What's new
By:

Range

BS8899 said:
Yup!

This has been Lucid' practice. They cite the EPA test results and the implied range. In that respect, technically, it is consistent.

Reality is, if YOU interpret Lucid's EPA range as "I am going on a road trip, driving mostly on an US highway from Point A to Point B (say 300 miles @70-75 mph), you won't get the EPA range as "implied". Typical owners get 70-75% of the implied EPA range.

For 4+ years now, I've been urging Lucid to provide a meaningful range number for highway driving. Yes, there are many factors, speed, temperature, elevation, etc.. I get that. But Lucid, and some of its fans blame the EPA instead. The data is there to provide such a meaningful metric.

"What a tangle web we weaved!"
Click to expand...
From a manufacturer's point of view, why would they show results that are inferior to EPA figures. And end up with their competitors showing better numbers.
The burden is on EPA to align their tests closer to real world drives.
 
Similar discussion going on a Gravity thread.

I am still of the opinion that the only true way to get a 100% accurate range reading in YOUR real world driving conditions is to charge to 100% and drive it as you normally would until you very nearly zero out. That's it. Just do it one time and you'll basically know what you're getting (excluding weather/temp/tire differences).

I'm just seeing SO many differences in the way people are using the efficiency numbers and doing the math...and their results are all over the place.
 
coupedncal said:
From a manufacturer's point of view, why would they show results that are inferior to EPA figures. And end up with their competitors showing better numbers.
The burden is on EPA to align their tests closer to real world drives.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are likely going to get EPA range if you drive approx. 20% on highways and the rest on city streets. Better yet, if you just drive on a dynamometer, in doors, control temperature, no wind, etc., you will get the EPA number.

But what good is that?!

Lucid can continue to quote EPA numbers as EPA.

But shouldn't Lucid also give its owners realistic efficiency numbers when driving on US highways?
 
BS8899 said:
...

But shouldn't Lucid also give its owners realistic efficiency numbers when driving on US highways?
Click to expand...
Nobody else does this. Nobody. The general buying public wouldn't understand it if an automaker actually did, given that the EPA numbers are not only publicized but literally printed on the window sticker. Automakers leave it to reviewers and their larger customer base to provide detail on how real world numbers relate back to the sticker values.
 
martinjlm said:
Nobody else does this. Nobody. The general buying public wouldn't understand it if an automaker actually did, given that the EPA numbers are not only publicized but literally printed on the window sticker. Automakers leave it to reviewers and their larger customer base to provide detail on how real world numbers relate back to the sticker values.
Click to expand...
So, let me ask you, why do German EVs (BMW, Porsche) tend to deliver efficiencies performance (Yes, quoting EPA numbers) much closer to their claims than Lucid or Tesla?

When long range endurance races were run (e.g., OOS's I-90 (Seattle to Boston, Canadian border by Maine to Key West)), given Lucid's claimed efficiencies and range to be sooo much better than competition (hence, much fewer charging stops) why didn't Lucid's performance wipe the competition off the charts?! In the I-90 event, Lucid (Air) "misjudged" its available range and ran out of charge. In the Key West event, Lucid's Gravity won (2 of them took #1 and #2 spot, Tesla took #3), but other EVs like the Rivian, which OOS called "the Brick", Cadillac, etc., came in 4th through 6th, but only about 6-7% in elapse time longer than the Gravities.

Don't these real-life situations call into questions how Lucid spec their products vs their competitors?
 
BS8899 said:
So, let me ask you, why do German EVs (BMW, Porsche) tend to deliver efficiencies performance (Yes, quoting EPA numbers) much closer to their claims than Lucid or Tesla?

When long range endurance races were run (e.g., OOS's I-90 (Seattle to Boston, Canadian border by Maine to Key West)), given Lucid's claimed efficiencies and range to be sooo much better than competition (hence, much fewer charging stops) why didn't Lucid's performance wipe the competition off the charts?! In the I-90 event, Lucid (Air) "misjudged" its available range and ran out of charge. In the Key West event, Lucid's Gravity won (2 of them took #1 and #2 spot, Tesla took #3), but other EVs like the Rivian, which OOS called "the Brick", Cadillac, etc., came in 4th through 6th, but only about 6-7% in elapse time longer than the Gravities.

Don't these real-life situations call into questions how Lucid spec their products vs their competitors?
Click to expand...
I think everyone who has joined the forum more that 2 days ago knows where you stand on this. Why do we need to discuss this same topic for the 100th time? I know it is your pet topic, but maybe leave it until next quarter.
 
