First test drive- First impressions

[Lucken]

So after almost 2 years from placing my reservation, I finally got a chance to test drive the car. This was an AT, and although I had reserved a Pure, this was fine since I just wanted some initial observations and comparisons to my i4. My previous EVs have been a Tesla MS, I-Pace and e-Tron Sportback. So in no particular order, these are some of my thoughts:

Exterior-My wife and I were sitting in my i4 at the proposed site of Lucid's Long Island service center. The Associate pulled up in a silver Lucid...it was stunning, absolutely beautiful. Coincidentally that was the color I had selected for my reservation. We didn't find a bad angle as we walked the exterior. I had seen this same color at the Lucid Studio in Manhattan, but seeing it outside was a treat, especially since I've yet to see one of any color in the wild.

Interior-It's not the first time I've sat in one, but I generally came away with the same feeling as before, understated elegance. Not overdone and not Tesla austerity. Tasteful. As much as I like my i4, I'd have to say the Lucid has it beat on looks inside & out. With that said, even with my enormous 5'7" stature, I managed to hit my head on the rail 2 out of 3 times exiting the car. I laughed to myself thinking of others on the forum mentioning the same thing. I'm sure muscle memory kicks in over time and you avoid this...most of the time. Fortunately my back is still in reasonably good shape, so bending to avoid a concussion is still feasible.

In terms of interior space utilization, there is no comparison with my i4. None. The backseat of the i4 is cramped for anyone in the vicinity of 6', while the Lucid can only be described as 'limousine like' in the rear. I had the same experience in the Manhattan Studio when my son & wife were sitting in the back. Turning around to look at them, they actually seemed far away. Today I got the same impression as I turned to look at my wife sitting in the back. She took a brief spin in the car while I sat in the back, and it's truly amazing what they've done with space utilization for a car that's essentially the same size as my old MS.

On another note, one thing I particularly liked was the thick steering wheel. I've always felt the i4's steering wheel was a bit on the thin side.

Controls-Of course part of this falls into the category of 'it's what you're used to', but I think the i4 has the Lucid beat on control friendliness & quickness in use. There seems to be more hard buttons and less need to delve into the menus for adjustments on the i4. Not a big deal and something I'd get used to, but something I did notice. One thing I totally forgot to try out was the sound system. I can't believe I forgot that. My i4 has the upgraded HK sound system, which to my ears is truly excellent. I'm not sure which system this car had, but I'll make a point to listen to it next time.

Ride Quality-I'd honestly have to say I didn't find a big difference in ride quality between the Lucid and the i4, at least on the roads we took. I'd give an edge to the Lucid as being just a bit smoother over some rough patches of pavement. The weight of the car probably came into play here. Unfortunately the Advisor told me we were not allowed to do highway driving, despite the LIE being right next to the proposed service center where we met. They also had the car software limited to 80mph. Interesting.

Handling-Given the extent of our test drive and the roads we took, it's difficult to assess. Again, I didn't see much of a difference and the i4 may have felt a bit more nimble since it is smaller. I actually tend to prefer somewhat smaller cars, but I take comfort in the fact that the Lucid is essentially the same size as my old MS which I enjoyed driving. One other note, I had the regenerative braking set to maximum, so the overall one pedal experience felt much like my i4.

Quietness-Again, it would have been nice to get up to highway speeds, but the best I was able to do was about 55. The car was very quiet with only the whine of the motors breaking through the silence. Most of that noise seemed to come from the front motor, providing further evidence to me that the RWD Pure will actually be quieter. To be fair, this kind of noise doesn't bother me, so it's not a biggie. Rattles & squeaks are an entirely different animal and drive me nuts. Fortunately I didn't hear the rattle that some are complaining about from the rear shelf, but this was only about a 1/2 hour test drive.

For overall quietness, I'd give the edge to the i4, which has been as quiet a car as I've ever driven. There is virtually zero wind noise in the i4, even at 75-80. The only noise I hear in the i4 is tire noise on certain types of asphalt, which I attribute to the Pirelli tires. With that said, the Lucid is most certainly a quiet car.

