What's new
By:

Dynamic Efficiency

D

Disco Marathon

Active Member

Verified Owner
Joined
Feb 12, 2022
Messages
162
Reaction score
179
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Cars
Gravity GT
What kind of efficiency are folks seeing? I’ve been unable to get more than 3.25 and when I drive with a lead foot it goes down to 3.0. To get 450 miles of range, efficiency needs to be 3.65, right? Has anyone gotten close?
 
Disco Marathon said:
What kind of efficiency are folks seeing? I’ve been unable to get more than 3.25 and when I drive with a lead foot it goes down to 3.0. To get 450 miles of range, efficiency needs to be 3.65, right? Has anyone gotten close?
Click to expand...
3.0 is my best so far. if drive heavy around the neighborhood its like 2.6
 
Disco Marathon said:
What kind of efficiency are folks seeing? I’ve been unable to get more than 3.25 and when I drive with a lead foot it goes down to 3.0. To get 450 miles of range, efficiency needs to be 3.65, right? Has anyone gotten close?
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3122.webp
    IMG_3122.webp
    437.9 KB · Views: 232
i suspect Lucid is going to be more like tesla.. very high EPA labels but struggles to get close to it in the real world.. opposite of Porsche. The taycan has a low label but exceeds in real world driving. My friend has a new taycan 4s and he gets 330-340 even though he is rated at 290 i believe.
 
bmincey said:
i suspect Lucid is going to be more like tesla.. very high EPA labels but struggles to get close to it in the real world.. opposite of Porsche. The taycan has a low label but exceeds in real world driving. My friend has a new taycan 4s and he gets 330-340 even though he is rated at 290 i believe.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...I know the Taycan is avail w/ two different battery sizes. We found this out the hard way when my wife's Taycan was in the shop and they gave us a loaner with the smaller battery (no one told us of course) and we proceeded to road trip up to Humboldt with it and were shocked at the reduced range; it made for a lot more charging stops than we planned!!
 
bmincey said:
i suspect Lucid is going to be more like tesla.. very high EPA labels but struggles to get close to it in the real world.. opposite of Porsche. The taycan has a low label but exceeds in real world driving. My friend has a new taycan 4s and he gets 330-340 even though he is rated at 290 i believe.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

Putting the Gravity aside (since it is new, and still needs to gather much more data to ascertain its actual efficiency/range), Tesla's cars and the Lucid Air's mi/kWh, and consequently range, show significantly (negative) larger deviations (20-35%) from the inferred range based on the EPA tests, which the manufacturer use in their ad's. In contrast, most of the Germany EVs' ranges/ efficiencies come in at/better-than their EPA numbers.

I don't want to repeat the many debates we already had in this forum.

In short:
  1. the realizable range/efficiency for the Lucid Air is about 75-80% of the manufacturer's claims (based on EPA). Yes, some of the later models (2025+ Air-Pure/lighter, more efficient power-train) might do a little better. Some of this discrepancies can be explained in the way "real-life" numbers are different because EPA tests are done on dynamometers (no air resistance effect). The EPA numbers also involve adjustment coefficients submitted by the car manufacturers to the EPA (fudge-factors), etc..
  2. Some of the 3rd-party range test claims (e.g., OoS) are done at high elevations (5,000+ft). Achievable range at high elevation might be exaggerated due to the lower air resistance (thinner air). Only 1% of US population resides in areas 5,000ft above sea-level! Note, a recent SoC Gravity range test (in NJ, near sea-level) shows significantly lower efficiency and range (than Lucid's claims/EPF-inferred) on the Gravity.
  3. German EVs consistently meet/exceed their EPA range/efficiency numbers. Some US EVs (e.g., my 2023 Rivian R1S) come in very-close-to or slightly better than their EPA claims.

All of these points have been EXHAUSATIVELY debated in this Forum. You can go dig up all this info when you have a sleepless-night and draw your own conclusions.
 
BS8899 said:
Exactly!

Putting the Gravity aside (since it is new, and still needs to gather much more data to ascertain its actual efficiency/range), Tesla's cars and the Lucid Air's mi/kWh, and consequently range, show significantly (negative) larger deviations (20-35%) from the inferred range based on the EPA tests, which the manufacturer use in their ad's. In contrast, most of the Germany EVs' ranges/ efficiencies come in at/better-than their EPA numbers.

I don't want to repeat the many debates we already had in this forum.

In short:
  1. the realizable range/efficiency for the Lucid Air is about 75-80% of the manufacturer's claims (based on EPA). Yes, some of the later models (2025+ Air-Pure/lighter, more efficient power-train) might do a little better. Some of this discrepancies can be explained in the way "real-life" numbers are different because EPA tests are done on dynamometers (no air resistance effect). The EPA numbers also involve adjustment coefficients submitted by the car manufacturers to the EPA (fudge-factors), etc..
  2. Some of the 3rd-party range test claims (e.g., OoS) are done at high elevations (5,000+ft). Achievable range at high elevation might be exaggerated due to the lower air resistance (thinner air). Only 1% of US population resides in areas 5,000ft above sea-level! Note, a recent SoC Gravity range test (in NJ, near sea-level) shows significantly lower efficiency and range (than Lucid's claims/EPF-inferred) on the Gravity.
  3. German EVs consistently meet/exceed their EPA range/efficiency numbers. Some US EVs (e.g., my 2023 Rivian R1S) come in very-close-to or slightly better than their EPA claims.

