Cybertruck “not a real truck” says survey among truck drivers

[SwampNut]

Sponsored

 

[John K]

This is a truck and its capabilities is how all future trucks are measured.

 

[cvalue13]

 

[RVAC]

Strictly when it comes to comparing capabilities, you can compare it to whatever you want.

But it won’t change the following:



Or maybe you should start a YouTube channel that only does head-to-head towing comparisons of 3/4 ton trucks vs 1/2 ton trucks. Hell, may as well see how a 1/2 ton trucks performs against 1-ton trucks!

It’d make for good satire, at least.

Putting the Cybertruck head to head with an F-250 in a towing test makes as much sense as putting a Ford Ranger up against an F-150 in a payload test. You can do it and it would even be fun to watch but at the end of the day it doesn't make much sense because they are trucks that don't compete with one another.

 

[SwampNut]

It makes perfect sense since they are direct competitors.

 

[firsttruck]

This is a truck and its capabilities is how all future trucks are measured.

Didn't have to worry about scratched paint or door dings. No cracked windshield!

Yup, 70-100 years ago, those were real pickup trucks not like the fragile extremely complex things sold today. Electric efficiency, simplicity, reliability.

GMC had 1ton-6ton Electric Trucks until 1916.

Walker electric truck were made until 1940s. Some customers had electric trucks in industrial/commercial service for over 60 years.

-----------------------------------

Hmm, looking at this truck, straight, flat, angles (few curves), Cybertruck doesn't look so futuristic as it does nostalgic or retro

Orion owns and operates the electricity distribution network that provides power to central Canterbury. As the third largest electricity distribution network in New Zealand, we cover remote rural areas, regional towns and the city of Christchurch.
https://www.oriongroup.co.nz/corporate/about-us/environment/

.....
We also own one of the most prized examples of motoring heritage in New Zealand, the Walker half-ton electric truck, manufactured in Chicago, which we purchased in 1919.


-----------------------------------

Walker Electric Trucks were battery-powered vehicles built from 1907 to 1942
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Electric_Truck

.....
Several of their trucks were long in service, surviving the brand, in some cases, by decades. A few of them are now on display in museums or, in the case of one exported to New Zealand, still "in service" with its original owner Orion New Zealand Limited.[2]

.....
The Dwinell-Wright Company in Boston, Massachusetts employed a Walker Electric Truck from 1914 through 1960 to move freight—primarily green coffee beans—from the docks to their South Boston warehouse.

-----------------------------------

Forget the Hummer EV: GMC Made an Electric Truck in 1913 Called the Model 3
GMC did it before and, now, it’s doing it again. Kinda.
byJames Gilboy
PUBLISHED Oct 22, 2020
https://www.thedrive.com/news/37216...-an-electric-truck-in-1913-called-the-model-3

-----------------------------------

 

[cvalue13]

Putting the Cybertruck head to head with an F-250 in a towing test makes as much sense as putting a Ford Ranger up against an F-150 in a payload test. You can do it and it would even be fun to watch but at the end of the day it doesn't make much sense because they are trucks that don't compete with one another.

Just when I thought we were coming to mere violent agreement…

silver lining is, I’m finally convinced it’s useless and we can get back to being generally in agreement ok most other things

I’m curious though: do you tow, or otherwise have you shopped for and owned different classes of full-sizes truck?

Are you under the impression that there is any difference between an F150 and an F250 other than the equipment that makes it payload/tow better?

 

[SwampNut]

 

[charliemagpie]

As it stands right now ,I think Ford would be EXTREMELY happy for people to think their Lightning and Cybertruck are in the same category.

Ford knows customers perceptions will change once the clearly superior Cybertruck comes out.

I don't say ' clearly superior' to be facetious, but rather I think Ford clearly knows that too, and is why it wants to develop its own best EV truck version at its new facility by 2026.

And I guess we all question Fords timeline. New factory construction has been over a year, and still no walls. Its going to get tough by 2026.

 

[RVAC]

It makes perfect sense since they are direct competitors.

I don't agree, CT's direct competitor is the F-150 also when towing. Saying it’s silly to compare the Cybertruck's towing performance to an F-150 is like saying it’s silly to compare a Model S with a Taycan on the drag strip because the Model S outperforms it on the quarter mile, doesn’t change the fact that is its direct competitor. Similarly a Ford Ranger’s payload capacity is comparable to that of some F-150's, is that its direct competitor? No, is it silly to compare the Ford Ranger’s payload to the Tacoma? No, quite the opposite in fact.

