V2H is via charge port at up to 11.2kW through UWC with gateway for grid disconnect (optional meter switch)
14-50 outlet is only 9.6kW
https://www.tesla.com/powershare
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
14-50 outlet is only 9.6kW
https://www.tesla.com/powershare
Stretch2727
Engineer and Car Nut
Looks like ongoing deliveries in CA and TX.
Or the $550 tire plug kit and compressor! (<$30 at WM). Or $1250 for a spare tire! That you then have to put in your bed. As someone that just had a flat on the interstate last weekend, I'm now sensitive to spare tire availability! Of course...once I got home I plugged the original in 5 minutes-wishing I'd had that $30 compressor and plug kit with me.
Last edited:
Overall, I am feeling 'meh' about this launch. Not enough tasty engineering details, and then the various unexciting things like pricing and range not being what we might have wished for.
Pricing is a disappointment (much greater than inflation would indicate), but not a huge surprise. As others have mentioned, I expect this will go down over time as production ramps up.
We already expected 48V, and 800V was not really a surprise. The real question there is how they're handling charging on 400V systems. They indicate 250kW at 400V supercharging, but is that due to dynamically reconfiguring the battery from 800V to 400V or by a beefy DC-DC boost converter to get from 400V to 800V? I feel like the extra contactors to change it from 800V to 400V would be cheaper, but I could be wrong.
The lack of real "500 mile" battery is disappointing, but I am very interested in how the range extender add-on is implemented. It's "Installed separately" which implies that it's a permanent fixture, rather than something the end user can easily remove. If so, that at least solves the cooling problem, as they could have an access panel in the bed area that is removed for the range extender that not only passes through the DC connection but also cooling hoses. It would be really cool if it was designed such that the end user could add/remove it, but I'll be surprised if that's the case.
Slightly disappointed by the lack of built-in air supply in the same fashion as the bed power outlets, but it's not the end of the world, since you can simply have an AC powered air pump that you store somewhere in the vehicle (it's got plenty of space). The camper accessory apparently includes it's own since it requires airing up (I am curious as to whether it uses air inflated bladders as structural supports for the roof, or if that's just to provide a comfy air mattress surface on the bottom).
The lack of a tailgate ramp we've more or less expected for a while, but that was another disappointment after having it on the reveal vehicle years ago.
On the plus side, there's a number of interesting accessories already available to take advantage of the L-track in the bed, so that's nice I guess?
I think the more insightful takeaway from the event is that steer by wire is here. That will make the unboxed construction of the next gen / "$25K" vehicle that much easier to accomplish, both from just an assembly point of view and also from an enabling LHD markets point of view. Perhaps, eventually, S3XY will be updated to steer by wire, and the UK and similar markets will be able to get LHD vehicles again.
Pricing is a disappointment (much greater than inflation would indicate), but not a huge surprise. As others have mentioned, I expect this will go down over time as production ramps up.
We already expected 48V, and 800V was not really a surprise. The real question there is how they're handling charging on 400V systems. They indicate 250kW at 400V supercharging, but is that due to dynamically reconfiguring the battery from 800V to 400V or by a beefy DC-DC boost converter to get from 400V to 800V? I feel like the extra contactors to change it from 800V to 400V would be cheaper, but I could be wrong.
The lack of real "500 mile" battery is disappointing, but I am very interested in how the range extender add-on is implemented. It's "Installed separately" which implies that it's a permanent fixture, rather than something the end user can easily remove. If so, that at least solves the cooling problem, as they could have an access panel in the bed area that is removed for the range extender that not only passes through the DC connection but also cooling hoses. It would be really cool if it was designed such that the end user could add/remove it, but I'll be surprised if that's the case.
Slightly disappointed by the lack of built-in air supply in the same fashion as the bed power outlets, but it's not the end of the world, since you can simply have an AC powered air pump that you store somewhere in the vehicle (it's got plenty of space). The camper accessory apparently includes it's own since it requires airing up (I am curious as to whether it uses air inflated bladders as structural supports for the roof, or if that's just to provide a comfy air mattress surface on the bottom).
The lack of a tailgate ramp we've more or less expected for a while, but that was another disappointment after having it on the reveal vehicle years ago.
On the plus side, there's a number of interesting accessories already available to take advantage of the L-track in the bed, so that's nice I guess?
I think the more insightful takeaway from the event is that steer by wire is here. That will make the unboxed construction of the next gen / "$25K" vehicle that much easier to accomplish, both from just an assembly point of view and also from an enabling LHD markets point of view. Perhaps, eventually, S3XY will be updated to steer by wire, and the UK and similar markets will be able to get LHD vehicles again.
