Gravity 75 mph Range

[Elfin]

I finally found those on the Lucid website, doing different build configurations. 3rd row seats cost 13 miles (~3%), larger wheels cost 43 miles (~10%), while both combined cost 64 miles (14%).

One of the biggest reasons I'm willing to pay $100k+ for a Gravity is to get mega range in a vehicle of this size/form/luxury. We road trip a lot (7-8 trips/year averaging 2000 miles each). It's usually just 2 of us so we don't need the 3rd row (but all the extra storage space will be great!). Sacrificing significant range for a bigger wheel seems crazy to me. I never found the look of bigger wheels to be much improvement anyway. In fact I'd rather have smaller wheels. More sidewall usually mean a softer ride.

I want as much of that 450 as I can get. Hoping for a realistic 400 at highway speeds (280 from 10-80%). We've done a ton of road trips stopping every 100-150 miles to charge, which is doable, but 400+ means we can do a full day in almost the same time as an ICE drive (750 miles in just 2 refueling stops).

The tires on the bigger wheels have more traction (hence the lower efficiency) and the difference in range probably isn't as large as the EPA numbers suggest (rolling resistance is a smaller percentage of highway vs. city range)
The third row range hit is just because the EPA calculation rounds the car weight in 500lb increments so it's 6000lbs for the 2 row and 6500lbs for the 3 row.
Really hoping the Gravity hits 160mi in the Out of Spec 10% challenge (15 minute charge to get 160 miles of 80mph range).

 

[dbsb3233]

The tires on the bigger wheels have more traction (hence the lower efficiency) and the difference in range probably isn't as large as the EPA numbers suggest (rolling resistance is a smaller percentage of highway vs. city range)
The third row range hit is just because the EPA calculation rounds the car weight in 500lb increments so it's 6000lbs for the 2 row and 6500lbs for the 3 row.
Really hoping the Gravity hits 160mi in the Out of Spec 10% challenge (15 minute charge to get 160 miles of 80mph range).

It will be curious to see reports from people that have the 450 trim. I know all these EPA range numbers are fuzzy (to say the least). The tires probably don't make a full 10% difference. That seems like too much. If it is less, I suspect it's the 450 that's exaggerated, unfortunately.

Not that it's not still a lot of range either way, but more is always better, and just offers more options for when to stop, how far we can go off interstate, and not being as much of a slave to charging. More ICE-like with less care about it all.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I have 7 seats and 21/22 - so range is 386 per Lucid. What’s absurd is range is like 436 on the 20/21 with 7 seats. The wheels have a huge impact. I’d wanted the smaller ones but took an inventory car.

And I DO have the aero inserts in my 21/22.

 

[dbsb3233]

I have 7 seats and 21/22 - so range is 386 per Lucid. What’s absurd is range is like 436 on the 20/21 with 7 seats. The wheels have a huge impact. I’d wanted the smaller ones but took an inventory car.

And I DO have the aero inserts in my 21/22.

We ran into the same thing with the Porsche Macan we bought in June (my partner's car). We wanted the smaller 20" wheels but the closest inventory one we could find to get everything else we wanted had the 22" Sports wheels. We went ahead and bought it, even though it was an extra $4500 for those wheels we didn't even want. That stung a little. Turns out the air suspension overcomes that and gives it a smooth ride anyway, but we do seem to take a noticeable range hit relative to what people report with the 20" wheels.

But as Elfin said, it may be the difference in tires more than the wheel size. In the Gravity configurator I see the 20/21 are Hankook Ions, the 21/22 are Michelin Primacys, and the 22/23 are P Zeros. I've used both of the first two on our Mach-E (seem similar but I got slightly better efficiency on the Primacys).

 

[hank-iv]

Providing data for a 193 mile drive. Starting elevation is about 250ft, ending elevation is 2,600ft. Most of the climb is last 45 miles, but lots of up and down before that. All highway but for first couple of miles and last 10 miles. I went about 75mph entire time on highway.

Temp was about 75, no wind, sunny. All numbers from the Lucid energy in car app.

