How heavy?

[Sheena]

I know it is not polite to ask about weight, but with Pures, Glass Tourings, GT and DE now delivered, I would be curious to compare and contrast weight of vehicles.
I sense the 19, 20 and 21 inch wheel options impact this some.
I was able to see a Touring with 20 inch wheels weighed in at 5236 lbs.
Others willing to share?

 

[DJL]

I know it is not polite to ask about weight, but with Pures, Glass Tourings, GT and DE now delivered, I would be curious to compare and contrast weight of vehicles.
I sense the 19, 20 and 21 inch wheel options impact this some.
I was able to see a Touring with 20 inch wheels weighed in at 5236 lbs.
Others willing to share?

I have a GT with 19 inch wheels. Here is what the manual says:
Curb Weight* (19"/ 21") 5203 lbs (2360 kg) / 5236 lbs (2375 kg)

 

[Slam08]

From what I’ve seen, all vehicles of the same model have have same weight, regardless of options. I’ve seen that in other model lines.

Not sure about lucid. But it seems that the touring and GT are listed at the exact same weight. Not sure how accurate that is.

 

[Sheena]

I’m pretty sure the Grand Touring weighs much more than the Touring….bigger battery.
Pure with metal roof should be less than Touring with Glass
Detailed specs from manufacture would be cool

 

[Lucidfan22]

If we compared apples to apples between a Touring and a Grand Touring. The Touring should be about 440 lbs lighter. I forget where I saw it on the forums, but each battery module pack is about 110 lbs. 4 leas packs should be 440 lbs. Assuming the rest of the car materials are identical between the Touring and Grand Touring. So that should make the Touring model about 4800 lbs.

I would imagine the 0-60 is probably closer to 3.2 seconds and 3.4 seconds is an estimate on the conservative side. Because roughly every 200 HP differences between the different models impacts the 0-60 time by 0.2-0.3 seconds. Touring is about 200 HP less compared to the Grand Touring, if GT is 3.0 seconds. Based on extrapolating the data, I would think 3.2 seconds is more likely in the ball park and the fact it’s 440 lbs lighter. I think Lucid is just being conservative on their estimates like German manufactures.

The Pure is probably another couple hundred pounds lighter since Aluminum roof is significantly lighter than a Glass roof. The RWD only model would be another 70 lbs lighter, since each motor adds another 70 lbs.

I hope that helps gauge the weight of the car.

 

[joec]

If we compared apples to apples between a Touring and a Grand Touring. The Touring should be about 440 lbs lighter. I forget where I saw it on the forums, but each battery module pack is about 110 lbs. 4 leas packs should be 440 lbs. Assuming the rest of the car materials are identical between the Touring and Grand Touring. So that should make the Touring model about 4800 lbs.

I would imagine the 0-60 is probably closer to 3.2 seconds and 3.4 seconds is an estimate on the conservative side. Because roughly every 200 HP differences between the different models impacts the 0-60 time by 0.2-0.3 seconds. Touring is about 200 HP less compared to the Grand Touring, if GT is 3.0 seconds. Based on extrapolating the data, I would think 3.2 seconds is more likely in the ball park and the fact it’s 440 lbs lighter. I think Lucid is just being conservative on their estimates like German manufactures.

The Pure is probably another couple hundred pounds lighter since Aluminum roof is significantly lighter than a Glass roof. The RWD only model would be another 70 lbs lighter, since each motor adds another 70 lbs.

I hope that helps gauge the weight of the car.

Interesting how you got to 3.2 for the Touring. That’s what Lucid originally listed as an estimate, before they started shipping. It jumped up to 3.4 once they started shipping. Likely after they actually built one and tested it.

My guess is they did the same math as you to get to the 3.2 estimate before manufacturing started. And then had to update to 3.4 after they took it to the track. It’s such a minor difference it could easily be chalked up to other very small differences between Touring and GT. Different front seats. Etc.

Either way, I doubt they added 0.2 seconds to be conservative. My guess is that the real world results were just that teeny bit slower. Just as the efficiency for Touring ended up just a teeny bit higher than they were expecting compared to GT.

 

[Lucidfan22]

Interesting how you got to 3.2 for the Touring. That’s what Lucid originally listed as an estimate, before they started shipping. It jumped up to 3.4 once they started shipping. Likely after they actually built one and tested it.

My guess is they did the same math as you to get to the 3.2 estimate before manufacturing started. And then had to update to 3.4 after they took it to the track. It’s such a minor difference it could easily be chalked up to other very small differences between Touring and GT. Different front seats. Etc.

Either way, I doubt they added 0.2 seconds to be conservative. My guess is that the real world results were just that teeny bit slower. Just as the efficiency for Touring ended up just a teeny bit higher than they were expecting compared to GT.

I certainly could be wrong, I am just guessing and speculating. Even what Lucid Motors put on their website is 3.4 seconds (est) - Assuming est stands for estimate. I am giving Lucid the benefit of the doubt that between 450 lbs lighter and 200 HP reduction, the 0-60 times should be closer to 3.2 second mark than 3.4 second mark.

