Why is No One Talking About All of the Improvements to the 2025 GT?!?

[rfc805]

That's because drag increases much faster than speed itself. Generally speaking, drag force is proportional to the square of speed. The increase in drag on the vehicle is about 31% when going from 70 to 80 mph. So it has nothing to do with Lucid's optimization, it has to do with the laws of physics.

Well, yes of course. But there are aero decisions that likely would have been different if the goal were to be most efficient at 80 vs 70. Maybe even the entire shape or size of the vehicle. Who knows. That said, the car isn't 50% more efficient again at 60mph vs 70mph. There was a clear optimization intent somewhere in there.

 

[Bobby]

Well, yes of course. But there are aero decisions that likely would have been different if the goal were to be most efficient at 80 vs 70. Maybe even the entire shape or size of the vehicle. Who knows. That said, the car isn't 50% more efficient again at 60mph vs 70mph. There was a clear optimization intent somewhere in there.

I understand your point, but I don’t think it makes any sense. The Lucid Air is the most aerodynamically efficient production car available. There comes a point where it cannot be any more aerodynamic while still following all of the safety and crash protection regulations. Your implication that they purposely made a car to be efficient at one speed versus another ignores several laws of physics, since drag is the important factor at any speed.

Examples:
1. Lucid Air (Drag Coefficient: 0.197)
2. Mercedes-Benz AMG One (Drag Coefficient: 0.22)
3. Tesla Model S (Drag Coefficient: 0.208)
4. Mercedes-Benz EQS (Drag Coefficient: 0.20)
5. Hyundai Ioniq 6 (Drag Coefficient: 0.21)
6. Porsche 911 Turbo S (Drag Coefficient: 0.33)
7. Chevrolet Corvette C8 (Drag Coefficient: 0.33)
8. Lamborghini Sián (Drag Coefficient: 0.35)
9. Aston Martin DBS Superleggera (Drag Coefficient: 0.35)
10. Bugatti Chiron (Drag Coefficient: 0.36)
11. Ferrari SF90 Stradale (Drag Coefficient: 0.38)
12. McLaren 720S (Drag Coefficient: 0.38)

 

[rfc805]

Drag coefficient, but it doesn't operate on its own. The actual amount of drag is the coefficient relative to its frontal area. The frontal area is not reflected at all in the coefficient, and obviously isn't part of the marketing - because it is not particularly great on the Air. While maintaining the same coefficient, they could have designed dramatically different frontal areas (among other factors) to optimize for specific velocities. There are likely some other factors in downforce, tire sizes, etc they could tweak as well. These are non-trivial in impact at different velocities as well. These sort of things can dramatically impact rolling resistance at different velocities.

I do not know the details of what they chose to do of course, but it wasn't an accident that it ends up optimal at 70mph. Though maybe it's not even 70mph, but I'm pretty sure if they wanted to, they could tell you exactly what speed they designed for.

They almost certainly could change aspects of the car to make it more efficient at 80mph instead. It would likely then make it less efficient at other velocities.

You are correct that drag is the important factor, but the coefficient of drag is not the drag force, it is just a factor of it.

 

[momo3605]

Your implication that they purposely made a car to be efficient at one speed versus another ignores several laws of physics, since drag is the important factor at any speed.

What I want to understand is why the Air is so much more efficient at 70mph compared to other EVs. Out Of Spec, other anecdotes, plenty of online reviews, and even personal experience says you can get 4.0 miles/kw at 70mph compared which is great! A model S can’t do that. Neither can a Taycan. I don’t even think a model 3 will do 4.0 miles/kw at 70mph.

Yet, at 80mph…the Air drops to 2.9 which is now the same efficiency as Taycan and Model S ant the same speed. And at 80mph, the model 3 even pulls ahead efficiency wise. (3.3 per OoS). The reason why the 80mph testing is relevant is because that’s more of a real world freeway cruising speed around the country. No one really drives 70. I was hoping the Air would be more efficient at 80 than its competition.

What this looks like to me is that Lucid did a tremendous job optimizing the motors around 65-70mph. But the side effect of this is really bad efficiency outside of this optimized range. Of course I could be wrong about this as well.

