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

A standard heat pump has made an already-efficient car even more so.

See full article...

 

[jgershon]

What has the world come to when I read about a $70k EV and think, "Wow, that's pretty cheap"?

 

[Statistical]

So if I understand correctly from what I read in the article, the EPA mpg rating is measuring the kWhs leaving the charger and using that in their calculations, and Lucid is using the capacity of the battery in theirs.

Both are interesting and useful.

Lucid's is more important with range obsessed drivers, and maybe helping keep the weight of batteries down.

The EPA's is gonna give you a more accurate cost basis for driving.

The EPA reports both.

In prior year model it is 24 kWh/100 miles (4.167 mi/kWh), MPGe of 140, and 410 miles of range

This years model will be 20 kWh/100 miles (5.00 mi/kWh), MPGe of 146, and 420 miles of range.

The EPA's is gonna give you a more accurate cost basis for driving.

The EPA mpge will give you the cost comparison for fueling two different BEVs. The also EPA reported range and efficiency (kWh per 100 miles) will give you the range and efficiency of a "fueled" BEV.

 

[rosen380]

I haven't gotten too close to either of them, so I guess I can't comment on the veracity of your complaint, but maybe they felt they had to cut some corners to meet price-points and didn't want to do it on the drivetrain?

 

[J.R.G]

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.

For the record: -40F and -40C are identical.

 

[fizzlefist]

Honestly, at this point we should be abandoning MGPe. Just start listing efficiency in both miles/kWh and mpg for gas fueled cars.

 

[johnnoi]

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.

Likely has seat and steering wheel heaters as well.

 

[cyberpenguin]

What cars are you driving right now that have HUDs?

Volvo XC60... HUD was fantastic for an American driving in Scotland.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

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.

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.

 

[MrScruff]

For the record: -40F and -40C are identical.

Yes.

Getting even more Canadian, The Red Green Show had a good gag about this. Harold walks into the room covered in snow and shouts, "It's -40 out!"

Red asks him, "Celsius or Fahrenheit?"

"Who cares?!"

 

[mobby_6kl]

Honestly, at this point we should be abandoning MGPe. Just start listing efficiency in both miles/kWh and mpg for gas fueled cars.

The unit makes no sense at all but the last time I brought it up, people were really mad about it

 

[entropicon]

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?

'asks advanced question that no lay person would even think of asking, feels dumb for asking it'

anyway, i think the answer is yes. but i haven't found a definitive answer. maybe someone else will.

 

[Statistical]

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.

 

[H2O Rip]

Man, I wish they had a hatchback version.

Yeah, i generally like the look of the air, and the gravity for that matter. But unfortunately it is a bit on the high price side for how little I drive.
I really want lucid to do well, its an uphill battle but I think they represent an awesome option for the former S owners that are sick of Elon's shit.

 

[nehinks]

The MPGe vs mi/kWh discussion was interesting - I had never done the math to realize the former had an extra factor included in it before. TIL!

 

[DalexPHL]

Yes.

Getting even more Canadian, The Red Green Show had a good gag about this. Harold walks into the room covered in snow and shouts, "It's -40 out!"

Red asks him, "Celsius or Fahrenheit?"

"Who cares?!"

I think that "Futurama" pulled that too!

 

[evan_s]

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.

Yes. I know that a heat pump is effectively an AC that can run forwards or backwards to switch which side is the hot side and which side is the cold side but I suspect their has to be an explanation why it isn't standard in BEVs. The efficiency boost is pretty noticeable in BEVs and resistive heaters definitely have a big impact on range. The cost difference actually being more than $5 would be a pretty easy one. I have a hard time imagining Lucid would be cheaping out on a $5 cost for a 70k car. It's always a possibility but seems unlikely to me.

Maybe it's a supply chain thing. ICEs have no real need for a heat pump, as they have plenty of waste heat they can use for heating. An actual heat pump on an ICE would be a total luxury thing allowing for instant heat or better control of multiple zones etc over using the "free" heat from the engine once it's up to temp. That might mean relatively lower volume and higher costs for the automotive heat pumps that are available and possibly limited options or supply which can also drive up costs beyond what they would be at volume.

I think it's also possible that while it is conceptually simple making an automotive grade heat pump is actually more complex and more expensive than just a simple valve. Remember automotive stuff needs to be pretty durable to handle the constant bumps and motion that being installed in a car entails not to mention potentially sitting outside in all sorts of inclement weather.

As is typical in the real world I expect that it will be a combination of these factors and probably several others. I do agree that I hope heat pumps do become standard equipment on BEVs.

 

[AusPeter]

For the record: -40F and -40C are identical.

[Insert That's the Joke gif]

 

[chalex]

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.

Wow a Lucid owner!
There are only like 10000 of them out there . About as many as the DeLorians.

 

[theOGpetergregory]

Yes.

Getting even more Canadian, The Red Green Show had a good gag about this. Harold walks into the room covered in snow and shouts, "It's -40 out!"

Red asks him, "Celsius or Fahrenheit?"

"Who cares?!"

Did their joke use -40? I feel like it's funnier at -30.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

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. 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.

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.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

I think that "Futurama" pulled that too!

I think Futurama pulled it with a more extreme temperature and said something along the lines of "first one, then the other."

 

[Statistical]

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.

 

[uesc_marathon]

Starts at $69,900K? And it gets 420 miles of range? For the "Pure"? Nice

Oh gods no, was muskrat involved in this one?

