2026 Lucid Air Touring - 3 month review

CaptainHeat1779

New Member

Joined
Sep 2, 2025
Messages
8
Reaction score
5
It’s been 3 months since I took delivery of a 2026 Lucid Air Touring, so I thought I would share my thoughts about the experience for anyone who is looking at buying or leasing the car. For background, my prior vehicle was a Rivian R1 and before that a BMW M550i. Those two vehicles I loved and regret letting them go.

Summary: I very much dislike this car and would be very hard pressed to recommend it to anyone without major improvements from Lucid. At this time, I have major regrets.

If you told Lucid they have $100 to spend on the car, it feels like they allocated $75 to the hardware (driving experience, general fit and finish) and then $25 to everything else (software, actual charging speed / compatibility). It’s not close to balanced at all in its current form, IMO. My initial mindset was “you can fix/update software, you can’t do much to the hardware”. I might have been wrong.

There are some seriously bad things about it and then a lot of smaller things that just add up and when taken into consideration with the really bad, makes it all worse. On a daily basis I have so many annoyances with this car I almost dread getting into it.

Good
- This is by far the smoothest driving vehicle I have ever operated. The suspension for city driving is incredible. Bumps and small holes I would’ve otherwise avoided are now hardly felt. There is a downside to this with a less than engaging sporty driving but for most of what I do it’s silky smooth.
- The power is smooth, instant, and torquey. The hood lifts up and comes back down after easing the throttle. Reminds me of my BMW, just silent
- It feels very much under control at all speeds
- Interior is elegant, even if understated
- The software / interface is generally fast. Snappy
- Overall trunk / frunk space is quite good. I like the bottom compartment in the trunk to keep my kids’s golf clubs
- Parking sensors and visual with distance to objects is very helpful.
- Efficiency is excellent, especially coming from my last two vehicles, 2.12 mi/kWh and 12.5 mpg. I’m a touch above 3.10 mi/kWh right now with only one true interstate road trip over 100 miles each way.
- I like the permanent controls on the far left driver’s screen
- Service associates have been friendly and professional
- Physical buttons for temp, fan speed, and center volume control. Wish there was one for the steering wheel adjustment
- Physical controls for the air vents. Rivian had electronic through the touch screen, which was very annoying and unnecessary
- Room in the backseat is spacious

Bad
- Software is so basic it feels like manual roll up windows in a world of power windows with auto up and down. It lacks what I would consider many basic features. The layout and intuitiveness is confusing. Ex - Themes gets a permanent large logo on the bottom screen and that function doesn’t do anything and isn’t used daily. Yet NAV and Music are smaller icons on the top screen, which are harder to reach ergonomically and used often during the driving experience. Charging doesn’t show power curves. The battery indicator is either the remaining estimated mileage or the %, but not both at the same time. Plenty of space for this. Native NAV works fine in my experience, but needs some cleanup as it can get pretty busy on the screen and hard to visually see the most relevant information such as small icons for exit number on the top screen. That icon should be larger. Spotify is very buggy. In the app I can’t tell if the AC and heated seats are on or off. In the car on the top left screen near the driver’s door the lock/unlock icon shows lock, I guess as an indicator, but intuitively if you want to unlock you press a button that shows locked. The overall UI needs more customization, information (battery temps, charging curve, etc), and a more intuitive and helpful layout. Themes having a prominent space but not music or NAV is amateur hour. For music, you should have better controls on the bottom screen with a slider, forward and backward in a time interval, skip song, etc. I do like how prominent the different drive modes are and that they are easy to change. I’d like to easily know the temp in the car without having to press the temp buttons. Overall, it doesn’t feel logically laid out, a bit unintuitive, but most of all, just doesn’t feel complete.

