Cybertruck Highway Range Test (Dual-Motor AWD) -- Run Until Battery Empty (by Out Of Spec)

[Woodrick]

Interesting,
Where did this picture come from? Was Kyle or somewhere else?

Sponsored

 

[ninja6r]

That would mean the total weight of the vehicle would be well over 10,000 pounds.

Didn't they say the weight is 6700lbs for the dual? Add another pack and you only at another 1800-2400lbs. I'll wait for Munro to weigh it, but I bet they could do it. But, yes, they'd have to redo suspension and whatever else is needed. I'm just mad cause I know they CAN, but won't.

 

[cvalue13]

Can you clarify? What did I get wrong?

Did I mess my math up anywhere?

Let’s back up and remember that what spawned this conversation was the notion that (A) Tesla is well known to (legitimately but aggressively) stake their EPA ratings, while (B) other OEM’s tend to be more conservative, and so as a result Tesla “real world” stats tend to seem more disappointing.

To which notion you responded:

I'm assuming that you aren't talking about Ford then.

In other words, you were doubting that amongst other OEMs, you doubted that Ford was one that tends to be more conservative in its approach to EPA stated range compared to Tesla.

Eventually, you wanted my personal Lightning range as some “proof” that you were wrong about Ford not being conservative (and so Tesla not being comparatively aggressive) in its EPA ratings.

I then gave you my stats, the only relevant one to the conversation - the only stat relevant as a comparison to Kyle’s highway milage CT test - were my highway stats of 2.44mi/kwh

but for some reason you juxtapose Kyle’s 2.08mi/kWh (255mi total range) against my 2.1 average for city/around town driving

So compared to Kyle's test, he was 2.08 mi/kWh vs your average of 2 and your stated hwy of 2.44

Sure, you list my 2.44, but it’s based on the 2.1 that you obviously “conclude”:

the Cybertruck seems to be in the same neighborhood as the Lightning

Which is wrong for two reasons:

First, it’s wrong because it’s comparing Kyle’s highway range test against my around-town driving. Which around town driving I more than once describe in my post as being irrelevant because I’m “regularly using my truck as an office of hours on end. For my day-to-day use, I rarely pre-condition, live in central Texas, use HVAC with abandon, leave pro-power turned on always (this prob dumb), take every opportunity to floor it, and - importantly, regularly leave my truck (and HVAC) running for extended periods of time.”

Second, it’s wrong because comparing Kyle’s result to mine is beside the point of conversation: is Ford conservative about it’s EPA ratings.

Ford’s highway EPA is 283 miles, or 2.16mi/kWh - at an average of 48mph testing.

Yet I get 2.44 or 320mi … that’s 40 miles or 14% better than EPA highway rating, doing 65-70. That’s getting EPA combined, but at highway, and at materially increased speed.

(Meanwhile, if you want to know how I drive with complete range abandon around town, and how much time use my truck as an office, HVAC running, etc.: Lightning’s EPA city is 350mi or 2.67mi/kwh, where I’m getting only 2.1mi/kWh - I have no range anxiety in town, because I fill up every night, and don’t go far, so I not only don’t use it like the EPA does, I abuse the energy consumption far more than I ever would in an ICE.)


Point being, you asked for my anecdotal proof that Ford like other OEM’s are more conservative in their EPA ratings. Using the only time I drive my truck like a sane person, on the hwy, I showed that my ‘real world’ hwy range is 14% better than EPA stated highway, at materially higher speeds than EPA conditions.

And this is consistent with TONs of anecdotal data from a few years on the lightning forum. Inevitably anyone who complains about their Hwy mi/kWh, ends up disclosing they “can’t imagine going slower than 80mph,” haven’t checked/corrected their PSI since they got the truck, have swapped for “more aggressive” tires, and were driving in 30° weather.

All of which is still consistent with EPA stated range/conditions. Probably, in fact, better.

