How Much Range Are You Actually Getting?

[hydbob]

Kyle, from Out of Spec Studios, used my Lucid Air GT with 19" wheels and in near ideal highway driving conditions at 70 miles per hour, he got 435.5 miles of range, He was able to pull 109 kwh from the battery. He switched to the 21" wheels, did a shorter highway run and noted 13-14% range penalty. This means my car in ideal highway driving at 70 miles per hour with 21" wheels should go about 377 miles. At higher speeds, and/or with more stop and go will dramatically change the range. As an example, right before software update 2.0.15 (where you could readily see miles per kwh since the last charge), I was averaging around 2.7 miles per kwh during a mixed use test with some performance driving. Average that out with my car on a full charge would put the range at just under 300 miles. What doesn't make sense to me is the reported range difference between a Dream Edition Range (520 miles) and the GT (516 miles). The DE has a 118kwh battery versus the GT's 112, so why does it supposedly only have a 4 mile range difference? It should be closer to a 28 mile range difference based on Lucid's calculated miles per kwh. In some ways this may help explain why some reviewers got about 500 miles of range on the DE, but I haven't seen the same for the GT (at 70 miles per hour). Bottom line: I'm not convinced the GT is a 500 mile car at true highway speeds with the 19" wheels. I also suspect it will be hard for a GT with 21" wheels to see 400 miles at true highway speeds. If you drive at a steady 55 miles per hour (below what I consider a true highway speed), the advertised range numbers might be achievable, but we haven't tested that. Of course, your range will vary, and I'm basing my analysis on Kyle's thorough testing of my car and my own testing as well.

I can definitely get 400 miles of range in my DEP with 21" wheels, all it takes is me keeping the speedo at 70 mph. I've tested this on a back to back trip over 350 miles before.

 

[msav2000]

That's how it was for me in the beginning as well. 12k miles in and will average 370 miles on a full charge without regard to efficiency.

I certainly hope I should not drive for over a year to finally see the advertised specs.

 

[msav2000]

I can definitely get 400 miles of range in my DEP with 21" wheels, all it takes is me keeping the speedo at 70 mph. I've tested this on a back to back trip over 350 miles before.

70 MPH? I can do that at 55 MPH speed limit, but, outside of some downtown highway stretches, there are very few places where you can find it these days. And I'm not going 70 at 65 or 70 limit just to gain range.

Obviously, there is always a trade off between speed and range and yes, this is my choice, but a 50% range reduction is not cool. I'm getting the same mileage from my E450 convertible with dual turbos, but with it I don't have to even think about going the most range extending speed, think where will I find a working charger, ideally with 350V, drive it at night (other times the charger is always occupied) 30 minutes away from my home just to charge a car, then drive back... Between driving and full charging is takes me about 2 hours of my time, and a tank of Premium is under $100 even in LA. My time is worth more than $50/hr.

Not complaining, just thinking out loud. This is my first EV, so there is a learning curve, but so far I'm not convinced it is a good fit for my current life style. Will give it another few months.

 

[Pwmac]

I took a drive from Phoenix to Jerome, Prescott and back to Phoenix. 5000 feet of elevations gain, temperature from 65 to 78, two-thirds freeway driving at 75-80 mph,one-third winding mountain roads from 20-50 mph, a couple of stretcehs of 20 miles with stop and go city driving. 251 miles total and 3.4 mi/kWhr on 21" wheels. I beleive that @Pwmac saw just about the same. I am pleased!

Yep. I went 285 miles and averaged 3.3 mi/kWhr. I used swift mode on 12 mi winding road, hit 90 on a couple stretches and was stuck in 20 mi of a traffic jam on the way home. Overall I was happy with the range, especially with the elevation change.

 

[hydbob]

70 MPH? I can do that at 55 MPH speed limit, but, outside of some downtown highway stretches, there are very few places where you can find it these days. And I'm not going 70 at 65 or 70 limit just to gain range.

Obviously, there is always a trade off between speed and range and yes, this is my choice, but a 50% range reduction is not cool. I'm getting the same mileage from my E450 convertible with dual turbos, but with it I don't have to even think about going the most range extending speed, think where will I find a working charger, ideally with 350V, drive it at night (other times the charger is always occupied) 30 minutes away from my home just to charge a car, then drive back... Between driving and full charging is takes me about 2 hours of my time, and a tank of Premium is under $100 even in LA. My time is worth more than $50/hr.

