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

[Gigahorse]

The Gen1 4680 packs had some charging issues without a doubt. From recent reports, yet to be proven out in the field, the Gen2 4680 packs resolved many of the reported heat related issues that prevented higher kw charging speeds over a broader CC. I'd surmise that Tesla is intentionally being conservative with the early adopter CTs to collect more real world data before making software BMS improvements. I suspect we'll see at least some improvements during 2024 and on into 2025 purely from additional telemetry over time. I've also seen at least some evidence that we'll see additional improvements with the newer NMC955/973 chemistries - but that'll likely take more time of course.

I agree that the gen 2 packs show some promise, I just think people are going to be tired of waiting at this point. 4 years later and range #s are way lower and charge times are pretty horrendous, I think if the message is "yea should be better in 2025" a lot of people will throw their hands up.

Sponsored

 

[dandor]

Not sure how I missed this thread but just want to add my own datapoint.

7,xxx miles
405 Wh/hr
Mostly highway
AWD + AT Tires

With warmer climate, this is what I expect my averages to be. What temperatures are you driving in?

 

[dandor]

I know the recent holiday update purported to have some SC filtering features - I was hoping for a simple toggle to include/exclude V2/V3 stations for example - but apparently it's only a <>70kw charging toggle - which to me at least doesn't appear very useful. That said - I haven't actually played around with this new feature yet - has anyone else?

I haven't checked out any updates with route planning in years. I just know where every Supercharger is on my trips and just go past the one they recommend. I also memorized which ones are 250/150 and sometimes they have both at the same location. My battery is always conditioned that way and I am typically at 7/8%. Hopefully there are more improvements with the filtering, because they definitely need it! Splitting a 150 kW charger is painful.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I agree that the gen 2 packs show some promise, I just think people are going to be tired of waiting at this point. 4 years later and range #s are way lower and charge times are pretty horrendous, I think if the message is "yea should be better in 2025" a lot of people will throw their hands up.

I think the challenge is that the CT CC won't get considerably better until we see V4 SCs in sufficient numbers to meet the need. We've got one of the chief engineer's (Lars) saying that on a V4 SC the CT will charge from 15-85% in 18-20 minutes - that's more than twice the speed of what we're seeing on a V3 station at least right now - so that'd be stellar really - but the core challenge there is that there really aren't any true V4 SCs out there just yet - and the handful that are out there - reportedly won't charge much beyond 250kwh right now. Even with Tesla building net new SCs every day - it's gonna be quite a while before we have "good" access to V4 SCs. In the meantime, I think CT owners are going to have to be patient when it comes to charge times IMHO.

 

[Gigahorse]

I think the challenge is that the CT CC won't get considerably better until we see V4 SCs in sufficient numbers to meet the need. We've got one of the chief engineer's (Lars) saying that on a V4 SC the CT will charge from 15-85% in 18-20 minutes - that's more than twice the speed of what we're seeing on a V3 station at least right now - so that'd be stellar really - but the core challenge there is that there really aren't any true V4 SCs out there just yet - and the handful that are out there - reportedly won't charge much beyond 250kwh right now. Even with Tesla building net new SCs every day - it's gonna be quite a while before we have "good" access to V4 SCs. In the meantime, I think CT owners are going to have to be patient when it comes to charge times IMHO.

Yea, considering there are no V4 SCs and the rollout for them is going to take years I think that may be a tough pill to swallow for people sitting in their CT for an hour before they can move on to the next supercharger on a road trip
20mins no problem, an HOUR after 2 hours of driving will make road trips about 1/3 longer, which is brutal unless you are retired and just chilling.
Not sure if that patience you refer to will come through

 

[HitchHiker71]

Yea, considering there are no V4 SCs and the rollout for them is going to take years I think that may be a tough pill to swallow for people sitting in their CT for an hour before they can move on to the next supercharger on a road trip
20mins no problem, an HOUR after 2 hours of driving will make road trips about 1/3 longer, which is brutal unless you are retired and just chilling.
Not sure if that patience you refer to will come through

Purely anecdotal here, but at least for us, even if I were to follow through on a CT purchase - we'd likely use my wife's MY LR for road trips. Much lower wh/mile consumption, better charging rates at least on V3 stations. Maybe once V4 stations are more plentiful - we might choose to use the CT - but even then - from a cost standpoint - it's cheaper for us to use the MY LR since it's so much more efficient being that it's a smaller vehicle. I fully recognize that if you're towing/hauling anything, this isn't an option for that subset of CT owners though.

 

[dandor]

I think the challenge is that the CT CC won't get considerably better until we see V4 SCs in sufficient numbers to meet the need. We've got one of the chief engineer's (Lars) saying that on a V4 SC the CT will charge from 15-85% in 18-20 minutes - that's more than twice the speed of what we're seeing on a V3 station at least right now - so that'd be stellar really - but the core challenge there is that there really aren't any true V4 SCs out there just yet - and the handful that are out there - reportedly won't charge much beyond 250kwh right now. Even with Tesla building net new SCs every day - it's gonna be quite a while before we have "good" access to V4 SCs. In the meantime, I think CT owners are going to have to be patient when it comes to charge times IMHO.

