, and it charges faster too.

But, even if that’s not true (which it is), people do not road trip competitively. That is now how people drive. And they don’t try to get it to zero either.

It was a fun drive and set of tests, but not at all reflective of anyone’s real road trip.

Lucid should display SOC at arrival instead of miles which is not real.

The “range on arrival” when you use the nav is actually exceptionally accurate. I have never seen it be incorrect by more than a few miles.

It is the “range” that is shown in the center that is based on EPA. Switch that to %.

 

[ppjoshi21]

The real issue here, in my opinion, is a need for EPA testing to become more realistic and uniform across-the-board. That way, consumers can make more educated decisions.

Totally Agree, there should be one standard. They should publish efficiency numbers.

 

[BS8899]

The real issue here, in my opinion, is a need for EPA testing to become more realistic and uniform across-the-board. That way, consumers can make more educated decisions.

While I agree with you to a point, I question whether squarely placing the blame on the EPA as some of the owners/moderators do is fair.

> part of the recent back-and-forth suggests that "Lucid had no choice but to use the more relaxed interpretation of the efficiency/range tests because that is what Tesla used".

That does not smell leadership to me.

Clearly, Lucid had at least the two EPA test cycles in front of it. It would be hard to convince many of us that Lucid is unaware of the differences. It was suggested by some (without proof) that Lucid picked the one that is "easy" because Telsa did so because it would be "Marketing Malpractice". While this range estimate can be achieved "under some circumstances". Most owners experienced otherwise. That, does not smell like leadership to me.

I spent part of my professional life in creating products that are widely benchmarked by independent labs. I know the game! Actually, I believe Lucid has good efficiency and range., but not the touted EPA numbers and the convoluted rationalization. As I noted in my previous posting, if I drove my "routine" AZ to CA "commute" at the conditions to achieve the Lucid claimed range numbers, it would add ~2 hours to my AZ to LA drive and probably another 2 hours to my LA to Northern CA drive. And no, I don't speed. I drive the posted speed limit. Lucid's claimed range is not achievable when you drive the highway posted speeds.

So, crackdown by EPA is the answer?

 

[Bobby]

While I agree with you to a point, I question whether squarely placing the blame on the EPA as some of the owners/moderators do is fair.

> part of the recent back-and-forth suggests that "Lucid had no choice but to use the more relaxed interpretation of the efficiency/range tests because that is what Tesla used".

That does not smell leadership to me.

Clearly, Lucid had at least the two EPA test cycles in front of it. It would be hard to convince many of us that Lucid is unaware of the differences. It was suggested by some (without proof) that Lucid picked the one that is "easy" because Telsa did so because it would be "Marketing Malpractice". While this range estimate can be achieved "under some circumstances". Most owners experienced otherwise. That, does not smell like leadership to me.

I spent part of my professional life in creating products that are widely benchmarked by independent labs. I know the game! Actually, I believe Lucid has good efficiency and range., but not the touted EPA numbers and the convoluted rationalization. As I noted in my previous posting, if I drove my "routine" AZ to CA "commute" at the conditions to achieve the Lucid claimed range numbers, it would add ~2 hours to my AZ to LA drive and probably another 2 hours to my LA to Northern CA drive. And no, I don't speed. I drive the posted speed limit. Lucid's claimed range is not achievable when you drive the highway posted speeds.

So, crackdown by EPA is the answer?

When I drove at 70 max with no AC from PHX to SD I achieved EPA until the mountains. Once I started going uphill, it dropped.

 

[ppjoshi21]

While I agree with you to a point, I question whether squarely placing the blame on the EPA as some of the owners/moderators do is fair.

> part of the recent back-and-forth suggests that "Lucid had no choice but to use the more relaxed interpretation of the efficiency/range tests because that is what Tesla used".

That does not smell leadership to me.

Clearly, Lucid had at least the two EPA test cycles in front of it. It would be hard to convince many of us that Lucid is unaware of the differences. It was suggested by some (without proof) that Lucid picked the one that is "easy" because Telsa did so because it would be "Marketing Malpractice". While this range estimate can be achieved "under some circumstances". Most owners experienced otherwise. That, does not smell like leadership to me.

I spent part of my professional life in creating products that are widely benchmarked by independent labs. I know the game! Actually, I believe Lucid has good efficiency and range., but not the touted EPA numbers and the convoluted rationalization. As I noted in my previous posting, if I drove my "routine" AZ to CA "commute" at the conditions to achieve the Lucid claimed range numbers, it would add ~2 hours to my AZ to LA drive and probably another 2 hours to my LA to Northern CA drive. And no, I don't speed. I drive the posted speed limit. Lucid's claimed range is not achievable when you drive the highway posted speeds.

