Range for AWD Cybertruck 200-250 miles after many real world tests

[Diveflyfish]

Yes BMS is important to estimate energy left if reading exact cell voltage, but Tesla BMS very matured and improved.
It is mainly what is the average wh / mile in city driving and on highway.

The maturity is perhaps an AI algorithm. It needs time to develop anticipatory estimates. That data will be unique to each driver. There is perhaps a limit that one can glean from a very Limited data set. Perhaps one needs really “Structured tests” before any meaningful extrapolation on range. One must also allow for energy management can be altered via over the air updates right? Well with a new build and new motors, is it possible that things are just being dialed in and will be optimized after a certain break in period?
Cheers

Sponsored

 

[cyberhunter]

I am only disappointed in the stated and reported range of the cyber truck. Was counting on 500 mile epa range to make it possible to drive to a destination 200 miles away and charge it overnight. I put in my reservation because I live in rural Texas and make rural trips often. I was again counting on the higher range and derating it for higher speed driving. People on this forum way too often assume everyone has the same situations as California where everything is packed in and urbanized with superchargers everywhere. The reason someone in the ev industry needs to produce a 500 mile truck is because of trips that I’ll share here. People like me will not be able to get away from an ice truck until a ev truck can make this trip. An ev can’t make this trip at all right now. I did it in my diesel truck. I only fueled once. It took me 10 minutes total. The speed limits are mostly 75 mph this whole drive so you can count on high drag. I literally couldn’t make the first leg of this trip in a cybertruck with the actual range numbers being reported. I’d be stranded. No infrastructure to get the juice to continue. A 500 mile epa range ev truck might make it but not a 340 epa truck. No way. It’s sucks to see this. I wanted the ct to work because of the utility. I do tow with my truck occasionally. I quite often go no trailer and load the bed with 1500 lbs of feed and drive 180 ish miles where there is no charging possible on the route until destination. . I was ok with towing a utility trailer 180 miles (low drag) being a risky proposition. I’m not ok knowing I probably can’t even make that trip with just the bed loaded and driving with the flow of traffic. Again. I’m not bashing the ct. I’m just disappointed that Tesla did not deliver on the hype of getting something that can work for the rural real pickup truck driver. I’m hopeful battery technology will make it possible in the future, but early reports cast doubt on that being any time soon.

 

[Coltpete]

I am only disappointed in the stated and reported range of the cyber truck. Was counting on 500 mile epa range to make it possible to drive to a destination 200 miles away and charge it overnight. I put in my reservation because I live in rural Texas and make rural trips often. I was again counting on the higher range and derating it for higher speed driving. People on this forum way too often assume everyone has the same situations as California where everything is packed in and urbanized with superchargers everywhere. The reason someone in the ev industry needs to produce a 500 mile truck is because of trips that I’ll share here. People like me will not be able to get away from an ice truck until a ev truck can make this trip. An ev can’t make this trip at all right now. I did it in my diesel truck. I only fueled once. It took me 10 minutes total. The speed limits are mostly 75 mph this whole drive so you can count on high drag. I literally couldn’t make the first leg of this trip in a cybertruck with the actual range numbers being reported. I’d be stranded. No infrastructure to get the juice to continue. A 500 mile epa range ev truck might make it but not a 340 epa truck. No way. It’s sucks to see this. I wanted the ct to work because of the utility. I do tow with my truck occasionally. I quite often go no trailer and load the bed with 1500 lbs of feed and drive 180 ish miles where there is no charging possible on the route until destination. . I was ok with towing a utility trailer 180 miles (low drag) being a risky proposition. I’m not ok knowing I probably can’t even make that trip with just the bed loaded and driving with the flow of traffic. Again. I’m not bashing the ct. I’m just disappointed that Tesla did not deliver on the hype of getting something that can work for the rural real pickup truck driver. I’m hopeful battery technology will make it possible in the future, but early reports cast doubt on that being any time soon.

Well said, I agree completely. It's a huge missed opportunity in my opinion. This could have ushered in a new era for ev trucks. Instead it looks more like a direct competitor to the rivian and lightning with some unique features.