Meanwhile, we don’t need another thread detailing the ways that historically Tesla is on the opposite end of the spectrum in their approach to EPA ratings. It’s widely known, well documented, history, ala:

Meanwhile, back to the points that started all this:

(1) Kyle’s test found really just what we might expect from a truck with an EPA combined 318 - about 280mi in highway conditions (just like the Lightning’s) - to the point of being almost uninteresting and unsurprising to anyone familiar with BEV trucks (people with sedans might be surprised).

(2) if anything, what’s interesting about Kyle’s findings are that, despite being a Tesla, they’re what might be expected. Plus, he’s going faster than EPA hwy, and in slightly cooler than EPA temps.

Which tow above points if anything should be the real takeaway from this thread’s OP.

The range Kyle got in highway conditions should have been what is expected as soon as we first saw that EPA combined was 318mi; what’s encouraging about Kyle’s test, is that he got around what would be expected at all, in a Tesla. Maybe better.

Not not better than my Lightning. And not “in the same ballpark.”

Anecdotally.

 

[cvalue13]

The Hummer EV isn't even 10,000lbs, & it has a 212kwh pack
50kw of additional pack weighs 650lbs (13lbs/kwh).

Didn't they say the weight is 6700lbs for the dual? Add another pack and you only at another 1800-2400lbs.

I believe he’s talking about >10K GCWR, which is curb + payload, and what is relevant to much of the regulatory triggers for the weight of trucks - including the CyberTruck not qualifying for full carbon trading credits for each CT sale, which credits are a large part of Tesla’s business model.

put differently, to add the additional pack weight natively, Tesla to retain its optimum carbon credits etc would have been forced to choose to sandbag its payload rating down to numbers that would have gotten them laughed at (after the grandiose 3,500 claims in ‘19)

some say, “give me the additional pack native, I don’t care if you post a 1,400lb payload”

to which I believe Tesla replied, “if you think a $16K range extender is expensive, you don’t want to hold my beer and see what a CyberTruck MSRP is like with 2X the native pack - plus, we’ll be keeping our carbon credit business long before we worry about your business.”

 

[SSonnentag]

254/318 is ~ 80%. Its really not that bad considering the temps and stuff

I agree. My ‘23 MYP is averaging 83% of rated during its first 6,000 miles.

 

[Celiboy]

Tesla uses a legal but extremely optimistic approach to its correction factor that boosts its EPA range above what other manufacturers do. As a result, you will see, for example that a Model Y has 330 miles EPA range vs a Mach-E 310 miles. In WLTP testing, however, where both vehicles are tested under the same (optimistic) conditions, Mach-E gets 373 miles and Model Y gets 331 miles. The reason Tesla performs better than Ford on the US test but worse than Ford on the EU test is down to the more optimistic approach to their correction factor.

Good article here: https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/

If only we lived in a world where we could go from A to B in the exact same conditions that the EPA tests every vehicle in we’d all be happy, happy, happy. Unfortunately we live in a world that no vehicle ever gets its EPA mileage or range because no one can replicate the EPA conditions taking little Johnny to school every day. Either you want it or not. Complaining about isn’t going to gain you any additional range. Buy whichever EV meets your needs. If it’s not a Tesla then fine. There are plenty of options available for everyone.

 

[Woodrick]

Let’s back up and remember that what spawned this conversation was the notion that (A) Tesla i

Anecdotally.

I'm looking for the numbers for the Cybertruck. Your numbers represent a vehicle of the same size, so there can be a lot of commonality between them.
After driving EVs for 8 years, I am quite familiar with the numbers, when they go high and when they go low. And I realize (and hence all of my disclaimers) that you can even do the same drive two days in a row and the numbers can be quite different.

So, my first step was to see if the numbers that we were seeing from Kyle's ride was anywhere near what COULD be expected. 480 watts/mi is indeed a lot higher than other Teslas, but after looking at your numbers, were in at least the right ballpark, unlike those early numbers of like 800 watts (or whatever they were saying).
They were also sitting right next to your average, I understand that your pattern is weird, but it is the only confirmable set of numbers that you gave me. I'm really sorry, but "This guy or gal said that they normally get 247" That's anecdotal and you don't seem to like that.

