The 2025 Lucid Air is now the most efficient EV on sale

chip_1

Smack-Fu Master, in training
99
I have been saying for years that it objectively insane that any manufacturer is selling any EV or even a PHEV that doesn't use a heat pump for climate control. The difference between an air conditioner and a heat pump is a $5 reversing valve. It is inexcusable that any EV is still using resistive heat.
 
Upvote
193 (197 / -4)

Statistical

Ars Legatus Legionis
53,956
The EPA range figure and MPGe figure and wHr/mi figure all come from the same testing. Claiming it gets 420mi from 84kWHr of juice and also claiming 146MPGe is a contradiction. There's no way it makes sense to claim both, officially.

Acceleration and deceleration isn't a huge deal for an EV, as long as you decelerate slowly enough to do it entirely with regen.
This is not correct.

The mi/kWh (or kWh per 100 miles) is based on the performance of the vehicle EXCLUDING CHARGING. The MPGe includes charging losses. It doesn't measure the energy at the battery but at the wall outlet to charge the battery. The short version is including charging losses it takes more than 84 kWh to fill the battery which then gets 420 miles.

This is true of ever BEV listed not something special with lucid the author just noticed it because 5 mi/kWh is impressive.

For example Hyundai Ioniq 6

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=46957
24 kWh per 100 miles = 4.167 mi/kWh

Multiply that by 33.7 kWh per gallon and it would be 154 mpge HOWEVER the official mpge rating is 140.

Why? Because the 140 includes charging losses. The 4.167 mi/kWh does not it is just the capacity of the battery vs range under EPA test.

Look at it another way to go 100 miles requires 24 kWh of "juice in the battery" but to get 24 kWh of juice in the battery ends up requiring 24 *154/140 = 26.4 kWh at the wall outlet. Similarly the Lucid air can go 420 miles on a full 84 kWh battery (on an EPA test) BUT to put 84 kWh in the battery requires 97 kWh at the wall outlet which is what the MPGe is based on.

Personally I think MPGe just confuses things and everyone knows these days that any BEV is vastly more efficiency than any ICEV but the EPA goal here with mpge was to compare COST and as a consumer you pay for all the electricity used not just the useful electricity which is stored in the battery but any waste head and charging overhead (computer running, safety contactors engaged, and in some vehicle the heat pump is running to cool the batteries during charging).

Yes this does mean if Lucid improved charging efficiency in a future year with zero change in the driving efficiency then the MPGe rating would go up while the mi/kWh (or kWh/100mi) rating would remain the same.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
177 (178 / -1)

freaq

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,213
I feel really dumb asking this question, but what's the heat pump doing? Is it purely for heating / cooling the cabin, or is it helping condition the battery?
Its usually both, its cooling the battery, harvesting heat from motors, and potentially bringing that into the cabin.

But it can also dump it,

Or vice versa cool the cabin as AC

Main difference is just using a heatpump over a resistive heater though. Which adds a lot in cold weather efficiency.
 
Upvote
159 (159 / 0)

ERIFNOMI

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
15,457
Subscriptor++
Sure, maybe if you're driving in Texas in the winter. But then take the car into Canada when its -40F and see how well your heat pump is performing.
Modern heat pumps work at low temperatures. There's also nothing precluding you from having a resistive heater to supplement a heat pump for extreme cold conditions.
 
Upvote
159 (160 / -1)

just another rmohns

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,155
Subscriptor
Thank you, @Dr Gitlin , for doing the math and asking them about it. So often journalists don’t do the math on figures they are presented and something doesn’t add up. I’m glad they can’t slip it by you… even if their explanations are hand-wavey :-/

EDIT: And thank you, many commenters here, for explaining in detail about how eMPG is calculated! You are reasons I keep coming back to the comment threads. ❤️
 
Last edited:
Upvote
114 (116 / -2)

Shuasha

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
159
Subscriptor++
My major issue with Lucid is the same issue I had with the Tesla Model S years ago - the interior feels incredibly cheap and there are parts you touch every day (switches, etc.) that feel flimsier than a 2005 Chevy Cobalt. As I recall, it was the air vents adjusters and the temperature up/down switches above the screen.

I don't understand why these new manufacturers cheap out on things like this. I don't want to be in a $150k car feeling like the temperature switch is going to break off if I use it too much.
We had 2 Model S's and currently have a Lucid Air GT. I don't agree at all, it's like comparing apples to rocks. I fully agree that the Tesla interiors feel cheap and crappy, it's why I didn't buy out the lease in mine a long time ago. Lucid has way, way, WAY better interiors with wood and stitching and soft fabrics where it makes sense. The switches don't feel cheap in any way, but I have seen where some people have worn our the arrows on top from adjusting them often. They certainly don't feel like they're cheap or flimsy.

