Rumors of Two Cybertruck Versions (Including Smaller "Wolverine") & March Reveal Event

[Crissa]

Elon already said 2023, so the next information we'll expect will be in a year.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[jcryer3]

Personally, I would like the CT a little shorter. It is going to be a tight fit in my garage. However, I want to keep the bed length.

 

[LDRHAWKE]

Personally, I would like the CT a little shorter. It is going to be a tight fit in my garage. However, I want to keep the bed length.

?

 

[JBee]

If you don’t need a full sized truck why would you want the hassle of a full sized truck?

Toyota sells more Tacomas than Tundras. Ford’s mini Maverick is so popular it’s sold out. The Ranger is also a hugely popular truck, as is the Colorado.

Lots of utility in smaller trucks.

I’m not sure which I would buy personally. If it was “smaller” enough I might buy both!

There's a market for Matchbox cars as well and they make millions of them for small customers with even smaller expectations. ;-)

There's also an existing market that Tesla is known to distrupt.

That's not my argument though.

My arguement is that I firmly believe that when EM and his team sat down to set out the requirements of the CT they took aim at the most popular options in the market at the time (F150 and Co) and made a list of expected specifications for the most competitive budget. The current "full size" CT is the result of that careful consideration.

In my view there are two main criteria to describe marketability, one is manufacturing cost, that leads to purchase price, the other is market expectation. Remember this is a conversation just to follow some reasonable assumptions as to why I don't think a Wolverine is a viable product, at least for the next 5years or so pending on competition.

Let's do market expectations first. One of the dominant constraints, if not the most dominant one, of customers is cost of purchase. That's sets the upper limit of expectations followed by value for money and design (read looks mostly) and features.

On manufacturing cost there is not a significant cost advantage and can be mostly accumulated by adding the additional surface area of the CT over a smaller version, of say a Tacoma in dimensions. This assumes that the drivetrain and suspension setup in each of the CT version would be similar if not identical, given that adding a whole drivetrain assembly line only adds to fixed costs that have to be recovered and only hurts the Wolverine comparison. All for a truck that is in less demand btw.

In an easy comparison we'd just be able to use the weight of each to compare, but given that most of the CT weight will be it's battery pack and the Tacoma has none, it's not that easy to use that metric. Technically, one would then assume to make a Wolverine model we'd simply reduce the dimensions, so lets just use some Tacoma (as the Wolverine) and CT dimensions to get a feel for the size differences and respective costs. Lets do some quick math considering we have dimensions for both to compare the base 4x2 versions of these vehicles. (Using a 4x2 dual cab 6ft bed Tacoma with 3.5L V6)

Cybertruck versus Wolverine
	CT	Tacoma	Diff	%
Length	231.7​	212.3​	19.4​	9%​
Width	79.8​	75.2​	4.6​	6%​
Height	75​	70.6​	4.4​	6%​
Area Diff L x W	18490​	15965​	2525​	16%​
Area Diff L x H	17378​	14988​	2389​	16%​
Vehicle Cost	$ 39,990.00	$ 33,280.00	$ 6,710.00	20%​
Wolverine Cost (advantage?)	$ 37,337.61
Cost Diff x 50%			$ 2,652.39

I suppose the easiest comparison to make here is simply to look at the 16% size difference between the two and compare that to the 20% price difference percentage to the ICE powered Tacoma. We know that battery constitutes a majority of the vehicle cost, but comparatively range is a function of frontal surface area and aerodynamics, so a moderately wider and higher body (6%) will not result in significant battery savings, or weight savings for that matter, on a smaller CT. Given the constraints of not producing a completely new assembly line for a Wolverine to keep costs for it low, I have also reduced the cost difference factor by 50%, seeing that many items that have cost (motors/batteries/Gearbox/suspension/steering/controls etc etc) do not scale with body size costs directly. Regardless, given all the above criteria, the result is Wolverine version for some $2600 less retail (not cost), that will also likely drop a front seat in the process because of the width.

The second part is design features and market expectations.

On size we can clearly see that the height difference is trivial (4") and in fact it is not quite accurate seeing the CT in Cruise mode is just 70" (with 9" road clearance) or possibly less. The Ct body itself is 61" high without the wheels. This is actually the same as the Tacoma body height anyway. It is also lower than most garage heights that are normally walking height anyway, around 6.6", so no difference for either version. I'm not sure if the proportions would still work with interior headroom if you did reduce the body height on a Wolverine. The rear CT headroom is already close on top of the battery pack. For highway driving or suburbia or parking the CT height has no meaningful impact.

