How many CyberTruck prospective buyers have even driven a Lightning or a Rivian?

[HaulingAss]

(The detailed spec pages on the Ford website are not visible right now, or I am just not awake enough to find them. I was just looking at them the other day. Strange. So going by recollection without being able to check my numbers).

I've never been able to find detailed weight specs for each configuration on Ford's Website (and I've looked for them a few times over the last couple of years). It's like they are playing games with the true weight and only listing the most favorable weights.

Lightning starts around 6100 lbs in the bare Pro model and goes up to the 6893 number you mentioned with a fully loaded Platinum trim package.
Mostly its the upgraded larger wheel and tire package that is standard on the Platinum that adds that last bit of weight that pushes it higher than the CT. But same increase on the CyberTruck if you put on heavier wheels.

I don't think that's correct because the new for 2024 trim called "Flash" that Car and Driver recommends since it comes with the extended battery but has a low price of $72,000, is listed at the same 6893 lbs. that they list the Platimum model at on the Car and Driver Website:

2024 Ford F-150 Lightning Flash 4WD SuperCrew 5.5' Box Features and Specs (caranddriver.com)

So, either Car and Driver is having trouble getting the weights for the various trims from Ford or the Flash weighs the same as the Platinum. And to compare apples to apples would still reguire adding hundreds of lbs. to the Lightning to equip it with a motorized toneau cover you can walk on, four wheel steering, air suspension, dent resistant body panels, etc.

I do agree that the lower cargo capacity of the Lightning is done to save money on lower rated wheels and lighter tires (and also brakes, suspension components and chassis strengthening). All of these things would make the Lightning even heavier and more inefficient (reduce EPA range) than it already is. The Ford engineers did everything they could to make the Lightning comparable to the Cybertruck by shaving a little bit everywhere. The Cybertruck is a heavier-duty truck which says a lot that it comes in the same curb weight range with so much more equipment on board. That's superior engineering (and trucks are all about engineering). Heavier duty tires cost a lot more, all else being equal.

In otherwords, some of the Cybertrucks efficiency advantage is masked by bigger, heavier, stronger wheels and tires (as well as the other factors mentioned above). This means the efficiency difference between the Lightning and the Cybertruck, on an apples to apples basis, is actually huge, especially where you need it the most, on the highway.

My recollection is that Ford specs the Lightning to stay under the 8500 lb class 2A GVWR, so the payload on the Platinum is spec'd at only 1600 lbs or something. Tesla seems happy to have the CT GVWR go over 8500 lbs and push up into Class 2B so they can claim 2500 payload, even on the heavier optioned Beast. and Foundation models. But Tesla doesn't go all he way to 10,000 lbs, likely because of tire and wheel load limits. Class 2B is usually the domain of 3/4 and 1 ton light trucks with 8 lug wheels and load range E tires.

Agreed. Both Tesla and Ford had to draw the line on load and towing limits for cost/efficiency reasons. Don't under-estimate how quickly costs scale up as the tow and haul limits rise. The difference between the Lightning and the Cybertruck capabilities simply highlights the engineering superiority of the Cybertruck.

The advantages of a heavier-duty truck is not necessarily really about how much weight you can actually tow and haul, if you drove the Lightning easy and slowly over bumps, you could overload it the max loading of the Cybertruck, likely without issue. I've had my 2010 F-150 loaded to 3600 lbs, more than double it's official capacity of 1750 lbs. (of course I did not drive it down the freeway at 70 mph either). It's all relative, the Cybertruck could just handle the Lightnings max payload weight with more margin for error in terms of rough roads at a higher speed. And with both trucks unloaded, the Cybertruck will just be that much better at handling what is thrown at it in terms of being more rugged on bad unpaved mountain roads at higher speeds. That's what the higher load limits mean to me, a more rugged chassis, suspension, wheels and better towing dynamics with less chassis flex.