Just when I thought we were coming to mere violent agreement…

silver lining is, I’m finally convinced it’s useless and we can get back to being generally in agreement ok most other things

I’m curious though: do you tow, or otherwise have you shopped for and owned different classes of full-sizes truck?

Are you under the impression that there is any difference between an F150 and an F250 other than the equipment that makes it payload/tow better?

Well I did say one post in that we should just agree to disagree ... you then proceeded to get overly heated over what is indeed a rather useless argument all things considered.

I have not owned one but I have cross shopped them, have you? Because you don't seem to be aware you can spec an F-150 in excess of 3,000lbs of payload and up to 14,000lbs towing capacity. Does it mean the F-150 is now a 3/4 ton which should be compared to a Chevy 2500HD instead of a 1500? That's what happens when you get fixated with single specs and have a fundamentalist view of 1/4-1/2-3/4-1 ton designations as if it was the gospel when in reality it's little more than an outdated and loose way of categorizing trucks.

 

[cvalue13]

I have not owned one but I have cross shopped them, have you? Because you don't seem to be aware you can spec an F-150 in excess of 3,000lbs of payload and up to 14,000lbs towing capacity. Does it mean the F-150 is now a 3/4 ton which should be compared to a Chevy 2500HD instead of a 1500? That's what happens when you get fixated with single specs and have a fundamentalist view of 1/4-1/2-3/4-1 ton designations as if it was the gospel when in reality it's little more than an outdated and loose way of categorizing trucks.

I’m familiar.

How a truck is outfitted as a standard vs its options isn’t hard to wrap one’s mind around. Manufacturers understand, which is why they continue to designate every full-sized truck they offer with their respective capabilities designations for the class of truck.

But despite this industry-wide standard understood by everyone and reflected in the trade name of every full-sized pickup offered for sale, you take inconsistent views depending on which is convenient to your bias relative to the CT.

In one breath being defensive of the CT, you say that even in terms of categorical capabilities the CT should not be “compared” to the F250. Here, if Ford staged a “payload/tow battle” between the CT and an and the most capably optioned/weighted F250 produced, you’d say, “hey that’s ridiculous!”

In the next breath being offensive on behalf of the CT you say that these categorical distinctions are effectively meaningless, what matters is only the relevant customer target base. Here, if Tesla staged a “tow battle” between the CT and the least capable/lightest optioned F150, you’d say, “see, the CT is a bad-ass!”

But maybe you should come around to deciding between taking only one view or the other regarding comparing capabilities. Either (A) these categories are meaningful, in which case it matters which vehicles you choose for comparing (so the CT-F150 tow battle is “unfair” and shouldn’t be done), or (B) these categories are meaningless, in which case anyone comparing vehicles across categories is making a meaningless comparison (and so the CT-F150 tow battle is stupid and only idiots who think capabilities categories are real would care).

The entire industry has taken position (A), as reflected in the model names of the vehicles they produce. This makes sense, because as between 150/1500 lines and 350/3500 lines, the only differences between the base models are the features that produce the capabilities - they are otherwise identical vehicles.

You can of course choose to say the industry’s approach is outdated and meaningless, but that actually suggests it’s fair game for Ford and other traditionals to then stage toe battles the CT and whatever base model, with whatever features, they choose. And as the CT gets slapped around like a rag doll against an F350 with max towing/payload optionally, you’d remember why manufacturers utilized like these distinction for letting customers choose how much they want to pay for these capabilities.

But people familiar with trucks would think that was as just as uninteresting as is the CT-F150 tow battle.

 

[RVAC]

As far as I'm concerned we can end it here, I've given you practical examples as to why the F-150 is the primary competitor even when it comes to payload/towing comparisons. On top of the size & design aspects which are a factor and should be kept in mind when categorizing trucks.

How a truck is outfitted as a standard vs its options isn’t hard to wrap one’s mind around. Manufacturers understand, which is why they continue to designate every full-sized truck they offer with their respective capabilities designations for the class of truck.

But despite this industry-wide standard understood by everyone and reflected in the trade name of every full-sized pickup offered for sale, you take inconsistent views depending on which is convenient to your bias relative to the CT.

Talk about bias, you're now moving goalposts to the point of saying an F-150 has to be taken in its most basic spec and the Cybertruck in its top spec to prove that its most direct competitor is the F-250. Apply the same metric by taking the Cybertruck in its base configuration and it becomes fairly obvious what it should be compared to.

