Gravity Efficiency and Range

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.
It would depend on what config of your vehicle but I have a 386 EPA vehicle and tho not driven in the mid west in Gravity, given the other factors you mention, I would expect to get pretty comfortablely to about 320 miles on my config.
 
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.
I would never count that though. 99% of drivers would never want to risk that. And anything below 0% should never count toward the advertised range IMO.

It will be curious to see what summer numbers get reported, but 450 (~3.7 MPK) looks like it will be a significant exaggeration even then. At best this looks like a 375-400 car. Which is still impressive for it's size and power, but they pretty clearly over-sold the range.
 
I would never count that though. 99% of drivers would never want to risk that. And anything below 0% should never count toward the advertised range IMO.

It will be curious to see what summer numbers get reported, but 450 (~3.7 MPK) looks like it will be a significant exaggeration even then. At best this looks like a 375-400 car. Which is still impressive for its size and power, but they pretty clearly over-sold the range.
But from what I can tell, just about every EV manufacturer advertises the full capacity projection of their battery, not just the usable battery, to give their top range estimates. They all overstate the real world range as a result. Up to us to figure out what is ‘practical’ from that peak range.

Also I heard Lucid did increase the usable battery capacity thru a software update last year I think. Anyone know if this is true? Not sure how many kWh is usable now. But I think it used to be 115kWh of the 123kWh total pack size (which is a big reserve!).
 
Last edited:
But from what I can tell, just about every EV manufacturer advertises the full capacity projection of their battery, not just the usable battery, to give their top range estimates. They all overstate the real world range as a result. Up to us to figure out what is ‘practical’ from that peak range.

Also I heard Lucid did increase the usable battery capacity thru a software update last year I think. Anyone know if this is true? Not sure how many kWh is usable now. But I think it used to be 115kWh of the 123kWh total pack size (which is a big reserve!).
Exaggerating EPA is common, although not universal. Both of my other EVs (current Macan and previous Mach-E) I could actually reach the EPA range in the summer with combined (mix of city/highway) driving. Semi-consistently in good conditions. I still hold out an ounce of hope that the Gravity can get close to 450 at times in summer temps, but so far I'm not seeing people in Southern states really even getting close, so it seems unlikely. It's looking like even in ideal conditions it'll come up around 15% short, but we'll see. I kinda doubt I'll ever see 400. So far 360 is my top but that's still in Spring temps, not summer yet. I'm guessing about 380 in ideal conditions (I have the 450 trim).
 
Exaggerating EPA is common, although not universal. Both of my other EVs (current Macan and previous Mach-E) I could actually reach the EPA range in the summer with combined (mix of city/highway) driving. Semi-consistently in good conditions. I still hold out an ounce of hope that the Gravity can get close to 450 at times in summer temps, but so far I'm not seeing people in Southern states really even getting close, so it seems unlikely. It's looking like even in ideal conditions it'll come up around 15% short, but we'll see. I kinda doubt I'll ever see 400. So far 360 is my top but that's still in Spring temps, not summer yet. I'm guessing about 380 in ideal conditions (I have the 450 trim).
You might have to be driving 50 or 55 mph to have a chance at 450 miles of range
 
You might have to be driving 50 or 55 mph to have a chance at 450 miles of range
I doubt city speeds (like 40) would even get there. I haven't even done a road trip yet and the best I'm seeing for mixed city/hwy is 3.09 MPK (360). And that's on the good side compared to what many are seeing.

Still not bad in general, but 450 looks like a total pipe dream.
 
Just to throw it out there again, the epa rating does NOT suggest you’ll get that number by driving at highway speeds! It’s frustrating to hear over and over how “I drove at a solid 65 for 2hrs and did not the ‘rated’ efficiency”… no - u didn’t! And you won’t cuz that’s not what the number says!! Having said that - it’s still good to know what you can expect on a road trip - just remember that’s NOT necessarily how you’ll get best efficiency (and that’s not what they’re claiming). Guess it’s just automatically assumed since that’s where ice cars perform best
 
Road trip from San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle area (includes going over a mountain range):
  • Trip meter: 832.7 miles, 328.4 kWh, 2.60 mi/kWh.
  • GDE, 7-seater, 20/21 wheels.
  • 3 people + 2 large dogs + luggage.
  • Smooth mode, DDPro most of the way.
  • 10 mph over speed limit (80 mph for a good portion of the trip).
  • 3 charge stops.
The gravity is a fantastic family road tripper. The total time taken and the number of stops was the same as our ICE SUV on previous trips. Our stops were for food, bathroom break, and walking our dogs at around 10% SOC. We ended up charging the Gravity to over 90% per stop because we were not ready to go at 80% charge.

On my commute of ~40 miles round trip, I’ve been getting over 3.2 mi/kWh recently with warming temperatures. Vehicle is lighter and I’m forced to go slower because of traffic.
 
