-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I'd make a sizeable bet that price has increased substantially. Outside of Elon saying that the price has increased, I don't see them keeping the price the same pricing when they would sell, initially, at a much higher price and demand far exceeds supply.
With all the “dug our own grave comments” I don’t see Tesla making money off of this car for some time.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
It depends on whether they do EPA tests with all the variants. They recently don’t have a history of doing so. They just adjust estimated range (not EPA range - it’s a clear distinction on the website, “est.” vs. “EPA est.” example attached) based on wheel config. I could be wrong so I won’t make it a blanket statement, but usually this means that the range in the car is not affected by wheel choice - it just displays EPA range.
Of course Tesla can always change their MO. Specifically:
1) Rivian tests nearly all their variants so Tesla might get EPA numbers for all of them too.
2) Tesla could decide to change the displayed range in the car based on wheel selection even without an EPA test (there is not any rule about this, they just have to deliver the promised energy and efficiency when used as configured for the test).
Anyway, 300 miles rated range with a 120kWh battery would be disappointing - that’s about 380Wh/mi (account for buffer, to be generous, but that would actually mean a final calculated test result of 400Wh/mi) which is considerably worse than Rivian best case.
But we have no idea which wheels were tested, etc. And we don’t know the pack size. Hopefully this is a smaller pack!
E.g.
The showroom model I saw had 285/65R20 and matches the image of the “premium” so I guess the premium 20” option detail has been disclosed. Notably, it actually looked like an efficient combo and you might argue it will be the best case as compared to 18” (depends on the tire and wheel).
Last edited:
don't expect wonders... maybe they can squeeze out ~320-330 miles EPA from that 120kw pack.... but it remains a very large vehicle, sitting high and equipped with large tires....
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I don’t expect wonders but they will need to match or better Rivian’s best case (which is something like 385Wh/mi, and allegedly could be better - though it’s a bit unclear for the max pack).
Right now this looks like 400Wh/mi which is bad. But I guess I have also heard the 20” are all-terrain (plenty of pictures of them to determine this) and the 18” are all-season which is totally backwards (but would explain terrible EPA results with 20” if that is what they ran EPA with, and may make such a result not comparable to the 385Wh/mi Rivian result).
Anyway, it’s not nearly enough range to be useful for remote off-road applications. At least not yet. Maybe at some point there will be close enough chargers but this would currently make large extremely desirable portions of Nevada inaccessible, for example. Even “very accessible” Great Basin would require CCS!
Lots of range is needed for such applications. And with the low efficiency it starts to get important to reduce stop overhead as well (it’s going to charge slowly with current equipment!). Of course for city stuff it would be fine.
Last edited:
Waiting 4 years to not increase the range 1 mile and (likely) increasing the price ~50%. Lol.
There's not even a rumor of a 50% increase in pricing.
why do they need to match or beat Rivian?
The R1T is a *much* smaller truck and less frontal surface (less width/ less height) ... this all plays a role for efficiency
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Efficiency is important. Looks like they could be pretty close but we’ll see. We cannot tell what we are comparing right now.
Rivian is 18 feet long. Yeah, maybe it is more narrow (I don’t pay any attention to this stuff). But I’m not taking any of that stuff into account in any case. It’s 78” tall, seems similar to CT. (I have no details; I failed to estimate dimensions when I visited.)
Matching Rivian or at least in the ballpark would be good. Tesla historically has had very efficient vehicles compared to most of the competition. Highway efficiency is particularly important. We’ll see.
Last edited:
Yes, there is. The influencers / free marketers are being told "mid to high $70s."
First Cybertruck trim priced from US$75,000 as Tesla preps for delivery to select few at launch event
Tesla started sending out Cybertruck launch event invites at the price of 30,000 referral credits and now more info on how it may all go down has appeared. The lucky first Cybertruck owners will reportedly get their deliveries during the announcement event and they've been tipped the price.
www.notebookcheck.net
If I was going with Tire options I would just go with the 285 75 R18. This is what I have on my current Truck. I had 35 12.50 R 20s on my last Truck. No more 20 inch wheels on my Trucks anymore. The 18s ride so much better. Much better handling under heavy loads.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Clarifying this…
R1T
217.1” length
81.8” width mirrors folded
73.1” with antenna, sport mode. So effectively something like 71”.
I guess we’ll see how CT compares. Doesn’t seem that different but I could be wrong.
That's not 50% more than $50k.Yes, there is. The influencers / free marketers are being told "mid to high $70s."
First Cybertruck trim priced from US$75,000 as Tesla preps for delivery to select few at launch event
Tesla started sending out Cybertruck launch event invites at the price of 30,000 referral credits and now more info on how it may all go down has appeared. The lucky first Cybertruck owners will reportedly get their deliveries during the announcement event and they've been tipped the price.
zoomer0056
Active Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
So (depending on how the display works and what grayed out bars mean, and whether that dot at the bottom of the tenth bar is dust or something meaningful) it could be anywhere from 265/0.85 = 312 and 265/0.95 = 279. Not very helpful without an actual known percentage or knowledge of how the screen works.
Similar threads