This ruggedness is just one reason why I don't find the Lightning even comparable to the Cybertruck. It's an advantage of superior engineering. Granted, the Cybertrucks engineering is unproven in the real world, without millions of miles, but I'm willing to take my chances on that. Because if it can handle what Tesla engineers have put it through, it can probably handle what I'm going to put it through, even if later versions feature key engineering upgrades.

I can hardly wait to replace my 2010 F-150 XLT 4x4 even though I only drive it about once a month, on average. I could have replaced it with a Lightning a year ago while waiting for the Cybertruck, but it wouldn't have made economic sense, and the Lightning just didn't push enough of my buttons to make me go through the hassle of buying one at a regular fucking auto dealership. It wasn't compelling enough to justify that experience at such a high price.

I don't even like my current F-150 enough to justify spending at least $2K to fix the god-awful sounding stereo that is pretty much unlistenable. It sounds like a bad nightmare where everything is cheap as sin, muffled and out of whack. I suppose they thought a crappy stereo in the XLT was a good incentive to get customers to make the $10K or more leap to higher trims (where the stereo still wouldn't be exceptional). Ford has done this to themselves by trying to cover-up their corporate and manufacturing inefficiencies by cutting costs where it really hurts their customers.

I lost faith in Ford long before Tesla had cars on the road, but the alternatives were not any better, IMO. High prices for out-dated junk. And tricky configuration of trims to get you to spend even more for what was essentially the same junk underneath. Oh, it was mostly reliable (for an ICE vehicle), and it worked without too much fuss (for an ICE vehicle), but it was still under-engineered and out-dated junk. Legacy OEM's make their trucks a little better each decade, but are afraid to ever take anything more than baby steps. In the bigger picture, a Ford and a GM and a Dodge were all about the same, even if I had a slight preference for Ford. Truth be told, I didn't like the styling or engineering of any of them, the Ford was the least offensive. Now consumers have a real choice. And the differences are stark.

Sponsored

 

[Keeney]

I've never been able to find detailed weight specs for each configuration on Ford's Website (and I've looked for them a few times over the last couple of years). It's like they are playing games with the true weight and only listing the most favorable weights.



I don't think that's correct because the new for 2024 trim called "Flash" that Car and Driver recommends since it comes with the extended battery but has a low price of $72,000, is listed at the same 6893 lbs. that they list the Platimum model at on the Car and Driver Website:

2024 Ford F-150 Lightning Flash 4WD SuperCrew 5.5' Box Features and Specs (caranddriver.com)

So, either Car and Driver is having trouble getting the weights for the various trims from Ford or the Flash weighs the same as the Platinum. And to compare apples to apples would still reguire adding hundreds of lbs. to the Lightning to equip it with a motorized toneau cover you can walk on, four wheel steering, air suspension, dent resistant body panels, etc.

I do agree that the lower cargo capacity of the Lightning is done to save money on lower rated wheels and lighter tires (and also brakes, suspension components and chassis strengthening). All of these things would make the Lightning even heavier and more inefficient (reduce EPA range) than it already is. The Ford engineers did everything they could to make the Lightning comparable to the Cybertruck by shaving a little bit everywhere. The Cybertruck is a heavier-duty truck which says a lot that it comes in the same curb weight range with so much more equipment on board. That's superior engineering (and trucks are all about engineering). Heavier duty tires cost a lot more, all else being equal.

In otherwords, some of the Cybertrucks efficiency advantage is masked by bigger, heavier, stronger wheels and tires (as well as the other factors mentioned above). This means the efficiency difference between the Lightning and the Cybertruck, on an apples to apples basis, is actually huge, especially where you need it the most, on the highway.





Agreed. Both Tesla and Ford had to draw the line on load and towing limits for cost/efficiency reasons. Don't under-estimate how quickly costs scale up as the tow and haul limits rise. The difference between the Lightning and the Cybertruck capabilities simply highlights the engineering superiority of the Cybertruck.

