Motor Trend tests a GT in winter

[idiot900]

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...long-review-update-1-cold-weather-range-test/

They experienced some of the same issues reported on this forum.

• Indicated range for them apparently came from the fantasy of EPA range and not even a crude estimate based on actual consumption.
• Climate control heat set point did not work for them. They wanted a 72 degree cabin but only achieved 67 at a set point of 80.

Their test was on February 3, as a reference point for whatever firmware version they would have been on.

On the plus side, even the 63% of EPA range they got makes sense and is still pretty good. Plus, their issues should be fixable in software. We've seen Lucid fix many of our issues already, presumably they'll fix these too.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

Motor Trend is to cars as The Watchtower is to high places and binoculars.

 

[Steveinarizona]

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...long-review-update-1-cold-weather-range-test/

They experienced some of the same issues reported on this forum.

• Indicated range for them apparently came from the fantasy of EPA range and not even a crude estimate based on actual consumption.
• Climate control heat set point did not work for them. They wanted a 72 degree cabin but only achieved 67 at a set point of 80.

Their test was on February 3, as a reference point for whatever firmware version they would have been on.

On the plus side, even the 63% of EPA range they got makes sense and is still pretty good. Plus, their issues should be fixable in software. We've seen Lucid fix many of our issues already, presumably they'll fix these too.

Depending upon how cold it was, 63% could be excellent.

 

[Coltonw011]

Keep in mind this was a GT-P, not a GT. And it was 6 degrees according to the article. I like that they cold soaked it, but it was also prior to 2.0.52 so maybe the range prediction would’ve been far better now that it’s been added

 

[Lucken]

I think it’s great that MT brought these significant issues to the fore. Let’s be honest, when a publication like MT broadcasts these issues, it’s more likely to get the immediate attention of a manufacturer. Let’s hope there’s a relatively quick resolution to these issues.

 

[stratus]

Depending upon how cold it was, 63% could be excellent.

I will attest that 63 % , in those temperatures, is admirable. Overall for the last month or so I have averaged 2.6 m/kWh. Tonight I just got back from a 45 mile trip, 3 degrees, 2.3 m/kWh, with very conservative driving. Not sure why it was so much worse on this particular drive. I could freeze to death in the car and get better efficiency, but I have abandoned that strategy. I love the car, and did kind of expect this, but man does it get crushed in very cold weather . I think it’s a major sore point for EV adoption in cold climates . It’s just the way battery chemistry works, but I hope the future brings improvements.

 

[chinesejpl]

I really appreciate MotorTrend's review of winter driving range. I think this is actually pretty similar to what I experienced in my model x (about 60%).

My main issue with inaccurate stated range is that it isn't great for planning. It would be very useful to see 100mi range and know you can travel about 100mi because then I can aim to travel 80mi and leave myself a cushion. It's more challenging to plan with the stated range is 100mi and I may have 50 or 60 or maybe even 75mi range left but I don't actually know. I just wish all EVs would be more accurate with their range like the German EVs. It's psychological seeing range readings of 500+ miles, feeling good and then only being able to travel 300!

I wonder how much a heat pump would help?

 

[joec]

I really appreciate MotorTrend's review of winter driving range. I think this is actually pretty similar to what I experienced in my model x (about 60%).

My main issue with inaccurate stated range is that it isn't great for planning. It would be very useful to see 100mi range and know you can travel about 100mi because then I can aim to travel 80mi and leave myself a cushion. It's more challenging to plan with the stated range is 100mi and I may have 50 or 60 or maybe even 75mi range left but I don't actually know. I just wish all EVs would be more accurate with their range like the German EVs. It's psychological seeing range readings of 500+ miles, feeling good and then only being able to travel 300!

I wonder how much a heat pump would help?

This is why a lot of longtime EV owners use percentage instead of miles. I resisted it for years, but now I’ll never go back.

Mileage estimates could be way better on the Lucid (they’ve recently improved greatly while navigating) but they will never be accurate. Too many variables the car can’t factor in. (How would it know you are going to turn into a 15mph headwind in ten minutes?)

The percentage indicator isn’t an estimate. It’s a fact.

Imagine if your phone gave you a countdown of how long it will last on battery, rather than a battery percentage. No manufacturer does that for a reason.

 

[hmp10]

This is why a lot of longtime EV owners use percentage instead of miles.