Not complaining, just thinking out loud. This is my first EV, so there is a learning curve, but so far I'm not convinced it is a good fit for my current life style. Will give it another few months.

Okay he's a real world non efficiency trip I made 2 months ago.

LA to Vegas, 247 miles, 100% SOC depart, Arrival 36% SOC, which would put me at 386 miles range with my ACC set at 84 mph (real world 82 mph). Just like @Bill55 , my average for 10 miles is 3.1mi/kwh which translates to 365 miles on a full charge on average. It's up to you, but I believe unless you are driving for stretches with very limited charging options, you just don't really need to worry about range in the car.

I think the range anxiety is blown out of proportion with this car. Also, your E450 convertible is no comparison to the Air GT.

 

[th14]

This is encouraging news indeed. I drove my Air GT from the southern end of San Diego County to LAX and back. I can’t remember what my efficiency was but I do remember that my car was approaching 1000 miles on the odometer.

This round trip drive of 285 miles is one I’ll be doing every week for the next several years. I was surprised at how much of my battery capacity it took, from 93% to 17%. That’s a total of 76% of battery capacity.

What would account for so much of my range being eaten up? Granted I was driving like any self-respecting Lucid driver would - well above posted speed limits whenever possible. Otherwise there’s not much of an elevation change between San Diego and LAX, and the weather on this drive was what it usually is - light winds and an OAT hovering in 70s.

I’m hoping that as the car is broken in my trip efficiency on this drive will improve.

What’s the distance on that trip? 120? 130?

That trip sounds like my trip home from picking up the car. Yes I was sipping in and out of traffic and going very high speed. Such a fun car to drive. But I think I did 150 miles that day and got home with a 2.2 mi/ kw. Which had me very worried. That’s why I’ve been paying such close attention to it.

But as I’ve noted, for the past 2 weeks, it’s gotten better and better. Not sure if it’s the break in period or if I’ve adapted.

The regen is much stronger than my Tesla was. So I do know it took me a week to shake the braking habit. I used the brake gently in my Model X. I have gone multiple days without touching the brake on the Lucid. That definitely seems to have made a difference.

All that said, your 76% seems very high usage for what I think is the mileage of that trip. The poll shows most of us getting at least 70% of states range. 76% of that 70% would be 273 miles. If the trip is 130, you’re below half of the already reduced number.

Unless you were driving into a 50mph headwind, that’s not good. Give it a week or so and if it’s the same, I’d call it in to be checked out.

 

[windscar911]

Put 800 miles on my ATG with 21" so far - getting about 220 - 250 miles out of a full charge (370 to max 417 miles set). I'm in LA, but don't spend much time in traffic and mostly do highway driving, although a lot of it is at 40-60 mph. Driving in my normal fashion as I am used with gas cars (that is as fast as possible based on traffic and road conditions).

Not impressed with the range, to say the least. Yet, according to the poll, I am only one of two ppl, who gets 50% range. Am I doing smth wrong or should I have the car checked out?

I’m not too far off. Maximum I’ve seen is 3.0mi/kWh on the freeway. Just ticked over 800miles too.

Im driving VERY conservatively too.

I think in mixed usage I’m more likely to see 2.5mi/kwh. I voted 60% on the list.

 

[GEWC]

What’s the distance on that trip? 120? 130?

That trip sounds like my trip home from picking up the car. Yes I was sipping in and out of traffic and going very high speed. Such a fun car to drive. But I think I did 150 miles that day and got home with a 2.2 mi/ kw. Which had me very worried. That’s why I’ve been paying such close attention to it.

But as I’ve noted, for the past 2 weeks, it’s gotten better and better. Not sure if it’s the break in period or if I’ve adapted.

The regen is much stronger than my Tesla was. So I do know it took me a week to shake the braking habit. I used the brake gently in my Model X. I have gone multiple days without touching the brake on the Lucid. That definitely seems to have made a difference.

