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

[HaulingAss]

Why do you have to be so insulting to people?

The reality is that refueling a truck with a 30 gallon gas tank and a 300 mile REAL WORLD driving range when towing takes 5 minutes.

You can also pull through any of the hundreds of thousands of gas stations that are literally everywhere even in the most off the beaten path parts of the country.

Compare that to going to a supercharger, disconnecting your trailer, pulling in, charging for 45 minutes, pulling out, re-connecting your trailer... nightmare.

I think EVs are great, but they are not for everyone and a 250 mile range on 100% charge on a brand new battery when not towing anything is not going to work for a lot of people who use their trucks as actual trucks.

Not many people tow trailers long distance with 1/2 ton trucks. But some do. If that is you, maybe you want to stick with gas or diesel powered trucks. It's not a big deal, everyone will make up their own mind.

Personally, my use cases, which I think are more typical than those who do over-the-raod towing of big trailers, fits perfectly with the Cybertruck range and capabilities and I can't wait to finally get rid of my Ford F-150 and the liability that it represents. I'm surprised the transmission hasn't failed yet.

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

The range on my 3 performance with custom rims and tires (wider in rear) is terrible, no where near the 300+ reported. I'm used to charging each night, so I'm very excited about the CT and also anxiously await a VIN.

I hope you were expecting to underperform your EPA estimated range with different wheels and wider tires.

 

[HaulingAss]

Yes and no. The simple fact is that Tesla chooses to use higher adjustment factors than any other manufacturer today. Tesla claims to do so because they have better efficiency than any other manufacturer - but the real world ranges don't really prove this out - which is why Tesla takes heat for their range overestimates moreso than others. The default adjustment factor that the EPA recommends is 70% or 0.70. Tesla has used factors as high as 0.89 in times past and, even with the CT, appears to be using 0.77-0.79 - which is higher than Ford, Rivian, GM, etc, which either use the default adjustment factor, or a factor in the 0.72-0.75 range in comparison. This is the primary reason why Tesla tends to take more heat than other EV manufacturers IME. Let's run an actual example specific to the CT and assume a 0.77 adjustment factor, and let's use the current dual motor CT with the optional off-road wheel/tire package since that's all that is available for purchase at this time, which means a 318 mile EPA rating.

318/0.77=413 raw rating - so the raw 5 cycle rating for the dual motor CT with the offroad wheel/tire package is 413 miles. Let's see what the adjusted numbers would be if Tesla used the default factor:

413*0.70=289 miles

I'm oversimplifying a bit here as these calculations are actually algorithmic using the 5 cycle tests, but for the purposes of this example - the underlying point is that the 289 mile range is much closer to real world than 318 miles. Chances are, while it may not be as good from a marketing standpoint advertising less range, if Tesla were to use the default factor, they would not get nearly as much heat from consumers - or from the EPA - which is currently investigating Tesla range claims. Consumers would also have more confidence that the EPA claims are actually achievable under real world driving scenarios - which is not how the majority of consumers, including most Tesla owners, feel and observe at this time. My concern is that this issue actually exacerbates range anxiety particularly for traditional automotive consumers - and works against encouraging EV adoption.

The EPA highway cycle, IIRC, tests between 55-65MPH. I'd bet that if the range test that Kyle just ran was run at a slightly higher temp between 65-70 degrees and only averaged 60mph as opposed to 70mph - it'd come awfully close to that 289 mile default factor EPA rating.

Specific to Tesla - one of the reasons they tend to use a higher adjustment factor is because of the more aggressive regen braking settings that most Tesla vehicles are set to use. This helps them boost up the adjustment factor - but it also results in a higher delta/discrepancy for pure highway range tests like what Kyle did here. Using the default factor instead, would negate a good part of the deltas in question. Yes the advertised range would be lower, but if it's more real world, then at least the traditional consumer would have confidence that what is advertised comes close to reality. I see so many posts from new buyers on various forums and FB groups complaining about the real world range - which is why I think being more conservative and simply using the default factor would be best for Tesla and for every other EV manufacturer out there - unless the EPA changes the 5 cycle algorithmic test process to better account for real world driving circumstances of course.

What a bunch of gibberish.

Tesla doesn't "choose" to use a higher adjustment factor, these are strictly regulated and calculated from actual data.

 

[HaulingAss]

70% SOC is less than 180 miles under the same conditions.

How much better do you think the CT would do in warmer temps.
As speeds increase it only gets worse for the CT compared to the Rivian

Warmer temperatures would increase the range due to less air density causing less aero drag. It makes a big difference. Aero drag is the biggest consumer of energy at 70 mph. If you want to go further between Suercharger stops, simply drive slower where aero pays a much smaller role.

 

[HaulingAss]

The current configuration seems more like an effort to replace city driving trucks but won't be replacing your average 1/2 ton or 3/4 ton truck that drives out in the country, gets taken to the hunting property, etc.

