Lifetime miles per kw

[dolphinsafe]

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

I'm jealous. 6.2 would be impossible for me! Half that is barely possible!

 

[borski]

PSI is 44.

Which wheels? 19” inflation should be 49 PSI, 21” should be 42 psi.

 

[dolphinsafe]

Which wheels? 19” inflation should be 49 PSI, 21” should be 42 psi.

21" - cold it's 42, warm they go up to 45 or so.

 

[hmp10]

You're absolutely correct. Now - find me 150 miles of continuous road at 55mph. It doesn't exist. Hence - "real world".

If there's an issue in this prolonged back and forth, I think it's more with Lucid's marketing than with their technology.

You can certainly find EVs that get close to, meet, or even slightly exceed their EPA ratings in real-world highway driving, such as Porsche, Audi, and Mercedes, partly due to their decisions to use the 2-cycle EPA testing protocol instead of the 5-cycle protocol Lucid uses. These companies -- especially Porsche -- also have a history of deliberately understating other performance criteria, such as 0-60 times and power ratings. Their mantra seems to be under promise and over deliver.

However, marketing mantras aside, in terms of actual range the Air will keep you on the road for well over 100 miles more than any of those cars. I'd much rather have an Air that only delivers 350-400 miles against its 520-mile rating than a Porsche Taycan that delivers all 250 of its 250-mile rating.

Lucid knew that --whether they liked it or not -- their new car would instantly and universally be compared to the Tesla Model S. The fact is that Lucid's powertrain technology is significantly more efficient than Tesla's (or any other brand's). Between the larger battery pack and the more efficient powertrain, any Lucid Air version will deliver at least 100 more miles of real-world range than the closest Model S equivalent. (For example, on highway trips on the same road across the Florida Everglades in the same condition, our Model S Plaid realizes about 72-73% of its rated 348-mile range while our Air Dream P realizes about 78-79% of its rated 451-mile range.)

It would have been folly for Lucid to choose an EPA rating method that would have produced a lower range rating than the Model S. Much better to weather complaints about falling short of EPA ratings (as do most EVs) than to suffer the slings and arrows of being thought to have failed to better a Tesla's range which, no matter how strong the denials, you can be certain Peter Rawlinson was hellbent to do.

 

[ran409]

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

I was told by Lucid on my test drive that also showed 6.2 mi/kWh that it is a phony number. Why they would show that I have no idea.

 

[dolphinsafe]

If there's an issue in this prolonged back and forth, I think it's more with Lucid's marketing than with their technology.

You can certainly find EVs that get close to, meet, or even slightly exceed their EPA ratings in real-world highway driving, such as Porsche, Audi, and Mercedes, partly due to their decisions to use the 2-cycle EPA testing protocol instead of the 5-cycle protocol Lucid uses. These companies -- especially Porsche -- also have a history of deliberately understating other performance criteria, such as 0-60 times and power ratings. Their mantra seems to be under promise and over deliver.

However, marketing mantras aside, in terms of actual range the Air will keep you on the road for well over 100 miles more than any of those cars. I'd much rather have an Air that only delivers 350-400 miles against its 520-mile rating than a Porsche Taycan that delivers all 250 of its 250-mile rating.

Lucid knew that --whether they liked it or not -- their new car would instantly and universally be compared to the Tesla Model S. The fact is that Lucid's powertrain technology is significantly more efficient than Tesla's (or any other brand's). Between the larger battery pack and the more efficient powertrain, any Lucid Air version will deliver at least 100 more miles of real-world range than the closest Model S equivalent. (For example, on highway trips on the same road across the Florida Everglades in the same condition, our Model S Plaid realizes about 72-73% of its rated 348-mile range while our Air Dream P realizes about 78-79% of its rated 451-mile range.)

It would have been folly for Lucid to choose an EPA rating method that would have produced a lower range rating than the Model S. Much better to weather complaints about falling short of EPA ratings (as do most EVs) than to suffer the slings and arrows of being thought to have failed to better a Tesla's range which, no matter how strong the denials, you can be certain Peter Rawlinson was hellbent to do.

Well.. the Dream has about 12% more battery.

I was told by Lucid on my test drive that also showed 6.2 mi/kWh that it is a phony number. Why they would show that I have no idea.

And there's an Out of Spec range test on a GT with 19s and 21s where they do their 70 mph loop. The "since last charge" and Trip A were set to 0 at the start - the "since last charge" showed 3.2 mpkw while the Trip A showed 3.0 mpkw. Which means that one of them is lying.

