What's new
By:

Choosing gravity GT vs DE

gmoney said:
Range is more important factor for me that is why I am getting the smallest tire combo
Click to expand...
Do we know what the range options are for each combination?
 
pyle112 said:
Do we know what the range options are for each combination?
Click to expand...
When you choose options in the configurator it'll change. Most notably, wheel sizes and then 5 vs 7 seat.
 
Here's what I have, any help in filling out the rest for GGT and DE?

GGT
23 inch 5 seat 407 miles
21 inch 5 seat 407 miles
20 inch 5 seat 450 miles

GGT
23 inch 7 seat ? (Website crashed)
21 inch 7 seat 386 miles
20 inch 7 seat 437 miles

I dont have access to the DE configurator
 
Mostly range-related tradeoff for me. Want max range. And 800+ hp more than enough for my grandpa-like driving style ;-)

Someone in another thread mentioned that apparently DE doesn't put you in front of the line? If that's true, then one less reason for me to switch to DE.
 
yadaBaga said:
Mostly range-related tradeoff for me. Want max range. And 800+ hp more than enough for my grandpa-like driving style ;-)

Someone in another thread mentioned that apparently DE doesn't put you in front of the line? If that's true, then one less reason for me to switch to DE.
Click to expand...
Is that true?
 
yadaBaga said:
Mostly range-related tradeoff for me. Want max range. And 800+ hp more than enough for my grandpa-like driving style ;-)

Someone in another thread mentioned that apparently DE doesn't put you in front of the line? If that's true, then one less reason for me to switch to DE.
Click to expand...
That was me. On the other hand, when have sales people ever had accurate information. ;)
 
pyle112 said:
Curious about those who chose a GGT over a GDE? Besides cost what factors might have influenced your choice?
Click to expand...
I’m in the GGT camp on this one.

In the Porsche and BMW worlds one learned to recognize the difference between “optimized” cars and those that were “parts bin”. The implication here was usually that parts bin cars are inherently inferior, but that’s not always the case. Some were in fact high points for the lineup in certain ways.

I mention this because I believe the Dream Edition smacks of being a “parts bin” car with the limited info we have so far. In another thread I ran some numbers which suggested that, based on the idea that the DE uses the same motor front and rear, the dream edition could likely never deploy its peak torque to the front axle without spinning up the front tires. If true (to be confirmed) that’s simply not something an engineer with guidance to “compromise nothing” would do. Instead they’d shift that torque where it could be effectively deployed, ie rear torque would be closer to 2x the front. But that would require two completely new motors vs the Gravity GT for the listed power output, and that costs a hell of a lot more than no new motors, so it makes a lot of sense to simply take the rear motor that’s already on the shelf. Which effectively equals “parts bin” car to me.

But is that a good or bad thing? Well, that depends. To illustrate I’ll tell the tale of two different parts bin cars I owned, both generally well regarded as I’m sure the DE will be, and where their “parts bin” natured actually showed up.

First the BMW 1M: take the suspension and gearbox from the BMW M3 Competition (the factory’s optimized best effort) and stuff it into a BMW 135i chassis with flares. Then turn the boost way up.

The result was a compromise to say the least. The car made over 50% more torque to the rear wheels than the high revving V8 that was in the M3 of the time. The rear end consisted of dampers, geometry and a differential (all the way through to tires that were carefully developed with Michelin) designed to let the rear of the M3 brake away progressively. But that same hardware on a lighter, shorter wheelbase monster with turbo lag and then massive torque turned the car into a hooligan- sideways everywhere, all the time, constantly looking for opportunities to bite your head off. It was a classic parts bin car- there is no chance that combo of hardware would have made it out of the factory if it had been designed for that application. But it wasn’t, and I loved the result dearly.

Next, the Porsche Cayman GT4. In this case the optimized best effort was the GT3 And 911 Carrera, while the GT4 was the car you could make stripping parts off of those. Brakes, suspension, wheels and rubber from a GT3 along with the flat 6 from the Carrera? What’s not to like? Quite a lot actually. The gearbox was from the Cayman/ Boxster, but it was geared way too tall (intentionally). The engine was from the Carrera S, but quick and dirty exhaust routing gave it a big hoke right in the middle of the torque curve. The rear suspension geometry of the Boxster was retained, but that was always simple McPherson strut vs the 911’s multi-link, so over the limit the rear breakaway was nowhere near the 911. All of these made for a car that was less than the sum of its parts rather than more (for me), a big disappointment.

