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

[koolio]

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.

Wow, great to hear the CT is more efficient than the R1S.

I agree with the OP: the Cybertruck is shockingly efficient. I came from a 2020 Model Y and have been pleasantly surprised.

Sponsored

 

[carsly]

My first 1,500 miles after pickup, summer driving in NJ. A solid 333 Wh/mi on all-terrains with my FS AWD. That's within 3.5% of my prior Model S Plaid on 21's. I took a 100.8 mile round trip this weekend with elevation and it used exactly 30% of the battery. Cybertruck efficiency is no joke.

 

[Mini2nut]

The RWD is rated for 366 miles of range.

 

[Outdoors]

Come back to us when ya add another zero to the end of the study. Or another way would be see ya in a year. Ones behaviour can be modified to extract what is desired in a small sample size. Hard to modify behaviour over a year to post some awesome numbers.

Truck is very efficient at low speeds. Not so much at high speeds. The story of every EV and every car/truck.

 

[Beetlebug62]

Come back to us when ya add another zero to the end of the study. Or another way would be see ya in a year. Ones behaviour can be modified to extract what is desired in a small sample size. Hard to modify behaviour over a year to post some awesome numbers.

Truck is very efficient at low speeds. Not so much at high speeds. The story of every EV and every car/truck.

I get your point, so I often ignore posts about someone's amazing 10mi drive. The only reason why my small samples seem meaningful to me, is that I mostly let my vehicles drive now. I FSD everywhere, so my behavior has little bearing on the vehicle's efficiency. It's FSD doing the driving. I toggle the scroll wheel to make sure I'm driving 8mph over the speed limits, and I'll goose the throttle to remind the vehicle to get up to speed, but that's it.

I've driven the Model 3 long enough to know its efficiency, and in particular, coming back from skiing to my home. I do that drive so often in a season, that it's hardly modifiable, since the time of drive was almost identical.

 

[vandytom]

... 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.

PLUS it’s actually FASTER than the 3 ?

 

[vandytom]

I get your point, so I often ignore posts about someone's amazing 10mi drive. The only reason why my small samples seem meaningful to me, is that I mostly let my vehicles drive now. I FSD everywhere, so my behavior has little bearing on the vehicle's efficiency. It's FSD doing the driving. I toggle the scroll wheel to make sure I'm driving 8mph over the speed limits, and I'll goose the throttle to remind the vehicle to get up to speed, but that's it.

I've driven the Model 3 long enough to know its efficiency, and in particular, coming back from skiing to my home. I do that drive so often in a season, that it's hardly modifiable, since the time of drive was almost identical.

I’ve ripped the hell out of it. Maxed out 114 mph. Etc. Very surprised about efficiency. The only thing is I wish charging is faster. Waiting for that increase speed.

 

[Jager]

Model 3 (pre-refresh) Cd: 0.225
Cybertruck Cd: 0.340

As @Outdoors mentioned, aerodynamics become a larger and larger factor as speeds increase. So your Model 3's efficiency will pull away from the Cybertruck's as you go faster and faster (or, will plummet somewhat slower is probably a better way of putting it).

But especially given its size, Tesla did a remarkable job of streamlining the Cybertruck. For comparison, the Ford F-150, a similar sized vehicle, comes in at 0.430.

At more modest speeds - like you, I spend a lot of time on back roads - the Cybertruck does exceptionally well. And its all around driver ergonomics lend itself to really excellent driver inputs - the missing component in most vehicle efficiency discussions - which can then translate into superior efficiency numbers.

 

[GatorCyber]

I followed my Cybertruck in my 2023 Model X for 110 miles and 2 hours to service. The results were that CT uses 33% more energy.
Cybertruck 400Wh/mi
'23 Model X 300 Wh/mi

Your 2018 Model 3 doesn't have a heat pump and has likely lost efficiency? If you compared to a 2024 Model 3 there would be a much bigger gap, maybe almost double the energy consumption.

 

[mongo]

I followed my Cybertruck in my 2023 Model X for 110 miles and 2 hours to service. The results were that CT uses 33% more energy.
Cybertruck 400Wh/mi
'23 Model X 300 Wh/mi

Well, yeah... you were drafting. Next time, put the X in front ?

 

[carsly]

Well, yeah... you were drafting. Next time, put the X in front ?

One could argue that having the most aerodynamic vehicle leading (X) would have resulted in the lowest total energy expenditure for both vehicles making the trip drafting one another.

 

[mongo]

One could argue that having the most aerodynamic vehicle leading (X) would have resulted in the lowest total energy expenditure for both vehicles making the trip drafting one another.

Need a three Cybertruck convoy ?

 

[carsly]

Need a three Cybertruck convoy ?

I bet the Cybertruck could get under 300 Wh/mi on the highway drafting a Tesla Semi.

 

[henchman24]

With my CT, three things kill efficiency.... speed, wind, and temps. If you can avoid those, you'll see very efficient numbers that no other EV truck can even come close to (even if you do hit these, the CT is still very efficient in comparison).

On speed, keep it below 65-70 and it is remarkably efficient... get above that it starts falling off a cliff. Makes sense as it isn't real aerodynamic and there is a lot of rolling resistance. Wind is kinda in a same vein... I live in a particularly windy area, so I notice head and side winds can kill efficiency pretty quick. 85mph into a 30mph headwind means mid to low 200s are about as far as you can go.

Now on temps, it makes sense with all EVs having this issue. It just seems exaggerated on the CT. On my 18 Model 3, there actually wasn't a large impact until we got to freezing or even a good chunk below. That was with resistive heat too. Yet the CT under 35 degrees is heavily impacted even with the heat pump. I think it comes down to cell chemistry and how much cobalt they are taking out of the 4680 cells, but could be another change. This pack does not like to be cold and 45-50f is cold enough to make a significant impact. The truck seemingly tries to heat the battery to ~60-65f if you take it out of chill mode and 50-55f even in chill mode. Short trips simply don't produce enough waste heat to do that, so it runs the heat pump to try to warm the battery. If it is cold and you don't need the power, chill mode is a 5+% gain in my experience.

Oh and aftermarket ATs also kill range. I swapped out the core AS tires for Nokian NATs (and I love these tires) and it knocked off a solid ~7%.

 

[mongo]

Cold weather hits worse if you are road tripping and it preconditions the pack to speed supercharging.

Sponsored