Range for AWD Cybertruck 200-250 miles after many real world tests

[RBosque]

Have you ever driven an EV? All you are doing here is providing inaccurate information based on a tiny sample. For everyone that drives Tesla's here, we know exactly how far the Cybertruck range will be based on Tesla's exaggerated numbers. We don't need someone that has never driven an EV to tell us what the range will be.

We do, indeed, need real-world range tests. It should not be a secret club for those who already drive Teslas.

Sponsored

 

[RBosque]

The more I read about the CT's mileage, the more I think it is optimal for those who plan to use it for shorter trips that allow it to be charged at home. But it starts to be less optimal for those who plan to take longer trips. It is probably impractical for those who intend to tow for longer distances on vacation trips and the like.

The savings for those who plan to do all their charging at home is considerable. I own a RAM 2500 Diesel that I'll use for comparison. The RAM gets about 18.5 MPG during real-world driving which includes both city and highway driving at 75 MPH but not towing or heavy hauling.

if I'm able to refuel at my local warehouse club (the best case scenario) I pay $3.37/gal for Diesel. For every 1,000 miles I drive my truck will use 54 gal of Diesel. 54 X $3.37= $181.88. In contrast, my electric utility company estimates I will pay approximately $39 in electricity for an EV driving the same distance. (But I take that with a grain of salt as I don't really know how much energy a CT will use to drive 1,000 miles.)

Using those figures, a CT would save me $142 per month and I don't have to drive to any gas stations. That adds up to a savings of $1,714.66/year.

But driving longer distances and having to recharge at Superchargers is a different story. According to an article I read, (see link to article below) the cost of Supercharging is quite high--higher than gas or even Diesel. The article states that it costs around $260 per 1,000 miles if you use a Supercharger (again, I take that figure with a grain of salt as no one seems to know exactly how much energy a CT uses to go 1,000 miles).

And, of course, driving a CT on longer trips can add a significant amount of travel time spent recharging. Again, we have no real-world figures on the energy consumption of a CT driven at normal highway speeds--much less towing at those speeds. But using a Tesla model X for comparison, I planned a trip from Ocala, FL to Dinner Key Marina in Miami, FL. According to Tesla's planner, I would need to stop for a 60-minute charge at one point in the trip and make another stop for a 15-minute charge before reaching my destination. That adds 1:15 to the trip without including the time it takes to get off the highway, drive to the charger and possibly wait for a charger if they're all being used. I would guesstimate that I'd require an additional 60 min recharging stop on that trip if I was towing.

In contrast, I can comfortably make that trip with my RAM without any fuel stops whatsoever and have plenty of fuel left over to cruise around after I arrive. (The MPG for my RAM is closer to 20 at consistent speeds of 75 MPH.) And, the trip would actually be cheaper in the RAM than in the CT in terms of fuel cost.

So, does a CT make sense for me? I haven't decided yet.

https://energy5.com/the-cost-of-charging-a-tesla-vs-filling-up-a-gas-vehicle-which-is-cheaper#

 

[Woodrick]

Sure the CT battery pack is bigger than small sedans, but it is a ton bigger and the drag coefficient/ wh/mile is way worse so the only way to make it have comparable range is a larger battery pack.

Lot of info and video coming out now that there are a dozen or so of these trucks in the wild.
200 miles of range and an hour to charge to 75% so you can make it to the next SC is pretty rough.

There are many more than a dozen out there, the owners just aren't after the YouTube fame.

Kyle's trips is probaby the worse case of the "nearly correctly done" trips. It will be pretty easy to beat his travel time.
And after all, isn't travel time the goal here? Rangs has a lot less to do with travel time than people think.

 

[Woodrick]

The more I read about the CT's mileage, the more I think it is optimal for those who plan to use it for shorter trips that allow it to be charged at home. But it starts to be less optimal for those who plan to take longer trips. It is probably impractical for those who intend to tow for longer distances on vacation trips and the like.

