Lifetime miles per kw

[Steveinarizona]

I drive as if I don't care about range (I don't). My lifetime average, on 21" rims, has been steady at 3.1. I think the Lucid is more efficient but it is dragging extra weight and my car can revert to RWD most of the time saving a few electrons here and there. I am beginning to think that efficiency in the vicinity of 3 as a lifetime number is probably what one can expect on a heavy EV with lots of HP/torque and owners who want to utilize that capacity.

In my mind the great advantage of Lucid is that it starts with such a high range that one can manage driving fast, winter weather, elevation changes, etc. Another car, with the same efficiency as the Lucid, but with a much smaller range, would struggle to manage trips. If I didn't care about performance, I could make do with a VW ID4 (well, not actually since I also care about luxury)

Remember, when you want to complaint about the Lucid range in the winter, that the problem is not Lucid, it is winter! You've got a great range to start with, and a fast and good handling car. Go ahead and drive it like you hate it and enjoy it.

 

[Tesla2.0]

On GT 21”, they preset at 469 miles from 19” 516 miles. I think that is a bit generous too. Probably should be 15% from 516 at 439 miles. Either way, it is still BEST in the market.

In your case, I believe you may occasionally see 3.3 ~ 3.6 mi/kWh when climate climbs to 75F~80F and you get to 2000+ miles motor/rotor resistance type of improvement as I have experienced and slow traffic! I have contrived to get there in the past, now I just don’t bother anymore. Most of time, 2.8~3.2 mi/kWh is your typical range. You can drive like EPA torturously in all perfect condition, but why? Have fun with your Air, it’s a marvelous fine machine!

 

[RM-S8]

Would you be willing to place a wager on that?

Lol

 

[Coltonw011]

We’ve seen, in GTs and DEs the range hit of 21” vs 19” to be pretty steep. That too is even a larger gap once sustained highway speeds are driven. My lifetime average was 4.2 mi/kWh on my 19” GT before we got into the winter, it now sits at 4.0. Temperature seems to be this cars worst enemy and I believe that it has to do with the cars BMS, we have experienced how active it is in the summer time with fans coming on and running for long periods of time, so I don’t doubt that in the winter the heating for the pack is elevated to keep it safe. Modifications can be made via OTA as Lucid gathers more data.
I haven’t driven 21” on my car and I might have to steal @Drendino’s to see! But I’ve had almost 150 mile trips at 4.5 mi/kWh, in the summer here in Northern California.
I do believe that you will see 3.3 or higher when the sustained temps are greater than 65 @dolphinsafe. Just speculation on my part, and I do hope that it improves for you!

 

[dolphinsafe]

We’ve seen, in GTs and DEs the range hit of 21” vs 19” to be pretty steep. That too is even a larger gap once sustained highway speeds are driven. My lifetime average was 4.2 mi/kWh on my 19” GT before we got into the winter, it now sits at 4.0. Temperature seems to be this cars worst enemy and I believe that it has to do with the cars BMS, we have experienced how active it is in the summer time with fans coming on and running for long periods of time, so I don’t doubt that in the winter the heating for the pack is elevated to keep it safe. Modifications can be made via OTA as Lucid gathers more data.
I haven’t driven 21” on my car and I might have to steal @Drendino’s to see! But I’ve had almost 150 mile trips at 4.5 mi/kWh, in the summer here in Northern California.
I do believe that you will see 3.3 or higher when the sustained temps are greater than 65 @dolphinsafe. Just speculation on my part, and I do hope that it improves for you!

I just took my test trip to the grocery store - no A/C - 55 the whole way. 63 degrees. 3.4 miles per kw. Not stellar. Never went above 55 - 2 stop signs at the beginning of the ride, none at the end. The 3.4 is really "barely" 3.4 as it was fluttering between 3.3 and 3.4.

 

[hydbob]

I just took my test trip to the grocery store - no A/C - 55 the whole way. 63 degrees. 3.4 miles per kw. Not stellar. Never went above 55 - 2 stop signs at the beginning of the ride, none at the end. The 3.4 is really "barely" 3.4 as it was fluttering between 3.3 and 3.4.

Honestly, as 12 mile trip with 2 stops is going to be the detrimental factor. The car is not efficient at all getting up to speed because it's heavy. You will see the best efficiency by resetting a trip meter AFTER your stops while you are going 55. Try that and see what you get. There is A LOT of energy expended getting the car up to speed.

 

[ran409]

Sorry - I just don't see it. I can "guarantee" that I can't get anywhere near 3.4. I can pull out of my driveway - go 1/2 mile down the county road to the stop sign, take a left, drive 1200 feet to another stop sign and then 12 miles at 55 mph to the grocery store. There are no stops on that 12 mile journey. I'll get - at best - 3.0. That's on cruise. Going another direction - it's maybe 16 miles - basically the same scenario - that one is 70mph at parts but generally 65. I usually get around 2.8.

