2024 Cybertruck Official Specs Leaked?! 😱 - Udated With Compare/Analysis

[cvalue13]

Worth noting nothing was leaked. This is a list someone compiled using other things people have said/guessed.

Also,Tow rating might be 11,000 on dual but more power comes more ability, thus rating for tri would increase.

Nov 30 can’t come fast enough.

I think it’s humerous that we have people on here arguing about rumors on the internet vs possibilities of vehicles yet to be sold, oops, released dang manufactured uh oh tested dammit, designed yet. Some people have a bad case of “I read it on the net, it must be true!”

We’re close enough to the official event, I’m not passing judgement on anything until it’s been released.

There have been zero official specs made available, whole lot of jumping to conclusions going on.

Apparently you have some insider info other than some internet post claiming to be "leaks". Try waiting for some facts in an official statement from Tesla.

If I might have two lines of conversation here?


The first is: these sorts of comments all contain some element of "I'm only interested in hearing about things straight from Tesla, officially" which I find an either odd or disingenuous take. You don't need to come to this forum to know that Tesla hasn't said anything official, and that they wont until Nov. 30.

Which sort of begs the question of what you're doing in a forum before Nov. 30, doesn't it?

Relatedly, since you've come here to a forum prior to Nov 30 knowing there's nothing official from Tesla, doubly odd to feel compelled to chime in with your prerogative, which adds zero to the conversation - not one rebuttal of a stat, not one observation of a substantive doubt, etc.

No, just a thrashing, whining, sort of exclamation of a principle "I only listen to official coms", which ironically reflects less on folks here (who don't share the principle), and more on yourselves for coming to a forum knowing damn well you wont find an official com from Tesla.

So the first thing is, what have I misunderstood? Was there some substantive contribution here, that's totally lost on me?



The second thing is: while you may have a "official coms only" principle, many of us don't. And it's for good reason. Because, if you pay close attention, long enough, some very reasonable conclusions can be made before Nov. 30.

And let's be clear here: not a single person here is talking about anything, including these stats, absent the theoretical knowledge that official coms form Tesla will be better than what we're doing here. We've moved past that annoyingly obvious, and useless, point.

But let's go ahead and give a double-click look as to how people paying close, long, attention here can arrive at reasonable conclusions (subject to qualifications, obvious to all of us).

Let's brake these down a little:

Generally Speaking: That such specs could come out about now, just weeks before delivery, is consistent with internal distribution of data to techs (training), marketing (making website changes), etc. These general conditions for veracity are amplified by the stats being attendant to obviously insider photographs. Finally, nothing in these stats is obviously wild or repugnant to reason. There's not a single stat included that gives anyone any reason to, out of hand, exclaim "that is impossible."

So, generally, conditions are ripe. What about the data specifics?

Overall length: 18.6 feet

What exactly do you disbelieve here? Musk has said the truck is sub-19'. You think it's instead 18.7 feet? 18.6? Do you have a single thing to contribute here that raises any doubt?​

Overall width (no mirrors): 79.9”

Anyone paying attention expects this figure. There are no marker lights on the CT, no location market lights could exist, and for related reasons it's SOP for trucks to be a hair below 80" wide.​

Overall height (medium setting): 70.5”

If anything, on its face, this is the most potentially head-turning number, given the CT is on 35s, and a Lighting is 78" tall. But we know the CT has adaptive air, no frame space underneath. And, the F150 height includes antennae.​

​

But otherwise, what exactly is repugnant or unbelievable here?​

Wheelbase: 143”

Now, for each of the items above I've failed to mention that the stats are consistent with various kinds of work done around here by various people over the past many months.​

​

As with those, here's just one piece of such type of work, done over 7 months ago (you'll just have to trust that it was at least somewhat reasonably concocted):​

​

This and a dozen other previously-known bits of information are consistent with a 143" wheelbase.​

​

Curb weights

• 2 motor 6,670 lbs
• 3 motor 6,890 lbs

I'll separately leave it to you to go sort out what is known about G/H class ratings, comps to similar BEV weights, etc., and then remind that Musk just told us the vehicles were near 7,000lbs​

​

Accordingly, what's your objection here? That they may instead be 6,500lb and 6,750lbs? Does that contribute anything?​

​

Tow rating: 11,000lbs

Here's where I expect butts begin to get hurt. "Where's my 2019 truck with 14K towing" they cry!​

​

This tow rating is 1,000lbs greater than previously noted for the Dual. Do you disbelieve Tesla could best that?​