 

[BS8899]

Drag coefficient, but it doesn't operate on its own. The actual amount of drag is the coefficient relative to its frontal area. The frontal area is not reflected at all in the coefficient, and obviously isn't part of the marketing - because it is not particularly great on the Air. While maintaining the same coefficient, they could have designed dramatically different frontal areas (among other factors) to optimize for specific velocities. There are likely some other factors in downforce, tire sizes, etc they could tweak as well. These are non-trivial in impact at different velocities as well. These sort of things can dramatically impact rolling resistance at different velocities.

I do not know the details of what they chose to do of course, but it wasn't an accident that it ends up optimal at 70mph. Though maybe it's not even 70mph, but I'm pretty sure if they wanted to, they could tell you exactly what speed they designed for.

They almost certainly could change aspects of the car to make it more efficient at 80mph instead. It would likely then make it less efficient at other velocities.

You are correct that drag is the important factor, but the coefficient of drag is not the drag force, it is just a factor of it.

Directionally, all your points are correct.

But, where is this "fact" that the Air was optimized to be most efficient at 70mph come from? Was it published any where?

I thought Kyle's 70mph testing was done as a proxy for highway driving. Is there more to it than just that?

Also if you look at the Lucid Air's "range-demo" drive from Newark to Santa Monica, they took the 101 through mostly farm country, meandering through San Luis Obispo. I have driven that road a few times, but never in my AGT. My most recent drive on that road was in October 2024, in my R1S. That drive is mostly a 60-65mph drive.

If I were ventured to guess, I think the Air aerodynamics is most efficient at ~60mph.

 

[rfc805]

Directionally, all your points are correct.

But, where is this "fact" that the Air was optimized to be most efficient at 70mph come from? Was it published any where?

I thought Kyle's 70mph testing was done as a proxy for highway driving. Is there more to it than just that?

Also if you look at the Lucid Air's "range-demo" drive from Newark to Santa Monica, they took the 101 through mostly farm country, meandering through San Luis Obispo. I have driven that road a few times, but never in my AGT. My most recent drive on that road was in October 2024, in my R1S. That drive is mostly a 60-65mph drive.

If I were ventured to guess, I think the Air aerodynamics is most efficient at ~60mph.

Purely from the fact that Lucid's advertised range is hit while driving roughly at 70 (when they did their Pacific Coast demo for range on the Air). Not referring to the OOS one, just Lucid's own demos.

Looks like they actually say 65mph, so probably that rather than 70 even.

I would presume if there were a speed where they could get more range, they would've. I could be wrong - it could be another speed. I have personally not experienced better efficiency at speeds below 70 in mine. My testing is obviously not extensive.

 

[BS8899]

Purely from the fact that Lucid's advertised range is hit while driving roughly at 70 (when they did their Pacific Coast demo for range on the Air). Not referring to the OOS one, just Lucid's own demos.

Looks like they actually say 65mph, so probably that rather than 70 even.

I would presume if there were a speed where they could get more range, they would've. I could be wrong - it could be another speed. I have personally not experienced better efficiency at speeds below 70 in mine. My testing is obviously not extensive.

According to Google Maps, that route was 388 miles. Notice that the Pure/Touring trims didn't join the convoy starting from Newark. In theory, rated at 400 miles range, the Pure/Touring could have make that trip. And they didn't take I-5 either (408 miles, faster traffic). If I remember correctly, there was a room-full of folks back in Newark monitoring all the instruments on the cars.

Nothing wrong with any of these.

I believe Lucid has some of the longest range EVs. That said, Lucid is not as far ahead of their competitors as they would like you to believe.

 

[Bus Driver]

I have personally not experienced better efficiency at speeds below 70 in mine. My testing is obviously not extensive.

And thank god for that. I couldn’t dream of driving my car any slower than that.

 

[Ktw13]

Cd = 1/2 q V² S
q (rho) is air density
V is velocity
S is frontal surface area

All EV drops efficiency at 80miles/h, and non can achieve what Lucid does at 70miles/h

For comparison, facelift Model Y debuted in China uses CLTC figure for its range test, with average speed of 26 miles/h. Harsh on ICE but almost cheating on EV.

 

[BS8899]

If you haven't seen this yet, you might want to take a quick look.

