Gravity Efficiency and Range

[BS8899]

Reflecting on Kyle Connor's Gravity 5,000 mile video and SoS's testing of Gravity's range/efficiency, I am wondering is there a repository of owners' real-live efficiency data on how the Gravity is doing. I believe the EPA rating is ~3.6-3.7 mi/kWh.

In the early days of the Lucid Air, I remember a thread where owners posted their realized range and efficiency. I understand there is this "3,000 mile break-in period" rule-of-thumb. By now, I think there are many Gravities that are well over this 3,000 mile break-in period.

What are people experiencing?

 

[BSheppard]

On a 800 mile road trip (LA - SF - LA) I got 2.56, around town I typically maintain 3.1

 

[037]

Reflecting on Kyle Connor's Gravity 5,000 mile video and SoS's testing of Gravity's range/efficiency, I am wondering is there a repository of owners' real-live efficiency data on how the Gravity is doing. I believe the EPA rating is ~3.6-3.7 mi/kWh.

In the early days of the Lucid Air, I remember a thread where owners posted their realized range and efficiency. I understand there is this "3,000 mile break-in period" rule-of-thumb. By now, I think there are many Gravities that are well over this 3,000 mile break-in period.

What are people experiencing?

The results are all over the place depending on location, temperature, style of driving along with A/C use and other stuff.

So…I am not aware of an official place that keeps track of this stuff but it would be nice to have this kind of self reported data along with space to add things by time and location and check boxes for a/c use or towing…etc

With the ability to filter and sort so you can approximately match your scenario.

Or you can just drive it and get what you get.

 

[iloveyou]

350 miles drive after ownership. From 3.5 to 3.1(60MPH 60%, other lower 40MPH on 50F environment), keep monitoring.

 

[RandomDesign]

350 miles drive after ownership. From 3.5 to 3.1(60MPH 60%, other lower 40MPH on 50F environment), keep monitoring.

When you pick up a new Gravity the dynamic efficiency is always showing near max so the first few hundred miles will likely not be representative of your actual efficiency.

 

[hwy17er]

When you pick up a new Gravity the dynamic efficiency is always showing near max so the first few hundred miles will likely not be representative of your actual efficiency.

And....Lucid says there's a 2000mi "break-in period" where you might see you range and efficiency increase a bit

We'll see when I get there

 

[prgarg]

I'm way over the 2k break in period, but there is no way to get anywhere close to the rated range no matter how you dissect it

 

[BS8899]

I'm way over the 2k break in period, but there is no way to get anywhere close to the rated range no matter how you dissect it

For reference, on the Air GT, rated at 516miles range (Air GT), you can only achieve that if you drive at (perhaps) 55mph or less in fair weather/temperature. As such, the Gravity, referencing the same metrology (5 -cycles EPA tests, with vendor fudge factors) will experience similar outcome. That said, an efficiency number of 3 mi/kWh would be respectable benchmark for an SUV of that size.

 

[prgarg]

For reference, on the Air GT, rated at 516miles range (Air GT), you can only achieve that if you drive at (perhaps) 55mph or less in fair weather/temperature. As such, the Gravity, referencing the same metrology (5 -cycles EPA tests, with vendor fudge factors) will experience similar outcome. That said, an efficiency number of 3 mi/kWh would be respectable benchmark for an SUV of that size.

For sure. It's just a bit disappointing to be so far off the expected number. Tom Moloughny from SOC had to be flown to AZ to test in almost perfect conditions and even then he was about 10% off from rated. It is what it is

 

[hwy17er]

I'm way over the 2k break in period, but there is no way to get anywhere close to the rated range no matter how you dissect it

Yeah, I'm sure I won't either....too much heavy foot and mountain road driving going on here (..doesn't that li'l speed limit sign on the cockpit screen ever go white? It's nearly always orange!)


