Tesla to Produce Pickup After Model Y Rollout

Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed that a pickup truck will be the the company’s next product following the Model Y crossover. In fact, he says he’s “dying to build it.”

Production of the Model Y is slated for 2019. The vehicle is expected to share architecture with the Model 3, which is expected to help bring the vehicle to market faster.

Musk has previously hinted that a Tesla pickup will be a miniature version of the semi truck the company debuted earlier this year. During the Semi unveiling, Musk showed a sketch of a “pickup truck that can carry a pickup truck.”

“By the way, you will actually be able to drive that with a normal driver’s license,” he said at the event. “It’s kind of wrong, but I like it.”

In a tweet Tuesday, Musk said he’s been thinking about the core design and engineering for a pickup for five years.

https://twitter.com/x/status/945713737729634304

“I promise that we will make a pickup truck right after Model Y,” he wrote. “Have had the core design/engineering elements in my mind for almost 5 years. Am dying to build it.”

Further, he said the pickup will be similar in size to a Ford F-150 or slightly larger due to a “gamechanging” feature.

https://twitter.com/x/status/945729229001334784

 

 

[Xenoilphobe]

A Fuso is a pickup like cabover. A Unimog is a medium duty truck cabover. The Unimog is much heavier duty than the Fuso and not a "pickup truck" by any measure.

It would be fairly straightforward to build a truck with a bed on the semi platform. But that would not be a pickup.

I expect Tesla to build a pickup that will fit on the model 3/Y assembly lines. The vehicle can be longer, but not wider than the 3/Y.

I know, but a model 3 based pickup will not be in my driveway.

Guess its back to looking at surplus military trucks, like this one....1996 2 1/2 Ton Stewart & Stevenson M1078 4X4 LMTV Military Truck FMTV M998 H1 | eBay

 

[KarenRei]

I expect Tesla to build a pickup that will fit on the model 3/Y assembly lines. The vehicle can be longer, but not wider than the 3/Y.

Indeed. This has always been my hope. In general, a pickup bed extends out further beyond the rear axle than an SUV does. So if the Model Y is like an elongated, more tapered RAV4 or a slightly smaller Model X, then the pickup should be F-150 sized.

 

[bhtooefr]

As to the argument of body on frame vs unibody vs some hybrid - what specifically limits the towing capacity? Is it just how much load can reach the rear suspension and the suspension (including tires/wheels) ability to carry it, and how the load gets there?

Is there any reason you can't build something constructed like a unibody (all nicely bolted/welded together into one thing) that has the load path to the rear suspension directly supported by a frame rail (or whatever) that is a part of the unibody construction, to get the capabilities of the body on frame but still be unibody?

https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405 might be worth a read - it talks about the difficulty of engineering a unibody pickup that can work in off-road and towing situations, and the benefits and drawbacks of doing it.

Also, the frame rail as part of the unibody construction is how European-style commercial vans are built, as well as some SUVs - AFAIK AMC pioneered it in some of their AWD cars and the Jeep Cherokee, and it's known as a "uniframe".

I expect Tesla to build a pickup that will fit on the model 3/Y assembly lines. The vehicle can be longer, but not wider than the 3/Y.

Model 3 is apparently 72.8" wide without mirrors. Compare to 79.9" for an F-150, 81.24" for a Silverado/Sierra 1500, 82.1" for a Ram 1500, 79.9" for a Tundra, and 79.5" for a Titan.

Even the Ridgeline is 78.6", and that's considered a midsize still.

If it were based on an existing Tesla car, the Model S/X platform would make more sense (with the Model X apparently being 78.7" without mirrors)... but I doubt that even that would make sense. Additionally, a double-stack battery is going to be necessary to get any kind of reasonable range, and that will warrant a different platform itself.

A midsize pickup or van or vantruck or something on the Model 3/Y platform could potentially be interesting - of those, the Tacoma is 74.4", the Colorado/Canyon is 74.3", the Frontier is 72.8", and based on Euro specs the Ranger will be 73.2". You'd still want a double-stack battery, though, meaning that a lot of changes would need to be done.

