Gravity; SUV or Minivan

[msaunders9430]

This post is more for any who are on the fence about the Gravity because the SUV/Minivan debate.

As the Gravity (in Aurora Green) is being shown in more Lucid studios and online posts are made, as was predicted on this forum, there are comments about it looking like a minivan.
The comments often are about the rear opening being large and/or low.
The absence of a sliding rear door (a distinct minivan feature to me) rarely is mentioned.

The more I think about Americans love of SUVs I kinda wonder if people like the ease of loading stuff like groceries and small items that can be tossed into the rear space.
I know for me, that's an additional reason I don't want a car. A trunk is useless to me. Sorry, I digress.

I do alot of outdoor stuff with sizeable gear (biking, hiking, camping, fishing) and most of the time, in parking lots especially, I see pickup trucks with gear or SUVs with bikeracks/roofracks.
I don't like my bikes esposed to weather or possible crashes from the rear. I pay too much for them and don't want the inconvenience of replacing them.
I wonder if most people want the "sporty" look of an SUV, but are ok with most of them not being too utilitarian. That sporty look is why they hate the minivan look. It doesn't make you look sporty, even if you're not even using it for any sports or utility purposes other than groceries and soccer balls.

I don't see too many SUVs being used to haul lumber. I see pickup trucks.

I have a Honda Element that I use for my outdoor gear and occassionally for lumber or large item pick ups.
If and when my Element dies, I will CAREFULLY consider using my Gravity. Honestly, I can probably keep the Element running forever or just buy a used one when needed.
However, I like knowing that I can use my Gravity, at least for my bikes.
I also have three little granddaughters that I might allow inside; NO FOOD!

I wonder if people who are looking at the Gravity because of its sporty look, but believe it also looks like a minivan, might really just need a Macan or Cayenne.
But wait .... what about the third row seating?
If you want comfortable third row seating, especially for adults, consider:
1. Lyric - not as much cargo space; not much headroom for adults in third row; drives like a boat (aka land yacht)
2. R1S - if you can get past the cartoonish headlights, go for it; lacks some of the ADAS tech of the Gravity; looks maybe too outdoorsy/sporty for some (I'll put groceries and people in there, but "bugs bother me, I'm going inside")
3. Vistiq/Escalade IQ- more space than Lyric; more luxury look, less sporty look; pricier than Gravity with less space; land yacht
4. MB EQS - butt ugly bubble, but go for it; pricier with less space
5. Polestar 3/Volvo EX90 - just another Volvo, same look, but an EV; less space than Gravity

In my humble opinion, the Gravity is the excellent SUV for those: 1) wanting/needing the sporty look and maybe actually need it for SPORTS activities, and 2) wanting/needing the UTILITY of useable third row comfortable seating for adults or hauling large items (lumber, furniture, etc.).

I'll add that, it has a swag/luxury look to it in addition to sporty look and based on comments from those who have ridden in the Gravity, it drives and handle better than most SUVs or minivans. Sounds sporty to me.

 

[Bobby]

Remember, Rivian and GM Products do not have the option for CarPlay, which is a showstopper for me.

 

[pyle112]

Remember, Rivian and GM Products do not have the option for CarPlay, which is a showstopper for me.

I've read that they will use a flavor of Google Auto. Assuming this is similar to how Volvo implements, it does feel a lot like Android auto or carplay. When logged in it synchs with map and search history etc. it might make sense for EVs to migrate to on board integration of the environment, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Batteryman]

This post is more for any who are on the fence about the Gravity because the SUV/Minivan debate.

As the Gravity (in Aurora Green) is being shown in more Lucid studios and online posts are made, as was predicted on this forum, there are comments about it looking like a minivan.
The comments often are about the rear opening being large and/or low.
The absence of a sliding rear door (a distinct minivan feature to me) rarely is mentioned.

The more I think about Americans love of SUVs I kinda wonder if people like the ease of loading stuff like groceries and small items that can be tossed into the rear space.
I know for me, that's an additional reason I don't want a car. A trunk is useless to me. Sorry, I digress.

I do alot of outdoor stuff with sizeable gear (biking, hiking, camping, fishing) and most of the time, in parking lots especially, I see pickup trucks with gear or SUVs with bikeracks/roofracks.
I don't like my bikes esposed to weather or possible crashes from the rear. I pay too much for them and don't want the inconvenience of replacing them.
I wonder if most people want the "sporty" look of an SUV, but are ok with most of them not being too utilitarian. That sporty look is why they hate the minivan look. It doesn't make you look sporty, even if you're not even using it for any sports or utility purposes other than groceries and soccer balls.

I don't see too many SUVs being used to haul lumber. I see pickup trucks.

I have a Honda Element that I use for my outdoor gear and occassionally for lumber or large item pick ups.
If and when my Element dies, I will CAREFULLY consider using my Gravity. Honestly, I can probably keep the Element running forever or just buy a used one when needed.
However, I like knowing that I can use my Gravity, at least for my bikes.
I also have three little granddaughters that I might allow inside; NO FOOD!