Started with 308 miles of rated range ,80% for my 21/22s A/S.

“Consumed” 249 miles of range and had 2.76 miles/kWh consumption. Interestingly, 35.3 miles of consumption were from “elevation”.

As a comparison, my wife did the same trip today, same conditions, in our 2022 X, started with 293 miles of range and ended with 85 miles of range. So 208 miles of consumption on 20” all season Michelins for the X versus my 249. She also drives just as fast (or faster!). Not sure what the X numbers really indicate or if it’s apples to apples, but thoughts folks here would be interested.

Is this drive part of the one with the window stuck open? I would think that might create some extra drag.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

Is this drive part of the one with the window stuck open? I would think that might create some extra drag.

Yes. Excellent point. Last 40 miles or so had rear passenger window stuck all the way open (which is halfway down on Gravity), which meant I had to crack open a front window to avoid buffeting. Certainly got some drag there.

I have an amazing photo of it with a tarp over the window right now when not in use, but don’t want to post it as I don’t want rando sites using it to say there’s a massive issue. I am confident service will repair it Monday morning at my house.

 

[bicycleguy]

Is this drive part of the one with the window stuck open? I would think that might create some extra drag.

Great observation, especially on a low drag car going fast, ie no longer a low drag car.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

Great observation, especially on a low drag car going fast, ie no longer a low drag car.

I’ve got no comp for the ride back because my kids were freezing in the backseat with the window down, so they kept their heat at 86!!! “Climate” stole 35 miles of range alone. Makes sense though.

At times, “elevation” was -6.5 but by the end, it was about +0.5, meaning elevation (a drop of 2,300 ft in total, but lots of ups and downs and it takes more energy to go up than can be repaired going down) had eaten 0.5 miles of range.

And yes, windows were open. Hopefully, service will fix tomorrow morning!

 

[borski]

“Climate” stole 35 miles of range alone.

I really, really, really love that you can see this in the Energy app on the Gravity. I know it’s ultimately useless and will never change how I drive, except to let me know it’s totally fine to use climate lol, but I find it neat to see.

 

[privacylaw]

Just caught up on the thread. All great stuff. I'm still waiting for my GGT White Stealth with 20/21's and 7 seats - rated at 437. Primary use case for the car is driving 240 miles from San Jose to Kings Beach, CA (Tahoe). That's 240 miles from 20 feet in elevation to 6000 feet elevation with some ups and downs in between. My hope is that it can get there without stopping to charge while driving 75-80 mph. I think it will be able to do it with ideally 60 miles to spare.

I'm not in production yet, but once I do the drive, I will share for everyone.

For comparison, my 2022 Air Touring is rated at 386 miles and can't do that drive. (By can't I mean it appears so close (within a couple of miles) that I have not risked it.)

 

[flarbear]

I feel like I might switch from the Hankooks to something less compromise-y if I get the 20" wheels now, so I'll then have less than the 437 that it will claim out of the gate.

Combine that with wondering if the 21s really did have the exact same mileage as the 22s or if they simply tested only the 20s and 22s and then just reported the 22 range for the 21s for simplicity and that leads me to wondering if the 21s get better range than they are claiming.

Or perhaps most of the wheels will get similar mileage on similar tires, but the Hankooks gave a big boost so they put them on the 20s to get their press claim of 450, but using any other tire is potentially as big of a range hit as the 21s or 22s.

So, if 21s real world range is better and if I will run different rubber on the 20s... what's the actual real world difference in the long run?

 

[DeaneG]

Just caught up on the thread. All great stuff. I'm still waiting for my GGT White Stealth with 20/21's and 7 seats - rated at 437. Primary use case for the car is driving 240 miles from San Jose to Kings Beach, CA (Tahoe)....For comparison, my 2022 Air Touring is rated at 386 miles and can't do that drive....

EPA rules for 2025 vehicles are tighter than they were in 2021-2024, so I'm hoping that Gravity's actual highway range will be a larger percentage of its rated EPA range than it is on my 2021 Air GT.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I don’t know if this is how the math works, but when my “dynamic” range decided to reset itself, it set to 3.30 m/kwh and at 80% showed 309 miles of dynamic range - effectively 80% of the rated 386.