In one breath being defensive of the CT, you say that even in terms of categorical capabilities the CT should not be “compared” to the F250. Here, if Ford staged a “payload/tow battle” between the CT and an and the most capably optioned/weighted F250 produced, you’d say, “hey that’s ridiculous!”

In the next breath being offensive on behalf of the CT you say that these categorical distinctions are effectively meaningless, what matters is only the relevant customer target base. Here, if Tesla staged a “tow battle” between the CT and the least capable/lightest optioned F150, you’d say, “see, the CT is a bad-ass!”

Except for the fact I never once stated that, logic follows that you'd compare the appropriate trims. Basic spec F-150 with basic spec Cybertruck or top spec of the Cybertruck, which you've been taking as reference, with top spec F-150. That's still an F-150 not an F-250.

You can of course choose to say the industry’s approach is outdated and meaningless, but that actually suggests it’s fair game for Ford and other traditionals to then stage toe battles the CT and whatever base model, with whatever features, they choose. And as the CT gets slapped around like a rag doll against an F350 with max towing/payload optionally, you’d remember why manufacturers utilized like these distinction for letting customers choose how much they want to pay for these capabilities.

Doesn't look like you've understood the point I was making, what I'm saying is it's not as black and white as you're making it out to be. Case in point the industry considers an F-150 with 3.5L Ecoboost V6 or 5.0L V8 a 1/2 ton despite capabilities in some respects equal to that of an F-250 (3/4 ton). Does this ring a bell? It sure seems like you take issue with the fact that (on paper) the top spec Cybertruck beats out the top spec F-150 so you state that anything other than comparing it with an F-250 is satire.

 

[cvalue13]

Cybertruck beats out the top spec F-150

Assuming still of course unveil stats, the top trim Tri Motor top optionality can tow a massive 14,000 pounds. Additionally, the Cybertruck offers a payload capacity of 3,500 pounds.

That bests the Lightning top optionality by 4,000lb towing, 1,500lb payload. Hands down winner vs Lightning. Super impressive, esp given the assumption weight of the CT (which weight kills the Lightning’s stats).

The top towing/payload optionality for an ICE F150 brings identical towing (14klb) and 250lb less payload (3,250). Those trucks unaltered will tow identical. Put $300 of sandbags in the bed of the F150 and deflate the tires 10%, and it will very likely drag a top-trim CT around squealing.

All of this to me merely re-makes my point: it matters which models and options you’re comparing, or none of it “matters” at all. Choose your position.

I choose the latter: if someone giddily exclaims the CT is more towing/payload capable than the Lightning, I applaud and look at my CT reservation number (longingly).

If they instead giddily reference the stupid unveil video “tow battle” (or equivalent assertions) between the CT and a minimally equipped F150, I think it’s an embarrassing indirect admission that they there don’t understand trucks. Ford may as well post a video of a maximally equipped F150 with sandbags in a “tow battle” with the lowest optioned CT with over-inflated, bald, tires. Both comparisons are equally stupid and meaningless.

The only difference I can see, is that around here some people would go stark-raving mad at Ford’s video, while simultaneously using the CT tow video as a basis to claim the CT’s superiority.

 

[Ogre]

Don’t know why the numbers on the hood of the F-Series trucks even matter.

It needs to be priced where they can sell 300k+ per year. That means it needs to be roughly F-150 priced. People don’t drive the truck they want, they drive the truck they can afford to buy.

This is why I think this discussion of comparing it to the F250 is just stupid. How many F250s does Ford sell a year? 10,000? Maybe 20,000? Tesla might worry about fighting for that share later, but to sell 300,000 trucks a year it’s far more important to nail the pricing first.

The number of people who can afford an $80,000 truck is a fraction of the number who can afford a $50,000 truck. Tesla’s done the math on where they need to price the truck to sell it in the quantities they want to sell.

If Tesla wanted to sabotage their whole effort here, chasing the F250 is a good way to go.

 

[firsttruck]

As it stands right now ,I think Ford would be EXTREMELY happy for people to think their Lightning and Cybertruck are in the same category.

Ford knows customers perceptions will change once the clearly superior Cybertruck comes out.

I don't say ' clearly superior' to be facetious, but rather I think Ford clearly knows that too, and is why it wants to develop its own best EV truck version at its new facility by 2026.

And I guess we all question Fords timeline. New factory construction has been over a year, and still no walls. Its going to get tough by 2026.

Yup, I don't think Ford will be shipping any significant volumes of new EV pickup until 2027.

Cybertruck will own the EV pickup truck market by then because Ford will not ship enough Lightning EVs due to profit losses.

Sponsored