Mileage experience after 5k miles on GT

[Bunnylebowski]

turning off the AC is not an option for most people. if the car only gets 2.9 with the AC then that is what it is and renders the car to be far less than it is advertised to be.
do you also never drive over 50 to get better range?

The AC in the Lucid doesn’t draw nearly as much kW as the heater. You are 100% correct you should not have to turn off the AC to get a range within 10% of what the EPA is. However if it’s 90+ then the AC will have to work harder. But I’ve gotten above 4.0 mi/kwh on king road trips when it was 80 out with climate set to 70F and wasn’t hypermiling just driving ng around 70-75 and occasionally hitting traffic. I also have experimented with @GEWC driving method and have achieved BETTER than EPA efficiency driving how she drives. The trick is to accelerate slowly, which I admit is not fun, and then if you see a car ahead of you slowing down you start using regen immediately but gently so you regen for a long distance until you reach that car. I literally just got 6.2 mi/kwh around town driving to a diner and then Lowe’s and back home using that method (see the since last charge data). This is not the 6.2 mi/kwh software glitch some see either, as it would dip below that number quickly if I accelerated too aggressively. And here’s photographic proof of another drive I did using @GEWC method driving home from work. As you can tell by my Trip A, which I reset a few K miles after I got my new battery, I usually don’t drive the speed limit

 

[Steveinarizona]

it’s now 2 months from time I got my GT. Completed 5k miles thru the winter . Happy as I can be so far.

My average has been 3.2miles per KW and today the weather was in 70s after a long time and recorded 4m/kw. This is excellent in my experience as I mostly got about 3.2 -3.5 miles when I owned my 2015 model S. Looking forward for this number to climb as we move into summer.

So far worst have been 2m/kw (temp 22F) and best 4.6m/kw.

Here is what I observed would result in lower range -
Driving above 70MPH (55mph in city is the best)
Driving in high Regen (initially I thought it was best until I changed the setting which resulted in better output)
As everyone knows - (a) Jackrabbit starts which I did indulge in several times for fun
(b) Running heater and steering warmer

Well...

I drive 75+ on the highway;
I drive in low regen;
I do jackrabbit starts;
I never turn off the HVAC.

And I love my car. In a year and a half my average has been 3.0 MKW. But, and it is a big but, I don't care about range. Driving like I stole it, with AC on, I can still get anywhere around greater Phoenix and not drop below 20%. For any long intercity trips (e.g., Phoenix to Las Vegas) I would plan on renting an ICE car whether I was driving a Lucid DE or my current car; too many stressors in a strange city to try to worry about charging while managing small grandkids, etc.

 

[hydbob]

Well...

I drive 75+ on the highway;
I drive in low regen;
I do jackrabbit starts;
I never turn off the HVAC.

And I love my car. In a year and a half my average has been 3.0 MKW. But, and it is a big but, I don't care about range. Driving like I stole it, with AC on, I can still get anywhere around greater Phoenix and not drop below 20%. For any long intercity trips (e.g., Phoenix to Las Vegas) I would plan on renting an ICE car whether I was driving a Lucid DE or my current car; too many stressors in a strange city to try to worry about charging while managing small grandkids, etc.

Well...this would be a great data set if it were a Lucid

 

[Steveinarizona]

Well...this would be a great data set if it were a Lucid

true enough. But my point is that to some, range is all important; to others, it is important but only one of many important features, and to some (like me) it is not important. Lucid drivers fall into all three categories.

My guess is that if someone drive a Lucid Air the same way in Scottsdale over the same time frame, it would have similar results which, to me, are fine. I can enjoy driving the car and if it takes another half hour over night to charge my car, I don't care and the cost for charging during the night is not consequential.

My message to folks who are not consumed by range: Drive it, enjoy it and don't worry about it. Lucid Airs are incredible driving machines, drive it the same way.

 

[kpbhat]

true enough. But my point is that to some, range is all important; to others, it is important but only one of many important features, and to some (like me) it is not important. Lucid drivers fall into all three categories.

My guess is that if someone drive a Lucid Air the same way in Scottsdale over the same time frame, it would have similar results which, to me, are fine. I can enjoy driving the car and if it takes another half hour over night to charge my car, I don't care and the cost for charging during the night is not consequential.

My message to folks who are not consumed by range: Drive it, enjoy it and don't worry about it. Lucid Airs are incredible driving machines, drive it the same way.

Yes. What you say is true. As you rightly said each one has their own stuff going on. For some it’s efficiency and for some it’s performance. Fun is common in all though. All of us enjoy the car. Just gets curious about how efficiency works. Now I saw a strange thing on my trip. 10kw=60 miles. How can it be?

 

[Bobby]

turning off the AC is not an option for most people. if the car only gets 2.9 with the AC then that is what it is and renders the car to be far less than it is advertised to be.
do you also never drive over 50 to get better range?

All car manufacturers advertise their EPA numbers. Those numbers are achieved under certain circumstances. I did an entire video about this.