The fact that there are even switches for adjusting the fan, temp, and volume are a huge plus over many cars that have moved to fully digital these days.
 
Upvote
102 (103 / -1)

sbradford26

Ars Scholae Palatinae
819
Sure, maybe if you're driving in Texas in the winter. But then take the car into Canada when its -40F and see how well your heat pump is performing.
Resistive heaters are cheap and can be included as a backup at trivial cost. Also vehicles that drive in true -40F not just windchill need to be modified typically to be reliable at those temps regardless of what is powering them.
 
Upvote
96 (97 / -1)

freaq

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,213
Honestly lucid has some
Fine engineering.

I’m genuinely excited about the new lucid gravity too, extremely efficient “suv” with a “f150 like trunk” where the grill opens, just like a trunk has for ages.

Collapsable seats for the third row, stored in the floor, looks great. I really hope they make it.

Sadly for me the air is not an option as my wife hated it that the headrest could not be adjusted properly (on a seat with 22 adjustment zones xD)

But its a wonderful car that drives like a dream, absolutely worth doing a testdrive in.
And the frunk and trunk soace is insane for a sedan, absolute best in class packaging!
 
Upvote
91 (92 / -1)

Statistical

Ars Legatus Legionis
53,956
Despite the incongruent math, the 2025 Air Pure still beats the 2024 model, which makes do with a combined 140 MPGe and 410 miles of range, according to the EPA.

There is no incongruent math. They are measuring two different things.

The range is the range driven on the EPA cycle. The mi/kWh or kWh/100 miles or Wh/mi are simply a measure of EPA range vs battery. That simple. 420 miles on 84 kWh battery IS 5 mi/kWh. (420/84).

The mpge rating however includes charging losses. To put 84 kWh of usable energy into the battery requires more than 84 kWh. In this case it actually requires 97 kWh. The MPGe rating is MEASURED AT THE WALL OUTLET and then compared to EPA range.

Side note the Lucid has a bit below average charging efficiency most vehicles are around 90% efficient with the best being around 92%. Lucid Air is only 86% efficient when charging. If Lucid improved charging efficiency in a future model then the MPGe rating would rise even if the vehicle had the same battery and range.
 
Upvote
74 (75 / -1)
Quote
Dr Gitlin
Dr Gitlin
This thread is already several pages long so I am just posting this here to say I have read this and understand your point (and Lucid emailed after this piece went live to say the same thing) and A: TIL, and B: that seems like the dumbest thing I have ever heard and even more proof to me that MPGe is a dumb measurement which is why I don't include it, as opposed to miles/kWh and kWh/100 km.
Upvote
74 (75 / -1)

avalys

Smack-Fu Master, in training
52
My major issue with Lucid is the same issue I had with the Tesla Model S years ago - the interior feels incredibly cheap and there are parts you touch every day (switches, etc.) that feel flimsier than a 2005 Chevy Cobalt. As I recall, it was the air vents adjusters and the temperature up/down switches above the screen.

I don't understand why these new manufacturers cheap out on things like this. I don't want to be in a $150k car feeling like the temperature switch is going to break off if I use it too much.
 
Upvote
68 (82 / -14)

Marcus Andreus

Ars Scholae Palatinae
841
Subscriptor
Sure, maybe if you're driving in Texas in the winter. But then take the car into Canada when its -40F and see how well your heat pump is performing.
The number of major population centres in Canada that regularly hit even -10C is pretty small at this point. I think it might have happened half a dozen times in Toronto last winter. We don't even have snow on the ground at Christmas anymore. Thanks, climate change!
 
Upvote
64 (66 / -2)

MrScruff

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
183
Sure, maybe if you're driving in Texas in the winter. But then take the car into Canada when its -40F and see how well your heat pump is performing.

It would be -40°C up here, thank you very much. 🤓

Anyway, the people with houses with heat pumps in the extreme-winter parts of Canada have backup systems installed so I imagine the same is possible with a car.
 
Upvote
55 (56 / -1)

ERIFNOMI

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
15,457
Subscriptor++
The post I replied to just implied that only difference between using climate control for AC and heating is a $5 part. If you have to switch between different method of heating, etc, that's not a single reversing valve. Basically, either the post I replied to was implying of getting rid of all heating except for a heat pump, or they were not being realistic on what these type of changes would entail and were intending to be misleading.