In either case there’s no way the factories would have accepted the compromises inherent in these cars if they were not “parts bin”. One happened to tickle my fancy and the other didn’t, but neither had the extreme “rightness” of say a GT3. That has every ounce of engineering sweat going into a package of parts tuned to sing as a symphony, each in total harmony with every other. If you can work out which models are those cars, the ones the tires and suspension (not just spring and damping rates but kinematic toe, compliance steer, etc) were developed for, they tend to work significantly better than they should. While the ones that were not optimized points on the curve tend to work worse, even if the numbers on the box suggest they shouldn’t.

The Dream might have more power but it’s the parts bin car here. I believe the GT and eventually Sapphire to be the authentic originals. And while I don’t rule out parts bin cars out of hand (see the 1M) I do think one such as the Dream which is putting a bunch of torque in what everything tells me is the wrong place faces very, very long odds at being as great as the optimized version it took its parts from.
 
My sales guy told me that the Gravity DE will be delivered before the GT. But should not be by much time.
 
PetevB said:
I’m in the GGT camp on this one.

In the Porsche and BMW worlds one learned to recognize the difference between “optimized” cars and those that were “parts bin”. The implication here was usually that parts bin cars are inherently inferior, but that’s not always the case. Some were in fact high points for the lineup in certain ways.

I mention this because I believe the Dream Edition smacks of being a “parts bin” car with the limited info we have so far. In another thread I ran some numbers which suggested that, based on the idea that the DE uses the same motor front and rear, the dream edition could likely never deploy its peak torque to the front axle without spinning up the front tires. If true (to be confirmed) that’s simply not something an engineer with guidance to “compromise nothing” would do. Instead they’d shift that torque where it could be effectively deployed, ie rear torque would be closer to 2x the front. But that would require two completely new motors vs the Gravity GT for the listed power output, and that costs a hell of a lot more than no new motors, so it makes a lot of sense to simply take the rear motor that’s already on the shelf. Which effectively equals “parts bin” car to me.

But is that a good or bad thing? Well, that depends. To illustrate I’ll tell the tale of two different parts bin cars I owned, both generally well regarded as I’m sure the DE will be, and where their “parts bin” natured actually showed up.

First the BMW 1M: take the suspension and gearbox from the BMW M3 Competition (the factory’s optimized best effort) and stuff it into a BMW 135i chassis with flares. Then turn the boost way up.

The result was a compromise to say the least. The car made over 50% more torque to the rear wheels than the high revving V8 that was in the M3 of the time. The rear end consisted of dampers, geometry and a differential (all the way through to tires that were carefully developed with Michelin) designed to let the rear of the M3 brake away progressively. But that same hardware on a lighter, shorter wheelbase monster with turbo lag and then massive torque turned the car into a hooligan- sideways everywhere, all the time, constantly looking for opportunities to bite your head off. It was a classic parts bin car- there is no chance that combo of hardware would have made it out of the factory if it had been designed for that application. But it wasn’t, and I loved the result dearly.

Next, the Porsche Cayman GT4. In this case the optimized best effort was the GT3 And 911 Carrera, while the GT4 was the car you could make stripping parts off of those. Brakes, suspension, wheels and rubber from a GT3 along with the flat 6 from the Carrera? What’s not to like? Quite a lot actually. The gearbox was from the Cayman/ Boxster, but it was geared way too tall (intentionally). The engine was from the Carrera S, but quick and dirty exhaust routing gave it a big hoke right in the middle of the torque curve. The rear suspension geometry of the Boxster was retained, but that was always simple McPherson strut vs the 911’s multi-link, so over the limit the rear breakaway was nowhere near the 911. All of these made for a car that was less than the sum of its parts rather than more (for me), a big disappointment.

In either case there’s no way the factories would have accepted the compromises inherent in these cars if they were not “parts bin”. One happened to tickle my fancy and the other didn’t, but neither had the extreme “rightness” of say a GT3. That has every ounce of engineering sweat going into a package of parts tuned to sing as a symphony, each in total harmony with every other. If you can work out which models are those cars, the ones the tires and suspension (not just spring and damping rates but kinematic toe, compliance steer, etc) were developed for, they tend to work significantly better than they should. While the ones that were not optimized points on the curve tend to work worse, even if the numbers on the box suggest they shouldn’t.

The Dream might have more power but it’s the parts bin car here. I believe the GT and eventually Sapphire to be the authentic originals. And while I don’t rule out parts bin cars out of hand (see the 1M) I do think one such as the Dream which is putting a bunch of torque in what everything tells me is the wrong place faces very, very long odds at being as great as the optimized version it took its parts from.
Click to expand...
I would consider driving one first. For example, my Air DE is a far better driving vehicle than an Air GT, if you push it.

I have no reason to believe they would compromise to make the DE a 'parts bin' car. I suspect the second motor is not the only difference. But we'll see.
 
borski said:
I would consider driving one first. For example, my Air DE is a far better driving vehicle than an Air GT, if you push it.

