Yes, that's it. Thanks. I wasn't too far off.
Remember that the softest and middle drive settings of the Dream Edition "Range" cut the power back to 670 hp. The 933 hp comes on line only with the "Sprint" setting, which is meant for aggressive driving. It may be that the Grand Touring only delivers its 800 hp in a similar setting and meters the power back on lower drive settings. Thus, for EPA testing both the Dream and the GT might have been producing similar power.I am not sure it makes sense that the GT would get fewer miles than the Dream R. Maybe the difference here is within the accuracy of the test. Hence, I am still skeptical about this article.
That is odd. Here's a SWAG (stupid wild ass guess . . . and I do mean stupid):It's also odd that Dream P only losers 20 miles with the 21"wheels, while the R loses 40 miles and the GT almost 50.
Hello all,Yes, that's it. Thanks. I wasn't too far off.
I too thought the numbers seemed odd since the GT was supposed to have more range than the Dream. If they were able to do software tweaks for the Dream R to increase the range, I don't know why they wouldn't do them on all the other trims too.
It's also odd that Dream P only losers 20 miles with the 21"wheels, while the R loses 40 miles and the GT almost 50.
Could Auto Week have accidentally published a 'space holder' piece waiting for the real numbers? Or did they accidentally leak the info before they were supposed to? Weird either way...
I just believe they have software changing performance of the AGT so the Dream is the best in range and performance. Doesn't make sense otherwise.I am getting in over my head here on a technology question, but . . .
The EPA figures show that the GT with 19" wheels uses 26 kWh to go 100 miles, and the Dream R with 19" wheels uses 27 kWh to go 100 miles, meaning the GT is about 5% more efficient than the Dream R.
Each of Lucid's modules stores about 5.14 kWh of energy which, interestingly enough, equates to about 5% of the total pack capacity. However, 26kWh of energy is 26kWh of energy, no matter what the size of the pack from which it comes. The only way I could see that removing a module would result in increasing the total efficiency of the car would be due to the car's resulting weight reduction. However, for a single module to reduce the entire car's weight enough to increase efficiency by 5% would imply a very heavy module.
Does any of this make sense? Or is it more likely that the greater efficiency of the GT derives not from removing modules but from differences in the current demands its lower power output makes?