All that said, your 76% seems very high usage for what I think is the mileage of that trip. The poll shows most of us getting at least 70% of states range. 76% of that 70% would be 273 miles. If the trip is 130, you’re below half of the already reduced number.

Unless you were driving into a 50mph headwind, that’s not good. Give it a week or so and if it’s the same, I’d call it in to be checked out.

He mentions it is 285 miles right in the text you quoted.

 

[Dortreo]

Ran some range tests over the past week. As some background. I’m about 1400 miles in. I’m a moderate driver. Not heavy acceleration but at doing higher speeds on the interstate (call it 80). Overall, I’m averaging 3.5 mi/kw. That’s an even mix of city and highway driving. It’s flat where I live and the weather has been 60-70 degrees. So pretty ideal conditions.

What I did was get on the interstate, set the cruise control and then hit reset on the trip counter. I went at least 10 miles and in most cases, closer to 20-30.

80mph - 3.1 mi/kw
75mph - 3.5 mi/kw
70mph - 3.7 mi/kw
65mph - 3.9 mi/kw
60mph - 4.4 mi/kw

Below 60mph and I was consistently over 4. Sometimes into the 4.5-5 range.

Battery is 112 kWh so you can multiply the above rates times the total battery capacity to get estimated range.

I’m a pretty experienced EV driver so the above tests and most of my regular driving, I don’t ever hit the brake. The regen on this car is strong enough you really shouldn’t have to.

My takeaway from this is that higher speeds have a bigger penalty than I was expecting for this car. Coming from an SUV, I was used to big range penalties at high speed. I was hoping for better.

Oh, I’m in an AGT with 19” wheels w/ aero.

My other takeaway is that’s it’s pretty easy to get close to the EPA. Unfortunately, it requires slowing down to 60. But if you’re a long way away from a charging station and you have to get there, 55 mph is probably your best bet to stretch it out.

We all know acceleration is a big hit. My other observation was elevation changes were a big hit. Even in my relatively flat area, pushing this heavy car up an overpass caused a noticeable drop in efficiency. Which as well documented, is not fully recovered on the way back down.

I’m happy there is a set of circumstances where I can replicate the quoted range. I am a little worried about what this means for real world range in the Gravity at highway speeds. Hopefully they pack in a little more battery for that vehicle.

Thank you for this! I've been looking for something like this for a while. I used your data, which appear to be consistent with my experience on my AGT with 19" wheels, but with one additional data point of 4.6 mi/kwh at 55 mph. I then built a linear function to predict approximate mi/kw at any given speed. I tested the function out on a 210 mile drive from VT to MA, where I got 3.6 mi/kwh going an average of 72 mph. Temps were in the 50s. No wind. So, under these circumstances at least, the function worked! Thanks!

 

[LucidBrit]

Ignoring rolling resistance and mechanical efficiencies, the energy required to move the car forwards is proportional to speed at low speeds and become proportional to velocity squared at higher speeds - until you get a four motor version and break the sound barrier. Anyone who has done much cycling knows how much more energy you have to put in to go faster than seems reasonable.
When you go up hill you have to add all of the energy to get all that weight going in the opposite direction to the way gravity is pulling it. Energy = 9.8m/s.s x lots of mass x the height of the hill. A 5000lb car going up 1000ft of hill takes about 2kwh more than the it would do for the same distance on the flat assuming no change in efficiency or changing speed.
Add to that the 0.2kwh or so for every time you change speed by 60 mph at a reasonably fun acceleration, and it all adds up to your choice.
Drive at 30mph on the flat without ever changing speed and you can beat the published range by lots - a 690 mile range per the so one who published it on YouTube. Or, drive like the EPA test and get something like the published figures. Or, experience the amazing acceleration of an ev up and down hills and through traffic and cruise at non-boring speeds and you get something less, or a lot less depending.
With my S65 I get 10mpg in stop start traffic or having too much fun. If I am really careful I get 20mpg on a steady run on the interstate. I don’t see why the Lucid wouldn’t have the same variety of range depending on how you drive it more than variation between cars.

 

[th14]

He mentions it is 285 miles right in the text you quoted.

Whoops. Missed that. Also missed round trip.

So in that case, it’s pretty close to the estimate. 273 vs 285.

