The Tesla Cybertruck was les efficient towing a trailer than the Tesla Model X yet again, after a more apples-to-apples test.
Back in March, MotorTrend tested the Tesla Cybertruck against the Rivian R1T and Ford F-150 Lightning. A big part of the test involved working each truck to see which had the best range while towing. Bowlus, the company that built the trailer used in the experiment, then ran its own test with the Tesla Model X and found the electric SUV performed even better than the pickup. Some Cybertruck stans were so unhappy with the result that they asked for a redo, and they just got one. Sadly for them, the results didn't change.
According to the angry fans, the tests were too different for an apples-to-apples comparison. So Bowlus put both a Cybertruck and Model X to the test again, using the same trailer that MotorTrend used, to see which had better range. Once again, the Model X won.
The test was done with the help of YouTuber Butter_EV, who drove a 2024 Cybertruck AWD Dual Motor Founders Edition (124 kWh battery), while Bowlus drove a 2020 Model X Long Range Plus (100 kWh). Both used the same trailer, a 2024 Bowlus Volterra measuring just over 27 feet with a dry weight of 3,200 pounds. They also both drove the exact same 103-mile route, from Santa Barbara to Buellton, California, which included a 600-foot climb. Then, on a different day, they tested a Rivian R1S Launch Edition Quad-Motor (135 kWh) on the same route, with the same trailer, for good measure.
Both the Cybertruck and Rivian R1S struggled to get anywhere near the Model X's trailer efficiency. Despite being the oldest car in the test, the Model X saw 2.39 miles per kWh while towing the trailer. The Model X would get a projected total range of 238.6 miles using that figure. By comparison, the new Cybertruck, which is supposed to be Tesla's most capable workhorse, achieved just 1.86 miles per kWh. A full battery at that rate would get 228.6 miles on a charge. The Rivian was the least efficient, though, at 1.81 miles per kWh, and a 244.4 total projected range. In its defense, that specific model has the heaviest battery of the bunch and four electric motors instead of two like the others.
Why was the Model X so much more efficient than the Cybertruck? Weight is likely the biggest culprit. The Model X Long Range Plus weighs 5,421 pounds, while the Cybertruck checks in at 6,603 pounds. Aerodynamics certainly played a factor, too. While the Cybertruck has a commendable 0.34 drag coefficient, the Model X's Cd is just 0.24. Combine its better aero with a half-ton drop in curb weight and the Model X's superior efficiency isn't surprising. However, it does prove that the Cybertruck—the vehicle Tesla claims to be a game-changing workhorse of a pickup—actually takes a step backward compared to a nearly 10-year-old SUV when it comes to towing.
Got tips? Send 'em to tips@thedrive.com
Read the original article
Comments
By throwthrowuknow 2024-06-0710:584 reply Comparison on efficiency is silly. People don’t buy full ton trucks with duallies because they get better gas mileage.
By SkyPuncher 2024-06-0717:241 reply Fuel efficiency is absolutely a concern with regards to operating costs. The people that really need to haul things absolutely care about how expensive it is to run a vehicle.
I have never seen a person with a dualie who actually hauled things. They're cosplay items. Fuel efficiency is a negative for that market segment.
By grepfru_it 2024-06-0720:391 reply Tell us you live in the suburbs without telling us you live in the suburbs (come visit some country folk, or work with construction crews on a regular basis to change that opinion)
Lmao, tell me you truck cosplay without telling me.
The vast, vast majority of construction sites don't need a dualie. Hell, half of them don't need a truck. I've seen and met numerous plumbers, electricians, and carpenters who roll up in a van. My uncle was a GC for 40 years. My other uncle was a union pipe/sprinkler fitter. My cousin is an electrician. My other cousin owns a roofing company, and my pops is an architect who regularly makes site visits. None of them owned a work truck. The only one who does own a truck is the roofer who got a Raptor for fun.
