Towing tested with 6,000lb Tesla and trailer load

[Woodrick]

Good question, hopefully they make pull through or we will have to dismount the trailer. But since the superchargers on the highways are 100miles apart on average and by design, the CT may not make it. As a tesla owner, you will find it most reasonable to charge at home unless you are traveling.

They are indeed installing more pull-though locations, but still too slow.

Interstate spacing is generally around 50 miles now. There are still a number of 100 mile gaps, but the gaps are being closed.
When I first got my Model 3 6 years ago, my trip from Atlanta to Orlando had about 3 Superchargers. Today the trip has over a dozen. They are at 50 miles or shorter.

Colorado though the mountains on I-70 seem to be around 50 miles, but to the east, there's still some 100 mile gaps.
And expect the gaps to be filled over time.

Sponsored

 

[JPRIVER]

The the 123 kw battery = a 13 gallon fuel tank. Check my math. https://epact.energy.gov/fuel-conversion-factors
Assuming ev 95% effeciency 10% battery reserve and diesel 25% effecient. Imagine buying an f250 with a 13 gallon fuel tank. Stupid.

 

[Woodrick]

So what else were the potential buyers supposed to expect? So if it wasn't BS then what do you call it?

Cool, I think I will wait till the price drops 50% & range increases.

Lots of Tesla car buyers switching over, 160-175kwh & they likely would have not lost so many reservations of truck buyers.

It was simply their design expectation.

Hoe many Teslas have you seen any significant distance changes on?

The Model S refresh moved up to about 400 miles. (It seems that the Model S has had every battery size available over it's lifespan)
The Model Y and the Model 3 RWD dropped to about 250. (Done for people who wanted cheaper vehicles)

 

[JPRIVER]

Yes CT towing, stop every 50 miles to fill up is reality. I hope that lake or camp site or job site is not 40 miles away from a charger.

 

[Woodrick]

I’ve got a dumb question about towing. CT will be my first EV but I have rented a Tesla a couple of times. All the charging stations I’ve been to have been stalls you back into. If you did need to tow a trailer any distance, how do you charge it the truck along the way? Are there pull through charging stations?

Not a dumb question at all. As others have mentioned, there aren't that many right now, but they are growing. The F-150 Lightning with it's uniquely placed charging receptacle and the Cybertruck is causing Tesla to do a little more thinking.

While larger trailer with a load levelling hitch and larger boats are an issue. Many smaller trailers and mid to small boats aren't as big of a deal.
My wife has got the drop or hitch part down to about a minute. it can be a little inconvenient, but not a huge deal.

Oh yeah and with boats, be ready to go back and figure out how to use gas station pumps. It's amazing how easy it is to forget how to operate those things.

 

[REM]

the one built to do it

that’s the thing


I don’t want to further overstate the objection

I basically just agree with everything Jason Fenske says in his video

I get Tesla is going to do these dumb stunts that appeal to the fat part of the bell curve, just like other OEMs do

This one just has a few flourishes that are worth calling out as particularly dumb and misleading

I'm continually astonished at the amount of people who are willing to to bring out a whiteboard with mathematical equations in order to try and prove the validity of a demo about a truck ?

 

[fritter63]

The the 123 kw battery = a 13 gallon fuel tank. Check my math. https://epact.energy.gov/fuel-conversion-factors
Assuming ev 95% effeciency 10% battery reserve and diesel 25% effecient. Imagine buying an f250 with a 13 gallon fuel tank. Stupid.

What if they also sold a bunch of red gas cans to put in the bed?

 

[cvalue13]

I'm continually astonished at the amount of people who are willing to to bring out a whiteboard with mathematical equations in order to try and prove the validity of a demo about a truck ?

some people have Wordle…

 

[PerfectFlaw]

Breaking News: Battery Powered Vehicle Cannot Tow For Long Distances

Shocking!

If this bothers you, you are not the type of truck owner to have a battery powered truck. You're the type of truck owner to own a gas or diesel powered truck.

Cancel your battery truck order and buy/keep your gas truck.

End of story, no amount of crying on a forum will change that. I'm a normal truck owner that doesn't have to tow anything, and that's who the Cybertruck was made for:

People who live in the city doing Home Depot runs, not guys pulling animals and towing boats and trailers all over the place.

If you think Tesla owes you a vehicle that can do that, then news flash: they don't. They'll sell plenty of them anyway.

 

[BigE]

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.

Good heavens, the level and depth of excuses. Tesla blew it with such a small battery pack in a truck. Lots of amazing tech, but to small of a battery and inefficient ones at that.

 

[JPRIVER]

Enough said.

