375 Wh/mi average energy consumption over 1,156 miles (after latest software update)!

[BLU-UFO]

That's better than my Model S Plaid on 21's.

Yup. I can concur with that ?

Sponsored

 

[Pops]

The CT seems to be very efficient when driving consistently at highway speeds between 60-65. I hope the numbers are real, but I haven’t done the reverse math myself…
This is a screen photo of 180mi trip at 375 Wh/mile … even at 75mph. ?

The math is roughly (123kw / .375kwh) = 328 miles. Which is about what the EPA test showed... but that test was with mixed city and highway driving, and certainly not at 75mph. Which is why your results are exceptional.

I could see it being possible if you are following a Semi-trailer closely for a lot of the drive. I know I like to do that when I can.

 

[elyliu]

Also got 375 wh/mi over 2k+ miles. I do drive it slower than my model 3 though.

 

[BuzzBasswood]

I am getting 370ish too. Trip A is with tonneau closed and trip B is tonneau open plus closed mileage. Due to Oregon law, had to drive with cover open till I got my plates. I drive 72 in a 65 on I-5 everyday with 1000 ft elevation change.

 

[Macgyverfever]

I hit 500wh/mi going 80 mph with windows down, so this isn't a stretch in my mind.

 

[Mini2nut]

Those range numbers are amazing for a vehicle that weighs 6800 pounds and has large 35” meats as the stock OEM tire.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

Are you driving with an extra wind sail?!?

Are you driving with an extra wind sail?!??

Actually I was able to near-duplicate it on the same route to my daughter's.

Sorry, just this photo and none of the with-sail CT.

Now, I am beginning to suspect Tesla might have inadvertently installed a battery meant for Semi.

Or being bribed for me to shut up being incessant critic of Elon's narcissism and crazy beliefs.

 

[HaulingAss]

I want that to be real, but I believe this deserves a fair but of skepticism. Those numbers are rivaling much smaller and lighter vehicles. This seems to defy what should be expected.

I am not saying OP is lying, just that there might be an issue with the software calculation. Or there were conditions on the drive that we are not aware of, such as a tailwind.

No, I believe it's real. My odometer is over 1,600 miles since I got the truck and my lifetime average consumption is 389 Wh/mile, about the EPA rating. And that's in spite of 150 miles or more of cruising 75-90 mph, a few runs over 100 mph, in two cases followed by full braking to 0 mph, hauling two loads over 2,200 lbs and numerous loads around 1,300 lbs, doing numerous full throttle launches to 60-80 mph, driving a couple miles in heavy, deep snow and about 400 miles off-road. The reason my consumption is not higher is because I cruise on a lot of State Highways and County roads where traffic tends to move at 45-60 mph.

The trick to getting good efficiency in Cybertruck, beside avoiding high speeds as well as driving in frigid temperatures that require the cabin heater to work hard, is to avoid a lot of speeding up and slowing down. Even gently pulsing the throttle so the motors are constantly going from light regen braking to light acceleration will kill your efficiency. Many people do this without even knowing it. It's easier to avoid incidental regen when pushing a wall of air at 70 mph, because your accelerator is depressed further from where regen occurs, but at slower speeds is where people tend to give somewhat erratic throttle commands without even realizing it.

 

[Cyberman]

Downhill a lot?

Both ways?

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

Good people ya gotta specify which model CT you have

Cyberbeast owner should have this responsibility.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

I want that to be real, but I believe this deserves a fair but of skepticism. Those numbers are rivaling much smaller and lighter vehicles. This seems to defy what should be expected.

I am not saying OP is lying, just that there might be an issue with the software calculation. Or there were conditions on the drive that we are not aware of, such as a tailwind.

I got a photo.

And I don't have the

blood of that top politician who'll deny what he said in a clip of his own video, lol.

It's also been replicated by the same trip ro my daughter's yesterday.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

Both ways?

Please tell me where.

I want to live there.

 

[CyberFreak]

To be clear are these results only after the latest update or were they consistent prior?

 

[L3it3R]

Right after we took delivery we did just over 1200 miles from Maryland to Maine and back - a few stops in Massachusetts, with demo drives, etc - highway driving with some backroads once we got to where we were visiting

 

[Cyber07]

I want to remind everyone to use their charging statistics number when comparing it with actuals.

For example, my lifetime consumption is 417 Wh/mile according to the on-screen consumption calculation, but if I use the calculation based on charging stats, it is 897 Wh/mile.

I know, I know... there was some limited sentry mode (about 20% of the time) and some cabin heat protection, but nothing excessive. This additional energy is still part of the maintenance cost of ownership of the CT.

I really want to see those numbers from others. Divide your lifetime mileage by the charging Wh, and let's see what we get.

Sponsored