Gravity Spec coming Oct 3 ?

You're right. I just checked. The Suburban wheelbase is 134.1", the Tahoe wheelbase is 120.1", and the Gravity wheelbase is 119.5". Based on the rear wheels shown in that graphic, I suspect that's the Suburban chassis we're seeing in red, not the Escalade. (Actually, the Escalade shares its chassis with the Tahoe, with both having a 120.9" wheelbase.)
Half a wheel diameter including tire could roughly equal 14 inches.
 
I can't understand what most car manufacturers do to be so space inefficient even making BEVs.
Here is a 10 years old car, ICE car, with 3 rows. Yes 3rd row is very tiny, however this car is shorter than even Tesla Model 3!
peugeot-5008-suv-interior-dimensions.11.webp
 
I can't understand what most car manufacturers do to be so space inefficient even making BEVs.
Here is a 10 years old car, ICE car, with 3 rows. Yes 3rd row is very tiny, however this car is shorter than even Tesla Model 3!
View attachment 23541

US Crash and Safety Standards I suspect dictate the overall size and lack of space efficiency. Hoods need to be designed in a specific way to avoid chopping bodies in half, hood length, trunks need to be designed with a certain depth from passenger compartments for damping accident forces. I suspect the car you posted would not meet safety standards.
 
US Crash and Safety Standards I suspect dictate the overall size and lack of space efficiency.

Yes, but Lucid is subject to those same standards, and look at what they do with space engineering. I think it's more what "The Engineering Guy" called it in a video some months ago: lazy engineering.
 
US Crash and Safety Standards I suspect dictate the overall size and lack of space efficiency. Hoods need to be designed in a specific way to avoid chopping bodies in half, hood length, trunks need to be designed with a certain depth from passenger compartments for damping accident forces.
The same do EU. Actually more, because they also include pedestrian safety (that makes it impossible for Tesla Cybertruck to pass European tests)
I suspect the car you posted would not meet safety standards.
It has better score than Ford Edge on Euro NCAP.
 
Yes, but Lucid is subject to those same standards, and look at what they do with space engineering. I think it's more what "The Engineering Guy" called it in a video some months ago: lazy engineering.

yea for sure. EV skateboard architecture provides OEMs a clean slate to design from the ground up. And as you've rightfully mentioned, the majority of OEMs have been lazy with more or less copying over designs from their ICE cars.
 
I think it's more what "The Engineering Guy" called it in a video some months ago: lazy engineering.
This is EX90 front area. Everything under this area is just empty space. No, it is not full of sensors, it is just empty space there under plastic cover. Could that be used for bigger frunk? Sure! Why it was not done? Because of lazy engineering...
1000009922.webp
 
This is EX90 front area. Everything under this area is just empty space. No, it is not full of sensors, it is just empty space there under plastic cover. Could that be used for bigger frunk? Sure! Why it was not done? Because of lazy engineering...
View attachment 23546

Yea I'm pretty sure they didn't want to deviate away from the XC90's base architecture. Redesigning this area would probably require them to redesign structural stiffness, materials in the bumper, etc... god forbid they have to spend money to design a car:rolleyes:
 
At the time I made the table, they did not.

I also didn't include non-evs, which in hindsight, I should have....maybe it's time for a new table!
Speaking of the Full-Size US truck based SUVs, those are all 80-95K with all the goodies on them too...
 
Speaking of the Full-Size US truck based SUVs, those are all 80-95K with all the goodies on them too...
I expect Gravity to be in that range as well. At least the Touring I expect should fall in the 90s. If they price it similar to the Air. I could see Pure being $79k, Touring $89k, and GT (I think shouldn’t cross 100, but it probably will because the Air GT already costs 110
 
Yea I'm pretty sure they didn't want to deviate away from the XC90's base architecture. Redesigning this area would probably require them to redesign structural stiffness, materials in the bumper, etc... god forbid they have to spend money to design a car:rolleyes:
Isn't there a hybrid based on same platform?
 
I just got this email from Rivian. In light of the worry on this thread that the Gravity pricing will be too high, it's interesting that Rivian seems to be trying to move a bit more upmarket. Pricing for these Ascend versions begins above $100K.

Screenshot 2024-09-27 at 11.00.53 AM.webp
 
Isn't there a hybrid based on same platform?
All XC90 are either mild or plug-in hybrids now. They are on SPA platform, that is also used in XC60, V60, V90, S60, S90.
EX90 is based on another platform: SPA2, that is also used in Polestar 3.
 
