Lucid Gravity Touring - Now Available

[Adnillien]

There seems to be room for a Touring with an upgraded large pack with 100-105KWhr in between the base Touring and GT kind of like what Rivian does. Although I found a GT that may have lots of discounts to below a loaded Touring that is also a good move.

I am really surprised by the 16 module battery in the Gravity Touring versus the 18 module battery in the Air Touring. I agree that a midsize pack for gravity with 18 modules and 100kWhr for ~$5k more would be a very nice option. It would still be $10k less than the GT but getting a range near 380 miles.

 

[mister_caroline]

I am really surprised by the 16 module battery in the Gravity Touring versus the 18 module battery in the Air Touring. I agree that a midsize pack for gravity with 18 modules and 100kWhr for ~$5k more would be a very nice option. It would still be $10k less than the GT but getting a range near 380 miles.

Absolute pack size aside, I view fewer modules as progress - higher energy density, fewer points of failure. More of the battery pack's mass is doing useful work.

5.6 kwh/module in the GT vs 5.1 kwh/module in the AT.

 

[Need4Sleep]

My sense is Earth will be a year late to the party and will find it really tough to compete with R2 and offerings from BMW, Mercedes, Audi. Time will tell.

I'm willing to disagree, Hyundai and Kia have been how many years late to the EV party and yet they're making a killing with their offerings. I think there's enough space in the market for the midsize to make itself stand out. Especially when compared to the R2, which is more focused on off-road and adventuring, the midsize is likely to have a more on-road focus.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I am really surprised by the 16 module battery in the Gravity Touring versus the 18 module battery in the Air Touring. I agree that a midsize pack for gravity with 18 modules and 100kWhr for ~$5k more would be a very nice option. It would still be $10k less than the GT but getting a range near 380 miles.

Lucid had to differentiate. The R1S has way too many variants.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I'm willing to disagree, Hyundai and Kia have been how many years late to the EV party and yet they're making a killing with their offerings. I think there's enough space in the market for the midsize to make itself stand out. Especially when compared to the R2, which is more focused on off-road and adventuring, the midsize is likely to have a more on-road focus.

Totally fair. I think Hyundai and Kia are priced lower, in general. As well, even at same price, they offer a lot of value and they work. Period. That’s important. Hard to believe people will cross shop those with an R2 or BMW offerings, etc but maybe they will - feels like a different buyer profile to me.

Never heard anyone say Kia and Hyundai have software issues. They’re known as reliable and have a massive dealer network. So, to your point, they make a killing. You will never wait 4 weeks for a service appointment with them.

Again, just hard space to enter as an underscaled automaker. Challenging to have resources to have great software, engineering, customer service, service centers, etc. Rivian and Tesla STILL suck at service. And Tesla is scaled (I think). Lucid has much more responsive (albeit overwhelmed) service than I’ve experienced with Tesla post 2016.

 

[9point81]

Totally fair. I think Hyundai and Kia are priced lower, in general. As well, even at same price, they offer a lot of value and they work. Period. That’s important. Hard to believe people will cross shop those with an R2 or BMW offerings, etc but maybe they will - feels like a different buyer profile to me.

Never heard anyone say Kia and Hyundai have software issues. They’re known as reliable and have a massive dealer network. So, to your point, they make a killing. You will never wait 4 weeks for a service appointment with them.

Again, just hard space to enter as an underscaled automaker. Challenging to have resources to have great software, engineering, customer service, service centers, etc. Rivian and Tesla STILL suck at service. And Tesla is scaled (I think). Lucid has much more responsive (albeit overwhelmed) service than I’ve experienced with Tesla post 2016.

Oh they have software issues too! My wife’s EV9 has had/still has quite a few. All these new platforms have their fair share.

 

[Need4Sleep]

Totally fair. I think Hyundai and Kia are priced lower, in general. As well, even at same price, they offer a lot of value and they work. Period. That’s important. Hard to believe people will cross shop those with an R2 or BMW offerings, etc but maybe they will - feels like a different buyer profile to me.

Never heard anyone say Kia and Hyundai have software issues. They’re known as reliable and have a massive dealer network. So, to your point, they make a killing. You will never wait 4 weeks for a service appointment with them.

Again, just hard space to enter as an underscaled automaker. Challenging to have resources to have great software, engineering, customer service, service centers, etc. Rivian and Tesla STILL suck at service. And Tesla is scaled (I think). Lucid has much more responsive (albeit overwhelmed) service than I’ve experienced with Tesla post 2016.

