RESOLVED Is motor whine normal?

[stjara]

If he didn’t try to cut you off and blow black smoke in your face , he was being civil.

yup. hear that. did cut me off but no "coal". so I shot him.

 

[donfenn]

thx D. Bunnylebowski pointed out that the motors were different, which I didn't know, so I assumed the mounting and such also were different so comparing them as equals seemed pointless as far as sound. They can't make my Touring as quiet as the GT since it's a different animal so to speak. And 61 db in the GT at 38-41 mph. Will check my touring next week when i get it back.

My point is that I have had GT loaners several times for extended periods. I have not noticed any difference in noise.. Certainly not enough to bother me... , I also have AWD Pure

 

[PostCombustion]

According to car and driver and motortrend, Lucid Air Touring and Grand Touring have the same 0-60 of 3.0, and they tested the Pure AWD at 3.4. So they're very much underrated! The RWD is rated at 4.5 so that's significantly slower. Hopefully it's also underrated and maybe comes in at 4.1 or so when tested, but that's still going to be noticeably slower.

I had to double check that the Touring and GT had the same 0-60 time from the same magazine, but it's true. Here are details with links:

Car and Driver test results:

Car (with link to test article)	0-60	0-100	0-130
2022 Lucid Air Dream Performance	2.5​	5.5​	​
2022 Lucid Air Grand Touring	3.0​	6.0​	10.3​
2023 Air Touring	3.0​	6.7​	12.0​
2024 Lucid Air Pure RWD	4.3​	​	​
2024 Lucid Air Pure AWD	3.5​	​	​
2024 Air Sapphire	2.1​	4.2​	6.7​

 

[PostCombustion]

I had to double check that the Touring and GT had the same 0-60 time from the same magazine, but it's true. Here are details with links:

Car and Driver test results:

Car (with link to test article)	0-60	0-100	0-130
2022 Lucid Air Dream Performance	2.5​	5.5​	​
2022 Lucid Air Grand Touring	3.0​	6.0​	10.3​
2023 Air Touring	3.0​	6.7​	12.0​
2024 Lucid Air Pure RWD	4.3​	​	​
2024 Lucid Air Pure AWD	3.5​	​	​
2024 Air Sapphire	2.1​	4.2​	6.7​

After posting I noticed that the GT is on 19" all-season tires and the Touring is on 20" summer tires (Lucid's configuration page calls these "summer tires").

 

[momo3605]

After posting I noticed that the GT is on 19" all-season tires and the Touring is on 20" summer tires (Lucid's configuration page calls these "summer tires").

Im not really convinced that would make a difference. Look at the Model 3 performance. There have been multiple tests of both the 18" All Seasons and 20" Summer TIres (PS4S) and the 0-60 is identical at ~3.1

Additionally the Pilot Sport EVs are not REALLY a summer tire. There's a reason you don't see any performance benchmarking from Michelin on them, other than that they have "better range" compared to other summer tires. But looking at the tread pattern, the PS4S is a much more aggressive tire.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

Rolls Royce

Reminds me of a story I heard years ago. Some ad agency was presenting a proposed two page magazine spread for Rolls-Royce's flagship sedan. It showed nothing but a close up of the car's dashboard, with a caption something to the effect of... 'At XX (don't recall, but high speed) miles per hour, all you hear is the ticking of the clock.' R-R's CEO looked up, shook his head, and said "We've got to do something about that god-damned clock."

 

[Car Guy]

I had to double check that the Touring and GT had the same 0-60 time from the same magazine, but it's true. Here are details with links:

Car and Driver test results:

Car (with link to test article)	0-60	0-100	0-130
2022 Lucid Air Dream Performance	2.5​	5.5​	​
2022 Lucid Air Grand Touring	3.0​	6.0​	10.3​
2023 Air Touring	3.0​	6.7​	12.0​
2024 Lucid Air Pure RWD	4.3​	​	​
2024 Lucid Air Pure AWD	3.5​	​	​
2024 Air Sapphire	2.1​	4.2​	6.7​

In truth, I've owned my GT since Nov 2022 and only engaged in full throttle accretion once. The car is actually way too fast for driving on public roads. I and my passengers find full accretion to be very unpleasant.

 

[Bobby]

In truth, I've owned my GT since Nov 2022 and only engaged in full throttle accretion once. The car is actually way too fast for driving on public roads. I and my passengers find full accretion to be very unpleasant.