All of these points have been EXHAUSATIVELY debated in this Forum. You can go dig up all this info when you have a sleepless-night and draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
Only comment is my 2023 quad R1S is always 20%+ below the EPA rated range. I would lump them with Tesla.
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
Only comment is my 2023 quad R1S is always 20%+ below the EPA rated range. I would lump them with Tesla.
Click to expand...
Maybe our R1S experience difference is that mysterious:

  • I have a 2023 R1S, with a "large Pack" (note, not the "Max Pack"). My R1S has quad (Bosch) motors. When I am cruising on the interstates (I-10/I-5), I drive at the speed limit (70mph in CA), and I put my Quad R1S in "Conserve Mode" (i.e., FWD). This gives me about 7-8% better mileage.
  • Now, if YOU drove @ 5mph faster than I (i.e., 75mph in CA I-5), you would have been ~14% less efficient than I.
  • These two "small differences" together will give you that 20-25% difference in range between your experience and mine on our respective R1S Rivians.
Now, true-confession time:
  • Did you have a Quad R1S and, if you did, did you drive in "Conserve Mode"?
  • Did you drive at 5mph or more above the speed limit?
;)
 
BS8899 said:
Exactly!

Putting the Gravity aside (since it is new, and still needs to gather much more data to ascertain its actual efficiency/range), Tesla's cars and the Lucid Air's mi/kWh, and consequently range, show significantly (negative) larger deviations (20-35%) from the inferred range based on the EPA tests, which the manufacturer use in their ad's. In contrast, most of the Germany EVs' ranges/ efficiencies come in at/better-than their EPA numbers.

I don't want to repeat the many debates we already had in this forum.

In short:
  1. the realizable range/efficiency for the Lucid Air is about 75-80% of the manufacturer's claims (based on EPA). Yes, some of the later models (2025+ Air-Pure/lighter, more efficient power-train) might do a little better. Some of this discrepancies can be explained in the way "real-life" numbers are different because EPA tests are done on dynamometers (no air resistance effect). The EPA numbers also involve adjustment coefficients submitted by the car manufacturers to the EPA (fudge-factors), etc..
  2. Some of the 3rd-party range test claims (e.g., OoS) are done at high elevations (5,000+ft). Achievable range at high elevation might be exaggerated due to the lower air resistance (thinner air). Only 1% of US population resides in areas 5,000ft above sea-level! Note, a recent SoC Gravity range test (in NJ, near sea-level) shows significantly lower efficiency and range (than Lucid's claims/EPF-inferred) on the Gravity.
  3. German EVs consistently meet/exceed their EPA range/efficiency numbers. Some US EVs (e.g., my 2023 Rivian R1S) come in very-close-to or slightly better than their EPA claims.

All of these points have been EXHAUSATIVELY debated in this Forum. You can go dig up all this info when you have a sleepless-night and draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
Agreed; only comment I’d add (for the other poster, not you, just in case they aren’t aware) is that there are two versions of the EPA test - there is a 2-cycle test and a 5-cycle test. The latter is more expensive to run, but results in what the EPA thinks is a more realistic number (whether it is or not, that’s what they think). It happens to also be more optimistic and make the range look better. Lucid and Tesla both use this 5-cycle test.

By comparison, the 2-cycle test is used by the German and Korean manufacturers (for example), largely because it is cheaper, and it was there first. The 5-cycle test was added later as an option, iirc.

The 2-cycle test is more pessimistic, and more likely to underreport range (which is why the EPA looked for a more accurate test). That’s why German EVs seem to exceed their numbers.

All others things being equal, of course.
 
BS8899 said:
Maybe our R1S experience difference is that mysterious:

  • I have a 2023 R1S, with a "large Pack" (note, not the "Max Pack"). My R1S has quad (Bosch) motors. When I am cruising on the interstates (I-10/I-5), I drive at the speed limit (70mph in CA), and I put my Quad R1S in "Conserve Mode" (i.e., FWD). This gives me about 7-8% better mileage.
  • Now, if YOU drove @ 5mph faster than I (i.e., 75mph in CA I-5), you would have been ~14% less efficient than I.
  • These two "small differences" together will give you that 20-25% difference in range between your experience and mine on our respective R1S Rivians.
Now, true-confession time:
  • Did you have a Quad R1S and, if you did, did you drive in "Conserve Mode"?
  • Did you drive at 5mph or more above the speed limit?
;)
Click to expand...
I have the quad with Bosch motors. Same pack as you as they didn’t offer max when I got mine. I do NOT drive in conserve. I find it super annoying, but agree it does give you a bit more range.

I do drive about 5-7mph above speed limit on highway. But I lose range in regular travel too. Like I said, very similar experience with our dual motor X.