 

[kort6776]

All car manufacturers advertise their EPA numbers. Those numbers are achieved under certain circumstances. I did an entire video about this.

can you point towards anyone who has gotten 500+ miles in their Air GT while driving "normally"?
normally to me means driving at posted interstate speeds, with the ac on and other accessories on.
for me the reality is, and I knew going in that I'd never see 500+ miles, is that on a longer trip driving normally I will get a bit over 400 miles from the car.
this is not a complaint, in fact there are few if any EVs that can match that range, but it is far from contived EPA ratings.

 

[TriumphToo]

I'm at 4k miles in my GT (19s) and even under conservative driving I have never hit 4, with lifetime average at 3.1. The car was taken back by Lucid for a fault that the car communicated to them, and they've given me a Pure as a loaner. under spirited driving I'm getting 3.8-3.9. I can't work out why there is this difference.

 

[Daniel2022AT]

It depends on how you drive and where. Summer in the flat Midwest it is easy to get over 4mi/kWh on a road trip.

 

[GEWC]

The AC in the Lucid doesn’t draw nearly as much kW as the heater. You are 100% correct you should not have to turn off the AC to get a range within 10% of what the EPA is. However if it’s 90+ then the AC will have to work harder. But I’ve gotten above 4.0 mi/kwh on king road trips when it was 80 out with climate set to 70F and wasn’t hypermiling just driving ng around 70-75 and occasionally hitting traffic. I also have experimented with @GEWC driving method and have achieved BETTER than EPA efficiency driving how she drives. The trick is to accelerate slowly, which I admit is not fun, and then if you see a car ahead of you slowing down you start using regen immediately but gently so you regen for a long distance until you reach that car. I literally just got 6.2 mi/kwh around town driving to a diner and then Lowe’s and back home using that method (see the since last charge data). This is not the 6.2 mi/kwh software glitch some see either, as it would dip below that number quickly if I accelerated too aggressively. And here’s photographic proof of another drive I did using @GEWC method driving home from work. As you can tell by my Trip A, which I reset a few K miles after I got my new battery, I usually don’t drive the speed limit

Just to add my $.02, I am not that slow on accelerating (though I don't race), it is the careful slowing down that gives me the most benefit. Even with spirited driving, the worst I've ever gotten is 3.5 in 100 temps with the AC blasting and the radio on.

I drive to and from my kids' school (a 40 mile round trip) at least 2 and sometimes 4 times a day. Most of the trip is highway, driving within 10 miles +/- the speed limit. Half of those trips are in moving traffic, 1 or 2 in slow moving stop and go traffic. Since I bought this car for its range, I paid attention the first year of driving. I lose the most on 40-50 mph roads with lots of traffic lights. I noticed in stop and go traffic, slowing down late and getting up to speed again quickly makes you use the most energy, hence why I leave space and slow down slowly. I regularly get 5.4 mi/kwh on the way to school. The steep on-ramp on the way home immediately brings in down to the 4s, especially if I zip up it. My average at 32k miles is 4.0, which is just fine by me.

 

[terrycs]

I'm at 4k miles in my GT (19s) and even under conservative driving I have never hit 4, with lifetime average at 3.1. The car was taken back by Lucid for a fault that the car communicated to them, and they've given me a Pure as a loaner. under spirited driving I'm getting 3.8-3.9. I can't work out why there is this difference.

3.1 mi/kWh doesn't sound bad to me ... I'm at 2.9 mi/kWh over 4 months owning my car.

 

[Bobby]

3.1 mi/kWh doesn't sound bad to me ... I'm at 2.9 mi/kWh over 4 months owning my car.

I’m 3.1 lifetime on my Grand Touring. I demonstrated in one of my videos that it’s possible to get the EPA mileage, which equates to about 4.2. But I drive the car hard and I don’t care about range unless it is particularly important for a certain trip.

 

[terrycs]

I’m 3.1 lifetime on my Grand Touring. I demonstrated in one of my videos that it’s possible to get the EPA mileage, which equates to about 4.2. But I drive the car hard and I don’t care about range unless it is particularly important for a certain trip.

Same here ... I'm definitely more aggressive than I am in our ICE car so no complaints from me about efficiency. Yes, I've seen your road trip video ... you are FAR more patient than I am, hence there will probably never be a hyper-mileage attempt from me.

 

[BS8899]

3.1 mi/kWh doesn't sound bad to me ... I'm at 2.9 mi/kWh over 4 months owning my car.

With respect to "Lifetime Efficiency", I have a question for the readers in this forum who are much more learned than I. Specifically:

> I believe the "Lifetime" number displayed on the Lucid screen also comprehends the energies consumed when the car is not moving (e.g., vampire drain, idling etc.). Is this correct?
> If so, if you drive mostly short trips and the car idles often, your "Lifetime Efficiency" will be lower than the actual efficiency. "Actual" as defined here as when the car is moving and how many miles can you get per kWh. It can be much lower than the "moving efficiency".
> Therefore, I think the only reliable "Efficiency Number in miles/kWh" should only be measured with a fresh charge on one trip, with no or minimal stop/rest period. This methodology is similar to how Out-of-Spec Review measures 70mph range on their Lucid.