I disagree. People drive trucks slower when the road is appropriate for slower speeds. At 55 mph, you will find the Cybertrucks range is very close to it's rated range. And 320 miles is a lot of driving for one day at slower speeds on rural roads. I always get much better efficiency on rural roads because the top speeds are much lower than on the Interstate.

If you need more daily range than what an electric truck provides, the solution is simple. Keep driving all those rural miles in a gas truck. No problem. Most people will be tickled to get rid of their gas bill and stop visiting gas stations.

It's a real game-changer to wake up with a "full tank" each morning.

 

[HaulingAss]

And lose 1/3 of your bed?? Are you okay with a 4’ x 4’ bed???

Ask Rivian R1T owners. Not only is the R1T bed footprint much smaller, it's only something like 18" tall, at the tallest section. If you go to a Rivian forum, they are tickled pink with their tiny beds. At least that's what they say. ?‍

 

[HaulingAss]

Super disappointed if not entirely surprised by this. Wife is going to be furious when I tell her no on the order. LOL

That's OK, let the wife be mad. Just focus on all the people waiting behind you who you will make very happy you let them move up one space!

 

[PilotPete]

Warmer temperatures would increase the range due to less air density causing less aero drag. It makes a big difference. Aero drag is the biggest consumer of energy at 70 mph. If you want to go further between Suercharger stops, simply drive slower where aero pays a much smaller role.

All true. There is also the happiness of the cells themselves. They do their best at moderate temps, or as Tesla peeps have said, they are happy at the same temps where you are happy.

And in addition to air density at temp differences, there is water vapor in the air, known as humidity. This also has a (lesser) effect on drag. And how about altitude. This has a massive effect on drag. At the extremes of all these variables, you can have a huge effect on drag.

 

[GuyV]

I will guarantee you that there isn't just one bi-directional power connection to the box. That's going to a number of tie down points as well. Probably some data ports, who knows. They haven't gotten it out yet and I haven't see any of the YouTubers show any obvious interconnect points.

But if it is that easy, I'm pretty sure that there will be third-parties creating different ones.

The key is that they've already defined something to work with the truck's systems, as they have with Powershare and Powerwall. Protocols, voltages, whatever they think they need have been established, one would hope even tested, so the necessary interface already exists on the vehicle side.

 

[Cyberpunk_2023]

I think it is pretty evident that Tesla is still doing lots of software optimization on CT. There are so many functions still in development that I would not be surprised at all to hear that range optimization software updates will be incoming shortly. So far I have read about the lack of FSD, locking differential adjustments, issues with adjusting the steering wheel and now these underwhelming range figures. I doubt very much this is an actual representation of what Tesla intended range numbers to look like.

 

[Eye of Elon]

I'm in the same boat. As long as it can carry my hockey equipment I don't care about anything else. Give me the range extender and I'm all good.

I don't think they are going to give it to you. They'll probably sell you one for a little less than the price of a Ford Maverick

 

[Crissa]

It's in production.

They made 461 all last year.

There are going to be more Cybertrucks by next month.

Ask Rivian R1T owners. Not only is the R1T bed footprint much smaller, it's only something like 18" tall, at the tallest section. If you go to a Rivian forum, they are tickled pink with their tiny beds. At least that's what they say. ?‍

I would expect them to be just fine. It's perfect for small loads.

it's why I'm confused why peopoe cross-shop the R1T and the Cybertruck. They are in different categories of truck.

-Crissa

 

[TickTock]

The question I have is "Why?" This efficency is almost exactly the same as my Lightning. I thought the CT was supposed to be more slippery (drag co. of 0.34 CT vs 0.44 FL). With those numbers CT *should* get 2.5 mi/kWh. Tesla custom-engineered tires for the CT - hard to believe rolling resistance wasn't a key factor. So... Why isn't the CT more efficient?

 

[Coolbreeze704]

The question I have is "Why?" This efficency is almost exactly the same as my Lightning. I thought the CT was supposed to be more slippery (drag co. of 0.34 CT vs 0.44 FL). With those numbers CT *should* get 2.5 mi/kWh. Tesla custom-engineered tires for the CT - hard to believe rolling resistance wasn't a key factor. So... Why isn't the CT more efficient?

I suck at math so please be gentle if I have this all wrong.

Standard Lightning battery is 98 kWh and nets 240 range in ideal conditions. CT AWD pack is 123 kWh and nets 340 in ideal conditions.

25% larger pack on CT but 41.6% more range.

Seems like it is more efficeint.

 

[DumpsterFire]

I do sometimes but there are many times like this Tuesday I did not stop once . Plus stopping to use restroom at a rest area takes 5 minutes or less.

If you’re a dude, you’re def a lot younger than me…. IYKYK ?

Sponsored