Gravity Efficiency and Range

[borski]

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).

The difference here is much simpler than “they decided on a lower number.”

Porsche and Ford use the 2-cycle test. Tesla and Lucid use the 5-cycle test.

That’s it. None of the companies are intentionally deflating their range numbers or intentionally inflating them. They are simply using two different (and both valid/legal) tests as outlined by the EPA.

 

[borski]

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

You can, and should, blame the EPA for designing this convoluted system.

 

[borski]

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.

I agree completely.

 

[dbsb3233]

The difference here is much simpler than “they decided on a lower number.”

Porsche and Ford use the 2-cycle test. Tesla and Lucid use the 5-cycle test.

That’s it. None of the companies are intentionally deflating their range numbers or intentionally inflating them. They are simply using two different (and both valid/legal) tests as outlined by the EPA.

There's that too (choosing the 2-cycle or 5-cycle test), but they can go beyond that and apply "correction factors" if they choose. I remember Ford doing that with the Mach-E. I can't find the articles from 6 years ago now, but Google AI summarizes it...

 

[borski]

There's that too (choosing the 2-cycle or 5-cycle test), but they can go beyond that and apply "correction factors" if they choose. I remember Ford doing that with the Mach-E. I can't find the articles from 6 years ago now, but Google AI summarizes it...

View attachment 38125

The correct term is “adjustment factor” and does not mean precisely what you think; the EPA adjustment factor is a regulatory multiplier, typically 0.7 (or a 30% reduction), applied to EV laboratory range tests to better simulate real-world driving conditions. This factor reduces raw, 2-cycle lab results to account for factors like high-speed driving, cold temperatures, and heavy HVAC use. Note that this only applies to the 2-cycle tests, and is done because those are extremely unrealistic; they equate roughly to a 0-60 time of 18 seconds, which is not how anybody drives.

Most OEMs use a default factor of 0.7 applied to raw city and highway test results to calculate the final range on the window sticker.

Instead of doing that, manufacturers can run 5-cycle tests (including aggressive driving and cold/AC tests) to potentially earn a more favorable adjustment factor than 0.7, although the adjustment can never be less than 0.7.

This dual-method testing dates back to the EPA's 2008 overhaul of fuel-economy labels. Initially, the agency wanted all vehicles to undergo five-cycle testing, but automakers claimed it was an overwhelming burden and the EPA relented.

So here we are.

 

[dbsb3233]

The correct term is “adjustment factor” and does not mean precisely what you think; the EPA adjustment factor is a regulatory multiplier, typically 0.7 (or a 30% reduction), applied to EV laboratory range tests to better simulate real-world driving conditions. This factor reduces raw, 2-cycle lab results to account for factors like high-speed driving, cold temperatures, and heavy HVAC use. Note that this only applies to the 2-cycle tests, and is done because those are extremely unrealistic; they equate roughly to a 0-60 time of 18 seconds, which is not how anybody drives.

Most OEMs use a default factor of 0.7 applied to raw city and highway test results to calculate the final range on the window sticker.

Instead of doing that, manufacturers can run 5-cycle tests (including aggressive driving and cold/AC tests) to potentially earn a more favorable adjustment factor than 0.7, although the adjustment can never be less than 0.7.

This dual-method testing dates back to the EPA's 2008 overhaul of fuel-economy labels. Initially, the agency wanted all vehicles to undergo five-cycle testing, but automakers claimed it was an overwhelming burden and the EPA relented.

So here we are.

I wish I could find the article on the Mach-E from back then that mentioned the adjustments they applied, but no matter. Here's one talking about the Taycan voluntarily providing a lower number.

Porsche voluntarily lowered Taycan’s official range numbers from 200 to 192 miles

Porsche legally could have used 200 miles for the Taycan Turbo S. But instead used the 192-mile figure achieved at its R&D center in Weissach, Germany.

electrek.co

No matter though. It certainly doesn't apply to Lucid as they're very much on the opposite end of that.

 

[DBV]

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.

When I and other consumers new to EV’s hear the most efficient, we think that means you get the range that is posted by the EPA. That is what most efficient means to me. I get what it means, but the phrase is very misleading to the most of the general population that know nothing about EV’s. All I care about is getting close to advertised range of the EV, just like on ICE cars.