Last edited:
Just to throw it out there again, the epa rating does NOT suggest you’ll get that number by driving at highway speeds! It’s frustrating to hear over and over how “I drove at a solid 65 for 2hrs and did not the ‘rated’ efficiency”… no - u didn’t! And you won’t cuz that’s not what the number says!! Having said that - it’s still good to know what you can expect on a road trip - just remember that’s NOT necessarily how you’ll get best efficiency (and that’s not what they’re claiming). Guess it’s just automatically assumed since that’s where ice cars perform best
It is frustrating, as unlike ICE cars that actually attain or exceed EPA in real world driving, Lucid/Tesla don’t come close. So makes total sense, that majority of general public that make the move to an EV from one of these mfg’s would be very disappointed. EPA should go to the conservative test that BMW/Euro’s and others use and not this overly optimistic one.
 
It is frustrating, as unlike ICE cars that actually attain or exceed EPA in real world driving, Lucid/Tesla don’t come close. So makes total sense, that majority of general public that make the move to an EV from one of these mfg’s would be very disappointed. EPA should go to the conservative test that BMW/Euro’s and others use and not this overly optimistic one.
WLTP is even more optimistic that the EPA. The BMW and Porsche estimates are from the companies - they try to underpromise and over perform. That is a marketing practice. The US manufacturers like to use EPA to stay out of litigation. Sort of "the only thing we've got".
 
Just to throw it out there again, the epa rating does NOT suggest you’ll get that number by driving at highway speeds! It’s frustrating to hear over and over how “I drove at a solid 65 for 2hrs and did not the ‘rated’ efficiency”… no - u didn’t! And you won’t cuz that’s not what the number says!! Having said that - it’s still good to know what you can expect on a road trip - just remember that’s NOT necessarily how you’ll get best efficiency (and that’s not what they’re claiming). Guess it’s just automatically assumed since that’s where ice cars perform best
Right, EPA is mostly a city speed number. It's been a few years since I looked up the methodology but IIRC the average speed works out to something in the 40's.

Been saying for years that they really need to make it a 75 MPH highway number (or include separate city and highway numbers) because THAT'S where most people actually care about range. Locally range usually doesn't matter, as most people just plug in at home every night and have more than enough range for local commutes. Range is mostly a concern for road tripping long distance where DCFC refueling is needed.
 
WLTP is even more optimistic that the EPA. The BMW and Porsche estimates are from the companies - they try to underpromise and over perform. That is a marketing practice. The US manufacturers like to use EPA to stay out of litigation. Sort of "the only thing we've got".
Yes, EPA (flawed as it is) tends to be more realistic than WLTP (Europe) and CLTC (China), which are both commonly way over-optimistic.

All EPA range numbers come from the manufacturer. The EPA doesn't do the testing, they just set the criteria (with 2 choices: 2-cycle and 5-cycle that can produce different results). The manufactures do their own testing, and it's mostly calculations based on lab (dynamometer) testing. And even when they come up with a number from that calculation, they have the choice to publish a lower number instead. The most notable example of that is the Porsche Taycan that pretty significantly underpromised and overdelivered. Some others reportedly did the same to a lesser degree (like Ford). While others just want to publish the biggest number they get can away with (Tesla and Lucid seemingly fall into that category).
 
Yes, EPA (flawed as it is) tends to be more realistic than WLTP (Europe) and CLTC (China), which are both commonly way over-optimistic.

All EPA range numbers come from the manufacturer. The EPA doesn't do the testing, they just set the criteria (with 2 choices: 2-cycle and 5-cycle that can produce different results). The manufactures do their own testing, and it's mostly calculations based on lab (dynamometer) testing. And even when they come up with a number from that calculation, they have the choice to publish a lower number instead. The most notable example of that is the Porsche Taycan that pretty significantly underpromised and overdelivered. Some others reportedly did the same to a lesser degree (like Ford). While others just want to publish the biggest number they get can away with (Tesla and Lucid seemingly fall into that category).
Exactly! As @dbsb3233 summarized, some EV manufactures (Tesa, Lucid) use the 5 cycle tests, with adjustment factors they insert, and advertised those numbers (e.g., Lucid AGT EPA 5-cycle rated at 516 miles range). It is no wonder that most (if not all) owners will never realize this kind of performance in their road trip driving. It has been well-reported that most German EV (using the 2-cycle test) and conservative rating often meet/exceed their range rating. In contrast, most Lucid owners will not realize Lucid's implied range. The delta could be as large as 20-25% off (e.g., AGT range advertised as 516mi, but (my) reality is more like 400-mile range when driven at 75mph on US highways). Gravity will likely see similar discrepancies, 20-25% less than the quoted EPA range. Some US EV manufacturers are more conservative. My Rivian R1S often meets/slightly exceeds the manufacturer's rated range specs.
 