- Charging speed is not what is advertised. Not even close. I’ve only accomplished above 100kwh once (~105-107) and it was under the ideal conditions - warm air temps, preconditioned battery, high speed EA charger, low battery %. The “fast” charging is completely misrepresented and they are advertising a bill of goods they don’t deliver on. It’s so bad I had my car in for service and after looking it over they said this is just the design. So all the chest pounding about 900V and 200 miles in 15-20 minutes is a load of BS and Lucid should be held accountable for this. The car is now completely worthless for any type of road trip, unless you don’t care about sitting at a charger for 40-50 minutes to get what should take 1/2 the time. The last two fast charging sessions gave me an average of 5 miles added per minute of charging if you assume 4 miles / kWh. My Rivian was compatible with Tesla, which worked beautifully, and EVG and EA. Never an issue getting the speeds to hum as advertised. One of my most recent high speed charges was at EA. 21 minutes and received 25.5kWh. Using my 3.10 m/kWh, that’s a paltry ~76 miles added, not the 200 they advertise. Apparently, all the stars and moon have to align so perfectly for you to achieve true fast charging and I’ve yet to find that. There are a lot of adjectives you can use, none are good, to describe my experience with this so far.

- Regen braking is bipolar. It’s either working or it’s not at all as if you have selected it to be off. Coming from Rivian, where the regen braking had multiple settings and worked flawlessly, this is very disappointing. And dangerous.

- Cup holders make me as angry as the power of 1,000 suns. Did anyone try these before choosing them? A cup of coffee? A soda? A standard Stanley water bottle? Anything at all? Who signed off on this?

- Same goes for the wireless charging. Most phones have a case on but you have to take off the case to use the wireless charging slot. Terrible design again

- App, like software in the car, needs an overhaul. Waking the car in the app can take a long time. I find it helps to take the phone off WiFi, even with a strong signal. Functionality in the app is bad too. When it’s cold it tells me my windows are down but they are not. And as far as I know, I cannot roll my windows up or down from the app, which would be really helpful for when it’s late at night, cold, about to rain, or you’re not longer near the car. Rivian’s worked perfectly, as did the indicators in the app if something was left open. Also, the key fob is not only made of irrationally cheap material but it’s borderline useless.

- Trunk was delivered with one panel not flush so it sticks up above the panel before it and apparently this cannot be fixed without what sounds like major body work. If you’re going to make an ugly trunk lid, it better fit perfectly.

- Car Play resolution is bad. And it doesn’t fit well on the wedge top screen so I don’t bother with it

- Unless I’ve missed it, no recording using all the cameras? The Rivian had Gear Guard, which recorded movement and then if you honked the horn, slammed on brakes, or hit a record button, it would record clips. This came in handy often. Huge miss here

- Premium sound isn’t so premium. It doesn’t sound anymore spectacular than my stock Rivian system. It’s not immersive. Not very crisp or deep. Lucid should’ve partnered with B&O or someone to appropriately design a system specific for the car. $3,000 feels very steep for what you actually get.

- Wind / road noise. I suspect part of this is the efficiency of the vehicle but the windows feel really thin. It’s more noisy than I expected but it’s not terrible.

- Visibility out the driver and passenger windows is rough. I knew this going in but just an FYI, it’s rough. The A Pillar and the height of the windows is very limiting. Even my wife, who is <5’5”, commented on this.

- Takes some time for spatial awareness with the rear doors. Several times early on I would let my kids out of the car and then hit myself in the leg with the door or walk into the leading point. It’s an odd design that takes a while to get used to.


My review is only my experience so far. With the amount of time I spent reading and watching reviews before making my decision, it felt like there were a lot of them “hiding” things or they were too narrow in their review (e.g., only based on a single test drive). This car could be so much more. The easiest fix is a completely overhauled software and UI. The second fix is the charging issue, or maybe it is what it is, and in that case, it does not perform well against all of the other vehicles on the market. If you need a car for driving in less than a 100 mile radius, the charging may not be an issue. But if you ever want to take it on a road trip, I’d strongly advise against it.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with most of the comments about UI and charging. I find the UI to be very intuitive with an excellent layout. The sub-menus are easy to navigate and not distracting from driving. I agree that I would like a nerd page with battery/motor temperatures and more charging information. However, this is certainly not a distraction from driving and the information is available by using Home Assistant with the Lucid.

I am not sure why you were not seeing good charging speeds but you are the first person I have seen saying that the R1 chargers faster than the Lucid Air. I am not questioning your experience, just that there is something wrong because the public data from Out of Spec and others shows different. Below is OOS 10% challenge data showing the Air taking in 54.2 kWhr in 15 minutes. My experience is that the Lucid is one of the best road trip cars available with respect to comfort, performance, handling and charging speed.