I'm all for using heat pumps for more efficiency. But its not just a simple $5 reversing valve.
The difference between A/C, which is standard equipment now, and a heat pump is pretty much just the reversing vavle, yes. Getting resistive heating and a heat pump to work together is a bit of software.

Unless you're suggesting EVs with resistive heating don't have A/C.
 
Upvote
48 (50 / -2)

star-strewn

Ars Scholae Palatinae
769
Subscriptor++
Always great to have alternatives to Tesla vehicles. Lucid has a strong advantage merely by not betting the entire company on hyperbolic self-driving claims.
"The reason we don’t love MPGe is that batteries are the real expense for EVs—not electricity. If you can be more energy efficient when actually driving, you can reduce the capacity of the battery pack in the vehicles you build—reducing cost, reducing weight, and reducing the natural resources you need per vehicle. On the other hand, it’s nice to minimize energy lost during charging, but if you get only 2.5 mi/kWh on the road, you still are stuck with the big expensive battery pack," Lucid told Ars.
If you remove the cruft, they seem to be saying that the acceleration and deceleration in the MPGe test isn't as efficient as they'd recommend to get the 5 mi/kWh figure. I wish more drivers were careful about acceleration and deceleration. They contribute to both energy inefficiency and mortal danger.

EDIT: According to Zoc and Statistical below, the MPGe rating includes energy losses while charging back up to full, instead of just looking at how much battery capacity was drained (which is what Lucid uses to arrive at 5 mi/kWh).
 
Last edited:
Upvote
37 (44 / -7)

Statistical

Ars Legatus Legionis
53,956
I guess I haven't noticed that before, interesting. No one actually pays attention to MPGe.

The argument that accounting for charging losses allows you to account for the actual cost of fueling makes sense, except that there's no way direct way to go from MPGe and the cost of electricity/cost of gas to cost.to refuel. It's obvious for gas at $/gal and efficiency at MPG, but not for electricity at $/kWHr and MPGe. That comparisons only works if your cost for electricity is ($/gal gas)/33.7. And since electricity prices don't follow gas prices, if that's ever true for you, it's a coincidence.
I agree. In the EPA defense I think it is more you could compare the MPGe number of two BEVs and see "oh this will require 10% less fuel per year". Comparing across BEV, PHEV, and ICEV for cost would as you point out not even be close.

That being said I think it would be best to drop the mpge and just show a separate charging efficiency number. This lucid air is actually pretty poor at 86%, the average BEV is around 90%, and the best are around 92%. Then maybe an estimated annual "fuel" costs based on average miles driven, vehicle efficiency, charging efficiency, and average electric rates. This transparency would encourage BEV manufacturers to improve charge efficiency not just drivetrain efficiency. To be honest Lucid should be able to do better than 86%. Although to be fair even 92% vs 86% wouldn't make much difference in annual costs. It uses 7% more electricity to charge per kWh into the battery than the best vehicles. 13,500 miles drive on EPA cycle per year at 5 mi/kWh, 7% extra, and $0.12/kWh rates work out to an extra $23 per year which on the TCO of a $70k vehicle is a rounding error.
 
Last edited:
Upvote
34 (34 / 0)

Statistical

Ars Legatus Legionis
53,956
I read this as meaning that the EPA is calculating MPGe based on how much electricity it takes to charge the car, ie including electricity lost to resistance during charging etc, whereas Lucid wants to calculate based on the capacity of a full battery, ie after it's charged. Both seem valid to me, but I don't know much about it.

To be clear it isn't Lucid doing something weird.

EVERY BEV has two different rating
range vs battery capacity = only range and battery capacity resulting in mi/kWh (or EPA reports it as kWh per 100 miles).

AND

charging efficiency loses which are used to calculate the input energy and this is shown as mpge which will always be a worse number because no car has 100% charging efficiency.

This is true of every single BEV ever produced and listed on EPA website.
 
Upvote
29 (29 / 0)

Zoc

Ars Scholae Palatinae
905
Subscriptor
If you remove the cruft, they seem to be saying that the acceleration and deceleration in the MPGe test isn't as efficient as they'd recommend to get the 5 mi/kWh figure. I wish more drivers were careful about acceleration and deceleration. They contribute to both energy inefficiency and deadly danger.
I read this as meaning that the EPA is calculating MPGe based on how much electricity it takes to charge the car, ie including electricity lost to resistance during charging etc, whereas Lucid wants to calculate based on the capacity of a full battery, ie after it's charged. Both seem valid to me, but I don't know much about it.
 
