10,000+ Miles Driving a Cybertruck – Things learned: range, great sound and full love/hate list after 10k miles

[Woodrick]

I honestly appreciate the physics explanation. However, here is the common man explanation and concern. Customers don't care about physics, they are buying a product and they want it to do certain things. It's a pickup truck, people are driving places. Put a F'ing battery in that will go actually 300+ miles! Period! Don't say it does 340, when it does 200! On the drawing board, at the top it should say "this truck must go over 300 miles". The CT is absolutely amazing, but if it's going 200 miles best case, WTF is it going to do when it's really cold, steep mountains and I have stuff in the back? How on earth did Lars come out in public and brag about range when it completely sucks?

And the worse thing that you can do about the range is not understanding what it is telling you.

On an EV, the Blended EPA is MORE than what the EV will do on the highway.

Keep it around 60, you should be able to beat the EPA numbers.

Don't blame this on Tesla. Tesla is only following the EPA's testing.

Sponsored

 

[cybercoffee]

Based on these range test results, I see no reason to be concerned about taking road trips in my Cybertruck, and I would advise ignoring all the dire predictions of CT range anxiety that are circulating on the internet.

I agree, especially for those of us in the southwestern US, where there are chargers aplenty. you can hit most of the major sites while roadtripping in CA/NV/UT/NM/CO with no issue whatsoever by relying only on superchargers, let alone destination chargers at hotels.

You are welcome! To be clear, I believe to do smart powersharing between two Wall Connectors they need to be of the same generation. So you would have to replace your generation 1 Wall Connector in order to enable this feature.

@HaulingAss how do the chargers talk to each other? Do they have to be hooked up to the same 240V breaker to figure out the respective load, or is there some sort of wifi setup? For years I have used a mobile connector plugged into a 240 outlet, and I am thinking of converting it to a wall connector.

 

[cvalue13]

On an EV, the Blended EPA is LESS than what the EV will do on the highway.

Keep it around 60, you should be able to beat the EPA numbers.

huh?

did you back your asswards?

Blended EPA is MORE than what the EV will do on the highway.

 

[RojerLockless]

All of the above tells me there is a critical failure warning light flashing at Tesla. I am a long-time Tesla shareholder, owner of three Teslas, huge advocate of the company and all around fan. (I recently and reluctantly cancelled the CT FS because the range would not meet my needs.) But I am calling it: something is deeply broken.

We now have enough data to definitively say that Tesla blew it on the Cybertruck range (not least this post which is consistent with previous data). There is no way - with all of the very public testing done by Tesla - that the engineering team did not know (long ago) that the real-world range would suck. They knew. And Tesla has an incredible engineering and manufacturing team so they could have fixed this. No question. So it seems to me that we can conclude:
1) Range sucks
2) Team knew long before release that range sucks
3) It is a big deal for customers
4) They could have fixed it but didn't

With these facts on the table (I think they are facts at this point) one has to ask why did Tesla get this so wrong? We have seen this before. It is a symptom of an organization where everyone is afraid to tell the emperor that he is not wearing clothes. It is a symptom of a company where bad news is hidden and bad data is reformulated until it fits a pre-ordained internal narrative. If that diagnosis is correct, Tesla is in serious trouble. For all of its accomplishments and incredibly talented staff, it will collapse in on itself unless this gets fixed. I hope it is a wake-up call to the board and the leadership. Warning light flashing IMO.

I hear you, I've had stock since 2018 and I sold half my position the day of the "event" when they told us absolutely nothing and then slowly stuff started coming out. The price was absurd for what you get. /sigh.

 

[RojerLockless]

Agree. The CT is Tesla's Model X 2.0, and the rollout has not been great up to this point. Instead of making a practical truck with good range and sufficient performance, they made an overdone "technology bandwagon" that goes from pseudo truck to a bastardized sport utility vehicle once you put a "range extender" in it.

I believe they can fix this, at least to a sufficient degree. Get rid of the leaky rolling tonneau, add a fix/folding/removable tonneau, use the space under the rear seat and in the tonneau box to stuff more batteries, reach a minimum of 400 real-world/non-aspirational miles, ditch the RWS (if beneficial), and call the damn thing good. Don't sell something to truck buyers that they didn't ask for, and then tell them it is good enough. It wreaks of tone-def arrogance and pretentiousness. Then again, this probably all comes down to keeping this from being rated a Class 3 truck, and ultimately, giving people what they want would hurt their bottom line from the loss of carbon credits, so they won't f'n do it.

Just like many of you, I was dying to get this truck, but am not so sure at this point. We'll see how much better it gets. Sadly, I've had to think about getting a Tundra or waiting for Ford to develop their T3 project. It's back to wait and see lol

Yeah, but remember when it was going to be "so cheap to make" that's why it was this shape in the first place? And they were going to make as many as the F-150? I remember.

 

[HaulingAss]

Maybe so, but rigorous enough to be meaningful. I stand corrected on the final air temp.

What's rigorous about it? Even Kyle says the results from his Austin range test can't be compared to his other range tests which happen at an altitude 5000 feet higher, on average, and generally in warm temperatures, not in the low 40's/high 30's.

That thicker air is quite a blow to a vehicle with huge 35" tires and the least aerodynamic Tesla to date (short of the Semi). Sure, it's one more data point than we had, but it's not particularly rigorous. It's the first test I've seen where he had the seat heater and steering wheel heat cranked up. And the headlights were on of course since it was night time. About the only ways he could have made it worse would have been to deflate the tires (he never told us the tire pressure and I can only assume they were set cold, not warm) and roll the windows down while jacking the suspension to high.

It's just a casual 100%-0% SOC test providing one more data point. Nothing rigorous about it.