Key points:
> The Tesla Model 3 (RWD) finished 2nd (behind the Taycan) in the OoS I-90 Surge. The Ioniq finished 3rd.
> Kyle interviewed the 3-person Model 3 team about their experience. Note their remarks about the Lucid AGT and some of its efficiency claims at 70+mph.

outofspec reviews - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[Grewsome]

I've been driving a older GT for the last 3 days and it uses the same 20% of my battery as my 2025 touring to get to work and back. I thought that was interesting.

I calculated that I would only get 240 miles for a full charge of the GT at that rate. It's cold here, but it was for the touring too.

 

[momo3605]

I've been driving a older GT for the last 3 days and it uses the same 20% of my battery as my 2025 touring to get to work and back. I thought that was interesting.

I calculated that I would only get 240 miles for a full charge of the GT at that rate. It's cold here, but it was for the touring too.

240 miles full charge for older GT and 2025 Touring?

 

[Grewsome]

240 miles full charge for older GT and 2025 Touring?

That's what I got with the GT. 80 miles used up 33% of my battery (80% to 47%).

I travel 50 miles round trip to work. Uses 20% of my battery (80% to 60%). Very similar numbers.

I drove it like I stole it and it's cold as hell here, so I don't think the range drop off is too bad. I just thought that it was interesting that the range wasn't really any different between the 2 cars with similar driving characteristics.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

I've been driving a older GT for the last 3 days and it uses the same 20% of my battery as my 2025 touring to get to work and back. I thought that was interesting.

I calculated that I would only get 240 miles for a full charge of the GT at that rate. It's cold here, but it was for the touring too.

That would make the 2025 Touring roughly 22% MORE efficient given that the Touring’s battery capacity is roughly 22% smaller than a 2022 Grand Touring’s pack (92 kWh vs 112). That is pretty consistent with
My own experience between a 2022 Grand Touring Loaner I had for 600 miles compared to 2025 AGT. There seems to be no question that the 2025’s are MUCH more efficient in cold weather…

 

[Blue Lectroid]

That's what I got with the GT. 80 miles used up 33% of my battery (80% to 47%).

I travel 50 miles round trip to work. Uses 20% of my battery (80% to 60%). Very similar numbers.

I drove it like I stole it and it's cold as hell here, so I don't think the range drop off is too bad. I just thought that it was interesting that the range wasn't really any different between the 2 cars with similar driving characteristics.

But the EFFICIENCY is. The two cars have completely different sized battery packs…so if you go the same number of miles on the same percentage of the battery packs, the 2025 Touring with a 22% smaller battery pack is delivering u those miles far more efficiently.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

240 miles full charge for older GT and 2025 Touring?

Yup! Drive it like you stole in the cold (especially with electric resistive heat) and that’s what you’ll get!! Of course, if you preheat the car and drive it for range you’ll pretty easily be able to get over 350 miles on a ‘22 AGT (I’ve been able to achieve 3.25 mi/kWh without much trouble in cold even including some snow and WITHOUT preheating the car more than 50% of the time) on the loaner I just had…

 

[momo3605]

Yup! Drive it like you stole in the cold (especially with electric resistive heat) and that’s what you’ll get!! Of course, if you preheat the car and drive it for range you’ll pretty easily be able to get over 350 miles on a ‘22 AGT (I’ve been able to achieve 3.25 mi/kWh without much trouble in cold even including some snow and WITHOUT preheating the car more than 50% of the time) on the loaner I just had…

Yea agreed… 3.1 or 3.2 sounds about right. That’s my lifetime average in my Touring works out to about 25% under EPA

 

[DeaneG]

Yea agreed… 3.1 or 3.2 sounds about right. That’s my lifetime average in my Touring works out to about 25% under EPA

My GT's lifetime average is 3.5mi/kWh in the SF bay area climate. 3.2 seems quite low for a Touring in this area. Maybe you use the "go" pedal more than I do.

 

[momo3605]

My GT's lifetime average is 3.5mi/kWh in the SF bay area climate.

Forgot to clarify I do have 20s. That’s a 10% or roughly 0.3 miles/kw difference right there.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

Yea agreed… 3.1 or 3.2 sounds about right. That’s my lifetime average in my Touring works out to about 25% under EPA

Yeah, but I was getting 3.25 in 20 degree temps with occasional snow. I imagine if I drove the ‘22 AGT through a whole year and better weather, I’d do a heck of a heck of a lot better than 3.25…