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

[Art O'Connor]

Whoa. Let's not start calling people "liars." I am assuming you are saying that the Rivian data is inaccurate? It is true that this Rivian test was done in warmer weather

The Rivian on 20" AT Tires had an EPA Rated range of 289 https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=46312&#tab1

70 mph Range Test yeilded 289 miles https://insideevs.com/news/574637/rivian-r1t-70mph-range-test/

The EPA is one of the outfits I can trust for unbiased results. So, I go to fueleconomy.gov and try to compare. Tesla has no 2024 vehicles listed (The CT is a 2024 model). However, we can compare the eSilverado, the Lightning and the Rivian RT1. Lots of, for me, useless information, like MPGe. However, it does list range: 289 for the Rivian, 320 for the Lightning and 393 for the Chevy. The range takes into account the burn rate and the battery size. It does not take into account the efficiency, directly. That is the KWH others post here. So, the only valid range test I find in this forum is the guy who set cruise control to 70 m.p.h. on a flat surface and mild temperature and ran his CT until it died. About 260 miles. Maybe, around town, with regenerative breaking (but acceleration), you might do better; but that constant speed test was, arguably, real world.

Sponsored

 

[Gigahorse]

Wrong. There is very little scientific range test data available for either of them, especially the Tri-motor. And the most popular Dual Motor configuration exceeds the announced range by 40 miles (that's the one I configured). In fact, the most reliable data we have comes from Tesla, it just needs to be understood to represent official EPA drive cycles and adjusted appropriately.

Even the Tri-Motor surprised us with its segment leading power and acceleration, no one guessed it would be powerful enough to do a 0-60 mph in 2.6 seconds! Insanity!

The range will gradually get longer over the next several years, for those who still think they need more. Meanwhile, the continuing buildout of the Supercharger Network will continue to make those who actually need more range, increasingly more of an edge case.

I mean maybe not scientific. But if real people are driving them and getting sub 250 or sub 200 I really don't care what scientists in a wind tunnel are claiming, because I don't live in a wind tunnel.

The acceleration is AWSOME, and I am sure 10 years from now there will be a bunch of V4 super chargers, but I have been waiting for "the future" for 4 years and the future currently has 200 miles of range, before I hook up a trailer.

 

[mggoulet]

Without a range of 600 miles... the electric cars are good for city only. In America we have long distance... so, we need longer range than what it is now.

 

[HaulingAss]

The disconnect from reality that we see repeatedly here is a real head-scratcher. Me thinks Elon's goal to transition humanity to sustainable energy has ruffled more than a few feathers!

 

[MountainRatMatt]

Without a range of 600 miles... the electric cars are good for city only. In America we have long distance... so, we need longer range than what it is now.

I think you mean "want" not "need"

Tesla's are perfectly capable of long road trips and that includes the Cybertruck.

Would it be nice to not have to charge as much? Definitely, but they still function adequately for long distance trips.

 

[Crissa]

Watch the video they spell out all of the parameters you mention and more.

If you watched, and know these things, how about transcribing them or linking to the timecode?

Without a range of 600 miles... the electric cars are good for city only. In America we have long distance... so, we need longer range than what it is now.

There are no cities that are 600 miles long.

You're driving 600 miles without peeing?

Geez.

-Crissa

 

[CyberGus]

You're driving 600 miles without peeing?

Geez.

 

[PilotPete]

First, I can’t ORDER a CT at any price today. So what does THAT mean? Second, how is it you know Tesla’s plan and intentions? Or are you just assigning your cynical beliefs to the current situation for some kind of justification?

Exactly - for the vast majority of truck buyers doing truck things - which to be clear is not the majority of 150/1500 series truck buyers - they are only a minority of that market segment - no one cares about 0-60mph. That market segment cares about towing range/stability, off-road capability, payload, towing capacity, bed capacity, etc. IMHO the CT isn't meant for truck buyers who do truck things. IMHO it's meant to become the latest minivan replacement - it's an attempt to create a new market segment really - and that segment does not align well with real truck buyers. I'm fine with this, a CT will meet most of my light hauling/towing needs just fine for example, but for real truck buyers, I really don't think any BEV pickup compares well to existing ICE pickups apples to apples, especially for those who tow/haul heavier loads, or do major off-roading. Stick with the ICE pickups for now for this type of buyer.

Frickin’ A dude! Yeah, real truck guys that do real truck shizzle in real truck places with real truck things! Just like the guys in the bottom pics! And they do it all while smokin unfiltered Pall Malls and drinking wild turkey, and…

Hot damn man. Go back and read what I wrote. I AGREE with you. I don't think we'll see that trim of truck for 10-20 years.