1772404578352.webp

1772404805969.webp
 
I know I regret mine for sure. I’ve had it 5 months and it’s been out of service for almost 6 weeks of that. And it’s been in service over two weeks now and nobody even calls me back.

The build quality is bipolar lol the seats are nice but the hard buttons are plastic junk that have already been replaced twice, the aero caps destroy the wheels, the frunk never works right, door handles broke, I’m on my third roof and second rear glass, etc etc.

I refused my first delivery because there was a dent in the trunk and they tried to get me to just take it!

I haven’t had a charging issue except when it got the cord stuck in it for two days just cuz it wouldn’t wake up.

My efficiency is about 3.0 in the winter and I don’t change any settings or drive any particular way. They definitely nailed the electric architecture in my opinion.
 
[…] This car could be so much more. The easiest fix is a completely overhauled software and UI. The second fix is the charging issue, or maybe it is what it is, and in that case, it does not perform well against all of the other vehicles on the market. […]

You’ll get your wish for the first fix. UX 3.0 for the air is supposed to come out toward the end of 2026.

I don’t think anything can be done about the charging speed on Tesla v3 chargers. It would require a voltage booster like what the Gravity has. The only solution is to use the newer high voltage stations.
 
I disagree with most of the comments about UI and charging. I find the UI to be very intuitive with an excellent layout. The sub-menus are easy to navigate and not distracting from driving. I agree that I would like a nerd page with battery/motor temperatures and more charging information. However, this is certainly not a distraction from driving and the information is available by using Home Assistant with the Lucid.

I am not sure why you were not seeing good charging speeds but you are the first person I have seen saying that the R1 chargers faster than the Lucid Air. I am not questioning your experience, just that there is something wrong because the public data from Out of Spec and others shows different. Below is OOS 10% challenge data showing the Air taking in 54.2 kWhr in 15 minutes. My experience is that the Lucid is one of the best road trip cars available with respect to comfort, performance, handling and charging speed.

View attachment 37058
View attachment 37059
Some clarification and calibration:

@CaptainHeat1779 was comparing an Air TOURING to an R1. @Adnillien's data compares a Grand Touring vs R1s. Aren't there some hardware differences between the Air Touring and Grand Touring with respect to charging? Also, is 10% Challenge the correct metrics to compare these two cars?

I own a 2022 Grand Touring and a 2023 R1S. I drove both cars on 780 mile-trips between Phoenix and Marin County many times. Here is my take:

> the 2022 Grand Touring is a nicer drive and charges faster than the R1S. HOWEVER, typically, I run the cars down to about 10% or below before I charge. The GRAND TOURING charges faster, but only for the first 5-10min. Thereafter, the GT's charging curve degrades significantly, it was a "sugar-high charge" for the first 5min. In contrast, the R1S charges more steadily, but does take a bit longer to charge from 10% to 80% than the GT.

> on the same trip, due to efficiency and charging speeds, in terms of travel time, the Lucid GT fares better than the R1S. My typical time for the 780 mi Marin County to Phoenix trip (or reverse) on the Lucid AGT is about 13hrs, whilst it takes ~14 hrs or so on the R1S. In contrast, a gas (hybrid) car (my Lexus RH450, my Honda Clarity) takes about 12 hours. My record on a gas hybrid was 11hrs., I just drove this route last Thursday, in a rental RAM-2500 pickup to move some furniture from Sausalito to AZ.

> my experience (not saying everyone will experience such):
 
Some clarification and calibration:

@CaptainHeat1779 was comparing an Air TOURING to an R1. @Adnillien's data compares a Grand Touring vs R1s. Aren't there some hardware differences between the Air Touring and Grand Touring with respect to charging? Also, is 10% Challenge the correct metrics to compare these two cars?

I own a 2022 Grand Touring and a 2023 R1S. I drove both cars on 780 mile-trips between Phoenix and Marin County many times. Here is my take:

> the 2022 Grand Touring is a nicer drive and charges faster than the R1S. HOWEVER, typically, I run the cars down to about 10% or below before I charge. The GRAND TOURING charges faster, but only for the first 5-10min. Thereafter, the GT's charging curve degrades significantly, it was a "sugar-high charge" for the first 5min. In contrast, the R1S charges more steadily, but does take a bit longer to charge from 10% to 80% than the GT.

