Cybertruck Highway Range Test (Dual-Motor AWD) -- Run Until Battery Empty (by Out Of Spec)

[Crissa]

Yes, an EV is far more efficient and for someone who lives in a part of the country with reasonable electric prices and/or solar they will save a decent amount over the longterm with an electric truck than a gas burner.

Uhh, no.

Even at my 2x the national average price per kWh, an EV beats an ICE in TCO. Because engine maintenance and fluids are a thing that costs.

People need to stop ascribing things that do not exist and have not been claimed to Tesla, or any EV.

Yes, refueling is currently 'easy'. But over the year, you will spend more time holding a gas pump handle than you would wait for an average number of road trips in an EV.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[tenetke]

I’ve always wanted a Tesla but a car isn’t as useful for me. Since the unveiling of the CT I went ahead and installed solar and batteries for my home. In waiting for the CT, I was able to take one of the earlier deliveries of a Lightning. I figure I can see which I like better and which suits my needs best overall. In using the Lightning for branding and rounding up cattle, I believe the CT could be better for driving through pastures and fields. Instead of my Bronco in Baja mode it could be a CT doing so and then also powering our branding and other tools like my Lightning does. So doing both with one vehicle instead of two would be ideal. For my area of the country there are a few more SC locations where there are fewer EA or fast charging stations in general.

Tax benefits of purchasing a CT are also huge so there’s that also. If I do choose a CT for my daily driver I’ll definitely miss the massage seats in my Ford. In the first year of owning my Lightning I racked up around 33k miles, so I was able to put driving an EV truck through its paces. I’m definitely sold on it’s functionality minus using it for long range heavy towing.

 

[scottf200]

Summary:
46 degree temperature
70 mph
Run until battery completely empty consuming ~122 kWh
Covered 254 miles at ~2.05 m/kWh efficiency

This app was impressively "on" at 256.

 

[canyoncarver]

Uhh, no.

Even at my 2x the national average price per kWh, an EV beats an ICE in TCO. Because engine maintenance and fluids are a thing that costs.

People need to stop ascribing things that do not exist and have not been claimed to Tesla, or any EV.

Yes, refueling is currently 'easy'. But over the year, you will spend more time holding a gas pump handle than you would wait for an average number of road trips in an EV.

-Crissa

You are being disingenuous and it seems to be your style of arguing which won't acknowledge that ICE has any advantages when it clearly does.

With the range shown in this run dry test if someone drives 12,000 miles a year with the CT, that's about 120KwH of juice per week.

Without accounting for charging overhead that's 6240 KwH per year of charging, at home, at a cost of $1123 per year at national average price of .18/KwH

If you need to do a substantial amount of super-charging the costs will be substantially higher.

The F150 Ecoboost in the hypothetical example will get about 25mpg on the highway at 70mph, so comparing apples to apples it's about 480 gallons of fuel, at current cost of around $3/gal it's about $1440 in fuel a year.

So the CT saves you $300 per year and maybe another $100-$200 a year in maintenance costs since for the first five years the maintenance on modern trucks is rather inexpensive.

You also have to change tires on the CT far more frequently though, have to buy and install an HPWC if you don't already have one, the CT will lose about 10% of its original range in the first 2-3 years, etc.

I can see the pro and con side of both ICE and EV. Never going to understand people who feel they have to exaggerate things to win an argument.

CT should work out very well for people who live and drive in areas with big supercharger infrastructures for their longer trips and who don’t need to normally tow/haul heavy loads significant distances. The acceleration, technology, etc. will truly be amazing, but it will be a very tough sell for die hard long time truck owners… too many compromises.

 

[tenetke]

That I’m not sure of! Seeing the upper control arms has me a little hesitant compared to the HOSS 3.0 suspension on my Bronco but that’s not a fair comparison. The CT air suspension compared to the 4 independent suspension of the Lightning, I think CT will be better.

 

[CyberMoose]

I haven't even watched the video yet but I already knew there would be a lot of hate.

People are mad for things they should have easily expected. For starters, the 340 miles of range is obviously going to be in ideal normal driving scenarios. going 70 is not going to be the efficient speed for the Cybertruck, nor is a temperature that someone is using heat, or even a temperature that someone is using AC. These are factors in an EV.

On top of that, all terrain tires. I'm sure someone has mentioned that in the 8 pages of comments here that I don't want to go through. Tesla says the AWD will get about 320 miles on all terrain. Again, this is with more ideal driving than constant highway and it's not in temperature that requires climate control. So unless I watch this video and see them shivering to avoid using heat, it's contributing to energy consumption. Not saying that this is temperature that people would blast heat. I as a Canadian would not, but my Fiancee would probably be wearing a sweater and using heat on her side.

But from the 320 miles of listed range (with those tires) at highway speeds, with climate control, and getting 254 miles, that's about 80% and 80% of listed range at highway speeds already is something that I'm happy about. Obviously you don't get that range, since you aren't going from 100% and dying on the side of the road, but I already don't expect to get the 100% of that range.

These worries are still just not something that most people will need to worry about. Chargers are coming up quickly and now that more cars are going towards NACS, we as Tesla owners are going to benefit from even more options coming up in the future in the form of more superchargers as Tesla sees more demand. It would also be nice if other charging companies get the ability to use the NACS connectors for a cost, but even just the J1772 connectors everywhere, moreso than there already are, will be amazing.

