Legal Action wrt to Range

[vahidk]

Hi. I purchased a Lucid Air GT recently and despite the EPA rating of 486 miles my car can barely go beyond an estimated 300 miles on highway. The max miles/kwh that I get is 3.6 driving straight on a flat road but in practice the average on highway is around 3.2. I brought the car to Lucid service center in Millbrae, a technician took a ride with me and despite the fact that he couldn't go beyond 3.6 wrote a report that the car's efficiency is at 4 miles/kwh. I have heard from many other customers that they are not able to achieve the advertised range. I wonder if any other owners want to join up to hire a law firm to bring a class action law suit against Lucid for deceptive advertisement.

 

[PompousAss]

So, we've all been trained to treat EPA estimates with a grain of salt, but I do wonder if Lucid has managed to game the system a little bit here. If you look at Edmunds' real world testing, the AGT underperformed (85% of EPA estimate) worse than any of other 60 cars on its list except for a 2018 Model 3.

All of the non-Tesla and non-Lucid cars in the Edmunds Top 20 actually outperformed their EPA estimates.

This is why I'm insisting on performing my own real world range test before finalizing my purchase. Long way between chargers in West Texas.

 

[RichMalden]

Your beef is with the EPA not Lucid and also not fully realizing how the ratings work. Lucid followed the rules as they are required. On top of that the EPA ratings are always said to be for comparison purposes only.

Car manufacturers can either use the basic EPA test or the more involved 5 cycle test. For the most part, of all the EV manufacturers, only Tesla and Lucid do the more expensive and involved 5 cycle tests.

The basic test, that most manufacturers use, just run the cars on dynamos at constant speed, no weather, temperature, incline, starting and stopping, etc. This results in a very high MPG. The EPA then requires they multiply that result by .7 to reflect real world factors. This results in the lower number most car manufacturers advertise. Because of this, they often beat their number in the real world.

Tesla and Lucid do a more involved 5 cycle test that is supposed to mimic real world. This allows them to advertise the results without any adjustment. It makes their numbers look much higher and, unfortunately, results in real world numbers that are lower.

The problem is with the EPA test rules. The 5 cycle test doesn't mimic real world as much as they should.

Lucid's defense would just be that they followed the EPA rules.

I'm not an expert on this and may have used slightly wrong terms for some of this post but I'm conveys the general reason why you're seeing what you see.

Additionally, if you're getting 3.6 on flat highway (speed, wind, temperature, AC are still factors) 3.6 X 112 battery size is 403 miles. Even at 3.2 X 112 it's 358 miles.

403 is better than 80% of the EPA rating and that's not knowing your speed, wind speed, outside temperature, and AC settings.

 

[Neurio]

Not to mention that no GT has an EPA range of 486. It's 516 for the 19" wheels and 469 for the 20s and 21s.

As Rich said above, there are numerous factors at play that affect your efficiency, primarily speed. How fast do you typically drive?

And please read Rich's response to understand how EPA mileage works to realize that mentioning a class action lawsuit is silly.

 

[RichMalden]

When inside EV did their standardized road test where they drive at a reasonable, steady speed, and minimize weather and elevation changes they hit 500 miles with a dream edition (similar range to GT). This is closer to what the basic EPA dynamo test probably would have gotten. If you multiply that times the .7 other EV manufacturers were required to you get 350 miles.

Even at your 3.2 rate X 112 battery size = 358 would have left you "exceeding" the range calculation.

It's frustrating that the EPA doesn't have a fully standardized method for everyone, but that's on them.

 

[manitou202]

The EPA is to blame for the BS testing, however Tesla and Lucid are examples where they use the poor testing to their advantage to advertise excessive range numbers by performing the 5 cycle test. Many other automakers (Porsche, Mercedes, etc) choose not to game the system and end up with EPA ranges that are fairly close to real world.

I don't think taking legal action will get anywhere, nor do I think it's the right think to do, but Lucid (just like Tesla) really shouldn't game the system. They are setting up their customers for disappointment.

Regardless there is no other sedan that can go as far as the Air. It's the best in the business.

Edit: I'll add that 3.6mi/kWh is economy sedan levels of efficiency. It's crazy the Air is able to be that efficient. My Taycan came no where close (2.6mi/kWh), and even our current Ioniq 5 (3.0mi/kWh) doesn't compete.

