Car will not update. Lucid says needs new telematics module not covered by warranty. Is this normal?

[rking0122]

It's a bit more than someone saying "I detest the iPhone". The original poster has been fairly open (admittedly we are only hearing their side). In addition they are paying for the replacement part and hoping that this experience will not interfer with them loving the car.

The car was for sale in Salt Lake City in Feb of 2023 with 300 miles. It was also listed in September of 2024 as for sale with 890 miles in Costa Mesa CA. The poster (Scottsdale AZ) claims they bought it with 1200 miles. All of that seems reasonable. So it seems the car been for sale for a while. Presumably while the previous owner came to terms with the depreciation. It's not surprising that in that time the dealer (or previous owner) did not keep up with the updates.

This is exactly the car's history. I got a UT title and bought it from a seller who was then in CA (Rancho Cucamonga), brought it to AZ and registered it here. Excellent sleuthing.

I did not come here to dog Lucid. I own shares. I spent months reading forums, mostly this site, about the great experiences you folks largely had with service and your cars, glitches notwithstanding.

So after service told me verbally, then in writing, this was a warranty issue and they'd take care of it, the about face phone call really floored me. The idea that an otherwise functional hardware part could have been updated/flashed a few months ago and just *can't* now still really doesn't make a ton of sense to me. The number of times I heard the words "second owner" floored me. The fact that I walked in with proof that the car screen showed that it was up to date (probably still does) and that didn't make any difference to them floored me. I still don't know why any previous owner or new owner or anyone else would have any clue anything was wrong when the car itself said otherwise. My sense is the telematics unit wasn't communicating for quite some time before I got the car, but of course I have no way to know. My experience was simply not commensurate with what most of you report, and unfortunately it is my very first and only experience with service.

I got the estimate from them for $1294.87. I'm not made of money (else I'd have probably bought new) but it isn't going to break me or cause me to lose sleep. They didn't suggest anything about warranty termination which would be far far worse. I agreed to pay it and I will move on. I will say someone from customer care called me two hours ago and said they'd put eyes on this for me and call me again next week. That was nice that someone at least heard me out and seemed to understand my point of view--I don't feel like I got much empathy from the local folks though they weren't outwardly disrespectful either.

If this forum and this post causes some of you to pay more attention to updating your cars, or another second owner to not fall into this "trap?", then I think the purpose of this community has been realized. And at this point I really just want my car so I can try sprint mode for the first time to get some feeling back.

 

[Leftlane]

I refrained from commenting on the situation because, while it appears that Lucid should have simply absorbed the cost, none of us know the underlying reasons or the internal workings behind the company’s closed-door decisions. There’s always two sides to every story.

I responded to the post because of the extreme reaction based on someone else’s highly personal experience. Instead of people resorting to criticism and negativity, perhaps they should wait until they personally experience the Lucid experience through actual ownership. If I were the original poster, it might be enough to reconsider a future purchase (although not necessarily), but for people to dismiss and abandon Lucid based solely on someone else’s negative experience is absurd.

It’s akin to someone posting, “I detest the iPhone,” and the other person responding, “Well, if they dislike the iPhone, then I’m not getting one. F Apple.”

That’s insanity - you could cite hundreds of examples that someone else’s negative experience with a product turned you or others off of ever becoming a customer. I have plenty of friends who bought Land Rovers, almost all of them have had a terrible experience, and as a result I would never buy a LR. Would it be smarter of me to buy a LR and keep my fingers crossed that I get lucky, or can I just go with the evidence? You can repeat this ad nauseum and it’s not outlandish at all. This is the very reason why brands spend a crazy amount of money on their reputation and brand protection.

 

[Tâm]

The idea that an otherwise functional hardware part could have been updated/flashed a few months ago and just *can't* now still really doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

This is not unusual. Some older computers with Windows 10 have been running fine and update fine until it's time to update to Windows 11, and it can't.

The original computer didn't break. It can no longer update to Windows 11 because it needs a compliant motherboard. It still runs fine without installing the new Windows 11, but it may miss some modern features.

A knowledgeable user can go to a motherboard website to download and flash the motherboard BIOS, and Windows 11 will install it fine.

Other users found that a hassle and would prefer to pay for a cheaper, newer, less labor-intensive, already-installed Windows 11 mini PC.