 

[cvalue13]

Well said, I agree completely. It's a huge missed opportunity in my opinion. This could have ushered in a new era for ev trucks. Instead it looks more like a direct competitor to the rivian and lightning with some unique features.

end of the day:

• we now know that it was only ~1 month before the Nov. 30, 2019, reveal that Musk instructed the OG rolling prototype be built - over the objections of much of the design/engineering team

• we can assume the Nov. 30, 2019, on-screen stats were pregnant with some aggressive assumptions/goals regarding either or each of (a) aspirational battery energy density possible, (b) aspirations RE net weight savings of structural design (to allow for battery weight), and (c) aspirations of resulting packaging and cargo dimensions

• ultimately, the structural weight + battery energy density didn’t quite meet the aspirations - which is why we now instead see a Range Extender that bolts into the bed, and that as a result chews into cargo space, busts the truck into a Class 3 truck, and if instead installed in the location of the pack would bust the packaging dimensions of the vehicle


In theory, all of this can still be solved for if/when they can simply fit more energy density into the space of the pack

 

[Woodrick]

I am only disappointed in the stated and reported range of the cyber truck. Was counting on 500 mile epa range to make it possible to drive to a destination 200 miles away and charge it overnight. I put in my reservation because I live in rural Texas and make rural trips often. I was again counting on the higher range and derating it for higher speed driving. People on this forum way too often assume everyone has the same situations as California where everything is packed in and urbanized with superchargers everywhere. The reason someone in the ev industry needs to produce a 500 mile truck is because of trips that I’ll share here. People like me will not be able to get away from an ice truck until a ev truck can make this trip. An ev can’t make this trip at all right now. I did it in my diesel truck. I only fueled once. It took me 10 minutes total. The speed limits are mostly 75 mph this whole drive so you can count on high drag. I literally couldn’t make the first leg of this trip in a cybertruck with the actual range numbers being reported. I’d be stranded. No infrastructure to get the juice to continue. A 500 mile epa range ev truck might make it but not a 340 epa truck. No way. It’s sucks to see this. I wanted the ct to work because of the utility. I do tow with my truck occasionally. I quite often go no trailer and load the bed with 1500 lbs of feed and drive 180 ish miles where there is no charging possible on the route until destination. . I was ok with towing a utility trailer 180 miles (low drag) being a risky proposition. I’m not ok knowing I probably can’t even make that trip with just the bed loaded and driving with the flow of traffic. Again. I’m not bashing the ct. I’m just disappointed that Tesla did not deliver on the hype of getting something that can work for the rural real pickup truck driver. I’m hopeful battery technology will make it possible in the future, but early reports cast doubt on that being any time soon.

I'm not quite sure why you don't think that you can do it. While it's a little hard to match your map with eh Supercharger map, it appears that you have Superchargers to spare, especially if you go through Austin (I know, I hate to do it as well)
Don't listen to the YouTubers who are only there to make money.

I will agree, Texas is tough. There's a lot of desert and cotton fields out there.
For your longer trips, you may have to take another route and/or slow down a little.
But assuming that those are not a daily occurrence, it's the daily use that will let the truck shine.
You plug it in at night, it's full in the morning. Drive through the fields and to town with no issues.

So many people are stuck with the range of the battery. It really is close to irrelevant in most cases. I just put in a 2400-mile trip with no issues. Superchargers and CCS chargers are all over the place. Many people don't know what they look like or how to find them and often pass them every day.
Take a look at Supercharger | Tesla for Supercharger locations and PlugShare - EV Charging Station Map - Find a place to charge your car! for Superchargers, CCS DC Fast Chargers and J-1772 and other slower chargers. They will all work, some may be a little slower than others.

 

[newwave1331]

I wouldn't lie about this. We have three Model 3 Tesla, all 2018 models, two of them are Long Range RWD and one is AWD Performance. Here are the official EPA efficiency numbers for both of them:

Compare Side-by-Side (fueleconomy.gov)

The two rear wheel drive are rated at 260 Wh/mile and the Performance is rated at 290 Wh/mile.

RWD #1 94,530 miles, efficiency: 230 Wh/mile
RWD #2 71,315 miles, efficiency: 249 Wh/mile
M3Perf 28,847 miles, efficiency: 277 Wh/mile

Keep in mind, we do not concern ourselves with trying to be more efficient, we crank the heater to drive away the cold damp winters, use the A/C to stay cool as cucumbers during hot weather and use the Performance Model to make the snowy climb to ski areas in the winter, and never hesitate to floor them just for the hell of it. RWD #1 and M3Perf get winter tires for 3-4 months of the winter. I keep a radar detector in the Performance model and don't hesitate to drive at illegal speeds when traffic allows. The pictures are in the same order as the stats above.

