What's new
By:

Is Lucid styling the problem?

My 25 air is best viewed from front 3/4. side view is the buick look with that disasterous trunk line. rear end totally boring dull.no connection to the svelt front end.. . audi etron gt, now thats a real 4dr beaut. Driving..the air is a 10 to drive. gravity..aside from the bulldog nose its nice..if it was smaller i'd get one. oh and i love the super thin fob..brilliant! i have spoken
 
Some people like the blocky styling such as Rivian, Range Rover, G-Wagon, etc. Other people like sleeker, sportier styling like the GLE Coupe, BMW X4, BMW X6, etc.

Doesn't mean customers are locked into that styling forever. Customers can convert
 
Need4Sleep said:
Some people like the blocky styling such as Rivian, Range Rover, G-Wagon, etc. Other people like sleeker, sportier styling like the GLE Coupe, BMW X4, BMW X6, etc.

Doesn't mean customers are locked into that styling forever. Customers can convert
Click to expand...

This is not the argument you think it is. The sales figures for luxury brands' fastback SUVs all pale in comparison to their more traditional looking, boxy versions. Why a company would willingly target a smaller market is baffling.

There's a reason why the R1S outsells the Gravity by more than 3 times even though the Gravity is faster, handles better, has better interior space, and a myriad of other "objective" reasons.
 
erigion said:
This is not the argument you think it is. The sales figures for luxury brands' fastback SUVs all pale in comparison to their more traditional looking, boxy versions. Why a company would willingly target a smaller market is baffling.

There's a reason why the R1S outsells the Gravity by more than 3 times even though the Gravity is faster, handles better, has better interior space, and a myriad of other "objective" reasons.
Click to expand...
and on the flip side of that, it's also why the midsize platform features 3 different body styles with as much parts sharing as possible.

And it's also why I left my statement as something open. Someone who bought a boxy SUV like the R1S doesn't mean they're locked into that design forever. It's possible to convert some R1S buyers to Gravity buyers.
 
Last edited:
MJAir23TheGoat said:
I’ve heard numerous times and been asked, "Is that a Lincoln?"

It looks a lot like the Aviator. I wish they would add Mazda's Soul Red to the colors. Tesla did, and they look nice.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • maxresdefault.webp
    maxresdefault.webp
    82.1 KB · Views: 89
  • linc1.webp
    linc1.webp
    1.3 MB · Views: 96
gaskiller said:
Agree, they could have made it less minivan like with a few extra inches of front bonnet. Derek Jenkins could have done better.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I spent the last week on vacation in Uber XXL which were all Odysseys, Siennas, Carnivals and then my dad's Expedition. I think the Gravity could have taken an inch from the 2nd row and the trunk and moved it into the frunk, would be a better and bigger frunk and a more normal longer hood SUV proportion. Otherwise it's interior blows all those 4 away in comfort and space.
 
Need4Sleep said:
Some people like the blocky styling such as Rivian, Range Rover, G-Wagon, etc. Other people like sleeker, sportier styling like the GLE Coupe, BMW X4, BMW X6, etc.

Doesn't mean customers are locked into that styling forever. Customers can convert
Click to expand...
Right, the Cayenne has always been kinda fugly, but it is sporty looking at the same time.
 
illopp00 said:
Right, the Cayenne has always been kinda fugly, but it is sporty looking at the same time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I forgot to mention the Cayenne too (and to an extension, the Macan). Not the conventional boxy SUV and still sell like hotcakes. Beyond Porsche, there's demand for the Lamborghini Urus and the Ferrari Purosangue. Both of which are not boxes.
 
Last edited:
The Lincoln thing is because they both have rear light bars, I often get confused by that and at 10-15 car lengths it looks like the back of a Gravity...
 
My white + stealth Gravity is gorgeous. The light paint against the dark windows and trim creates real separation, making it read as an SUV, not a minivan. I do think the darker colors look van-like.

I'm glad there will be different options for the midsize so people who prefer the boxy, inefficient shape can have it
 
gaskiller said:
They should come out with an " agressive look" package for the Gravity...
Click to expand...
How about Something like this with sapphire side flares.
 

Attachments

  • 1783194941970.webp
    1783194941970.webp
    117.5 KB · Views: 91
LucidfanAZ said:
Whatever happened to the Gravity X? Revealed last August then nothing.
Click to expand...
That was a waste of money, and the Gravity introduction they did in Meatpacking district in New York with the sci-fi theme. Millions down the drain. This is the type of expenditure Napoli will cut.

Rawlinson/Winterof and co were spending from a Saudi money tap. All they had to do was get the software right and cars would sell. They failed both times.
 
TahoeMichael said:
It was just a concept vehicle, which is something manufacturers rarely convert into a vehicle you can buy. No idea why that is.
Click to expand...
Who knows. Unless we find explicit evidence detailing its fate, we're left with speculations.

My personal speculation is that maybe it was a way to gauge the reception to more adventurous styling that we might expect for the Lucid Earth and the to-be-announced third midsize model.
 
Last edited:
gaskiller said:
All they had to do was get the software right and cars would sell.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that’s “all they had to do.” Because nothing else about the car mattered. It’s not like it’s an engineering marvel or anything.

I think you mean “all they had to do, in addition to everything else they did, was get the software right.” Fixed it for you.

Also, railing on past marketing stunts is cool and all, but sometimes they work. When they do, they’re called genius. When they don’t, they’re called a waste of money.
 
borski said:
Ah yes, that’s “all they had to do.” Because nothing else about the car mattered. It’s not like it’s an engineering marvel or anything.

I think you mean “all they had to do, in addition to everything else they did, was get the software right.” Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...
He's not wrong. The way I view the Gravity is that Lucid created a car that is 99% amazing and 1% annoying. But their problem is that 1% greatly impacts the regular, everyday use of the vehicle.

For example, what if they invested their leadership and energy a little differently, and the car was a little bit less efficient, a little bit less quick, a little bit less packaged, a little bit less handling, etc. I would happily trade that for a car that the fobs work, fob batteries that last years, has PaaK, has a good HUD, the frunk opens, has integrated SXM station controls, has a better audio system, etc. That is the problem and how Lucid's past decisions are pushing me away, because if I am going to spend $120K on a car, I want the day-to-day interactions flawless.

I think people were more willing to spend premium money 10 years ago on Teslas when they were emerging and had lots of rough edges. But that market moved and I would likely compromise in other areas before operating a work in progress.

GM made the same mistake with their Ultifi and Ultium platforms. Their software was an absolute dumpster fire, and it cost them thousands of sales and a couple years lost in the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top