Choosing gravity GT vs DE

[jered]

The Gravity Dream is $139,900. A Gravity Grand Touring with the same options is $125,500. Net difference: $14,400

A base Tesla Model X All-Wheel Drive is $84,990. A base Tesla Model X Plaid is 99,900. Net difference: $15,000

I don't think this is a fair comparison. For most other performance-premium vehicles this is a shift from two to three motors. The Dream is still a two-motor configuration, so the boost is not the same magnitude (although I can't imagine wanting more power). For example, X AWD->Plaid is 670->1020 hp. Gravity GT->DE is 828->1070 hp. From an engineering perspective that's pretty amazing, but I don't think there's really and apples-to-apples comparison. (Nor do I think there's a need for a three-motor Gravity, although I'm sure there will be a Gravity Sapphire in due time...)

FWIW, If you include the larger tires I think the price difference is actually only $10,900, which isn't really a big percentage bump. If it was just a "performance edition" I wouldn't be interested, but it is positioned as more than just that.

My concern is that's value that depreciates pretty much immediately (I don't expect carry-over to eventual resale, although how are Air Dreams doing?), and I'd be hoping for some nice extras that aren't yet detailed (e.g. bundled mobile charger, all-weather mats, roof rails... if it's an all-inclusive price, really be all-inclusive), earlier delivery, service priority, etc. I don't want to pay for titanium bears -- that's like how Mercedes want $500 on the EQS to make their brand advertising louder (backlit logo).

 

[CraZ8]

Spoke with my sale guy today. The frunk seat is definitely included with the GT spec. He couldn’t give me an answer on the bento boxes for sure.

 

[pyle112]

Wonder why they made the DE deposit nonrefundable

 

[jered]

Wonder why they made the DE deposit nonrefundable

Because they can? It provides a somewhat stronger indication of firm commitments? It provides a signal of brand loyalty vs. organic interest? Lots of possible reasons.

I'm definitely more excited now that real ride and review videos are coming out! (I wish they weren't so long. Who has 2 hours to watch a car charge?) It's hard to make a non-refundable commitment without at least getting a test drive, though.

 

[illopp00]

Got it, and it looks like it's got proportional torque? Do we know the rating in lbs feet? Gear ratio is 7:1? If so that says they have headroom to push torque rearwards. Probably brings my 0-60 estimate for the Dream down to 2.6-2.7 seconds and addresses my main concern.

Porsche and Lamborghini are rarely optimized either, don't kid yourself. Porsche for example used to take the engine from the Carrera S and put in smaller cylinders, pistons and a shorter stroke crank and sell that in the Cayman. It actually cost them more than making all the engines the same, and the engine was hundreds of pounds heavier than it needed to be for the output. And yet the Cayman would still win comparison tests because it was still more than good enough.

Compare that to what we appear to be talking about here, which is probably using something ~20 lbs heavier than it otherwise could be to do the job. As compromises go that's not a bad one at all, the Porsches and Lambos you cite have far, far more (the Lambo Urus is built on the same platform as the VW Touareg and Audi A4, if you don't think it makes compromises I've got a bridge to sell you). It does make me like the Dream more for those who want to be in that power bracket.

Gravity should be running shorter gear ratio, they said using the RWD Pures 8.7:1. Again top speed not going to be a thing for a larger SUV.

 

[Elfin]

Gravity should be running shorter gear ratio, they said using the RWD Pures 8.7:1. Again top speed not going to be a thing for a larger SUV.

Gravity is 7:1 front 8.7:1 rear. Emad Dlala mentions it in the recent OoS video.
A shorter gear ratio would be less efficient.

 

[PetevB]

Gravity should be running shorter gear ratio, they said using the RWD Pures 8.7:1. Again top speed not going to be a thing for a larger SUV.

I think Kyle’s video said 7:1 front and 8.7:1 rear. I think that’s for the standard Gravity GT.

 

[illopp00]

I don't think this is a fair comparison. For most other performance-premium vehicles this is a shift from two to three motors. The Dream is still a two-motor configuration, so the boost is not the same magnitude (although I can't imagine wanting more power). For example, X AWD->Plaid is 670->1020 hp. Gravity GT->DE is 828->1070 hp. From an engineering perspective that's pretty amazing, but I don't think there's really and apples-to-apples comparison. (Nor do I think there's a need for a three-motor Gravity, although I'm sure there will be a Gravity Sapphire in due time...)

FWIW, If you include the larger tires I think the price difference is actually only $10,900, which isn't really a big percentage bump. If it was just a "performance edition" I wouldn't be interested, but it is positioned as more than just that.

My concern is that's value that depreciates pretty much immediately (I don't expect carry-over to eventual resale, although how are Air Dreams doing?), and I'd be hoping for some nice extras that aren't yet detailed (e.g. bundled mobile charger, all-weather mats, roof rails... if it's an all-inclusive price, really be all-inclusive), earlier delivery, service priority, etc. I don't want to pay for titanium bears -- that's like how Mercedes want $500 on the EQS to make their brand advertising louder (backlit logo).