So, 3.30 m/kwh is how the math must break down for rated range…so 117kw of usable battery…or the computer is wrong - which could certainly be the case since my clock is still three minutes fast.

 

[hwy17er]

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:
View attachment 31819

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

In winter, Hwy 17 regularly gets into the mid-upper 30's (w/ black ice when it dips lower on occasion) but
I also drive up Hwy 88 to Kirkwood/Tahoe to ski a lot and usually like M/S rated tires for all that. I won't most likely be switching them out for summer/winter so I've been taking in all the comments on this and other forums about Gravity tire/wheel options that make sense for my future order to replace my 6speed stick AWD Subaru Outback.

I really appreciate everyone's technical expertise on here

 

[TahoeMichael]

Just caught up on the thread. All great stuff. I'm still waiting for my GGT White Stealth with 20/21's and 7 seats - rated at 437. Primary use case for the car is driving 240 miles from San Jose to Kings Beach, CA (Tahoe). That's 240 miles from 20 feet in elevation to 6000 feet elevation with some ups and downs in between. My hope is that it can get there without stopping to charge while driving 75-80 mph. I think it will be able to do it with ideally 60 miles to spare.

I'm not in production yet, but once I do the drive, I will share for everyone.

For comparison, my 2022 Air Touring is rated at 386 miles and can't do that drive. (By can't I mean it appears so close (within a couple of miles) that I have not risked it.)

I have a very similar scenario, San Mateo to Tahoe City, rather than Kings Beach (we should do a meet up some day). A Gravity will be my first EV, and I'm excited to stop buying gas. For the Air, I'm curious how much you've found winter weather affects how it does the drive to Tahoe?

 

[dbsb3233]

I have a very similar scenario, San Mateo to Tahoe City, rather than Kings Beach (we should do a meet up some day). A Gravity will be my first EV, and I'm excited to stop buying gas. For the Air, I'm curious how much you've found winter weather affects how it does the drive to Tahoe?

I can't speak for Tahoe from the CA side but we do drive from CO to Reno and Vegas many times each year. Done it probably 25 times in our Mach-E (and twice in our new Macan). Some of those trips were winter, in freezing temps for half of the miles (1800-2500 miles RT, depending on which itinerary). In the Mach-E we averaged 2.8 mi/kWh (MPK) on most trips in good summer weather. 3.0 was the best trip but that was just one time. Many were consistently 2.8. In colder temps that would drop to 2.3-2.5. Basically 10-20% less efficient, mostly to run the heater but cold also effects battery output (and slows DCFC charging). And it gets progressively worse the colder it gets. But Tahoe weather is pretty similar to Colorado mountain weather, so likely to be similar.

The Gravity does have a heat pump, so heating should be more efficient. OTOH, it's a bigger inside area to keep warm, so that might offset it some. 10-20% loss in 20-30F temps is probably in the ballpark of what to expect though. I found 40F to be the point where the loss starts to get noticeable on efficiency. YMMV, of course.

 

[TahoeMichael]

I can't speak for Tahoe from the CA side but we do drive from CO to Reno and Vegas many times each year. Done it probably 25 times in our Mach-E (and twice in our new Macan). Some of those trips were winter, in freezing temps for half of the miles (1800-2500 miles RT, depending on which itinerary). In the Mach-E we averaged 2.8 mi/kWh (MPK) on most trips in good summer weather. 3.0 was the best trip but that was just one time. Many were consistently 2.8. In colder temps that would drop to 2.3-2.5. Basically 10-20% less efficient, mostly to run the heater but cold also effects battery output (and slows DCFC charging). And it gets progressively worse the colder it gets. But Tahoe weather is pretty similar to Colorado mountain weather, so likely to be similar.

The Gravity does have a heat pump, so heating should be more efficient. OTOH, it's a bigger inside area to keep warm, so that might offset it some. 10-20% loss in 20-30F temps is probably in the ballpark of what to expect though. I found 40F to be the point where the loss starts to get noticeable on efficiency. YMMV, of course.