Still, we haven't heard from Lucid how version 2.0.158 has ruined the hardware module.

 

[rfc805]

Other than porn, reviews for products for people who are considering them is like, half of the internet. The concept of "why would you ever make decisions based on other people's experience with that company/product/service?" is kind of a mind blowing take.

Literally everyone looks for these sorts of reviews/experiences to make purchase decisions.

 

[bikeriderbryan]

This is not unusual. Some older computers with Windows 10 have been running fine and update fine until it's time to update to Windows 11, and it can't.

This is not the case with the OP. From what was stated Lucid told him because it wasn't updated he had to buy a new part. If the car was updated along the way he would be AOK. If we follow the Windows example you stated everyone would have to upgrade the hw after a certain version. This isn't the case.

 

[Tâm]

This is not the case with the OP. From what was stated Lucid told him because it wasn't updated he had to buy a new part. If the car was updated along the way he would be AOK. If we follow the Windows example you stated everyone would have to upgrade the hw after a certain version. This isn't the case.

This is the same scenario as @coma24 on post #56, except for the money part.

The car did not keep up with the updates, and the module was not broken. The receipt clearly says "TCU is out of date." It doesn't say the old version has ruined the module. TCU was replaced without charge.

 

[bikeriderbryan]

This is the same scenario as @coma24 on post #56, except for the money part.

The car did not keep up with the updates, and the module was not broken. The receipt clearly says "TCU is out of date." It doesn't say the old version has ruined the module. TCU was replaced without charge.

No one is saying the old version ruined the module. What was stated was if the module was updated along the way he would be OK. Sounds like Lucid for some crazy reason didn't want to patch the module up to the current version.

 

[Alerion]

Lucid is acting very stupid in this situation, I don't get anyone that is sympathizing with their POV at the moment. Saying that a warranty is void because you missed a *software* is stupid and telling of whats to come with modern cars. There should be some legislature against this honestly, companies shouldn't be allowed to require software updates to retain vehicle warranty.

Also, they cant even sympathize with OP that he is taking the chance on buying such an expensive car from a new company? Also when they have already replaced the part for others in the same situation, under warranty.

Just wow, lol

 

[Tâm]

No one is saying the old version ruined the module...

Lucid uses a costly way to catch up with a current firmware update: Replace the whole hardware.

There should be a less expensive way when owners do not manually click on the update button, such as an automatic forced update at 03:00 while owners sleep, and it doesn't require an owner to click an approval.

 

[Tâm]

Lucid is acting very stupid in this situation, I don't get anyone that is sympathizing with their POV at the moment. Saying that a warranty is void because you missed a *software* is stupid and telling of whats to come with modern cars. There should be some legislature against this honestly, companies shouldn't be allowed to require software updates to retain vehicle warranty.

Also, they cant even sympathize with OP that he is taking the chance on buying such an expensive car from a new company? Also when they have already replaced the part for others in the same situation, under warranty.

Just wow, lol

Agreed.

I can only refuse updating my cellphone for a while but after that, the system would update itself without waiting for me to click for it. I don't see why that can't be done in Lucid.

By the way, the Service Center confirmed that the warranty is not voided but the owner needs to pay for the hardware for not keeping the firmware updated.

So, it's a penalty fee for procrastinators.

That's confusing because the manual says the warranty would be voided but the practice is just a penalty fee but your warranty is safe!

The manual should add that failure to keep firmware updated may result in out-of-pocket expenses (penalty).

 

[borski]

now i agree with the logic about the components being related, but if the software update is THAT critical to the operation of the hardware, then should it not be required/forced by Lucid? they obviously can communicate with the car as long as it has a charge…

They did communicate the importance of this update. They gave people a significant amount of time to install it. It has been almost a full year, as the release that we are all referring to (2.1.43) was announced 11/14/23 or so.

To people defending this with other tech products: Show me another one where the window is *30 days*.

This is a strawman; the length of time is irrelevant. Lucid isn't enforcing this due to it having been 30 days. Just because it says 30 days does not mean Lucid has to enforce it after 30 days. It is just a CYA.

It's unclear to me if ALL TCM's were being replaced as a campaign, or only those that were 'behind'.