The advantages of a heavier-duty truck is not necessarily really about how much weight you can actually tow and haul, if you drove the Lightning easy and slowly over bumps, you could overload it the max loading of the Cybertruck, likely without issue. I've had my 2010 F-150 loaded to 3600 lbs, more than double it's official capacity of 1750 lbs. (of course I did not drive it down the freeway at 70 mph either). It's all relative, the Cybertruck could just handle the Lightnings max payload weight with more margin for error in terms of rough roads at a higher speed. And with both trucks unloaded, the Cybertruck will just be that much better at handling what is thrown at it in terms of being more rugged on bad unpaved mountain roads at higher speeds. That's what the higher load limits mean to me, a more rugged chassis, suspension, wheels and better towing dynamics with less chassis flex.

This ruggedness is just one reason why I don't find the Lightning even comparable to the Cybertruck. It's an advantage of superior engineering. Granted, the Cybertrucks engineering is unproven in the real world, without millions of miles, but I'm willing to take my chances on that. Because if it can handle what Tesla engineers have put it through, it can probably handle what I'm going to put it through, even if later versions feature key engineering upgrades.

I can hardly wait to replace my 2010 F-150 XLT 4x4 even though I only drive it about once a month, on average. I could have replaced it with a Lightning a year ago while waiting for the Cybertruck, but it wouldn't have made economic sense, and the Lightning just didn't push enough of my buttons to make me go through the hassle of buying one at a regular fucking auto dealership. It wasn't compelling enough to justify that experience at such a high price.

I don't even like my current F-150 enough to justify spending at least $2K to fix the god-awful sounding stereo that is pretty much unlistenable. It sounds like a bad nightmare where everything is cheap as sin, muffled and out of whack. I suppose they thought a crappy stereo in the XLT was a good incentive to get customers to make the $10K or more leap to higher trims (where the stereo still wouldn't be exceptional). Ford has done this to themselves by trying to cover-up their corporate and manufacturing inefficiencies by cutting costs where it really hurts their customers.

I lost faith in Ford long before Tesla had cars on the road, but the alternatives were not any better, IMO. High prices for out-dated junk. And tricky configuration of trims to get you to spend even more for what was essentially the same junk underneath. Oh, it was mostly reliable (for an ICE vehicle), and it worked without too much fuss (for an ICE vehicle), but it was still under-engineered and out-dated junk. Legacy OEM's make their trucks a little better each decade, but are afraid to ever take anything more than baby steps. In the bigger picture, a Ford and a GM and a Dodge were all about the same, even if I had a slight preference for Ford. Truth be told, I didn't like the styling or engineering of any of them, the Ford was the least offensive. Now consumers have a real choice. And the differences are stark.

Did find the detailed specs again. See my edits to my previous post.

 

[HaulingAss]

(edited this response now that I found the Ford Specs on their website again).
Lightning starts around 6015lbs in the bare Pro model and goes up to the 6893 number you mentioned with a fully loaded Platinum trim package:

Base Curb Weight - Standard Range Battery	6,015 lbs.
Base Curb Weight - Extended Range Battery	6,361 lbs.
Base Curb Weight w/20 inch A/T Tire	6,597 lbs.
Base Curb Weight Platinum	6,893 lbs.

Mostly its the upgraded 22" wheel and tire package that is standard on the Platinum that adds that last bit of weight that pushes it higher than the CT. But same increase on the CyberTruck if you put on heavier wheels.

CT Specs:
RWD - not published on Tesla's website.
AWD: 6603 lbs
Beast: 6843 lbs.

If you buy those numbers as representing something in the real world, then the Lightning really packs on the pounds going up the trim levels.

I don't buy it. How does an extended range stripper model go from 6,361 lbs. to the Platinum's 6,893 lbs? That's a whopping 532 lbs. for the same battery, a bigger difference than between the base 230-mile Lightning and the extended range. Wheels are not going to account for more than 150 lbs. of that. Does the base extended range have wicker aircraft style seats from the 1930's? Does it have manual roll-up windows? Manual (non-electric seats)?

