What estimated range would you cancel your Pure?

[noobzilla]

Lucid is currently advertising the Pure to have 400mi. That may go up or down once it gets produced and tested. What range would be too low that you would cancel it?

My vote would be 350 mi. I'm not going to bother with any EV less than 350mi range.

 

[level]

Same at 350 mi

 

[RGS_AZ]

390, I would feel since its been a claimed 406 all of this time that anything less is a bait and switch.

 

[hydbob]

390, I would feel since its been a claimed 406 all of this time that anything less is a bait and switch.

Might as well cancel now, because I can bet you will have an almost impossible time to achieve 390 real world.

 

[RGS_AZ]

Might as well cancel now, because I can bet you will have an almost impossible time to achieve 390 real world.

I did say claimed. Not necessarily expecting 406 miles in the real world, but if all of a sudden the supposed EPA rating fell under 406 then I'm not sure I'm interested any longer.
I reserved based on one number, not a different range claim later on.

 

[AIR.LUCID]

If the Pure gets the best case 4.6 miles/kWh and gets an 88kWh battery pack, that makes ≈ 404 miles of range.

 

[HC_79]

I doubt Lucid is going to be far off the projected range. Even the pre EPA on the launch models projected 500+ I believe and they achieved it. I also suspect they won’t go under Model S EPA just to continue to stick the knife into Tesla.

 

[Steveinarizona]

Might as well cancel now, because I can bet you will have an almost impossible time to achieve 390 real world.

I don't think the goal is necessarily to achieve the 400 mile range. The goal is to have the EPA give it that range and we can then do the math that (I at least) have to do to turn it into my realistic range (take off 20% for most of the time to keep the batteries strong; take off another 25% for spirited driving). But I would do the same math for any BEV. For me, one of the great advantages of the Lucid Pure was the range. Take that range away and there are lots of competitors out there whose software is more solid.

And, as RGS_AZ said, if they reduce it more than a rounding error, it is bait and switch and at that point my trust goes away and so does my wallet.

 

[DBV]

If it is under 400, that would make me cancel.

 

[Shane_SLC]

I think as long as I can make it 300 miles on an 80% SOC without hypermiling I'll be happy. 4 hours of driving is plenty of time to go in between breaks to get out and stretch and whatnot.

 

[Sandvinsd]

Less than 400 miles of EPA range since they promised over.

 

[Rominian]

I have compared a bunch of different EVs on a cost per mile of range basis. The Pure is actually pretty competitive based on that comparison, IF it does get 400 miles of range. If it drops significantly below that number it is less attractive. I think 350 would be my cutoff as some others have said.

 

[noobzilla]

Wow. A good number canceling if Pure doesnt stay to 400mi. I sure do hope we get 400mi.

 

[Steveinarizona]

I don't know what the magic number is for me but it is more than 350. To me it is a question of integrity; Lucid said around 400 miles EPA range. 390 would be that. 350, to me, would not. If I can't trust the company not to lie to me for years about its range, can I trust it to fix the software, etc.?

But...having said that, I do trust that Lucid will meet its stated target and I will be acquiring a Pure.

 

[AIR.LUCID]

Wow. A good number canceling if Pure doesnt stay to 400mi. I sure do hope we get 400mi.

Yes. However, If many cancel I may get my Pure sooner.

 

[Codyroo]

*This will not happen Scenario*
I would ask this (also). What if the EPA decided that it no longer was going to use the "5 cycle" test and required all EV makers to use the "2 cycle" test and republish their results (which would seemingly only impact Telsa and Lucid).
Currently:
On the "5 cycle test" the Air pure on 19" wheels would get 406 miles.
On the "2 cycle test" the Air pure on 19" wheels would get 325 miles (I'm taking a guess here that the hit would be about 20%).
(Now the totally guessing part here)
In real world driving, people find they are missing the target "5 cycle test number" by 15%, thus they don't see 406 miles, but are seeing 345 miles.
In real world driving, people find they are exceeding the target "2 cycle test number" by 6%, thus they exceed 325 miles, and are seeing 345 miles.

In the end of the day - the actual mileage observed is identical (as well it should be), but for the "5 cycle" EPA test, it overestimates the real world driving of the "normal" driver and would be more akin to what a very efficient "hyper miler" can achieve. In other words, the 406 miles is what you can do if you take steps to try to maximize range (such as decreasing your top speed, keeping a longer distance between your vehicle and the one in front of you (tailgating) to avoid accelerating, anticipating stops in traffic or lights by looking well ahead of you, taking steps to keep the car cool on warm days and warm on cool days, to minimize HVAC usage. Using heated/cooled seats instead of heating or A/C when possible. Etc etc etc.