 

[hmp10]

Well.. the Dream has about 12% more battery.

No, the Dream has a 118-kWh pack, and the GT has a 112-kWh pack -- a 5% difference.

And there's an Out of Spec range test on a GT with 19s and 21s where they do their 70 mph loop. The "since last charge" and Trip A were set to 0 at the start - the "since last charge" showed 3.2 mpkw while the Trip A showed 3.0 mpkw. Which means that one of them is lying.

"Lying" is a rather loaded word. It could be that it was the result of different measuring methods. There have long been reports on the internet that in EVs the amount of juice a car registers as receiving at a DC fast charger is different from the amount of juice the charging station reports as having been delivered. That difference lies in the different methods of calculation the car and the charging station use. The charging station measures the total energy the station draws to charge the car, including the energy that is lost to heat and other factors during the delivery to the car. The car registers only the energy it receives after those losses, which is somewhat less.

It could be that the "since last charge" calculation in the Lucid works off what the station tells the car was used (which is what Lucid and/or the owner are billed for), but the Trip A calculation works off the energy actually received by the car. As that is always less, it would result in a lower m/kWh report than the "since last charge" metric.

This is not "lying". Lucid probably needs to capture a report from each car of how much electricity Electrify America will bill them for, thus the car does this calculation and reports it.

I know this is confusing to people who don't dig into the nooks and crannies of EV operation, and Lucid would be well-advised to display to the driver only the metric relevant to how far the car can go on the juice actually received by the car, not what the charging station consumed in charging the car. While Lucid might need the latter calculation, the driver doesn't.

 

[dolphinsafe]

No, the Dream has a 118-kWh pack, and the GT has a 112-kWh pack -- a 5% difference.




"Lying" is a rather loaded word. It could be that it was the result of different measuring methods. There have long been reports on the internet that in EVs the amount of juice a car registers as receiving at a DC fast charger is different from the amount of juice the charging station reports as having been delivered. That difference lies in the different methods of calculation the car and the charging station use. The charging station measures the total energy the station draws to charge the car, including the energy that is lost to heat and other factors during the delivery to the car. The car registers only the energy it receives after those losses, which is somewhat less.

It could be that the "since last charge" calculation in the Lucid works off what the station tells the car was used (which is what Lucid and/or the owner are billed for), but the Trip A calculation works off the energy actually received by the car. As that is always less, it would result in a lower m/kWh report than the "since last charge" metric.

This is not "lying". Lucid probably needs to capture a report from each car of how much electricity Electrify America will bill them for, thus the car does this calculation and reports it.

I know this is confusing to people who don't dig into the nooks and crannies of EV operation, and Lucid would be well-advised to display to the driver only the metric relevant to how far the car can go on the juice actually received by the car, not what the charging station consumed in charging the car. While Lucid might need the latter calculation, the driver doesn't.

My difference comparison was from Tesla to Lucid - not Lucid to Lucid. So - 100kwh pack vs. 112kwh pack or even 118kwh pack I would certainly expect more range. All numbers being equal - I think the Tesla is essentially similar. My son has 2 M3P's - and while their packs are 10kw smaller than mine - they do get essentially similar consumption numbers. I'd certainly expect that - according to Lucid - I should get more. We both suffer from larger wheels/tires that impact range.

As far as "lying" is concerned - that's a remark about the difference between "Since Last Charge" and "Trip A" - which - logically, should be the same if you unplug and then reset the trip meter. Having a difference there shouldn't really have anything to do with the charging station or billing - it's just another trip meter. But knowing that the calculations are different - I'm definitely going to start using Trip A every time I go on a journey so I can see which one is more accurate. I'd hate to think that the Since Last Charge meter is telling me I'm getting better range than actual.

I think it's even more telling that since the last update - the "guessometer" is so much more accurate - and even it says that I'll get no where near the rated mileage.

 

[hmp10]

All numbers being equal - I think the Tesla is essentially similar.

The Air Grand Touring weighs 5,236 pounds against the dual-motor Model S' 4,561 pounds. That's a 15% weight difference, and it's enough to show up in energy consumption figures.

I think it's even more telling that since the last update - the "guessometer" is so much more accurate - and even it says that I'll get no where near the rated mileage.

No, you won't get near rated range unless your driving exactly duplicates the driving conditions simulated by the EPA testing protocols. What you should get when driving an Air GT with 21" wheels on highway trips at ~80 mph in temperate weather is about 400 miles if you exhaust a full battery pack (which you shouldn't on a regular basis).