​

As for hopes for the 2019 "Tri Motor," you're on your own there - leave the rest of us to the available info.​

​

What's gonna really blow your sensitive noodle is backing into what payload would be for the two trucks, given the above stats. (hint: it's not 3,500)​

​

Bed length length: 72.8”

​

Musk has said it's "over 6 feet." 72.8" is over 6 feet.​

​

"But, it used to be 6.5 feet!" you say.​

​

If it was still 6.5', Musk wouldn't have said "over 6 feet."​

​

Also, see again the above referenced months of measurement work that, for those paying attention, have made clear enough the bed is not longer 6.5'.​

​

Bed Width: 51"

Use your eyes and look at the bed.​

​

Frunk volume: 7.1 cubic feet

Here again, for those paying attention, this is exactly within expectations.​

​

For just one example, this from months ago (the Lightning with 14.1ft3 volume)​

​

​

Interior Measurements:

For months people paying attention have said the CT interior is narrow. There's no longer a 6th seat, supporting that it's narrow.​

​

Otherwise, the CT's leg room and headroom are all within expectations of a roughly full-sized truck that is materially shorter than an F150.​

​

No outlets in front, two outlet in rear 120v one 220v

​

​

​

Given that all the above is an inordinately brief summary of observations people have collected and nit-picked for months around here, what exactly is your objection or contribution to the discussion?




If it sounds like this response is frustrated, you're right. It's as though a bunch of vintage watch enthusiasts are sitting around a table continuing a discussion they've been having for a year, and someone walks up and just exclaims, "people who like watches are stupid, and time isn't real if you really think about it."

It's non-contributory, lazy, rude, and a - frankly - reeks of butthurt from someone who wishes they had a watch, but their daddy never would let them buy one.

Of course, you have every right to inject whatever you want. But point of process: it's not *us* who walked into your conversation telling *you* to stop talking.


If you're only interested in direct coms from Tesla, don't click on a thread titled "specs leak" to come announce you don't believe in leaks.

Go instead and refresh the Tesla website.

Sponsored

 

[4Dolio]

The most exciting part here for me is the ability to level 2 charge other vehicles. The last excuse for using gas (jerricans) getting chipped away.

Ya, but just keep in mind that a rope has about 10x the charge rate as this 12kW 14-50 outlet in the CyberTruck bed... And the tow rope is compatible with any vehicle to emergency charge any BEV you happen to have.

 

[SolarWizard]

If I’m ever in court I need you to be on my side brother

If I might have two lines of conversation here?


The first is: these sorts of comments all contain some element of "I'm only interested in hearing about things straight from Tesla, officially" which I find an either odd or disingenuous take. You don't need to come to this forum to know that Tesla hasn't said anything official, and that they wont until Nov. 30.

Which sort of begs the question of what you're doing in a forum before Nov. 30, doesn't it?

Relatedly, since you've come here to a forum prior to Nov 30 knowing there's nothing official from Tesla, doubly odd to feel compelled to chime in with your prerogative, which adds zero to the conversation - not one rebuttal of a stat, not one observation of a substantive doubt, etc.

No, just a thrashing, whining, sort of exclamation of a principle "I only listen to official coms", which ironically reflects less on folks here (who don't share the principle), and more on yourselves for coming to a forum knowing damn well you wont find an official com from Tesla.

So the first thing is, what have I misunderstood? Was there some substantive contribution here, that's totally lost on me?



The second thing is: while you may have a "official coms only" principle, many of us don't. And it's for good reason. Because, if you pay close attention, long enough, some very reasonable conclusions can be made before Nov. 30.

And let's be clear here: not a single person here is talking about anything, including these stats, absent the theoretical knowledge that official coms form Tesla will be better than what we're doing here. We've moved past that annoyingly obvious, and useless, point.

But let's go ahead and give a double-click look as to how people paying close, long, attention here can arrive at reasonable conclusions (subject to qualifications, obvious to all of us).

Let's brake these down a little:

Generally Speaking: That such specs could come out about now, just weeks before delivery, is consistent with internal distribution of data to techs (training), marketing (making website changes), etc. These general conditions for veracity are amplified by the stats being attendant to obviously insider photographs. Finally, nothing in these stats is obviously wild or repugnant to reason. There's not a single stat included that gives anyone any reason to, out of hand, exclaim "that is impossible."

So, generally, conditions are ripe. What about the data specifics?