The savings for those who plan to do all their charging at home is considerable. I own a RAM 2500 Diesel that I'll use for comparison. The RAM gets about 18.5 MPG during real-world driving which includes both city and highway driving at 75 MPH but not towing or heavy hauling.

if I'm able to refuel at my local warehouse club (the best case scenario) I pay $3.37/gal for Diesel. For every 1,000 miles I drive my truck will use 54 gal of Diesel. 54 X $3.37= $181.88. In contrast, my electric utility company estimates I will pay approximately $39 in electricity for an EV driving the same distance. (But I take that with a grain of salt as I don't really know how much energy a CT will use to drive 1,000 miles.)

Using those figures, a CT would save me $142 per month and I don't have to drive to any gas stations. That adds up to a savings of $1,714.66/year.

But driving longer distances and having to recharge at Superchargers is a different story. According to an article I read, the cost of Supercharging is quite high--higher than gas or even Diesel. The article states that it costs around $260 per 1,000 miles if you use a Supercharger (again, I take that figure with a grain of salt as no one seems to know exactly how much energy a CT uses to go 1,000 miles).

And, of course, driving a CT on longer trips can add a significant amount of travel time spent recharging. Again, we have no real-world figures on the energy consumption of a CT driven at normal highway speeds--much less towing at those speeds. But using a Tesla model X for comparison, I planned a trip from Ocala, FL to Dinner Key Marina in Miami, FL. According to Tesla's planner, I would need to stop for a 60-minute charge at one point in the trip and make another stop for a 15-minute charge before reaching my destination. That adds 1:15 to the trip without including the time it takes to get off the highway, drive to the charger and possibly wait for a charger if they're all being used. I would guesstimate that I'd require an additional 60 min recharging stop on that trip if I was towing.

I can comfortably make that trip with my RAM without any fuel stops whatsoever and have plenty of fuel left over to cruise around after I arrive. (The MPG for my RAM is closer to 20 at consistent speeds of 75 MPH.)

So, does a CT make sense for me? I haven't decided yet.

Indeed, it seems as if you are headed down the correct path. When road tripping, the cost of Superchargers has risen to the point where it is comparable to cars.

Most of the stories about the cost of Superchargers look at the Superchargers neatest the author, in truth, Supercharging, like gas or diesel varies across the country.
The vast majority of Interstate Superchargers are right off the Interstate. There are amazingly many that backup to the exit ramps, so ingress and egress isn't usually a significant time. Along that route, at least two of the Superchargers are at service plazas, Turkey Creek and Port St Lucie.

That's a 5 hour trip, and I'd like to stop once, maybe twice to stretch and maybe get a bite. If you plan your charging and your bio stops well, then dependent on the situation, the truck may even be finished charging before you finish filling your tummy.

Most of the navigation solutions are conservative, sometimes very conservative. One run that I did showed a stop at Turkey Lake Service Plaza for 45 minutes. I don't think that I'd ever do that.
The secret to reduce speed time is low and fast. Come in at the lowest battery charge that you feel comfortable with and then charge up just enough to make it to the next charger. In this case, I'd thing about every 100 miles. Yep, that's right, 2 stops from 5-50% going 80mph are probably going to be faster than a single stop at 65 mph.

Just noticed, Canoe Creek and Ft Drum and Okahumpka. I think that Ohahumka may be brand new, went through there a month ago and didn't notice it.

I've done most all of the route, parts of it umpteen times. the Cybertruck isn't going to have any problems with it. BTW, I think that most all FL Superchargers are $0.37 / kWh.

 

[Gigahorse]

There are many more than a dozen out there, the owners just aren't after the YouTube fame.

Kyle's trips is probaby the worse case of the "nearly correctly done" trips. It will be pretty easy to beat his travel time.
And after all, isn't travel time the goal here? Rangs has a lot less to do with travel time than people think.