So, crackdown by EPA is the answer?

While I agree with you to a point, I question whether squarely placing the blame on the EPA as some of the owners/moderators do is fair.

> part of the recent back-and-forth suggests that "Lucid had no choice but to use the more relaxed interpretation of the efficiency/range tests because that is what Tesla used".

That does not smell leadership to me.

Clearly, Lucid had at least the two EPA test cycles in front of it. It would be hard to convince many of us that Lucid is unaware of the differences. It was suggested by some (without proof) that Lucid picked the one that is "easy" because Telsa did so because it would be "Marketing Malpractice". While this range estimate can be achieved "under some circumstances". Most owners experienced otherwise. That, does not smell like leadership to me.

I spent part of my professional life in creating products that are widely benchmarked by independent labs. I know the game! Actually, I believe Lucid has good efficiency and range., but not the touted EPA numbers and the convoluted rationalization. As I noted in my previous posting, if I drove my "routine" AZ to CA "commute" at the conditions to achieve the Lucid claimed range numbers, it would add ~2 hours to my AZ to LA drive and probably another 2 hours to my LA to Northern CA drive. And no, I don't speed. I drive the posted speed limit. Lucid's claimed range is not achievable when you drive the highway posted speeds.

So, crackdown by EPA is the answer?

Should we blame just Lucid or all others who chose the 5 cycle test for EPA ratings? It’s a choice that the manufacturers have right? I would still want the governing agency define one standard for all.

 

[BS8899]

When I drove at 70 max with no AC from PHX to SD I achieved EPA until the mountains. Once I started going uphill, it dropped.

As you know, Casa Gande is about 1400ft above sea level. As such, it will be friendly to the efficiency.

Again, I am NOT challenging Lucid has good efficiency. What I am reacting to is the rationalization why Lucid chose the EPA test that, together with Tesla, make themselves more favorable than other vehicles.

I agree the EPA should standardize on one test. And I believe Lucid has good range, though not as good as they claim when it comes to real road-tripping.

But I barf at the notion that Lucid "had no choice" because Tesla did so.

 

[borski]

Should we blame just Lucid or all others who chose the 5 cycle test for EPA ratings? It’s a choice that the manufacturers have right? I would still want the governing agency define one standard for all.

This. The source of the problem is the EPA, not Lucid.

If you want to fix the problem, fix it at the source.

I reiterate: I have driven from Cupertino to San Diego on a single charge. I cannot do that, period, in literally any other EV, ever, under any circumstances. This also means, by definition, given the distance, I have achieved EPA or better in my DE. It is very possible. It’s just boring, and I would not choose to do it again unless I had to, because I don’t like driving boring, and I got pretty hungry about halfway through the drive.

 

[BS8899]

This. The source of the problem is the EPA, not Lucid.

If you want to fix the problem, fix it at the source.

I reiterate: I have driven from Cupertino to San Diego on a single charge. I cannot do that, period, in literally any other EV, ever, under any circumstances. This also means, by definition, given the distance, I have achieved EPA or better in my DE. It is very possible. It’s just boring, and I would not choose to do it again unless I had to, because I don’t like driving boring, and I got pretty hungry about halfway through the drive.

That's a cop-out!

 

[hmp10]

It was suggested by some (without proof) that Lucid picked the one that is "easy" because Telsa did so because it would be "Marketing Malpractice".

Who said Lucid picked the easier method? As Borski posted, the 5-cycle protocol that Lucid uses is more complicated and more expensive.

From the time the Lucid Air was first unveiled in 2016, it came with claims that it would be the longest-range EV on the market (400 miles with a 130-kWh battery was the figure they gave at the time). If Lucid hit the market using 2-cycle test results while Tesla was using 5-cycle test results and consequently appeared not to have the range advantage over Tesla to justify its price premium, they would have been dead in the water. If you don't think the Tesla fanboys -- with Elon Musk leading the way -- would not have pounced on Lucid over this, then you haven't been paying attention to all the other pouncing they have done under completely distorted or fabricated pretenses.

Also, while my Air reservation wait got longer and longer, I began to watch what else was coming on the market. The one that most intrigued me at the time was the EQS, in part because the range it was touting seemed a real contender to what Lucid was touting. It took me a while to find out that the EQS was advertising its WLTP range. When I dug into how WLTP ratings compared to EPA ratings, I finally realized why the EQS initially looked like a range contender. Whatever you think of EPA ratings, Mercedes was using a considerably more inaccurate one in its U.S. advertising as long as it could get by with it.