Overall length: 18.6 feet

What exactly do you disbelieve here? Musk has said the truck is sub-19'. You think it's instead 18.7 feet? 18.6? Do you have a single thing to contribute here that raises any doubt?​

Overall width (no mirrors): 79.9”

Anyone paying attention expects this figure. There are no marker lights on the CT, no location market lights could exist, and for related reasons it's SOP for trucks to be a hair below 80" wide.​

Overall height (medium setting): 70.5”

If anything, on its face, this is the most potentially head-turning number, given the CT is on 35s, and a Lighting is 78" tall. But we know the CT has adaptive air, no frame space underneath. And, the F150 height includes antennae.​

​

But otherwise, what exactly is repugnant or unbelievable here?​

Wheelbase: 143”

Now, for each of the items above I've failed to mention that the stats are consistent with various kinds of work done around here by various people over the past many months.​

​

As with those, here's just one piece of such type of work, done over 7 months ago (you'll just have to trust that it was at least somewhat reasonably concocted):​

​

This and a dozen other previously-known bits of information are consistent with a 143" wheelbase.​

​

Curb weights

• 2 motor 6,670 lbs
• 3 motor 6,890 lbs

I'll separately leave it to you to go sort out what is known about G/H class ratings, comps to similar BEV weights, etc., and then remind that Musk just told us the vehicles were near 7,000lbs​

​

Accordingly, what's your objection here? That they may instead be 6,500lb and 6,750lbs? Does that contribute anything?​

​

Tow rating: 11,000lbs

Here's where I expect butts begin to get hurt. "Where's my 2019 truck with 14K towing" they cry!​

​

This tow rating is 1,000lbs greater than previously noted for the Dual. Do you disbelieve Tesla could best that?​

​

As for hopes for the 2019 "Tri Motor," you're on your own there - leave the rest of us to the available info.​

​

What's gonna really blow your sensitive noodle is backing into what payload would be for the two trucks, given the above stats. (hint: it's not 3,500)​

​

Bed length length: 72.8”

​

Musk has said it's "over 6 feet." 72.8" is over 6 feet.​

​

"But, it used to be 6.5 feet!" you say.​

​

If it was still 6.5', Musk wouldn't have said "over 6 feet."​

​

Also, see again the above referenced months of measurement work that, for those paying attention, have made clear enough the bed is not longer 6.5'.​

​

Bed Width: 51"

Use your eyes and look at the bed.​

​

Frunk volume: 7.1 cubic feet

Here again, for those paying attention, this is exactly within expectations.​

​

For just one example, this from months ago (the Lightning with 14.1ft3 volume)​

​

​

Interior Measurements:

For months people paying attention have said the CT interior is narrow. There's no longer a 6th seat, supporting that it's narrow.​

​

Otherwise, the CT's leg room and headroom are all within expectations of a roughly full-sized truck that is materially shorter than an F150.​

​

No outlets in front, two outlet in rear 120v one 220v

​

​

​

Given that all the above is an inordinately brief summary of observations people have collected and nit-picked for months around here, what exactly is your objection or contribution to the discussion?




If it sounds like this response is frustrated, you're right. It's as though a bunch of vintage watch enthusiasts are sitting around a table continuing a discussion they've been having for a year, and someone walks up and just exclaims, "people who like watches are stupid, and time isn't real if you really think about it."

It's non-contributory, lazy, rude, and a - frankly - reeks of butthurt from someone who wishes they had a watch, but their daddy never would let them buy one.

Of course, you have every right to inject whatever you want. But point of process: it's not *us* who walked into your conversation telling *you* to stop talking.


If you're only interested in direct coms from Tesla, don't click on a thread titled "specs leak" to come announce you don't believe in leaks.

Go instead and refresh the Tesla website.

 

[4Dolio]

Bigger kWh battery at 92 kWh than most of the "EVs" tho!
It is impressive. Imagine how much gas that will save with typical daily driving!

Yes, but with that battery it only gets 145 miles which is 1.5miles/kWh which is pretty awful. My Lightning lifetime average is 2.1mi/kWh with mostly freeway and a few 100 miles of towing per month. Sedans regularly do 3~4mi/kWh. Anyway, point is that battery capacity alone doesn't tell the whole story. Just wanted to sprinkle in a little nuance, hope no one is allergic.

 

[ςyb3®tЯμ¢kℓ|gh†n!ng]

I think you are confusing this with how a series hybrid works. 92 kWh would be plenty of energy to drive those motors in battery-only towing (until some cutoff of something like 10-20% SOC).