I've heard of Range Rover owners cross-shopping to the Kia EV9, so at this rate it feels like cross-shoppers to the midsize can be wildcards (for lack of a better term) coming from anywhere.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I've heard of Range Rover owners cross-shopping to the Kia EV9, so at this rate it feels like cross-shoppers to the midsize can be wildcards (for lack of a better term) coming from anywhere.

Wow. $150,000 car vs a $60,000 car. Don’t understand.

 

[eelpout]

I've heard of Range Rover owners cross-shopping to the Kia EV9, so at this rate it feels like cross-shoppers to the midsize can be wildcards (for lack of a better term) coming from anywhere.

many JLR owners (like me) are tired of waiting for them to introduce a BEV to market is partly why. the Range Rover EV has been on the verge of being available for well over a year now.

I'll contend that the upcoming Genesis EV9 variant the GV90, if shipped first, could eat in to FullFat RR (EV) market in a big way.

 

[joec]

I hear folks on the idea of more variants. But no matter what Lucid does, Gravity will be a niche car in the scheme of things. They are better off offering way more flavors of Midsize. Which, we already know there will be at least 3.

Gravity will sell more than Air by a few factors, but it's still going to be a small contributor to Lucid's bottom line ultimately.

Maybe after Midsize is well established, and after Air gets a proper makeover with a new computer system, we'll see them experiment more with Gravity options. They've certainly been known to move things around with Air compared to their original lineup.

They'll figure out what people actually want and make changes as needed. Personally, I think the range is "good enough, on Touring for most folks.

Try taking any seven people on a road trip without stopping for a bathroom break every 200 miles sometime.

 

[xponents]

I've heard of Range Rover owners cross-shopping to the Kia EV9, so at this rate it feels like cross-shoppers to the midsize can be wildcards (for lack of a better term) coming from anywhere.

That would be correct, in my (family's?) experience. Ironically enough, we considered the Range Rover, Lucid Air, and also our EV9! For us, the price wasn't the issue; it was how good the car was for our purposes. I suspect that this could be true for a sizeable margin of people.

 

[gamix]

I'd say if you like the standard suspension in Gravity, you might like EV9 as well.

I am really surprised by the 16 module battery in the Gravity Touring versus the 18 module battery in the Air Touring. I agree that a midsize pack for gravity with 18 modules and 100kWhr for ~$5k more would be a very nice option. It would still be $10k less than the GT but getting a range near 380 miles.

Dividing the extra KWh by price the GGT's 34KWh/$15k, or <$500/KWh, appeals. I wouldn't struggle with "Should I go for Comfort & Convenience, or take the $2,900 and get 6-7 extra KWh?". Same exchange for other options starts making a base GGT a solution. That, or other vehicles.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

That would be correct, in my (family's?) experience. Ironically enough, we considered the Range Rover, Lucid Air, and also our EV9! For us, the price wasn't the issue; it was how good the car was for our purposes. I suspect that this could be true for a sizeable margin of people.

It’s interesting you have a Range Rover for comparison. I (incorrectly) expected folks fist decided EV or ICE to narrow the list. For example, I don’t want an ICE no matter what, so that significantly limits my choices.

It’s not an environmental thing, it’s an instant torque, charge overnight full tank thing.

 

[illopp00]

Absolute pack size aside, I view fewer modules as progress - higher energy density, fewer points of failure. More of the battery pack's mass is doing useful work.

5.6 kwh/module in the GT vs 5.1 kwh/module in the AT.

I agree in principle, you are eliminating the module that is simply there to carry the energy around for carry more batteries. From a pure customer perspective though I think people are conditioning to believe more and range is better.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I agree in principle, you are eliminating the module that is simply there to carry the energy around for carry more batteries. From a pure customer perspective though I think people are conditioning to believe more and range is better.

This ^

People look at range. Every single person who has seen my Gravity has asked that as their first or second question - whether they’re an EV owner or not.

 

[GMan]

I think the issue is less so wanting more power and more so of wanting more range. The touring with 20/21s is 100+ less miles than the GT. That is a huge difference. The going faster is nice, but the more range equals longer distance, less charging stops and even quicker charging times which makes all of the difference in an EV. My wife doesn't need the power, so I was going to sell her on the touring, but for the price delta, I'd rather us swing up to the GT for all the benefits of the added range since this will be our roadtrip vehicle. My feelings is "if your budget tops out at the Touring, then do it. If you can swing it, the GT makes more sense."