I wonder if people who are looking at the Gravity because of its sporty look, but believe it also looks like a minivan, might really just need a Macan or Cayenne.
But wait .... what about the third row seating?
If you want comfortable third row seating, especially for adults, consider:
1. Lyric - not as much cargo space; not much headroom for adults in third row; drives like a boat (aka land yacht)
2. R1S - if you can get past the cartoonish headlights, go for it; lacks some of the ADAS tech of the Gravity; looks maybe too outdoorsy/sporty for some (I'll put groceries and people in there, but "bugs bother me, I'm going inside")
3. Vistiq/Escalade IQ- more space than Lyric; more luxury look, less sporty look; pricier than Gravity with less space; land yacht
4. MB EQS - butt ugly bubble, but go for it; pricier with less space
5. Polestar 3/Volvo EX90 - just another Volvo, same look, but an EV; less space than Gravity

In my humble opinion, the Gravity is the excellent SUV for those: 1) wanting/needing the sporty look and maybe actually need it for SPORTS activities, and 2) wanting/needing the UTILITY of useable third row comfortable seating for adults or hauling large items (lumber, furniture, etc.).

I'll add that, it has a swag/luxury look to it in addition to sporty look and based on comments from those who have ridden in the Gravity, it drives and handle better than most SUVs or minivans. Sounds sporty to me.





View attachment 24639

Gravity looks fantastic, I too dont like the cartoon look of Rivian lights. You want efficiency, SUV needs to be lower to the ground. Why have a boxy SUV riding on stilts and get less range? That doesnt make sense for an EV SUV.

 

[illopp00]

This post is more for any who are on the fence about the Gravity because the SUV/Minivan debate.

As the Gravity (in Aurora Green) is being shown in more Lucid studios and online posts are made, as was predicted on this forum, there are comments about it looking like a minivan.
The comments often are about the rear opening being large and/or low.
The absence of a sliding rear door (a distinct minivan feature to me) rarely is mentioned.

The more I think about Americans love of SUVs I kinda wonder if people like the ease of loading stuff like groceries and small items that can be tossed into the rear space.
I know for me, that's an additional reason I don't want a car. A trunk is useless to me. Sorry, I digress.

I do alot of outdoor stuff with sizeable gear (biking, hiking, camping, fishing) and most of the time, in parking lots especially, I see pickup trucks with gear or SUVs with bikeracks/roofracks.
I don't like my bikes esposed to weather or possible crashes from the rear. I pay too much for them and don't want the inconvenience of replacing them.
I wonder if most people want the "sporty" look of an SUV, but are ok with most of them not being too utilitarian. That sporty look is why they hate the minivan look. It doesn't make you look sporty, even if you're not even using it for any sports or utility purposes other than groceries and soccer balls.

I don't see too many SUVs being used to haul lumber. I see pickup trucks.

I have a Honda Element that I use for my outdoor gear and occassionally for lumber or large item pick ups.
If and when my Element dies, I will CAREFULLY consider using my Gravity. Honestly, I can probably keep the Element running forever or just buy a used one when needed.
However, I like knowing that I can use my Gravity, at least for my bikes.
I also have three little granddaughters that I might allow inside; NO FOOD!

I wonder if people who are looking at the Gravity because of its sporty look, but believe it also looks like a minivan, might really just need a Macan or Cayenne.
But wait .... what about the third row seating?
If you want comfortable third row seating, especially for adults, consider:
1. Lyric - not as much cargo space; not much headroom for adults in third row; drives like a boat (aka land yacht)
2. R1S - if you can get past the cartoonish headlights, go for it; lacks some of the ADAS tech of the Gravity; looks maybe too outdoorsy/sporty for some (I'll put groceries and people in there, but "bugs bother me, I'm going inside")
3. Vistiq/Escalade IQ- more space than Lyric; more luxury look, less sporty look; pricier than Gravity with less space; land yacht
4. MB EQS - butt ugly bubble, but go for it; pricier with less space
5. Polestar 3/Volvo EX90 - just another Volvo, same look, but an EV; less space than Gravity

In my humble opinion, the Gravity is the excellent SUV for those: 1) wanting/needing the sporty look and maybe actually need it for SPORTS activities, and 2) wanting/needing the UTILITY of useable third row comfortable seating for adults or hauling large items (lumber, furniture, etc.).

I'll add that, it has a swag/luxury look to it in addition to sporty look and based on comments from those who have ridden in the Gravity, it drives and handle better than most SUVs or minivans. Sounds sporty to me.





View attachment 24639

I think there is a combination of trim colors, wheel size and colors and paint that you need to be careful with or else from a far distance it will look like a minivan if parked in mall lot with a sea of others. I think that is why the block the small wheels being anything but black...

 

[illopp00]

Gravity looks fantastic, I too dont like the cartoon look of Rivian lights. You want efficiency, SUV needs to be lower to the ground. Why have a boxy SUV riding on stilts and get less range? That doesnt make sense for an EV SUV.

I think that is why we need more details on the Dynamic package and ride height adjustability vs base setting. It will help to have the stilt presence around town, then lower it for high speed highway work.

