This is not correct.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.
Its usually both, its cooling the battery, harvesting heat from motors, and potentially bringing that into the cabin.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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's majority owned by the Saudi PIF, so yes?By chance is the company run by a narcissistic, megalomaniac and a board of cronies?
Just something that seems to have come up lately.
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.
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!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.
Musk isn't the only one that can play innuendo, apparently.Starts at $69,900K? And it gets 420 miles of range? For the "Pure"? Nice
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 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.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.
For the record: -40F and -40C are identical.
"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.
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.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 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.
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.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 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?
You're being downvoted for a lazy/stupid logical fallacy that has been debunked in forums a bunch times.I like how people downvote me for stating simple facts anyone can find with a simple google search.
Lucid Lost $433,000 For Every Car It Sold In Q3, Reports $2.17 Billion In Losses So Far This Year
Lucid also said in its pre-listing presentation that its EV line-up would be selling at an average price of $109,233
Enjoy your bikes.ebikes can carry more than 1 person. 52% of all trips, including all modes of transportation, were less than three miles, which is easily within ebike range.
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.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.
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'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.
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.The title of the article is literally "The 2025 Lucid Air is now the most efficient EV on sale"
We get it, you like to ride bicycles everywhere.It takes more energy to more more mass, and this car weighs a lot more than an ebike.