I'd say though this, if anything, shows how good the GT is and has become the baseline of comparison. Compared to a GT, the Touring is not seeming like such a good deal. Compared to anything else at this price point, the Touring is actually a strong offering. I do think it will sell more than the GT as you suggested, but I can also see people considering the Touring initially but going up to the GT for the additional range if their budget allows. I know it seems silly to think about value on an $100k+ car, but it matters as well and that is what I think Lucid is thinking about here too.

It is exactly for this reason that I'm surprised Lucid did not come out with Pure as the second trim for Gravity and based on sales and marketplace conditions, come up with the specs and pricing later for the Touring.

Pure would have optimized for efficiency (thus range) and price versus performance and nice-to-have features. The target market for a non-Grand Touring trim are those who do not want or more importantly cannot afford performance and nice-to-have features. It is supposed to be a larger market.

Instead, you now have a trim (Gravity Touring) with range which does not align to Lucid's consistent brand messaging & differentiation and more importantly a somewhat presumptuous subtext message of "oh, well if you don't like the range, just get the Grand Touring" as if the broader targeted (non-GT) marketplace can simply afford it.

A Pure trim could have come in at $90K out the door with the range, and trading off some features and acceptable 0-60 performance for that broader market.

 

[Miami_Lucid_Man]

It is exactly for this reason that I'm surprised Lucid did not come out with Pure as the second trim for Gravity and based on sales and marketplace conditions, come up with the specs and pricing later for the Touring.

Pure would have optimized for efficiency (thus range) and price versus performance and nice-to-have features. The target market for a non-Grand Touring trim are those who do not want or more importantly cannot afford performance and nice-to-have features. It is supposed to be a larger market.

Instead, you now have a trim (Gravity Touring) with range which does not align to Lucid's consistent brand messaging & differentiation and more importantly a somewhat presumptuous subtext message of "oh, well if you don't like the range, just get the Grand Touring" as if the broader targeted (non-GT) marketplace can simply afford it.

A Pure trim could have come in at $90K out the door with the range, and trading off some features and acceptable 0-60 performance for that broader market.

Well as an upside maybe we’ll get an even cheaper Pure trim down the road.

 

[Need4Sleep]

It is exactly for this reason that I'm surprised Lucid did not come out with Pure as the second trim for Gravity and based on sales and marketplace conditions, come up with the specs and pricing later for the Touring.

Pure would have optimized for efficiency (thus range) and price versus performance and nice-to-have features. The target market for a non-Grand Touring trim are those who do not want or more importantly cannot afford performance and nice-to-have features. It is supposed to be a larger market.

Instead, you now have a trim (Gravity Touring) with range which does not align to Lucid's consistent brand messaging & differentiation and more importantly a somewhat presumptuous subtext message of "oh, well if you don't like the range, just get the Grand Touring" as if the broader targeted (non-GT) marketplace can simply afford it.

A Pure trim could have come in at $90K out the door with the range, and trading off some features and acceptable 0-60 performance for that broader market.

I'm not sure how further Lucid can push the Gravity platform in terms of affordability and efficiency other than going RWD with its current motors. I don't think a RWD SUV would sell that well. Maybe if they put the future more-affordable Atlas motors into Gravity to maintain AWD, that might be an option.

 

[Miami_Lucid_Man]

I'm not sure how further Lucid can push the Gravity platform in terms of affordability and efficiency other than going RWD with its current motors. I don't think a RWD SUV would sell that well. Maybe if they put the future more-affordable Atlas motors into Gravity to maintain AWD, that might be an option.

In many parts of the country rwd suv is all that’s needed (like in my neck of the woods). I would totally go for that if they offered it at the right price.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

I'm not sure how further Lucid can push the Gravity platform in terms of affordability and efficiency other than going RWD with its current motors. I don't think a RWD SUV would sell that well. Maybe if they put the future more-affordable Atlas motors into Gravity to maintain AWD, that might be an option.

Agree. Lucid probably can’t/won’t make a metal roof and a manual frunk for Gravity - at least no time soon - that’s what Lucid did with the Pure. As well, one motor in rear may not create a good enough “Lucid” drive dynamic for a 6,000lb car.

They chose to effectively keep everything the same but the battery, which makes production much simpler.