On width we have an extra 4.6" width over the Tacoma (1" more than a Landcruiser SUV), but reducing this also gives a limited internal body width that will make a middle front seat untenable with any level of comfort or daily functionality (a third of the middle seat width would disappear). The bed would also shrink from 59" wide to 55" which would then be 2" smaller than a Tacoma bed because of the CT sail design. For on road driving the extra width does have an impact on driving on smaller country roads without lane markings etc, however it is still much smaller than any semi that most roads are designed around all over the world which are some 20" wider anyway. Note the width is only half the difference if you have enough clearance to drive to the edge of the road. Parking could be problematic, but mostly due to the huge doors that don't allow enough opening angle to egress.

That leaves length, which is probably the biggest factor for most, so it fits in their cubby hole garages. To that I say it doesn't need a garage, it will probably outlive your house anyway.
Many cities only have street parking too, which leads to other problems like long extension cables to charge. Length also make no difference driving on any road, given that the CT will come with 4WS, very likely standard across the range, simply because it's excessive wheelbase will not allow another solution. With it, it will outturn any smaller pickup, even most compact cars. This will also help greatly in carparks and close quarter manoeuvring, but obviously the parking spot length can be an issue. USA carpark norm sizes typically are 9ft x 18-20ft. The current CT is 6.6ft x 19ft so also within reason of that, especially if you park nicely, or Tesla would have proper auto park at some point. The front and rear overhangs also allow at least a foot or two to hang over the curb, which resolves the issue entirely. My Crafter van is wider and is 22Ft and I have yet to find a parking spot where I can't park, unless it doesn't have a curb to park over.

Overall even on a 1 to 1 comparison with a Tacoma I do not think that a $6700 price difference is a unjustified cost increase for a EV versus a ICE from a vehicle class lower to boot. You might say "Wait a minute, the CT will cost more now!" Might well be, I think we will end up with only 4x4 versions, possibly all quad motors too, with various battery and performance levels. But if you do that then the dual or quad motor price comparisons, the difference to manufacturing cost for body size will make it even less viable to do a Wolverine version.

As a manufacturer I'd completely dismiss the Wolverine version on a manufacturing cost given that even a comparison with a Tacoma ICE, there is is negligible benefit to the customer in value that would warrant saving some steel bodywork. To me the current full size CT is a ideal optimisation of requirements and features at a marketable price. I'm sure EM would agree that's why he made the CT the way it is. But as we know all designs are wrong. At least a little bit.

 

[charliemagpie]

Tacoma towing capacity is between 3500-6400 lbs, Wolverine will be at least 10000 lbs.

Tesla technology is years ahead. Less maintenance, more range. True Over the air updates. And a better, stronger truck all round. A bargain considering the price difference.

Value is not just size. ;-)

It makes sense, Germany will have the Wolverine line and Austin the Cybertruck.. Each covers their main 'local' markets, both will distribute worldwide. Over time, there could be production lines in each country. If required.

Like the 3 and Y, having 2 options and covering that segment of the market.

Importantly, it hurts competitors eating away at your edges.

To me, all things considered the Wolverine will be selling like hotcakes... and we are not talking Italy or Greece, I'm thinking eastward.

 

[RVAC]

US mid-size truck market is far bigger than that of the EU, so if they were to produce one it would still be in the US.

 

[Ogre]

If you don’t need a big truck, no point dealing with the footprint and cost of running a big truck.

I could see a small Cybertruck replacing the Tacoma and the Jeep Wrangler both. Also, bigger 2 row SUVs are in the cross hairs.

Imagine how fun it would be to drive a little car with a shorter wheelbase with 4 wheel steering and how good it would be at off road.

 

[JBee]

If you don’t need a big truck, no point dealing with the footprint and cost of running a big truck.

What extra costs of a "big truck" would there be? Also how is the extra footprint a problem? I thought I addressed this in the post above, I'm curious what I missed.

 

[Crissa]

What extra costs of a "big truck" would there be? Also how is the extra footprint a problem? I thought I addressed this in the post above, I'm curious what I missed.