The majority of truck owners do not haul large cargo. The majority of construction workers do not bring tools requiring a bed each day. Lawn crews use trailers for their actually large equipment. With fewer and fewer exceptions each year, trucks are increasingly bloated emotional support vehicles for insecure and obnoxious turds.
While you were right in calling that an exaggeration, the only people who I've ever seen use a dualie for real work were all towing horses.
By SkyPuncher 2024-06-083:53 Most construction people don't need a dualie because they're not hauling heavy equipment.
Need a skid steer, trencher, scissor, lift or other heavy equipment and you quickly enter dualie territory.
That being said, an F-250, F-350, F-450 are all essentially the same truck. Same engine. Mostly just stiffer suspensions on the heavier duty trucks.
By grepfru_it 2024-06-0915:12 Yes a van is all you need for that. To say you don’t need dualies at all is a joke. What happens is that the dualies are used for heavy equipment but then they double as a vehicle for employees and are given to them as a perk. As such dualies are seen driving around without “being used” or sitting in driveways of McMansions. But thats simply because it’s used as a perk for employees. Very few people are dropping $80k for a f-250 or bigger for cosplay.
Sometimes they need the bed to haul things that a f150 is fine for but they need the cab space to take 6 people plus their gear between jobs
By SkyPuncher 2024-06-083:01 You probably see them all the time, but don't recognize them as dualies with a flat bed on.
Most people who do serious hauling pull the bed off.
By everdrive 2024-06-0714:41 Not when range is a concern -- efficiency directly speaks to range, and it's towing range which is the primary weakness of EV trucks. If you just wanted to haul heavy loads in the bed, I wouldn't necessarily think that an F-150 Lightning or Cyber Truck are all that inferior. (just too expensive)
By 650REDHAIR 2024-06-0718:11 People don’t buy cyber trucks to do trucks stuff anyway
By netule 2024-06-0715:24 Yeah, they do. When towing a couple horses across state lines I don’t want to subject those poor animals to stopping every 90-100 miles for an hour to charge. I don’t even want to subject myself to that.
The cyber truck can tow more than twice the payload. My Jeep can probably tow a couple jet skis further than my friend’s Ford F35O can tow his 26’ gooseneck RV. Who cares?
By LeafItAlone 2024-06-074:001 reply > Who cares?
If all you are ever going to tow is a couple of jet skis, then your jeep would be the better vehicle (if evaluating solely on towing distance).
If you own a trailer like this one and are deciding if you need the Cybertruck to tow it, you have the data.
Knowing capabilities and data helps make better choices.
By FireBeyond 2024-06-0718:41 Agreed. An Audi station wagon can (and commonly is seen) tow a horse trailer comfortably.
It's mentality. In the US, I've seen attitudes of "well, I move my horse twice a year from a summer to a winter pasture" which apparently equates to "... so of course I need an F-350 Superduty DRW ("dually")."
Realistically, it's a difference of about 15 miles of effective range between the vehicles.
By spacedcowboy 2024-06-070:333 reply Which, given the 20% larger battery on the "truck", is quite a difference.
The "truck" weighs around 20% more (CT @ 6,000 lbs vs X @ 5000 lbs), so the larger battery pack effect is nullified and cancels out.
By jodleif 2024-06-076:40 It’s more likely about aerodynamics (unless you’re going uphill with no regen, or doing a lot of stop/start)
That's not how these calculations work at all. Weight (if it doesn't change the size or shape) really only has an effect on rolling resistance, which is a small portion of overall losses.
The extra weight should make a marginal difference in efficiency. Just expect more tire wear.
Newton's laws of motion would like to have a talk with you about those statements. A heavier vehicle absolutely needs more energy than a lighter one when all other factors stay the same.
By mech987876 2024-06-0714:41 The majority of energy expenditure is not acceleration and deceleration (especially on an EV with regen braking). At moderate and high speeds wind resistance dominates. At slower speeds rolling resistance is a largish factor.
By seadan83 2024-06-0718:36 While a heavier vehicle at times needs more energy - trains are a counter example to consider. Magnitudes heavier, but do not need magnitudes more fuel.