 

[Bobby]

I've read that they will use a flavor of Google Auto. Assuming this is similar to how Volvo implements, it does feel a lot like Android auto or carplay. When logged in it synchs with map and search history etc. it might make sense for EVs to migrate to on board integration of the environment, but that's a different discussion.

I agree that there are many features of CarPlay that have been implemented otherwise, but I like the tight integration with my phone, my calendar, my texting, and my home. Nothing else offers that for me and so any car that does not have CarPlay is not on my shopping list.

 

[msaunders9430]

Gravity looks fantastic, I too dont like the cartoon look of Rivian lights. You want efficiency, SUV needs to be lower to the ground. Why have a boxy SUV riding on stilts and get less range? That doesnt make sense for an EV SUV.

Perhaps for off-roading.
If I'm riding onto a beach area, live on property with no pavement (ranch), etc. and need passenger space, I can see having a R1S. Theoretically that is. There's still those headlights.

The air suspension of the Gravity might make beach areas accessible, but I'm not sure I'd want to subject air suspension to repeated pounding of rough, unpaved roads.

 

[illopp00]

Perhaps for off-roading.
If I'm riding onto a beach area, live on property with no pavement (ranch), etc. and need passenger space, I can see having a R1S. Theoretically that is. There's still those headlights.

The air suspension of the Gravity might make beach areas accessible, but I'm not sure I'd want to subject air suspension to repeated pounding of rough, unpaved roads.

Let's be honest the base Hankook Elect All-Seasons aren't going to be great for taking you far off-road, if they are serious, they will offer some Rivian like All-terrains...

 

[DeaneG]

... I'm not sure I'd want to subject air suspension to repeated pounding of rough, unpaved roads.

Many very capable SUVs use air suspension (Rivian, Land Rover, etc)

 

[gavram]

My hope is the more sleek design appeals to a wider family audience over the current trend of blocky SUV's.

I think the biggest hurdle is introducing the GT version first in a market of high interest rates. I'd have led with Pure or Touring first to stay under or around $100k. All of the car reviewers are going to cite the $125k pricing without much details on the lower cost models, as they did when the Air first launched.

 

[joec]

My hope is the more sleek design appeals to a wider family audience over the current trend of blocky SUV's.

I think the biggest hurdle is introducing the GT version first in a market of high interest rates. I'd have led with Pure or Touring first to stay under or around $100k. All of the car reviewers are going to cite the $125k pricing without much details on the lower cost models, as they did when the Air first launched.

This is a danger, to be sure. On the flip side, if they released the low-cost version first, they'd be leaving $25k or more per customer on the table for every customer who can't wait and just buys the cheaper one that's currently available.

It's not an easy problem to solve. Ideally, I would think releasing both at the same time would have been the best move. But I'm no expert in automotive operations, so I'm sure someone who does this for a living could easily explain why that's a bad idea, too.

 

[flarbear]

It's not an easy problem to solve. Ideally, I would think releasing both at the same time would have been the best move. But I'm no expert in automotive operations, so I'm sure someone who does this for a living could easily explain why that's a bad idea, too.

The factors I think that affect the decision:

• higher price means higher margins, raking in the most money in the short term to help stay afloat
• higher price means fewer customers which means a smaller/shorter backlog of frustrated owners as the deliveries slowly ramp (Touring customers will still be frustrated, but at least they won't have forked over money yet)
• only building one design lets them focus on the basics of building the new model which will be 90% lessons that transfer on to the other trim level when its production starts. Doing both from the start means they will not only need to work out the basics but also the issues with building both at the same time
• (less certain) ?Getting the most capable model out to the press for the most positive reviews out of the gate? (If they had the Touring model available initially then (some) reviewers might want to focus on that one and some of the glow will be taken out of the initial impressions)

 

[037]

I always liked the idea of a high powered minivan with good crash ratings and Gravity should check all the boxes pending a car and driver review.

And while I wait…can someone tell me the bolt pattern on those wheels so I can start shopping for something lighter?

 

[msaunders9430]

Looking at the new, three-row Hyundai Ioniq 9, even if it's rear hatch area is as wide as the Gravity, I doubt many will say it has a minivan look.
It has the steeper windshield area and taller roof. Looks like a higher ride height as well.

Ioniq 9 - LxWxH (199.2" x 78" x 70.5"); 123.5" wheelbase
Gravity - LxWxH (198.2" x 78.7" x 65.2"); 119. 5" wheelbase

 

[hydbob]

Looking at the new, three-row Hyundai Ioniq 9, even if it's rear hatch area is as wide as the Gravity, I doubt many will say it has a minivan look.
It has the steeper windshield area and taller roof. Looks like a higher ride height as well.

Ioniq 9 - LxWxH (199.2" x 78" x 70.5"); 123.5" wheelbase
Gravity - LxWxH (198.2" x 78.7" x 65.2"); 119. 5" wheelbase
View attachment 24703View attachment 24704

 

[DeaneG]

Have to say that Gravity is much prettier than the Ioniq 9.