 

[KarenRei]

this works

I prefer this commercial:

 

[BioSehnsucht]

A Fuso is a pickup like cabover. A Unimog is a medium duty truck cabover. The Unimog is much heavier duty than the Fuso and not a "pickup truck" by any measure.

It would be fairly straightforward to build a truck with a bed on the semi platform. But that would not be a pickup.

I expect Tesla to build a pickup that will fit on the model 3/Y assembly lines. The vehicle can be longer, but not wider than the 3/Y.

Indeed. This has always been my hope. In general, a pickup bed extends out further beyond the rear axle than an SUV does. So if the Model Y is like an elongated, more tapered RAV4 or a slightly smaller Model X, then the pickup should be F-150 sized.

I would not be totally surprised if the Y and pickup shared a line, or 3 and Y, but I don't think a shared 3/Y/Pickup line makes any sense. If Y and pickup share a line, then there will likely be too many differences between Y and 3. If 3 and Y share a line, then similarly ...

That's not to say they won't share significant parts (motors, pack architecture, etc) and so on. But While the Y might end up big enough to be shared enough with the pickup to be worth sharing (i.e. as S and X), in that case, I think they would not fit with the 3 line really.

Having said that, due to the likely staggered production ramps and the potentially bigger than 3 sized ramps, I think it more likely that the Y gets a dedicated line, and the pickup gets a dedicated line.

 

[skitown]

I'm confused about this thought of the Y or 3 sharing a line with the Pickup. I expect the pickup to be on a lot larger chassis than the Y. Sure hope so if it aims to out-muscle things as big or bigger than the F150. Certainly will not share the same pack as the 3/Y unless they literally double up a Model 3/Y pack. Sure it may share motors, pack tech, etc, but so will the Semi.

 

[KarenRei]

The comments we've heard about the 3 and Y make it sound like they're "sort of" the same platform. Like a "half generation" of platforms between them. We know Musk was talked out of going to an entirely different platform for it, but they still seem to be going ahead with some pretty significant changes like the ditching of the 12V system.

I guess we'll see.

If the pickup and Y share a platform, and Y is nearly as long as X, then the pickup should be as long as an F-150.

 

[skitown]

What am I missing? Tesla Pickup seems like it for sure needs to be on a chassis at least as big as Model X. Even then, that would likely be more Tacoma/Tundra sized, vs. a full size American pickup.

F150 Dimensions: 209-251″ L x 80-86″ W x 75-79″ H
Model 3 Dimensions: 185″ L x 73″ W x 56-57″ H
Model X Dimensions: 198″ L x 82″ W x 66″ H
Tacoma Dimensions: 212-226″ L x 74-75″ W x 71-72″ H
Tundra Dimensions: 229-248″ L x 80″ W x 76-78″ H

 

[electracity]

I originally thought that the pickup would be on a new large vehicle platform that would eventually be used on the S and X. They are very unlikely going to build a new volume pickup on the existing S/X platform.

If the pickup is intended to be a volume vehicle it needs to be on a modern skateboard. Tesla currently has only one.

It seems to me that Tesla will want to exploit the model 3 platform beyond the model Y. But the model 3 is about 6" too narrow for full sized pickups and vans. Even the MB Sprinter is about the width of the F150.

Perhaps Musk is all over the place on the pickup is that Tesla is looking at a wide range of strategies.

 

[BioSehnsucht]

https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405 might be worth a read - it talks about the difficulty of engineering a unibody pickup that can work in off-road and towing situations, and the benefits and drawbacks of doing it.

Also, the frame rail as part of the unibody construction is how European-style commercial vans are built, as well as some SUVs - AFAIK AMC pioneered it in some of their AWD cars and the Jeep Cherokee, and it's known as a "uniframe".

Interesting article. From reading it, I wonder if a Tesla would see the "disadvantages" of the "additional" weight to build a uniframe truck as actually instead advantages, as they would likely play into better safety / crash-worthiness. It seemed like a uniframe would end up weighing about as much as body on frame, which would be more than unibody - so it doesn't end up being heavier against an actual truck, just against a unibody SUV/car - so all things considered there doesn't seem to be a downside. If you want to do extreme rock climbing, buy a Bollinger instead. Overall from that article it seems like for Tesla's purpose a uniframe approach is the obvious choice.