These cars are just naturally efficient and all the noise about Tesla exaggerating their range figures is simply BS. About 20% of the miles on the Performance Model 3 had ski racks mounted on the roof and its lifetime efficiency still beats the EPA efficiency numbers, even with me driving it like I stole it. My wife drives normally, far from conservative (she has been known to take pleasure dusting people through our two-lane roundabouts and sprinting ahead of them before the two lanes merge into one after exiting the roundabouts). I love me a good set of twisties driven close to the ragged edge or a fast early morning trip across Eastern Washington in the xxx digits.

It is interesting that fleet data shows a different story. The route (avg speed), acceleration profile and climate are the things that can create large variances.

Here is my limited data from my newer 2023 MYP:

On my 3rd party app (Nikola), it is missing 452 miles of tracking but showing 319 Wh/mi (about 6% over rated efficiency). Idk why its missing miles but I figured I'd share both as I too like to "haul ass". I always drive in sport mode, like to accelerate and never think about my climate controls. If I drove in chill mode, I'm sure I would beat my vehicle's rated efficiency of 300 Wh/mi. I can not speak for total range as I don't roadtrip often.

I wish I used a 3rd party app (I love raw data) with my 2019 M3P that had ~ 90k miles and it was a lot more highway driving at 80-85+ mph. My average trip was much longer too as I was driving between my stores every day (sold stores before I bought the MYP). I'll continue to track this until I get my cybertruck but I only have a few months so far (fall into early winter in southern NJ). If you live west of the mountains in WA, you have a mild climate that is not the norm for most people across the country/globe. I wish the app logged exterior/interior temperature but as for now, it does not.

 

[AlexcyberTX]

I'm not quite sure why you don't think that you can do it. While it's a little hard to match your map with eh Supercharger map, it appears that you have Superchargers to spare, especially if you go through Austin (I know, I hate to do it as well)
Don't listen to the YouTubers who are only there to make money.

I will agree, Texas is tough. There's a lot of desert and cotton fields out there.
For your longer trips, you may have to take another route and/or slow down a little.
But assuming that those are not a daily occurrence, it's the daily use that will let the truck shine.
You plug it in at night, it's full in the morning. Drive through the fields and to town with no issues.

So many people are stuck with the range of the battery. It really is close to irrelevant in most cases. I just put in a 2400-mile trip with no issues. Superchargers and CCS chargers are all over the place. Many people don't know what they look like or how to find them and often pass them every day.
Take a look at Supercharger | Tesla for Supercharger locations and PlugShare - EV Charging Station Map - Find a place to charge your car! for Superchargers, CCS DC Fast Chargers and J-1772 and other slower chargers. They will all work, some may be a little slower than others.

I’m in Houston so a good amount of superchargers for me, I got my F-250 super duty for my long range trips and hunting.

 

[fritter63]

Here is our 2018 LR (76K miles) and 2019 SR+ (37K miles) showing the last 5K miles average (can't seem to find that "all time" number):

NOTE: 2018 is my wife's car, driven conservatively. 2019 is mine, driven "like you stole it".

 

[Stefan Alexander]

*Edit added large almost 6,000 mile range total mileage report

*Edit Up to 8 or 10 real world range reports. Looking pretty good at slow speeds (250ish), rough on the highway (sub 200).

*Edit with more people posting numbers looks like the average wh/mile is going down a bit which means the real world range average is going up, likely around 215 miles of range which is a great start.
- Added a couple more data sets from posts and new CT owners.
- Highway driving looks like 180 miles of range roughly city/slow driving however is looking pretty good at 220-300

The recent 6,000 mile numbers show the real world avg for a 70/30 highway/city split or big average range to be about 207 miles. AWD CT

All these are just small samples so should be taken with a grain of salt, but this is more info than we have gotten on real world range in the last 4+ years so grateful to have it.

Lots of real world range numbers are coming in via videos getting posted now that some non Tesla employees are getting trucks.
Early report of really bad efficiency like 810 wh/mile were chalked up to speeds over 70MPH, bad driving, etc.
New numbers coming in now are no better at lower speeds.