In my opinion the only comparable numbers are the Platinum weights and, even those need to be adjusted upward for all the stuff that comes standard on the CT. Can someone explain what the Platinum includes that weighs so much more than the base extended range (which barely exists in the real world).

 

[derekmw]

We have heard why some are not considering Lightnings or Rivians.

For those of your who OWN a Lighting or a Rivian, why are you still interested in a Cybertruck? What about it do you feel compelling versus your current EV truck?

What excites you about it?

To me, this is more interesting then those of us who have no real world experience with those trucks. Why do you still want a Cybertruck now that we no longer have the high-value to stat proposition that we had from the original reveal?

I've owned Tesla's since 2015 and now own a Rivian R1T since Aug 2022. I absolutely love the R1T, and aside from the charging infrastructure needed on long trips (which I do 1-2x/year), I prefer my R1T over any of my previous Teslas. With that being said though, I am looking to get a 3/Y as a second car but trying to time that.

The thing that appeals to me about the CT is purely the exterior durability. I like my R1T because I use it for outdoor activities, most of the time, surfing with it (daily). I hate that I'm always having to worry about parking in crowded lots to surf and worrying about if someone will hit my truck - and it's already happened several times - thankfully the gear guard (Rivian's sentry mode) has caught it both times and was taken care of...but I would love to have a truck that you can treat it like a truck interior/exterior and just not worry about it.

I really don't like the look of the CT, but I prefer more function over looks, so the CT may fit the bill.

 

[Keeney]

And to compare apples to apples would still reguire adding hundreds of lbs. to the Lightning to equip it with a motorized toneau cover you can walk on, four wheel steering, air suspension, dent resistant body panels, etc.

The Cybertruck is a heavier-duty truck which says a lot that it comes in the same curb weight range with so much more equipment on board. That's superior engineering (and trucks are all about engineering). Heavier duty tires cost a lot more, all else being equal.

In otherwords, some of the Cybertrucks efficiency advantage is masked by bigger, heavier, stronger wheels and tires (as well as the other factors mentioned above). This means the efficiency difference between the Lightning and the Cybertruck, on an apples to apples basis, is actually huge, especially where you need it the most, on the highway.

The Lightning Platinum comes with other stuff the CT doesn't have, but probably not things either of us want.

In regards to the CT being heavier-duty, I would forego that bullet-proof heavy stainless skin for more payload. Don't need all-wheel steer, either. Nor do I need the air suspension. Don't need 20" or 22" wheels. If I go off-road, its because I slid on some ice into a ditch.

Not clear to me the wheels and tires are all that much more heavy duty on the CT. They are still 6-lug wheels.

Don't get me wrong. I WANT the CT to essentially be a 3/4-ton capability truck. I am rooting for it.
I really want to buy, a true work truck, not a show truck, not a parade truck, not a minivan with big wheels, not a "lifestyle" vehicle.

 

[CyberGus]

I would like to drive the Rivian and the F150 Lightening. Rivian? How and where? Ford F150 Lightening?

Lightening? I thought it was heavy

 

[Keeney]

If you buy those numbers as representing something in the real world, then the Lightning really packs on the pounds going up the trim levels.

I don't buy it. How does an extended range stripper model go from 6,361 lbs. to the Platinum's 6,893 lbs? That's a whopping 532 lbs. for the same battery, a bigger difference than between the base 230-mile Lightning and the extended range. Wheels are not going to account for more than 150 lbs. of that. Does the base extended range have wicker aircraft style seats from the 1930's? Does it have manual roll-up windows? Manual (non-electric seats)?

In my opinion the only comparable numbers are the Platinum weights and, even those need to be adjusted upward for all the stuff that comes standard on the CT. Can someone explain what the Platinum includes that weighs so much more than the base extended range (which barely exists in the real world).

