News
The Lucid Air Dream Edition R’s first in-depth review reveals the car is a stunner
Lucid frontman Peter Rawlinson has spent plenty of years in the electric vehicle realm, so he definitely has an idea of what goes into creating a fast, luxurious, and effective electric car. Prior to his time at Lucid, Rawlinson was one of the key members of Tesla’s Model S development team back in the early 2010s, before leaving the company to pursue his own interests, eventually landing at Lucid Motors. As the electric vehicle sector continues to develop quite nicely in the grand scheme of things, with both exclusively electric companies and legacy automakers all contributing to the sustainable energy transition, Lucid is set to deliver its first vehicle, the Air Dream Edition sedan, later this year, and Motortrend got an in-depth and exclusive look at the car that could quite possibly be the king of the hill when it enters the market.
Design
One of the sharpest vehicles in the automotive sector, the Air Dream Edition was outfitted in Eureka Gold for this breakdown by Motortrend. Reminiscent of the Citroën DS redesigned for Blade Runner, the car is simple yet futuristic in its design. It’s a long sedan, and in photographs almost reminds me of an older Ford Taurus in its “boaty” nature. However, it is much more pleasing to the eye, in my opinion. (The Ford Taurus was my second car. I drove it to class in college, and Lord, I hated that thing.)
Credit: MotorTrend
Sleek and luxurious, the reviewers were more particular to this interior than that of the Tesla Model S, stating that “every Tesla since day one has seemingly shipped without a finished interior, Lucid not only crafted a perfectly wonderful luxury-car cabin, but it also smartly avoided the screens über alles aesthetic that plagues cars like the Mercedes EQS.” Truth is, the Air interior is still relatively simplistic, and while it does have a few more bells and whistles than the Tesla Model S, it is not all that different other than an extended instrument cluster, a repositioned center screen, and more material options.
Credit: MotorTrend
Performance
The Air Dream does not drive like a Lotus, which Rawlinson wanted when he designed the car: the look of a Mercedes with the ride of a Lotus. In fact, Jonny Lieberman, who wrote MotorTrend’s review, said it’s more like a Nissan GT-R. It has great handling, and with 933 horsepower, it’s extremely quick. Couple these performance tidbits based on Lieberman’s experience with the already stunning design and comfortable interior, and you have a car that is sure to appeal to many.
Carving turns in the Air was one of the highlights of the test drive. “I assumed the Air Dream Edition R would be decent enough to drive around big sweepers, but about 10 miles into our run up Angeles Crest Highway, I discovered the car enjoyed being manhandled through tight corners,” Lieberman wrote. The harder he drove the car, the better it performed, making it an ideal choice for a scenic joyride through winding and curvy rods, especially with the all-wheel-drive system to help navigate through those corners.
Not only is the car fun to drive, but it’s fast too, even if it’s over 5,000 pounds. Impressive with this pre-production Air model that was available for the test drive, the car will only improve as Lucid begins cranking out production models of the vehicle soon. This is where Lieberman expects Lucid to improve on an already great car. The front end seemed to be a little too free for his liking, while the back tires provided sufficient grip and maneuverability through tight corners. According to Lucid’s Director of Chassis and Vehicle Dynamics David Lickfold, the front spring rate will be reduced by 10% before production begins. The anti-roll bar will be stiffened for more support and stability, and active dampers will get an adjustment, too, providing an even smoother ride than already given.
Credit: Motortrend
Three Drive Modes
The Air will come with three available drive modes, as Lickfold was curious about the condition of the roads that the Air was being tested on by MotorTrend. He suggested Lieberman leave it in Swift Mode, the second option, between Smooth and Sprint.
- Smooth Mode: Motors limited to 670 horsepower, softens dampers and brake pedal feel, the steering wheel is “free” feeling
- Swift Mode: Motors limited to 670 horsepower, much firmer feel than smooth mode, suitable for quicker driving on winding roads, but still holding back some performance
- Sprint Mode: Motors can reach full 933 horsepower potential, dampers are very hard, extremely sporty driving feel with “Tesla Plaid-like battery conditioning” for battery performance
Swift Mode brings out about 75% of the total power output, according to Emad Dlala, Lucid’s Senior Director of Efficiency and Energy Technology.
Credit: MotorTrend
Efficiency, Range, Battery Pack
The Air Dream Edition R is supposed to have 500 miles of range at a minimum, and the EPA will either confirm or deny this when it certifies the car in the coming months. MotorTrend decided to test the range on its own terms with a drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco, close to 350 miles. Not only did this drive provide some insight on how the range of the vehicle would be, but it would also give the reviewers an opportunity to get a look at what the vehicle would be like in its most frequent way of travel: abiding by speed limits and traffic rules during highways, while having to navigate through traffic and provide the driver and passengers with safety, but also entertainment and comfortability through the lengthy quest up the California coast.
It’s a smooth ride, there was wind noise, a common complaint among EVs due to their lack of an engine to drown out road sounds, but tire noise was minimal, Lieberman said. The car sat on Pirelli P Zeros, specifically designed for Lucid. After 205 miles of driving, the range of the vehicle had gone from 503 miles to 286, so there was slightly more energy usage through the 205 miles of driving as 217 miles had been subtracted from the range since the start of the trip. The additional range usage was due to air conditioning, so Lieberman adjusted the temperature from 69 to 71 to see if there was any impact.
The team arrived in San Francisco with 69 miles of range remaining, not needing to charge up at any point during the drive.
Credit: Motortrend
While Lucid still remains very vague in terms of when the Air Dream Edition will begin deliveries, the company still expects them to occur this year. With its unique design, different drive modes, impressive range, fast performance, and sporty but luxury interior, the car is certainly one of the most-anticipated EVs in the last several years. The car, along with Tesla’s vehicles, continues to chip away at the idea that range anxiety is an issue and EVs are not fast and fun. The Air is its own vehicle, and it’s important to not count it out before it hits the road, especially as Lieberman, who has reviewed hundreds of vehicles, was quite impressed by the Air Dream Edition.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with tips! Email us at tips@teslarati.com, or you can email me directly at joey@teslarati.com.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
