- Joined
- Mar 27, 2025
- Messages
- 1,322
- Reaction score
- 1,791
- Cars
- GGT, BMW i3
Fisker OceanMini-Gravity.
Fisker OceanMini-Gravity.
I think they're going to build cars for Saudi Arabia customers until they feel like they have the production line/supply chain dialed in. Such production will occur by the end of Q2 2027, with them opening up to other markets in H2 2027.I think starting with Saudi would be a smart move. It's a much smaller market than the US, so it would be easier to cover fully, learn from, and iron out any shortfalls or glitches before taking on the bigger market.
That said, I expect the opposite will happen. My guess is they'll ship to the US first and set aside a limited number of cars for the GCC, mainly for VIPs
I thought they already said that the investment to update AMP-1 to mass manufacture Cosmos was not palatable. It's setup for Gravity and Air production lines, they have the test pilot line at Coolidge. Will see how they react going forward, there was some cautious optimism about some momentum building in the US EV market over the next 2 quarters. There is clearly much larger appetite in EU.I agree that's Saudi's motive, but it kind of proves my point. If the plan is driven by what's right for the Saudi auto industry, then Lucid's interests are secondary, which is the problem I was raising.
Wanting to be an automaker is a great goal but It doesn't necessarily make AMP-2 the right place to build the car Lucid's survival depends on. As I stated, AMP-2 has only done kit assembly so far, while AMP-1 already builds full vehicles. It's not like the US would be starting from scratch, the plant, the workforce, and the supply chain already exist.
Saudi's interests and Lucid's don't have to conflict. PIF has put billions into Lucid for a reason, and a failed Cosmos launch hurts the Saudi auto ambitions as much as it hurts Lucid. A smarter way to serve both is to prove the car at AMP-1 first, then transfer a proven process to AMP-2. That still gets Saudi its industry, with less risk for everyone.
I'm not saying Lucid should ignore its biggest backer. I'm saying a strategy built mainly for the shareholder's goals, not the company's survival, is a risk.