Towing tested with 6,000lb Tesla and trailer load

[Gigahorse]

TLDR With a medium weight and pretty aerodynamic load the AWD CT can tow for 90-165 miles if using 100% of the battery pack. Or if using 75% of the battery pack which is typical about 68-119 miles of towing range.
This is in line with the reports of the CT having about 200 miles of real world range, when not towing.


*edit This 4th towing test is in, best one yet as far as completeness of info etc so removed some of the previous ones to remove post clutter and backlash but kept the averages for reasonable tests, this one is more complete and shows better range potential when towing.

*A couple more edits and minor info additions*

AWD CT with Factory Tires
Temperature 61 f (no rain, sunny)
Round trip of 111 miles - round trip eliminates wind/elevation impacts for the most part
Fan only for HVAC
Towing Tesla and Trailer (approximately 6,000 lbs)
Truck felt heavy/slow/and breaking was noticeably slower, and road noise was significant
Started trip with vehicle at Tesla V3 supercharger at 84% SOC
Vault cover left open for ability to see trailer and tags
Charging option is dropping trailer, or taking up 5 stalls
The recharge to full took about two hours (battery was not preconditioned)
Under 450lbs of additional payload weight (humans/camers/etc)
Mix of city and low speed highway, kept under 65mph and hit a fair amount of stop and go traffic
Overall test was far from perfect, forgot to check trailer tire pressure, some breaking was needed so not ideal regen, but test had a lot going for it to be on the general side of range. Trailer used was not a premium trailer but a decent option and decent aero load, about half of towing capacity, warm weather, battery warmed up, etc. So not much room for range improvement unless towing a skateboard. Hopefully a SIGNIFICANT software and battery chemistry change from Tesla is coming to improve these towing and non-towing #s

Trip stats
111 miles on round trip
Wh/mile 665-830

*Edit
Tow test #5 this time with Cyberbeast.
7,400lb full size camping trailer in decent conditions.
Full vid coming but sub 100 mile range

Most test results coming in are using a uhal trailer with easy to find stats, but not all.

So if taking the CT from 100% to close to zero towing a 6,000 lb pretty aero efficient Tesla on mostly town roads and some highway CT towing range is approximately 90-150 miles in very good/mild towing conditions using the whole battery.
But a real world use of 75% of the battery pack gives the CT towing a modest load about 68-113 miles of usable range. Based on a total of 4 range tests with the one above being the most comprehensive and complete.
With a bigger load and higher speeds could be looking at as little as 50 miles of towing range with current data available.

Not a perfect comparison but early impression overall it looks like the CT performed a bit better than the Rivian R1T simular tests as far as total range loss when towing which is good.

JRE did a tow test, cold weather and used 100% to 2% aka the whole battery pack and got 90 miles. So if using a more reasonable 80% of the battery that gives a range of 72 mile range when towing a large load (cover closed)

Post is getting a little friction, believe me I wish the towing #s from these tests were better.
Not everyone needs to tow, but saying "why would you think you could tow with an EV truck" seems a little off given the adverting from tesla, some screenshots of that below...

TLDR
CT AWD Towing real world range with good conditions is about 90-150 miles.
In line with real world CT range of about 210 miles.

Sponsored

 

[cyber_danko]

Wow. That is terrible. Now explains why the battery expansion is offered. Pretty much a requirement to tow. Any guidance on what that purchase would net you in terms of total milage under these test conditions?

 

[Gigahorse]

Wow. That is terrible. Now explains why the battery expansion is offered. Pretty much a requirement to tow. Any guidance on what that purchase would net you in terms of total milage under these test conditions?

Well the batter pack is 50kwh so add that to 123 = 173 and with that efficiency would give you about 120 miles of range using most of the battery pack 75%

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

That's terrible.

Fanboys ready with excuses in 5, 4, 3, 2...

 

[fdon1]

Thar's terrible.

Fanboys ready with excuses in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Don't need an excuse - if you are seriously towing, you most likely are not considering an EV today.
If you think/thought this vehicle was going to be some game changer in EV towing before today - you might be a bit delusional.

The beloved Rivian tows about the same, but because it's an and or by Elon, people have to spew FUD.

Bottom line, it's a lifestyle truck with some utility - just like every other EV "truck"

 

[SolarWizard]

Wow. That is terrible. Now explains why the battery expansion is offered. Pretty much a requirement to tow. Any guidance on what that purchase would net you in terms of total milage under these test conditions?

The charging time is gonna be looooooong

 

[Cybrtrk420]

But OP cleverly uses 75% range in title for more clicks. Would have made few bucks using this click farming technique on X

 

[SolarWizard]

I agree but tesla went out their way to demonstrate the “prowess” when they lied about the Porsche race test and then did a tractor pull

 

[Gigahorse]

But OP cleverly uses 75% range in title for more clicks. Would have made few bucks using this click farming technique on X

I posted the 100-3% range is 115 in bold text, in the real world not many of us CHARGE to 100% at a SC on trips, nor do we drive to 0%.

Some superchargers limit you to 80% charge to keep stalls open, charging from 80-100% takes a LONG time, especially with the CT slow charging times, and 5% is not much of a buffer to get to the next SC, especially when towing.

So 115 miles with 100% or 87 miles with 75% cut it up however you like. Could have made the headline "46 miles of range" if using the recommended low and fast charging to 40% or 120 miles with range extender that doesn't exist yet.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

Don't need an excuse - if you are seriously towing, you most likely are not considering an EV today.
If you think/thought this vehicle was going to be some game changer in EV towing before today - you might be a bit delusional.

The beloved Rivian tows about the same, but because it's an and or by Elon, people have to spew FUD.

Bottom line, it's a lifestyle truck with some utility - just like every other EV "truck"

I am very concenred.