The one thing I love about Tesla's is your car only gets better with time with software updates. The only issue could be degradation, but that can minimized with the Cybertruck if they do have extra buffer capacity with the battery, which can be unlocked.

The best update recently for me was the Tesla Parking Vision. Instead of telling my wife she parked horribly, it now shows it on the screen. If you read this honey, I love you!

 

[Gigahorse]

The one thing I love about Tesla's is your car only gets better with time with software updates. The only issue could be degradation, but that can minimized with the Cybertruck if they do have extra buffer capacity with the battery, which can be unlocked.

The best update recently for me was the Tesla Parking Vision. Instead of telling my wife she parked horribly, it now shows it on the screen. If you read this honey, I love you!

No doubt it will get better as the software improves, just worried that the low range and slow charge times are hardware issues that can not be improved significantly with software.

 

[HitchHiker71]

The one thing I love about Tesla's is your car only gets better with time with software updates. The only issue could be degradation, but that can minimized with the Cybertruck if they do have extra buffer capacity with the battery, which can be unlocked.

The best update recently for me was the Tesla Parking Vision. Instead of telling my wife she parked horribly, it now shows it on the screen. If you read this honey, I love you!

100% agree - the Tesla Parking Vision was a really nice improvement for the Park Assist function. It's actually useful now. Another recent improvement was the Automatic Blind Spot Camera indicator (no longer have to look over your shoulder at all really), and the Automatic Wiper disable even while using AP/FSD.

 

[cvalue13]

What we are saying is that the EPA BLENDED number is nowhere near the real world results that are coming in.

I don’t understand the malfunction

the EPA blended is a standard, just like a 12” ruler

you seem to keep responding “but this real world stick in my hand is bent, so the ruler keeps saying 12”, but the stick is actually longer than that”


you keep just using the words “real world” to magically gloss over the substance of all you’re actually saying:

if the line you’re measuring isn’t straight, the 12” ruler isn’t giving you accurate information

yeah, we get it.

And we get it because that bare observation is no different than any other BEV or ICE vehicle wrt EPA




Let me come at this a different way.

EVERY one of your critiques would be entirely undercut if on Tesla’s website instead of reading “320mi (est.)” it read “320mi (est) - YMMV, based on factors such as speed, weather conditions and elevation change.”

what people here are trying to tell you: the additional “YMMV” isn’t included on Tesla’s website because they’re deceiving you, it’s not on the website because it’s so obvious it goes without saying

not that it’s entirely absent from the Resla website:

 

[Gigahorse]

I don’t understand the malfunction

the EPA blended is a standard, just like a 12” ruler



And we get it because that bare observation is no different than any other BEV or ICE vehicle wrt EPA

No issue with a rough estimate, just an issue with the estimate and reality being about 40% off

 

[cvalue13]

No issue with a rough estimate, just an issue with the estimate and reality being about 40% off

bro, you keep saying “reality” and “real world”

and you’re only doing that because it’s a semantics parlor trick that enables your entire argument


there is no “reality” there is no “real world” data that you or anyone have shown that is relevant “real world”

the only relevant “real world” data would be the following:

• someone takes a CT on a flat course at ~68° F, then over the course of 754 seconds drives at precisely these rates:

Then they do it with 20 more trucks, take all the results, and find the combined average, then multiply by the correction factor of 0.82

Then do it all again but under the city test parameters:

then they take the combined average results from the 20 hey tests, and the combined average results of the 20 city tests, and combine them 55%/45%

now they’ll have a statistically relevant “real world” resulting figure that they can compare to the EPA figure




I’ve not yet seen a SINGLE one of these individual “range test” results that has surprised me.

much less one that helps me understand how anyone is upset at the results

 

[Gigahorse]

the only relevant “real world” data would be the following:

• someone takes a CT on a flat course at ~68° F, then over the course of 754 seconds drives at precisely these rates:

I mean if you have that data please share it, in the meantime the fact that these reports are coming in from people actually driving the vehicles is better than the 4year void of information we have gotten.
Sorry that the actual data coming in is not from a lab, but it is what we have at this point, and so far almost all of it points to the CT range being significantly less than anticipated by most.

Until you or someone else can provide better data, the 10,000+ miles of range data we have so far is the best we have.

 

[Crissa]

75/80mph is the speed limit in a decent amount of Truck Country though, why is this not a serious test? Do you not expect people to want to drive a truck at the speed limit for more than an hour or two??

This map is weirdly non granular.

You can only got 70 in Oregon on the southern stretch 395 and one stretch of 99. You won't find that speed on 84 west of Umatilla or on 5 at all. You also won't find 70 anywhere in the Western half of Washington, if it occurs, it's outside of tri-cities, not in Spokane.

In California, again, only some stretches of I-5, 505, 99, 40, 10, and 15, in the unpopulated central valley and high desert have 70.

You cannot drive that off any closed access highway, until you get to the high desert of Nevada. 70 is reserved for the flattest, most rural interstates.

This is so disingenuous.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

Will just leave this here.................

250
Most would say that a 55min charge session to get to the next supercharger isn't a quick stop

I don't think those times are right, even with their 600Wh per mi estimates. It would mean they're averaging 90kW on the chargers.

Also, why are they arriving at 15 to 20... why is it saying -24 on the first stop? Maybe the display is wrong?

-Crissa

Sponsored