Efficiency report: 76 kWh over 190 miles (402Wh/mi) on highway in Cybertruck dual-motor AWD

[RayzorBEV]

That's about the same as my 2023 Rivian R1T Quad-Motor in the interstate going at an average of 75 mph. Of course, the drag coefficients is lower on the R1T. I can even up the efficiency by switching off the 2 rear motors. Yes, Rivian let's you go dual front or quad.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

just double-click on the details here

• Let’s assume this is an AWD, not a Beast (do we know?)
• based on the info in the screenshot, that 190mi includes some 50mi of around-town city driving and 140mi of hwy mi at an average of 69mph
• This is an AWD on AT tires, so the blended EPA is 318mi (not 340)
• We don’t yet know the EPA city and hwy test figures, but using the Lightning ER as a proxy it’ll be 360mi city (14mph test avg) and 260mi (48mph test avg)
• while Tesla has stated a 123kWh battery, we won’t know until tear down what the buffer is - but based on the 4680 Model Y there should be around 115-110usable

Based on all the above, let’s say the 190mi at 50city and 140hwy @ 69mph blends to roughly the 48mph average of the EPA test conditions

At 115kWh usable pack, it comes to implied ~285mi range, which is a bit better than the expected notional EPA hwy range

 

[Ward L]

Has anyone seen an EPA window sticker with the MPGe for the CT?? What happened to the requirement to have that available before sales? I’ve looked on the Fueleconomy.gov and there are no Cybertrucks.

 

[cvalue13]

Has anyone seen an EPA window sticker with the MPGe for the CT?? What happened to the requirement to have that available before sales? I’ve looked on the Fueleconomy.gov and there are no Cybertrucks.

my theory, getting old to many here, is that these Foundarion units (as essentially special edition pre-production units) and/or the people they’re delivering them to (employees and those charachterizable as marketing sales), are combining to have some regulatory/financial reporting benefits to Tesla.

no finalized EPA numbers, no online owner’s manuals, not a single posted Monroney sticker, etc., are all signs

now that Q4 and YE ‘23 are over, Tesla either starts blasting these things out this week (including deliveries to normies), or instead we see this hibernation mode continue until Q2

 

[CyberTW]

 

[scottyah]

lol I remember when the 500mi range was introduced to prove that Tesla and electric cars weren't just glorified golf carts. A ten year old corolla can go 400 miles!

This cybertruck can not be a weekend warrior vehicle in any major city. Everyone who tries knows that an extra 30min charging/gassing up can be an extra 2hrs traffic, and an extra 30min early from work can be a lot of headache.

RIP my dreams

 

[HitchHiker71]

just double-click on the details here

• Let’s assume this is an AWD, not a Beast (do we know?)
• based on the info in the screenshot, that 190mi includes some 50mi of around-town city driving and 140mi of hwy mi at an average of 69mph
• This is an AWD on AT tires, so the blended EPA is 318mi (not 340)
• We don’t yet know the EPA city and hwy test figures, but using the Lightning ER as a proxy it’ll be 360mi city (14mph test avg) and 260mi (48mph test avg)
• while Tesla has stated a 123kWh battery, we won’t know until tear down what the buffer is - but based on the 4680 Model Y there should be around 115-110usable

Based on all the above, let’s say the 190mi at 50city and 140hwy @ 69mph blends to roughly the 48mph average of the EPA test conditions

At 115kWh usable pack, it comes to implied ~285mi range, which is a bit better than the expected notional EPA hwy range

IIRC Tesla stated that the useable pack is 123kwh, not the gross amount. If we approach this using actual battery calculations at the cell level, the gen 1 4680 battery cell contained a maximum of 98wh of energy. From what we have ascertained - the CT pack contains around 1360-1366 cells per pack. We also know, from Lars/Franz, that the Gen2 Cybercell energy increased by about 9% (most up this to 10% in the media - but let's stick with what the actual engineer said). So 98wh/cell with a 9% increase comes out to 106.82wh/cell. Using that exact statistic, we can make the following calculations:

106.82*1360=145,275.2wh
106.82*1366=145,916.12wh

Now that's gross wh efficiency per cell - and we all know the pack loses some efficiencies - figure about 10-12% - or 128-131kwh gross at the pack level. I've consistently heard that the gross CT pack is a 129kwh pack with 123kwh net useable.