My 2017 Model X has 193 kilowatts (259 horsepower) motor in the front and rear.
I tow easily as have many others ... campers, horse trailers, etc.

The RamCharger has more powerful motors:
250 kilowatts (335 horsepower) and the rear one adds an extra 238 kW (319 hp)

So then is the battery capable of maxing out those motors? If so then why is Stellantis is promoting as if the mechanical generator is contributing power to the motors beyond the capabilities of the batteries? That's the part I don't understand. If you are towing something that is say 13000 lbs, will you be able to tow without the generator or do you need that additional power that they are touting that the generator will provide, is the 130 kw generator adding an additional 130 kw to the 250kw front and 238kw rear motors? Or is that capability only reached with the 130kw from the generator. Given how Tesla can match the horse power, I would assume that you can get all of the power from battery-only mode but if so then " The generator can also increase the power to the motor and gearbox when serious power is needed " is false advertising is it not?

 

[JBee]

If I might have two lines of conversation here?


The first is: these sorts of comments all contain some element of "I'm only interested in hearing about things straight from Tesla, officially" which I find an either odd or disingenuous take. You don't need to come to this forum to know that Tesla hasn't said anything official, and that they wont until Nov. 30.

Which sort of begs the question of what you're doing in a forum before Nov. 30, doesn't it?

Relatedly, since you've come here to a forum prior to Nov 30 knowing there's nothing official from Tesla, doubly odd to feel compelled to chime in with your prerogative, which adds zero to the conversation - not one rebuttal of a stat, not one observation of a substantive doubt, etc.

No, just a thrashing, whining, sort of exclamation of a principle "I only listen to official coms", which ironically reflects less on folks here (who don't share the principle), and more on yourselves for coming to a forum knowing damn well you wont find an official com from Tesla.

So the first thing is, what have I misunderstood? Was there some substantive contribution here, that's totally lost on me?



The second thing is: while you may have a "official coms only" principle, many of us don't. And it's for good reason. Because, if you pay close attention, long enough, some very reasonable conclusions can be made before Nov. 30.

And let's be clear here: not a single person here is talking about anything, including these stats, absent the theoretical knowledge that official coms form Tesla will be better than what we're doing here. We've moved past that annoyingly obvious, and useless, point.

But let's go ahead and give a double-click look as to how people paying close, long, attention here can arrive at reasonable conclusions (subject to qualifications, obvious to all of us).

Let's brake these down a little:

Generally Speaking: That such specs could come out about now, just weeks before delivery, is consistent with internal distribution of data to techs (training), marketing (making website changes), etc. These general conditions for veracity are amplified by the stats being attendant to obviously insider photographs. Finally, nothing in these stats is obviously wild or repugnant to reason. There's not a single stat included that gives anyone any reason to, out of hand, exclaim "that is impossible."

So, generally, conditions are ripe. What about the data specifics?

Overall length: 18.6 feet

What exactly do you disbelieve here? Musk has said the truck is sub-19'. You think it's instead 18.7 feet? 18.6? Do you have a single thing to contribute here that raises any doubt?​

Overall width (no mirrors): 79.9”

Anyone paying attention expects this figure. There are no marker lights on the CT, no location market lights could exist, and for related reasons it's SOP for trucks to be a hair below 80" wide.​

Overall height (medium setting): 70.5”

If anything, on its face, this is the most potentially head-turning number, given the CT is on 35s, and a Lighting is 78" tall. But we know the CT has adaptive air, no frame space underneath. And, the F150 height includes antennae.​

​

But otherwise, what exactly is repugnant or unbelievable here?​

Wheelbase: 143”

Now, for each of the items above I've failed to mention that the stats are consistent with various kinds of work done around here by various people over the past many months.​

​

As with those, here's just one piece of such type of work, done over 7 months ago (you'll just have to trust that it was at least somewhat reasonably concocted):​

​

This and a dozen other previously-known bits of information are consistent with a 143" wheelbase.​

​

Curb weights

• 2 motor 6,670 lbs
• 3 motor 6,890 lbs

I'll separately leave it to you to go sort out what is known about G/H class ratings, comps to similar BEV weights, etc., and then remind that Musk just told us the vehicles were near 7,000lbs​

​

Accordingly, what's your objection here? That they may instead be 6,500lb and 6,750lbs? Does that contribute anything?​

​

Tow rating: 11,000lbs

Here's where I expect butts begin to get hurt. "Where's my 2019 truck with 14K towing" they cry!​