Model 3 is apparently 72.8" wide without mirrors. Compare to 79.9" for an F-150, 81.24" for a Silverado/Sierra 1500, 82.1" for a Ram 1500, 79.9" for a Tundra, and 79.5" for a Titan.

Even the Ridgeline is 78.6", and that's considered a midsize still.

If it were based on an existing Tesla car, the Model S/X platform would make more sense (with the Model X apparently being 78.7" without mirrors)... but I doubt that even that would make sense. Additionally, a double-stack battery is going to be necessary to get any kind of reasonable range, and that will warrant a different platform itself.

A midsize pickup or van or vantruck or something on the Model 3/Y platform could potentially be interesting - of those, the Tacoma is 74.4", the Colorado/Canyon is 74.3", the Frontier is 72.8", and based on Euro specs the Ranger will be 73.2". You'd still want a double-stack battery, though, meaning that a lot of changes would need to be done.

The need for double stacking of the battery might depend more on wheelbase and if the vehicle is in fact wider.

Model 3 has 46p96s arrangement for nominal 80.5 kWh (78.3 usable), at ~350V. That's in 4 modules, 2x 839.5 sq in, and 2x 776.25 sq in area. Ignoring module layouts for now to make life easier, we have 4416 cells in 3231.5 sq in. If we assume the truck is going to be about 8" wider, then we can gain an extra 584 sq in (73"x8"). Now assume wheel base is at least 20" longer (about 10" longer than the F-150 regular cab 6.5' box - Elon did say it would be probably a bit longer vehicle), and we gain another 1080 sq in. That gets us a total of 4895.5 sq in of cells area which is 51.5% increase in capacity. If we want to double the 3's pack, then we need the wheelbase to be 49" longer than the 3, which would be in line with F-150 Supercab 8' box. All without any stacking required.

Of course stacking could be easier, but you're giving up interior space and potentially making the body taller...

TL;DR For pickup of F-150 width and with 10" more wheelbase than smallest F-150 (regular cab 6.5' box), pack size can be ~51.5% bigger than Model 3 (~120kWh/~118.6kWh usable). For pickup with approximate wheelbase of F-150 Supercab 8' box, pack size can be double Model 3 (~161kWh/156.6kWh usable).

If they can make the pickup aerodynamic enough, it might be enough to simply sell two versions of the truck - with the smaller truck having a smaller pack. You want the bigger pack? Buy the longer truck - which also has twice the seating and possibly a longer bed.

However, I will not be surprised if they end up doing some stacking somewhere. They might need to put the electronics from the penthouse elsewhere anyways (if the pack runs under the bed - perhaps turn the pack 360 and have the penthouse up front). You can stack cells just about anywhere (such as sacrifice fold up rear seats that would give more storage area for a bigger pack) and hook them up but the penthouse ideally should be at one end or the other.

 

[bhtooefr]

A couple points:

@skitown, your dimensions are including mirrors on the Model X, Tesla likes to quote dimensions with mirrors. Tundra is very much full-size, though.

@BioSehnsucht, don't forget about towing. Doesn't matter how aero the truck is, if you're dragging a tall, flat front trailer down the freeway. And, the bed will increase drag significantly, too. Upshot is, you're double-stacking, period. I'm thinking a long-range F-150 competitor needs 200 kWh, a long-range Tacoma competitor needs 150 kWh. (Shorter range variants can, I suspect, practically be done at the large pack size for the similarly-classed cars, so 100 and 75 kWh.)

 

[BioSehnsucht]

A couple points:

@BioSehnsucht, don't forget about towing. Doesn't matter how aero the truck is, if you're dragging a tall, flat front trailer down the freeway. And, the bed will increase drag significantly, too. Upshot is, you're double-stacking, period. I'm thinking a long-range F-150 competitor needs 200 kWh, a long-range Tacoma competitor needs 150 kWh.

Some googling indicates some trucks are down to around 0.36 coefficient of drag, though low .40's is more common. Let's say Tesla truck somehow manages 0.30 and has only 21% more frontal area than an X (naive comparison of X and F250 dimensions). Some back of the envelope lazy math says around 50% more energy consumption vs X? So the 2x 3 sized pack might give it some good range, the smaller pack (50% more than 3 sized) would be less than ideal, much like the X75 ... but still fine for daily city usage, especially at lower speeds. And people have towed trailers with the X, it just doesn't get very far between charges.