True the difference in the performance of a Plaid vs LR is much greater than a DE to GT. Rivian is kind of in the middle. But those are also what Lucid must compare to, DE vs quad Rivian.

 

[jered]

True the difference in the performance of a Plaid vs LR is much greater than a DE to GT. Rivian is kind of in the middle. But those are also what Lucid must compare to, DE vs quad Rivian.

What's wild is that the dual-motor DE has a higher sticker HP-rating than that Rivian quad. (1070 vs 1025)

 

[hmp10]

What's wild is that the dual-motor DE has a higher sticker HP-rating than that Rivian quad. (1070 vs 1025)

Similar to the situation with the Model S Plaid tri-motor (1,020 hp) and the Air Dream dual-motor (1,111 hp). Lucid motors are incredibly powerful.

 

[borski]

What's wild is that the dual-motor DE has a higher sticker HP-rating than that Rivian quad. (1070 vs 1025)

That’s the GT-P you’re thinking of. The dual-motor DE has 1111HP.

Also, it has more than 1111. I’m quite certain Lucid sandbags the DE and Sapphire numbers. I don’t know why, but I strongly suspect on a dyno you’ll find both produce more than the quite cute 1111 and 1234, respectively.

 

[pyle112]

That’s the GT-P you’re thinking of. The dual-motor DE has 1111HP.

Also, it has more than 1111. I’m quite certain Lucid sandbags the DE and Sapphire numbers. I don’t know why, but I strongly suspect on a dyno you’ll find both produce more than the quite cute 1111 and 1234, respectively.

Lucid on dyno. Not ADE or sapphire but interesting nonetheless.
Thread 'Lucid Air GT on a Dyno' https://lucidowners.com/threads/lucid-air-gt-on-a-dyno.2513/

 

[borski]

Lucid on dyno. Not ADE or sapphire but interesting nonetheless.
Thread 'Lucid Air GT on a Dyno' https://lucidowners.com/threads/lucid-air-gt-on-a-dyno.2513/

I’m not as convinced that the GT numbers were sandbagged.

DE and Sapphire for sure. Not sure about the GT-P.

 

[TahoeMichael]

What's wild is that the dual-motor DE has a higher sticker HP-rating than that Rivian quad. (1070 vs 1025)

The benefit of the quad motor isn't really power (though you do get that), but rather fully independent power delivery to the four wheels, which enables great optimizations for off-road driving. It really blows the traditional ICE 4WD power transmission out of the water.

 

[Elfin]

The benefit of the quad motor isn't really power (though you do get that), but rather fully independent power delivery to the four wheels, which enables great optimizations for off-road driving. It really blows the traditional ICE 4WD power transmission out of the water.

In a traditional SUV (with lockers) you can send all the torque to one wheel though. Kyle Conner was saying this limits the off-road performance somewhat and he'd like Rivian to put a physical locker on the quad motor. Obviously this only matters in pretty extreme rock crawling situations so it's not relevant to the Gravity.

 

[illopp00]

Gravity is 7:1 front 8.7:1 rear. Emad Dlala mentions it in the recent OoS video.
A shorter gear ratio would be less efficient.

I wouldn't guarantee a shorter ratio is less efficient. It's not like an ICE engine that burns more gas at higher RPM and outside of the VE/BSFC; and Lucid's motors are setup for more mid-range, and they are most efficient at their mid-speed to highway speed. The 8.7:1 is offset by the motor's rotational speed by the bigger rear wheel diameter.

That’s the GT-P you’re thinking of. The dual-motor DE has 1111HP.

Also, it has more than 1111. I’m quite certain Lucid sandbags the DE and Sapphire numbers. I don’t know why, but I strongly suspect on a dyno you’ll find both produce more than the quite cute 1111 and 1234, respectively.

I recall in an interview Peter R said you could quote any number you wanted as long as it was lower than the real ones

 

[illopp00]

The benefit of the quad motor isn't really power (though you do get that), but rather fully independent power delivery to the four wheels, which enables great optimizations for off-road driving. It really blows the traditional ICE 4WD power transmission out of the water.

Yes, and Rivian's 400V battery and thermal cooling is the main limiting factor.

 

[Elfin]

Yes, and Rivian's 400V battery and thermal cooling is the main limiting factor.

Is there an issue with the motors overheating in low speed, high torque condition?
Rivian does claim to have done the Rubicon trail in an R1S. I'd love to see a video of how they did it.

 

[Elfin]

I wouldn't guarantee a shorter ratio is less efficient. It's not like an ICE engine that burns more gas at higher RPM and outside of the VE/BSFC; and Lucid's motors are setup for more mid-range, and they are most efficient at their mid-speed to highway speed. The 8.7:1 is offset by the motor's rotational speed by the bigger rear wheel diameter.

If higher ratio is more efficient then why did they use 7:1 on the front?

 

[illopp00]

If higher ratio is more efficient then why did they use 7:1 on the front?

It's to give the car more rear torque bias for balance for power out of corners, handling etc.. Lucid also when driving in smooth under light load is effectively 2WD.