 

[Saygmo]

Yeah, I foresee ev towing being phev’s for the foreseeable future. For sure expect that heavy duty towing diesel trucks to have a medium sized battery like the cybertruck, and a smaller efficient ice engine as well for those long haul trips. Even if the ice doesn’t put out enough power to replenish while climbing grades, it could regen while going down hill and on flat land and more than make up the lost efficiency from towing.
I’d expect the ramcharger powertrain to get upgraded and end up in the 2500 trucks, at least as an option. And ford already has the hybrid f150, they could put in the small lighting pack and some larger electric motors in the f250.

 

[cvalue13]

With all due respect, IMHO I don't think the 13-gallon fuel tank on an ICE truck is a very fair comparison, for towing practicality, compared to the battery powered Cybertruck.

no worries, especially because I think we’re saying the same thing

put differently and bluntly:

if your use case wouldn't have you buying an ICE truck with a 13 gallon tank, then a BEV truck probably isn’t for you (in 2024)



for me, and many others, the many benefits of a BEV truck far outweigh the practical effects of having a 13 gallon tank

for others, a 13 gallon fuel tank just won’t do, regardless of the benefits


It’s that simple.


It doesn’t seem simple, in threads like this, only because:

• some don’t understand the extent of the benefits (including when towing)​

​

• some don’t understand how to mitigate the practical effects of a 13 gal tank (including when towing)​

​

• some overestimate how much their use case requires >13 gal tank (esp when towing)​

Some participants underplay the extent of the benefits and underplay the degree of mitigation possible, while also exaggerating the need for >13 gal. Others over-play the benefits and overplay the possible mitigation, while also downplay the legit needs of some for >13 gal tank.

Makes it hard for other folks to figure out their own cost-benefit calculation.

Meanwhile, the other thing playing out here is the age old hunt for which 13 gallon truck actually gets its stated gas mileage in various scenarios, or compared to other models/brands. The Ram and Chevy both are rated for 26mpg hwy, but one seems to exceed it while the other seems to always fall short. The Ford EcoBoost gets great milage not towing, but worse milage than the v8 when towing. Etc., etc.

That sort of milage debate, with ICE, has for a long time had lower stakes in an age of cheap gas, 36 gallon tanks, and stations on every corner. Stakes are a bit higher with BEV still.

When the Cybertruck and Lightning have only a 13 gallon tank, nailing down details about benefits, mitigation, true use case needs, and oddities around milage, is understandable.

but also hard to do when folks are being overly critical, and others overly optimistic.

 

[cvalue13]

Good heavens, the level and depth of excuses. Tesla blew it with such a small battery pack in a truck. Lots of amazing tech, but to small of a battery and inefficient ones at that.

what “excuses”?

seems like you’re projecting on to me some butt-hurt deep in you


Maybe that butt-hurt comes from an apparent incorrect assumption you’re carrying around

specifically, the incorrect assumption that all an OEM has to do is add a bigger battery pack

You think these companies are sitting around with their stock value riding on it and that’s just … overlooked your bright idea?

There are costs to adding larger packs. Those costs include not just cash, but also practical effects on performance, regulatory outcomes, etc.

To put those complications into crayon simple terms:

• practical effects aside, Tesla could have double the pack size and only had to charge significantly more for the Cybertruck - now folks forget how bad they wanted range, and are instead crying over their paychecks

• cash effects aside, Tesla could have doubled the pack size and made a truck that handles like trash, doesn’t fit in a garage, etc., but can go far


Companies will add more range when they can do so without cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Nothing comes for free. Only tradeoffs.

 

[rizvend]

TLDR With a medium weight and pretty aerodynamic load the AWD CT can tow for 115 miles if using 100% of the battery pack. Or if using 75% of the battery pack which is typical about 87 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.

Third towing test that we know of, this one is the best by far for determining CT towing range, another tow test coming in later today if all goes well.

*A couple more edits and minor info additions*

AWD CT with Factory Tires
Temperature 61 f (no rain, sunny, very little wind)
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)
Started trip with vehicle at Tesla V3 supercharger at 100% SOC
Ended trip at same supercharger at 3% SOC
The recharge to full took about two hours (battery was not preconditioned)
Under 200lbs of additional payload weight (humans/camers/etc)
Mix of city and some low speed highway, more precise stats on that coming once GPS info is compiled
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 Good 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
121 kwh used
113 miles on round trip
Wh/mile 1078

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 115 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 87 miles of range.
Props to tester/CT owner for putting together the logistics for this test will link video once it is public, will likely be a couple more edits to this post as I may have missed or misheard some stats. 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.

Post is getting a little friction, believe me I wish the towing #s 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 miles.
In line with real world CT range of about 200 miles.

There goes my career change as a repoman/towing service...

Sponsored