Actually towing an RV is my use-case for pulling the trigger on CT FS.

But my RV is 2,500 lbs. So if I can get 150 miles, my typical mileage in between campsites wirh one stop, I am good.

 

[BorisJGR]

Does anyone know what their average or typical speed was? We tow a 5000 lb Airstream with our 2020 X and get 110 miles when we keep it between 55 & 60.

 

[mark555055c]

So... Is there a video or something?

if out of spec gets 254 miles from 100 to zero at 70 in cold temps with little to no regen, I can't imagine this towing data is correct. That is, unless the trailer that was being towed had brake drag or way under inflated tires, failed wheel bearings, etc.

 

[fdon1]

I am very concenred.

Actually towing an RV is my use-case for pulling the trigger on CT FS.

But my RV is 2,500 lbs. So if I can ger 150 miles, my typical mileage in between campsites wirh one stop, I am good.

From this data and with the range extender then you might be close but again towing with an EV is more of a party trick

 

[cvalue13]

Here’s where we remind about the paradoxical effects of towing using an aerodynamic vehicle

• The CT arrives at a headline range similar to the F150 Lightning ER, despite the CT having a pack size ~8kWh smaller, in part in virtue of the CT being more aerodynamic
• the less aerodynamic F150 busts up the air before it hits the trailer, thereby minimizing the aerodynamic impact of the trailer
• the more aerodynamic CT busts up less of the air before it hits the same trailer, causing the CT to realize more of the added drag of the trailer
• on top of all that, there is a packaging difference between the CT and F150 that will also negatively effect the CT towing range compared to the Lightning - in that the CT is materially shorter, which means an identical trailer load will stick up higher into the airstream than a Lightning (which will have more of the trailer ‘tucked in’ behind it)

That’s why it’s been expected that the CT, being significantly more aerodynamic that the Lightning, would with the identical trailer experience a greater hit to towing range than a Lightning.

This is the point in the post where someone says “we can’t say what Lightning would do in identical circumstances.” Depending on what one means by “identical,” I suppose we can’t, strictly speaking.

But here we have some very detail-oriented testers using a Lighting to also conduct a towing test using a car hauler with a Tesla on back.



They towed a Model 3, on apparently a larger/heavier trailer (combined towing weight of 7K lb), and did both blended city/hwy and full hwy tests, both with and without the trailer, and these are their results:

In the highway test most comparable to the CT in this thread, the EV-Pulse guys got out of the Lightning ER 1.4mi/kWh and 183mi, compared to the CT’s 115mi.

This comparison in terms of headline starting range is pretty uniquely paired, in that the AWD FS has a headline range of 318mi while the Lightning ER Lariat has a nearly identical headline of 320mi.

Now, the tests also have some important differences. The test in the OP post was conducted at 61° while the Lightning test was conducted at 90° - and that 29° temp differential will have a non-trivial impact on the lower range shown by the CT.

And, while the Lightning load is purportedly heavier by ~1,000lbs compared to the OP test, aero of the trailer package is by far the major factor in drag. And, the EV-Pulse guys were pulling a hauler with a model 3, while the OP test appears to be the same hauler but with a model X?

At which point I express some uncertainty about the weight of the trailer in the OP test. The heaviest model 3 is 4000lb while the lightest Model X is 5,100lb. If that is an identical trailer, I’m not sure yet about the OP to weight (the EV-guys seem pretty fastidious) and sounds like more details are forthcoming.

Regardless, aero is still the predominant variable in drag effects on towing. If that is a Model X, the drag by towing is sure to have been larger by a non-trivial amount in the OP test.

Further working against the CT,

So, working against the CT in this test is

​

(1) CT’s greater aerodynamics compared to the F150L (which is a general ‘against’ in terms of expected range generally)​

​

(2) CT’s lower ride height creates further aerodynamic costs when towing compared to the F150L (which is another general ‘against’ in terms of expected range generally)​

​

(3) the CT was towing in 29° cooler temperatures which will have a non-trivial negative impact on towing range (which is a test-specific ‘against’ these specific test outcomes) and​

​

(4) the CT was towing a slightly less aerodynamic Model X (which is a test-specific ‘against’ these specific test outcomes)​

Notice that all 4 of these ’againsts’ cross-amplify one-another. The two inherent ‘againsts’ (CT being more aerodynamic, and lower to the ground relative to a given trailer), mean that the two test-specific ‘againsts’ will have an even greater negative impact (the air being colder and the MX being larger, means that the CT’s aero/height was working that much more against it).

What that all means, is that the CT’s test result of 115mi, and the Lightnings results of 183mi, demonstrates a mixed outcome.

On one hand, the CT test conditions were expected to have a disproportionate impact compared to the Lightning, even if all else was equal.

On the other hand, even if all else was equal, the CT aerodynamics and height would be expected to mean the CT will inherently tow less than a Lightning given identical trailers - and so the range difference isn’t merely the difference in test conditions, it’s also amplified by the CT’s proclivity for being *more* subject to towing range effects of temps etc. the Lightning.

End of the day, the 115mi/CT vs 183mi/L discrepancy is not super surprising even before we know the relative test conditions. We should expect The CT to have a greater impact from towing that a CT given the identical trailer.

At the same time, the difference seen here is not all inherent to the CT vs Lightning, in that 30° is a big temp differential, made all the more impactful by the X (sticking out over the CT) being larger than the M3 (tucked in behind the F150L).

Regardless, the results are the results. Broadly speaking, is the 115mi vs 183mi what one might (at best) expect to get in the CT at 60° vs 90°?

We’ll have to wait and see! Including the details of this test and its conditions (speed, etc.).

But regardless, if you plan to instead tow a load like like this at 60°, in various mixes of conditions, you might in one of them expect to get something like these test results.

Sponsored