Glad to hear your inputs and be educated!

 

[Bobby]

Hi regen increases efficiency substantially in city driving.

I have not found this to be true because of the weight of this car. Getting it moving takes a lot of energy, unless your acceleration is extremely light.

 

[Bobby]

With respect to "Lifetime Efficiency", I have a question for the readers in this forum who are much more learned than I. Specifically:

> I believe the "Lifetime" number displayed on the Lucid screen also comprehends the energies consumed when the car is not moving (e.g., vampire drain, idling etc.). Is this correct?
> If so, if you drive mostly short trips and the car idles often, your "Lifetime Efficiency" will be lower than the actual efficiency. "Actual" as defined here as when the car is moving and how many miles can you get per kWh. It can be much lower than the "moving efficiency".
> Therefore, I think the only reliable "Efficiency Number in miles/kWh" should only be measured with a fresh charge on one trip, with no or minimal stop/rest period. This methodology is similar to how Out-of-Spec Review measures 70mph range on their Lucid.

Glad to hear your inputs and be educated!

There is no lifetime efficiency setting on this car. Both are trip odometers, and each can be reset individually. Both of these trip odometers taken into account actual miles while the car is moving and do not account for charging losses, idle time, the app waking the car, etc.

 

[Amster]

I have not found this to be true because of the weight of this car. Getting it moving takes a lot of energy, unless you're acceleration is extremely light.

What fun would that be?

 

[BS8899]

There is no lifetime efficiency setting on this car. Both are trip odometers, and each can be reset individually. Both of these trip odometers taken into account actual miles while the car is moving and do not account for charging losses, idle time, the app waking the car, etc.

While I agree with you that it takes a lot of energy to move the car, my data seem to suggest that short drives and a lot of idling time can skew the outcome.

I take long drives, 780 miles Phoenix to Marin County. On long drives, I typically get between 3 to 3.5 miles/kWh, depending on the length of the drive, speed, and elevation changes. I also have periods (months) when I only make short drives and the car is idled most of the time. The efficiency numbers are significantly skewed. I should qualify by saying that, when the car is idled, it is not plugged in (i.e., no L2 charging). With daily plugged-in L2 charging, you are effectively restarting the "Efficiency Clock" every day.

Imagine, if you make short drives (say 10 miles each) 2X/week and the car sits idled (not plugged in), you can get "Efficiency" as low as in the 2.0-2.5 miles/kWh. Obviously, it depends on how long the car wasn't plugged in. These numbers get rolled into the overall statistics. I think "Vampire Drain" plays a role. IN addition to the car's inherent "Vampire Drain", other accessories (e.g., Dashcams/Sentry Mode) can add up.

 

[GEWC]

While I agree with you that it takes a lot of energy to move the car, my data seem to suggest that short drives and a lot of idling time can skew the outcome.

I take long drives, 780 miles Phoenix to Marin County. On long drives, I typically get between 3 to 3.5 miles/kWh, depending on the length of the drive, speed, and elevation changes. I also have periods (months) when I only make short drives and the car is idled most of the time. The efficiency numbers are significantly skewed. I should qualify by saying that, when the car is idled, it is not plugged in (i.e., no L2 charging). With daily plugged-in L2 charging, you are effectively restarting the "Efficiency Clock" every day.

Imagine, if you make short drives (say 10 miles each) 2X/week and the car sits idled (not plugged in), you can get "Efficiency" as low as in the 2.0-2.5 miles/kWh. Obviously, it depends on how long the car wasn't plugged in. These numbers get rolled into the overall statistics. I think "Vampire Drain" plays a role. IN addition to the car's inherent "Vampire Drain", other accessories (e.g., Dashcams/Sentry Mode) can add up.

Interesting. I agree with you on the resetting of the efficiency clock. I would add the caveat that as long as the car doesn't sit fully charged (to your set %) and plugged in for too long. I find the car is more efficient and has less vampire drain when not plugged in and sitting idle than plugged in. I have played with it quite a lot, and get the highest efficiency when i schedule it to finish charging right when I plan to drive.

 

[BS8899]

Interesting. I agree with you on the resetting of the efficiency clock. I would add the caveat that as long as the car doesn't sit fully charged (to your set %) and plugged in for too long. I find the car is more efficient and has less vampire drain when not plugged in and sitting idle than plugged in. I have played with it quite a lot, and get the highest efficiency when i schedule it to finish charging right when I plan to drive.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

The Lucid "Efficiency Calculation" is, to my understanding, "SINCE THE LAST CHARGE". Hence, the calculation resets when you unplug the charger and start driving. The first drive after charging is the most accurate data in terms of efficiency (mi/kWh). Thereafter (i.e., until you charge again), the idle periods/vampire drain come into play. It is not entirely clear to me how the efficiency is calculated if you recharge (say with L2) every night. Specifically, whether the non-driving vampire drain (which is replenished with the overnight charging) is (or is not) comprehended in calculating the efficiency as the metric says "SINCE THE LAST CHARGE".