 

[scottf200]

IIRC Tesla stated that the useable pack is 123kwh, not the gross amount. If we approach this using actual battery calculations at the cell level, the gen 1 4680 battery cell contained a maximum of 98wh of energy. From what we have ascertained - the CT pack contains around 1360-1366 cells per pack. We also know, from Lars/Franz, that the Gen2 Cybercell energy increased by about 9% (most up this to 10% in the media - but let's stick with what the actual engineer said). So 98wh/cell with a 9% increase comes out to 106.82wh/cell. Using that exact statistic, we can make the following calculations:

106.82*1360=145,275.2wh
106.82*1366=145,916.12wh

Now that's gross wh efficiency per cell - and we all know the pack loses some efficiencies - figure about 10-12% - or 128-131kwh gross at the pack level. I've consistently heard that the gross CT pack is a 129kwh pack with 123kwh net useable.

Re: 129 kWh pack
129.x = (42.9 kWh / 100 mi) * (340 mi) * 88.4%

_ EPAdoc: 150ah = ~123 @ 816v
_ 42.9 kWh is wall-to-wheels from Tesla gas savings details (website).
88% is AC->DC conversion loss.

 

[cvalue13]

IIRC Tesla stated that the useable pack is 123kwh, not the gross amount.

would be glad to know if they did

I know the EPA non-final CT submission stated the “Battery Energy Capacity” @ 150Ah (123kWh), but I strongly believe this is gross - although I saw a couple sources suggest this is usable, absent explanation/backup

that non-final submission for the CT does not list the “recharge event energy” in kWh (it still has a zero there), unlike how it would in a final submission

but take for example Model Y LR parallel submission, which lists 84.6kWh gross, but a recharge event energy of 76.5kWh or 10% (accounting for charge losses), which is consistent with eg the MY tear down


Put differently, according to the EPA documents (the only info we have outside or even from Tesla, afaik), the CT pack is 123kWh gross, not usable

EDIT: @scottf200 was posting as I was

Scott, what say you?

 

[scottf200]

Put differently, according to the EPA documents (the only info we have outside or even from Tesla, afaik), the CT pack is 123kWh gross, not usable

EDIT: @scottf200 was posting as I was

Scott, what say you?

I went down this path with a EPA / Tesla numbers geek on TMC. The below is from the Tesla website CT order page where you can click on learn-more in their gas equivalent info. See the post right above yours that show the 'reverse engineering' formula and ~129 kWh as gross.

Tesla gas equiv. details: Cybertruck All-Wheel Drive consumption rating = 42.9 kWh/100mi​

 

[HitchHiker71]

would be glad to know if they did

I know the EPA non-final CT submission stated the “Battery Energy Capacity” @ 150Ah (123kWh), but I strongly believe this is gross - although I saw a couple sources suggest this is usable, absent explanation/backup

that non-final submission for the CT does not list the “recharge event energy” in kWh (it still has a zero there), unlike how it would in a final submission

but take for example Model Y LR parallel submission, which lists 84.6kWh gross, but a recharge event energy of 76.5kWh or 10% (accounting for charge losses), which is consistent with eg the MY tear down


Put differently, according to the EPA documents (the only info we have outside or even from Tesla, afaik), the CT pack is 123kWh gross, not usable

EDIT: @scottf200 was posting as I was

Scott, what say you?