It's not EPA-rated range. It is considerably more than you'll get from any other full-size sport or luxury EV sedan driven the same way. We routinely drive our Dream Edition P to Miami and back (210-mile round trip), give no heed to trying to conserve range, and never use more than 60% of the battery pack, even after putzing around a good bit on the Miami side. We could get there and back in our Model S Plaid without a recharge, but we've never dared that because we wouldn't have enough margin should we encounter unanticipated delays or detours unless we paid close attention to conserving range along the way.

 

[dolphinsafe]

The Air Grand Touring weighs 5,236 pounds against the dual-motor Model S' 4,561 pounds. That's a 15% weight difference, and it's enough to show up in energy consumption figures.



No, you won't get near rated range unless your driving exactly duplicates the driving conditions simulated by the EPA testing protocols. What you should get when driving an Air GT with 21" wheels on highway trips at ~80 mph in temperate weather is about 400 miles if you exhaust a full battery pack (which you shouldn't on a regular basis).

It's not EPA-rated range. It is considerably more than you'll get from any other full-size sport or luxury EV sedan driven the same way. We routinely drive our Dream Edition P to Miami and back (210-mile round trip), give no heed to trying to conserve range, and never use more than 60% of the battery pack, even after putzing around a good bit on the Miami side. We could get there and back in our Model S Plaid without a recharge, but we've never dared that because we wouldn't have enough margin should we encounter unanticipated delays or detours unless we paid close attention to conserving range along the way.

I think it's fantastic that you're able to obtain good or even great range considering the 80mph statement. But given a range of 520. Even better if you're on the performance variant - you're only losing perhaps 20% of your "advertised" range. I'm starting off with a "predicted" range decrease of 10%. But it drops an additional 20%-25% beyond that drop. I could easily see perhaps 10% extra loss - or maybe even 15% extra. But basically, my car gets 65% of "advertised" range. That just seems extemely excessive.

 

[Steveinarizona]

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 agree. I find that in the first couple of local miles my efficiency is in the 2s before it climbs up and averages in the 3s. Starting up a heavy EV definitely consumes electrons.

 

[Coltonw011]

I think it's fantastic that you're able to obtain good or even great range considering the 80mph statement. But given a range of 520. Even better if you're on the performance variant - you're only losing perhaps 20% of your "advertised" range. I'm starting off with a "predicted" range decrease of 10%. But it drops an additional 20%-25% beyond that drop. I could easily see perhaps 10% extra loss - or maybe even 15% extra. But basically, my car gets 65% of "advertised" range. That just seems extemely excessive.

I think there’s a little confusion, but correct me if I’m wrong.
A touring on 19” wheels has an epa rated 425 miles, on 21” it’s 384.
This is not a predicted range loss of 10%, that’s the price of having 21” wheels. From there, the 20-25% range loss sounds fairly accurate depending on all external variables that have been discussed at length.
Your car does not get 425 miles on 21” and it would be wrong of Lucid to display that on your vehicle. Your advertised range is 384 on those wheels.
Now, if you’re on 19” and still displaying 384 on a full charge, that’s a problem that should be explored.

 

[dolphinsafe]

I think there’s a little confusion, but correct me if I’m wrong.
A touring on 19” wheels has an epa rated 425 miles, on 21” it’s 384.
This is not a predicted range loss of 10%, that’s the price of having 21” wheels. From there, the 20-25% range loss sounds fairly accurate depending on all external variables that have been discussed at length.
Your car does not get 425 miles on 21” and it would be wrong of Lucid to display that on your vehicle. Your advertised range is 384 on those wheels.
Now, if you’re on 19” and still displaying 384 on a full charge, that’s a problem that should be explored.

A range loss of 10% is how Lucid handles the 21" wheels - that's baked into the cake. So - yes - having 21" wheels (according to Lucid) gives you roughly 40 miles less than the EPA rating of the car with 19" wheels.

But - that's not the issue - it's the additional range hit of 25% that is the issue.
So... all things being equal - Lucid is saying (in optimal driving conditions) I should get somewhere around 4.15 miles per kw. The actual range hit of having 21" wheels is 30% to 35% - (3.0 miles per kw) or 275 to 300 miles at full charge. It's fairly simple math - if the car is giving me 3.0 miles per kw - and there's a 92kwh battery - the range would be 276 (from 100% to 0%).

At 3.5 mpkw it'd be an additional 46 miles or 322 miles.