But yes, for highway towing, more is better. The problem is where to put it?

Now that I think about it... how tall are frame rails normally? Some googling suggests around 6-8", the Model 3 modules are 3.5" tall, so perhaps you can double stack the entire pack and not have the bed or cab floors any higher than normal F-whatever trucks.

So it seems a non issue in terms of placement. Which means the sky's the limit for battery packs on the pickup. Small regular cab with short bed? well over 200 kWh, easy. F-250 supercab w/ 8' bed competitor? You're just about halfway to a Semi pack!

 

[skitown]

A couple points:

@skitown, your dimensions are including mirrors on the Model X, Tesla likes to quote dimensions with mirrors. Tundra is very much full-size, though.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Wonder if they could use the sled from the semi for the pickup truck? I can't find detailed specs anywhere, but I like the range numbers below... 620 miles unloaded?

Not including mirrors, external air cleaners, etc., the body will typically be up to 96″.

In November 2017, Musk said that the Semi would be powered by four electric motors of the type used in the Tesla Model 3.[19] Two battery configurations of 300 miles (480 km) and 500 miles (805 km) range (fully loaded) were planned with the battery packs located under the floor of the cab, between the back and front wheels.[19]Running empty, the long-range Tesla Semi would have a range of 620 miles (997 km).[20] Tesla said the Semi would have 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) time of 5 seconds unloaded and in 20 seconds fully loaded.[7] The Semi would be able to maintain a speed of 65 mph (105 km/h) on a 5% grade,[21] and that the company would offer a warranty for a million miles (1.6 million km) and that maintenance would be more simple than for a diesel truck.[7]

the cab below is 98 inches wide and 254 inches long

 

[BioSehnsucht]

Wonder if they could use the sled from the semi for the pickup truck? I can't find detailed specs anywhere, but I like the range numbers below... 620 miles unloaded?

Not including mirrors, external air cleaners, etc., the body will typically be up to 96″.

In November 2017, Musk said that the Semi would be powered by four electric motors of the type used in the Tesla Model 3.[19] Two battery configurations of 300 miles (480 km) and 500 miles (805 km) range (fully loaded) were planned with the battery packs located under the floor of the cab, between the back and front wheels.[19]Running empty, the long-range Tesla Semi would have a range of 620 miles (997 km).[20] Tesla said the Semi would have 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) time of 5 seconds unloaded and in 20 seconds fully loaded.[7] The Semi would be able to maintain a speed of 65 mph (105 km/h) on a 5% grade,[21] and that the company would offer a warranty for a million miles (1.6 million km) and that maintenance would be more simple than for a diesel truck.[7]

the cab below is 98 inches wide and 254 inches long

Perhaps for a F650+ sized truck, but that's not a pickup truck anymore.

Other than possibly using dual motors on one axle, and perhaps the shape of the front end, I don't expect there to be much overlap between the two, in terms of layout.

Also, don't expect batteries to exist in front of / behind the wheelbase like in that graphic - it would be a safety concern for any accidents.

 

[mongo]

Perhaps for a F650+ sized truck, but that's not a pickup truck anymore.

Other than possibly using dual motors on one axle, and perhaps the shape of the front end, I don't expect there to be much overlap between the two, in terms of layout.

Also, don't expect batteries to exist in front of / behind the wheelbase like in that graphic - it would be a safety concern for any accidents.

Yah, semi frame way overbuilt and pack height too high.
If they go independent rear suspension, it might use the Roadster 2020 type rear drive unit.

 

[bhtooefr]

Here's the Semi frame - it looks like it flares out around the batteries, which are sideways-mounted and multiply-stacked (based on the height I'd guess a 6 stack or so, which would be 420 mm... hmm...) FWIW:

(skip to 16:31 if YouTube didn't go there automatically)

Edit: Actually this makes sense if I think about it.

A Model 3 pack is rated at 75ish kWh.

The Semi is claimed at <2 kWh/mi, and 500 mi range, fully loaded. That means <1 MWh battery (but presumably close to 1 MWh).