I've done it enough times to know that 3.0 appears to be where my car sits. That would put my 100% range around 276 miles.

As far as the 12-15% drop - that's pre-calculated in my vehicle range. 100% charge does not indicate 425 - it's 386. But it won't go anywhere near 386. Yesterday was 200 miles and I might have been able to make it 240 - with a starting range of 339.

Perhaps there's something wrong.

That does seem a bit too low, the 3.0 number. Are you using max regen and tires are properly inflated? Have you driven other EVs?

 

[dolphinsafe]

That does seem a bit too low, the 3.0 number. Are you using max regen and tires are properly inflated? Have you driven other EVs?

PSI is 44. Max regen. But there are only 2 stop signs and those are at the beginning of the trip. one at the end of my road, the other maybe 1200 feet later. Then it's maybe 9 miles at 55.

 

[dolphinsafe]

Honestly, as 12 mile trip with 2 stops is going to be the detrimental factor. The car is not efficient at all getting up to speed because it's heavy. You will see the best efficiency by resetting a trip meter AFTER your stops while you are going 55. Try that and see what you get. There is A LOT of energy expended getting the car up to speed.

I've done this trip several times. And again today with A/C off - 63 degrees outside. Freshly off the charger. 10 miles is definitely enough to know where you're at. Round trip 19.8 miles - 3.4 miles per kw - 55 the entire way - no aggressive acceleration to get up to speed. I would argue that I should be getting 3.6 to 3.7 on that trip. But it starts off poor. 2.8 - 2.9 at the end of the "to" - 3.4 average but just barely for the entire trip. I should have cleared one of my trip meters to see what I was getting on the back leg.

 

[hydbob]

I've done this trip several times. And again today with A/C off - 63 degrees outside. Freshly off the charger. 10 miles is definitely enough to know where you're at. Round trip 19.8 miles - 3.4 miles per kw - 55 the entire way - no aggressive acceleration to get up to speed. I would argue that I should be getting 3.6 to 3.7 on that trip. But it starts off poor. 2.8 - 2.9 at the end of the "to" - 3.4 average but just barely for the entire trip. I should have cleared one of my trip meters to see what I was getting on the back leg.

10 miles with 2 stops is not the same as 150 miles continuous @55mph to gauge your efficiency.

 

[hmp10]

I'm with Steveinarizona on this one in terms of caring about range. In the 16,000 miles we've driven the Lucid, we have never used more than 67% of the battery pack capacity between charges, no matter what kind of driving we were doing. This includes some long road trips where we drove sustained speeds of 80 mph in hot weather with the A/C blasting and with occasional hard punches to break out of traffic clumps.

We've never seen our m/kWh exceed 3.2, nor do I really expect it to in the kind of driving we do. Yet we've never had to stop for a charge before we were ready for a break around the 3-hour mark, anyway. (With home charging, we have never come remotely close to having to worry about range on local trips, even though we never charge above 80% unless we're leaving on a road trip -- for which we never charge above 95%.)

We've owned three EVs, and the Lucid is the only one so far that has never forced us to charge when we didn't want to. The problem with putting the Lucid on the road is not the range of the car, but the unreliability of the CCS charging network.

You can work yourself into a real stew if you focus on EPA ratings. They have a long history of disappointing both ICE and, now, EV drivers in real-world driving.

With a Lucid, you have a car that will keep you on the road longer on a single charge than any other EV on the market . . . by 100 miles.

 

[joec]

I think it’s problematic to drive 10 or 20 miles and then extrapolate from that what the car would be able to do over 200 miles. These are small sample sizes, and there are so many factors that effect overall range. The only real way to know what kind of efficiency you are getting is to actually drive from 100 down to 0. And no one ever does that. But even to go a hundred or two hundred miles, and then make some predictions would be far closer to reality than looking at whatever the car is reporting after driving for ten minutes.

 

[ran409]

I've done this trip several times. And again today with A/C off - 63 degrees outside. Freshly off the charger. 10 miles is definitely enough to know where you're at. Round trip 19.8 miles - 3.4 miles per kw - 55 the entire way - no aggressive acceleration to get up to speed. I would argue that I should be getting 3.6 to 3.7 on that trip. But it starts off poor. 2.8 - 2.9 at the end of the "to" - 3.4 average but just barely for the entire trip. I should have cleared one of my trip meters to see what I was getting on the back leg.

The math says you achieved about 3.85 mi/kWh on the return. [2.85(out) +3.85(return)]/2 = 3.35(average).

 

[Adnillien]

10 miles with 2 stops is not the same as 150 miles continuous @55mph to gauge your efficiency.

