Gravity 75 mph Range

[DeaneG]

If the GGT with the 450 mile config actually delivers a 75 mph range test that has Lucid's indicated 20% reduction, that'll be 360 miles. I'll be happy with that, although of course I won't complain if the Gravity does better.

I forgot to mention that the article likely tested an early Air GT which received its EPA numbers under a more favorable testing regime. 2025 and later Lucid cars use a more stringent EPA testing method and so achieve a higher percentage of their EPA rating at highway speeds.

 

[BS8899]

I forgot to mention that the article likely tested an early Air GT which received its EPA numbers under a more favorable testing regime. 2025 and later Lucid cars use a more stringent EPA testing method and so achieve a higher percentage of their EPA rating at highway speeds.

The AGT's claimed EPA range was/is 512 miles and its battery size hasn't changed much either, correct? Thus, independent of the EPA test criteria, why would the conclusions be different?

 

[DeaneG]

The AGT's claimed EPA range was/is 512 miles and its battery size hasn't changed much either, correct? Thus, independent of the EPA test criteria, why would the conclusions be different?

The 2025 AGT has a larger battery, and some efficiency improvements, and has better actual range than 2024 years and earlier. As the more stringent EPA test method used for 2025 and later cars results in a lower overall reported EPA range for a given vehicle, at freeway speeds the 2025 AGT achieves a larger percentage of its EPA range than 2024 and earlier cars. The topic was exactly this, EPA range vs real world range.

 

[BS8899]

The 2025 AGT has a larger battery, and some efficiency improvements, and has better actual range than 2024 years and earlier. As the more stringent EPA test method used for 2025 and later cars results in a lower overall reported EPA range for a given vehicle, at freeway speeds the 2025 AGT achieves a larger percentage of its EPA range than 2024 and earlier cars. The topic was exactly this, EPA range vs real world range.

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

 

[DeaneG]

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

Yes.

W

Post in thread 'Why is No One Talking About All of the Improvements to the 2025 GT?!?'

May 6, 2025

@Lucken, I just finished three weeks in a loaner 2022 AGT and covered 650 miles. I have 1300 miles on my 2025 AGT. Same driver, same driving habits, same weather. Overall average was 3.18 mi/kWh on the 2022 and is 3.78 mi/kWh on the 2025.

I am 100% certain that the 2025’s are more efficient. I too would love a scientific study, but I trust myself to understand electric cars, my driving style and the conditions I covered in these two cars enough that there is no question in my mind that the 2025 cars are significantly more efficient. Whether that’s 10% or the greater than...

• WildRide47

• 

Thread 'Has the Improved Efficiency of the 2025 Airs Been Quantified?'

Dec 28, 2024

We all know by now that 2025 was a "mid-cycle" refresh of sorts for Air, at least for the GT and I believe Touring and Pure as well. We got a number of refined and / or new systems within the cars (heat pumps, improved thermal management, changes to battery management, etc.) to improve overall efficiency. We also know that in 2024 the EPA changed its test cycle standards. This combination of events makes it difficult to tell the "steady state" change in efficiency between the 2024 (and earlier years) and 2025 model years. Has anyone come across a specific, quantified difference?

• Blue Lectroid
• Replies: 6
• Forum: Air: Driving Dynamics

• 

 

[BS8899]

Yes.

W

Post in thread 'Why is No One Talking About All of the Improvements to the 2025 GT?!?'

May 6, 2025

@Lucken, I just finished three weeks in a loaner 2022 AGT and covered 650 miles. I have 1300 miles on my 2025 AGT. Same driver, same driving habits, same weather. Overall average was 3.18 mi/kWh on the 2022 and is 3.78 mi/kWh on the 2025.

I am 100% certain that the 2025’s are more efficient. I too would love a scientific study, but I trust myself to understand electric cars, my driving style and the conditions I covered in these two cars enough that there is no question in my mind that the 2025 cars are significantly more efficient. Whether that’s 10% or the greater than...

• WildRide47

• 

Thread 'Has the Improved Efficiency of the 2025 Airs Been Quantified?'

