Confirmed Cybertruck specs: 5% smaller, 6x4 bed size, 5 seats, frunk, no pass through & more... (info from Tesla employee at Investor Day)

[SpaceYooper]

I was not expecting much solid info on the CT from this event, and not much was delivered other than the 48V news.

I'm not convinced the bed is exactly 4' x 6'. I know it was stated by an employee, but no actual specs were posted and I have yet to see someone actually measure it. So I'm going to stay optimistic that it is a little larger than 4'x6' in both directions.

I'm a little disappointed with the lack of a 3-passenger front, but it's not a deal breaker.
I'm disappointed they didn't show an interior with a driver's display. I'd be fine with a minimal heads-up display also.

I do have to say, I've never seen a truck with 1/2 doors and I do really like that design.

Overall, cool, but still waiting on a lot of information. Thank goodness March Madness is coming to hold me over for a while longer. We better get some actual specs and pricing by the end of April or else!.....I'm just gonna wait longer.

Sponsored

 

[Diehard]

I have "grown" to love the backseat space of my F150 but would not mind a shorter truck. Laws of physics are just not working with me here. This is from the same Instagram account. I like the less shiny industrial look.

 

[firsttruck]

Lack of 6th seat, might be a deal breaker. Not all families have 2 kids, was hoping this could function as family vehicle.

Yup, seating for 6 is important differentiator to standard ICE crew cabs (ICE Ford F-150) that only seat 5.

With seating for 6
driver/supervisor/worker and 5 other workers can travel to worksite in one Cybertruck and eliminate need for second truck.

With seating for 6 where most of the passengers might not be able to drive even if there was a second vehicle.
father, mother, 3 of their children and 1 grandparent
father, mother, 2 of their children and 2 grandparents
father, mother, 4 of their children
father, mother, 2 of their children and 2 friends of their children

 

[RVAC]

Full size trucks outsell mid size trucks by a significant margin.

 

[Deke]

It looks better shortened. More proportionally appealing. But the expense is clearly usability of the bed. I'm still getting it, but I'm much less enthused about the bed than I was originally. Trade-off is that I'll look better in it now!

The front also looks stubbier from edge of front door to tip of the nose. It looks like they shrunk it 5% by simultaneously shrinking the front end more so they didn't have to shrink the bed as much. But both were required to get to stated reduction.

 

[Roy2001]

Taken literally, 220” long X 75.8” wide X 74” tall

Closer in size to a Rivian than a Lightning

But agree, I wouldn’t take “about 5% smaller” so literal yet

Interior dimensions, especially the shoulder width of the back seat, are what matter to me. If it can’t fit three car seats across in the back seat, then it means … I don’t have school drop off duty

232 inch long with 6.5 feet bed, sounds impossible to me, unless my math is problematic.

If it is really like that, then it has to: 1. reduce legroom by at least 6 inch, that is, 85 inch totally to less than 80 inch. 2. Move the cab forward by another 6 inches.

I don't see cab moved forward by 6 inches. So it could be 6 feet bed with squeezed cab.

less than 80 inch front+rear legroom is not a full size pickup truck IMO.

Rear row headroom is also not good. If shoulder room is further reduced, then it is a Rivian class truck rather than F150, it is NOT a full size truck.

 

[Deke]

It looks better shortened. More proportionally appealing. But the expense is clearly usability of the bed. I'm still getting it, but I'm much less enthused about the bed than I was originally. Trade-off is that I'll look better in it now!

The front also looks stubbier from edge of front door to tip of the nose. It looks like they shrunk it 5% by simultaneously shrinking the front end more so they didn't have to shrink the bed as much. But both were required to get to stated reduction.

CYBER ? ? COMPACT TRUCK

MAJOR DISAPOINTMENT. I recall Elon stating that a 3% size redution would be
too much. This 5% is outrageous. Particularly the decrease in bed size. It's
probally ok for the "urban cowboys" and fine for groceries. If you have any
need to carry larger size loads you will need to tow a trailer.
(50% range reduction). I have been obsessed with the truck since the pro-type,
I do like most of the improvements, but this has dampend my enthusiasm. Maybe
they can lower the price 5%.

 

[MEWoodsMFG]

Tesla listened to concept feedback, hence the 5% more compact truck. Buyers want to garage park their new toy.

The CT will not be stealing 3/4 truck buyers but will cut into the traditional 1/2 ton pickup truck market.

I don't want a mid size truck. I want the Cybertruck to be an actual truck, as proposed in 2019. I'm really worried the bed will be to small for the Cyberlandr camper.

 

[Roy2001]

Full size trucks outsell mid size trucks by a significant margin.

If the size is really smaller, then Tesla made a big mistake.

 

[RVAC]

If the size is really smaller, then Tesla made a big mistake.

Agreed, would be a huge ( ? ) mistake.

Tesla listened to concept feedback, hence the 5% more compact truck. Buyers want to garage park their new toy.

The CT will not be stealing 3/4 truck buyers but will cut into the traditional 1/2 ton pickup truck market.

IMO people were complaining because the concept was over sized so it looked huge, they weren't complaining based on the specs on screen.

 

[Faffle]

You're obviously not a vampire! Some of us like the idea of a mobile air conditioned coffin. No long confined to our castles.

 

[tmeyer3]

Ugh, the passthrough never made any engineering sense to begin with. The whole concept is silly, not because a passthrough is a bad idea, but because how the CT is designed. "vault" tonneau cover, or passthrough: pick 1. It makes no sense otherwise. Either you have a cover that rolls THROUGH where the pass through is supposed to be, or you have pass through that interrupts a rail system with a lot of moving parts. Both are very very bad ideas and I'm glad they didn't try it.

 

[MEWoodsMFG]

yeah, “confirmed” is misleading. It’s more like “Tesla security guard: truck is 5% smaller,…”

we can say with certainty no mid-gate though.

Well, at least this prototype doesn't have a mid gate, that doesn't mean the final version won't have the feature.

 

[Faffle]

The thing i was most disappointed in was in the q/a it was pretty clear that ct won't have bidirectional charging. I'd rather put my money in a 500 mile ct than a 300 mile ct plus a powerwall.

 

[Alan]

I thought I heard them say bidirectional charging on all vehicles within about 2 years. Cybertruck could be the first.

Sponsored