Looking at the list as to what I think adds the weight:
10-way power leather seating, running boards, power tailgate, two moonroofs, power sliding rear window, 22" wheels and tires, Tailgate step.

 

[RayzorBEV]

Wow, nice. Which one is your favorite?

The R1T Truck!

 

[HaulingAss]

Looking at the list as to what I think adds the weight:
10-way power leather seating, running boards, power tailgate, two moonroofs, power sliding rear window, 22" wheels and tires, Tailgate step.

I agree, nothing that rational people would even want on their truck. It might help some to add a little deluxe swagger to their step (in their own minds).

It looks like the running boards and tailgate step are essentially just a "mea culpa" for selling you a truck with a fixed height suspension. Or, more accurately, one that goes higher and lower depending upon how much load you have. The Cybertruck stays a fixed height, unless you want it to lower for loading stuff in the bed or people in the cab so these items would be a redundency that rob range and cost more.

 

[HaulingAss]

The Lightning Platinum comes with other stuff the CT doesn't have, but probably not things either of us want.

In regards to the CT being heavier-duty, I would forego that bullet-proof heavy stainless skin for more payload. Don't need all-wheel steer, either. Nor do I need the air suspension. Don't need 20" or 22" wheels. If I go off-road, its because I slid on some ice into a ditch.

Not clear to me the wheels and tires are all that much more heavy duty on the CT. They are still 6-lug wheels.

Now you are just starting to sound like a Ford apologist. Sigh..

The Cybertruck has the scratch and dent resistant thick stainless skin AND more payload capability. Significantly more. Putting on thin scratch and dent prone aluminum body panels in place of the stainless won't increase the payload, it would require the rest of the chassis be beefed up with more weight, just to maintain it's existing tow and haul capacity.

This might be hard for some non-engineers to grasp. Maybe even some engineers for that matter!

 

[vinyl.blowfish]

I owned a Rivian R1T for 5 months. I sold it because:

1. it seemed so low tech compared to my 2017 Model S
2. it was buggy
3. it brought back range anxiety because there is no charging network like Tesla's

 

[Coolbreeze704]

I owned a Rivian R1T for 5 months. I sold it because it seemed so low tech compared to my 2017 Model S. And it was really buggy.

vinlyl.blowfish - is that a Hootie reference or something more mysterious?

 

[vinyl.blowfish]

vinlyl.blowfish - is that a Hootie reference or something more mysterious?

Not a reference. The major things were that it never went to sleep so I'd lose 10% of the range overnight, and the phone as a key was completely inconsistent... but at least it came with a fob, cards, and a bracelet (for the launch edition). Another grievance is that you could only use Driver+ on mapped highways, but you had to turn if off when going through a toll plaza (even high speed ones).

Tesla was a decade ahead and it showed.

 

[Keeney]

The Cybertruck has the scratch and dent resistant thick stainless skin AND more payload capability. Significantly more. Putting on thin scratch and dent prone aluminum body panels in place of the stainless won't increase the payload, it would require the rest of the chassis be beefed up with more weight, just to maintain it's existing tow and haul capacity.

This might be hard for some non-engineers to grasp. Maybe even some engineers for that matter!

https://www.teslaoracle.com/2023/07...-the-idea-of-an-exoskeleton-says-sandy-munro/

 

[tenetke]

I have driven both Lightning and Rivan R1T + R1S.
Rivian is much nicer and drives better. Lightning drove fine but overall is just your run of the mill F150 that is electric and the software/app is not good.

Having owned several F150’s, the Lightning is definitely not a run of the mill F150. I love my Lightning and especially the massage seats in it. Over the past 18 months of owning one, I’ve driven 36k miles. Never have I thought it was like any ICE F150. I ordered an AWD CT and a range extender. I’ll be happy to have both in my garages.

Sponsored