The kinetic energy of a Lucid GT (5200 lb) with a 200 lb driver (5400 lb total) traveling 60mph is pretty close to 0.25kWhr. Hence, if you have a perfectly efficient drive train, it will take 0.25kWhr just to get to 60mph. That is also very close to the energy consumed by driving a mile. We can say accelerating to 60 mph is like adding an extra mile to your drive. This is why it is nuts to think that you can determine the cars efficiency in a 10 mile drive.

Some of the energy used to accelerate will be recovered during regeneration but there are losses in the drive train during acceleration and during regeneration that cannot be recovered.

 

[RM-S8]

Some of the energy used to accelerate will be recovered during regeneration but there are losses in the drive train during acceleration and during regeneration that cannot be recovered.

Your logic is flawed.
Flux capacitor should take of all of the acceleration/decelarartion/regenerations issues.

 

[dolphinsafe]

10 miles with 2 stops is not the same as 150 miles continuous @55mph to gauge your efficiency.

You're absolutely correct. Now - find me 150 miles of continuous road at 55mph. It doesn't exist. Hence - "real world". It's easy to say "our car get 600 miles on a charge - but the small print reads (hyper milled at 20mph with tires overinflated with no HVAC on a flat road in the desert under perfect conditions). I wouldn't be complaining so much if it weren't so far off the mark.

The math says you achieved about 3.85 mi/kWh on the return. [2.85(out) +3.85(return)]/2 = 3.35(average).

Next time I'll go on a longer route and I'll use one of the other trip meters on the return trip to see if it's a "warming" the batteries issue.
It amuses me that you think there's a "real world" location where you can drive constantly at 55mph for 150 miles.

 

[hydbob]

You're absolutely correct. Now - find me 150 miles of continuous road at 55mph. It doesn't exist. Hence - "real world". It's easy to say "our car get 600 miles on a charge - but the small print reads (hyper milled at 20mph with tires overinflated with no HVAC on a flat road in the desert under perfect conditions). I wouldn't be complaining so much if it weren't so far off the mark.

Next time I'll go on a longer route and I'll use one of the other trip meters on the return trip to see if it's a "warming" the batteries issue.
It amuses me that you think there's a "real world" location where you can drive constantly at 55mph for 150 miles.

The 5 freeway between the grapevine and the bay but then you will need to account for wind .

 

[dolphinsafe]

I'm with Steveinarizona on this one in terms of caring about range. In the 16,000 miles we've driven the Lucid, we have never used more than 67% of the battery pack capacity between charges, no matter what kind of driving we were doing. This includes some long road trips where we drove sustained speeds of 80 mph in hot weather with the A/C blasting and with occasional hard punches to break out of traffic clumps.

We've never seen our m/kWh exceed 3.2, nor do I really expect it to in the kind of driving we do. Yet we've never had to stop for a charge before we were ready for a break around the 3-hour mark, anyway. (With home charging, we have never come remotely close to having to worry about range on local trips, even though we never charge above 80% unless we're leaving on a road trip -- for which we never charge above 95%.)

We've owned three EVs, and the Lucid is the only one so far that has never forced us to charge when we didn't want to. The problem with putting the Lucid on the road is not the range of the car, but the unreliability of the CCS charging network.

You can work yourself into a real stew if you focus on EPA ratings. They have a long history of disappointing both ICE and, now, EV drivers in real-world driving.

With a Lucid, you have a car that will keep you on the road longer on a single charge than any other EV on the market . . . by 100 miles.

I completely agree - the charging network sucks (to be kind). EA is a disaster. It's sad that something as simple as electricity can't be as simple as gasoline. Home charging works 100% of the time - that's not the case on the road. That's one place that Tesla got it right. I've never had a problem at a Tesla Super Charger. I've had more problems than not at EA.

I don't really expect to get 4.6 miles per kw - but it would be good to get 3.6 or so. and for me - that can be a problem if I don't charge sufficiently when heading to Dallas for the day. I live roughly 85-95 miles from Dallas. If I charge to 80% and I'm only getting 70% efficiency (from my already downgraded efficiency) I'm on the edge of "turtle power". Which means I'm really getting about 60% efficiency. And I've definitely been in that boat - 2.6 miles per kw when it's cold.

 

[dolphinsafe]

The 5 freeway between the grapevine and the bay but then you will need to account for wind .

I drove the Grapevine many times - I can guarantee you - it's not 55. And good luck getting any range at all between Wheeler Ridge and Castaic. Coming down the other side is a different matter.

 

[crareman]

I agree on small mileage sample being unreliable, unless I got the pick of the litter. I have had the car since mid November and only 2,360 miles total.
Today: AGT 19" aeroblades removed; up to date OTA as of Saturday; 57 degrees; 8.8 mi return from EA; 3 stop lights (actually more but I had greens); 3 stop signs; some ups and downs no major hills.
Unless the update really screwed me up (lifetime 3.3 mi/kWh) I saw and recorded 6.2 mi/kWh