So, for me, it looks as if the Cybertruck is going to be able to hit it's number, just like any other Tesla does. I'll leave it to you to argue how correct that is, but it does seem to be correct in "Tesla-speak"

And that allows me to give advice with more certainty. As I had said somewhere earlier, it looks as if the Cybertruck may pull about 100 watts/mi than the Model Y. That's valuable information. It tells me the range and combined with some other charts, the charging times.

 

[HaulingAss]

I actually think the CT did ok considering the pack & tire combo. The Rivian is just going to be better under identical conditions (weather/tires) due to larger pack & better Cd.
The CT Range Extender (vs max pack) is much better deal per kwh if it ever gets implemented, it is a poor design though.
They both did a total bait & switch on the larger pack range option.

The jury is still out on the relative efficiency of the Cybertruck vs. the Rivian, which is a much smaller truck with ~29% lower cargo capacity, much smaller bed and smaller cabin.

I tend to think the Cybertruck will be a bit more efficient at 60 mph, given what I have seen so far. Even if the Cybertruck only manages to match the Rivian efficiency at 60 mph, it will be a huge win for the Cybertruck given its larger size and higher cargo capacity.

The most popular reservation trim, the Dual Motor Cybertruck, was not a bait/switch, Tesla delivered 40 more miles than promised.

 

[ninja6r]

I believe he’s talking about >10K GCWR, which is curb + payload, and what is relevant to much of the regulatory triggers for the weight of trucks - including the CyberTruck not qualifying for full carbon trading credits for each CT sale, which credits are a large part of Tesla’s business model.

put differently, to add the additional pack weight natively, Tesla to retain its optimum carbon credits etc would have been forced to choose to sandbag its payload rating down to numbers that would have gotten them laughed at (after the grandiose 3,500 claims in ‘19)

some say, “give me the additional pack native, I don’t care if you post a 1,400lb payload”

to which I believe Tesla replied, “if you think a $16K range extender is expensive, you don’t want to hold my beer and see what a CyberTruck MSRP is like with 2X the native pack - plus, we’ll be keeping our carbon credit business long before we worry about your business.”

Makes sense. Kind of a bummer they don't want to actually accelerate the EV transition. Essentially, we won't be seeing that truck until the energy credits can't be claimed by Tesla.

 

[HaulingAss]

Maybe. Need data. Colder air is a factor but doesn't account for a 20% error. I want those Tesla OEM tires - everyone who has reviewed them are amazed at the performance and (lack of) road noise and I think they look great. Maybe put the Tesla tires on a F150 Lightning and compare side-by-side.

Yeah, but the tires on the Lightning are narrower and shorter than the Cybertruck tires. That means putting Cybertruck tires on the Lightning will further decrease the Lightning's range.

 

[AlDente]

I am happy to see reservation holders drop out as I am not getting any younger. As far as range is concerned I just completed a 525 mile trip in my 2016 MS. 40 degrees when we started out. When crossing into Canada and heading north of Toronto the temps dropped into the low 30’s. We lost quite a bit of range tracking 70+. With the CT we will have more range than my older MS and will be making the same trip quite often having to only charge once instead of twice.
no consider if I had to purchase a new truck to replace my current Tundra. I just looked at F250 prices and they were in the low to mid 80’s. I didn’t bother with Ram and I didn’t look at the Tundra Hybrid. Why because the Ram and Fords are all old technology. With a CT you are getting the best of new technology. Why would you want anything else. You have to adapt to the need to charge when you are on the road. Heck I pulled my boat with my Tundra to have the outboards serviced. Just under a 1/4 tank to pull my 27’ Grady White 36 miles. 38 gallon tank so say 6 gallons for 36 miles is 9 miles per gallon. So all you trailer pullers and non stop drivers drop out now so I get my CT sooner. I don’t have that much time left to be dilly dallying along. If you don’t want to stop and charge, buy the Ford Ram or Toyota. You will have to stop and pay for gas. Canada gas was $1.69 a LITER. But don’t knock the best truck that is going to be on the road. All the other auto makers are going to have to follow Tesla CT or get left behind (out of business). If anyone wants to give me their early reservation number I’ll take it.

