The Economist article

We have some competitors for Edmunds... this take is THE worst I have seen in any article concerning Lucid. Anybody doing this take is literally objectively wrong! Simply astonished at how anybody could find any rationale for that...
Shows you how useless some writers are….they don’t even respect readers and publish gibberish without any research, what a waste of time
 
Yes, Lucid's technology is unremarkable. Which is why one of Britain's most iconic performance car makers, Aston Martin, is turning to Tesla for EV powertrain technology.

Oh, wait . . . .

With tongue now out of cheek, it's worth noting that Mercedes owns almost 10% of Aston Martin, and Aston sources its gasoline engines from Mercedes as well as the electrical architecture of current Aston ICE models.

And, yet . . . when going electric, Aston turned to Lucid for its powertrain technology, not to Mercedes.
 
Paraphrasing a recent New York Times article... 'In Europe, there is a call for an Airbus-inspired alliance that would help European automakers fend off competition from cheaper Chinese-made electric vehicles. European auto giants would join forces on battery and semiconductor production and on research and development, in an effort to bring down E.V. manufacturing costs and better compete against their non-European rivals.' Gee, I wonder what company would be the perfect technology-licensing focal point of an effort like that?
 
With tongue now out of cheek, it's worth noting that Mercedes owns almost 10% of Aston Martin, and Aston sources its gasoline engines from Mercedes as well as the electrical architecture of current Aston ICE models.

And, yet . . . when going electric, Aston turned to Lucid for its powertrain technology, not to Mercedes.
Although I hope Lucid gets its midsized act together, because this Mercedes upcoming midsize could impact Lucid sales:
 
Although I hope Lucid gets its midsized act together, because this Mercedes upcoming midsize could impact Lucid sales . . . .

The proposed efficiency and battery chemistry does look intriguing. However, the vehicle profile and interior shots suggest Mercedes has still learned nothing from Lucid's space packaging magic.
 
The proposed efficiency and battery chemistry does look intriguing. However, the vehicle profile and interior shots suggest Mercedes has still learned nothing from Lucid's space packaging magic.
And being an A class, it will likely have a horrible, creaky, plastic interior that would make old Mercedes engineers roll over in their grave.
 
I guarantee it will have poor efficiency and drive like a boat….
Mercedes is claiming 5.2 mi/kWh, so I assume it’s based on their testing results. What ever it is, I doubt it will have poor efficiency. Peter’s stated goal was 5 mi/kWh or better. As for how it drives or rides, that’s another story.

I try to remain objective about these things.
 
Mercedes is claiming 5.2 mi/kWh, so I assume it’s based on their testing results. What ever it is, I doubt it will have poor efficiency. Peter’s stated goal was 5 mi/kWh or better. As for how it drives or rides, that’s another story.

I try to remain objective about these things.
That is European cycle which is not as stringent. I estimate US testing will show 4.2 to 4.4. Also, will be more cramped than Lucid Air. Still not a bad effort, if they can produce this.
 
Mercedes is claiming 5.2 mi/kWh, so I assume it’s based on their testing results. What ever it is, I doubt it will have poor efficiency. Peter’s stated goal was 5 mi/kWh or better. As for how it drives or rides, that’s another story.

I try to remain objective about these things.
Think WLTP vs EPA which is on average 22% higher. Take 22% from 5.2 and get 4.1 mi/kWhr which is less than my GT on 21" wheels.
 
Yes, you guys are correct, if the 5.2 is based on WLTP that’s another story. As I reread the story it does seem the 5.2 was derived from WLTP estimates. Never having been interested in Mercedes EVs, I’m not sure if 4.1 mi/kWh represents a significant increase in their prior efficiencies.
 
Back
Top