Gravity 75 mph Range

[Knucklehead]

Range is a huge factor for me due to all the bad experiences I have had with public charging. I think public charging is better than it used to be, but that isn't saying much. Certainly the ability to use the Tesla SC network takes a lot of pressure off when looking for a place to charge.

Regardless of how good it gets, I hate to stop when traveling, except for when I want to. So I have been thinking about Gravity and what a realistic highway range will be.

I like to set the cruise to 80 mph. But since the highest speed industry test is done by Car and Driver at 75 mph, that is what I used for this analysis.

The Gravity has a CD of 0.24. I found three vehicles with a CD of 0.24 that have been tested by C&D at 75 mph:

If the Gravity can manage 3.3 mi/kWh, it will have a 75 mph range of 396 miles. This does not seem realistic to me, considering how large it is.
If the efficiency is similar to the i7, it will be 307 miles. That does not seem realistic also, but if it is that bad, I will be upset for sure.

A general rule I follow is EPA x 0.8 = 75 mph range. That will mean the Gravity will have a 75 mph range of 360 miles. That seems most likely, and would be better than the eTron GT.

The 2025 Air blew away my expectations in Kyle's 70 mph test. However, the Air has a much lower CD and I doubt the Gravity will perform that well. If it does, it will be amazing.

Anyone else put some thought into this, and what do you think? My bet is 360 at 75 mph. If I we are lucky, it will be 360 at 80 mph!

 

[Xminus6]

Remember that cD is a coefficient. You can have a similar or lower cD and be less aerodynamically effiicient because one car has a larger frontal cross-section than the other.

It's a good comparison against other vehicles that have the same cross-section though.

 

[Knucklehead]

Remember that cD is a coefficient. You can have a similar or lower cD and be less aerodynamically effiicient because one car has a larger frontal cross-section than the other.

It's a good comparison against other vehicles that have the same cross-section though.

Thanks. This is certainly an area where I am not an expert. I assumed cD would represent total aerodynamic efficiency.

There are not any vehicles the size of the Gravity that have a cD that low, so a comparison is difficult I guess.

So what do you think? Do we have some data out there that would help us with a reasonable approximation? I think 80% of EPA seems reasonable, but Lucid is pushing the envelope regarding efficiency.

 

[Xminus6]

Thanks. This is certainly an area where I am not an expert. I assumed cD would represent total aerodynamic efficiency.

There are not any vehicles the size of the Gravity that have a cD that low, so a comparison is difficult I guess.

So what do you think? Do we have some data out there that would help us with a reasonable approximation? I think 80% of EPA seems reasonable, but Lucid is pushing the envelope regarding efficiency.

I'm certainly not an expert either. It's just something I've picked up from watching and reading a lot of enthusiast car media. I think a percentage of the ratings agencies is probably the closest way to test without actually having the vehicles. It might be the best way to compare different vehicles too since environmental factors between different tests for different cars can have a drastic effect. The EPA test is designed to take those factors into account.

Remember that the 450 range number is also going from 100% down to 0% (or nominal zero), which very few people would actually do. I think your first estimate is probably pretty close actually. In any case, @outofspeckyle has a test vehicle now I believe so we'll know pretty soon. On his drive to return the Air and pick up the Gravity, he averaged something like 3 miles/kWh or slightly less. I can't imagine a Gravity would do better than an Air.

 

[momo3605]

the Gravity can manage 3.3 mi/kWh, it will have a 75 mph range of 396 miles

The Air itself manages 3.3 miles/kwh in OOS road trip at 75mph. 2.9 miles/kwh at 80mph in the 10% challenge. Guaranteed the Gravity will be less. I suspect 2.9 or 3 miles/kwh at 75mph best case.

Which is still pretty good though. My Rivian does about 2.3-2.4 at that speed

 

[tonybot]

I'm certainly not an expert either. It's just something I've picked up from watching and reading a lot of enthusiast car media. I think a percentage of the ratings agencies is probably the closest way to test without actually having the vehicles. It might be the best way to compare different vehicles too since environmental factors between different tests for different cars can have a drastic effect. The EPA test is designed to take those factors into account.

Remember that the 450 range number is also going from 100% down to 0% (or nominal zero), which very few people would actually do. I think your first estimate is probably pretty close actually. In any case, @outofspeckyle has a test vehicle now I believe so we'll know pretty soon. On his drive to return the Air and pick up the Gravity, he averaged something like 3 miles/kWh or slightly less. I can't imagine a Gravity would do better than an Air.

I don’t think Kyle has a Gravity. He drove and dropped off the air and test-drove a pre-prod Gravity or maybe more like an engineering mule and other invited journalists. I am sure he would love to have a prod Gravity to test, but I don’t think he has one currently.

 

[Xminus6]

I don’t think Kyle has a Gravity. He drove and dropped off the air and test-drove a pre-prod Gravity or maybe more like an engineering mule and other invited journalists. I am sure he would love to have a prod Gravity to test, but I don’t think he has one currently.

