The Air Pure range will be 330 miles to 406 miles 😵‍💫

[nautchilous]

I stumbled across this video on youtube…Listen to what they say about the pure model at about 4:35 mins….Is this information correct? Maybe the Awd range will be 330 miles.

 

[eherlihy1]

I hope that this is wrong. My reservation for a Pure was placed BECAUSE the range was stated as 406 miles.

 

[eherlihy1]

I hate these computer narrated videos. Also, most of the information presented is either out of date, or wrong.

This is what Lucid says on their website: "EPA est. range ratings when equipped with 19” wheels: 520 Dream Edition R/471 Dream Edition P/516 Grand Touring.  Actual results may vary.  Pure and Air Touring 406 range are based upon manufacturer’s projected EPA estimated range when equipped with 19” wheels.  Projected EPA estimated ranges are subject to change."

 

[HC_79]

It's from March. I wouldn't trust it as Lucid has been extremely tight lipped on the Pure. Keep in mind, Lucids selling point at this stage is range, range, range so don't see them sacrificing range on the Pure

 

[psychlyst]

There are a number of inaccuracies in this video. There is no reason to disbelieve the Lucid Motors website. Efficiency is King, you'll get the stated range for the Pure.

 

[HC_79]

With the shoddy computer voice and a majority of videos about Nio this screams the channel is probably run by the Chinese government and will discredit all competitors

 

[Shane_SLC]

Given the efficiency that DE and GT owners have observed the real world range might actually be in the 300 to 350 mile range. Hopefully with a little less weight and 19" wheels it'll be closer to the EPA listed range, but I'd be hesitant to assume it will get the 406 mile range consistently.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Given the efficiency that DE and GT owners have observed the real world range might actually be in the 300 to 350 mile range. Hopefully with a little less weight and 19" wheels it'll be closer to the EPA listed range, but I'd be hesitant to assume it will get the 406 mile range consistently.

My Air GT 19” charged to 90% predicts my range is 471 miles (so 100% would be over 500), and I’m averaging 3.9 mi/kWh so while I haven’t verified their math, I think it’s very likely the Pure would be capable of 406 miles, and I bet whenever it comes out the InsideEVs 70mph range test will show as much.

There’s a million of these bot generated YouTube videos to get clicks, like just search for Lucid Apple merger and you’ll find hundreds of them and they’re all bullshit to generate clicks.

 

[Daniel2022AT]

My Air GT 19” charged to 90% predicts my range is 471 miles (so 100% would be over 500), and I’m averaging 3.9 mi/kWh so while I haven’t verified their math, I think it’s very likely the Pure would be capable of 406 miles, and I bet whenever it comes out the InsideEVs 70mph range test will show as much.

There’s a million of these bot generated YouTube videos to get clicks, like just search for Lucid Apple merger and you’ll find hundreds of them and they’re all bullshit to generate clicks.

Interesting that your vehicle thinks you are getting over 4.6 mi/kWh which is a tad bit better than what the EPA predicts which is approx. 4.5 mi/kWh. If you are actually observing 3.9mi/kWh with a 112 kWh battery that would equal an actual range of 437 miles. If the Pure has a 92 kWh battery, using the same efficiency number would equate to an actual range of 359 miles. The Touring and Pure should have very slightly better efficiency than the GT due to lighter weight by a couple hundred pounds. It looks like for most people doing real world driving the EPA range estimates are overstated by 10% or more. Of course there are many variables which impact efficiency, many of which have been discussed by Air owners already - speed, regen setting, temperature, wind, terrain, wheel size, tire type, tire pressure, use of HVAC, passenger load, etc.

 

[Bunnylebowski]

Interesting that your vehicle thinks you are getting over 4.6 mi/kWh which is a tad bit better than what the EPA predicts which is approx. 4.5 mi/kWh. If you are actually observing 3.9mi/kWh with a 112 kWh battery that would equal an actual range of 437 miles. If the Pure has a 92 kWh battery, using the same efficiency number would equate to an actual range of 359 miles. The Touring and Pure should have very slightly better efficiency than the GT due to lighter weight by a couple hundred pounds. It looks like for most people doing real world driving the EPA range estimates are overstated by 10% or more. Of course there are many variables which impact efficiency, many of which have been discussed by Air owners already - speed, regen setting, temperature, wind, terrain, wheel size, tire type, tire pressure, use of HVAC, passenger load, etc.

Oh the 3.9 mi/kWh was before the 1.2.10 update so it’s not reflected much in my average yet. I’ll reset the trip calculator though and see.

 

[Adnillien]

Lucid is going to make sure that the Touring and Pure have more range than the Model S. At the same time, Lucid will limit total available battery and range to keep a large range difference with the GT to provide and incentive for customers to buy the more expensive trim. I have seen references to an 88kWhr battery, but as show above just reducing four modules gives 92 kWhr. Being lighter, the efficiency should improve over the heavier GT. However, the voltage is also decreased so at the same power output, the Touring and Pure will draw more current and incur more resistive loss. Less power also means less current so overall I expect the Touring and Pure efficiency to be better than the GT. I think it is safe to assume that the actual number will be very close to the 406 advertised with a chance of it being a little higher.