20 mile test drive (ended up being 21)
Average speed of 63 MPH
Mostly highway driving
689 Wh/mi
Giving the AWD Cybertruck a range of 178.5 miles

*Notes*
2 Passengers
2 Carry on size suitcasestonneau
Tonneau cover closed
Minimal HVAC
Nothing being towed/hauled
Battery was warm as this was a stop on long trip and this was supercharger 3+ on the trip

*Edit*
More #s coming in from road trippers and cross country trippers.
Most Wh/mi are in the high 600s to mid 700s or 181 miles of real world range

More #s posted.
Effectively downhill with a total elevation loss of over 400'
117 mile trip
Temperature of 60-65 f
Battery went from 86% to 10% (76%)
Roughly a 700 wh/mi AKA real world range of 179 miles
Required 55min charge to have enough range to do the next leg of 148 miles with a 10% reserve

*Edit
More #s coming in from a full charging video 14-90% by ourcyberlife
The charging numbers look pretty bad, even at a V3 supercharger and are in line with other early reports.
Basically drive 143mins and then have to charge for 50+

Temperature was about ideal at 73 degrees f

*Edit
Another trip showing MUCH better wh/mile numbers. This one posted publicly
@ZachSMickelson
This was an AWD driving a little under 70mph and getting right around 400 wh/mile which is the best we have seen so far and the first time the real world range of this truck looks like it can hit over 300 at 305. Very encouraging.

*Edit
A set of trip numbers from a driver who reportedly was trying to max eco and range, lower speeds, no HVAC other than seat warmer for driver, etc. Got the efficiency way better at 454 Wh/mi which would be about 260 miles of real world range, one of the best we have seen so far.

*Edit
Video comment updated that one of the 1,000+ mile road trips done recently by a new CT owner is going to have a full video posted with multiple charge curves, mileage breakdowns etc. Hopefully getting released in the next couple of days so fingers crossed as this would be a ton of info. *Total trip full numbers coming with a video but said for the trip it was 672 wh/mile which is 183 miles of real world range

*Edit
A few more short trip reports are slowly coming in, looks like in general if the CT is kept under 30MPH or busy city driving conditions the wh/Mile can be as low as the high 300s.
wmorrill3 and others are showing that 300+ is possible under the right conditions which is cause for optimism
Equating to a real world range at those lower speeds of over 300 miles (318) which is much closer to advertised range.

*Edit
The rough average Wh/mile looks to be around 575. With the current reports, which pushes the total range over the 200 mile mark (214) which is a big improvement. Hopefully more and better data will continue to come in.
- All AWD, All Foundation Series, Mix of media reporting YT,X,Reddit,TT
- It currently is winter so cold is having an impact along with minor impact from factory tires.

*Edit
First warm weather real world posted test, maybe?. Mix of city and highway, round trip so elevation was a wash, 77 degrees F average speed of 31MPH, only drivers cooled seat used. This puts the mixed range of this AWD FS CT at about 279 of real world range, granted at a low avg speed but keeping the speed low seems to have added 100ish miles of real world range helping support a lot of theories that the high speed (60MPH+ ) is what is delivering those sub 200 mile ranges

*Edit
Pretty large mileage distance on this one. Trip max speed was 55 MPH due to back roads and mostly city driving. Vast majority was back and forth so minimal elevation impact. Air temps between 55-75F, minimal HVAC, mostly using seats. AWD FS CT
Looks like 281 is realistic real world range with mostly city and lower speed driving.

*Edit
Biggest mileage/range/distance report so far. Came from a private group and owner had privacy concerns but shared some info they said could be passed along
AWD CT
2 Drivers
Mix of about 70% highway 30% city
Due to insurance being VERY high and insurance app speed limit has NOT been broken (maybe a couple 5-10MPH over instances for a very short amount of time)
No hauling, towing
Mostly driven in warmer weather for this time of year minimum of about 30, max of about 80, avg of about 70
Almost about 80% supercharging and 20% destination charging
Charging at V2 superchargers pretty slow and tedious if a 60% charge was needed to reach next charger
Charge curve similar to the ourcyberlife curve at V3 superchargers
No V4 superchargers tested yet
Real world range for this almost 6,000 mile sample is about 208 miles of real world range not as much data as we would like but super grateful to get some significant distance #s
View attachment 33631

For $120KI expect to have a kickass vehicle that I can use the radio and heater or AC and go further than 180 miles. Although I am an early reservation holder (I've not received an invite to order yet) I will pass on this offer. I've waited this long and I'll wait longer for the battery technology to catch up. Yeah, the CT is cool and all that, but I need a "real" vehicle that I can use for work and play as I do my current 2006 F-150 4X4. I can go over 300 miles driving at 75+ MPH. And yes, I know, I suck up a lot of gasoline that is expensive, but my time is expensive also. I cannot afford to stop every 180 miles, hope the charger works, and wait for the battery to charge up to only 80%. This is still an experimental vehicle.