 

[th14]

Thank you for this! I've been looking for something like this for a while. I used your data, which appear to be consistent with my experience on my AGT with 19" wheels, but with one additional data point of 4.6 mi/kwh at 55 mph. I then built a linear function to predict approximate mi/kw at any given speed. I tested the function out on a 210 mile drive from VT to MA, where I got 3.6 mi/kwh going an average of 72 mph. Temps were in the 50s. No wind. So, under these circumstances at least, the function worked! Thanks!

View attachment 6214

This is great. Thanks for sharing.

My guess is it stops being linear at very high speeds. You can already see a more significant drop off at 80. My assumption is 85-90 will be at least the 0.4 and likely more. Since I only had the one data point on the tail end, I’m afraid your graph doesn’t reflect that trend.

Just throwing that out there in case someone tries to extrapolate at 100 mph and gets dramatically worse results.

 

[Bus Driver]

This is great. Thanks for sharing.

My guess is it stops being linear at very high speeds. You can already see a more significant drop off at 80. My assumption is 85-90 will be at least the 0.4 and likely more. Since I only had the one data point on the tail end, I’m afraid your graph doesn’t reflect that trend.

Just throwing that out there in case someone tries to extrapolate at 100 mph and gets dramatically worse results.

I’m that one Asian who’s complete $hit at maths, but I intuited that too, that @Dortreo’s graph would not be linear at higher speeds. My hunch is that much above 80 mph, efficiency falls off a cliff.

I should plan a drive from my home in Chula Vista CA to Dateland AZ to test this. There’s a long stretch of the 8 east of Imperial County that’s pretty desolate, and where CHP and Arizona troopers don’t hang out too much.

 

[Dortreo]

Ignoring rolling resistance and mechanical efficiencies, the energy required to move the car forwards is proportional to speed at low speeds and become proportional to velocity squared at higher speeds - until you get a four motor version and break the sound barrier. Anyone who has done much cycling knows how much more energy you have to put in to go faster than seems reasonable.
When you go up hill you have to add all of the energy to get all that weight going in the opposite direction to the way gravity is pulling it. Energy = 9.8m/s.s x lots of mass x the height of the hill. A 5000lb car going up 1000ft of hill takes about 2kwh more than the it would do for the same distance on the flat assuming no change in efficiency or changing speed.
Add to that the 0.2kwh or so for every time you change speed by 60 mph at a reasonably fun acceleration, and it all adds up to your choice.
Drive at 30mph on the flat without ever changing speed and you can beat the published range by lots - a 690 mile range per the so one who published it on YouTube. Or, drive like the EPA test and get something like the published figures. Or, experience the amazing acceleration of an ev up and down hills and through traffic and cruise at non-boring speeds and you get something less, or a lot less depending.
With my S65 I get 10mpg in stop start traffic or having too much fun. If I am really careful I get 20mpg on a steady run on the interstate. I don’t see why the Lucid wouldn’t have the same variety of range depending on how you drive it more than variation between cars.

Good point about the function not being linear but being proportional to velocity squared. However, given the many variables that determine range, a linear function in the range of speeds that represent sustained highway driving is good enough. I’ve no doubt mi/kWh will drop like a rock at constant speeds above 80.

And yes, I was originally worried that my car was less efficient than other Lucids, as my mi/kWh tends to be lower. But I agree that variations in driving conditions and style are more likely determinants. It’s nice, though, to have data from someone else’s Lucid that approximates my experience.

 

[Dortreo]

This is great. Thanks for sharing.

My guess is it stops being linear at very high speeds. You can already see a more significant drop off at 80. My assumption is 85-90 will be at least the 0.4 and likely more. Since I only had the one data point on the tail end, I’m afraid your graph doesn’t reflect that trend.

Just throwing that out there in case someone tries to extrapolate at 100 mph and gets dramatically worse results.

I was surprised to see it didn’t start dropping dramatically at 80 mph. I‘m generally doing 80 mph sustained on I-89 through Vermont, which has a lot of rolling hills, not many great sight lines for troopers, and lots of other cars that volunteer to be ”rabbits.” Efficiency rarely goes above 3 mi/kWh then.

 

[Bus Driver]

Okay he's a real world non efficiency trip I made 2 months ago.