I also, literally, never said there were no pull through superchargers.

I swear every time I try and come back to see cool shit, I get people who want to argue without reading what I wrote.

Listen, I've had my model 3 for 5 years now. I've had zero issues with long trips, and I've got the SR+, so I get the "charge at home to full" argument. I also know what real highway range is and what it is in cold weather. It's not an issue anymore now that there are plenty of superchargers around the areas that I'll do long trips to.

And I know all the issues can't be solved with one truck. You'll never please everyone. Probably why there are like, a thousand types of F150s you can order. One truck doesn't fill everyone.

My point is that you have to hit that range for the people who tow or drive in winter conditions where superchargers are few and far between. Also, some of us don't want to sit charging for an hour every 100-140miles or whatever the final towing range of this thing will be. Plus, you'll be unhitching each time because there are no pull-through spots. If Tesla had 30 such spots every 100 miles in the US, I doubt I'd complain at all and would agree, anything over 400 would probably be stupid. But, none of that is true and we won't see that for a decade or more. My guess would be 10-20 years. So, as the specs stand now, I just don't see this as a high volume product right now. Good discussion though. Hopefully it continues to get better, both the range and supercharger network.

I was going to say there are pull through spots at the little 8 spot SC near my house, and that we are seeing more and more of them every day. I think your 10-20 year estimate is more than a touch unrealistic. But then you posted saying you “literally, never said”… Aside from misuse/abuse of the word “literally”, I think we have a FACTUAL problem with your post. But, whatever. Haters gonna hate…

 

[Cyberostachu]

Seems on par to me... Driving at a constant high speed with little to no regen and in cold temps.. maybe 20% "loss" of range over the 320 total range.

Someone not familar with EVs i suppose might see this and be a bit confused. evs dont get max range at constant highway speeds, just as ICE vehicles dont gain range by idling downhill.

I disagree that having rolling downhill gives you more range. I live where there are many miles of steep uphill and my M3 LR really gets low 3.5 mi/kwh results. Of course it's downhill on the other side but it doesn't regen everything it lost.
If I go to another city with less severe terrain, I got 4 mi/kwh.
I believe I have a battery pack with usable 70 kwh. So, 70x3.5=245 mi 70x4=280 mi. This is from a rated 330 miles range. I drive at a speed the legal limit gives me +5 which averages 75 mph.

 

[micromano]

I would really like to see Kyle or someone else try this test again with a solid 50/50 mix of highway driving and stop-and-go city driving.

Most of the celebrities and influencers that Tesla gave Cybertrucks to seem to be showing them off more than really testing them.

I enjoy the YouTube videos of guys changing subtle things like putting on wheels that are 1 inch smaller and 5 lbs lighter, and then posting all kinds of data on the efficiency results.

 

[RBosque]

It lost 22% of its presumed EPA range of 320 miles on All-Terrain tires at 70 mph and 45 degrees F. About what one would expect, no surprises here. Aero drag increases exponentially with speed.

That's still hours and hours of driving. This is why the Supercharger Network exists. Charge and go. Most people will do most all of their charging at home anyway. Fast DC charging is almost as expensive as gas.

Actually, according to this article, Supercharging is almost 2.5 times as expensive as gas! The article (which is VERY pro-EV) says that charging an EV at home will cost around $39 per 1,000 miles of driving Vs $107 for an ICE vehicle. That figure is very close to what my electric utility company states. But Supercharging an EV will cost around $260 per 1,000 miles of driving Vs. $107 for an ICE vehicle!

That means that if all of your charging is done at home, you will realize a savings of around $865/yr. over an ICE vehicle. But those savings will be quickly eaten up if you travel and use Superchargers. Here's the article for reference.

https://energy5.com/the-cost-of-charging-a-tesla-vs-filling-up-a-gas-vehicle-which-is-cheaper#

 

[HaulingAss]

Actually, according to this article, Supercharging is almost 2.5 times as expensive as gas! The article (which is VERY pro-EV) says that charging an EV at home will cost around $39 per 1,000 miles of driving Vs $107 for an ICE vehicle. That figure is very close to what my electric utility company states. But Supercharging an EV will cost around $260 per 1,000 miles of driving Vs. $107 for an ICE vehicle!

That means that if all of your charging is done at home, you will realize a savings of around $865/yr. over an ICE vehicle. But those savings will be quickly eaten up if you travel and use Superchargers. Here's the article for reference.

https://energy5.com/the-cost-of-charging-a-tesla-vs-filling-up-a-gas-vehicle-which-is-cheaper#

You didn't check the math used to arrive at those cost figures, did you? It's a junk website peppered with non-sensical information.