There's clearly two packs in the Semi that are stacked to an unknown height, my estimate of 6, however, produces a capacity of 75 * 2 * 6 = 900 kWh. (The two-pack architecture is also convenient, as it allows reconfiguring the pack architecture easily based on available charging infrastructure - serialize it for Megachargers, parallel it or split it altogether for Superchargers.)

 

[KarenRei]

Wonder if they could use the sled from the semi for the pickup truck? I can't find detailed specs anywhere, but I like the range numbers below... 620 miles unloaded?

Not including mirrors, external air cleaners, etc., the body will typically be up to 96″.

In November 2017, Musk said that the Semi would be powered by four electric motors of the type used in the Tesla Model 3.[19] Two battery configurations of 300 miles (480 km) and 500 miles (805 km) range (fully loaded) were planned with the battery packs located under the floor of the cab, between the back and front wheels.[19]Running empty, the long-range Tesla Semi would have a range of 620 miles (997 km).[20] Tesla said the Semi would have 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) time of 5 seconds unloaded and in 20 seconds fully loaded.[7] The Semi would be able to maintain a speed of 65 mph (105 km/h) on a 5% grade,[21] and that the company would offer a warranty for a million miles (1.6 million km) and that maintenance would be more simple than for a diesel truck.[7]

the cab below is 98 inches wide and 254 inches long

That sounds like what I remember from the Model 3 teardowns I've seen - "frame" rails around the battery pack, but no crossbeams, as the battery pack itself is a stiffening element. The rails simultaneously protect the pack (and cabin) in a collision while also giving the vehicle longitudinal structural strength.

Does that count as body-on-frame? I'd say not. When I picture "body on frame", I picture a ladder structure with everything bolted to it.

ED: Wonder if it's the extruded alumium profile I'm remembering, or whether it's the UHS behind it. Probably the UHS. Although the alumium profile should crumple nicely in a crash to absorb energy:

ED2: Interesting, there are some UHS crossbeams Rectangular profile with lightweighting, it looks like. Also a pretty hefty looking HS crossmember at the back of the pack.

But of course, it's clearly not body on frame because the side cross-members are actually part of a vertical component, not a horizontal component.

ED3: Bottom view:

ED4: Okay, so if I've got this right, that yellow plate is above the battery pack, so those cross members run above the pack but under the seats. So you actually have some vertical axis spread to your "crossmember" strength, with the battery pack stiffening on the bottom and the UHS on the top. The crossmembers would also transfer the loads from the seats / passengers to the frame rather than the battery pack - although if that was the only goal, they sure look overbuilt for that.

Meanwhile, that alumium profile is sure looks like an obvious crush structure. If I were trying to put a crush structure to protect the frame on the sides, that's exactly what I'd use.

Anyway, the basic design I think would extend well to a pickup: "rails" (regardless of what stamped component they're made out of) running the length of the car, stiffened by the battery pack and optionally any crossmembers as well.

 

[Sean Wagner]

Meanwhile, that alumium profile is sure looks like an obvious crush structure. If I were trying to put a crush structure to protect the frame on the sides, that's exactly what I'd use.

That does remind me very much of what Audi tout as their side impact [energy] absorbers integrated into the battery pack of the recently introduved e-SUV [whatever it's called].

 

[scaesare]

I do disagree with this, although I think you've been taking a more reasoned approach than people in the other thread.

Re, unibody: It will be unibody. It pretty much has to. With EVs, efficiency is range, it's cost, it's charge time... it's everything. Going with unibody vs. body-on-frame is the low-hanging-fruit of efficiency.

Honestly, I don't think the debates about a Tesla truck will ever focus on body-on-frame vs. unibody. They're going to be, "it's electric and electrics suck and aren't real trucks!" vs. "it's so convenient and so powerful that it makes your truck look like a joke"

Halo cars are absolutely important, and you're right to point that out. But Tesla already has a halo truck: Semi. They don't need two halo trucks.

The current Tesla designs are not unibody, they are skateboard frame/chassis + body.

To somewhat underscore this point, Elon has talked about using the skateboard for other things (i.e. the people movers inside boring co. tunnels, etc...). This would not be possible if the X were a unibody.

Why do you heel it has to be that way for the truck?