Efficiency-This is a biggie for me given my anal character, but unfortunately I couldn't really get a handle on this. I had asked for the Advisor to reset the trip gauge prior to our drive so I could see how the car did with my style of driving. However between our conversation regarding the controls and other distractions, this was overlooked. I was able to see the last recorded trip and that was only 3.0 mi/kWh, but of course I have no idea what kind of driving that was. Traveling to the service center for this test drive, my i4 achieved 4.0 mi/kWh with temperatures in the low 40s and highway speeds of about 60-65mph. So I was really interested in seeing how the Lucid would do and if it was able to match this high benchmark. Without question, the efficiency of the i4 has been the most pleasant surprise for me regarding the car's performance. I will definitely take at least one more test drive and make a point of having the trip gauge reset.

Overall Impression-Both my wife and I came away favorably impressed. Of course my wife said in a somewhat questioning tone, "Do you really think the Lucid was that much better than the BMW?". I just smiled and winked. So there was nothing at the end of the day that would have made me ask for my deposit back. In fact I have no problem losing the deposit right up to the time of the Vin# assignment if I change my mind. Buying that extra time for $300 is a small price to pay for the extra peace of mind. I don't expect to see a Vin until at least mid summer. So my biggest question at this point is if the Lucid can match the efficiency of the i4.

 

[Lucken]

This was our test drive car.

 

[joec]

This was our test drive car.

Interesting that they put the bear on it.

 

[elin]

I recently test drove the Air Touring with 20 inch wheels and they let my wife and I on the highway. I think we were pretty conservative on the on ramp, I'd say we took about 5 seconds to get to 60 mph. We drove a total of 12 miles, most of it on the highway around 70 mph with outside temperature around 50F. We ended the test drive with 3.1 mi/kWh.

 

[Lucken]

I recently test drove the Air Touring with 20 inch wheels and they let my wife and I on the highway. I think we were pretty conservative on the on ramp, I'd say we took about 5 seconds to get to 60 mph. We drove a total of 12 miles, most of it on the highway around 70 mph with outside temperature around 50F. We ended the test drive with 3.1 mi/kWh.

Granted a short drive, but not an overly impressive efficiency at 3.1 mi/kWh. I'm also trying to understand how the AT & Pure can have the same 88kWh battery and yet the AT AWD is rated at 425 vs the Pure RWD at 410. How does having two motors with the same battery provide greater range than a single motor variant?

Unless I'm wrong on the specs, something must be up with software limiting the Pure's range. It would also appear if we were to take the 410 mile range at its face value, that would translate to a required efficiency of 4.65 on the 88kWh battery. Good luck with that based on what I'm seeing on this forum.

 

[HRoussel]

Interior-It's not the first time I've sat in one, but I generally came away with the same feeling as before, understated elegance. Not overdone and not Tesla austerity. Tasteful. As much as I like my i4, I'd have to say the Lucid has it beat on looks inside & out. With that said, even with my enormous 5'7" stature, I managed to hit my head on the rail 2 out of 3 times exiting the car. I laughed to myself thinking of others on the forum mentioning the same thing. I'm sure muscle memory kicks in over time and you avoid this...most of the time. Fortunately my back is still in reasonably good shape, so bending to avoid a concussion is still feasible.

Given we have the same height, I'm curious to know your impression of the driving position, especially with respect to the center armrest. Because when I had my test drive, a few months ago, I found it was a bit too far back, as if the car was built for very tall drivers.

 

[Rogue]

I've only put 70 miles on my car, but I'll speak to the efficiency a little bit with temps between 40-60. You can achieve the stated EPA figures in rolling hills with traffic. You can achieve the efficiency even in cold weather to a degree.

HOWEVER, you have to drive like are driving Miss Daisy. Who wants to do that? The bar can't go past the POWER writing by much.

The ability to hit 70 mph from 35 mph at half power before you realize it is just an unbelievable feeling. Full power and children in the backseat are giggling and demanding more. Hit 60mph at full throttle only for it to feel like it's pulling harder is mind boggling... Good luck getting the efficiency with that kind of performance a thought away and effortless at that.