 

[idiot900]

Even if Lucid were liable for advertising the nonsense EPA ranges, what would our actual recovery be? A coupon for $10 off our next Lucid vehicle purchase?

As another anecdote, I routinely get 3.6 mi/kWh in my Touring on 19s, while paying absolutely no attention to efficiency.

 

[xponents]

@RichMalden perfectly explained it. Sue the EPA, not lucid.

If you drive at 65 mph, no ac, instead heated and cooled seats, you will get your efficiency. What wheels do you have?

 

[Lucken]

It’s been stated countless times before, there are many variables in achieving a given efficiency. My lifetime sits at 4.3mi/kWh without doing anything special on 19s. That’s the highest efficiency of any of my 5 prior/current EVs.

Let’s also keep in mind this is the OP’s first post. Let’s hear more from him. Just sayin.

 

[Birdog]

Hi. I purchased a Lucid Air GT recently and despite the EPA rating of 486 miles my car can barely go beyond an estimated 300 miles on highway. The max miles/kwh that I get is 3.6 driving straight on a flat road but in practice the average on highway is around 3.2. I brought the car to Lucid service center in Millbrae, a technician took a ride with me and despite the fact that he couldn't go beyond 3.6 wrote a report that the car's efficiency is at 4 miles/kwh. I have heard from many other customers that they are not able to achieve the advertised range. I wonder if any other owners want to join up to hire a law firm to bring a class action law suit against Lucid for deceptive advertisement.

I have been driving my GT for a year and a half now. 19 inch wheels, 12,000 miles and over the entire period I am averaging 4.0 mi per kwh.

 

[Drendino]

So you signed up on a Lucid enthusiast forum and your first and only post is to say that you are suing Lucid.

 

[idiot900]

It’s been stated countless times before, there are many variables in achieving a given efficiency. My lifetime sits at 4.3mi/kWh without doing anything special on 19s. That’s the highest efficiency of any of my 5 prior/current EVs.

4.3 mi/kWh - I am impressed!

 

[xponents]

Assuming that it’s even legit, which is what I was hinting at in my post above.

I also noticed that no air model has an epa range of 486. There is 516, 469 for 21/20s, and 449 for the GTP. Where did he get 486 from??

 

[Steveinarizona]

Your beef is with the EPA not Lucid and also not fully realizing how the ratings work. Lucid followed the rules as they are required. On top of that the EPA ratings are always said to be for comparison purposes only.

Car manufacturers can either use the basic EPA test or the more involved 5 cycle test. For the most part, of all the EV manufacturers, only Tesla and Lucid do the more expensive and involved 5 cycle tests.

The basic test, that most manufacturers use, just run the cars on dynamos at constant speed, no weather, temperature, incline, starting and stopping, etc. This results in a very high MPG. The EPA then requires they multiply that result by .7 to reflect real world factors. This results in the lower number most car manufacturers advertise. Because of this, they often beat their number in the real world.

Tesla and Lucid do a more involved 5 cycle test that is supposed to mimic real world. This allows them to advertise the results without any adjustment. It makes their numbers look much higher and, unfortunately, results in real world numbers that are lower.

The problem is with the EPA test rules. The 5 cycle test doesn't mimic real world as much as they should.

Lucid's defense would just be that they followed the EPA rules.

I'm not an expert on this and may have used slightly wrong terms for some of this post but I'm conveys the general reason why you're seeing what you see.

Additionally, if you're getting 3.6 on flat highway (speed, wind, temperature, AC are still factors) 3.6 X 112 battery size is 403 miles. Even at 3.2 X 112 it's 358 miles.

403 is better than 80% of the EPA rating and that's not knowing your speed, wind speed, outside temperature, and AC settings.

Excellent post. I would add that anyone who is naive enough to believe EPA numbers should not be buying an electric car. The bottom line is that Lucid is still the range champion if that is what is important to the customer.

 

[Spin Doctor]

People often ask me what the range is on my GT. "EPA rated at 516 miles", I tell them. "Yeah, but I bet you don't get that, right?" "Probably not, but do you get EPA gas mileage on your SUV / minivan / whatever?" "..."

But has there ever been a class action against ICE manufacturers for not delivering EPA mileage in the real world?

Also I'm going to put 'WRT to' in the same bucket as 'VIN number', 'ATM machine', 'ISO of' and 'JEB Bush' ...