After 2 months, my biggest surprise has been efficiency... dual-motor with core wheels

[Beetlebug62]

... so my point of reference is a 2018 Model 3 LR-AWD. I've driven that for 80,000 miles. And, now, after 2 months of owning a 2025 Cybertruck dual-motor, besides being quieter with more soft surfaces inside, the most surprising thing has been the overall energy efficiency.

I was expecting it to be 50% less efficient. The battery is >50% larger, 123kWh vs 79kWh. The rated efficiency 377Wh/mi is also >50% higher. The weight is >50% more. In some ways, it was nice, because the math would be easy. Driving to my usual places would take about the same amount of SOC, since the EPA-rated range was similar, 310mi vs 324mi. Instead of making 13mins stops to charge, I'd be making 20mins stops. That sort of thing. Easy math.

Instead, I've found the CT to be more efficient than expected. Here's an example. I've driven the CT on my normal daily commute for 6 days. The weather is pretty optimal, barely requiring any heat or cooling, In my Model 3, I'd expect an efficiency of 225Wh/mi. For the week, I got 304Wh/mi in my CT. That's only 35% less efficient. Yes, I'm driving on country backroads, going about 45-55mph. But, that shouldn't matter, as I'm comparing it to my Model 3 on the same roads, driving the same speeds, facing the same temps.

Here's another example, of me driving home from skiing. In my CT, I drove ~73mi, and used about 18.4% SOC, just for the driving.

And, in my Model 3, I drove a little further 75mi, and used 25% SOC. Ignore the heat used, and only look at the driving SOC usage.

The 3 predicts 22% SOC, while the CT predicts 20% SOC used. I actually used 18.4% for the CT and the 3 used 25%. Not what I was expecting. The time of driving and thus the speed were almost identical. I do this drive 25-50x a season, so the speed is almost always the same.

Maybe, at moderate 45-60mph speeds, the CT is more efficient than expected? Anyhow, I've been pleasantly surprised.

Edit: June 13th, so, I drove my Model 3 for a week. And, the last 100mi the efficiency with no climate usage was ~230Wh/mi. Not far off what I predicted at the start of this post, of 225Wh/mi.

but only 25% better than what my truck is showing:

Just so surprised by the efficiency.

Sponsored

 

[Gigahorse]

Yea at slow speeds the CT is really not bad compared to the Model 3 and Y.
Winter I think you will see a larger hit but not that bad.

 

[HaulingAss]

... so my point of reference is a 2018 Model 3 LR-AWD. I've driven that for 80,000 miles. And, now, after 2 months of owning a 2025 Cybertruck dual-motor, besides being quieter with more soft surfaces inside, the most surprising thing has been the overall energy efficiency.

Nice! Sounds about right! The main reason the efficiency surprised you is that there's a small, but very vocal, army of people out there trying to make you think the Cybertruck is no good (even if they have to pretend to be a fan or neutral). And yes, they know how to make Youtube videos.

 

[Fodderof4]

Wow! Core wheels/tires have a big effect…. I should get some.

 

[Beetlebug62]

Yea at slow speeds the CT is really not bad compared to the Model 3 and Y.
Winter I think you will see a larger hit but not that bad.

I was thinking about that, but my CT has a heat pump while my Model 3 had resistance heat, so I'm wondering.

 

[mongo]

The battery is >50% larger, 123kWh vs 79kWh.

Instead of making 13mins stops to charge, I'd be making 20mins stops. That sort of thing.

Because the battery is larger, it can theoretically charge at a proportionally faster rate. That can knock the charging time back down to Model 3 levels.

 

[Mini2nut]

The CT will only get more efficient over time. Tesla engineers never stop squeezing more efficiency out of their vehicle lineup.

 

[resellpanda88]

How do you get to this screen? Can you access your Wh mi in app?

 

[sace]

This was a really interesting post. Thanks for sharing the level of detail that went beyond just opinion. I too went from a 2019 M3 (standard range plus) and was surprised with the efficiency as compared to what I thought I would get. I was also expecting to spend longer at superchargers and my experience has been about the same as my Model 3. In my case, I went from a lower range car to a higher range car, by almost 100 miles, so the difference is striking. Our other car is a Rivian R1S which has similar advertised range and, so far, the CT is doing better.

 

[Semoreo]

I am coming from a 2018 3 as well and I'm noticing the same things. I was prepared for inflated advertised efficiency numbets on the ct. I've been pleasantly surprised. Over 3k miles, 25% @ 70mph the rest 50mph or less and I'm getting 345w/m average. Summer bumped it up to 355 average but still better than advertised. I was not expecting that. Ct is also awd core wheels.

 

[mongo]

How do you get to this screen? Can you access your Wh mi in app?

Right side is the energy app. Left side, swipe the music info left.
Not available from app.

 

[Beetlebug62]

How do you get to this screen? Can you access your Wh mi in app?

In app? Not that I'm aware of. In the display, you look for the green energy button, and choose "Drive", to display your trip efficiency. The image below is showing my Consumption for the last 100mi.

If you are referring to the "cards" below the truck on the left, that's just your odometer card. You get 3 cards, that, the tire pressure card, and the music card.

 

[Beetlebug62]

This was a really interesting post. Thanks for sharing the level of detail that went beyond just opinion. I too went from a 2019 M3 (standard range plus) and was surprised with the efficiency as compared to what I thought I would get. I was also expecting to spend longer at superchargers and my experience has been about the same as my Model 3. In my case, I went from a lower range car to a higher range car, by almost 100 miles, so the difference is striking. Our other car is a Rivian R1S which has similar advertised range and, so far, the CT is doing better.

To be fair, while I've only supercharged once, on my trip home from picking up my CT in NJ and driving it home 400+mi to Maine, that one time, I tracked the charge time to go from 10% to 20% to 60% and 68% SOC. And, it matched what I was expecting. The charge curve matched my Model 3. And, because the battery is 50% larger, the same SOCs meant it took 50% longer to reach.

The good thing is, I'm older now, so I dawdle a little more while the truck is charging. And, because the range is similar, and my bladder isn't getting any larger, I essentially need to stop at the same places, and charge to the same levels. I stop at 10-15%, and charge up to 60-65%, half a battery, and that takes 20mins, where in the 3 it took 13mins. Honestly, the 7min difference is not that much when roadtripping. Sure, I'd like it to be faster, who wouldn't, but it seems quick enough when the charge rate is over 100kW.

 

[majingkai]

看来他们说的是真的

 

[Beetlebug62]

看来他们说的是真的

Like a lot of things, you can read something and it might not fully register. It's only when you experience it first-hand that you fully appreciate it.

Sponsored