 

[DBV]

The difference here is much simpler than “they decided on a lower number.”

Porsche and Ford use the 2-cycle test. Tesla and Lucid use the 5-cycle test.

That’s it. None of the companies are intentionally deflating their range numbers or intentionally inflating them. They are simply using two different (and both valid/legal) tests as outlined by the EPA.

Yep - we get that. Has been said over and over again. There needs to be one test and it should be the 2-cycle test, as that is way more realistic of hitting the actual EPA range. The 5-cycle test seems like the EPA rigs the numbers. I know they don’t, but I want the mfg’s to be required the most conservative, most realistic test.

 

[borski]

Yep - we get that. Has been said over and over again. There needs to be one test and it should be the 2-cycle test, as that is way more realistic of hitting the actual EPA range. The 5-cycle test seems like the EPA rigs the numbers. I know they don’t, but I want the mfg’s to be required the most conservative, most realistic test.

Won’t see me disagreeing that it should be a single standard.

 

[9point81]

When I and other consumers new to EV’s hear the most efficient, we think that means you get the range that is posted by the EPA. That is what most efficient means to me. I get what it means, but the phrase is very misleading to the most of the general population that know nothing about EV’s. All I care about is getting close to advertised range of the EV, just like on ICE cars.

But that's not true for many ICE cars either. I've about never gotten EPA range on any ICE car I've owned but never really cared with gas bc it was always plentiful and everywhere. I also have always had a lead foot so I'm sure that's why but I didn't care. With Gravity, this is the first EV (3rd for us) where the range and charging, not to mention infrastructure improvementa and access to Tesla network, has gotten me back to the point where again I don't care about EPA range. I think way too many people are hung up on that number. I get it's advertised and all, but the Gravity gets stupendous range for its size and amazing ability to put it back in. We are winning folks!

 

[DBV]

But that's not true for many ICE cars either. I've about never gotten EPA range on any ICE car I've owned but never really cared with gas bc it was always plentiful and everywhere. I also have always had a lead foot so I'm sure that's why but I didn't care. With Gravity, this is the first EV (3rd for us) where the range and charging, not to mention infrastructure improvementa and access to Tesla network, has gotten me back to the point where again I don't care about EPA range. I think way too many people are hung up on that number. I get it's advertised and all, but the Gravity gets stupendous range for its size and amazing ability to put it back in. We are winning folks!

With my ICE, BMW, Mercedes, etc they have all exceeded easily EPA range. Maybe, as they are Euro cars. Our X5d is a beast and blows the EPA range out of the water in all conditions, so did my 5 Series. Range is extremely important to me, as I travel a lot and expect to get close to EPA range in most all situations and don’t want to stop more often just to charge. Guarantee most people that have not converted to EV’s will too and won’t want to see 20% to 40% less depending on conditions, the way they drive, etc. And then have to charge more or stop more just to make up for the less range compared to an ICE car.

Love my EV, but they need to get better with the EPA range and how realistic it is and also much faster charging to convert the majority of the US who are ICE drivers.

 

[9point81]

With my ICE, BMW, Mercedes, etc they have all exceeded easily EPA range. Maybe, as they are Euro cars. Our X5d is a beast and blows the EPA range out of the water in all conditions, so did my 5 Series. Range is extremely important to me, as I travel a lot and expect to get close to EPA range in most all situations and don’t want to stop more often just to charge. Guarantee most people that have not converted to EV’s will too and won’t want to see 20% to 40% less depending on conditions, the way they drive, etc. And then have to charge more or stop more just to make up for the less range compared to an ICE car.

Love my EV, but they need to get better with the EPA range and how realistic it is and also much faster charging to convert the majority of the US who are ICE drivers.

The Germans have a history of under promising and over delivering on range. Not surprised at all, same experience with my Porsche. As Borski mentioned, the 2 cycle vs the 5 cycle EPA test yields different results. It's all so stupid. The problem is EPA and their methodology.

As far as range goes and as far as EVs go, Lucid is amazing on what they can do. A vehicle this size with a battery this size, it's the only thing in the US market that can go as far as it does. If that's not good enough, maybe you need one of GM's monster EVs or a gas vehicle to get you what you need. It's ok to get what you need to suit your life. But getting hung up on EPA numbers and coming in with the expectation to hit it ( or super close) is only going to leave you disappointed.