Ultimately, I think that range is fine if it's all highway. I don't think many people at all will see any issue and the ones that do, it shouldn't be more than a slight annoyance for having to go out of way to a charger, which wouldn't be much of an issue once we have more fast chargers powerful enough for the Cybertruck. That will still be a while and I think it's something any Cybertruck owner that plans to drive a lot will need to expect and accept.

Rather than wishing for all vehicles to get the range that manufactures list, I will wish for the steam store in the Cybertruck before I get it so I have something to do while waiting for the Cybertruck to charge at 150kwh or less chargers.

 

[Crissa]

You are being disingenuous and it seems to be your style of arguing which won't acknowledge that ICE has any advantages when it clearly does.

No. ICE clearly has a range advantage and a road trip advantage.

But it comes with disadvantages - like self serve pumping - that no one seems to admit.

I can, and will, do math.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

Didn’t read the entire thread, but based on what ai did seems either way this could bare repeating:

• Tesla has only mentioned the single EPA blended range (318 on AT tires)
• Tesla has not released the EPA highway range
• Given the blended range, the highway range we’d expect to be around 260mi
• The stated test conditions that are the subject of this test appear to roughly approximate the EPA highway conditions (certainly more than the blended conditions)

Accordingly, for people who understand EPA figures, the results being discussed on this thread should have been expected the moment we saw the AWD on AT’s had a blended 318 range

Welcome to BEV trucks, folks!

These ain’t sedans

The good news is, CT is doing exactly as advertised (since Nov 30) - if anything, I’m surprised it did as well as advertised.

 

[CybertruckRN1127]

I don't mind paying up to about $85,000 for the Cybertruck, with options, plus the locked in FSD price I have.

But IMO the demand for $100,000+ vehicles is very finite. I know a lot of people that own their own businesses, do very well, can afford the price, but they don't want to pay that much for any vehicle. We will see how things pan out after the first 100,000 have been delivered at over $100,000 bucks. THEN we will find out how big of demand still exists.

I understand. I'm in the same boat. I can pay in full, but I'm financing with a $900/month payment for the Cyberbeast. It's a lot of money and I don't even want a truck. I was suckered in with the $70k msrp and 500 miles of range. I'm waiting for a VIN, but next week, I am scheduled to test drive a Lucid GT and Ravian R1S. Both are cheaper with the Lucid GT 516 miles at 113K and R1S at $83k (used). It doesn't matter if I don't go through with the Cybertruck. Someone else in line will snap it up. The demand for it is still huge. I assume we won't see a dip in the next 18 to 24 months. It'll be interesting to see the used market in 2025.

Also, there are plenty buying $100k trucks. Look at the Bronco, RTX, and Raptor. They still have dealer markups because of the demand. Tesla is just doing their own manufacture markup. I was a line waiter for my Model 3. I bought my RWD at $54k and LR at $64k. They were all hidden markups by Tesla because of demand. I was also suckered into a Model 3 because at the time, it was a $35k car. History repeats.

 

[Longranger]

Ford has been king of truck sales for a reason. They understand what the buying public wants. Yes that includes the huge number of buyers that mainly use theirs as an SUV. The CT is just too much vehicle for most buyers just like a Raptor. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Raptor, gas mileage excluded, but who needs that power and specialized off-road abilities for runs to Home Depot or construction. Elons calculus is making this a rich niche. Truck just like the Rivian.

 

[HitchHiker71]

The Cybercell - the gen2 4680 - in the CTs has the same 269wh/kg rating as the 2170 batteries (270wh/kg) - so the range would really not be better had they used a 2170 battery pack. The charging curve/performance however - at least from early reports - doesn't seem to be any better than the Gen 1 4680 packs that were shipping with the MY AWDs from Gigatexas previously - and that's definitely disappointing. We'll have to pay close attention to additional charging curve data as it comes in - and hope that Tesla improves the charging times much like they did with the M3 when it first came out.

 

[Cyber Man]

If you don't already own the Airstream, hell, buy an RV. You will get better range

Seriously though, the Cybertruck is a cool, hi-tech vehicle, but it is not one size fits all.
Most likely if you need to tow more than 40-50 miles, the best solution is an ICE truck.
You can get a F250, Ram 2500, etc. and have no worries.

If you travel to the in-laws several times a year, and it is 500+ miles away, the Cybertruck probably not the best fit as your only vehicle.

On the other hand, I bet the Cybertuck is a quiet, powerful ride, with a nice locking tonneau and it can pull out tree stumps, if you need to do a little work done around the yard.

LOL, no I bought the airstream trailer few years ago. I'm OK to let go and embrace tent camping with CT. After few years, if the range goes below 130-150 miles for 10% to 80% charge, then it's a deal breaker for me. Looks like Cyberbeast FS range might go that low based on the real world range tests on CT FS dual motor.

 

[REM]

at national average price of .18/KwH

The absolute vast majority of my changing is done during "off-peak" and "super off-peak" at $.08 and $.03. Not only is that price super high, but it ignores the charging schedule for most people.

 

[REM]

Elons calculus is making this a rich niche. Truck just like the Rivian.

This is not just a new model of the same truck that has been hashed out for 100+ years. This is an entirely new platform. It will take time to mature and for costs to come down for mass adoption.

The only people that will own one for the next 2 years will be enthusiasts and the wealthy or both.

Sponsored