> on the same trip, due to efficiency and charging speeds, in terms of travel time, the Lucid GT fares better than the R1S. My typical time for the 780 mi Marin County to Phoenix trip (or reverse) on the Lucid AGT is about 13hrs, whilst it takes ~14 hrs or so on the R1S. In contrast, a gas (hybrid) car (my Lexus RH450, my Honda Clarity) takes about 12 hours. My record on a gas hybrid was 11hrs., I just drove this route last Thursday, in a rental RAM-2500 pickup to move some furniture from Sausalito to AZ.

> my experience (not saying everyone will experience such):
My overall experience on multiple trips on gas/hybrid/Lucid/Rivian:

> EVs road trips takes longer because of charging.
>Lucid's claimed efficiency and charging-speeds are more exaggerated when compared with Rivian's, hence the disappointment.
> Gas cars perform better on roundtrips (with respect to travel time) because of fast gas filling vs slow charging

I don't own a Gravity. It appears Gravity might have improved the charging curve. This should help some, but the fundamentals are still the same.

My experience (my Air GT/Rivian R1s) is: Lucid's efficiency claims (mi/kWh) is exaggerated as its charging speed. In the Air-GT, the over 250kW charging is a 5min "sugar-high", not sustainable. I am not sure if the regular Air charges even at the GT's speed. On the other hand, the R1S pretty much performs to its advertised efficiency and charging specs.

If you want another calibration, look at the recent OoS Kyle Connor Maine to Florida Keys race. For this 33+ hour/2000+ mile race, the GRAVITY beats the other EVs (including an R1S, called "the Brick" by Kyle) only by 6-7% of elapsed time (driving and charging). What gives!

Quoting the Robin Williams, "Reality, what a concept!"
 
Here are my most recent two 350 kWh charger sessions. Both in ideal conditions and the % of battery below 30%. Again, I’ve only had it hit over 100 once, the others were 50 (TSLA which I expected) and then 70 at EVG and EA. Service told me this is normal but under this, I’ll never get the “200 miles in 15-20 minutes” like is advertised.
IMG_9156.webp

IMG_9618.webp
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9617.webp
    IMG_9617.webp
    16.3 KB · Views: 105
You’ll get your wish for the first fix. UX 3.0 for the air is supposed to come out toward the end of 2026.

I don’t think anything can be done about the charging speed on Tesla v3 chargers. It would require a voltage booster like what the Gravity has. The only solution is to use the newer high voltage stations.
Yeah but those new stations are very few and Tesla doesn’t seem as committed to building out the network. The Rivian worked great with them, which allowed me to get really comfortable on a variety of road trips, such as off interstate and along state highways.

Has anyone heard the rationale why Lucid decided to go this direction knowing it wasn’t compatible with the most built out charger network in the world? A very odd decision
 
Yeah but those new stations are very few and Tesla doesn’t seem as committed to building out the network. The Rivian worked great with them, which allowed me to get really comfortable on a variety of road trips, such as off interstate and along state highways.

Has anyone heard the rationale why Lucid decided to go this direction knowing it wasn’t compatible with the most built out charger network in the world? A very odd decision
When the Air was designed and built, Tesla refused to open superchargers to anyone at all. Tesla, until the Cybertruck, had all their vehicles on a 400v architecture. All superchargers v3.5 and below are 400v.

Air was built on a ~900v architecture, with the expectation that more and more 800-1000V chargers would be built out; that is true, but slower than expected. EA was the big partner at the time. Now, Ionna and others are eating their lunch, and Tesla exists for non-Tesla vehicles, but still at 400v at all but two stations.

So it's not something Lucid 'chose' except insofar as they chose to build theirs futureproofed, with no expectation that NACS and Tesla superchargers would suddenly open up to other manufacturers.

Obviously, since the Gravity was designed after that time, that is not the case for the Gravity. In fact, Gravity chargers faster on a v4 supercharger than any Tesla will. But it also gets 250kW-325kW on a v3-3.5 supercharger, same as a Tesla.
 
