Lucid Air vs. Mercedes EQS

[stealthpilot]

Electrochromic film is fairly rigid. In the Boeing Dreamliner they could use it only by flattening the window panes, and you'll notice that cars that use it only use it for relatively flat roof panels. I think Lucid found it too difficult to get it to conform to the curve as the roof starts the descent to the windshield. Also, Lucid told me that the film does not completely lighten, nor can it be fabricated so that it fades to transparent, so a line would always be apparent where it stopped before descending into the windshield area.

As with Lucid, Rivian originally planned to use electrochromic film in their R1T and R1S but dropped plans during development. As new IR-blocking coatings became available, Rivian said they found the coatings to be more effective than electrochromic film which, contrary to popular belief, does not fully darken, either.

they could have done it on the rear section. That would have sufficed.

 

[hydbob]

they could have done it on the rear section. That would have sufficed.

That roof panel is not flat though

 

[Mountain Man]

Has anyone posted this yet? https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...s-electric-luxury-car-comparison-test-review/ A direct comparison test by Motor Trend. MT has some great conclusions about why the Lucid Air is superior to the Mercedes EQS.

 

[stealthpilot]

Has anyone posted this yet? https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...s-electric-luxury-car-comparison-test-review/ A direct comparison test by Motor Trend. MT has some great conclusions about why the Lucid Air is superior to the Mercedes EQS.

I think Motorttend has a conflict of interest. They make some trivial complaint about use of plastics in the Mercedes, and yet they make no mention of the plethora of missing or malfunctioning basic functionality in the Lucid which has been well documented by early owners on this forum.

The authors have really debased themselves.

 

[borski]

I think Motorttend has a conflict of interest. They make some trivial complaint about use of plastics in the Mercedes, and yet they make no mention of the plethora of missing or malfunctioning basic functionality in the Lucid which has been well documented by early owners on this forum.

The authors have really debased themselves.

Merc isn’t changing the plastic. It’s hardware.

The complaints in this forum have been 98% software, and the updates are coming frequently.

Apples and oranges.

Full disclosure: I tested the EQS and thought it handled like garbage and hated the plastic, so call me biased.

 

[Mountain Man]

I think Motorttend has a conflict of interest. They make some trivial complaint about use of plastics in the Mercedes, and yet they make no mention of the plethora of missing or malfunctioning basic functionality in the Lucid which has been well documented by early owners on this forum.

The authors have really debased themselves.

The benefit with the EQS is that is it is so butt-ass fugly that you are THRILLED to climb into the car so you can stop seeing the hideous exterior, so you don't really care about the crap plastic interior once you get inside.

 

[MikeTz]

Has anyone posted this yet? https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...s-electric-luxury-car-comparison-test-review/ A direct comparison test by Motor Trend. MT has some great conclusions about why the Lucid Air is superior to the Mercedes EQS.

When not pancaking our faces on entry ramps, a few miles spent calmly cruising impressed with the Lucid's adaptive air suspension absorbing lumps, bumps, and humps with the viscosity of hot caramel.
Seriously? this is sad ...

 

[hmp10]

When not pancaking our faces on entry ramps, a few miles spent calmly cruising impressed with the Lucid's adaptive air suspension absorbing lumps, bumps, and humps with the viscosity of hot caramel.
Seriously? this is sad ...

It really is sad that "Motor Trend" would make this kind of mistake. However, the layman well might.

We have a Tesla Model S Plaid with an adaptive air suspension as well as the Lucid Air Dream with the coil springs and semi-active dampers. If I didn't know better, I'd guess that the Air was the one with the air suspension . . . except that the Air responds more precisely than any air suspension I've ever driven.

 

[Mountain Man]

It really is sad that "Motor Trend" would make this kind of mistake. However, the layman well might.

We have a Tesla Model S Plaid with an adaptive air suspension as well as the Lucid Air Dream with the coil springs and semi-active dampers. If I didn't know better, I'd guess that the Air was the one with the air suspension . . . except that the Air responds more precisely than any air suspension I've ever driven.

Agreed! This jumped out at me as well -- how could an automotive writer, equipped with press materials, make this mistake? I personally will miss the ability to raise the Model S air suspension in deep snow, but glad to hear the Air's coil springs are equal or better in handling.

 

[MikeTz]

It really is sad that "Motor Trend" would make this kind of mistake. However, the layman well might.

We have a Tesla Model S Plaid with an adaptive air suspension as well as the Lucid Air Dream with the coil springs and semi-active dampers. If I didn't know better, I'd guess that the Air was the one with the air suspension . . . except that the Air responds more precisely than any air suspension I've ever driven.

I totally agree. The Lucid feels like it is the one with the air adaptive suspension. Not many back roads around here to do the suspension justice. Also, I would love to swap tires and see how much of the difference is due to the tire size and geometry.