 

[Woodrick]

For $120KI expect to have a kickass vehicle that I can use the radio and heater or AC and go further than 180 miles. Although I am an early reservation holder (I've not received an invite to order yet) I will pass on this offer. I've waited this long and I'll wait longer for the battery technology to catch up. Yeah, the CT is cool and all that, but I need a "real" vehicle that I can use for work and play as I do my current 2006 F-150 4X4. I can go over 300 miles driving at 75+ MPH. And yes, I know, I suck up a lot of gasoline that is expensive, but my time is expensive also. I cannot afford to stop every 180 miles, hope the charger works, and wait for the battery to charge up to only 80%. This is still an experimental vehicle.

Someone will be happy with your decision. Someone will get a truck a little earlier.

But I dare say, once this stupid YouTube nonsense is over, your mind will be changed.

 

[Longranger]

This forum is beginning to sound like a congressional subcommittee. These discussions are unhinged from reality. The CT is an incredible vehicle but it is a wide miss on the issues of affordability, work utility, range etc.. The sale of millions was predicated on function and affordability. The price increase of 20k plus alone has put it out of reach to most. I still will get mine. Don’t mean to piss in everyones cheerios but the CT being offered is not for most buyers. It caters to rich folks who want cool and luxery. Let’s not even talk about green or responsible.

 

[HaulingAss]

It is interesting that fleet data shows a different story.

I would expect fleet data to return less than EPA estimates. This is normal for all cars, gas or electric. One of the major reasons my wife and I are substantially better than EPA numbers is because we don't make careless decisions. I've been a tire guy my entire life, bicycles, motorcycles, cars and trucks. I've always been interested in the performance of my tires, cornering and braking traction, traction in snow and ice, etc. This comes at the expense of more expensive tires with shorter tread life. But it's always been worth it to me, even when I had tight budgets. I would not buy things like new clothes, furniture, TVs, and airline flights so I could spend money on tires.

The point here is the 18" Michelin MXM4 that come on the Model 3 standard are very good premium tires. Most Model 3 owners have not only ditched the Aero wheel covers but they have also replaced the tires with cheaper models with more rolling resistance. Many even paid more for the less efficient 19" wheels that have no aero covers. They also are not very good at maintaining their tire pressures because they believe as long as the warm pressure that reads on the display eventually comes up to the manufacturer's recommended pressure, they think they are good to go. These tire/wheel/pressure differences amount to around 15% hit to range.

There was also an early campaign by anti-Tesla interests to convince people that low rolling resistance tires sucked. And that the Aero covers were unacceptably ugly. Because they thought anything they could "undo" of Tesla's work to make EVs practical, would help them bring down Tesla. These same anti-Tesla interests tried (and mostly failed) to convince people to switch the regen braking setting from "Standard" to "Minimum".

Wheel alignment and brake drag can also a very big deal when it comes to energy consumed (and therefore range). RWD car #1 and my Performance Model 3 still have the factory wheel alignments (meaning they have never had a wheel alignment). However, we bought the RWD #2 Model 3 on the used market and it was apparent it had hit a curb and was misaligned. The efficiency was terrible when we bought it. I didn't do controlled testing, but it was apparent its efficiency was about 20-25% worse than my wifes RWD Model 3 with identical wheels/tires/Aero covers. It also had light brake drag (I knew because I jacked the car up to switch wheels/tires). This was normal brake drag for most cars, but I know that Tesla has special calipers that are designed to pull the pads away from the discs when not braking. Corrosion can cause the pads to stick and lightly drag on the discs.

I took it to Tesla Service for a 4-wheel alignment, and to lube and clean the calipers, and that caused it to go from a lot less efficient than our other RWD #1 to slightly more efficient. I think the overall improvement was about 20% or a bit more. That's huge.

It's important to realize that our two other cars have never needed a wheel alignment or a brake clean/lube, even though one of them has higher mileage than RWD #2. I don't know the previous driver history of the RWD #2 we bought used, but we turned it from an energy hog to an energy king with one service visit to Tesla. I have no idea how long the car was driven in this less efficient condition but, based on the uneven tire wear upon purchase, it was long enough to impact the lifetime consumption figures significantly. The sevice manager there even tried to talk me out of the brake clean and lube, saying they only recommend that for cars in the mid-west and other areas that use salt on the road. I told them to do it anyway.

Efficiency matters for reasons most people have never considered. A car that is 15% more efficient will have a battery that lasts for 15% more years, all else being equal. Because battery life is largely a function of charge/discharge cycles.