 

[Cybergirl]

What's rigorous about it? Even Kyle says the results from his Austin range test can't be compared to his other range tests which happen at an altitude 5000 feet higher, on average, and generally in warm temperatures, not in the low 40's/high 30's.

That thicker air is quite a blow to a vehicle with huge 35" tires and the least aerodynamic Tesla to date (short of the Semi). Sure, it's one more data point than we had, but it's not particularly rigorous. It's the first test I've seen where he had the seat heater and steering wheel heat cranked up. And the headlights were on of course since it was night time. About the only ways he could have made it worse would have been to deflate the tires (he never told us the tire pressure and I can only assume they were set cold, not warm) and roll the windows down while jacking the suspension to high.

It's just a casual 100%-0% SOC test providing one more data point. Nothing rigorous about it.

You have only mentioned reasons why the CT might have done better. The point of my comment was to counter the notion that CT range sucks. It doesn't. It more or less comparable to the Rivian's. I'm sure that in time more "rigorous" comparison testing will be done. In the meantime, let's stop posting anecdotal range information that is not even "casual".

 

[Gigahorse]

What's rigorous about it? Even Kyle says the results from his Austin range test can't be compared to his other range tests which happen at an altitude 5000 feet higher, on average, and generally in warm temperatures, not in the low 40's/high 30's.

That thicker air is quite a blow to a vehicle with huge 35" tires and the least aerodynamic Tesla to date (short of the Semi). Sure, it's one more data point than we had, but it's not particularly rigorous. It's the first test I've seen where he had the seat heater and steering wheel heat cranked up. And the headlights were on of course since it was night time. About the only ways he could have made it worse would have been to deflate the tires (he never told us the tire pressure and I can only assume they were set cold, not warm) and roll the windows down while jacking the suspension to high.

It's just a casual 100%-0% SOC test providing one more data point. Nothing rigorous about it.

So if we turn off the headlights and seat heater at night we can get 500 miles?

More than a handful of tests out now, some show a 40 mile test at 395 wh/mile and people cheer and say it is a good test, another test comes out and its 480 wh/mile and people scream that if poor Kyle was not 30lbs overweight the truck would have beaten estimates.

Have yet to see a perfect range test, but have seen enough to know that the range #s are falling short of even the expected optimistic "Tesla range, subtract 20%"

A this point the hope is software and battery chemistry can be adjusted quickly to make the trucks a little closer to currently advertised and more functional.

 

[CGIIRL]

Am I missing some? $465 a month for insurance!!!!! . What the actual F? I have a newer Porsche Cayenne and a Model 3 Performance and I’m $145 mo. In Illinois.

 

[Gigahorse]

Am I missing some? $465 a month for insurance!!!!! . What the actual F? I have a newer Porsche Cayenne and a Model 3 Performance and I’m $145 mo. In Illinois.

Insurance: $465/mo 2 drivers, AWD CT and 2021 Model 3, clean driving records minus a couple old tickets. High mileage drivers so that bumps rates, if fibbing about mileage would have been $390/mo but not a good idea. Previously had a Model 3 and Ford Raptor, insurance on those was $205 to the CT added significantly to insurance cost. Insurance in CA is also higher than the national average.

 

[Crissa]

Great summary. Reading between the lines of other reviews I’ve seen, all of what you said tracks. Shame the range is so low. I was hoping road noise would have been better too. I’ll be eagerly awaiting the full video review. And my VIN assignment ?

Shame what?

This is what you expect if you hoon around with your vehicle - low range.

I don't see the OP as being particularly trustworthy, but at least their own numbers say why range was low. Mostly highway, mostly speeding, horribly aggressive driving. That'll get you low range and wear out your tires.

You cannot have both range and aggressive driving.

I'm surprised so many people still recommend 50-amp outlets when hard wiring is easier to install and better. Less terminals to oxidize, higher power available, fewer copper conductors needed and for those who are limited on available circuits or power, they can powershare with multiple cars.

You can always tear out the outlet and use the gang box to wire into.

-Crissa

 

[Gigahorse]

Where it is insured will make a huge difference....where was this quote from?

CA, insurance is about 15% higher in CA than the national average, believe it is cheapest in the Dakotas.

 

[ZillaVilla]

I have Nevada and California policies for commercial insurance in Nevada is even worse than California.

 

[Woodrick]

huh?

did you back your asswards?

Blended EPA is MORE than what the EV will do on the highway.

Whoops. corrected. It's like too many "double negatives"
Let's see, watts/mi more is worse, mi/kWh, more is better???

It takes a lot of calories/hr to support that thinking

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Woodrick]

So if we turn off the headlights and seat heater at night we can get 500 miles?

More than a handful of tests out now, some show a 40 mile test at 395 wh/mile and people cheer and say it is a good test, another test comes out and its 480 wh/mile and people scream that if poor Kyle was not 30lbs overweight the truck would have beaten estimates.

Have yet to see a perfect range test, but have seen enough to know that the range #s are falling short of even the expected optimistic "Tesla range, subtract 20%"

A this point the hope is software and battery chemistry can be adjusted quickly to make the trucks a little closer to currently advertised and more functional.

The range for the AT tires on the AWD Cybertruck is about 320 miles. With a 123kWh battery, that yields that the EPA BLENDED number would be 384 wh/mi.

This is a blend of what the EPA city driving and highway driving tests indicate.

The EPA tests are formulized to represent real-world driving. And that means mostly CITY driving, not 70mph highway driving.
There are no reasons to believe that the Tesla certified number is incorrect. And the 395 wh/mile numbers tends to confirm the Tesla number.

The "perfect range test" is kind of, by definition, the EPA numbers and testing procedures.

The "perfect range test" is not run at 70mph down an Interstate.

Sponsored