Dec 28, 2024

We all know by now that 2025 was a "mid-cycle" refresh of sorts for Air, at least for the GT and I believe Touring and Pure as well. We got a number of refined and / or new systems within the cars (heat pumps, improved thermal management, changes to battery management, etc.) to improve overall efficiency. We also know that in 2024 the EPA changed its test cycle standards. This combination of events makes it difficult to tell the "steady state" change in efficiency between the 2024 (and earlier years) and 2025 model years. Has anyone come across a specific, quantified difference?

• Blue Lectroid
• Replies: 6
• Forum: Air: Driving Dynamics

• 

I am NOT talking about wether there was improvement on efficiency on the 2025 AGT. My question is, w As you pointewd here is the data (not ancedote) that quantified the actual achievable range on the 2025 AGT vs competition.

As you pointed out in your posting, as a group, the German EVs often meet/exceed their claimed efficiency and range. In contrast, Lucid andTesla aoften missed their EPA ratings in real-life driving. Most readers in this forum report averages of ~3.6mi/kwh . Yes, some report higher in certain circumstances. Mosst owners tend to agree that if you are on a roadtrip (say 75mph), the realizable range is between 70-80% of the EPA rated range. The 10% OoS race is another contrast. The Taycan , with inferior claimed efficiency and range, handily beat the AGT.. in the 10% challenge, the AGT didn't lose because it "mis-calculated" and ran out of cahrge. It ran out of charge in upstate NY, less than 10% distance to the finish line. And the AGT was in 4th place, behind the Taycan, Hyundai, and the Tesla (model 3, I think). It is hard to argue with real data.

 

[TahoeMichael]

I am NOT talking about wether there was improvement on efficiency on the 2025 AGT. My question is, w As you pointewd here is the data (not ancedote) that quantified the actual achievable range on the 2025 AGT vs competition.

As you pointed out in your posting, as a group, the German EVs often meet/exceed their claimed efficiency and range. In contrast, Lucid andTesla aoften missed their EPA ratings in real-life driving. Most readers in this forum report averages of ~3.6mi/kwh . Yes, some report higher in certain circumstances. Mosst owners tend to agree that if you are on a roadtrip (say 75mph), the realizable range is between 70-80% of the EPA rated range. The 10% OoS race is another contrast. The Taycan , with inferior claimed efficiency and range, handily beat the AGT.. in the 10% challenge, the AGT didn't lose because it "mis-calculated" and ran out of cahrge. It ran out of charge in upstate NY, less than 10% distance to the finish line. And the AGT was in 4th place, behind the Taycan, Hyundai, and the Tesla (model 3, I think). It is hard to argue with real data.

I haven't watched a lot of the OOS videos, so I went to take a look. I'm assuming you're looking at an older video, as there wasn't any miscalculation discussed in the Oct '24 10% challenge video that put 2025 Taycan and 2025 Air head-to-head. The Air did 3.2 miles/kWh, 155 miles, at 80 mph. The Taycan did go slightly farther, reaching 158 miles. But that seems to be entirely due to better charging performance, with the charger putting in 67.6 kWh in 15 minutes, compared to the Air that took 54.2 kWh. Car and Driver has conducted 75 mph range tests on both cars, and a prototype Taycan delivered 313 miles (with 8% remaining), while the Air GT did 410.

The conclusion seems to be that the Air wins for highway speed range, but is loses out to the Taycan by a very small amount in a combined charging+range test.

As I'm hoping to buy a Gravity, I'll be very interested to see these kinds of tests performed for that vehicle.

 

[AnthonySF]

I am NOT talking about wether there was improvement on efficiency on the 2025 AGT. My question is, w As you pointewd here is the data (not ancedote) that quantified the actual achievable range on the 2025 AGT vs competition.