I feel pretty much the opposite.

 

[WildRide47]

I feel pretty much the opposite.

I drive my AGT 50% of the time in Swift and 50% of the time in Sprint. The car is brutally fast and I love it. (With passengers in the car I drive just in Swift mode. Occasionally drive in Smooth mode part of the time on long trips to maximize range. Otherwise prefer the more aggressive modes.

 

[borski]

In truth, I've owned my GT since Nov 2022 and only engaged in full throttle accretion once. The car is actually way too fast for driving on public roads. I and my passengers find full accretion to be very unpleasant.

Fast doesn’t have to mean unpleasant. Being able to tap the power when needed is really nice.

 

[ColonelBadger]

I had to double check that the Touring and GT had the same 0-60 time from the same magazine, but it's true. Here are details with links:

Car and Driver test results:

Car (with link to test article)	0-60	0-100	0-130
2022 Lucid Air Dream Performance	2.5​	5.5​	​
2022 Lucid Air Grand Touring	3.0​	6.0​	10.3​
2023 Air Touring	3.0​	6.7​	12.0​
2024 Lucid Air Pure RWD	4.3​	​	​
2024 Lucid Air Pure AWD	3.5​	​	​
2024 Air Sapphire	2.1​	4.2​	6.7​

Is there any hardware etc. difference between 2023 and 2024 models (AGT and AT) ? Would they still perform the same ?

 

[Nephron]

Is there any hardware etc. difference between 2023 and 2024 models (AGT and AT) ? Would they still perform the same ?

I think heat pump being added since 2024 in GTs

 

[ColonelBadger]

I think heat pump being added since 2024 in GTs

Huh so according to Car and Driver my ‘24 Touring will do 0-60 in 3.0 ?

 

[Bus Driver]

I opened the link to the C&D road test of the 2022 Air GT. “300 miles in 21 minutes” of DC fast charging my a$$. Just this morning I had to use the nearest operational EA station in my neigbhourhood (which put me within a quarter mile of Tijuana, BC Mexico. I was in San Ysidro). For some reason my Tesla HPWC did NOT start charging my car at midnight last night as I had scheduled it.

At the EA DCFC station I noted it took 31 minutes on a 350 kW stall to charge from 25% to 80%, adding 280-something miles. Hardly 300 miles in 21 minutes.

I’m just nitpicking.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

I opened the link to the C&D road test of the 2022 Air GT. “300 miles in 21 minutes” of DC fast charging my a$$. Just this morning I had to use the nearest operational EA station in my neigbhourhood (which put me within a quarter mile of Tijuana, BC Mexico. I was in San Ysidro). For some reason my Tesla HPWC did NOT start charging my car at midnight last night as I had scheduled it.

At the EA DCFC station I noted it took 31 minutes on a 350 kW stall to charge from 25% to 80%, adding 280-something miles. Hardly 300 miles in 21 minutes.

I’m just nitpicking.

Hey, this is a thread about the motor whining... Not the owner!

At the risk of further hijacking this thread... In my seven months of ownership, and with nothing but EA charging, I find what I call the 'Rule of 35' to be almost comically consistent in my lowly Pure AWD. I almost always charge to 82%, which for some reason gets me out of the parking lot at 80%. Whether I'm at a 150 kW or a 350 kW charger, and whether I'm starting at a 25% SOC or 40% or anywhere in between, the 'time to charge' is 35 minutes. Almost every time! If charging starts at a high rate, it drops off fast. If charging starts at a low rate, it drops off slowly. Any way I slice or dice it, I'm there for 35 minutes. Go figure!

 

[DeaneG]

...At the EA DCFC station I noted it took 31 minutes on a 350 kW stall to charge from 25% to 80%, adding 280-something miles. Hardly 300 miles in 21 minutes..

If you start from closer to 0%, I bet you'll get those 300 miles.

 

[borski]

I opened the link to the C&D road test of the 2022 Air GT. “300 miles in 21 minutes” of DC fast charging my a$$. Just this morning I had to use the nearest operational EA station in my neigbhourhood (which put me within a quarter mile of Tijuana, BC Mexico. I was in San Ysidro). For some reason my Tesla HPWC did NOT start charging my car at midnight last night as I had scheduled it.