Ahh. My misunderstanding. I saw the overview he did there but I thought for some reason he mentioned having one for a longer-term review.

 

[Knucklehead]

The Air itself manages 3.3 miles/kwh in OOS road trip at 75mph. 2.9 miles/kwh at 80mph in the 10% challenge. Guaranteed the Gravity will be less. I suspect 2.9 or 3 miles/kwh at 75mph best case.

Which is still pretty good though. My Rivian does about 2.3-2.4 at that speed

3.0 at 75 mph seems possible considering how much Air has improved in model year 2025, at least based on OOS testing. All those improvements (and more) are in Gravity.

Have you been able to travel 330ish miles at highway speed in your R1?

Remember that the 450 range number is also going from 100% down to 0% (or nominal zero), which very few people would actually do.

Yes but if you charge to 100%, you are able to use most (if not all) the battery if you plan it right. Agree that on a road trip, most will charge 10 to 80% and rarely go below 10% or above 80%.

 

[momo3605]

Have you been able to travel 330ish miles at highway speed in your R1?

Based on my 130kwh battery back, it’s closer to 300 even at highway speed

 

[Knucklehead]

80% of 450 is 360 miles of highway range, which is pretty good. However, that assumes the base wheels, which are the most aerodynamic.

A reasonable estimate for the highway range reduction due to the 22/23" wheels is 15%. So for that wheel option, the hypothetical 75 mph range of the Gravity will be 306 miles. Which is not a happy place for me.

Man, some real-world testing is needed. @outofspeckyle, when? LOL.

 

[borski]

80% of 450 is 360 miles of highway range, which is pretty good. However, that assumes the base wheels, which are the most aerodynamic.

A reasonable estimate for the highway range reduction due to the 22/23" wheels is 15%. So for that wheel option, the hypothetical 75 mph range of the Gravity will be 306 miles. Which is not a happy place for me.

Man, some real-world testing is needed. @outofspeckyle, when? LOL.

Actual question: why get low-profile summer tires on an SUV? Doesn’t it pretty much defeat the purpose of an SUV?

 

[momo3605]

Actual question: why get low-profile summer tires on an SUV? Doesn’t it pretty much defeat the purpose of an SUV?

Because it’s supposedly the best handling SUV on the planet? You can’t have best handling and most efficient and most off-road capable without making a compromise on tires

 

[momo3605]

80% of 450 is 360 miles of highway range, which is pretty good. However, that assumes the base wheels, which are the most aerodynamic.

A reasonable estimate for the highway range reduction due to the 22/23" wheels is 15%. So for that wheel option, the hypothetical 75 mph range of the Gravity will be 306 miles. Which is not a happy place for me.

Man, some real-world testing is needed. @outofspeckyle, when? LOL.

I suspect you’ll get similar range to the Air Pure/Touring at 75mph. Since that has a similar epa rating as the gravity with 22/23s. There’s not a ton of data out there for the Pure/Touring, but Car and Driver did 270 miles at 75mph in their range test. But I do think 300 will be doable if you keep it very smooth and steady

 

[hmp10]

I've been wondering about all this, too. There will be a lot of differences between the Air and the Gravity in terms of trying to extrapolate real-world-to-EPA range ratios from one vehicle to the other. The biggest two are going to be weight and aerodynamic drag.

As speed increases, aerodynamic drag becomes a bigger part of the equation and, as aerodynamic drag (cD x frontal area) increases exponentially with speed, it will really show up in the Gravity's range at sustained highway speeds. So the faster you go, the further distance you will put between the EPA range and the range you're actually realizing.

At sustained 80mph driving in near-optimum weather, terrain, and traffic conditions our Air gets about 3.1 mi/kWh compared to its EPA range of 3.9 mi/kWh (~79% of EPA range).

The Gravity's highest EPA range rating (20/21" wheels, 5-seat passenger configuration) is 3.6 mi/kWh. When we get the 7-seat Gravity with larger wheels, I suspect the EPA range will become around 3.3-3.4 mi/kWh. Then, after taking its greater overall drag into account, I'm guessing we'll see it drop to ~2.4-2.5 mi/kWh at 80mph.

As bad as that may seem, it actually won't change much about our road tripping. On road trips we usually charge up to 95% and plan charging stops around 3 hours later with about 25-30% charge remaining to give a buffer for unforeseen conditions. 3 hours is about as long as we can stand driving without a break, anyway.

If I'm right about 2.4-2.5 mi/kWh hour, the Gravity's 120-kWh battery pack will give us similar range between charging stops using only about ~5% more of the battery capacity than we use in the Air between stops:

120-kWh x .75 x 2.5 mi/kWh = 225 miles. That would still leave us with 20% remaining charge, giving us a buffer for unexpected conditions or needing to go a bit further to reach a charger.