As you pointed out in your posting, as a group, the German EVs often meet/exceed their claimed efficiency and range. In contrast, Lucid andTesla aoften missed their EPA ratings in real-life driving. Most readers in this forum report averages of ~3.6mi/kwh . Yes, some report higher in certain circumstances. Mosst owners tend to agree that if you are on a roadtrip (say 75mph), the realizable range is between 70-80% of the EPA rated range. The 10% OoS race is another contrast. The Taycan , with inferior claimed efficiency and range, handily beat the AGT.. in the 10% challenge, the AGT didn't lose because it "mis-calculated" and ran out of cahrge. It ran out of charge in upstate NY, less than 10% distance to the finish line. And the AGT was in 4th place, behind the Taycan, Hyundai, and the Tesla (model 3, I think). It is hard to argue with real data.

Going over 500 miles on the highway and not achieving its stated range?

 

[BS8899]

I haven't watched a lot of the OOS videos, so I went to take a look. I'm assuming you're looking at an older video, as there wasn't any miscalculation discussed in the Oct '24 10% challenge video that put 2025 Taycan and 2025 Air head-to-head. The Air did 3.2 miles/kWh, 155 miles, at 80 mph. The Taycan did go slightly farther, reaching 158 miles. But that seems to be entirely due to better charging performance, with the charger putting in 67.6 kWh in 15 minutes, compared to the Air that took 54.2 kWh. Car and Driver has conducted 75 mph range tests on both cars, and a prototype Taycan delivered 313 miles (with 8% remaining), while the Air GT did 410.

The conclusion seems to be that the Air wins for highway speed range, but is loses out to the Taycan by a very small amount in a combined charging+range test.

As I'm hoping to buy a Gravity, I'll be very interested to see these kinds of tests performed for that vehicle.

As you noted, the Taycan has better charging performance than the AGT. Perhaps the Gravity can do better.

As you noted, the AGT, at 80mph, registered about 3.2miles/kWh. But the Taycan is actuallly more efficient, wasn't that the case? On specs alone, Lucid AGT would look like it blows away the Taycan in range and efficiency. In real-life, the Taycan wins over the AGT. The question herein is, how do these cars perform on roadtrips in real life.

Below is the Taycan's EPA rated range on the different Taycan variants:

Model Year	Model	Battery	EPA Range Estimate (mi)
MY25	Taycan	Performance Battery	274
MY25	Taycan	Performance Battery Plus	318
MY25	Taycan 4S	Performance Battery	252
MY25	Taycan 4S	Performance Battery Plus	295
MY25	Taycan Turbo	Performance Battery Plus	292
MY25	Taycan Turbo S	Performance Battery Plus	266
MY25	Taycan Turbo GT	Performance Battery Plus	276
MY25	Taycan Turbo GT w/Weissach	Performance Battery Plus	269
MY25	Taycan 4 Cross Turismo	Performance Battery Plus	277
MY25	Taycan 4S Cross Turismo	Performance Battery Plus	272
MY25	Taycan Turbo Cross Turismo	Performance Battery Plus	265
MY25	Taycan Turbo S Cross Turismo	Performance Battery Plus	261

 

[BS8899]

Going over 500 miles on the highway and not achieving its stated range?

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!

 

[BS8899]

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!

 

[hydbob]

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!

You've been beating this drum for years now. Who cares. Everyone's experience is unique to them. The great thing about OOS is they try and keep conditions as close as possible yet still cannot. So in their attempt to be impartial, they still fail but get closer than anyone else. Give it up already you will never find what you are trying to prove.

 

[borski]

You've been beating this drum for years now. Who cares. Everyone's experience is unique to them. The great thing about OOS is they try and keep conditions as close as possible yet still cannot. So in their attempt to be impartial, they still fail but get closer than anyone else. Give it up already you will never find what you are trying to prove.

Was it a full moon tho?

 

[TahoeMichael]

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!

I don't disagree, but OOS did a test with the Taycan and the Air on exactly the same night, on the same road. So within the parameters of their testing protocol, it's an apples-to-apples comparison. That doesn't mean that their results will match anyone else's results. Or even their results on a different day.

 

[TahoeMichael]

As you noted, the Taycan has better charging performance than the AGT. Perhaps the Gravity can do better.