 

[Miami_Lucid_Man]

Lucid is going to make sure that the Touring and Pure have more range than the Model S. At the same time, Lucid will limit total available battery and range to keep a large range difference with the GT to provide and incentive for customers to buy the more expensive trim. I have seen references to an 88kWhr battery, but as show above just reducing four modules gives 92 kWhr. Being lighter, the efficiency should improve over the heavier GT. However, the voltage is also decreased so at the same power output, the Touring and Pure will draw more current and incur more resistive loss. Less power also means less current so overall I expect the Touring and Pure efficiency to be better than the GT. I think it is safe to assume that the actual number will be very close to the 406 advertised with a chance of it being a little higher.

If you look at other makers (i.e., BMW i4, Tesla) that's pretty much true. Compare Range on i4 e40 vs. M50 and Model 3 LR v. Performance.

 

[Daniel2022AT]

Adnillien,

Fascinating comment about resistive loss. How would you estimate that impact on efficiency? How much does motor design play into that. Please don’t make me pull out my electrical engineering textbook from 35 years ago….

It took the EPA about 20 years to figure out how to run a lab dynamometer to generate realistic gas mileage estimates. Nowadays I get about 10% better efficiency than the EPA number on my BMW ICE.

 

[Adnillien]

Adnillien,

Fascinating comment about resistive loss. How would you estimate that impact on efficiency? How much does motor design play into that. Please don’t make me pull out my electrical engineering textbook from 35 years ago….

It took the EPA about 20 years to figure out how to run a lab dynamometer to generate realistic gas mileage estimates. Nowadays I get about 10% better efficiency than the EPA number on my BMW ICE.

I don't know enough about Lucids inverter and motor architecture to venture a guess to how much resistance impacts the car's efficiency.

 

[Lucken]

If you look at other makers (i.e., BMW i4, Tesla) that's pretty much true. Compare Range on i4 e40 vs. M50 and Model 3 LR v. Performance.

I’ve got an i4 e40 and my range is consistently 300-320 miles. That exceeds the EPA estimates since I’m on 19” wheels. Reviewers are often finding their results also exceed EPA estimates. My typical efficiency has been 4.0-4.2 mi/kWh.

These results leave my late e-Tron Sportback in the dust.

 

[CraZ8]

My best range for a long trip is still only 3.4 mi/KWh on 19s and fully updated, not crazy driving ( mostly 70-80 in smooth with a few bursts of accelerator) running AC at 70 degrees, two people in the car, 5000 miles on the clock with tires inflated to 46lbs. I see posts where some people are getting in the high 3s to mid 4s. Do I have a problem since I still average 2.7 to 3.2? That means I’m getting about 65% on average if advertised range taking 3mi/kWh as an average

 

[hydbob]

My best range for a long trip is still only 3.4 mi/KWh on 19s and fully updated, not crazy driving ( mostly 70-80 in smooth with a few bursts of accelerator) running AC at 70 degrees, two people in the car, 5000 miles on the clock with tires inflated to 46lbs. I see posts where some people are getting in the high 3s to mid 4s. Do I have a problem since I still average 2.7 to 3.2? That means I’m getting about 65% on average if advertised range taking 3mi/kWh as an average

Maybe? Even I get 3.1 mi/kwh on 21s, averaging 80mph. 3.4 mi/kwh when acc is set to 75.

 

[Tesla2.0]

My best range for a long trip is still only 3.4 mi/KWh on 19s and fully updated, not crazy driving ( mostly 70-80 in smooth with a few bursts of accelerator) running AC at 70 degrees, two people in the car, 5000 miles on the clock with tires inflated to 46lbs. I see posts where some people are getting in the high 3s to mid 4s. Do I have a problem since I still average 2.7 to 3.2? That means I’m getting about 65% on average if advertised range taking 3mi/kWh as an average

That is very low. I am starting to see 3.0~3.3 mi/KWh on short trip, and 3.5~3.9 on medium trip, but this is driving 55~70 mph range Smooth mode. On my sprited drive, 2.8~3.1 mi/kWh on Swift mode. I seldom bother Sprint mode except doing demo. I’m on 21” 42psi. And a long trip is around corner soon. Although I have enough range 469 miles, I don’t plan to fast charge below 20%, I trust AGT more than I trust EA network.

 

[abbas2099]

I am getting around 2.6-2.9 on 19" going 80 mph (or higher) where the temperature is set during the afternoon at 59 with early morning/evening drives at 74. I think the best average I have ever gotten was at 3.6 on a long drive at a constant 80 mph at 72 degrees.

 

[CraZ8]

I am getting around 2.6-2.9 on 19" going 80 mph (or higher) where the temperature is set during the afternoon at 59 with early morning/evening drives at 74. I think the best average I have ever gotten was at 3.6 on a long drive at a constant 80 mph at 72 degrees.

That’s really about my my average give or take