Receipts? Evidence? Perhaps even proof? At the risk of sounding the cynic, is there ANY chance, at all, that you will produce any of the aforementioned? Opinions are, of course, fine, as far as they go but they NEVER determined, for example, the speed of light. Science, driven by inquiry and evidence, is what is needed. Got any?
If the first place manufacturer does not want to pay, they will just move on to promoting the next one until they pay. There is a conflict of interest between the consulting and sales here. Lucid getting 10/10 proves it. Read the forums. If a 10/10 company has this many issues, what would a 5/10 manufacturer be?
Lucid rated 10/10 is the evidence.
I use Car and Driver reviews as a point of reference (among others), because I normalize for their well demonstrated preferences and aversions. With that perspective I can report that a Car and Driver vehicle rating is by default based on testing the vehicle, not living with it. As such, for example, they don't consider reliability and maintenance in their ratings.
You will see Lucid using this rating in their ads soon. Car and driver knows this. If they were a responsible publication, they will research and rate the vehicle appropriately or not allow the manufacturer to use this in their marketing. When you rate a company 10/10 and claim to be a responsible publication, you need to do more research in the performance, reliability and ownership experience etc. this is 100% paid.
But if you work in the auto industry and know some of the staff and writers you know that they aren't.
When I was in GM's Powertrain Group we would have mortgaged grandchildren to get our engines listed in Wards 10 Best Engines or placed on the list for World Engine of the Year. Engineers busted their asses working to optimize product to qualify for and win those awards. Once we W-O-N any of those awards it was a no-brainer as to whether or not we would pay the licensing fees to be able to advertise the fact that WE...FREAKIN'...DID THAT!! It's an absolute insult to the hard working engineers and manufacturing teams (you not only have to engineer it right, you have to build it right too) who put in the hard work to even get considered.
Car and Driver also know that Mercedes Benz, Cadillac, BMW, and other brands will pay the licensing fee. And those companies actually have money, so...
Those companies are smarter and have better financial sense. There is no Tesla in this list because they do not sieve any money in traditional marketing.
Yes and you won the award for the best powertrain from someone focused on the power train. Not a 10/10 award for a deeply flawed manufacturer
I posed this question to my friend Nigel. He’s quite certain that Lucid didn’t pay for the rating. He then proceeded to tell me that his Lucid is an 11/10. I told him that there was no way this is possible but he insisted that his 10 point ratings went to 11.
Do you understand the concept of EXAMPLE versus ABSOLUTE? Would it have changed your mind if I used Motor Trend Car of the Year, World Car of the Year, or North American Car of the Year as an EXAMPLE instead? I sorta doubt it would but here we are. I used the examples I used because I was more directly involved and I absolutely know what went into it.
Do you understand the meaning of CAR BRAND vs CAR?
is Nigel someone like Hobbes, in Calvin and Hobbes?
You might want to send your friend the thread from the other owner with a new Lucid whose car has been sitting at service over 60 days. I am not sure if he is digging the 11/10 experience.
It goes to 11.
You are clearly trying to make up things just because you don't agree with their ranking. You have zero evidence that they rank based on who they can make pay after ranking. You've tried to mislead people by saying award licensing which exists in every field is the same as pay to play ranking. Fake news Sour grapes for sure.