I'm a little surprised at the charging speeds. That has not been my experience with a 2025 Lucid Air Touring. I have done a few road trips with the Car (Phoenix to Vegas and Phoenix to LA), and in both trips I was able to hit 240 KW charging speeds and stay there until 30% SOC, it tapered to about 120K by 50% and held until 70. I was in and out charging, starting below 15 to above 80 both times in about 15-20 mins. Something is off in the car if you are not seeing these types of speeds. Also, were the chargers you were using balanced? and was someone else using the other charger/dispenser?
 
Here are my most recent two 350 kWh charger sessions. Both in ideal conditions and the % of battery below 30%. Again, I’ve only had it hit over 100 once, the others were 50 (TSLA which I expected) and then 70 at EVG and EA. Service told me this is normal but under this, I’ll never get the “200 miles in 15-20 minutes” like is advertised.

The 103 kW at 30% SOC looks to be normal. From State of Charge:

IMG_0001.webp


You won’t get 200 kW except under 10% SOC. Even so, the time from the typical 10%-20% to 80% on road trips is 30 minutes.

The Gravity has a much better graph. It can sustain 400 kW up to 15%, 200 kW at 60%, and 100 kW at 80%.
 
Yeah but those new stations are very few and Tesla doesn’t seem as committed to building out the network. The Rivian worked great with them, which allowed me to get really comfortable on a variety of road trips, such as off interstate and along state highways.

Has anyone heard the rationale why Lucid decided to go this direction knowing it wasn’t compatible with the most built out charger network in the world? A very odd decision
If you getting a good working EA station it smokes Tesla superchargers. I was amazed the first time I actually got 350kw at an EA station. It is so fast. the Tesla SC'sa round here barely hit 100 in the winter, if that.
 
Here are my most recent two 350 kWh charger sessions. Both in ideal conditions and the % of battery below 30%. Again, I’ve only had it hit over 100 once, the others were 50 (TSLA which I expected) and then 70 at EVG and EA. Service told me this is normal but under this, I’ll never get the “200 miles in 15-20 minutes” like is advertised. View attachment 37062
View attachment 37060
Somehow I don't think you should accept the answer from services about how your car charges. Unless this session is the following: Station not put in the NAV, no automatically pre-conditioning, 0 DEG F temperatures.

Below is what I got regularly from my 2024 Air Touring which is the same battery during the 97 degree 2025 summer heatwave. That is very nearly 200 miles in 18 minutes.

1772421931785.webp
 
[…]

Below is what I got regularly from my 2024 Air Touring which is the same battery during the 97 degree 2025 summer heatwave. That is very nearly 200 miles in 18 minutes.
This is backed up by Tom at State of Charge, who does excellent analysis. Tom has fantastic videos on his YouTube channel.

IMG_0002.webp
 
This is a charging graph I have from December, produced by TeslaLogger with my 2025 Lucid Air Touring. As you can see, the power is much higher than 100 kW for most of the time from < 50 miles to about 300. IIRC, it was an ElectrifyAmerica station. I have more like this.

Screenshot 2026-03-01 at 9.40.01 PM.webp
 
Having used hi-speed charging almost exclusively in my first 28 months and 21k miles, I have discovered one very reliable data point. Assuming a reasonable outside temperate and no station-driven power limitations... whatever my initial SOC may be, it will take my Air just under 35 minutes to reach an 80% SOC. If the starting SOC is low, the initial kW will be high, and drop dramatically in no time. If the initial SOC is high, the initial kW will be much lower, and drop more steadily. If you can't live with a 35 minute charging stop on a road trip, then this particular EV is not for you. Neither are most others. About 35 minutes is fine by me.

I think Lucid does inordinately limit their charging curve with battery longevity in mind. I know that's self-serving with regard to their 8 year degradation exposure, but it does yield benefits for people like me who plan to keep their vehicle for many years. I also think that Lucid is at a point where it would serve them well to take their foot off that particular brake a little.

