Gravity 75 mph Range

[ilyabu]

All I will say is my 2023 quad R1S routinely gets that 2.4 mi/kwh. I will be disappointed if the Gravity doesn’t beat that as one of the reasons I want it is for range and efficiency. Granted, that’s not a top three reason, but it’s important.

All these other numbers being quoted confuse me. Everyone drives differently.

Porsche EVs are so overpriced they’ve never been something I’ve seriously considered. My opinion, of course.

so far I'm getting about 2.7 on the Gravity

 

[BS8899]

so far I'm getting about 2.7 on the Gravity

2.7mi/kWh equates to (roughly) 330 mile range, about 74% of the claimed range (450mi). These metrics are similar to what the Air achieved. But we need more data and controlled efficiency/range tests to pin it down for the Gravity.

 

[ilyabu]

2.7mi/kWh equates to (roughly) 330 mile range, about 74% of the claimed range (450mi). These metrics are similar to what the Air achieved. But we need more data and controlled efficiency/range tests to pin it down for the Gravity.

note that I have the DE with the largest (22/23") wheels. I will be doing some longer drives in it next week so expect to get more data points.

 

[BS8899]

note that I have the DE with the largest (22/23") wheels. I will be doing some longer drives in it next week so expect to get more data points.

That would be great! Please share your data with us. Keep a log on your speeds as well. Speed, elevation change, temperature, and AC usage are key modulating factors.

 

[BS8899]

note that I have the DE with the largest (22/23") wheels. I will be doing some longer drives in it next week so expect to get more data points.

Yes, wheel size matters. Need to derate the achievable range accordingly.

 

[jered]

so far I'm getting about 2.7 on the Gravity

I am also getting 2.7 pretty consistently, with a DE and mid-size wheels.

 

[Knucklehead]

2025 Rivian R1T Tri-Max data point for comparison. This is at slightly above sea level, certainly not at OOS elevations.

I am also getting 2.7 pretty consistently, with a DE and mid-size wheels.

It will be interesting to see how much better the smaller wheel GGT models do. Although I am surprised you are not getting better efficiency even with those wheels.

As others have pointed out, so many factors impact efficiency. But speed is especially important. Is 2.7 really the 75-mph efficiency, or is it possible you are going faster? Spurts well above 80 will have a significant impact. In my data, I set the cruise for 79 mph. The average is lower due to traffic. In this drive I never exceeded 79 mph.

 

[hydbob]

2.7mi/kWh equates to (roughly) 330 mile range, about 74% of the claimed range (450mi). These metrics are similar to what the Air achieved. But we need more data and controlled efficiency/range tests to pin it down for the Gravity.

The DE large wheels I believe is EPA at 370 miles.

 

[bmincey]

The DE large wheels I believe is EPA at 370 miles.

I have a GDE with the smallest wheels and am seeing around 3.2-3.3mi/kWh over the first 300 miles or so.

 

[BS8899]

I have a GDE with the smallest wheels and am seeing around 3.2-3.3mi/kWh over the first 300 miles or so.

What kind of driving? Speed? City? Hwy?

 

[bmincey]

What kind of driving? Speed? City? Hwy?

Mixed driving between city and highway probably 40/60 mix. Not babying the throttle and 75-80 on the freeway.

 

[Steveinarizona]

Porsche EVs are so overpriced they’ve never been something I’ve seriously considered. My opinion, of course.

I believe that BS8899 was also referring to BMW and Audi. They do tend to have their real life efficiency come close to matching the EPA estimates. But it is important to remember that they still don't get the same range as the Lucids.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I averaged 3.03mi/kwh on a 200 mile trip today with the 21/22s today with the inserts. Relatively flat, 90% highway at about 65-75mph, 88 degrees out with AC blasting, seat cooler, etc. Paid no attention to efficiency as it was my first drive with it. Nevertheless, was actually impressed at how high it was. Would be closer to 2mi/kWh on my quad G1 R1S with those conditions.

 

[jrreno]

2025 Rivian R1T Tri-Max data point for comparison. This is at slightly above sea level, certainly not at OOS elevations.

View attachment 31447 View attachment 31448



It will be interesting to see how much better the smaller wheel GGT models do. Although I am surprised you are not getting better efficiency even with those wheels.

As others have pointed out, so many factors impact efficiency. But speed is especially important. Is 2.7 really the 75-mph efficiency, or is it possible you are going faster? Spurts well above 80 will have a significant impact. In my data, I set the cruise for 79 mph. The average is lower due to traffic. In this drive I never exceeded 79 mph.

Just for comparison my 2018 Model S with 150kmiles and 19 inch wheels averages 313w/ mi, so 3.19 mi/kwh. Most of those. miles are highway at 79 mph.

 

[illopp00]

Perhaps the 2025 AGT might fare better. Did Lucid actually changed the claimed EPA range or the mi/kWh on the 2025 AGT?

It's got slightly different battery chemistry with higher density wh/kg, so the pack capacity and buffer are larger. Along with alot of other updates to drivetrain, HVAC to help squeeze out some extra miles. I don't think the EPA numbers changed, just that they did things to make real world closer.

 

[illopp00]

I haven't seen this OoS video in particular. That said, I am familiar with OoS's reviews.

Let me start by saying that I enjoy Kyle's OoS review and i respect his work.

OoS has done many of these range testing on EVs. On an apple-to-apple comparison (i.e., diffrent EVs, same tests) I think there are relevant. However, I am perplexed when you compare OoS's range tests vs EPA rating and most owner's experience. Why?
>the biggest issue I have is OoS does their testing in Ft Collins, CO.
> Ft Collins is (almost) exactly 5,000ft above sea level.
> at this altitude, comapre to sea-level, the air is almost 20% thinner (density)!
> at speed testing (70mph, 75mph, 80mph), air resistance is a big determinant.
> as mentioned in multiple posting, the drag on the car (hence its acheivable range) is a POWER FUNCTION to the speed and the air density.

Without correcting for these factors, I think the OoS testing (in Ft. Collins) is only relevant when compare to each other but is overstated when compared to EPA and real-life realizable range.

If you don't believe me, take your car to Ft. Collins and drive around. You WILL feel the difference!

Yes the Ft Collins 70MPH range test is effectively a corrected 64mph range test for sea level density...

 

[BS8899]

It's got slightly different battery chemistry with higher density wh/kg, so the pack capacity and buffer are larger. Along with alot of other updates to drivetrain, HVAC to help squeeze out some extra miles. I don't think the EPA numbers changed, just that they did things to make real world closer.

All of these incremental improvemenst are good. Early Air realizable highway mi/kWh is signficantly below EPA metrics. Perhaps that's why Lucid hasn't change its EPA ratings even with some incremental efficiency improvements.

 

[hwy17er]

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

I'm with boski, summer tires on wet curvy Hwy17 = unnecessary risk of life and property! There are no all-season tire options for the 22/23 wheels that I'm aware of so I for one will not be ordering them. Dynamic handling pkg is a must though and, getting back to the topic of this thread, smaller wheels = better range

 

[Elfin]

I'm with boski, summer tires on wet curvy Hwy17 = unnecessary risk of life and property! There are no all-season tire options for the 22/23 wheels that I'm aware of so I for one will not be ordering them. Dynamic handling pkg is a must though and, getting back to the topic of this thread, smaller wheels = better range

How cold does it get on 17? Summer tires have much higher grip than all-season in wet conditions as long as it's not too cold. High efficiency all-season tires are especially bad in wet conditions.
Here are some Tire Rack test results. The Hankook tires were much worse in wet conditions:

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=327

 

[Knucklehead]

smaller wheels = better range

Sometimes, but not always