Any, enough Rivian talk…I have a new love. My Gravity! Our R1S sits lonely now…
 
bmincey said:
i suspect Lucid is going to be more like tesla.. very high EPA labels but struggles to get close to it in the real world.. opposite of Porsche. The taycan has a low label but exceeds in real world driving. My friend has a new taycan 4s and he gets 330-340 even though he is rated at 290 i believe.
Click to expand...
That's more a Taycan bonus than a Porsche bonus. Our Macan EV is more typical (coming in below EPA range). For instance, we did a 252 mile leg this summer at 70 MPH between North Las Vegas and Bishop CA. Took 89% of the battery. That projects to 283 miles of actual range (90% of the 315 EPA). Conditions were ideal, although there was a 1700' elevation gain from start to end which accounts for a some of that.

But at least a 10% loss at 70 MPH is better than the early reports for the Gravity, that are coming in closer to 20% loss at 70 MPH.
 
Ron_Burgundy said:
Only comment is my 2023 quad R1S is always 20%+ below the EPA rated range. I would lump them with Tesla.
Click to expand...
well, I don't think it is that mysterious:

  • I have a 2023 R1S, with a "large Pack" (note, not the "Max Pack"). My R1S is quad (Bosch) motor. When I am cruising on the interstates (I-10/I-5), I drive at the speed limit (70mph in CA), and I put my Quad R1S in "Conserve Mode" (i.e., FWD). This gives me about 7-8% better mileage.
  • Now, if YOU drive @ 5mph faster than I (i.e., 75mph in CA I-5), you would have been ~14% less efficient than I.
  • These two "small differences" together will give you that 20-22% difference in range between your experience and mine on our respective R1Ss.
  • Yes, the R1S is not the most efficient EV SUV in the world and I expect the Gravity to be better in efficiency. That said, my R1S (and yours too) routinely meets the ~2.5 mi/kWh mark as suggested by Rivian.
 
The loaner I drove home today has bigger wheels than my car and the Dynamic Range reading is drastically different than my 20/21 car. Even at higher speeds I can usually keep the car around 3.0 on mine. This car driven basically the same way on the drive home (could have been elevation or environmental differences as well) was around 2.5.
 
Xminus6 said:
The loaner I drove home today has bigger wheels than my car and the Dynamic Range reading is drastically different than my 20/21 car. Even at higher speeds I can usually keep the car around 3.0 on mine. This car driven basically the same way on the drive home (could have been elevation or environmental differences as well) was around 2.5.
Click to expand...
On my 140 mile road trip (140 miles each way), my dynamic started at 2.85 and ended at 3.01! I was shocked. 21/22 and seven seat. I never get to 3+ with general driving, but I am also a “spirited” driver and was purposely trying to see how efficient it could be on road trip.
 
The efficiency rocks on my Gravity Dream on 20/21” wheels. Just this AM I drove from Providence to Natick service center and back to get key fob update, it was 45-50F outside, went 71mph almost the entire distance aside from exiting to get on I 495 and then I 90, and got 3.11 mi/kwh. If you multiply that by the total usable battery 120kwh then that’s 376 miles of range which is still better than Tom Moloughney got in the Gravity 5 seater at identical speeds and flatter surface and I was at colder temperatures, had 400 foot elevation increase, have 7 seats and 200 more horsepower. So even at 45F I got 91% of the EPA Gravity Dream is rated for on range wheels.
 
3.32 mi/kWh on second leg of trip today. 141 mile trip. Great weather again, pretty flat and I didn’t wander into the 70s MPH at all. So, yes, I was trying to get solid range. I actually used less range (by 1.4 miles) of battery than miles driven. I think that’s because 3.3 is the “target” for rated range.
 
Bunnylebowski said:
The efficiency rocks on my Gravity Dream on 20/21” wheels. Just this AM I drove from Providence to Natick service center and back to get key fob update, it was 45-50F outside, went 71mph almost the entire distance aside from exiting to get on I 495 and then I 90, and got 3.11 mi/kwh. If you multiply that by the total usable battery 120kwh then that’s 376 miles of range which is still better than Tom Moloughney got in the Gravity 5 seater at identical speeds and flatter surface and I was at colder temperatures, had 400 foot elevation increase, have 7 seats and 200 more horsepower. So even at 45F I got 91% of the EPA Gravity Dream is rated for on range wheels.
Click to expand...

That's very good efficiency for 45-50F (presuming you used a little heat).

What drive mode were you (and/or @Ron_Burgundy ) in when you were doing your tests yesterday?

If anyone has a repeatable drive or commute that they do, it would be interesting to do an efficiency comparison between the different drive modes (same route, same speed).
 
niceInBoston said:
That's very good efficiency for 45-50F (presuming you used a little heat).

What drive mode were you (and/or @Ron_Burgundy ) in when you were doing your tests yesterday?

If anyone has a repeatable drive or commute that they do, it would be interesting to do an efficiency comparison between the different drive modes (same route, same speed).
Click to expand...
I was in smooth mode with high regen. Climate was auto set to 70F, made sure rear climate was off.
 
I've driven about 1000 mikes so far and routinely seeing close to 3.6. If I get on the local highway, Phoenix so its flat, doing 75 it drops to around 3.48
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top