The problem is all the range reports are bad, Kyle and others have posted wh/mile numbers, trip reports, tests, etc.
No one is getting 300 miles in the real world, most are getting 200 or less if they are not driving around a parking lot.

 

[RBosque]

Indeed, it seems as if you are headed down the correct path. When road tripping, the cost of Superchargers has risen to the point where it is comparable to cars.

Most of the stories about the cost of Superchargers look at the Superchargers neatest the author, in truth, Supercharging, like gas or diesel varies across the country.
The vast majority of Interstate Superchargers are right off the Interstate. There are amazingly many that backup to the exit ramps, so ingress and egress isn't usually a significant time. Along that route, at least two of the Superchargers are at service plazas, Turkey Creek and Port St Lucie.

That's a 5 hour trip, and I'd like to stop once, maybe twice to stretch and maybe get a bite. If you plan your charging and your bio stops well, then dependent on the situation, the truck may even be finished charging before you finish filling your tummy.

Most of the navigation solutions are conservative, sometimes very conservative. One run that I did showed a stop at Turkey Lake Service Plaza for 45 minutes. I don't think that I'd ever do that.
The secret to reduce speed time is low and fast. Come in at the lowest battery charge that you feel comfortable with and then charge up just enough to make it to the next charger. In this case, I'd thing about every 100 miles. Yep, that's right, 2 stops from 5-50% going 80mph are probably going to be faster than a single stop at 65 mph.

Just noticed, Canoe Creek and Ft Drum and Okahumpka. I think that Ohahumka may be brand new, went through there a month ago and didn't notice it.

I've done most all of the route, parts of it umpteen times. the Cybertruck isn't going to have any problems with it. BTW, I think that most all FL Superchargers are $0.37 / kWh.

Thanks for the useful information. I had never heard of or considered the low/fast method of traveling in an EV. I use the opposite concept with my airplane. I find that flying a little slower sometimes results in arriving at my destination sooner because I may avert a fuel stop (the tortoise and the hare analogy).

 

[Gigahorse]

The low and fast definitely helps, but with the brutal charge rates of the CT coupled with low range I am not sure that will help range anxiety for most.

 

[Woodrick]

The problem is all the range reports are bad, Kyle and others have posted wh/mile numbers, trip reports, tests, etc.
No one is getting 300 miles in the real world, most are getting 200 or less if they are not driving around a parking lot.

I was just listening to Kyle (The Craziness of out Cybertruck reviews)

31:00
"Just use some common sense if you are a journalist, I did a highway range test where most vehicles that we test do not meet EPA range, pretty much all of them, except for some German ones. And like Tesla never meets highway EPA range, because that's like that's a city and highway test and we don't know if they ran the 2 or 5 cycle on the Cybertruck"


33:00
Kyle:" I feel like a lot of people are like 'It didn't match EPA, the Cybertruck sucks' and like no one expected it to match EPA"
Fancie: "As we see in this space constantly misinformation is common. but we're getting more and more of idea of how EVs really work"

 

[Woodrick]

Thanks for the useful information. I had never heard of or considered the low/fast method of traveling in an EV. I use the opposite concept with my airplane. I find that flying a little slower sometimes results in arriving at my destination sooner because I may avert a fuel stop (the tortoise and the hare analogy).

As a pilot, I'll definitely agree, but if your running the pattern, isn't it like (once at destination level) about 5 minutes in the landing pattern, who knows the taxi and anywhere between minutes and never for the fuel truck or attendant and the taxi and a maybe 5 minute take off?

Probably the shortest run for a Supercharger that I know is descend on a circular ramp and cross the road. Another is descend on a circular ramp and do a U turn.
I think that the two Ocala Supercharges among the furthest, The north one, get off and head west 1-2 traffic lights to the Wawa. The south one, at the Mall and it's not that far, but a PITA.
And of course it is really hard to beat the ones at the Service Malls.