1. Heavier can mean higher registration. It'll definitely mean more costs if you have to get it towed or transported.
2. Larger means larger footprint, so more parking costs.
3. Larger means larger aerodynamic profile, so it'll cost more kilowatts to operate per mile.
4. Larger will mean more time spent getting to and from places, as it won't fit everywhere or through every light and alley.

It's pretty simple, surprised you'd not know these things.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

1. Heavier can mean higher registration. It'll definitely mean more costs if you have to get it towed or transported.
2. Larger means larger footprint, so more parking costs.
3. Larger means larger aerodynamic profile, so it'll cost more kilowatts to operate per mile.
4. Larger will mean more time spent getting to and from places, as it won't fit everywhere or through every light and alley.

It's pretty simple, surprised you'd not know these things.

-Crissa

ok...

1. I admit registration costs are a variable. What's the difference between mid sized (Tacoma) and F150 size in California? Would it be around $200-$400 more per year? Ogre still wants his higher capacity towing/payload in the Wolverine though, so that would cancel out this argument.
2. How often do you get charged a premium for larger parking lots? Do you have Smart car size parking in Cal/US? I know they do in Europe. Also what is the extra cost going to be per year for this if you can't find something suitable nearby? $100?
3. Yes, but not much at all in comparison to a Tacoma. 6% more frontal area as per my rough estimate in my above post. I should really do a actual frontal area comparison, because I think it would be less. But you also get something for that. It's likely an offroad tyre choice would use more.
4. Um do you live in Tinyville where trucks don't roam? As per above the CT is 4" wider than a Tacoma. Also how does size affect speed? The speed limit affects speed as the CT is well capable of exceeding any speed limit.

I am pretty simple so I don't get why you are trying to make it more complicated than it actually is.

The point I am trying to make is that there is little to know practical reason to make a smaller CT if it requires making a whole new vehicle part list and assembly line. The manufacturing cost saving will be negligible, under 10%. Rather upsell customers to the full size CT. It's easier.

 

[Crissa]

Everyone pays per square foot for their parking. The tighter your space, the more likely this is itemized. But the sheer fact of the matter is someone has to pave less tarmac to park two smart cars or a small truck than a full-sized truck.

And that frontal area will change whether you're starting at 4 miles or 2 miles per kilowatthour.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Everyone pays per square foot for their parking. The tighter your space, the more likely this is itemized. But the sheer fact of the matter is someone has to pave less tarmac to park two smart cars or a small truck than a full-sized truck.

And that frontal area will change whether you're starting at 4 miles per kilowatthour or 2 miles per kilowatt hour.

-Crissa

Ok I suppose you pay per square foot of housing too. That is if you have square feet. lol.
None of these things are really significant enough to be relevant I think.

I don't understand the point the second statement should make? Are you saying that frontal area changes according to battery state of charge or consumption rate? or something else.

 

[Ogre]

What extra costs of a "big truck" would there be? Also how is the extra footprint a problem? I thought I addressed this in the post above, I'm curious what I missed.

Presumably the smaller truck would be a bit less expensive. It would also use less power, have fewer batteries, and charge faster. Also, if a big truck steers like a small car, a small truck would steer like a forklift.

 

[restyle]

Is this seriously what it's going to be called or is this just some kind of production codename? It's the worst Tesla vehicle name ever if it's what they're going with.

It was straight from Elons tongue on Battery day in Sept 2020 {so it must be true}:-
" We’ll probably make an international version of cybertruck that’ll be kind of smaller .. you know – kind of like a "tight Wolverine package” - it’ll still be cooler, but it’ll be smaller cos you just cant make a giant truck like that for most markets – so yeah – but its going to be great ... "

 

[Ogre]

It was straight from Elons tongue on Battery day in Sept 2020 {so it must be true}:-
" We’ll probably make an international version of cybertruck that’ll be kind of smaller .. you know – kind of like a "tight Wolverine package” - it’ll still be cooler, but it’ll be smaller cos you just cant make a giant truck like that for most markets – so yeah – but its going to be great ... "

I knew Musk had said it at some point, just too lazy to chase it.

Also don’t understand why someone wouldn’t like that name. Wolverines are bad-ass.

I said Wolverine and Grizzly at one time, but maybe Wolverine and Badger would be better because much like the honey badger, the Cybertruck doesn’t give a fuck what you think.

Sponsored