Here's some more food for thought. Take a look at this Edmonds recent testing of real world mileage vs EPA for 141 different EVs and variants of them. The longest range Gravity is number 13! Way ahead of the nearest Tesla but well behind the monster batteries of GM.

Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

Which EVs have the best electric car range? The EPA provides range estimates for every electric vehicle, but they don't test EV range in the real world -- and Edmunds does. Read all the latest real-world EV test results from the Edmunds experts.

www.edmunds.com

Maybe Lucid should scrap the EPA number and advertise the Edmonds real world range number of 401 miles? Maybe that will make folks feel happier with their range? I kinda wish all manufacturers would drop the EPA numbers, especially with EVs...

 

[tmichael]

The Germans have a history of under promising and over delivering on range. Not surprised at all, same experience with my Porsche. As Borski mentioned, the 2 cycle vs the 5 cycle EPA test yields different results. It's all so stupid. The problem is EPA and their methodology.

As far as range goes and as far as EVs go, Lucid is amazing on what they can do. A vehicle this size with a battery this size, it's the only thing in the US market that can go as far as it does. If that's not good enough, maybe you need one of GM's monster EVs or a gas vehicle to get you what you need. It's ok to get what you need to suit your life. But getting hung up on EPA numbers and coming in with the expectation to hit it ( or super close) is only going to leave you disappointed.


Here's some more food for thought. Take a look at this Edmonds recent testing of real world mileage vs EPA for 141 different EVs and variants of them. The longest range Gravity is number 13! Way ahead of the nearest Tesla but well behind the monster batteries of GM.

Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

Which EVs have the best electric car range? The EPA provides range estimates for every electric vehicle, but they don't test EV range in the real world -- and Edmunds does. Read all the latest real-world EV test results from the Edmunds experts.

www.edmunds.com

Maybe Lucid should scrap the EPA number and advertise the Edmonds real world range number of 402 miles? Maybe that will make folks feel happier with their range? I kinda wish all manufacturers would drop the EPA numbers, especially with EVs...

For new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold in the U.S., the Monroney (window) sticker is legally required and must include EPA fuel‑economy data (the EPA “Fuel Economy and Environment” label) that is visible on the vehicle.

So, in the government's infinite wisdom, manufacturers are required to post worthless information.

Huh, so weird?!?

 

[DBV]

The Germans have a history of under promising and over delivering on range. Not surprised at all, same experience with my Porsche. As Borski mentioned, the 2 cycle vs the 5 cycle EPA test yields different results. It's all so stupid. The problem is EPA and their methodology.

As far as range goes and as far as EVs go, Lucid is amazing on what they can do. A vehicle this size with a battery this size, it's the only thing in the US market that can go as far as it does. If that's not good enough, maybe you need one of GM's monster EVs or a gas vehicle to get you what you need. It's ok to get what you need to suit your life. But getting hung up on EPA numbers and coming in with the expectation to hit it ( or super close) is only going to leave you disappointed.


Here's some more food for thought. Take a look at this Edmonds recent testing of real world mileage vs EPA for 141 different EVs and variants of them. The longest range Gravity is number 13! Way ahead of the nearest Tesla but well behind the monster batteries of GM.

Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

Which EVs have the best electric car range? The EPA provides range estimates for every electric vehicle, but they don't test EV range in the real world -- and Edmunds does. Read all the latest real-world EV test results from the Edmunds experts.

www.edmunds.com

Maybe Lucid should scrap the EPA number and advertise the Edmonds real world range number of 402 miles? Maybe that will make folks feel happier with their range? I kinda wish all manufacturers would drop the EPA numbers, especially with EVs...

Thanks - the Edmunds results are really interesting. Agree with you on the EPA numbers/Edmunds. Would also be nice to see the average battery degradiation over time too.

Definitely a nice perspective.

 

[BS8899]

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.

First, I think the EPA could do a much better job in their management of the efficiency metrics the manufacturers report.

That said, to think that EV manufacturers were "victimized" by the EPA, is a myth...I believe it is exactly the opposite. Some (not all) EV manufacturers KNOWINGLY exploited the grey-area in EPA's methodology and, in so doing, mislead the consumers.