I expect Gravity to be in that range as well. At least the Touring I expect should fall in the 90s. If they price it similar to the Air. I could see Pure being $79k, Touring $89k, and GT (I think shouldn’t cross 100, but it probably will because the Air GT already costs 110

I'd be surprised to see a GT below $100K. And I'm guessing a fully-optioned one will land between $130-140K . . . or maybe even more with pricey, largely cosmetic options such as the Stealth package and 23" wheels.

With 3-chamber air suspension, rear-wheel steering (at some point), three rows of seating, more glass area, etc., there's going to be a good bit of extra hardware on the Gravity compared to the Air.

While I'm sure Lucid will strive to make versions available at as low a price point as possible, I don't think that means they are going to walk away from the more lucrative higher price points for those buyers able and willing -- even wanting -- to shop there. Where I live, there are just too many Range Rovers, Cayennes, GLS's, Bentaygas -- and even a few Urus's and Cullinans -- roving the roadways to convince me Lucid won't find customers for a pricey SUV as well as a more affordable one.
 
Last edited:
I'd be surprised to see a GT below $100K. And I'm guessing a fully-optioned one will land between $130-140K . . . or maybe even more with pricey, largely cosmetic options such as the Stealth package and 23" wheels.

With 3-chamber air suspension, rear-wheel steering (at some point), three rows of seating, more glass area, etc., there's going to be a good bit of extra hardware on the Gravity compared to the Air.

While I'm sure Lucid will strive to make versions available at as low a price point as possible, I don't think that means they are going to walk away from the more lucrative higher price points for those buyers able and willing -- even wanting -- to shop there. Where I live, there are just too many Range Rovers, Cayennes, GLS's, Bentaygas -- and even a few Urus's and Cullinans -- roving the roadways to convince me Lucid won't find customers for a pricey SUV as well as a more affordable one.
Not to mention the extra and larger battery to get the range numbers
 
Not to mention the extra and larger battery to get the range numbers

My understanding is that the Gravity will have the same number of modules (22) and cells (6600) as the large-pack Airs. I think the slight increase in capacity comes from newer chemistry and/or battery management.
 
I just got this email from Rivian. In light of the worry on this thread that the Gravity pricing will be too high, it's interesting that Rivian seems to be trying to move a bit more upmarket. Pricing for these Ascend versions begins above $100K.

View attachment 23559
I like the small incremental price increases that Rivian offers through five trim levels instead of three. That along with the upgrades available even before considering "options" provides a variety of ways to arrived at a desired final price.

Theoretically, if Gravity comes with the Pure trim at $79k, the Touring trim at $95k, and the GT at $120K. That's increments of $16k (Pure to Touring) and $25k (Touring to GT). While the first three Rivian trims are offered in $7k increments. The fourth trim at a $14k increment.

More increments with Gravity would be great. More choices without nickel-and-diming for every little upgrade like Porsche does.
 
I like the small incremental price increases that Rivian offers through five trim levels instead of three. That along with the upgrades available even before considering "options" provides a variety of ways to arrived at a desired final price.

Theoretically, if Gravity comes with the Pure trim at $79k, the Touring trim at $95k, and the GT at $120K. That's increments of $16k (Pure to Touring) and $25k (Touring to GT). While the first three Rivian trims are offered in $7k increments. The fourth trim at a $14k increment.

More increments with Gravity would be great. More choices without nickel-and-diming for every little upgrade like Porsche does.

I don't really know where the Touring would fit into this picture, but if you look at what will almost certainly be the differences between a base Gravity Pure and a fully-optioned Grand Touring, I think you have to look at a pretty wide price spread, especially with such expensive items as battery module and motor variables. (I'm deriving some of this from the footnotes in the Lucid website indicating things not available on all trims):

- larger vs. smaller battery pack
- 1 vs. 2 motors (and/or current motors vs. Atlas motors)
- 3-chamber vs. 1-chamber air suspension
- rear wheel steering
- HUD
- 2-row vs. 3-row seating
- Dream Drive vs. Dream Drive Pro and associated sensor hardware
- Surreal Sound vs. Surreal Sound Pro
- dynamic ambient lighting
- 4-zone A/C adjustment
- massaging front seats
- stealth brightwork

I think a $40K price spread is easily in the cards . . . and maybe even more.
 
Back
Top