Amen brother ...

 

[VDR]

Even if the Cybertruck only manages to match the Rivian efficiency at 60 mph, it will be a huge win for the Cybertruck given its larger size and higher cargo capacity.

The most popular reservation trim, the Dual Motor Cybertruck, was not a bait/switch, Tesla delivered 40 more miles than promised.

What makes you think the CT will be as efficient as the Rivian at 60mph? The Cd is still higher & besides it looks like the masses want/need hwy range @75-80mph not 60mph. Local range is virtually irrelevant.
The most recent R1T DM test @ 70mph on 21" wheels & A/S was 2.4mi/kwh.
It would be nice to see CT efficiency on A/S.

That is correct the DM CT became much more popular because the Tri-M was such a huge miss.
It has yet to be seen if it can deliver the extra 40miles, 2.75mi/kwh is pretty optimistic.
In all honesty the DM is a somewhat compelling vehicle especially after they drop the price & increase the range/charging speed in a few years.

 

[HaulingAss]

What makes you think the CT will be as efficient as the Rivian at 60mph? The Cd is still higher & besides it looks like the masses want/need hwy range @75-80mph not 60mph. Local range is virtually irrelevant.

Where I want the most efficiency is off the beaten path, on rural highways that are not yet populated with Superchargers. 55-60 mph is a suitable speed for most roads of this type and you will find your range is greatly increased when you need it the most (away from Interstates that have great Supercharger coverage).

As to what makes me think the Dual Motor Cybertruck will be about as efficient as the Rivian Dual Motor at around 60 mph is that efficiency is not only about aero, especially at lower speeds. And Kyle's range test at 46 degrees and 500 feet elevation is not comparable to his usual tests at 5000 ft. elevation and warmer temps. I also think the Cybertruck's Cd is more comparable to the Rivian than the two numbers we have seen, coefficients of drag are notoriously finicky to nail down and can be measured in numerous ways. I think Rivian is not fully disclosing what their Cd of .3 actually represents. And the Cybertruck is 500 lbs. lighter which will reduce rolling resistance. It likely has better powertrain and climate control efficiency as well.

Time will tell, don't base your opinion on any one range test, especially since I was specifically comparing them at 60 mph, not 70 mph.

 

[Gigahorse]

Understood.

Good plan, make it $100,000 instead of $69,000 and make it 200 miles of range instead of 500 miles. They teach that at Stanford?

Promise more, deliver less.
For the most part Tesla under promises and over delivers but with the CT the Range and Price were such a rug pull it is hard to get past that to appreciate steer by wire, etc.

 

[Gigahorse]

Where I want the most efficiency is off the beaten path, on rural highways that are not yet populated with Superchargers. 55-60 mph is a suitable speed for most roads of this type and you will find your range is greatly increased when you need it the most (away from Interstates that have great Supercharger coverage).

As to what makes me think the Dual Motor Cybertruck will be about as efficient as the Rivian Dual Motor at around 60 mph is that efficiency is not only about aero, especially at lower speeds. And Kyle's range test at 46 degrees and 500 feet elevation is not comparable to his usual tests at 5000 ft. elevation and warmer temps. I also think the Cybertruck's Cd is more comparable to the Rivian than the two numbers we have seen, coefficients of drag are notoriously finicky to nail down and can be measured in numerous ways. I think Rivian is not fully disclosing what their Cd of .3 actually represents. And the Cybertruck is 500 lbs. lighter which will reduce rolling resistance. It likely has better powertrain and climate control efficiency as well.

Time will tell, don't base your opinion on any one range test, especially since I was specifically comparing them at 60 mph, not 70 mph.

There is enough real world data coming in now to let us know the approximate range of these vehicles, and it is well under half of the 500+ that got everyone excited about the future of EV Trucks..

Sponsored