Exactly! As @dbsb3233 summarized, some EV manufactures (Tesa, Lucid) use the 5 cycle tests, with adjustment factors they insert, and advertised those numbers (e.g., Lucid AGT EPA 5-cycle rated at 516 miles range). It is no wonder that most (if not all) owners will never realize this kind of performance in their road trip driving. It has been well-reported that most German EV (using the 2-cycle test) and conservative rating often meet/exceed their range rating. In contrast, most Lucid owners will not realize Lucid's implied range. The delta could be as large as 20-25% off (e.g., AGT range advertised as 516mi, but (my) reality is more like 400-mile range when driven at 75mph on US highways). Gravity will likely see similar discrepancies, 20-25% less than the quoted EPA range. Some US EV manufacturers are more conservative. My Rivian R1S often meets/slightly exceeds the manufacturer's rated range specs.
Until they're forced to produce an actual highway number, it's known that we'll usually never achieve the EPA number at highway speeds (road trips). That's just how it works right now with the lack of a true highway EPA range number. What's more annoying to me right now is that 450 looks out of reach even for the city driving that the test is mostly geared for. 400 EPA seems like a fairer number to have used and set expectations for.

I expect to lose an extra 10-15% at 75 MPH for the whole drive (vs city driving). But when that's on top of falling 10-15% short of the city speeds too, now we're talking 20-30%.

But that's why I (and many others) chose a Lucid. Even a whopping 30% miss off 450 is still 315, which for a car of this size and power, is still one of the better *real* ranges available. If we just ignore the 450 advertising, it's still good. Hard to totally ignore though. That's the stupid game the EPA has allowed. They really need to revamp those rules and come up with a separate methodology just for BEVs.
 
I would never count that though. 99% of drivers would never want to risk that. And anything below 0% should never count toward the advertised range IMO.

It will be curious to see what summer numbers get reported, but 450 (~3.7 MPK) looks like it will be a significant exaggeration even then. At best this looks like a 375-400 car. Which is still impressive for it's size and power, but they pretty clearly over-sold the range.
The strange this is EPA testing themselves drives to the car is out of juice and no longer moves, so it does use all buffer and whatever the OEM calibrates the SOC guessometer too. The germans have done it best by being conservative and aligning their testing to a highway range in ideal conditions, but then they also tune it so 0% means you stop moving.
 
Until they're forced to produce an actual highway number, it's known that we'll usually never achieve the EPA number at highway speeds (road trips). That's just how it works right now with the lack of a true highway EPA range number. What's more annoying to me right now is that 450 looks out of reach even for the city driving that the test is mostly geared for. 400 EPA seems like a fairer number to have used and set expectations for.

I expect to lose an extra 10-15% at 75 MPH for the whole drive (vs city driving). But when that's on top of falling 10-15% short of the city speeds too, now we're talking 20-30%.

But that's why I (and many others) chose a Lucid. Even a whopping 30% miss off 450 is still 315, which for a car of this size and power, is still one of the better *real* ranges available. If we just ignore the 450 advertising, it's still good. Hard to totally ignore though. That's the stupid game the EPA has allowed. They really need to revamp those rules and come up with a separate methodology just for BEVs.
First, I think Lucid makes one of the most efficient EVs. I give them credit for that. On paper, and how Lucid advertises it, the Air and the Gravity is like 20-25% more efficient than their closest competitor. Well, it is not. Maybe 5% better than their closest competitor.

We can blame the EPA, but "truth in advertising" and properly educating and informing the customers should be the company's ethos.
 

You can take from this what you will but thought I'd offer this channel's video.
 

You can take from this what you will but thought I'd offer this channel's video.
That's a decent explanation for the higher variance EVs experience in efficiency vs ICE (which translates to range) due to different driving patterns and conditions. But that's different than the average being off. If the EPA number were a good representation of the overall results, we'd see roughly half of the outcomes being lower and roughly half being higher. In the Gravity's case (450 trim), I don't think I've seen a single report of anyone coming even remotely close to 450, let alone exceeding it, even with favorable city driving.

He does make reference to the EPA's mission being to measure energy usage. One could argue that's not quite the same as range. They kinda back into a range number through their goofy MPGe number, but it's highly flawed. It's probably not even the right govt agency for this. It would be a better fit in Commerce, or the FTC, and make it consumer-focused. The vast majority of consumers care way more about the practical range aspect of a potential EV purchase than they do energy efficiency.
 
I still go back to the EPA being responsible for requiring realistic tests that provide realistic results. Of course, you can reduce the number of miles for your own product, but that it advertising. You can't just increase the number and advertise it - that's like "DieselGate". If the 5 cycle test produces inaccurate results, change the 5 cycle test.

When Apple says the new processor "Axx" performs 2 times faster than the previous, they are using very specific results on things the processor can do - we all know that Word or your browser won't open at twice the speed, but it sure seems like it would if you watch the Apple new product introduction.

I hate regulation, but if you are going to stipulate something such as EPA rating test cycle, make it realistic, not idealistic. It should represent a normal use case, not a fictitious, in theory only case.
 
Back
Top