GM vs Cybertruck battery size & $

[scottf200]

You're forgetting Cybertruck will likely come in at ~1,000 lbs less than the R1T.

The weight difference will be insignificant ... once you are at speed. Lot of test on this (out of spec as one source link 14:30) and you can just go into ABRP software and do test with and without the +1000 lbs. I did this a little while ago.

You're also not using the right figures:

R1T Quad 328mi (135kWh) = 2.43 mi/kWh
F-150 Lightning ER 4WD 320mi (131kWh) = 2.44 mi/kWh

Thanks. I did update the Ford number to 320. The kWh seem correct and are for usable kWh vs total which is also misleading sometimes depending on the manufacturer.

I was going to update my table for Rivian but then realized there are so many number since there are two motor types (dual and quad) as well as 2 or 3 tire options. Not sure how to update the table now?!? Maybe just the smallest that are not AT. ie. R1T Large DM 350 mi and QM 328 mi.

Here is my latest version. Corrections/changes welcome.

Sponsored

 

[Diehard]

The numbers are fairly close to what I am experiencing with my Pro. I have 2.5 miles/Kwh average in the past 5K miles.

By contrast, a Silverado EV won't hit 1,500 cycles until it gets to 600,000 miles.

Makes me wonder how big of a factor in degradation is the age of battery.

 

[RVAC]

The weight difference will be insignificant ... once you are at speed. Lot of test on this (out of spec as one source link 14:30) and you can just go into ABRP software and do test with and without the +1000 lbs. I did this a little while ago.

Agreed, however that is not what you are referencing in the chart, those are EPA numbers. On an EPA combined cycle a sizeable difference in weight will register and is going to result in better efficiency.

For example a Model Y LR AWD is ~19% more efficient than a Mach-E AWD ER California Route 1. If we apply the same correction factor to the F-150 Lightning ER (2.44 mi/kWh), the dual motor Cybertruck should come in at ~2.9 mi/kWh (EPA). Possibly even 3.0 mi/kWh considering there's going to be a greater difference in Cd between Cybertruck and Lightning than there is between Model Y and Mach-E.

Thanks. I did update the Ford number to 320. The kWh seem correct and are for usable kWh vs total which is also misleading sometimes depending on the manufacturer.

I was going to update my table for Rivian but then realized there are so many number since there are two motor types (dual and quad) as well as 2 or 3 tire options. Not sure how to update the table now?!? Maybe just the smallest that are not AT. ie. R1T Large DM 350 mi and QM 328 mi.

Here is my latest version. Corrections/changes welcome.

Just noticed you also have the R1T Standard DM at 231mi, it should be 270mi. Keep in mind both R1T Standard DM and Max QM are estimates not official results.

 

[scottf200]

Agreed, however that is not what you are referencing in the chart, those are EPA numbers. On an EPA combined cycle a sizeable difference in weight will register and is going to result in better efficiency.

I'll add EPA (or equiv) info the chart when CT numbers are aout. Real world the 1000 lb weight is insignificant.
That is people choosing a CT or comparing to other BEV pickups for their hauling they need to know that even if the CT is 1000 lbs lighter that is not what is getting them real world mileage.

Just noticed you also have the R1T Standard DM at 231mi, it should be 270mi. Keep in mind both R1T Standard DM and Max QM are estimates not official results.

Oh heck. I saw that and forgot to correct it. The Rivian numbers are very good overall.

 

[Diehard]

Possibly even 3.0 mi/kWh considering there's going to be a greater difference in Cd between Cybertruck and Lightning than there is between Model Y and Mach-E.

At higher speed the difference should be more pronounced but CT is not slippery everywhere:

 

[PilotPete]

At higher speed the difference should be more pronounced but CT is not slippery everywhere:

D,

Without knowing what the airflow is doing right there, you really can't say. Take a regular (boring) pickup. Looking at it, you would think that it would be more aerodynamic with the tailgate down vs. up. But you would be wrong. With the tailgate up, it creates a kind of horizontal tornado right behind the cab, which in turn causes the airflow over the top to gently flow down to a point just ABOVE the tailgate. but with it down, the cab is just a giant low pressure area and is just slightly more streamlined than a brick. Not sure but, that may have a purpose to interact with either the mirror or possibly the tailgate area. OR, it's just there for looks and hurts somewhere between; none and enough to see it change in a later version.