We've seen that GWEC (sp) can get great range/efficiency from her car that others can't. Likely she employs many of these steps without consciously doing it anymore.

Would this impact your decision if you knew that the 406 is just an EPA value and that your value will be lower? And if 345 miles of real world range isn't enough, what vehicle would you switch to that will deliver this range? Or is it just a cost thing (like it is for me with the GT, can't justify another $30K for 50-100 miles of range vs the "rest of the pack". And, will you be happy with an Audi, Kia, Hyundai, VW that gets you real world range of 250-270 miles vs 330-340 miles of real world range? <summer time only>

 

[Rominian]

I guess I look at a few things while I have been considering any type of EV. I think I have mentioned that I did a dollar/mile of range comparison between different vehicles, and assuming the Pure is close to what they say, it is a good value, beating many of the “lower” cost options. If I am going to buy an EV I want it to completely replace my ICE car, I don’t see the point of buying an EV that can only realistically be driven around town and not used on long trips. My wife and I love road trips. The other factor that I go by is looks. I only buy cars that I think look cool. Teslas to me are *ok* but not great. The other EV offerings haven’t caught my eye like the Lucid. I sent in a deposit after seeing it for the first time online. Having now test driven the car, I really want one. In the end if the range is significantly worse, I think I said 350 was probably my limit, then I will perhaps lease the Lucid rather than buy it and see how it does for me personally.

 

[AIR.LUCID]

If the stated Estimated range is their only reason for buying the Air Pure, then they don’t deserve one.

 

[MikeTz]

If the stated Estimated range is their only reason for buying the Air Pure, then they don’t deserve one.

Agree. All I need is a light weight rear wheel drive car with better than TAYCAN dynamics.

 

[Steveinarizona]

*This will not happen Scenario*
I would ask this (also). What if the EPA decided that it no longer was going to use the "5 cycle" test and required all EV makers to use the "2 cycle" test and republish their results (which would seemingly only impact Telsa and Lucid).
Currently:
On the "5 cycle test" the Air pure on 19" wheels would get 406 miles.
On the "2 cycle test" the Air pure on 19" wheels would get 325 miles (I'm taking a guess here that the hit would be about 20%).
(Now the totally guessing part here)
In real world driving, people find they are missing the target "5 cycle test number" by 15%, thus they don't see 406 miles, but are seeing 345 miles.
In real world driving, people find they are exceeding the target "2 cycle test number" by 6%, thus they exceed 325 miles, and are seeing 345 miles.

In the end of the day - the actual mileage observed is identical (as well it should be), but for the "5 cycle" EPA test, it overestimates the real world driving of the "normal" driver and would be more akin to what a very efficient "hyper miler" can achieve. In other words, the 406 miles is what you can do if you take steps to try to maximize range (such as decreasing your top speed, keeping a longer distance between your vehicle and the one in front of you (tailgating) to avoid accelerating, anticipating stops in traffic or lights by looking well ahead of you, taking steps to keep the car cool on warm days and warm on cool days, to minimize HVAC usage. Using heated/cooled seats instead of heating or A/C when possible. Etc etc etc.

We've seen that GWEC (sp) can get great range/efficiency from her car that others can't. Likely she employs many of these steps without consciously doing it anymore.

Would this impact your decision if you knew that the 406 is just an EPA value and that your value will be lower? And if 345 miles of real world range isn't enough, what vehicle would you switch to that will deliver this range? Or is it just a cost thing (like it is for me with the GT, can't justify another $30K for 50-100 miles of range vs the "rest of the pack". And, will you be happy with an Audi, Kia, Hyundai, VW that gets you real world range of 250-270 miles vs 330-340 miles of real world range? <summer time only>

I think you are wrong on the loss going from the 2 cycle test to the 5 cycle test. There will likely be some but nothing like what you are predicting given the test results from Motor Trend, Car & Driver, etc.

I have reserved a Pure because I see it as a combination of good handling, power and range. I expect my range to be lower. I have said on a number of postings here that I expect to normally try to keep it at less than 80% so that takes 20% off and then take another 25% off for spirited driving. BUT...that is true of all BEVs. But at least Lucid starts with a higher number.