At the EA DCFC station I noted it took 31 minutes on a 350 kW stall to charge from 25% to 80%, adding 280-something miles. Hardly 300 miles in 21 minutes.

I’m just nitpicking.

Just as a counterpoint, here’s my most recent EA charge:

Starting SOC was 19%.

In 5 minutes, I was at 39%.

In 13 minutes, I had gained 46 kWh, and was at 56% SOC, still going strong at 158kW. So in 13 minutes I had gained 170-200 EPA miles, depending on which tires I throw on the car.

In 25 minutes, I was at 80% and had gained 75 kWh, or about 64% of my battery (some of which was obviously lost to heat and other things).

That means in 25 min I gained 275-317 EPA miles and that’s if we use the *actual* 61% gain, accounting for losses.

So yeah, I guess they were four minutes off, but I can pretty much guarantee that if my starting SOC were 10% and not 19% I might have even beat their 21 minutes.

It’s possible. This was at the Walmart in Mountain View just last week.

 

[joec]

Just as a counterpoint, here’s my most recent EA charge:
View attachment 21652
Starting SOC was 19%.

In 5 minutes, I was at 39%.

In 13 minutes, I had gained 46 kWh, and was at 56% SOC, still going strong at 158kW. So in 13 minutes I had gained 170-200 EPA miles, depending on which tires I throw on the car.

In 25 minutes, I was at 80% and had gained 75 kWh, or about 64% of my battery (some of which was obviously lost to heat and other things).

That means in 25 min I gained 275-317 EPA miles and that’s if we use the *actual* 61% gain, accounting for losses.

So yeah, I guess they were four minutes off, but I can pretty much guarantee that if my starting SOC were 10% and not 19% I might have even beat their 21 minutes.

It’s possible. This was at the Walmart in Mountain View just last week.

Every time I see stuff like this, I wish I had gone with the GT.

Best I ever saw was around 240 kW. Which is great for a Touring. But still…

 

[joec]

Hey, this is a thread about the motor whining... Not the owner!

At the risk of further hijacking this thread... In my seven months of ownership, and with nothing but EA charging, I find what I call the 'Rule of 35' to be almost comically consistent in my lowly Pure AWD. I almost always charge to 82%, which for some reason gets me out of the parking lot at 80%. Whether I'm at a 150 kW or a 350 kW charger, and whether I'm starting at a 25% SOC or 40% or anywhere in between, the 'time to charge' is 35 minutes. Almost every time! If charging starts at a high rate, it drops off fast. If charging starts at a low rate, it drops off slowly. Any way I slice or dice it, I'm there for 35 minutes. Go figure!

Very similar to my experience. 35-40 minutes, no matter what SoC I start at. And I've started as low as 6%.

But that's not really disappointing to me. Would I love to cut that down to 10 minutes? Sure. But considering how infrequently I road trip, and how little time this is in the scheme of things, I consider it a totally reasonable trade-off vs an ICE car.

My habit with road trips is to try and start each day at 100%. Try and end the night at a hotel that has charging. That usually means I end up fast charging once or at most twice in one day.

If more chargers were within walking distance of good restaurants (as opposed to Wal-Marts) I wouldn't have reason to complain at all.

 

[Bus Driver]

Just as a counterpoint, here’s my most recent EA charge:
View attachment 21652
Starting SOC was 19%.

In 5 minutes, I was at 39%.

In 13 minutes, I had gained 46 kWh, and was at 56% SOC, still going strong at 158kW. So in 13 minutes I had gained 170-200 EPA miles, depending on which tires I throw on the car.

In 25 minutes, I was at 80% and had gained 75 kWh, or about 64% of my battery (some of which was obviously lost to heat and other things).

That means in 25 min I gained 275-317 EPA miles and that’s if we use the *actual* 61% gain, accounting for losses.

So yeah, I guess they were four minutes off, but I can pretty much guarantee that if my starting SOC were 10% and not 19% I might have even beat their 21 minutes.

It’s possible. This was at the Walmart in Mountain View just last week.

Yes, but you have the Dream Edition. I have the lowly Grand Touring ,with not only a slightly smaller battery but different chemistry too. I don’t believe my battery can take on a charge as quickly or as efficiently as yours can. Of course we’re talkin’ a difference of only several minutes in any case.