Lucid has a fascinating energy-efficiency proposition and a remarkable first car, the Air. Despite that, it presents issues that either frustrate its CEO's ambitions or just make it evident how hard it is to build cars. Edmunds’ review of the electric sedan shows that pretty well and makes us more concerned about the Air than excited about what it can offer.
Lucid’s electric sedan took much more time to arrive than it was previously expected because Peter Rawlinson wanted it to be absolutely perfect. The startup also could do that because of its financial backers. Unfortunately, it seems the wait did not give the Air the impeccable premiere Lucid and its CEO wanted it to have.
Alistair Weaver showed the vehicle’s driver's door would not open even after he locked and unlocked it several times. Edmunds’ editor-in-chief had to jump into the back seat to open the car from inside. Ironically, it was the rear door that was bugging Weaver. It should close automatically. Instead, it would close, open, close, and open again, leaving the door in a way that demands the driver to get out and slam it so that it is possible to drive.
Another major blow refers to the interior panel gaps. Weaver inserts his fingers deep into one of them with no difficulty to show how far the panels are from each other. The review did not mention the body gaps, so we suspect they are ok. The central armrest just drops in place like a bag of potatoes, which harms the quality perception Rawlinson was so worried about. According to the Edmunds editor, a BMW iX is much better in that regard than the Lucid.
Just to keep things fair, the review also makes a mistake that needs to be corrected. Weaver said that Rawlinson was the founder of Lucid, which is worse than saying Elon Musk founded Tesla. The company existed as Atieva since 2007. Rawlinson only joined the company in 2013, ultimately changing its name. Despite that, he is not one of the founders. Just like Tesla was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, Lucid was created by Sam Weng, Bernard Tse, and Sheaupyng Lin.
That does not tarnish the evaluation, which is pretty comprehensive about technical details. A good example comes when Weaver highlights an interesting contradiction of the Lucid Air. The Dream Edition Range had a focus on going further, while the Dream Edition Performance was, well, self-explanatory. Despite that, the Range still had 933 hp, which is massive by any standard. As the editor repeats as much as Ben Parker told Peter, “with great power comes great responsibility.”
The Air Dream Edition Range comes with 19-inch wheels and all-season Pirelli P Zero Elect PNCS 245/45 R19 tires that demand 49 psi. Weaver defines it as an “undertired” car. In other words, it would need a lot more rubber to behave as expected. On the other hand, wider tires would make it less efficient. The point is that the right balance was not achieved, and the results were also not that great.
Although the Lucid Air was the first vehicle to surpass 500 miles of range in Edmunds’s tests, it only made 505 miles instead of the 520 miles its official EPA range says it can achieve. That makes Lucid be side-by-side with Tesla and Polestar in not meeting the range the agency says they have.
Like Tesla, Lucid follows the five-cycle testing procedure that allows carmakers to have a more favorable correction factor. That blows the very purpose of an EPA rating: to compare the energy efficiency of all cars fairly. EPA should start thinking about how to fix that.
The review also talks about how the Lucid Air behaves, the comfort it offers (and how the Pure may be a better car for rear passengers), and why Tesla’s steering yoke is a stupid idea. Make sure you watch it if those things got you curious.
Google News