Mini-vans used to do most of this, I did see some towing ~4k camper trailers, and 0-60 of 7-8-9s is fine for most people.
Edmunds test is mixed driving. The published tests with lower results are pure highway. I don't understand why people think an EV is going to get max range on a highway when drag is the biggest cause of energy consumption on the highway. The 440 range number is not an all-highway range number. The biggest thing someone can do to increase range is lower their average speed.
I had two Honda Odysseys. Neither one was over $20,000 and I drove both of them for over 100,000 miles. Used is the way.
The new Bolt and Leaf are about to ship for $30,000. IMO, average income people shouldn't be buying new cars anyway. I made well over $100,000 before I bought my second new car. It was my first new car in 25 years. It was still a mistake. Buying a new vehicle is like lighting money on fire.
The Leaf is rated at 300 miles of range, which is comparable to many ICE vehicles.
This varies substantially based on personal circumstances. For people that charge at home, the vast majority will see half the expense as compared to gas. For people that must use public chargers, yes, they will pay around the same as gas. I wouldn't bother going electric if I was unable to charge at home.
I complain on all grades of gasoline. Our beloved Tundra is one thirsty girl!
The EPA range isn't even a highway rating. The Gravity has a 103 MPGe highway rating. The battery is 123 kWh. That's 370 miles all highway. The lower the speed, the more likely it is to get close to the EPA range.
I was responding to the comment re: vehicle pricing. This is no ICE equivalent of a Lucid Gravity.
I guess I kind of agree with UncleDave that this big EV SUV does actually kind of work as a big ice SUV replacement, if you can find chargers fast enough in your area. The huge battery gives good practical range, and the fast charging is quite fast , as a 30% bump up, gives you a lot of range.
120kph is 75mph, not too big of a difference. You will lose some efficiency, .1-.2 in my Mach-E, .2-.3 in the Lightning. Just how much, depends on the aerodynamics and increase in tire rolling resistance, among other factors.
True, around here 70 would not mean much. There are still some parts of the US that speed limits are pretty strictly enforced. The upper midwest comes to mind.
To my knowledge, Porsche is the only one that has done this and it was done with the Taycan when it originally released. Most other manufacturers seem to use the two-cycle EPA test, except Tesla, Rivian, Audi, and Lucid use the five-cycle test.
Many vehicles, both ICE and EV, don't hit their EPA rated range unless driven in a manner calibrated to do so. The test doesn't adequately account for normal driver behavior. Thankfully, these days we have the Internet, where anyone that cares can find out what range they should expect in the real world. Hopefully people dropping $100,000+ on a vehicle can spend 20 minutes watching some reviews or reading summaries. That 450-mile range estimate is based on mixed driving. In the highway tests I've seen the Gravity is close to its EPA highway rating.
Unfortunately, the EPA permits manufacturers to utilize a test that doesn't reflect real-world results. The Cadillac's range is indeed excellent, but it comes at a the cost of a monster battery and massive weight penalty. A vehicle like the Ioniq 6 could probably beat the Cadillac over a long distance simply by virtue of being far more efficient. The Gravity may be able to do the same. Lucid is trying to do things differently by focusing on efficiency. I'm actually interested in a Denali XL version of the iQ so I can tow my camper. Hurray for consumer choice!
Lucid is definitely struggling...but all vehicle manufacturers are struggling with EV sales. Lucid is just the latest one to the party. Edmunds got 400 miles in its testing, which is in line with how off the Air was from EPA during its testing at ~10%. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here. Lucid used the five-cycle because it provides the best numbers from a marketing perspective. The majority of owners will never test the real range of the vehicle because 400 miles is like 6+ hours of driving. Those of us with normal sized bladders need a break. The range shortfall is more likely to come up in the context of cold weather. I don't think anyone buying this vehicle will go into the purchase unaware that the real-world range may be less than advertised.
Disagree with that, came from an older Lincoln Navigator with the 5.4 3v that got 14.5 at best around town, towards the end of my run with that vehicle more like 13.2. 17.5 tops on the highway doing 70-75. The Lightning is much much cheaper to run, even with the higher cost of superchargers, and charged at home, it's not even close.
My power works out to ~0.19/kwh, and not likely to go down soon. Also my cars average about 30mpg, so it doesn't really pencil out here for me. An older Model S with free supercharging would be an option, but my nearest super charger is a half hour away, which I could charge at maybe 1/3 of the time on my travels.
A Chevy Bolt EUV sells for around $20,000.
Well, under ideal conditions and everything was 100% efficient, and you don't mind shortening the battery life by running it from 100 to 5%, it does seem fairly practical.