​

This tow rating is 1,000lbs greater than previously noted for the Dual. Do you disbelieve Tesla could best that?​

​

As for hopes for the 2019 "Tri Motor," you're on your own there - leave the rest of us to the available info.​

​

What's gonna really blow your sensitive noodle is backing into what payload would be for the two trucks, given the above stats. (hint: it's not 3,500)​

​

Bed length length: 72.8”

​

Musk has said it's "over 6 feet." 72.8" is over 6 feet.​

​

"But, it used to be 6.5 feet!" you say.​

​

If it was still 6.5', Musk wouldn't have said "over 6 feet."​

​

Also, see again the above referenced months of measurement work that, for those paying attention, have made clear enough the bed is not longer 6.5'.​

​

Bed Width: 51"

Use your eyes and look at the bed.​

​

Frunk volume: 7.1 cubic feet

Here again, for those paying attention, this is exactly within expectations.​

​

For just one example, this from months ago (the Lightning with 14.1ft3 volume)​

​

​

Interior Measurements:

For months people paying attention have said the CT interior is narrow. There's no longer a 6th seat, supporting that it's narrow.​

​

Otherwise, the CT's leg room and headroom are all within expectations of a roughly full-sized truck that is materially shorter than an F150.​

​

No outlets in front, two outlet in rear 120v one 220v

​

​

​

Given that all the above is an inordinately brief summary of observations people have collected and nit-picked for months around here, what exactly is your objection or contribution to the discussion?




If it sounds like this response is frustrated, you're right. It's as though a bunch of vintage watch enthusiasts are sitting around a table continuing a discussion they've been having for a year, and someone walks up and just exclaims, "people who like watches are stupid, and time isn't real if you really think about it."

It's non-contributory, lazy, rude, and a - frankly - reeks of butthurt from someone who wishes they had a watch, but their daddy never would let them buy one.

Of course, you have every right to inject whatever you want. But point of process: it's not *us* who walked into your conversation telling *you* to stop talking.


If you're only interested in direct coms from Tesla, don't click on a thread titled "specs leak" to come announce you don't believe in leaks.

Go instead and refresh the Tesla website.

I completely agree.

It's a weird world when many people have nothing more meaningful to to contribute, except for spreading disbelief in the hard work of others.

Front up with facts or useful on topic deduction to the contrary or leave it be.

It's not like we don't know anything about the CT is it? Some people have seen and touched it in person, even measured it, and yet still there are people that want to believe, for whatever twisted reason, that those physical observations are "make believe" until Tesla announces it.

Tesla is not the only person that owns a measuring tape, nor are they exempt from maths, or the physics of reality.

 

[TacoTuesday]

Next time someone sees a cybertruck, they should use the iPhone’s AR measuring tape app and do a full rundown!

 

[cvalue13]

In a digital world, why would they need to update service manuals with these specs included? The manuals could be updated within a few minutes.

i'm not suggesting a full manual has been published/printed, but instead that surely technicians, marketing, etc., are surely starting to receive data on the basics in advance of a launch 3 weeks away. Techs need training, websites need updating, etc.

 

[PilotPete]

If I might have two lines of conversation here?


The first is: these sorts of comments all contain some element of "I'm only interested in hearing about things straight from Tesla, officially" which I find an either odd or disingenuous take. You don't need to come to this forum to know that Tesla hasn't said anything official, and that they wont until Nov. 30.

Which sort of begs the question of what you're doing in a forum before Nov. 30, doesn't it?

Relatedly, since you've come here to a forum prior to Nov 30 knowing there's nothing official from Tesla, doubly odd to feel compelled to chime in with your prerogative, which adds zero to the conversation - not one rebuttal of a stat, not one observation of a substantive doubt, etc.

No, just a thrashing, whining, sort of exclamation of a principle "I only listen to official coms", which ironically reflects less on folks here (who don't share the principle), and more on yourselves for coming to a forum knowing damn well you wont find an official com from Tesla.

So the first thing is, what have I misunderstood? Was there some substantive contribution here, that's totally lost on me?



The second thing is: while you may have a "official coms only" principle, many of us don't. And it's for good reason. Because, if you pay close attention, long enough, some very reasonable conclusions can be made before Nov. 30.

And let's be clear here: not a single person here is talking about anything, including these stats, absent the theoretical knowledge that official coms form Tesla will be better than what we're doing here. We've moved past that annoyingly obvious, and useless, point.