Without getting down a rat-hole, let put some stakes in the ground:
> the competent EV manufactures know exactly how their EVs perform and what efficiencies can be achieved.
> Lucid, in particular, sells most of its products in the US. The typical freeway speeds are between 70-80mph.
> likewise, the relevant "range specification" should comprehend the usage model.
> Most people interpret "range" as "how far can I travel before I run out of juice". Inasmuch as this statement does not specify whether one is driving in the city, a tranquil country road @45mph, 85-90mph on a highway in Texas, the common-sense benchmark is probably 75mph, on a road trip.
> Yes, EPA is not particularly diligent in policing its tests and the manufacturers' embellishment of the data. As a result, the manufactures are allowed to choose between the 2 cycle vs the 5 cycle test, AND put in fudge-factors to further modify the results.
> as many readers on this forum are aware, Telsa and Lucid both use the 5 cycle tests with their own fudge factors. Their "EPA mileage" deviates more from the "75-mph road trip experience" than other manufacturers.
> in contrast, most of the German EV makers are more conservative and often meet/exceed their EPA metrics.
> Some readers on this forum took the position that it is EPA's fault. Lucid can't do anything about it. This is simply untrue!
> So, does Lucid KNOW that their EVs usually CAN'T achieve Lucid's own EPA rated range when driven on American road trips @ 75mph? Clearly, they do. This is evidenced by the highly publicized Lucid Pure Fremont to Santa Monica road -trip conducted a couple of years ago. The road trip, about 400 miles (matching the claimed range of the Pure), was NOT run on the fast highways like I-5 and I-10 @75mph. Instead, it traveled along Hwy 101 through farm country, wine country through the San Luis Obispo area. An idyllic drive, but not the preferred route if you want to go from the Bay Area to LA, I don't recall the average speed, but I bet it was 60mph or less.

So, am I saying Lucid "lied" about their EPA range specs? No, not in the legal sense. EPA's loosie-goosy methodology, allowing manufactures to add their own "fudge factors" makes the metrics meaningless. And some EV manufacturers exploited it!

As a result, most Lucid owners will not realize Lucid's range/efficiency numbers in their driving. In contrast, several of the German EV makers, who "derates their EPA test range ratings", often meet/exceed their range claims. My personal experience shows my 2023 Rivian R1S often achieves its rated range whilst my 202 AGT achieves ~75-80% of Luncid's claims.

This debate often concludes that EPA is the culprit. Perhaps, but the German EV manufactures (and perhaps Rivian as well) showed us a better way to inform the consumers.

 

[borski]

First, I think the EPA could do a much better job in their management of the efficiency metrics the manufacturers report.

Or, you know, designing a single method for calculating efficiency.

That said, to think that EV manufacturers were "victimized" by the EPA, is a myth...I believe it is exactly the opposite. Some (not all) EV manufacturers KNOWINGLY exploited the grey-area in EPA's methodology and, in so doing, mislead the consumers.

It’s not a grey area. It’s literally the algorithm for how to calculate the range. They followed the EPA’s rules; that is not a gray area.

Without getting down a rat-hole, let put some stakes in the ground:
> the competent EV manufactures know exactly how their EVs perform and what efficiencies can be achieved.

True.

> Lucid, in particular, sells most of its products in the US. The typical freeway speeds are between 70-80mph.

True for all models sold in the US.

> likewise, the relevant "range specification" should comprehend the usage model.

Instead, it follows the EPA, as those are the laws.

> Most people interpret "range" as "how far can I travel before I run out of juice". Inasmuch as this statement does not specify whether one is driving in the city, a tranquil country road @45mph, 85-90mph on a highway in Texas, the common-sense benchmark is probably 75mph, on a road trip.

Not according to the EPA, which is who sets the rules to follow for all manufacturers.

> Yes, EPA is not particularly diligent in policing its tests and the manufacturers' embellishment of the data. As a result, the manufactures are allowed to choose between the 2 cycle vs the 5 cycle test, AND put in fudge-factors to further modify the results.

They are not embellishing. They are following the equations the EPA tells them to follow. Your “fudge factor” which is actually the “adjustment factor” cannot be lower than 0.7, so it’s not like there aren’t limits.