As you noted, the AGT, at 80mph, registered about 3.2miles/kWh. But the Taycan is actuallly more efficient, wasn't that the case? On specs alone, Lucid AGT would look like it blows away the Taycan in range and efficiency. In real-life, the Taycan wins over the AGT. The question herein is, how do these cars perform on roadtrips in real life.

Below is the Taycan's EPA rated range on the different Taycan variants:

Model Year	Model	Battery	EPA Range Estimate (mi)
MY25	Taycan	Performance Battery	274
MY25	Taycan	Performance Battery Plus	318
MY25	Taycan 4S	Performance Battery	252
MY25	Taycan 4S	Performance Battery Plus	295
MY25	Taycan Turbo	Performance Battery Plus	292
MY25	Taycan Turbo S	Performance Battery Plus	266
MY25	Taycan Turbo GT	Performance Battery Plus	276
MY25	Taycan Turbo GT w/Weissach	Performance Battery Plus	269
MY25	Taycan 4 Cross Turismo	Performance Battery Plus	277
MY25	Taycan 4S Cross Turismo	Performance Battery Plus	272
MY25	Taycan Turbo Cross Turismo	Performance Battery Plus	265
MY25	Taycan Turbo S Cross Turismo	Performance Battery Plus	261

I went and looked again, and I realized that my prior comment was quoting the Taycan numbers from an OOS test in Europe, not the same night test they did with the Air.

The results are from the same-night test were:

Taycan: 70.9 kWh from charger in 15 minutes, range achieved 193 miles.
Air: 54.2 kWh from charger in 15 minutes, range achieved 155 miles.

If you care about efficiency in terms of power delivered by the charger, than Taycan was 2.72 miles/kWh, while Air was 2.86 miles/kWh. Those numbers include charging loses.

If you care about efficiency in terms of power drawn from the battery, than the Taycan hit 2.9 miles/kWh, while Air was 3.2 miles/kWh.

So Taycan won for charging speed, but Air won for efficiency, regardless of which way you measure it. That said, the Taycan's charging speed performance caused them to record the best 10% challenge range OOS has seen for any vehicle, by a wide margin. It'd be super interesting to see the same test for the Gravity, given the charging improvement Lucid has made.

 

[BS8899]

I went and looked again, and I realized that my prior comment was quoting the Taycan numbers from an OOS test in Europe, not the same night test they did with the Air.

The results are from the same-night test were:

Taycan: 70.9 kWh from charger in 15 minutes, range achieved 193 miles.
Air: 54.2 kWh from charger in 15 minutes, range achieved 155 miles.

If you care about efficiency in terms of power delivered by the charger, than Taycan was 2.72 miles/kWh, while Air was 2.86 miles/kWh. Those numbers include charging loses.

If you care about efficiency in terms of power drawn from the battery, than the Taycan hit 2.9 miles/kWh, while Air was 3.2 miles/kWh.

So Taycan won for charging speed, but Air won for efficiency, regardless of which way you measure it. That said, the Taycan's charging speed performance caused them to record the best 10% challenge range OOS has seen for any vehicle, by a wide margin. It'd be super interesting to see the same test for the Gravity, given the charging improvement Lucid has made.

Thank you for compiling the above data.

I agree with your take on the 10% challenge. In many respect, it reflects the actual usage of the car on roadtrips (efficiency, charging speed, # charging stops per trip, etc.).

Unlike many of you, I bought my 2022 AGT mostly because of the claimed efficiency and range because I drive long road trips between my two homes in Phoenix and Marin County (~740 miles). Back in 2022, tthe Lucid AGT was the best choice. That saiid, as most AGT owners reported, the actual achievable highway efficiency and range is about 75-80% of the published specs.. In contrast, I also have a 2023 R1S which is pretty much right on the dot (actually, slight better) with Rivian's specs (~2.4-2.5 mi/kWh @ highway speed). Multiple studies have shown that the German EVs, as a group, often meet/exceed their efficiency ratings.