 

[StuiWooi]

The logo on the front plate holder looks confusingly like that of Alpine (Renault's performance sub-brand), had to double check but it seems Lucid's has fanciness on the right hand side of the A's horizontal bar

 

[chalex]

'asks advanced question that no lay person would even think of asking, feels dumb for asking it'

anyway, i think the answer is yes. but i haven't found a definitive answer. maybe someone else will.

You can check out the Tesla "octo-valve". I'm sure Lucid's design is similar. You need to be able to move the heat to/from the outside/inside/battery/motors.

 

[LDA 6502]

What cars are you driving right now that have HUDs?

My RAV4 Prime has a HUD. Absolutely love it.

 

[theOGpetergregory]

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.

Thanks for this, I did not know it either.

It also makes Lucid's quote a lot more... lucid (sorry, I had to). At first I was wondering what the heck the person was talking about because it didn't seem to answer the question.

Knowing the charge efficiency component it makes sense that Lucid's take is: we care about driving efficiency because it takes a lot of kWh of electricity to offset lbs of battery.

"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.

 

[FishInABarrel]

This may be a rant about something no one else cares about but....

I hate how fractured the metrics are for EV efficiency. The EPA has eMPG and kWhr/100 miles, neither of which I see in common use anywhere. I mostly see miles/kWhr (in North America), which makes sense as a direct replacement of miles/gal. So if I know that I'm getting 3.5 miles/kWhr with my current vehicle, I can't directly compare that to EPA numbers.

Then you throw state of charge into the mix as kWhr or expressed as a percentage. If I'm on a road trip getting 3.3 miles/kWhr, It's trivial to know how many kWhr I need to reach my destination. But the car doesn't tell me kWhrs, it tells me a percentage. Again, I have to do another conversion for what should be a simple comparison.

I wish we would just settle on miles/kWhr and show charge in kWhr. Maybe I'm just weird.

edit: multiple typos.

 

[J.R.G]

[Insert That's the Joke gif]

Yeah, I know. But I've had similar conversations where various folk were unaware of the fact.

 

[phoenix_rizzen]

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.

Wow, someone actually made (or plans to make?) an electric station wagon. That's a nice looking vehicle. I don't see anything about stow-away seats on their website, though.

Compared to a 2025 Hyundai Palisade It's slightly less tall (1653 mm vs 1750 mm), slightly wider (1999 mm vs 1975 mm), and slightly longer (5034 mm vs 4995 mm). The Palisade is already an easy-to-drive 3-row SUV; the Gravity should be just as easy to drive. Much nicer than the gargantuan 3-row SUVs like the Yukon, Escalade, and Suburban.

There's no way we can spend $100,000+ USD on a vehicle anytime soon; but if I won the lottery tomorrow, I would be looking to test drive one of those.

 

[Statistical]

This may be a rant about something no one else cares about but....

I hate how fractured the metrics are for EV efficiency. The EPA has eMPG and kWhr/100 miles, neither of which I see in common use anywhere. I mostly see miles/kWhr (in North America), which makes sense as a direct replacement of miles/gal. So if I know that's I'm getting 3.5 miles/kWhr with my current vehicle, I can't directly compare that to EPA numbers.

Well putting aside MPGe lunacy (which is square peg in a round whole thing) 3.5 mi/kWh = 28 kWh/100 miles. Just do 100/3.5.

I wish we would just settle on miles/kWhr and show charge in kWhr. Maybe I'm just weird.

I can see that although most people just rely on the car's estimated remaining range which can use other factors like future speed changes, elevation, weather, etc to provide a better estimate of remaining range on the current route.

 

[LDA 6502]

I hate how fractured the metrics are for EV efficiency. The EPA has eMPG and kWhr/100 miles, neither of which I see in common use anywhere. I mostly see miles/kWhr (in North America), which makes sense as a direct replacement of miles/gal. So if I know that's I'm getting 3.5 miles/kWhr with my current vehicle, I can't directly compare that to EPA numbers.

I also hate that the EPA didn't use the EV migration as an excuse to move from miles-per-fuel to fuel-per-100miles.

28 kWh/100 mi makes more sense than 3.5 kWh/mi.

 

[Rick C.]

5 mi/kWH is bonkers. That's almost double what cars were getting 6-8 years ago.

A lot of it is aerodynamic efficiency. It's a low sprung car, not a tall brick trying to move through the air. It is quite a feat to be proud of when you try.

 

[Statistical]

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.

 

[filburt]

It's interesting how car articles are what I typically click first on Arstechnica. Perhaps they should register carstechnica.com domain name.

 

[Rick C.]

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.

Only San Marzarno tomatoes if you wanted to be proper.

 

[taki]

It's majority owned by the Saudi PIF, so yes?

Ah, so a narcissistic psychopathic megalomaniac and a board of cronies. Man, it is next to impossible to purchase pretty much anything intentionally anymore. I don't want to fund monstrous insanity, I'm not going to fund monstrous insanity (outside of taxes sadly) wherever I can, and I recognize there isn't a major corporation out there that doesn't fail at this. I admire the Pure from an engineering perspective, but if I won't give money to Musk I'm definitely not giving it to the monster sitting atop the Saudi heap. I'll be sticking with used.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

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.

A range vs speed curve would be fantastic. Maybe a bit much for most people, but fine, pick a standard speed and put that on the window sticker and make the graphs (and even better, the data) available on fueleconomy.gov.

Standardizing on a single data gathering method would help too. Going through the extra work for the more complicated test to earn a more lenient correction factor so the numbers aren't comparable anymore isn't helping anyone. That's partly why we've ended up with some manufacturers having reasonably accurate ranges, some being quite conservative, and others being a complete fantasy.