And again: this is defined by the EPA.

> as many readers on this forum are aware, Telsa and Lucid both use the 5 cycle tests with their own fudge factors. Their "EPA mileage" deviates more from the "75-mph road trip experience" than other manufacturers.

Both deviate from the “75-mph road trip experience.”

In fact, the EPA explicitly states they designed the 5-cycle test because it was *more* accurate than the 2-cycle test. You (and I) may disagree, but that is how it is defined.

> in contrast, most of the German EV makers are more conservative and often meet/exceed their EPA metrics.

Because they use the 2-cycle test. We have been over this.

> Some readers on this forum took the position that it is EPA's fault. Lucid can't do anything about it. This is simply untrue!

Oh? Lucid can follow either the 2-cycle test, putting themselves at a disadvantage compared to other American manufacturers, or they can follow the 5-cycle test.

Those are Lucid’s options. They cannot produce an arbitrary range number that follows neither test.

> So, does Lucid KNOW that their EVs usually CAN'T achieve Lucid's own EPA rated range when driven on American road trips @ 75mph? Clearly, they do.

Nobody has ever stated otherwise. Nobody on this entire forum thinks *either* EPA algorithm is accurate, as far as I can tell.

This is evidenced by the highly publicized Lucid Pure Fremont to Santa Monica road -trip conducted a couple of years ago. The road trip, about 400 miles (matching the claimed range of the Pure), was NOT run on the fast highways like I-5 and I-10 @75mph. Instead, it traveled along Hwy 101 through farm country, wine country through the San Luis Obispo area. An idyllic drive, but not the preferred route if you want to go from the Bay Area to LA, I don't recall the average speed, but I bet it was 60mph or less.

Preferred by whom? Who is to say that Lucid wanted to take the fastest route? I rarely prefer the fastest route, especially when there is a gorgeous route. I often take PCH/Hwy-1. It is definitely not the fastest route.

It was not an inaccurate route. You could drive the very same one.

So, am I saying Lucid "lied" about their EPA range specs? No, not in the legal sense. EPA's loosie-goosy methodology, allowing manufactures to add their own "fudge factors" makes the metrics meaningless. And some EV manufacturers exploited it!

Again, exploiting it implies there is some malice or hoodwinking involved. There isn’t. They literally followed the EPA’s algorithm. They cannot deviate from it.

You don’t like which one they chose. But they are not “exploiting” anything.

As a result, most Lucid owners will not realize Lucid's range/efficiency numbers in their driving. In contrast, several of the German EV makers, who "derates their EPA test range ratings", often meet/exceed their range claims. My personal experience shows my 2023 Rivian R1S often achieves its rated range whilst my 202 AGT achieves ~75-80% of Luncid's claims.

They do not derate their ratings. They use the other test.

This debate often concludes that EPA is the culprit. Perhaps, but the German EV manufactures (and perhaps Rivian as well) showed us a better way to inform the consumers.

The EPA *is* the problem. That other manufacturers choose the other of the two tests is fine, but Lucid didn’t invent these tests or “exploit” anything. They are following the rules and regulations the EPA outlined, and that the EPA designed to be *more* accurate than the 2-cycle test. That it isn’t is not exactly Lucid’s fault.

Your issue is, indeed, with the EPA.

 

[DeaneG]

Miles 1000-2000 on our Gravity, trip A, mostly 65-80mph. Solidly 3.0mi/kWh, great for a large SUV. A wonderful road-trip vehicle.

 

[new owner]

Miles 1000-2000 on our Gravity, trip A, mostly 65-80mph. Solidly 3.0mi/kWh, great for a large SUV. A wonderful road-trip vehicle.

View attachment 38162

Nice
What size tires?

 

[DeaneG]

Nice
What size tires?

The 20-21 wheel combo. I was happy to have the longer range, and a healthy sidewall for pulling off-road into rough dirt trail parking areas. The air suspension's adjustable height was handy too.

 

[borski]

Miles 1000-2000 on our Gravity, trip A, mostly 65-80mph. Solidly 3.0mi/kWh, great for a large SUV. A wonderful road-trip vehicle.

View attachment 38162

I'm so glad you love it <3