 

[CYBRSMTH]

How old is the Bolt and wouldn’t it be covered by the warranty at only 70K miles? I thought most of the battery warranties were 8 years/100K+ miles

 

[NoTime]

That VIN comes back to a 2012 Volt, so probably not under warranty. However, I'd bet that battery is repairable.

 

[scottf200]

it’s the inverse, generally speaking

the more aero the lead vehicle, the greater the range impact of a given trailer

I’d expect the CT to experience greater range impact from towing, all else equal.

I've been looking at some towing videos and your comments played out.
Look at the miles/kWh to towing miles/kWh ... larger they were the bigger they fell

 

[cmugler]

I have a R1t and in conserve mode it is rated at 350 miles which is easy to obtain (large pac with 21" wheels) but best to use all purpose around town to save tire wear.

 

[RVAC]

I'll add EPA (or equiv) info the chart when CT numbers are aout. Real world the 1000 lb weight is insignificant.
That is people choosing a CT or comparing to other BEV pickups for their hauling they need to know that even if the CT is 1000 lbs lighter that is not what is getting them real world mileage.

If by real world you mean highway range, yes. However neither the R1T nor Lightning will get those numbers either when cruising at highway speeds. The Cybertruck will in all likelihood take a bigger hit relative to its EPA range compared to their competitors, just like other Tesla vehicles. When towing in particular, pack size will be king.

At higher speed the difference should be more pronounced but CT is not slippery everywhere:

That's what the Cd measures. Elon stated the goal was 0.30, if they fall short I doubt it will be by much. We've seen a good amount of what appear to be aero driven changes when comparing the OG truck to the Beta/RC's.

 

[cvalue13]

When towing in particular, pack size will be king.

here’s a scenario for you to ponder.

Musk on spec release:

“Understanding that in 2019 we stated the tri would have 500mi range, we have since then collected millions of miles of data, and expanded the supercharger system by [X]-fold - and we’ve come to think better of it.

CT has a ~330mi range. You may be wondering about towing. We don’t believe the solution to towing is large packs, that on average sit idol for 98% of the year. We believe the solution to towing is charging infrastructure. Fact is, few people tow, even fewer tow regularly, even fewer than that regularly for long distances. We understand there will be still be folks hoping for longer towing range, and for them we say super chargers are coming at an unprecedented rate. And also that in a few years we believe battery advances will contribute significantly.

For everyone else, the CT range plus supercharger system will meet every need.”

 

[Diehard]

Without knowing what the airflow is doing right there, you really can't say.

These days, FEA behind the simulations are mighty accurate and it is not that magical. It is just matter of how accurate the model is. CT is definitly great (If you drive fast a lot).

https://electrek.co/2022/07/26/tesl...surprises-aerodynamic-performance-simulation/

What I am really curious about is how a Cyber SUV/Station Wagon/Van Cd differ from CT. And will we get one?

 

[Diehard]

here’s a scenario for you to ponder.

Musk on spec release:

“Understanding that in 2019 we stated the tri would have 500mi range, we have since then collected millions of miles of data, and expanded the supercharger system by [X]-fold - and we’ve come to think better of it.

CT has a ~330mi range. You may be wondering about towing. We don’t believe the solution to towing is large packs, that on average sit idol for 98% of the year. We believe the solution to towing is charging infrastructure. Fact is, few people tow, even fewer tow regularly, even fewer than that regularly for long distances. We understand there will be still be folks hoping for longer towing range, and for them we say super chargers are coming at an unprecedented rate. And also that in a few years we believe battery advances will contribute significantly.

For everyone else, the CT range plus supercharger system will meet every need.”

If we go down that rabbit hole, how often truck owners use bed of the truck? or car owners drive their cars during ownership? Taxi and trains seem to be the solution not CT.

 

[Crissa]

If we go down that rabbit hole, how often truck owners use bed of the truck? or car owners drive their cars during ownership? Taxi and trains seem to be the solution not CT.

Everyone who likes to drive should be very supportive of rail, bus, and bicycle infrastructure expansion. Anything which reduces the number of cars and trucks on the road driven by people who don't want to be there should be a net good.

-Crissa

Sponsored