TCUs have not been replaced as a campaign.

is it really worth building a reputation that cars going for over $100,000 are only engineered/designed/built to be good enough for one owner?

No, and that's not what this says. This car is perfectly fine for many owners; the first owner did not update the car, so evidently it wasn't 'good enough' for them either.

I think it's not simply about one unique experience someone got into. It's about how the company is giving a hard time to a customer for a situation which is quite common sense for any company to do the job under warranty. It says more about the management, and how they are behaving very differently to second-hand buyers, who are potential buyers of their future product. For a company which is still in low volume, this can leave a bad mark. Many a times, all it takes is a one unique experience for people to get bad impression of a company no matter how many positive experiences are out there. It may not look fair, but it is what it is

Yeah, that's certainly a possibility, or... management has yet to even take a stab at hearing about this yet, because Gravity is launching in five days, and that seems a little pressing given the state of things at the moment.

I'm not saying Lucid has handled this well, but I certainly believe that there is a spectrum between 'Lucid handled this situation perfectly' and 'Lucid hopes every second owner burns their car after driving it into a ditch never to be heard from again," right? Presumably you can see some gray area in there?

There’s always two sides to every story.

Usually three.

There should be a less expensive way when owners do not manually click on the update button, such as an automatic forced update at 03:00 while owners sleep, and it doesn't require an owner to click an approval.

Updating a phone overnight is very different from updating a car overnight; if my phone doesn't work in the morning, I'm annoyed. If my car doesn't work in the morning, I have a serious problem on my hands, and depending on what I had going on that day I would be extremely pissed off.

I can only refuse updating my cellphone for a while but after that, the system would update itself without waiting for me to click for it. I don't see why that can't be done in Lucid.

See above.

That's confusing because the manual says the warranty would be voided but the practice is just a penalty fee but your warranty is safe!

Again - what the warranty says is still up to Lucid to enforce. It does not magically get enforced automatically. It's a good life lesson; nearly all rules and laws are selectively enforced, in at least some sense. There does not exist, to my knowledge, a single government body, organization, or business that applies their rules equally to all members and all of the public. This does make rules, often, hackable, which is great, but it does also have drawbacks.

Lucid has no interest in screwing anyone over for not updating for 30 days. They just reserve the right to, because it's basically impossible to argue that well-over-a-year is not a lot longer than 30 days.

 

[borski]

Here's what I don't understand @rking0122: 2.0.158 was never delivered to customer vehicles, as far as I can tell; I never received it, but maybe it was meant for only some vehicles. These are the release notes: https://publications.infotainment.p...55-9f76-fbcdccb9b831/content_en-US/index.html. Those notes were posted 04/20/2023 (ish).

Those notes are suspiciously similar to the amalgamation of the release notes for 2.0.52, 2.0.55, 2.0.56 and 2.0.58, which were released 2/17/2023, 2/19/2023, 3/6/2023, and 3/19/2023, respectively.

The OTA update that we were all told must be installed (when they switched the OTA update mechanism and servers) was 2.1.43, released 11/14/2023 or so.

That means that your vehicle has not been updated since at least 04/20/2023, 19-20 months ago. That means the previous owner never even got to the update that we were all speculating about and discussing in this thread. Your vehicle missed 14 updates before the OTA we were talking about. That means either: your TCU was screwed before now, and the previous owner never got an update request (unlikely, as Lucid tracks OTA pushes, but not impossible), or the previous owner got the request and ignored it.

Either way, by never getting to 2.1.43, when the entire OTA subsystem changed (it used to be outsourced, but now it's in-house, as Peter mentioned in the Technology and Manufacturing Day presentation), there seems to be no way for your old TCU (which is looking for updates on a server that no longer exists, using a subsystem that no longer exists) to get the new subsystem so that it can get talk to the new server.

But it's also entirely possible the TCU was bricked before, and that's why the new owner never got an update.

The confusing thing to me is: that's 20 months. Did the previous owner take it in for annual maintenance? If so, Lucid should have checked the OTA software and updated it for the owner. Can you ask service for the service logs, or did you ask the previous owner?

Let me be clear: I believe you. I don't want any of this to come off as if I don't. There is also just clearly more to the story than meets the eye, especially given not only the version of software it's on being unusual but that it is that old.

