Cybertruck Boys are finding out about true range now

[Heliian]

I did 360km yesterday at 120kmh ish. Temperature was 0degc to 4 degC. Total elevation change was - 175m. Winds were all over the place, mostly crosswind. 2 adults, 1 child, 1 dog, frunk packed with luggage, box empty with no cover.

Averaged 39kwh/100km.
1.603mi/kwh
623wh/mi

Grabber hts at 40psi cold(I set them lower for comfort)

Departed @97% with fairly warmed battery, 1 charge stop for 26 minutes @ 88kw delivery. Cost $13.74cad. About $6 to recharge at destination. Less than $20cad

Even with not great efficiency numbers it's still ridiculously cheap to run. My ex-150 2.7l would have cost over $65 just to go the 360kms, another $65 to return, $130 in gas compared to less than $40 in electricity. Electricity cost is $0.14/kwh, 87 octane gas is $1.40/L.

The lightning is absolutely my favorite vehicle ever.

Sponsored

 

[bmwhitetx]

Thanks, guys. Maybe it's because I've never owned a Tesla, but I like mi/kWh better.

Yeah, that’s the first Tesla forum I read and it’s full of Wh/mi numbers. Would be like ICE drivers saying their fuel efficiency is 0.05 gallons per mile instead of 20 mpg.
But if Tesla does it, it must be better (really, not poking fun).

Tesla folks - does your car really display that format instead of mi/kWh?

 

[Tony Burgh]

Miles per kwh makes more sense for quick calculation.
You know your battery capacity in kwh, you read your SOC on the dash, if you know your expected mi/kwh, just multiply.
For me, I use 2 miles/% to gauge my distance on a very safe side.
BTW - all the twisting and turning in that CT article is hilarious.

 

[chillaban]

Yeah, that’s the first Tesla forum I read and it’s full of Wh/mi numbers. Would be like ICE drivers saying their fuel efficiency is 0.05 gallons per mile instead of 20 mpg.
But if Tesla does it, it must be better (really, not poking fun).

Tesla folks - does your car really display that format instead of mi/kWh?

Yes, it does show Wh/mi as the “consumption” figure.

 

[F150ROD]

Yeah, that’s the first Tesla forum I read and it’s full of Wh/mi numbers. Would be like ICE drivers saying their fuel efficiency is 0.05 gallons per mile instead of 20 mpg.
But if Tesla does it, it must be better (really, not poking fun).

Tesla folks - does your car really display that format instead of mi/kWh?

yes

 

[Replika]

810 wh/mile..That's about the capacity of a large e-bike battery, good for around 100 miles of range. Considering they are both mall-terrain vehicles...

 

[Tony Burgh]

Yes, it does show Wh/mi as the “consumption” figure.

When you’re more interested in efficiency than getting where you have to go (think Prius drivers) watts per mile is your number.

 

[Grease Lightning]

20 miles is a horrible range test. If I leave my truck out in the cold, jump straight on the highway for 20 miles I can get as low as 1.3mi/kW, but my truck averages 2.1mi/kW over 20,000 miles.

I would hold off any conclusions until a real full test can be conducted. EPA wise it’s rated to be about 10-15% more efficient than the Lightning. I would say they also have a tendency to inflate their numbers…but I mean I have never gotten 320 miles out of the Ford either.

I saw a charging video posted on YouTube last night and based on 1,200 miles it was averaging 2.6 mpk, so a lot more like I would suspect.

 

[Grease Lightning]

I don't think that "range test" means anything; 20 miles is far too short. I think Cybertruck will be more efficient than it's boxy shape would suggest, particularly because of its smaller size than our Lightnings. It has an impressive coefficient of gravity, but those wide tires can't help for rolling resistance.

More concerning is their charge rate, though. That's the real "oof" in my view, and it lines up with the short-lived 4680 Model Y that was arguably the worst-charging Tesla in recent history.

This YouTube video shows he was getting closer to 2.6 mpk.

 

[TheBigBezo]

I don't think that "range test" means anything; 20 miles is far too short. I think Cybertruck will be more efficient than it's boxy shape would suggest, particularly because of its smaller size than our Lightnings. It has an impressive coefficient of gravity, but those wide tires can't help for rolling resistance.

More concerning is their charge rate, though. That's the real "oof" in my view, and it lines up with the short-lived 4680 Model Y that was arguably the worst-charging Tesla in recent history.

That is a seriously rough charging curve. I wonder if it's actually going to charge substantially faster than a lightning if this wasn't a fluke.

 

[Randall Stephens]

I saw a charging video posted on YouTube last night and based on 1,200 miles it was averaging 2.6 mpk, so a lot more like I would suspect.

I see the odometer reading but I missed the 2.6mpk lifetime reading. Where was it?

 

[Randall Stephens]

That is a seriously rough charging curve. I wonder if it's actually going to charge substantially faster than a lightning if this wasn't a fluke.

I expect it to get better with time. Then again his battery was warm. My charge performance always seems to be better than what Tom gets in his videos so I’ll chalk this up to a fluke or the new cells are a failure for Tesla

 

[Maxx]

This YouTube video shows he was getting closer to 2.6 mpk.

That makes more sense. My total average is 2.5 and much of my driving has been at warmer temps. CT may be doing even better than 2.6 in spring and summer.

 

[Maxx]

I see the odometer reading but I missed the 2.6mpk lifetime reading. Where was it?

1000/382 = 2.6 for the last 57 miles.

Sponsored