BS8899 said:
So, let me ask you, why do German EVs (BMW, Porsche) tend to deliver efficiencies performance (Yes, quoting EPA numbers) much closer to their claims than Lucid or Tesla?

When long range endurance races were run (e.g., OOS's I-90 (Seattle to Boston, Canadian border by Maine to Key West)), given Lucid's claimed efficiencies and range to be sooo much better than competition (hence, much fewer charging stops) why didn't Lucid's performance wipe the competition off the charts?! In the I-90 event, Lucid (Air) "misjudged" its available range and ran out of charge. In the Key West event, Lucid's Gravity won (2 of them took #1 and #2 spot, Tesla took #3), but other EVs like the Rivian, which OOS called "the Brick", Cadillac, etc., came in 4th through 6th, but only about 6-7% in elapse time longer than the Gravities.
Click to expand...
There are two different protocols for EPA testing. I forget the details of the two protocols. I've been away from it for 10 years now. I think it's 2-cycle testing and 5-cycle testing. Each company tests to one protocol or the other and reports their results to EPA. I suspect that BMW and other German automakers choose the more conservative test cycle. I can't recall which is more strict and which is more forgiving. German manufacturers have for years been accused of under-reporting fuel economy and horsepower numbers.
 
martinjlm said:
There are two different protocols for EPA testing. I forget the details of the two protocols. I've been away from it for 10 years now. I think it's 2-cycle testing and 5-cycle testing. Each company tests to one protocol or the other and reports their results to EPA. I suspect that BMW and other German automakers choose the more conservative test cycle. I can't recall which is more strict and which is more forgiving. German manufacturers have for years been accused of under-reporting fuel economy and horsepower numbers.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!!
 
Adnillien said:
I think everyone who has joined the forum more that 2 days ago knows where you stand on this. Why do we need to discuss this same topic for the 100th time? I know it is your pet topic, but maybe leave it until next quarter.
Click to expand...
Other than my repetitiveness (as a public service) to remind the forum of the contradictions, why is it harmful? Truth hurst, right?

A FORUM is a pace to debate.

AI Overview


Yes, a forum can be a place to debate, though its primary purpose is broader communication, open discussion, and sharing ideas rather than a structured contest. [1, 2]
 
I was supposed to get 40 mpg with my 2016 Lexus ES300H that I bought in 2018. My lifetime actual was 33 mpg over 71,000 miles. That is 82% of the promised efficiency. The promised efficiency of 2023 LAT was 4.1 mi/kWh. After 5,000 miles and 500 trips I am getting 3.84 mi/kWH. 93% of what was promised.
I'm a really happy camper. :cool:
 
7OaksTom said:
I was supposed to get 40 mpg with my 2016 Lexus ES300H that I bought in 2018. My lifetime actual was 33 mpg over 71,000 miles. That is 82% of the promised efficiency. The promised efficiency of 2023 LAT was 4.1 mi/kWh. After 5,000 miles and 500 trips I am getting 3.84 mi/kWH. 93% of what was promised.
I'm a really happy camper. :cool:
Click to expand...
typically, gas cars get better mileage at highway speeds, up to a point (say 75mph), whilst, EVs are the opposite.

I don't know your driving habits. It is what it is. As long as you are happy, that's what matters!
 
I don't drive conservatively at all , but with my AT can get around 4 mi/kWh w/ too much difficulty doing 100 mile trips in reasonable weather, mostly highway, and not too much time at 80 Mph. That said, my life time average is about 3.3'ish, and would be a bit higher if I did not have to return home to about 800 feet above sea level. That really kills it and the regen on the way down to sea level helps but does not make up for it.

Being conservative (for a test) I did Bay Area to Palm Springs and got 4.1 mi/kWh.

Also agree screen shots can be very misleading. Here's one I took a few thousand miles ago. Trip B looks pretty good, until you realize that was a largely trip from Tahoe (about 6200 feet elevation) to home in the Bay Area. I can also get 6.21 mi/kWh for 30 mile trips, but when I return home it might be closer to 3, so not really relevant.

IMG_8888.webp
 
I don't know if I'm lucky but have lifetime avg 4.16 over 12k. Last trip with 50% highway/50% interstate at around 73mph resulted in 4.31. 2025 AT, 19" aero wheels.
 
I had a 26 Air Touring, 19 in wheels, loaner brand new less than 5k miles for a month and a half and I averaged 3.80 with spirited and normal driving. My 24 Pure on 20 aero lites with 25k miles averages 4.20 with mostly normal driving. Socal area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top