Literally all of the speculating we have done on this thread thus far, about "the OTA that ended all OTAs unless you installed it" (aka 2.1.43) is completely irrelevant, because your car never got even close to 2.1.43. My guess is that means the previous owner never installed any updates; for all I know, they flipped out at the service center at the mere mention of the word. I have absolutely no idea.

But this is far more than 'a single missed update.'

 

[borski]

And in case you're curious, here's a thread about 2.1.43 when that came out; Lucid sent an email to every owner, posted it all over social media, etc.: https://lucidowners.com/threads/ota...ant-psa-to-update-to-2-1-43-asap-or-rip.7254/

And importantly, the "penalty" if you missed 2.1.43 was "Failing to timely accept the update may prevent the vehicle from receiving future updates over-the-air and will require you to bring your vehicle to a Lucid Service Center to restore OTA compatibility"; not voiding the warranty, lol. This '30 day software update' thing is a CYA; nothing more.

There's something else going on here, and I don't believe it is @rking0122's fault, but that they're caught in the middle of whatever went on prior to them buying the vehicle. That sucks, but doesn't exactly call for us to get the pitchforks out at Lucid either, given this context. It isn't quite what everyone thought it was. The car is far, far further out of date than any of us thought.

I'm really curious to see what happens once Lucid figures out what the hell went on here, lol

 

[AwesoM]

It just feels like bad coding to me. They can make their patches cumulative. Think about simple Windows updates, they are cumulative if you have something older that has not been updated for awhile. When I bought my 24 Touring the car had been sitting somewhere for 10 months. I saw somewhere the list of updates they had to do to get it to 2.3.10. (I forget where I saw it though). Furthermore this is not a case of not updating a car for 20 years. It has been relatively recent. TBH I would take on X hash tag them and the CEO in and shame them. Not acceptable.

 

[thecodingart]

I’m a bit surprised to see this much back and forth on a topic like this.

In no universe is this situation an agreeable one for a vehicle …

I’m not even going to tickle that procrastination of a software update justifies a $1000 physical hardware replacement - it doesn’t ever. Justifying a $200 trip to service for an onsite manual upgrade, sure. But physical hardware swaps, what alternative bizarre universe are we staging ourselves in?

I’m sorry OP is going through this and this would very much sour my experience with Lucid too. Hopefully OP can push through this.

 

[NoseyReporter]

This is such a complicated matter and a lot of different places to point fingers.

/Allow me to put on my tin foil hat.

I do wonder why the TCU, assuming there is no true physical damaged, cannot be pulled and flashed. The only thing that potentially comes to mind is some type of fuse that blocks flashing. I know it sounds weird but Microsoft did this with the original XBOX. I don't remember the exact details but every update cause a physical change in board, blowing fuses. It was a physical method of preventing people from accessing and modifying the firmware of the Xbox.

Considering the recent Munro Live videos, the Munro host praised Lucid for its software. Presumably not the UX but the underlying vehicle control layer. I wonder if Lucid has employed similar tactics to Microsoft to prevent people from trying to reverse engineer their software.

GM just filed a patent for a Lucid style differential. There's no way the bigger automotive companies are also trying to understand Lucid from a software perspective.

/Looks around and slowly removes the tin foil hat

 

[Wolfman]

Warranty aside, there can be many life situations for owners where a timely software updates may not be possible. Likewise, having a car in a service or sales process it would actually be unlikely that software updates would be performed, critical or not.

It sounds like the burden is on the latest buyer. Doesn't feel reasonable IMO.
So the question to me is why a critical software update mentioned here isn't simply pushed without user intervention or consent. Tesla has no problem doing this and it's technically not a problem to recognize if the vehicle charge/state is ready to process the update.

 

[RM-S8]

@ OP,
It looks like Lucid will not badge, apparently they have their reasons.
So the OP has two choices, keep posting, or pay $$. If there's is no money to pay, establish "go fund me", or whatever is being called.

 

[momo3605]

Did anyone tag @mcr16. @rking0122 you should also try reaching out to him directly. I’ve seen he has been able to help resolve service disputes in other cases as well

 

[segbrk]

This has wildly devolved. The problem has already been solved, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner. Staff has already been tagged. There's so much noise between there and here that we're doing it all again. Let's cool it with the pile-on.