Upvote
25 (25 / 0)

jock2nerd

Ars Praefectus
4,505
Subscriptor
I feel really dumb asking this question, but what's the heat pump doing? Is it purely for heating / cooling the cabin, or is it helping condition the battery?

All well-designed BEVs should use a heat pump, instead of resistive heating, to warm the batteries.
It increases range in cold weather.

It's still shocking to me that there are expensive BEVs without heat pumps, and those manufacturers should be called out for cheaping out on an essential part
 
Upvote
24 (24 / 0)

Adam Starkey

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,024
Subscriptor
Upvote
24 (25 / -1)

ERIFNOMI

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
15,457
Subscriptor++
Upvote
23 (25 / -2)

CraigJ ✅

Ars Legatus Legionis
27,006
Subscriptor
Sure, maybe if you're driving in Texas in the winter. But then take the car into Canada when its -40F and see how well your heat pump is performing.
Uh, have you tried to start a diesel engine at -40? The reliability of gasoline can be iffy at -40 too - impurities in the gas can freeze out in the fuel filter causing blockages. Besides, -40 is the extreme, it's not like it's -40 every night of the year. This is just another stupid "I can't have an EV because once a year I need to drive 1,000 miles without stopping to deliver a trombone" argument.
 
Upvote
23 (23 / 0)

Statistical

Ars Legatus Legionis
53,956
EPA EV efficiency/consumption could use a lot of work. I don't understand why they hid the city and highway consumption/range. We've been talking about city/highway/combined mileage on ICEVs forever. Then EVs come along and some decided "fuck it, let's only give combined range." And I understand MPGe as a way to demonstrate how much more efficient EVs are than ICEVs (~100MPGe compared to 20-30MPG? Big number good), but it really isn't helpful once you've grasped that fact. I get it, make things comfortable for people who don't like change, but we're worse off for it. If they want to compare "average annual fuel cost" between EVs and ICEVs, they already do that. It's right there on the window sticker in dollars, the unit that anyone looking for that information actually cares about. MPGe just obfuscates the numbers that would actually allow you to run your own numbers if that's what you were interested in.

I agree there is a lot the EPA could change. For example why not have a constant velocity test at various speeds and show a range vs speed chart. That is honestly the range people care about. If I get on the highway set cruise control for 70 mph how far can I go before I need to recharge. Lets define "recharge" as down to 20% capacity. Hint it is a lot less than EPA range.

Keep the combined epa test range number as the "headline number", break out city and hwy range and the add a new constant velocity curve at speeds from 50 mph to 80 mph. If nothing else it might help people go how just slowing down from 70 to 65 gets me an extra 40 miles of range.

While we are at it throw in an EPA standardized fast DC charging test. Say 10% to 80% in both time and miles per minute.

These are the kind of useful things that consumers care about and highlighting would lead companies to improve in order to attract consumer dollars. Right now with an EPA single range number you are buying half blind unless you rely on third party comparisons and articles.
 
Upvote
22 (22 / 0)

Statistical

Ars Legatus Legionis
53,956
I'm baffled by the immaturity of the electric car maker releasing a statement of "we don’t love MPGe." I don't love tomatoes, but I'd still use them if I opened an Italian restaurant.

They are using it. The 2024 Lucid Air gets 146 MPGe an improvement over the 2023 Lucid Air which got 140 MPGe.

The quote got kinda butchered and then the article sort of implies Lucid is lying. There are two different EPA numbers. mi/kWh (or technically kWh/100miles) which is VEHICLE EFFICIENCY only and a MPGe which is vehicle efficiency AND charging efficiency.

Lucid is saying the former (kWh/100mi) is more important to them because that is what drives how large the very expensive battery pack needs to be for a given range. 10% improvement you can get 10% more miles or reduce the battery cost by 10% or a mix of both. The second number an improvement in charging efficiency means the vehicle will use slightly less energy per year to fuel but it wouldn't improve range or battery cost a single cent.
 
Upvote
21 (22 / -1)
The title of the article is literally "The 2025 Lucid Air is now the most efficient EV on sale"
And everybody knew what they meant except the asshole using the forum for their own personal need to feel superior. Go masturbate elsewhere. Literally every reply to you has been to tell you to piss off with this nonsense.

You’re not going to Principal Skinner your way out of this. You’re the problem.
 
Upvote
21 (21 / 0)