Somewhat anecdotal, but here's a link to a video where the CT owner is DC charging from 14% SoC to 90% before his camera dies, and he added 94kw of power to the pack:



Couple of observations on this video. One, it took 50 minutes to charge from 14% to 90%. It took 40 minutes to charge to 80%. Not the point of this post - but thought it was noteworthy. I'm assuming this was a V3 SC station since the early charging rate shows as just over 250kwh briefly.

Back to pack size metrics. If +94kw added to get from 14-90% - that's 24% not added to the pack, or 76% of the pack equates to 94kw. 94kw/0.76=123.68kw pack size. I've actually seen some data that concludes that the CT pack size is exactly 123.4kwh. 123.4kw*0.76=93.78kw. Close enough to 94kw. Again, this is anecdotal from the video - but it does line up with what many sources have indicated as to the 123kw useable pack size.

 

[cvalue13]

Back to pack size metrics. If +94kw added to get from 14-90% - that's 24% not added to the pack, or 76% of the pack equates to 94kw. 94kw/0.76=123.68kw pack size. I've actually seen some data that concludes that the CT pack size is exactly 123.4kwh. 123.4kw*0.76=93.78kw. Close enough to 94kw. Again, this is anecdotal from the video - but it does line up with what many sources have indicated as to the 123kw useable pack size.

but, as w the EPA data, I believe (1) the energy disbursed by the charger does not equal the energy accepted by the pack (eg the charger doesn’t know what the charge efficiency losses total), and (2) whatever those losses are, aren’t evenly distributed across the whole charge curve, and can in fact be back loaded (eg more efficiency losses in the last 10% than the first 10%)

I went down this path with a EPA / Tesla numbers geek on TMC. The below is from the Tesla website CT order page where you can click on learn-more in their gas equivalent info. See the post right above yours that show the 'reverse engineering' formula and ~129 kWh as gross.

Tesla gas equiv. details: Cybertruck All-Wheel Drive consumption rating = 42.9 kWh/100mi​

Are those figures not just from the EPA non-final submission?

I’m not sure those are the right way to back into the figure we’re looking for

for example, or as a test, look and try to find the gross pack size of the MY LR, and I think you’ll find 84.6kWh

But go run the same math you have here on its Monroney sticker and you’ll 28 kWh per 100 miles and 330 miles range, or 92.4kWh (or using MOGe math and get a similar ~91 kWh).

Those epa tests aren’t clear in their parameters or methods, and I don’t think provide the correct way for backing into gross vs useable.

Conversely, the EPA doc stated energy is I believe gross, as you can see from other such vehicle’s final submissions that nearby show how much energy the pack accepts (lower than the gross figure).

 

[HitchHiker71]

but, as w the EPA data, I believe (1) the energy disbursed by the charger does not equal the energy accepted by the pack (eg the charger doesn’t know what the charge efficiency losses total), and (2) whatever those losses are, aren’t evenly distributed across the whole charge curve, and can in fact be back loaded (eg more efficiency losses in the last 10% than the first 10%)

The number indicated on the screen for the charging session that I'm referring to is the actual amount added to the pack - the amount of energy lost during transmission is also reflected just in a different area on the screen or in the app. I also use Tessie which more easily differentiates between these numbers. So the +94kw is the actual amount of energy added to the pack itself - while the charging session will likely consume an additional 3-9% on top of that depending on the efficiency of the charging session.

 

[jtdiddy]

lol I remember when the 500mi range was introduced to prove that Tesla and electric cars weren't just glorified golf carts. A ten year old corolla can go 400 miles!

This cybertruck can not be a weekend warrior vehicle in any major city. Everyone who tries knows that an extra 30min charging/gassing up can be an extra 2hrs traffic, and an extra 30min early from work can be a lot of headache.

RIP my dreams

Um no. I road trip in my X all the time with no problems. Just takes some additional planning on ur charging stops. Not rocket science.

It will be the same as for CT except better bc of the powers share and off road capabilities.

Sponsored