The concept of the low and fast is to stay on the best side of that battery curve. It makes a BIG difference.

 

[Gigahorse]

I was just listening to Kyle (The Craziness of out Cybertruck reviews)

31:00
"Just use some common sense if you are a journalist, I did a highway range test where most vehicles that we test do not meet EPA range, pretty much all of them, except for some German ones. And like Tesla never meets highway EPA range, because that's like that's a city and highway test and we don't know if they ran the 2 or 5 cycle on the Cybertruck"


33:00
Kyle:" I feel like a lot of people are like 'It didn't match EPA, the Cybertruck sucks' and like no one expected it to match EPA"
Fancie: "As we see in this space constantly misinformation is common. but we're getting more and more of idea of how EVs really work"

For sure, BIG difference between a vehicle missing the EPA range by 5-8% and 25%+ though
No one expects to hit the number or beyond, but expect it to be in the BALLPARK

 

[Woodrick]

For sure, BIG difference between a vehicle missing the EPA range by 5-8% and 25%+ though
No one expects to hit the number or beyond, but expect it to be in the BALLPARK

Tesla has tested the Cybertruck and has attested that it meets the EPA numbers that are listed.

I have no qualms that I can repeat the EPA test and get the numbers shown.

You need to do a little work and find out what the EPA test actually tests for.

It's not how well a vehicle will do driving 70mph at 40F.

Tesla did not come up with the numbers out of the blue, they ran the EPA EV tests as prescribed by the EPA.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the EPA.

But as anyone who has done any research knows, EV do better at lower speeds than higher speeds, reverse of ICE.
Just look at the EPA numbers for ICE vs EVs. Highway numbers for EVs are all LESS than the blended number. It is not expected that the vehicle will meet the blended number.

You may have assumed... , but that doesn't make it correct.

 

[Gigahorse]

Tesla has tested the Cybertruck and has attested that it meets the EPA numbers that are listed.

I have no qualms that I can repeat the EPA test and get the numbers shown.

You need to do a little work and find out what the EPA test actually tests for.

It's not how well a vehicle will do driving 70mph at 40F.

Tesla did not come up with the numbers out of the blue, they ran the EPA EV tests as prescribed by the EPA.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the EPA.

But as anyone who has done any research knows, EV do better at lower speeds than higher speeds, reverse of ICE.
Just look at the EPA numbers for ICE vs EVs. Highway numbers for EVs are all LESS than the blended number. It is not expected that the vehicle will meet the blended number.

You may have assumed... , but that doesn't make it correct.

Again, if it were not for the 15/1 ratio of bad mileage / close to EPA range -15% for fudge factor no problem.
The issue is that no one is getting in the ball park, not even close.

 

[Aces-Truck]

and we’ve not seen the EPA hwy rating (but I’d expect it at ~285)

Does anyone know why we haven't seen the EPA range yet? Does Tesla need to provide the EPA with their test data? And once it's on the EPA website, will it be obvious what the Hwy MPGe or Range is? Seems ironic that the range is a blended number, when the range matters most when doing long trips; where it's mostly hwy.

 

[lowtek]

We do, indeed, need real-world range tests. It should not be a secret club for those who already drive Teslas.

It's not a secret, pre-se. The EPA controls the criteria for testing. Depending on the conditions and how you drive and perhaps wheel size it can vary greatly (just like an ice car).

The new EPA rules are even worse. You have to average between eco and performance modes, so those cars that don't have a performance mode will *seem* to get more advertised range.

In the summer, I get 275-325 miles in my Plaid, I have a lead foot most of the time. In the winter, that drops 50 miles. The S is about as efficient as they come.

 

[scottyah]

In the summer, I get 275-325 miles in my Plaid, I have a lead foot most of the time. In the winter, that drops 50 miles. The S is about as efficient as they come.

Holy moly I read that as 'In the winter, that drops to 50 miles' and almost did a spit take.

Sponsored