 

[Lucken]

I think Motorttend has a conflict of interest. They make some trivial complaint about use of plastics in the Mercedes, and yet they make no mention of the plethora of missing or malfunctioning basic functionality in the Lucid which has been well documented by early owners on this forum.

The authors have really debased themselves.

Exactly. This was essentially the same point I made in another thread. Obviously MT examined the car quite closely, yet somehow ‘missed’ all the issues discussed in these many pages. Reviewers just turn a blind eye to these problens and create a credibility issue in the process.

C’mon MT, really?

 

[MikeTz]

Agreed! This jumped out at me as well -- how could an automotive writer, equipped with press materials, make this mistake? I personally will miss the ability to raise the Model S air suspension in deep snow, but glad to hear the Air's coil springs are equal or better in handling.

No snow issues here, but I use it all the time to clear the concrete stops at parking lots. The Plaid does not have a front camera and the sensors don't always catch the bump stops.

 

[hydbob]

Exactly. This was essentially the same point I made in another thread. Obviously MT examined the car quite closely, yet somehow ‘missed’ all the issues discussed in these many pages. Reviewers just turn a blind eye to these problens and create a credibility issue in the process.

C’mon MT, really?

I don't think that's entirely fair. I had the car for more than a month and never experienced some of the issues that other owners had and vice versa. Why would we assume that they are on purposely turning a blind eye instead of just not experiencing the problem?

 

[Lucken]

I don't think that's entirely fair. I had the car for more than a month and never experienced some of the issues that other owners had and vice versa. Why would we assume that they are on purposely turning a blind eye instead of just not experiencing the problem?

Almost every owner reports issues almost immediately. I read this time and time again within these pages. You were lucky. However it’s almost impossible to believe that not a single reviewer, unless I missed it, has encountered any of these issues. Really, what are the odds?

 

[hmp10]

Obviously MT examined the car quite closely, yet somehow ‘missed’ all the issues discussed in these many pages. Reviewers just turn a blind eye to these problens and create a credibility issue in the process.

I don't know if this is a case of turning a blind eye so much as focusing on the driving of the car more than its operation as a rolling computer. I haven't experienced some of the issues others have noted with the software simply because I am not interested in many of the features that enthrall others. And, as a driving machine, this car has very few peers. If you've been the lifelong driving enthusiast that many of the writers at the major car magazines have been, the driving is what really matters to them when they review a car.

I look more to a reviewer such as Marques Brownlee if I want a seasoned perspective on a car's software features. If I want to know how a car drives I look to more traditional sources whose staff has been driving cars for years or even decades.

 

[Mountain Man]

Exactly. This was essentially the same point I made in another thread. Obviously MT examined the car quite closely, yet somehow ‘missed’ all the issues discussed in these many pages. Reviewers just turn a blind eye to these problens and create a credibility issue in the process.

C’mon MT, really?

Maybe when automotive writers test a car, they get out and hammer it and throw it through corners and enjoy it to compare with the same treatment in other cars? They don't notice that the backup camera interferes with the Homelink (they don't have to open garage doors), or that the park distance is overly sensitive (they don't park), or that the computer is slow to boot (since it is already booted when they take possession of the car). To them it is a driving test, not a features test. And to be fair, they didn't comment on the EQS software either (whether good or bad). So you're right that they lose a little credibility because both cars are daily drivers -- the assessment of functionality of luxury features should be thorough.

Or... the AGT they tested has had the little problems sorted out, thus they did not experience any notable problems!

 

[hmp10]

However it’s almost impossible to believe that not a single reviewer, unless I missed it, has encountered any of these issues. Really, what are the odds?

You missed it. One of the judges for the NACOTY awards published a lengthy piece explaining that he could not vote for the Lucid Air because of its plethora of software problems. At the same time, he said that once they were fixed over the next few months, the Lucid Air would likely be the best car -- not just the best EV -- in the world.

 

[Lucken]

Or... the AGT they tested has had the little problems sorted out, thus they did not experience any notable problems!

If I were to buy that explanation (and I’m not ), then shame on Lucid for not rolling out this ‘trouble-free’ software version to current owners.

Some of you are far more forgiving of some automotive journalists than me. If you’re reviewing a car you need to inform the reader of the pros & cons. Todays cars are laden with software and it would be nice to inform your readers if aspects of the day to day software are problematic.

I‘ve read many many automotive reviews over the years where these issues are indeed mentioned. You most certainly can address all the driving dynamics you want, but not to the total exclusion of everything else that the driver interacts with.

Again, some of you gentlemen are just more forgiving than I.

 

[Lucken]

You missed it. One of the judges for the NACOTY awards published a lengthy piece explaining that he could not vote for the Lucid Air because of its plethora of software problems. At the same time, he said that once they were fixed over the next few months, the Lucid Air would likely be the best car -- not just the best EV -- in the world.

Well there ya go, at least there’s one honest journalist out there. Kudos to him.

 

[hydbob]

I mean these are media cars. Lucid would be stupid to give them a car that has any problems...