350 mile range Quad Motor rumored to be 1st trim launched

[TBONO]

The only Achilles heel - at the moment - is “tank size.” But technologically, that’s improving every day.

If you told an ICE truck driver that an F250 “can’t tow” because it has a 13 gallon fuel tank, they’d screw their face up and say “just get a bigger tank, it can tow just fine.”

Makes sense. This is why my 10 mpg TRX has a 33 gallon tank. And there’s a ton of gas can accessory’s. It’ll fit in the bed or
wherever you want for the over landers.

I think I spend a fighting chance of time filling that thing up at the pump than what I spend getting a decent charge on my model three on a road trip ?

Sponsored

 

[SolarWizard]

Ya know what I’m not getting here (quite a bit, I’m sure)? I never knew so many people (especially when shoved into a crew cab, 6 at a time) were willing to drive 6.5-7 HOURS without stopping. And that they had to do it so often… Think about that… 7 hours with 5 other guys without a single stop. You know that at least 1 out of 6 didn’t take a shower that morning. And being that these are guys, 2 out of 6 (minimum) ate something that either doesn’t agree with them, or is high in fiber. And for a 7 hour drive, 5 out of 6 just pounded a 32 ouncer of coffee. (And I don’t mean the ethically sourced Ethiopian light roast either) 7 hours in a truck with these guys… no stopping…

Dang, I lead a sheltered life..

You do realize that it will be quite some time in the future until DC chargers exist close enough together AND enough gas pumps for markets outside population centers right?

Theres still opportunities to run out of gasoline in lots of places. Transportation of additional electrons is harder than a gas can and way more time consuming in a pinch.
Thats my position
Oh and 6 people aint riding in a CT

 

[VR Driving]

According to the staff at Giga Texas, it is very likely that the tri-motor from the Model S/X Plaid will be the launch model. It makes sense because there is an abundance of these drivetrains readily available.

 

[FutureBoy]

Before we get a 6th page of comments,

Ooops. Too late.

 

[FutureBoy]

what you said above is less true with full sized trucks, and I’d venture to say false when it comes to people who tow regularly

this is why full sized trucks often have available optional fuel tank sizes - not something you see with other classes of passenger vehicles

related to why I keep banging the drum around all this FUD directed towards BEV trucks being somehow magically incapable of towing. Performance-wise, they’re actually far more capable at towing. My Lightning has better torque, horsepower, and suspension than F250s or F350s.

The only Achilles heel - at the moment - is “tank size.” But technologically, that’s improving every day.

If you told an ICE truck driver that an F250 “can’t tow” because it has a 13 gallon fuel tank, they’d screw their face up and say “just get a bigger tank, it can tow just fine.”

That same person will tell you a BEV truck “can’t tow.”

To be fair to that person, even champions of BEV vehicles spread this same FUD.

Over the last few years there have been a number of conversations related to a "just get a bigger tank" equivalent for the CT. Additional battery banks, propane generators, solar additions, battery trailers, etc. There have been many proposals. My guess would be that in time, some of these options will come to pass specifically for the same kind of situations as you mention with ICE trucks.

Like you said, the BEV trucks (and most specifically the CT I believe) are

actually far more capable at towing. My Lightning has better torque, horsepower, and suspension than F250s or F350s.

So with those better specs there is probably going to be a sweet spot to add a "bigger tank" and still have comparable or better specs than the ICE equivalents.

 

[Gurule92]

Tow rating likely 10000lbs

 

[Gurule92]

Before we get a 6th page of comments, where did this rumor come from?

You were literally the first comment on the 6th page.

Rumor came from bearded Tesla who allegedly heard from 3 separate confidential people.... Sooo not a lot of credibility. But until we have something better to talk about...

 

[charliemagpie]

BTW , if you wish to confuse and hopefully alienate the CT waiting list...

Just come up with a range between the 2 highest ordered price points.

 

[Balthezor]

According to a 2020 study by J.D. Power, only 11% of US truck buyers tow with their vehicle on a regular basis. This means that the vast majority of truck owners do not use their trucks for towing, even though they have the capability to do so.

The study also found that the percentage of truck buyers who tow on a regular basis varies depending on the type of truck. For example, 17% of buyers of heavy-duty trucks tow on a regular basis, compared to only 8% of buyers of light-duty trucks.

There are a few reasons why so many truck owners do not tow with their vehicles. One reason is that many people who buy trucks do not actually need them for towing. They may simply want the extra space and capability that a truck offers. Another reason is that towing can be expensive, both in terms of the initial investment in a trailer or other towing equipment, as well as the cost of fuel.

Finally, some people simply do not enjoy towing. They may find it inconvenient or stressful. For these reasons, it is clear that not everyone who buys a truck needs or wants to use it for towing.

Here are some additional statistics from the J.D. Power study:

• 40% of truck buyers use their truck for hauling cargo on a regular basis.
• 35% of truck buyers use their truck for off-road driving on a regular basis.
• 25% of truck buyers use their truck for recreational purposes on a regular basis.

These statistics suggest that the majority of truck owners use their trucks for purposes other than towing. However, it is important to note that these statistics are based on a survey of new truck buyers, and it is possible that the percentage of truck owners who tow on a regular basis is higher among used truck buyers.

100%. Good data. I'm sure

According to the staff at Giga Texas, it is very likely that the tri-motor from the Model S/X Plaid will be the launch model. It makes sense because there is an abundance of these drivetrains readily available.

Is the Plaid S or X have 3 motors?

I actually wouldn't mind a tri motor with 350. I'd like the performance/speed. Quad with 450 miles as "soon" to reduce the negativity in 2-3 years. I can see that.

 

[Gurule92]

Is the Plaid S or X have 3 motors?

I actually wouldn't mind a tri motor with 350. I'd like the performance/speed. Quad with 450 miles as "soon" to reduce the negativity in 2-3 years. I can see that.

Yes, plaid is Tri motor

Im on the tri motor 350 train too. Save me like 10k or something let's doo it

 

[EVSport7]

1. I'd be curious about the efficiency of a quad vs a tri. My buddy always talks about how "thirsty" his Rivian is. I'm sure Tesla will be more efficient than a Rivian but how much.

2. I hope tri would be the big battery model. Keep quad with a slightly smaller pack for performance and let the tri be the long range hauler, leverage all that semi knowledge to make it really great

3. With the comment on using the plaid power train, is that the general consensus now? I always assumed it would use older style motors to reduce cost vs the carbon wrapped stuff

I think 350-400 for quad would be perfect for the folks that want the super fast off road monster.

 

[HaulingAss]

I'll be waiting for the 500 mile version then.

Yeah, I think the 500+ mile version will be available in mid-late 2024. This is actually good news for many of us, it means those who don't need 500 plus mile of range, or who don't want to pay for that much range, can get their Cybertrucks earlier, as many of those who really want 500+ miles will defer taking delivery until they are available.

I plan to take delivery of the release candidate, and then later a 500+ mile range version.

 

[HaulingAss]

A 350 mile EPA CT is totally uncompetitive. Remember those are "Tesla" EPA miles using the 5 cycle super-optimistic versus everyone else's reported EPA numbers. A 350 mile CT = a ~300 mile F150 Lightning.

That's unlikely to be the case. The EPA range is derived from a mixed driving cycle with only something like 30% being 60 mph cruising.

Because the Cybertruck has considerably lower aerodynamic drag, due to both a lower Cd as well as a smaller frontal area, it should perform relatively better on the freeway at 65 mph, relative to the EPA range of the F-150 Lightning, particularly if freeway speeds are above 65 mph.

Sponsored