But clarifying my comment: the Dynamic range should give you a more accurate number after 2000mi

 

[Nunya]

For yous broke-in, what distance are you comfortable planning starting at 100% on Midwest freeways 75mph to 80mph on warm days? Would be great to have same on below freezing days too.

 

[illopp00]

I live in the Midwest and have 2400 miles on a GGT with the small wheels. My lifetime is about 2.68 mi/kwhr, took delivery end of November so 90% of that driving is in winter conditions below 40 deg f. I have seen the car gets significantly more efficient above 60-65 deg f, on the highway in spring it's doing 3.1 mi/kwhr between 70-80 mph, so you can get 365 miles. The route planning told me I could get from Chicago to south of Kentucky near Mammoth Caves on one charge (did not try this, was a bit skeptical).

 

[MACOSTEON]

Reflecting on Kyle Connor's Gravity 5,000 mile video and SoS's testing of Gravity's range/efficiency, I am wondering is there a repository of owners' real-live efficiency data on how the Gravity is doing. I believe the EPA rating is ~3.6-3.7 mi/kWh.

In the early days of the Lucid Air, I remember a thread where owners posted their realized range and efficiency. I understand there is this "3,000 mile break-in period" rule-of-thumb. By now, I think there are many Gravities that are well over this 3,000 mile break-in period.

What are people experiencing?

 

[BS8899]

Thanks for sharing your data. Your experiences, between 2.8 to almost 3.0 are pretty much the norm. Lucid's advertised (implied) 3.6/3.7 are based on EPA 5 cycle testing (similar to Tesla's) and probably not representative to most owners' experience. It is a pity that this kind of confusion is allowed to persist. I think the Gravity numbers will come in around where your experience is, about 20% or so below Lucidi's "EPA #s". This is a repeat of the same with the Air.

 

[RajD]

For sure. It's just a bit disappointing to be so far off the expected number. Tom Moloughny from SOC had to be flown to AZ to test in almost perfect conditions and even then he was about 10% off from rated. It is what it is

That is true. But i think he did not go below 0% SOC into the reserve range of the gravity, which we know is a very large reserve from the OoS range testing. If he had a crew to pick him up roadside Tom would (by his own admission) pushed it further. And probably would have hit maybe 5% lower than rated.

 

[RajD]

Thanks for sharing your data. Your experiences, between 2.8 to almost 3.0 are pretty much the norm. Lucid's advertised (implied) 3.6/3.7 are based on EPA 5 cycle testing (similar to Tesla's) and probably not representative to most owners' experience. It is a pity that this kind of confusion is allowed to persist. I think the Gravity numbers will come in around where your experience is, about 20% or so below Lucidi's "EPA #s". This is a repeat of the same with the Air.

I wonder if @HC_79 can somehow add efficiency metrics to the Lucid tracker app to pool owner data here. Variable for sure but would be interesting to see that histogram.

 

[tmichael]

I think it’s the EPA that sets unreasonable expectations with their testing protocol.

Comparing vehicles, however, is consistent. Apples to Apples. So, still useful. Just not real life.

 

[Coyote]

That is true. But i think he did not go below 0% SOC into the reserve range of the gravity, which we know is a very large reserve from the OoS range testing. If he had a crew to pick him up roadside Tom would (by his own admission) pushed it further. And probably would have hit maybe 5% lower than rated.

Also please remember that Tom was driving at a constant 70mph. I don't think too many folks expect to get rated range at that speed.

 

[BS8899]

I wonder if @HC_79 can somehow add efficiency metrics to the Lucid tracker app to pool owner data here. Variable for sure but would be interesting to see that histogram.

I am all for that! HC_79 is much more competent than I am......and we should have all the performance metrics in one place!

 

[prgarg]

That is true. But i think he did not go below 0% SOC into the reserve range of the gravity, which we know is a very large reserve from the OoS range testing. If he had a crew to pick him up roadside Tom would (by his own admission) pushed it further. And probably would have hit maybe 5% lower than rated.

Good point!