-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
It’s the same hyped way of measuring torque like they did with the Hummer EV. Just to give you a big number.
You ain’t moving 600 lbs into and out of the bed…. Not without a lift
No kidding. We struggle with my 120 lb RTT.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
Just more lying marketing spin. That bogus torque number is after all the gear reduction. Fact is it’s less HP and torque than a Rivian quad…. Sorry Elon, you’re not above the laws of physics (even though you probably think that you are…).
Last edited:
Mrbrock
Active Member
Seems that those who were super excited about the CT have been quiet since the event.
All in all, very disappointing that Tesla didn't come closer to their original numbers but anybody who has been paying attention to this and the 4 years since it was announced had to know something like this was coming. Not surprising unless you have had your head in the sand for the last 4 years relating to 4680 and costs and supply chains in general.
Keep saying what you like but don't tell others they are debbie downers. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. You are not entitled to belittle others because they have different views than you. Be happy and excited about the Cybertruck but also admit that it didn't turn out how you expected. That doesn't have to be bad, just different. But don't tell anybody else they are wrong for feeling how they are unless there are facts there are wrong about. So now that there are facts about price and range, are you still excited about the Cybertruck?
More money and less range and no EPA so that 340 est might be less EPA. We will see when EPA numbers come out.
Good guess on range but under on price and while 2 of the 3 trims are available in 2024, they did release specs on all 3.
Yes, 40% for 70k but 50% for 75k. Thank you for admitting this.
All in all, very disappointing that Tesla didn't come closer to their original numbers but anybody who has been paying attention to this and the 4 years since it was announced had to know something like this was coming. Not surprising unless you have had your head in the sand for the last 4 years relating to 4680 and costs and supply chains in general.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
No kidding, right (on all counterpoints)?
Yep.
To quote our in-house bully - Musk joined "Debbie Downer Crew".
Total copium here, but I drive rather "spiritedly" in my M3P and wife's MXP. I get roughly 225 and 250-280 miles on a full charge respectively between each vehicle. Doing a similar calculation of 70% range on a 500 miles on a CT...... It comes out to 350 miles. Is it possible, that Tesla is actually being more truthful with their range this go around? Seeing as more people have talked about the optimism of the website regarding vehicle ranges.
Okay guys, everyone can go back to ignoring my copium now. Thanks for playing.
Okay guys, everyone can go back to ignoring my copium now. Thanks for playing.
Tesla makes good drivetrains, but anyone who expected an affordable 500 mile pickup doesn’t know much about EV efficiency. No way that was in the cards with 35” tires. No surprises for me, and I’ll stick to my 3.
But anyway, damn this truck makes me happy and I love that it will be driving around on our roads.
But anyway, damn this truck makes me happy and I love that it will be driving around on our roads.
Tam
Well-Known Member
No, I don't. That's why I leave it to the professionals, Tesla, who said 500+ miles could be done, for less money.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Tesla has never been untruthful. They just use the legal scale factor to inflate their range numbers relative to most other manufacturers.
Anyway: Unlikely but we'll have to wait for official EPA numbers to see which scale factor they used this time. The larger the scale factor is relative to 0.7, the more likely it is that people will be disappointed.
It's also possible that in general around town the discrepancy between rated and actual range will be smaller, if losses are not dominated by aero. With AT tires (if the ratings are done with them, TBD), they'll be a bigger proportion of the overall losses, so other losses (like aero, AC use, etc.) will have less impact.
However, with the CTs Cd of 0.335 and large cross-section, I think it will be hard to avoid disappointment on the freeway, since the government's test is mandated to be done at much lower speeds. The EPA should mandate an Interstate highway EPA range & efficiency rating for all vehicles. (Basically a static 70mph test.).
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I'm not aware of there being a major discrepancy with Tesla's "guess" and the actual EPA number, recently. Are you?
I'd be surprised if there were, since Tesla is the one that does the test, and I assume they've done one at this point.
I think the only question is which tires they run with and whether there's a disconnect there.
Major discrepencies no, but there usually is a small adjustment. Model S went from 415 to 405 IIRC (before the official numbers I thought it would end up at 420 for sure lol)
I'm actually floored at how many people seemed to believe Tesla would come anything close to 500 miles. It was such obvious bullshit from day 1.
Mrbrock
Active Member
Without specs on towing capacity of the CT this is only speculation, but the main difference between the RWD CT and RWD MY other than the $17,000 price increase is towing capacity? Similar range and acceleration. Never made sense that the CT would be close to the same price as the MY. As disappointing as it is, this pricing fits within the model lineup for type of vehicle and what you get. $30k premium to go from 330mi AWD MY to 340mi AWD CT. That does seem a bit high compared to the jump from the AWD Large battery Mach E to a similar F150.
Not major but considering the numbers are “off” anyways it’s not a big deal. It’s not like a Tesla estimated car will get that actual mileage in the real world.
Similar threads