LA to Vegas, 247 miles, 100% SOC depart, Arrival 36% SOC, which would put me at 386 miles range with my ACC set at 84 mph (real world 82 mph). Just like @Bill55 , my average for 10 miles is 3.1mi/kwh which translates to 365 miles on a full charge on average. It's up to you, but I believe unless you are driving for stretches with very limited charging options, you just don't really need to worry about range in the car.

I think the range anxiety is blown out of proportion with this car. Also, your E450 convertible is no comparison to the Air GT.

Hey, @hydbob. I was just going to post a question about this.

On the ABRP app, I planned a drive from San Diego to Las Vegas, a one-way distance of 334 miles. Leaving my house in “Chulajuana” at 100%, the app has me stopping in Baker CA at 29%, and charging for about five minutes, to 42%, and then ending up in Las Vegas at 14%. I took a little disappointment when ABRP cranked out that stop in Baker. The main reason I bought my Air GT was for its long legs, and to not have to intermediate stops on trips over 300 miles.

Based on what you reported, I’m not convinced that this stop in Baker is necessary, even with starting down in San Diego, and even with the 4000 ft elevation change at Cajon Pass.

I’m thinking about doing this drive at 80 mph or so, and just going for it. I can always slow down if it looks like I’m cutting it close.

 

[Tesla2.0]

Hey, @hydbob. I was just going to post a question about this.

On the ABRP app, I planned a drive from San Diego to Las Vegas, a one-way distance of 334 miles. Leaving my house in “Chulajuana” at 100%, the app has me stopping in Baker CA at 29%, and charging for about five minutes, to 42%, and then ending up in Las Vegas at 14%. I took a little disappointment when ABRP cranked out that stop in Baker. The main reason I bought my Air GT was for its long legs, and to not have to intermediate stops on trips over 300 miles.

Based on what you reported, I’m not convinced that this stop in Baker is necessary, even with starting down in San Diego, and even with the 4000 ft elevation change at Cajon Pass.

I’m thinking about doing this drive at 80 mph or so, and just going for it. I can always slow down if it looks like I’m cutting it close.

I plugged in your route on ABRP, that Baker is the last station stop before Vegas with 150kW and 300kW dispensers, anything in between that station to Vegas is merely 5kW and 50kW. Although you can do it in one shot, but arriving at Vegas with 3% SOC is awfully dangerous.

 

[hydbob]

Hey, @hydbob. I was just going to post a question about this.

On the ABRP app, I planned a drive from San Diego to Las Vegas, a one-way distance of 334 miles. Leaving my house in “Chulajuana” at 100%, the app has me stopping in Baker CA at 29%, and charging for about five minutes, to 42%, and then ending up in Las Vegas at 14%. I took a little disappointment when ABRP cranked out that stop in Baker. The main reason I bought my Air GT was for its long legs, and to not have to intermediate stops on trips over 300 miles.

Based on what you reported, I’m not convinced that this stop in Baker is necessary, even with starting down in San Diego, and even with the 4000 ft elevation change at Cajon Pass.

I’m thinking about doing this drive at 80 mph or so, and just going for it. I can always slow down if it looks like I’m cutting it close.

Having never driven from SD to Vegas, I say go for it and post here if you get stranded . Those elevation changes are really what saps your battery. Don't have to deal with nearly as much coming from LA.

 

[victoryroad]

Two weeks and 1600 miles. Of course, range and efficiency are important and based on the comments above predictable due to the variables discussed above by many owners. I was initially disappointed in the range. My car is still in the break-in interval so may not be as efficient as it may become, but my driving habits will determine the range along with the external factors of temperature, wind, and terrain. I am adapting to the car's range properties. I have definitely experienced range anxiety on a few longish trips, but prudent planning for a 20-minute stop at an EA station has reduced my initial concern. OT, but most important to me is that the AGT is a pure joy to drive so the range is a secondary factor. Aside from seamless power delivery at any speed so far the suspension and steering are phenomenal, literally. Have not really tested stopping distance and expect that it may float a bit on the 19s in an attempted sudden stop from speed. Driver position, comfort, and seat support are also amazing.

 

[Tesla2.0]

Baker station has 11 CCS (envy)

It almost look like 1/2 of nation’s EA network are in California here.