Get the car. Enjoy it. Charge it when it needs to charge and leave efficiency numbers for the longer trips near the limits of the car.

 

[joec]

Granted a short drive, but not an overly impressive efficiency at 3.1 mi/kWh. I'm also trying to understand how the AT & Pure can have the same 88kWh battery and yet the AT AWD is rated at 425 vs the Pure RWD at 410. How does having two motors with the same battery provide greater range than a single motor variant?

Unless I'm wrong on the specs, something must be up with software limiting the Pure's range. It would also appear if we were to take the 410 mile range at its face value, that would translate to a required efficiency of 4.65 on the 88kWh battery. Good luck with that based on what I'm seeing on this forum.

I don't believe they ran that Pure test on a RWD car. I don't think they've made a RWD Pure yet. So we're comparing AWD to AWD.

The way they stated it in the launch video, I honestly think they ran the test with both cars and the Touring just happened to do better. They seemed surprised Touring was even more efficient than the GT. It's such a minute difference that you could chalk it up to chance. They average it out over 5 tests for each car, anyway.

The only other thing anyone here has suggested is maybe the glass vs. metal roof makes a difference? Or some other unknown exterior factor for the Touring. But I honestly think it's just how the test turned out. EPA range is sort of a controversial stat, anyway.

 

[joec]

What I do know is limiting the range of the Pure on purpose via some sort of software would be stupid. No one is going to upgrade to a Touring at $20k to get 15 extra miles of range. So you're just making the Pure look worse on paper for no good reason.

 

[Lucken]

Given we have the same height, I'm curious to know your impression of the driving position, especially with respect to the center armrest. Because when I had my test drive, a few months ago, I found it was a bit too far back, as if the car was built for very tall drivers.

I didn’t notice that, but I tend not to use the center armrest. I’m assuming you adjusted the steering wheel and seating height to your satisfaction?

 

[Lucken]

What I do know is limiting the range of the Pure on purpose via some sort of software would be stupid. No one is going to upgrade to a Touring at $20k to get 15 extra miles of range. So you're just making the Pure look worse on paper for no good reason.

You’re probably right, but I think you’d agree Elin’s test drive efficiency should probably have been better, especially at those temperatures and the way he described it. It’s just hard to believe, with all the comments on range & efficiency on these forums that anything near the EPA range can be achieved. On my next test drive I’m going to pay particular attention to that.

 

[Lucken]

I've only put 70 miles on my car, but I'll speak to the efficiency a little bit with temps between 40-60. You can achieve the stated EPA figures in rolling hills with traffic. You can achieve the efficiency even in cold weather to a degree.

HOWEVER, you have to drive like are driving Miss Daisy. Who wants to do that? The bar can't go past the POWER writing by much.

The ability to hit 70 mph from 35 mph at half power before you realize it is just an unbelievable feeling. Full power and children in the backseat are giggling and demanding more. Hit 60mph at full throttle only for it to feel like it's pulling harder is mind boggling... Good luck getting the efficiency with that kind of performance a thought away and effortless at that.

Get the car. Enjoy it. Charge it when it needs to charge and leave efficiency numbers for the longer trips near the limits of the car.

I suspect living in NY on Long Island is a very different arena for driving than where many others in this forum live. You rarely get to ‘open it up’ on the LIE, Northern or Southern State Parkways. You’re lucky to hit 65mph on most days and, on those days, you can be sure police are out there with their radar traps. So I find that efficiency is more often the name of the game.

Let’s be honest, so much of what Rawlinson speaks to when touting Lucid’s assets is efficiency. So I think it’s fair to expect efficiency numbers close to what I’m experiencing in my i4 (lifetime 4.0 mi/kWh) with my style of driving and the nature of driving on LI. I say ‘close’ because the Lucid does weigh 500 lbs more than the i4, so I can cut it a bit of slack, but the numbers say I most certainly shouldn’t.