I say it again. It would have been absolute folly for Lucid to take on by itself the mantle of principle (such as it is) and try to educate a buying public five years ago to how the confusing world of government range testing actually works -- a public that even today seems determined to remain willfully ignorant of the technicalities that can result in range variances.

So, crackdown by EPA is the answer?

Yes.

 

[hmp10]

But I barf at the notion that Lucid "had no choice" because Tesla did so.

No one said Lucid had "no choice". There's a difference between no choice and a wise choice.

 

[borski]

That's a cop-out!

… what is?

Also, I think we’re spinning in circles here. Pretty sure we understand your position, and I think you understand mine. We may just have to agree to disagree.

 

[BS8899]

… what is?

Also, I think we’re spinning in circles here. Pretty sure we understand your position, and I think you understand mine. We may just have to agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree.

My philosophy is: if you have the data, act in the best interest of your customers, irrespective of your competition, and don't take loopholes in regulations.

BTW, in my other post you responded, I NEVER said the Ionque has more range than the Lucid. I said the Ionque and the Tesla Model 3 were poised to win against the Lucid on the I90 Surge IN SPITE of their lower range specs. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[borski]

We can agree to disagree.

My philosophy is: if you have the data, act in the best interest of your customers, irrespective of your competition, and don't take loopholes in regulations.

I understand your philosophy.

BTW, in my other post you responded, I NEVER said the Ionque has more range than the Lucid. I said the Ionque and the Tesla Model 3 were poised to win against the Lucid on the I90 Surge IN SPITE of their lower range specs. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth; please don’t accuse me of that, as it definitely wasn’t my goal. We can still be civil and disagree.

What I was trying to say was that the surge was not indicative of actual performance. The car died multiple times, nobody drives competitively like that, etc.

As I own both the Ioniq 5 and the Lucid Air, and have experience with both, I can tell you that I could absolutely go both faster and farther in the Lucid, and the Ioniq would be stuck far behind me in any road trip, cross country or otherwise. The Ioniq sucks at charging; there is yet another recall for the ICCU right now, and it will have attempted to have been fixed eight times now.

The Ioniq 5 is also limited to 48A on any level 2 charger, period. The Air can charge at up to 80A on a Level 2 charger, assuming you can find a charger that will deliver it.

If you plan the road trip, there is zero chance the Ioniq 5 will beat the Air. Unplanned? Sure, anything can happen, especially if you kill the car twice.

But I would also sleep, and possibly charge overnight somewhere, because I have no interest in competitive roadtripping.

And none of this is a dig at @Shane_SLC or the OOS team; they’d be the first to admit that nobody drives that way. And that’s okay; it makes for a fun and engaging event.

 

[Leftlane]

My Model S Plaid was rated for 396 on 19s (which I have), and I can barely get 300 because I drive with zero attention to efficiency.

 

[momo3605]

My Model S Plaid was rated for 396 on 19s (which I have), and I can barely get 300 because I drive with zero attention to efficiency.

Wow that’s great! My Touring is rated at 384, and I get about 270 based on my efficiency. (3 miles per kWh) And that’s trying to be efficient lol. So it appears your plaid is more efficient than my Touring

 

[AP22]

We can agree to disagree.

My philosophy is: if you have the data, act in the best interest of your customers, irrespective of your competition, and don't take loopholes in regulations.

BTW, in my other post you responded, I NEVER said the Ionque has more range than the Lucid. I said the Ionque and the Tesla Model 3 were poised to win against the Lucid on the I90 Surge IN SPITE of their lower range specs. Please don't put words in my mouth.

100%

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

Do I remember correctly that the Cosser took Elon's Tesla roadster and burned it around the airport track 'till it bricked at ~50 miles.

Your range may vary. Point is, if you drive your car such that your range goes down 20% or more on an M5, say 16 mpg vs 20 mpg... and do the same with a 500 mile range EV ... you've lost 100 miles of range just by:

tire pressure too low / wrong tires
it's cold = batteries are like humans and like human temps.
it's windy = headwinds are bad, tail winds are good
it's hilly = uphill is bad, downhill is good.
you drive too fast and / or too jackrabbity < THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

Combine some of these and you can see a significant reduction in displayed range left. Use the displayed kWh/ mile on your trip for more accurate calculations.