As for your other frustrations. I disagree with a few, such as regenerative braking, but the others have at least some degree of merit. That said, I can't see where the frustrations are such that you would 'almost dread getting into it'. My guess is that you are just not the (late stage) 'early adopter' type.
 
Last edited:
The 103 kW at 30% SOC looks to be normal. From State of Charge:

View attachment 37073

You won’t get 200 kW except under 10% SOC. Even so, the time from the typical 10%-20% to 80% on road trips is 30 minutes.

The Gravity has a much better graph. It can sustain 400 kW up to 15%, 200 kW at 60%, and 100 kW at 80%.
This is a Pure; OP has a Touring. Touring is 92 KWH vs Pure's 84 KWH
 
There have been many discussions here about the claims Lucid made/makes regarding charging speeds and how many "miles" you can add in a specific amount of time.

It's a little bit of fancy math and they certainly take some liberty in their claims. First, you need to have a great charger and ideal conditions, temp, starting SOC etc... But even then, the "miles" you are adding are calculated based on the cars maximum efficiency rating. So, if the max efficiency is 4.6 mi/kWh, then they are saying that you only need to add 22 kWh in 10 minutes in order to add 100 miles of range. That's doable. I've added 22 kWh in 10 minutes. But I don't know if I've ever driven 100 miles and only used 22 kWh.

More accurately, they should limit their claim to say 'You can add XXX kWh in YYY amount of time.' But that's not going to sell many cars if people then have to do the math to figure out how far they can go on XXX kWh, now is it? So, they take the library of assuming max efficiency in their calculations and make a somewhat silly range gained claim based on the amount of energy added to the battery.

But yes, under ideal conditions, their claim is accurate. I've yet to experience these mythical ideal conditions in my 3 years and 85k miles of driving.
 
There have been many discussions here about the claims Lucid made/makes regarding charging speeds and how many "miles" you can add in a specific amount of time.

It's a little bit of fancy math and they certainly take some liberty in their claims. First, you need to have a great charger and ideal conditions, temp, starting SOC etc... But even then, the "miles" you are adding are calculated based on the cars maximum efficiency rating. So, if the max efficiency is 4.6 mi/kWh, then they are saying that you only need to add 22 kWh in 10 minutes in order to add 100 miles of range. That's doable. I've added 22 kWh in 10 minutes. But I don't know if I've ever driven 100 miles and only used 22 kWh.

More accurately, they should limit their claim to say 'You can add XXX kWh in YYY amount of time.' But that's not going to sell many cars if people then have to do the math to figure out how far they can go on XXX kWh, now is it? So, they take the library of assuming max efficiency in their calculations and make a somewhat silly range gained claim based on the amount of energy added to the battery.

But yes, under ideal conditions, their claim is accurate. I've yet to experience these mythical ideal conditions in my 3 years and 85k miles of driving.
I agree with your take.

I think it is counter-productive for Lucid to take this kind of embellishment on specs in their adverting and claims. The end result is, most owners do not experience these performance claims in their daily drives/charges resulting in credibility-gaps.

Disappointment = expectations not met.

Lucid's drive train engineering is industry-leading. However, in real-life usage, these performance claims fall short of Lucid's IMPLIED claims. It is always better to deliver what the customer would experience under "normal driving conditions" vs rationalizing that the performance metrics can only be achieved in very narrow band of the operating spectrum (e.g., charging speed, efficiency, etc.).
 
I agree with your take.

I think it is counter-productive for Lucid to take this kind of embellishment on specs in their adverting and claims. The end result is, most owners do not experience these performance claims in their daily drives/charges resulting in credibility-gaps.

Disappointment = expectations not met.

Lucid's drive train engineering is industry-leading. However, in real-life usage, these performance claims fall short of Lucid's IMPLIED claims. It is always better to deliver what the customer would experience under "normal driving conditions" vs rationalizing that the performance metrics can only be achieved in very narrow band of the operating spectrum (e.g., charging speed, efficiency, etc.).
Yes, I agree with that. But it's pretty easy to understand why they market the way they do. As I said, they are not going to sell many cars by saying you can add 22 kWh in 10 minutes because that will not make sense to the general population. And they have to maximize their range claims like all other EV manufacturers in order to win over ICE converts. It's a no win scenario
 
Back
Top