Also, another post on the forums mentioned: (Not sure how accurate this is because they grouped Touring AWD and Pure in the same spectrum, which we know is not the case. The Pure AWD is only 480 HP and the fact this post was before the Touring/Pure reveal. But irrelevant of the date of the post, the Engineering team achieved 3.2 seconds on the Touring unless they made it slower due to some software tweaks after the reveal)

The numbers that the engineering team got from test runs are as follow (Sprint mode)

- Sapphire: 1.8
- Air Dream (P): 2.5
- Air Dream (R): 2.7
- GT-R: 2.9
- GT-P: 2.6
- Pure/Touring AWD: 3.2
- Pure/Touring 2WD: 3.9 (traction!)

Hope this answers your question

I have my fingers crossed, but like you said, the differences between 3.2 and 3.4 are non-noticeable. But it would be nice to know and have somebody test it out and confirm. Just sounds cooler to know that I own a 3.2 second car vs. 3.4 second car LOL. (Still way faster than anyone needs to be accelerating on normal city roads)

I saw a recent video on youtube where the guy ran a 0-60 in 3.16 second without a roll-out on city roads. (was kinda uphill) Cars and Driver usually subtract 0.2 - 0.3 seconds for rollout. So if he achieved 3.16 seconds on a non-prepped surface without rollout for a 3.0 second rated car, I would like to believe 3.2 seconds is achievable under the right condition for Touring and the reduced weight.

Need someone to test it and report back!

 

[Bill55]

I know it is not polite to ask about weight, but with Pures, Glass Tourings, GT and DE now delivered, I would be curious to compare and contrast weight of vehicles.
I sense the 19, 20 and 21 inch wheel options impact this some.
I was able to see a Touring with 20 inch wheels weighed in at 5236 lbs.
Others willing to share?

5254 DE Performance 21" rims

 

[MHDave]

5254 DE Performance 21" rims

View attachment 8481

Of course you took the golf clubs out of the trunk first, right?

 

[Bill55]

Of course you took the golf clubs out of the trunk first, right?

I think we took everything out except what came with the car. So this would include charging cable. It had 3/4 tank of fuel.

 

[idiot900]

Either way, I doubt they added 0.2 seconds to be conservative. My guess is that the real world results were just that teeny bit slower. Just as the efficiency for Touring ended up just a teeny bit higher than they were expecting compared to GT.

Or, marketing. They would want to give another reason for people who value acceleration figures to buy a GT rather than a Touring.

 

[joec]

Or, marketing. They would want to give another reason for people who value acceleration figures to buy a GT rather than a Touring.

Yeah, I don’t buy this. The GT is already faster at 3.0 and 2.6 for the Performance.

And they were happy to be advertising Touring at 3.2 until they actually started producing them.

Marketing’s job is to make products look better, not worse.

No one in the Touring market is going to be swayed into spending $30k by an extra .2 of a second.

 

[idiot900]

No one in the Touring market is going to be swayed into spending $30k by an extra .2 of a second.

But someone in the GT market might decide they want to save $30k if the difference in bragging rights is only 0.2 s.

 

[Lucidfan22]

Plus you are not paying 30K more only for 0.2 seconds. There are several other factors that you are getting with the additional $30K - more range, faster charing (300 kw), standard glass canopy roof, Nappa vs. PureLuxe, higher quality interior on certain panels, 21" wheels in the same included price,

 

[joec]

Plus you are not paying 30K more only for 0.2 seconds. There are several other factors that you are getting with the additional $30K - more range, faster charing (300 kw), standard glass canopy roof, Nappa vs. PureLuxe, higher quality interior on certain panels, 21" wheels in the same included price,

Right. So why make every Touring customer feel like they are getting a slower car than they are?

This is where the whole argument falls apart to me. It just seems far more likely the Touring actually got a 3.4 when they tested it.

 

[idiot900]

Right. So why make every Touring customer feel like they are getting a slower car than they are?

This is where the whole argument falls apart to me. It just seems far more likely the Touring actually got a 3.4 when they tested it.

By choosing not to report the best time they can achieve, much like e.g. Porsche does. This way customers might actually see that time without sticky tires and a prepped track surface in optimal conditions, and they segment their product offerings a little more.

Just my somewhat cynical interpretation. I don’t think I’ll see even 3.4 s on 19 in wheels, and I’m totally fine with that.

 

[Lucidfan22]

I guess my logical reasoning behind 0-60 times was pretty much on point:

2023 Lucid Air Touring First Test Review: Less Spendy, Still Superb?

Does the mid-range Air Touring start making the more expensive models harder to justify?

www.motortrend.com

 

[DeaneG]

I guess my logical reasoning behind 0-60 times was pretty much on point:

2023 Lucid Air Touring First Test Review: Less Spendy, Still Superb?

Does the mid-range Air Touring start making the more expensive models harder to justify?

www.motortrend.com

That review makes me want to buy a Touring. But I already have a GT! Not likely I could get another past my wife.

 

[hydbob]

That review makes me want to buy a Touring. But I already have a GT! Not likely I could get another past my wife.

Won't know until you try

 

[Lucidfan22]

Although 885 lbs of torque seems unreal. But again I have not seen the specs from Lucid on the Touring to know the torque numbers. 885 lbs torque is very impressive for this trim.