I'm always amazed at the non-optimal decisions people make, and their ignorance about things that should be common sense. The Cybertruck will be no different. Know and respect it and it will return good efficiency numbers (for what it is). The Rivian R1T claims a better aero Cd, and it has less frontal area, but I'll put the Cybertruck up against the Rivian in terms of energy consumption, even on the highway going 70 mph and, with similar tires. Rivian publishes a Cd of 0.30 for the R1T but I think that is a "static" Cd (meaning one computed without the tires rotating), while the Cybertruck's Cd of 0.33 is an accurate one, with the wheels turning. I bet the Cybertruck returns lower consumption figures than the supposedly more aero Rivian R1T.

 

[Woodrick]

Everyone needs to head over to ARS Technica and take a read. Assuming that it is correct, and it seems to be, it's a really good read and just what the EPA ratings are.

Here’s how the EPA calculates how far an EV can go on a full charge | Ars Technica

 

[cyberhunter]

I'm not quite sure why you don't think that you can do it. While it's a little hard to match your map with eh Supercharger map, it appears that you have Superchargers to spare, especially if you go through Austin (I know, I hate to do it as well)
Don't listen to the YouTubers who are only there to make money.

I will agree, Texas is tough. There's a lot of desert and cotton fields out there.
For your longer trips, you may have to take another route and/or slow down a little.
But assuming that those are not a daily occurrence, it's the daily use that will let the truck shine.
You plug it in at night, it's full in the morning. Drive through the fields and to town with no issues.

So many people are stuck with the range of the battery. It really is close to irrelevant in most cases. I just put in a 2400-mile trip with no issues. Superchargers and CCS chargers are all over the place. Many people don't know what they look like or how to find them and often pass them every day.
Take a look at Supercharger | Tesla for Supercharger locations and PlugShare - EV Charging Station Map - Find a place to charge your car! for Superchargers, CCS DC Fast Chargers and J-1772 and other slower chargers. They will all work, some may be a little slower than others.

I wish that people would think it out a bit more before some of these recommendations. Your suggestions amount to actually driving hours out of the way for a 3 hour leg of a journey or finding an rv park to wait for several hours before moving on. It’s comical. I’m a huge advocate for an ev truck. I’ve mapped out all the scenarios on all the trips I take since the ct was announced to see where I would charge, etc. to see if a ev truck would be a practical option. It was on the verge of being practical when the stated range was 500 miles. That’s because an epa estimated range is under ideal circumstances at slower speeds and with no extra load. I need something that can make it 200 to 250 miles on 70% of its charge (85% to 15%) with extra payload, using the actual climate control and during potential inclement weather all with the flow of traffic, which on most rural highways is 75 mph because that is the speed limit. Mind you I take a 200 mile one way trip with payload and return after a couple nights stay every week or two. I was calculating it out, and I think to do that 200 miles under the circumstances i laid out would probably require 175 to 200 kw battery pack. I just think Tesla made a business decision to produce a very capable city truck and that is ok because it hits that 70% of people that drive pickups. With the range they decided on it just won’t work for the majority of rural drivers that actually use their trucks to haul payload and go long distances off the main interstates with the current infrastructure and range capability. Elon even said the ct isn’t for everyone that drives a truck. The suggestion to do a combination of driving slower than the flow of traffic, detour hours worth of driving out of your way, or take several hours charging at an rv park is so out of touch. I hope the technology catches up to the original aspirations of the cybertruck to allow for that 500+ miles of range. It would be nice to be able to enjoy all the other capabilities the vehicle ended up with.

 

[Coltpete]

This forum is beginning to sound like a congressional subcommittee. These discussions are unhinged from reality. The CT is an incredible vehicle but it is a wide miss on the issues of affordability, work utility, range etc.. The sale of millions was predicated on function and affordability. The price increase of 20k plus alone has put it out of reach to most. I still will get mine. Don’t mean to piss in everyones cheerios but the CT being offered is not for most buyers. It caters to rich folks who want cool and luxery. Let’s not even talk about green or responsible.

Yes at this point it's exactly that - a rich person's fun truck that can do some truck stuff. It'll be great for around town but for those of us that need to tow or haul stuff in the bed on a frequent basis or drive long highway miles it just isn't there yet. I need to make frequent trips across Florida and can't waste time supercharging. 30-50 minutes is precious to me.

In the years to come the price will drop significantly and the battery tech will improve. It will only get better. The big breakthroughs like drive by wire and 48v really are ultimately just cost cutting measures as far as manufacturing is concerned so this will trickle down.

Sponsored