The real issue is when we occasionally take 6 adults on trips with long stretches away from major highways, and thus with sparser charging options. We are still on the fence but may decide to keep our Odyssey for such contingencies until we see how the Gravity really road trips.

 

[momo3605]

The real issue is when we occasionally take 6 adults on trips with long stretches away from major highways, and thus with sparser charging options.

Even with nacs/tesla supercharger and maybe to some extent RAN chargers?

 

[borski]

Because it’s supposedly the best handling SUV on the planet? You can’t have best handling and most efficient and most off-road capable without making a compromise on tires

Sure, that’s true. I guess I would take my Air out for the summer tire fun, over the Gravity.

But if you can only have one, I guess it’s fine if you also got a second set of tires for any time you actually wanted to use it as an SUV lol (Tahoe or similar)

 

[hmp10]

Even with nacs/tesla supercharger and maybe to some extent RAN chargers?

Maybe. That's why we might keep the Odyssey only for a while just in order to get comfortable with what the Gravity really can do on a fully-loaded road trip.

We live in south Florida, and it's almost a full day's drive just to get out of the state. So our road trips seldom take us outside the southeastern states, with our flying to get anywhere further afield. I don't know whether there are many locales in the region that will have RAN chargers. (Most of the off-road places in the Deep South aren't places you would go for any adventure I'd want to partake in.)

 

[Pragmatic]

RAN just opened a station in NY that is just off the ramp of I87. Super convenient.

 

[hydbob]

I suspect you’ll get similar range to the Air Pure/Touring at 75mph. Since that has a similar epa rating as the gravity with 22/23s. There’s not a ton of data out there for the Pure/Touring, but Car and Driver did 270 miles at 75mph in their range test. But I do think 300 will be doable if you keep it very smooth and steady

Probably important to remember that the Gravity underwent the newer EPA testing vs the Pure/Touring undergoing the old testing. Just like how the new 2025 GT EPA is very close to Real world compared to the previous EPA rating. Leads me to believe the Gravity will be much closer to EPA under real world conditions instead of automatically assuming the 80% hit to range.

 

[Knucklehead]

I've been wondering about all this, too. There will be a lot of differences between the Air and the Gravity in terms of trying to extrapolate real-world-to-EPA range ratios from one vehicle to the other. The biggest two are going to be weight and aerodynamic drag.

As speed increases, aerodynamic drag becomes a bigger part of the equation and, as aerodynamic drag (cD x frontal area) increases exponentially with speed, it will really show up in the Gravity's range at sustained highway speeds. So the faster you go, the further distance you will put between the EPA range and the range you're actually realizing.

At sustained 80mph driving in near-optimum weather, terrain, and traffic conditions our Air gets about 3.1 mi/kWh compared to its EPA range of 3.9 mi/kWh (~79% of EPA range).

The Gravity's highest EPA range rating (20/21" wheels, 5-seat passenger configuration) is 3.6 mi/kWh. When we get the 7-seat Gravity with larger wheels, I suspect the EPA range will become around 3.3-3.4 mi/kWh. Then, after taking its greater overall drag into account, I'm guessing we'll see it drop to ~2.4-2.5 mi/kWh at 80mph.

As bad as that may seem, it actually won't change much about our road tripping. On road trips we usually charge up to 95% and plan charging stops around 3 hours later with about 25-30% charge remaining to give a buffer for unforeseen conditions. 3 hours is about as long as we can stand driving without a break, anyway.

If I'm right about 2.4-2.5 mi/kWh hour, the Gravity's 120-kWh battery pack will give us similar range between charging stops using only about ~5% more of the battery capacity than we use in the Air between stops:

120-kWh x .75 x 2.5 mi/kWh = 225 miles. That would still leave us with 20% remaining charge, giving us a buffer for unexpected conditions or needing to go a bit further to reach a charger.

The real issue is when we occasionally take 6 adults on trips with long stretches away from major highways, and thus with sparser charging options. We are still on the fence but may decide to keep our Odyssey for such contingencies until we see how the Gravity really road trips.

There seems to be significant efficiency improvements in the 2025 Air, because OOS was able to get 4.4 mi/kWh at 70 mph. I realize 10 mph faster will have a significant impact on efficiency, but the OOS test is a good indicator that the 2025 is more efficient than prior model years. I expect the Gravity has many improvements over the older Airs that also improve efficiency.

For reference, OOS tested the R1T with aero 21" wheels and got between 2.38 and 2.41 mi/kWh at 70 mph. The cD of the R1 is much higher than the Gravity, so I think it is a good benchmark for the low side. I really don't think Gravity will have efficiency that low at 75 mph.

I feel like Gravity will be much closer to 3.0 mi/kWh, but I agree it seems like a big stretch when the Air isn't much better at that speed. In fact, C&D tested a 2023 Air Touring at 75 mph and got just over 3 mi/kWh. Is it really realistic the Gravity can perform that well?

Maybe a reasonable efficiency is 2.8 mi/kWh, which makes 75 mph range about 336 miles.