Should I expect that I can plug the Gravity in and instruct it to heat up the battery before I begin a trip from Lake Tahoe, and thus retard some of the cold weather impact? Or going the other direction, when I'm in the warmer central valley, would I be able to tell the car to get the battery extra warm before I climb into colder altitudes? I get that battery chemistry doesn't like cold, but I'm unclear on how much the Gravity's heat pump works to counteract that, or how much human intervention is possible or needed.

This will be my first EV, so unclear on a lot of the details.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

Should I expect that I can plug the Gravity in and instruct it to heat up the battery before I begin a trip from Lake Tahoe, and thus retard some of the cold weather impact? Or going the other direction, when I'm in the warmer central valley, would I be able to tell the car to get the battery extra warm before I climb into colder altitudes? I get that battery chemistry doesn't like cold, but I'm unclear on how much the Gravity's heat pump works to counteract that, or how much human intervention is possible or needed.

This will be my first EV, so unclear on a lot of the details.

You can tell the Gravity to “precondition” the battery for fast charging. This will heat/cool the pack based on its current temp and the ideal temp for fast charging. Ironically, this does take battery power to do, but not much and it will improve your charge speed no matter the weather. That is, you should always precondition prior to fast charging. If the fast charge stop is in the navigation, it should precondition automatically, but it might not, so best to check.

Otherwise, when you’re just driving and not heading to charge, there’s a ton of thought and processing power that goes into ensuring the battery automatically stays within a healthy temp range.

 

[dbsb3233]

Should I expect that I can plug the Gravity in and instruct it to heat up the battery before I begin a trip from Lake Tahoe, and thus retard some of the cold weather impact? Or going the other direction, when I'm in the warmer central valley, would I be able to tell the car to get the battery extra warm before I climb into colder altitudes? I get that battery chemistry doesn't like cold, but I'm unclear on how much the Gravity's heat pump works to counteract that, or how much human intervention is possible or needed.

This will be my first EV, so unclear on a lot of the details.

Refer to Ron's reply for battery preconditioning as he's more familiar with the Gravity specifics than I am (every EV model does that a little differently). But I will add that if you have the vehicle plugged in at home or hotel, yes, it's a good idea in the cold to remote start it (or set a departure time) if for no other reason than to use wall power to warm up the cabin. Not only is it much more comfortable getting into a warm car, it won't have to use as much battery just getting the cabin warm early in the drive.

Of course, if you have plenty of battery to spare for that drive, just do whatever's easiest and don't worry about it. San Mateo to Tahoe City is 216 miles. Probably no way you'll get 432 miles round trip without charging once somewhere. But one good DCFC to 80% around Tahoe should be plenty. There's an EA station in Truckee if you're going I-80, or one in South Lake Tahoe if going US-50. Tesla Superchargers both places too. Unless you have charging at your hotel, you'll probably be doing a 20-minute stop at one of those stations to charge.

 

[indigo6]

Refer to Ron's reply for battery preconditioning as he's more familiar with the Gravity specifics than I am (every EV model does that a little differently). But I will add that if you have the vehicle plugged in at home or hotel, yes, it's a good idea in the cold to remote start it (or set a departure time) if for no other reason than to use wall power to warm up the cabin. Not only is it much more comfortable getting into a warm car, it won't have to use as much battery just getting the cabin warm early in the drive.

Of course, if you have plenty of battery to spare for that drive, just do whatever's easiest and don't worry about it. San Mateo to Tahoe City is 216 miles. Probably no way you'll get 432 miles round trip without charging once somewhere. But one good DCFC to 80% around Tahoe should be plenty. There's an EA station in Truckee if you're going I-80, or one in South Lake Tahoe if going US-50. Tesla Superchargers both places too. Unless you have charging at your hotel, you'll probably be doing a 20-minute stop at one of those stations to charge.

I’ve noticed that the gravity doesn’t seem to use wall power when turning on climate (unless the car is already charging of course) anybody else?