What's new

EPA ratings supposedly released

Lucken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
253
The link says the page is gone, so it may have been unsubstantiated.
 

Adnillien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
83
Location
Phoenix
It seems that Autoweek may have originally published this story and later pulled it down. I was hoping that it was true.
 

Neurio

Active Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Messages
33
I wish I had saved the infographic with all the results. They listed the Dream R, Dream P and Grand Touring with 19" and 21" wheels.

My numbers are rough, but I believe they were something like:
Dream R 520 miles 19", 480 miles 21"
Dream P 471 miles 19", 450 miles 21"
GT 510 miles 19", 460 miles 21"

Don't take these as gospel, just what I remember them to be close to.
 

Adnillien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
83
Location
Phoenix
This may be the table that you referring to:

1631750027847.png


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.
 

Neurio

Active Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Messages
33
This may be the table that you referring to:

View attachment 123

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.
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...
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
Pure speculation on my part, but I have a feeling Lucid sent out early alerts to key auto journalists so that they could have their coverage ready once Lucid made the official announcement but asked them to hold off publication until Lucid announced . . . and someone at "Autoweek" slipped up.

The "Autoweek" website posted a notice reading, "Uh oh. Took the turn too fast." This suggests they might have published prematurely rather than published inaccurate information.
 
Last edited:

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
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.
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.

We'll have to wait to see if testing details are revealed, but it's a sure bet that the Tesla Plaid would never have attained a 360 mile EPA rating if the test were run with the full Plaid mode engaged.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
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.
That is odd. Here's a SWAG (stupid wild ass guess . . . and I do mean stupid):

The "P" in its lower drive settings puts out 804 hp. The "R" in its lower settings puts out 670 hp. The GT probably does something similar.

Is it possible that putting more power to the wheels has a non-linear effect on the tires' rolling resistance when reducing tire wall height, thus causing the "P" to exact a lower range penalty for the larger wheels than the lower-powered models?
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
It's official. All the major auto journalism outlets have released the EPA ratings for the Air this morning, so it does appear that Autoweek just got ahead of themselves yesterday.
 

Lucken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
253
So then these numbers were bang on accurate relative to the initial projections. It's interesting there's nothing on the EPA ratings for the Air Touring or Air Pure (too far down the road?). With that said, based on what we've got thus far, I'd say their initial estimate of 406 miles will be quite accurate too.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
The other shoe has dropped. Lucid just updated its website and order configurator. Dream Edition buyers can now select the "P" or the "R" versions, and Zenith Red has been added to the exterior color choices.
 

Lucken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
253
I can't begin to understand why a difference of 0.2 seconds from 0-60 (2.5 vs 2.7) would be worth a range drop of 49 miles. With that said, I know there are some that value every fraction of a second.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
We're choosing the Performance version, but you're right about the 0.2 second difference to 60 being inconsequential. We have never accessed the full power potential of the Model S Plaid we have, and we'll probably never set the Air up for maximum power. (Both the Tesla and the Lucid require going into launch mode and waiting out a significant battery conditioning period to access their full power.)

For me, the choice between the "P" and the "R" has to do with the power settings in the "Smooth" and the "Swift" modes, the two lower drive settings in which I will operate the car pretty much all the time. The "P" puts out 804 hp in those two modes, while the "R" drops the output to 670 hp in both modes. One of the traits that makes a car feel truly luxurious to me is a strong, instant surge of power when called upon for quick maneuvers at mid-speeds. I think the 134-hp difference will be useful to that end -- not hugely so, but noticeably so.

I'm assuming that at realistic interstate speeds, the Air will get maybe about 80% of its EPA-rated range, at best. (Our Plaid gets about 70% of its EPA range at steady 80 mph cruising on flat interstates in warm weather). That means the range difference (with the 21" wheels) of 30 miles between the "P" and the "R" will really be about 24 miles instead of the rated 30 miles. Just as the 0.2 seconds of acceleration is inconsequential, to me the 24 miles of extra highway range is inconsequential. I've never driven our Teslas anywhere near that little remaining range, and I don't expect to be doing so in the Air, either. On the other hand, I'm seldom running around locally where I don't want a few quick thrusts of seemingly-endless power.
 

Adnillien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
83
Location
Phoenix

InsideEVs did a nice analysis of the EPA numbers. The GT has less range than the Dream R but greater efficiency suggesting the battery size may be different between the GT and Dream. Also of note is the City versus highway range.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
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?
 

dawktah LucidGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
96
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...
Hello all,

I've posted to other forums on this and I do find it rather odd about these numbers. The AGT was slated to have the best range and now it is not. Given the 131mpge vs the Dreams 125mpge and all the different range discrepancies it appears they have hobbled the AGT in favor of a better Dream all way round.
 

dawktah LucidGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Messages
96
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?
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.
 

hmp10

Expert Member
Founding Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
741
. . . . (deleted my text here, as a post can't be deleted by users. Nothing substantive, just trying to reformat the post that now follows this one.)
 
Last edited:
Top