 

[BS8899]

You've been beating this drum for years now. Who cares. Everyone's experience is unique to them. The great thing about OOS is they try and keep conditions as close as possible yet still cannot. So in their attempt to be impartial, they still fail but get closer than anyone else. Give it up already you will never find what you are trying to prove.

As I said in my post, I follow OoS and I respect Kyle's work. Additionally, I am NOT saying OoS did their testing at high elevation with the intention to make the mileag/efficiency results more favorable. For those of you who don't follow OoS closely, Kyle's OoS operation is based in Ft. Collins where he lives. What I was saying is that the Ft. Collins (5,000ft elevation) efficiency/range test results won't translate to everyday driving for most of us. I don't think OoS/Kyle would disagree with my point either, it is physics. That's why jet plans fly at 35,000ft to 40,000ft in order to minimize the atmospheric drag. Similarly, rolling an AGT down the hill from St. Moritz to Munich says nothing about setting new range and efficiency records.

I am sure Lucid has improved the power train and efficiency on newer model AGTs (e.g., 2025). If so, publish the new range and efficiency specs ans show us the improvements!

My view is, the forum should comvey accurate and meaningful results. When tests are done at exceptional conditions (e.g., high elevations) and the range/efficiency results are modulated by these conditions, it should be explicitly called out. "The truth will set you free!" (John 8:32)

 

[BS8899]

Yes.

W

Post in thread 'Why is No One Talking About All of the Improvements to the 2025 GT?!?'

May 6, 2025

@Lucken, I just finished three weeks in a loaner 2022 AGT and covered 650 miles. I have 1300 miles on my 2025 AGT. Same driver, same driving habits, same weather. Overall average was 3.18 mi/kWh on the 2022 and is 3.78 mi/kWh on the 2025.

I am 100% certain that the 2025’s are more efficient. I too would love a scientific study, but I trust myself to understand electric cars, my driving style and the conditions I covered in these two cars enough that there is no question in my mind that the 2025 cars are significantly more efficient. Whether that’s 10% or the greater than...

• WildRide47

• 

Thread 'Has the Improved Efficiency of the 2025 Airs Been Quantified?'

Dec 28, 2024

We all know by now that 2025 was a "mid-cycle" refresh of sorts for Air, at least for the GT and I believe Touring and Pure as well. We got a number of refined and / or new systems within the cars (heat pumps, improved thermal management, changes to battery management, etc.) to improve overall efficiency. We also know that in 2024 the EPA changed its test cycle standards. This combination of events makes it difficult to tell the "steady state" change in efficiency between the 2024 (and earlier years) and 2025 model years. Has anyone come across a specific, quantified difference?

• Blue Lectroid
• Replies: 6
• Forum: Air: Driving Dynamics

• 

If indeed there is such dramatic difference between the 2022 and 2025 AGTs, wouldn't Lucid make a big deal of it and change the efficiency/range specs? The 2022 and 2025 spec-claims can't be both correct at the same time?

 

[hydbob]

If indeed there is such dramatic difference between the 2022 and 2025 AGTs, wouldn't Lucid make a big deal of it and change the efficiency/range specs? The 2022 and 2025 spec-claims can't be both correct at the same time?

Take this to an appropriate thread since you are talking about the Air not the Gravity

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

Thank you for compiling the above data.

I agree with your take on the 10% challenge. In many respect, it reflects the actual usage of the car on roadtrips (efficiency, charging speed, # charging stops per trip, etc.).

Unlike many of you, I bought my 2022 AGT mostly because of the claimed efficiency and range because I drive long road trips between my two homes in Phoenix and Marin County (~740 miles). Back in 2022, tthe Lucid AGT was the best choice. That saiid, as most AGT owners reported, the actual achievable highway efficiency and range is about 75-80% of the published specs.. In contrast, I also have a 2023 R1S which is pretty much right on the dot (actually, slight better) with Rivian's specs (~2.4-2.5 mi/kWh @ highway speed). Multiple studies have shown that the German EVs, as a group, often meet/exceed their efficiency ratings.

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.