Edmunds: Cybertruck range test achieves 334 miles! Exceeding estimated range 👍

[Haopec]

Nothing in this makes sense...
CT is the least efficient of the three, using 45.1 kwh/100 miles, or 451 watts/Mile, but somehow got 334 miles of range with a smaller battery than the other two? Based on that efficiency range should have been ~270ish.

To achieve 334 miles of range, the efficiency would have to be 368 watts/mile with a 123kwh battery.
Did Tesla just add 27kwhs of battery??
I'm not saying they didn't drive 334 miles, but don't publish numbers that don't add up.
Hasn't Tesla already told us the usable battery is 123kwh?

Sponsored

 

[agordon117]

Nothing in this makes sense...
CT is the least efficient of the three, using 45.1 kwh/100 miles, or 451 watts/Mile, but somehow got 334 miles of range with a smaller battery than the other two? Based on that efficiency range should have been ~270ish.

To achieve 334 miles of range, the efficiency would have to be 368 watts/mile with a 123kwh battery.
Did Tesla just add 27kwhs of battery??
I'm not saying they didn't drive 334 miles, but don't publish numbers that don't add up.
Hasn't Tesla already told us the usable battery is 123kwh?

My only guess is the 100 mile consumption test was at a higher speed than their "average" speed.

 

[Love2Cyber]

Nothing in this makes sense...
CT is the least efficient of the three, using 45.1 kwh/100 miles, or 451 watts/Mile, but somehow got 334 miles of range with a smaller battery than the other two? Based on that efficiency range should have been ~270ish.

To achieve 334 miles of range, the efficiency would have to be 368 watts/mile with a 123kwh battery.
Did Tesla just add 27kwhs of battery??
I'm not saying they didn't drive 334 miles, but don't publish numbers that don't add up.
Hasn't Tesla already told us the usable battery is 123kwh?

The article is clear that energy consumption to charge was greater than the charge received / there was a loss of energy in the charge process.

 

[agordon117]

The article is clear that energy consumption to charge was greater than the charge received / there was a loss of energy in the charge process.

That still doesn't add up. if you divide their 45.1kWh by 100 miles, you get 451 wh/mi. If you divide their total distance by their total input power you get 440wh/mi.

The numbers still don't match

 

[ModelAZ]

Edmunds updated their article:

 

[dandor]

I’ve had my CT less than two weeks and its been charging up to 240 miles at 80% only so far. Not sure it could gain almost 100 more miles of range at 100%. Perhaps I’m missing something.

My first time at 80% was 236 and it kept on creeping up to 245. I charged to full today and it got 308. I will drain it down under 10% this next time and charge to 100% to see if it changes. I think it is just a battery calibration issue.

 

[BeFamousVideo]

The CT All wheel drive is rated for 340 miles

The CT Beast is rated for 320.

IMO Edmunds was testing a AWD not a Beast.

 

[Cyber Bear]

My first time at 80% was 236 and it kept on creeping up to 245. I charged to full today and it got 308. I will drain it down under 10% this next time and charge to 100% to see if it changes. I think it is just a battery calibration issue.

Thats good to know. Thanks

 

[newwave1331]

They took down the video from youtube

 

[agordon117]

My first time at 80% was 236 and it kept on creeping up to 245. I charged to full today and it got 308. I will drain it down under 10% this next time and charge to 100% to see if it changes. I think it is just a battery calibration issue.

Not sure that it is. I took delivery of my model Y with 312 on the dash at 100%, and it only got worse from there no matter what kind of charge/discharge I did for "calibration". 3 years later I'm at 302 on a full charge (only in warm weather). it was rated at 326.

 

[dandor]

Not sure that it is. I took delivery of my model Y with 312 on the dash at 100%, and it only got worse from there no matter what kind of charge/discharge I did for "calibration". 3 years later I'm at 302 on a full charge (only in warm weather). it was rated at 326.

My Model YP and M3 RWD showed the given mileage from the beginning. The Cybertruck has been different. It has been creeping up every charge. I am now interested to see if I go below 10%, which I never did yet, and go to 100 if anything changes.

 

[agordon117]

My Model YP and M3 RWD showed the given mileage from the beginning. The Cybertruck has been different. It has been creeping up every charge. I am now interested to see if I go below 10%, which I never did yet, and go to 100 if anything changes.

Keep us posted, interested to know if it goes back up.

 

[cvalue13]

The CT All wheel drive is rated for 340 miles

The CT Beast is rated for 320.

IMO Edmunds was testing a AWD not a Beast.

you're missing the point being made here - there are different ranges on the two different tires

the AWD/340 and Beast/320 numbers are on the all season tires, which this test unit was not on

This test unit was on the all terrain tires, which have Tesla-purported ranges of AWD/320 and Beast/300

 

[cvalue13]

That still doesn't add up. if you divide their 45.1kWh by 100 miles, you get 451 wh/mi. If you divide their total distance by their total input power you get 440wh/mi.

The numbers still don't match

" The consumption data is even more interesting. While testing the Rivian, the R1T used 42.3 kWh of energy to travel 100 miles, and the Lightning used 43.7 kWh per 100 miles. Despite being shaped like a giant brutalist triangle, the Cybertruck used 45.1 kWh of energy, making it slightly less efficient in an apples-to-apples comparison. Finally, the Tesla required 147 kWh of juice to charge back up to 100% after the test was over. Accounting for charging losses and what was left in the battery when we ended the test, we can assume that the truck’s usable capacity is somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 kWh. "


unclear

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Isn't tesla/epa estimates based on 80% charge?

Also, not on an ambiguous "the speed limit the whole way" ?

Which number is more accurate, EPA or Edmunds?
The short answer is neither. So many factors contribute to how far an electric vehicle will travel on a single charge that to come up with a single figure for every situation is impossible. The EPA's testing is highly controlled and standardized, but as we've found in our testing, the real-world correlation can vary dramatically depending on the vehicle.

Because Edmunds' testing uses a more conservative driving style and puts greater emphasis on city driving over highway driving (compared to the EPA's mix), our figures will often be on the higher end for range, which usually equates to better efficiency. But that's not always the case. Overall, our figures are intended to provide EV owners and potential customers with an additional data point so that they can make more informed decisions.

Sponsored