The article is not Cybertruck specific, it attempts to quantify the fuel costs for a typical gas car vs. a typical ev.

The article tells you it is using a car that returns 25 mpg but it doesn't tell you the efficiency of the EV except to say that charging at public chargers (both Level 2 & Level 3) averages $0.28/kWh and it costs $280 to drive 1000 miles.

That implies 1000 kWh to drive 1000 miles or 1 kWh per mile. Do you see the problem here? Your article leverages the electrical ignorance of non-EV motorists to wildly distort the costs.

The cost of gasoline at their given average price of $2.68 is similarly cherry-picked. I used Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
for the most accurate U.S. average prices of regular gas and had to go back almost 3 years ago to find average prices that low, even though the article is dated Jan. 4, 2024. And that was the price drop during the pandemic when no one was driving.

If you get your information from sketchy websites you will draw sketchy conclusions. In this case the results are nowhere near reality. Most EV's get nearly 4 times the miles per kWh quoted on that page and gas is currently 22% more expensive than their assumed prices (and more often much more than that).

Garbage in/Garbage out. How did you pick such a garbage site to do your research and why didn't you do even the most basic of fact checking? I'm labeling you another Johnny-come-lately troll. Cybertruck Owners Club has seen a recent flurry of troll activity with the release of the Cybertruck and I feel for the moderators who have to wade through all this garbage and figure out which posters are just trolls trying to throw shade on Tesla, the Cybertruck, Elon Musk and electrification in general. Because there are a lot of recent trolls. They think if they throw enough shade and negative vibes on EVs, that they can turn people off from going electric.

This is in the best interest of oil companies, gas station chains, dealership networks, legacy auto companies and hundreds of major auto parts suppliers. But it's not in the best interest of humanity or the United States.

 

[HaulingAss]

Current EPA highway tests use a range of speeds between 55-65mph. Too often I see people saying it's 45mph - but this isn't the case. They are likely confusing the fact that the current EPA ratings use 45% highway/55% city to calculate the combined range - which is what the EV ratings also use.

Incorrect. The "highway" program or Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HWFET) is defined in 40 CFR 600. I. It uses a warmed-up engine and makes no stops, averaging 48 mph (77 km/h) with a top speed of 60 mph (97 km/h) over a 10-mile (16 km) distance.

And then this result is averaged with other drive cycles having much lower average speeds to arrive at the commonly cited combined efficiency/range numbers.

Stop spreading blatant misinformation.

 

[PilotPete]

This is in the best interest of oil companies, gas station chains, dealership networks, legacy auto companies and hundreds of major auto parts suppliers. But it's not in the best interest of humanity or the United States.

I think you are mostly correct Mike. I will say that for Gas station owners, we are going to turn a corner one day in the not too distant future.

A gas station makes MORE money off of the 2 day old hot dog, Rockstar energy drink, and the slim jims you just bought than the gas. (depending on the matrix you are viewing) So, they aren't addicted to selling you gas, but how else are they going to drag you into the shop? So if I were a gas station owner looking forward, I'd start developing plans to convert to superchargers, and expand the variety of crap they can sell you. The station owner is a winner, and Exxon Mobil/BP are the only losers. That doesn't break my heart. And if the "big oil" companies didn't have cranial-rectal inversion disease, they'd start adding high speed charging to their portfolio.

 

[HaulingAss]

I think you are mostly correct Mike. I will say that for Gas station owners, we are going to turn a corner one day in the not too distant future.

A gas station makes MORE money off of the 2 day old hot dog, Rockstar energy drink, and the slim jims you just bought than the gas. (depending on the matrix you are viewing) So, they aren't addicted to selling you gas, but how else are they going to drag you into the shop? So if I were a gas station owner looking forward, I'd start developing plans to convert to superchargers, and expand the variety of crap they can sell you. The station owner is a winner, and Exxon Mobil/BP are the only losers. That doesn't break my heart. And if the "big oil" companies didn't have cranial-rectal inversion disease, they'd start adding high speed charging to their portfolio.

I don't know how gas station owners will be the winner when motorists make the transition from filling up once or twice a week to filling up every night at home. Supermarkets will be the winner as people shift some of their purchases from when they fill up to the cheaper supermarkets.

The Supercharger network will keep growing, and some gas stations will convert to charging stations, but mostly there will be a whole lot less "filling up" away from home. This is a fundamental shift in how people go through their week.

Sponsored