Rawlinson, I’m sure, would claim the Lucid is actually more efficient than the BMW. Certainly the only way to achieve the EPA #s that Lucid posts is with a mi/kWh efficiency in the mid 4s. To achieve BMW’s posted EPA #s all you need is about 3.5. That’s a big difference in Lucid’s favor, approximately 4.5 vs 3.5. Yet I see little evidence of this in real world experience as evidenced by countless posts on the subject. i4 drivers often beat EPA ratings as I do. Yet almost nobody here seems to match or get close to Lucid’s #s.

Yes, I understand there’s a difference in manufacturers testing procedures for posted EPA results, but still. I know many will think I’m hyping this issue too much, but obviously I don’t. One of the prime motivating factors for EVs is efficiency and I think it’s reasonable to expect a company that claims they have the most efficient (or nearly so) vehicle on the market, should be able to achieve that or at least be in the ballpark. Maybe it will, maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised as I was with the i4.

 

[Adnillien]

I suspect living in NY on Long Island is a very different arena for driving than where many others in this forum live. You rarely get to ‘open it up’ on the LIE, Northern or Southern State Parkways. You’re lucky to hit 65mph on most days and, on those days, you can be sure police are out there with their radar traps. So I find that efficiency is more often the name of the game.

Let’s be honest, so much of what Rawlinson speaks to when touting Lucid’s assets is efficiency. So I think it’s fair to expect efficiency numbers close to what I’m experiencing in my i4 (lifetime 4.0 mi/kWh) with my style of driving and the nature of driving on LI. I say ‘close’ because the Lucid does weigh 500 lbs more than the i4, so I can cut it a bit of slack, but the numbers say I most certainly shouldn’t.

Rawlinson, I’m sure, would claim the Lucid is actually more efficient than the BMW. Certainly the only way to achieve the EPA #s that Lucid posts is with a mi/kWh efficiency in the mid 4s. To achieve BMW’s posted EPA #s all you need is about 3.5. That’s a big difference in Lucid’s favor, approximately 4.5 vs 3.5. Yet I see little evidence of this in real world experience as evidenced by countless posts on the subject. i4 drivers often beat EPA ratings as I do. Yet almost nobody here seems to match or get close to Lucid’s #s.

Yes, I understand there’s a difference in manufacturers testing procedures for posted EPA results, but still. I know many will think I’m hyping this issue too much, but obviously I don’t. One of the prime motivating factors for EVs is efficiency and I think it’s reasonable to expect a company that claims they have the most efficient (or nearly so) vehicle on the market, should be able to achieve that or at least be in the ballpark. Maybe it will, maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised as I was with the i4.

From Inside EVs range test for the i4:

All versions of the i4 have an 83.9 kWh battery, of which 81.5 kWh is usable. We finished up the range test with a consumption rating of 2.9 mi/kWh (21.38 kWh/100km). However, BMW only displays one number beyond the decimal point, and 2.9 x 81.5 equals 236 miles, three less than what we traveled. Therefore, we suspect the final consumption rate was most likely about 2.95 mi/kWh, which would take us to 240 miles.

I think relying on what the cars display says for efficiency creates errors since each manufacturer can include different things in that calculation.

2022 BMW i4 M50: InsideEVs 70 MPH Range Test

We fully charge a 2022 BMW i4 M50 and drive it at a constant 70 mph until the battery is exhausted for the InsideEVs 70 mph range test.

insideevs.com

 

[joec]

From Inside EVs range test for the i4:

All versions of the i4 have an 83.9 kWh battery, of which 81.5 kWh is usable. We finished up the range test with a consumption rating of 2.9 mi/kWh (21.38 kWh/100km). However, BMW only displays one number beyond the decimal point, and 2.9 x 81.5 equals 236 miles, three less than what we traveled. Therefore, we suspect the final consumption rate was most likely about 2.95 mi/kWh, which would take us to 240 miles.

I think relying on what the cars display says for efficiency creates errors since each manufacturer can include different things in that calculation.