Same here. We learned the lesson on our first Tesla and still use the percentage metric in both our Air and Model S Plaid, as our newer Tesla is just as far off in range metrics as the first one was six years earlier.

 

[MoniputerLM]

None of this really matters if we have access to a "Tesla-like" charging network.

 

[STLLucid]

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...long-review-update-1-cold-weather-range-test/

They experienced some of the same issues reported on this forum.

• Indicated range for them apparently came from the fantasy of EPA range and not even a crude estimate based on actual consumption.
• Climate control heat set point did not work for them. They wanted a 72 degree cabin but only achieved 67 at a set point of 80.

Their test was on February 3, as a reference point for whatever firmware version they would have been on.

On the plus side, even the 63% of EPA range they got makes sense and is still pretty good. Plus, their issues should be fixable in software. We've seen Lucid fix many of our issues already, presumably they'll fix these too.

The Motor Trend test highlights several issues on range. The first is their baseline in warm temperatures is 347 miles vs EPA (depending on configuration) in excess of 470 miles. Second is the completely inaccurate range estimation based on absurdly high miles/kWh that is based on the EPA. The third is the terrible climate system. Setting it on auto at a temperature means nothing. I had a Lucid Grand Touring for 5 months and changed to a Mercedes EQS580. It is unfortunate as the Lucid is a great car, but doesn't provide what it promises for the cost.

 

[hmp10]

This was a particularly interesting article on one count not yet mentioned. A lot of naysayers tried to discount the "Motor Trend" Car of the Year Award to Lucid by claiming the magazine was biased or even bought off. This article reinforces the even-handedness and independence of "Motor Trend" in testing cars.

I think two statements in the closing paragraphs of the article were spot on in assessing the Lucid in terms of range:

"Practically, though, 282 is a big range number—bigger than all but one or two trips I take every year. That's the magic in the Lucid Air's big (for a sedan) battery. Even at just 63 percent of its official 446-mile EPA range—even in the midst of a brutal once-a-year cold spell—it's still capable of tackling serious road trips."

"But that range figure doesn't excuse Lucid's bad math in how it heats the cabin, estimates the remaining range, and represents the battery state of charge to drivers. It's a mystery that an engineering-led company like Lucid would ship a $180,000 car with such crude calculations that erode a customer's comfort, confidence, and sense of safety."

My thoughts exactly . . .

Hit it with everything you've got, and the Lucid Air will still deliver a longer trip between charges than any other EV on the road.

But it's high time Lucid gives owners -- particularly those new to EVs and their unique foibles -- a more honest accounting of range.

I'm okay with sticking with the marketing of the EPA numbers using the more-forgiving 5-cycle test method as, for better or worse, Lucid has to market against Tesla, which uses that method. But once a driver is in the car and setting out on a road trip, more candor is the order of the day.

 

[Michael Cochran]

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...long-review-update-1-cold-weather-range-test/

They experienced some of the same issues reported on this forum.

• Indicated range for them apparently came from the fantasy of EPA range and not even a crude estimate based on actual consumption.
• Climate control heat set point did not work for them. They wanted a 72 degree cabin but only achieved 67 at a set point of 80.

Their test was on February 3, as a reference point for whatever firmware version they would have been on.

On the plus side, even the 63% of EPA range they got makes sense and is still pretty good. Plus, their issues should be fixable in software. We've seen Lucid fix many of our issues already, presumably they'll fix these too.

Yes. I’ve never been able to enjoy the range my Grand Touring touts whenever I’m on full charge, even on 75 degree days. I regularly see about 70-80% or so range. At this point I know a 120 mile trip will eat up 150 miles or more of range, and that’s driving in smooth mode. Drive in sprint and you can expect range to drop to nearly 50%! I only made that mistake once on a long trip, as I nearly ran out of juice getting to my destination!
I love my Lucid but do not trust the range! As others have stated, watch the % charged and Kw’s per mile. Usually it’s around 3.

 

[Lucken]

Imagine if your phone gave you a countdown of how long it will last on battery, rather than a battery percentage. No manufacturer does that for a reason.

Interestingly some camera manufacturers, like Sony, do give you remaining run time of the battery. Of course in that case the remaining time estimates are quite accurate. Of course the difference probably lies in the predictable drain rate of the camera’s battery.