And - yes - I completely understand that - in general - those aren't horrible numbers for an ev - except that they are if you're starting from an advertised 4.6 miles per kw or even a 4.14 miles per kw taking into account the issue with 21" wheels. As far as I know - in a real world scenario - that's the biggest range hit (percentage) I've seen - as compared to anyone who does range tests.

 

[Coltonw011]

A range loss of 10% is how Lucid handles the 21" wheels - that's baked into the cake. So - yes - having 21" wheels (according to Lucid) gives you roughly 40 miles less than the EPA rating of the car with 19" wheels.

But - that's not the issue - it's the additional range hit of 25% that is the issue.
So... all things being equal - Lucid is saying (in optimal driving conditions) I should get somewhere around 4.15 miles per kw. The actual range hit of having 21" wheels is 30% to 35% - (3.0 miles per kw) or 275 to 300 miles at full charge. It's fairly simple math - if the car is giving me 3.0 miles per kw - and there's a 92kwh battery - the range would be 276 (from 100% to 0%).

At 3.5 mpkw it'd be an additional 46 miles or 322 miles.

And - yes - I completely understand that - in general - those aren't horrible numbers for an ev - except that they are if you're starting from an advertised 4.6 miles per kw or even a 4.14 miles per kw taking into account the issue with 21" wheels. As far as I know - in a real world scenario - that's the biggest range hit (percentage) I've seen - as compared to anyone who does range tests.

I see what you’re saying.
Yea, at 3.0 mi/kWh that’s definitely on the low side. And approx 72% of epa for your car. The 21” wheels definitely take a bigger hit in comparison to the 19”. Hopefully in the summer yours does approach the 3.5 mi/kWh, which would be about 84% of epa.
I will say, @thecodingart has seen those 3.0 numbers on a GT, so about 72% of his epa rated on 21” wheels.
My experience in 19” wheels is much better. My car is garage kept (goes as low as 55) and right now in the mornings its in the 30s when I leave and today was 70 on my way home. Currently I’m getting 3.8 mi/kWh or about 83% of epa in winterish conditions. In the summer, I was getting 91% of epa on average and multiple times @ 98%. I hope yours does improve!

 

[dolphinsafe]

I see what you’re saying.
Yea, at 3.0 mi/kWh that’s definitely on the low side. And approx 72% of epa for your car. The 21” wheels definitely take a bigger hit in comparison to the 19”. Hopefully in the summer yours does approach the 3.5 mi/kWh, which would be about 84% of epa.
I will say, @thecodingart has seen those 3.0 numbers on a GT, so about 72% of his epa rated on 21” wheels.
My experience in 19” wheels is much better. My car is garage kept (goes as low as 55) and right now in the mornings its in the 30s when I leave and today was 70 on my way home. Currently I’m getting 3.8 mi/kWh or about 83% of epa in winterish conditions. In the summer, I was getting 91% of epa on average and multiple times @ 98%. I hope yours does improve!

I just read an article/review about a GT - they basically said - on 21" wheels they got 3.0 miles per kw. But that they had it in Sprint mode most of the time so they weren't expecting great range. If I did that - my MPKW would be something like 1.5.

 

[Bobby]

I just read an article/review about a GT - they basically said - on 21" wheels they got 3.0 miles per kw. But that they had it in Sprint mode most of the time so they weren't expecting great range. If I did that - my MPKW would be something like 1.5.

I usually drive my GT like a complete idiot and my lifetime efficiency is 3.1.

 

[dolphinsafe]

I usually drive my GT like a complete idiot and my lifetime efficiency is 3.1.

And that's where this is the most frustrating. I rarely exceed the speed limit. I don't use anything except smooth. I think I've had it in Swift perhaps twice just to see what it does - Sprint once. I'm almost exclusively on cruise or HA. And - 3.0 lifetime.

 

[Tesla2.0]

And that's where this is the most frustrating. I rarely exceed the speed limit. I don't use anything except smooth. I think I've had it in Swift perhaps twice just to see what it does - Sprint once. I'm almost exclusively on cruise or HA. And - 3.0 lifetime.

It’s all most climate related, when and where you got your Air and what season you drive the most.

 

[Bobby]

It’s all most climate related, when and where you got your Air and what season you drive the most.

Likely true. The very coldest we see here is in the 50s.

 

[davo44]

Yes - I figured that out - but there should be some lifetime stat - I'm fairly certain it's in the meta data somewhere - they just need to show it.

I accidentally reset my Trip B counter, which matched the odometer after 12k miles. I asked Customer Service if they can change it back to the odometer remotely, but they said no