I have no reason to believe they would compromise to make the DE a 'parts bin' car. I suspect the second motor is not the only difference. But we'll see.
Click to expand...
There’s no doubt all of this is reading tea leaves at this point. The proof will be in the pudding, and even then it will be subjective. I know someone who swore up and down that his Tesla Model 3 was more fun to drive than his Boxster. Obviously for him it was, while I could scarcely stomach pushing my Model 3 because the stability control was borderline criminal in my mind. So a “better driving vehicle” will mean different things to different people.

I’m certain that if you ask the right Lucid engineer if the Dream could be better if they made bespoke motors for it front and rear the honest answer would be yes. Just as if you’d asked a Porsche engineer a few years back if the motor in the Carrera GTS, Boxster Spyder or almost any model you name could be better the answer would also be yes. Because they all shared the block and ancillaries with the 911 Turbo S, meaning the engine was far overbuilt and overweight for every other model, many of them making half the power those parts were designed for. Did that make all the cars with those engines drive poorly? Of course not.

In any case I’m curious to find out more about what else Lucid does to the rear motors, if anything, when them move forward. I suspect they simply limit peak torque in software, though if that’s blanket true or if they simply rely on traction control is an interesting question. Maybe someone can ask at the “ask me anything?” Also for the Air Dream edition, though the Air’s lower CG means less weight transfer, so I’d expect the same motor up front would work better.
 
PetevB said:
There’s no doubt all of this is reading tea leaves at this point. The proof will be in the pudding, and even then it will be subjective. I know someone who swore up and down that his Tesla Model 3 was more fun to drive than his Boxster. Obviously for him it was, while I could scarcely stomach pushing my Model 3 because the stability control was borderline criminal in my mind. So a “better driving vehicle” will mean different things to different people.

I’m certain that if you ask the right Lucid engineer if the Dream could be better if they made bespoke motors for it front and rear the honest answer would be yes. Just as if you’d asked a Porsche engineer a few years back if the motor in the Carrera GTS, Boxster Spyder or almost any model you name could be better the answer would also be yes. Because they all shared the block and ancillaries with the 911 Turbo S, meaning the engine was far overbuilt and overweight for every other model, many of them making half the power those parts were designed for. Did that make all the cars with those engines drive poorly? Of course not.

In any case I’m curious to find out more about what else Lucid does to the rear motors, if anything, when them move forward. I suspect they simply limit peak torque in software, though if that’s blanket true or if they simply rely on traction control is an interesting question. Maybe someone can ask at the “ask me anything?” Also for the Air Dream edition, though the Air’s lower CG means less weight transfer, so I’d expect the same motor up front would work better.
Click to expand...
You might be spoiling Lucid plans to sell a GT power bump for around 10k in a year or two. OTA enabled.
 
037 said:
You might be spoiling Lucid plans to sell a GT power bump for around 10k in a year or two. OTA enabled.
Click to expand...
To clarify I expect it’s the Dream edition that will be electronically limited. Lucid will need to limit it to about 85-90% of its torque and power potential up to ~60 mph because there’s not enough traction to use it all. That assumes straight line acceleration, cornering will cut it back further. From about 70mph up it will be making full power. The GT with the smaller front motor on paper is using it all already so there wouldn’t be room for an electronic bump (according to what we know now, which isn’t much).
 
PetevB said:
To clarify I expect it’s the Dream edition that will be electronically limited. Lucid will need to limit it to about 85-90% of its torque and power potential up to ~60 mph because there’s not enough traction to use it all. That assumes straight line acceleration, cornering will cut it back further. From about 70mph up it will be making full power. The GT with the smaller front motor on paper is using it all already so there wouldn’t be room for an electronic bump (according to what we know now, which isn’t much).
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, but I also think there is more power on the table with GT that’s software locked out so they can confirm things aren’t breaking before they spring a new charge on you.
 
Well we know the GT’s not battery pack limited if it indeed shares everything else with the Dream. Usually power limits are thermal related, meaning if everything is cool there’s more on the table. Hence all those “5-10 second over-boost” functions the German cars often get. Keep your foot down on the Autobahn and you’ll burn it up, but that leaves lots of margin virtually everywhere else. The fact that Lucid doesn’t have a similar “over-boost” function probably either means they’ll need to cut power on repeated hot laps or that there’s more in reserve they could unlock at least temporarily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Abbreviations
Replies
12
Views
407
xponents
xponents
W
Gravity Wraps
Replies
6
Views
505
Denali_Dane
Denali_Dane
Knucklehead
My Biggest Concern with Gravity
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
kerplunk
K
Knucklehead
Gravity 75 mph Range
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
3K
hmp10
H
J
F-150 people room vs. Gravity?
Replies
19
Views
2K
JB67
J
Back
Top