2022 BMW i4 M50: InsideEVs 70 MPH Range Test

We fully charge a 2022 BMW i4 M50 and drive it at a constant 70 mph until the battery is exhausted for the InsideEVs 70 mph range test.

insideevs.com

After a few years of living in EV world, I’ve learned never to trust anecdotal reports from folks regarding their own range and efficiency. Many of us are doing math in our heads, or trusting what the car is telling us, which is calculated via some unknown algorithm. And that’s just not particularly consistent from car to car.

These range tests attempt to recreate similar conditions when comparing cars, and they use the same criteria, so they are more scientific, at least. But do they matter to us driving out there in the real world?

The phrase “Your mileage may vary” exists for a reason.

For me, I never pay attention to anything except how much battery I currently have left. I generally plug in every night and start the day at 80%. I don’t particularly care what percentage I end the day at, because it’s not going to be below 50% most of the time. On road trips, I plan conservatively and stop well before the car is going to crap out on me.

I haven’t found obsessing over the exact efficiency numbers helps anyone live a stress free life. And it’s a bit of a fool’s errand, unless you are actually creating a proper testing procedure.

 

[xponents]

What I do know is limiting the range of the Pure on purpose via some sort of software would be stupid. No one is going to upgrade to a Touring at $20k to get 15 extra miles of range. So you're just making the Pure look worse on paper for no good reason.

In marketing, small differences matter. Take for example, the .99 bait. You have to make the touring people feel special somehow...

 

[joec]

In marketing, small differences matter. Take for example, the .99 bait. You have to make the touring people feel special somehow...

Sunshades. Leather vs cloth. Soft close doors. 200+ more horses. Power frunk.

I feel pretty special already.

 

[xponents]

Sunshades. Leather vs cloth. Soft close doors. 200+ more horses. Power frunk.

I feel pretty special already.

*purluxe And the point is that many people are basic, non car nerds. Wow, this car has 15 more range? That could let me order my daily of 5 burgers, 10 large french fries, and a coke 15 TIMES!!

 

[Lucken]

From Inside EVs range test for the i4:

All versions of the i4 have an 83.9 kWh battery, of which 81.5 kWh is usable. We finished up the range test with a consumption rating of 2.9 mi/kWh (21.38 kWh/100km). However, BMW only displays one number beyond the decimal point, and 2.9 x 81.5 equals 236 miles, three less than what we traveled. Therefore, we suspect the final consumption rate was most likely about 2.95 mi/kWh, which would take us to 240 miles.

I think relying on what the cars display says for efficiency creates errors since each manufacturer can include different things in that calculation.

2022 BMW i4 M50: InsideEVs 70 MPH Range Test

We fully charge a 2022 BMW i4 M50 and drive it at a constant 70 mph until the battery is exhausted for the InsideEVs 70 mph range test.

insideevs.com

I'm not sure what version they tested, the e40 or M50, but that's their test. My 'test' is my real world experience, which is the only 'test' that counts. So depicted below is my actual experience after 4,000 miles. So what can I say? As for your idea that each manufacturer includes 'different things' in their calculations, at least in the case of BMW, that 4.0 calculation matches the actual range I receive...unless you want to believe my odometer is also screwed up.

On Thanksgiving day, traveling 200 miles, I used a bit more than 1/2 charge with an efficiency of that trip of 4.2 mi/kWh. That's real. No, there is no funny business, no optimistic estimates, it is what it is. I've never heard anyone claim that one manufacturer's efficiency numbers are wildly optimistic and another's is wildly conservative. The GOM that predicts range is an entirely different story. But I have this car long enough to know that mi/kWh number is very accurate.

I hope we're not starting a round of 'excuses' for Lucid's stated efficiency numbers that might not mesh with reality. Please guys, let's keep this objective. I am simply trying to find out the truth and I'm not here to denigrate any car or promote any other. I have an order in for a Pure and I'm proceeding. I always try to be objective with my cars, I don't make excuses and I'm honest about the weaknesses of any car I've owned.

 

[Halodde]

*purluxe And the point is that many people are basic, non car nerds. Wow, this car has 15 more range? That could let me order my daily of 5 burgers, 10 large french fries, and a coke 15 TIMES!!

Great... now I'm hungry

 

[xponents]

Great... now I'm hungry

Oops!