Which comes to Newton's laws of motion, the two concepts of inertia and Newton's second law: "F=ma", come into play. If the course is a straight 100 mile segment with no elevation gain - then the dominant fuel expenditure will be counter-acting aerodynamic drag. When trains haul many cars, the train cars are drafting behind one another, meaning those cars do not need any force to overcome drag, just the lead car needs to do that.
So, places where trains do badly, will be places where weight matters. Urban environments when stopping/starting a lot - trains will keep it slow. Very hilly/mountainous courses - trains "nope" that and require shallow grades. Which goes to show, if you're spending most of your time fighting gravity - then weight is really important, if most of the time is fighting aerodynamic drag, then weight becomes less important as aerodynamic drag decreases. For example, it does not matter as much how heavy a bullet train is, the drag coefficient is a better indicator of overall fuel cost rather than carry weight.
By dsalfdslfdsa 2024-06-0718:58 I'd love to see how you derive that from Newton's Laws of Motion, which are all about acceleration. All other things being equal, it takes no more or less energy to keep a heavy object in motion than a light one. After all, a pendulum's period is proportional to its length, and not its weight.
And what does Newton say about regenerative braking? Does the energy you put into the system just go puff?
I hate when people make smart-ass claims with surface level knowledge at best.
By noboostforyou 2024-06-0717:27 > Does the energy you put into the system just go puff?
Yes, actually. The most common example of this is drivetrain power loss, which EVs are not immune to. Tesla engineers have stated that they are ~15% which is about the same as with ICE vehicles.
Doesn’t weight have a massive effect on power needed for acceleration ? To go from A to B You need to get up to speed but also acceleration for regulating your speed after taking a turn, crossing a traffic light, passing someone over…
By seadan83 2024-06-0718:48 If we ignore air resistance, then weight and time are the only variables needed to determine the power needed for a given acceleration. Force is related to mass through "F=ma", and power is effectively force over time.
Though, neglecting air resistance is a huge deal. A cyclist traveling over 20mph is spending something like 90% of their energy at that point overcoming air resistance. For objects travelling faster, it's a square low of how much more power is needed. Air resistance is a very huge effect. With that said, if travel is dominated by accelerating and decelerating (eg: urban or mountainous environments), then yeah - weight is a huge big deal.
That seems to be a rather simplified view, as if stemming from the world of frictionless pulleys and rope that does not stretch.
These are self-propelled electric vehicles that have regenerative braking. Regen is miles ahead of just dumping momentum as heat [as conventional brakes must] but it can never be 100% efficient -- and it may not even be able to begin to try to capture 100% of that momentum in the first place, depending on the particular braking circumstance.
These characteristics weigh heavily on how such vehicles perform in the real world, especially when the terrain is not flat. (And in this test, the terrain was not flat.)
By Tostino 2024-06-0717:51 It is a pretty simplified view.
I wrote an electric vehicle power / efficiency / range estimation program back in college when I was very into building electric bikes. (More advanced version of the ebikes.ca calculator for an example). There were a whole lot of parameters that went into actually estimating the performance, but the general rule of thumb was rolling resistance is pretty much worth ignoring (for efficiency) until you have spent time optimizing aero and drivetrain losses.
It was pretty damn close to real world measurements.
I'm going to use rules of thumb rather than exactly calculating things for a colloquial conversation online.
There’s a 600ft climb involved too. It’s not an enormous difference, but lifting that extra 1200lbs still adds up to about 0.3 kWh.
By Tostino 2024-06-0717:42 And then you have a good percentage of that .3 kWh available as extra energy to recapture as regen.
By lm28469 2024-06-079:12 Yes, it decrease range, increase road wear, increase tire/brake pollution, decrease road safety
I can't think of a single negative thing
Bigger and heavier cars are more expensive, thus they are worth more and they must be better.
By rvnx 2024-06-0712:37 Ok, I get it, there is more metal, so the scrap value is higher. Makes sense.
By superb_dev 2024-06-072:03 And it has a much higher tow capacity