But let's go ahead and give a double-click look as to how people paying close, long, attention here can arrive at reasonable conclusions (subject to qualifications, obvious to all of us).

C,

I think I didn't communicate my point very well (again). There are people here I trust that they are getting pretty good intel, and you are one of them. Hearing those nuggets and hearing everyone else's thoughts are interesting to me. However, I don't get my panties in a wad over the intel I get here. I don't wail and cry about Elon being a stupid failure for not including the feature I want most and then claiming that everyone wants exactly what I want, and that Tesla is now going to fail spectacularly because I didn't get my way. Nor do I believe the CT HAS to fulfill every single driver's every need and desire. I've said it before, there is a butt for every seat. Even cars like the Yugo, Aztec, Mustang II, PT Cruiser, Juke, Chevette and the like have ALL found buyers. They have all found people that were willing to spend their hard earned money on those cars.

So the offerings from every OEM will strike a chord with somebody. So if the CT ain't your cup of tea, then move on, and enjoy.

 

[cvalue13]

Next time someone sees a cybertruck, they should use the iPhone’s AR measuring tape app and do a full rundown!

it's been done!

But turns out, the reflective stainless makes for some preeeeety whompy results

 

[cvalue13]

So the offerings from every OEM will strike a chord with somebody. So if the CT ain't your cup of tea, then move on, and enjoy.

fair enough, and I think I misread your intent buried amongst the others'.

mia culpa

 

[fritter63]

it’s 11klb both / notice they break out stars of distinction between the two variants

the copy you quote is from 2019 - in a lane far, far, away

Fully aware that's the original spec. And that was my point. We were promised a much larger towing capacity, something we could rub the haters noses in.

Not getting it I guess.

And yes, I certainly don't need more than the 11K.

But was really looking to forward to writing on the tailgate (in grease pencil):

"Laugh it up, fuzzball

14,500 lbs towing capacity
....
....
"

 

[CYBRSMTH]

2024 Cybertruck Specs:

Overall length: 18.6 feet
Overall width (no mirrors): 79.9”
Overall height (medium setting): 70.5”
Wheelbase: 143”

Curb weights

• 2 motor 6,670 lbs
• 3 motor 6,890 lbs

Tow rating 11,000lbs
Max tongue: 1,100lbs
Bed length length: 72.8”
Bed Width: 51"
Frunk volume: 7.1 cubic feet
Weight capacity of trunk: 420lbs

Headroom: front 41.6” rear 39”
Legroom: 41” front 40.9” rear
Shoulder room: 63” front 62” rear
Hip room: front/rear 57.2”

No outlets in front, two outlet in rear 120v one 220v

EDIT TO ADD:

Have bolted up a compare (in heat map) of interior dimensions:

As suspected (by some) for a while, interior dimensions come in nearest to a Chevy Avalanche, but with width at hips (determining seat width) being comparable to a Toyota Tacoma - which explains the lack of 6th seat, but also portends a rather narrow rear seat that is "5 passengers" in name along the lines of a Tacoma (though CT's better shoulder width will help a touch).

EDIT TO ADD A 2ND TIME: ADDED MODEL Y AS TESLA CONSUMER REFERENCE

Next is a heat map that essentially demonstrates the design thesis of the Cybertruck:

• *nearly* full-sized BEV truck cargo area,
• *nearly* mid-sized footprint/agility (but an ~F150 wheelbase, mitigated by 4WS)
• somewhat *better* than mid-sized interior volume, at least in terms of rear seat legroom, but basically mid-sized seat width

EDIT TO ADD A 2ND TIME: ADDED THE HEAT MAP OF EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS (note Rivian height is a bit slippery to get nailed down, but height I view as really a nearly irrelevant stat for adaptive vehicles)

Very interesting. If true CT frunk is about half the size of F-150 Lightning. Bed length is barely over 6 feet, so I can’t lie down in the vault. Outlets are nice in the rear. No air compressor in sight. No front outlets that we know of. Hurry up November 30th!

 

[cvalue13]

Fully aware that's the original spec. And that was my point. We were promised a much larger towing capacity, something we could rub the haters noses in.

Not getting it I guess.

And yes, I certainly don't need more than the 11K.

But was really looking to forward to writing on the tailgate (in grease pencil):

"Laugh it up, fuzzball

14,500 lbs towing capacity
....
....
"

if it's any consolation, when the Model S released it was merely fast.

took a while before they released the version, the Plaid, that was rub-their-noses-in-it fast

Sponsored