One thing I'm curious about. Conventional trucks are 4' between the wheel wells, but considerably wider above and in front and behind them. I'd guess closer to 6' wide, perhaps a bit less (will need to measure mine). I wonder what is in that space on the CT?
jkirkwood001
Active Member
This is the email early reservation holders are getting (in CA$
There are conventional trucks that are more like the CT in that fashion, squared off with no intruding wheel wells (called "sportside" among other things), but they're certainly not the most commonly selected option (I'm not actually sure if they make them that way anymore, but they were definitely around in the 90's at least). They have the upside of being squared off without weirdly shaped spaces caused by intruding wheel wells, but at the same time, you're giving up potential space as a downside and as normally implemented they're less aerodynamic because they instead had weirdly shaped outsides instead of insides.
For the CT, they kept the exterior surface as a continuous plane as well as the bed to maintain aerodynamics, so instead there's just (presumably) wasted space inside the sides of the bed.
Drumheller
Active Member
A gallon of gas contains about 33.7 kWh."There's a handy way of quickly comparing how efficient electric cars are compared to traditional cars. Just take the miles per kWh figure and multiply by 40. So an efficient 4 miles per kWh electric car is the equivalent of a 160 MPG car."
TL;dr dual-motor CT is equivalent to an F-150 4x4 that gets 93 mpg. And you can install a gas station on your roof to boot...
So closer to 78 mpg equivalent
OK, my initial reaction was one of disappointment based on price and lack of 500 mile range (without taking up bed space anyway). But looking at it-this thing really is so freekin' cool. Supercar handling and performance (the 911 drag race is brilliant marketing). Crazy tight steering radius-this is a really big deal. Conventional pickups suck in parking lots. Confirmed steer by wire. Out-pulling an F-350 diesel. V2H. 48vdc architecture. Air suspension. Bulletproof. Seriously unique styling. Windshield wiper the size of a small tree. This is the first really unique vehicle to hit the automotive market in a long time.
I think this will have a lot of appeal of non-truck people. Think of it as a larger Plaid with a REALLY big trunk and much more unique styling. That also happens to do truck things really well. Given the size and cargo capacity, this will be a great traveling vehicle with a family.
As far as pricing....$80k is more than I will pay for a 4x4 pickup (I'm not in the same financial class as many on this forum). But really-it's not unreasonable-a Ford Raptor has a starting price of $77k. I fully expect price reductions in a year or so as supply ramps, which will be a good thing to capture more market share.
I think the "bulletproof" body will be a big selling point for people that use this as a truck. Modern pickups have body panels with the durability of aluminum foil. Slam a shopping cart into one and you'll cave in the side of the rig! I hit a plastic garbage can between my truck and a cart coral at WM-forgot it was there when I went to pull through and couldn't see it from the drivers seat-caved in the side of the bed. Let alone crumple it on brush/branches when off roading, and destroy the paint.
Can't wait to see how this architecture evolves. I have to think a full-size SUV is in the future, as well as perhaps longer bed lengths and more specialized versions.
I think this will have a lot of appeal of non-truck people. Think of it as a larger Plaid with a REALLY big trunk and much more unique styling. That also happens to do truck things really well. Given the size and cargo capacity, this will be a great traveling vehicle with a family.
As far as pricing....$80k is more than I will pay for a 4x4 pickup (I'm not in the same financial class as many on this forum). But really-it's not unreasonable-a Ford Raptor has a starting price of $77k. I fully expect price reductions in a year or so as supply ramps, which will be a good thing to capture more market share.
I think the "bulletproof" body will be a big selling point for people that use this as a truck. Modern pickups have body panels with the durability of aluminum foil. Slam a shopping cart into one and you'll cave in the side of the rig! I hit a plastic garbage can between my truck and a cart coral at WM-forgot it was there when I went to pull through and couldn't see it from the drivers seat-caved in the side of the bed. Let alone crumple it on brush/branches when off roading, and destroy the paint.
Can't wait to see how this architecture evolves. I have to think a full-size SUV is in the future, as well as perhaps longer bed lengths and more specialized versions.
Last edited:
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Sounds good, pending confirmation of the battery pack size. Did anyone see a closeup of the CT's Monroney sticker at the Delivery Event? By comparison, Model X is rated at 105 MPGe.
Stretch2727
Engineer and Car Nut
I little bit on how the 400V charging in CT works.
GhostSkater
Member
This is the thing that shook most my investment thesis in Tesla today, which is based in them being the absolutely best kick ass engineering wise, specially into energy efficiency. The price is fine people will buy and they will lower with time, range is also fine for most people although I would have loved to see 500 miles without a kinda janky range extender
Rivian R1T Dual Motor is rated at 345 Wh/mi
Cybertruck is rated at 429 Wh/mi, with the many aero mods, with the huge rear diffuser that ate lots of departure angle, is embarrassingly higher, 24%
So unless Tesla is being way more conservative with it than usual, not good
powertoold
Active Member
Not sure where you got 345 Wh/mi
The lowest I see on the EPA website for the R1T dual is 430 Wh/mi, but your point still stands I think.
Fuel Economy of 2023 Rivian R1T
Fuel economy of the 2023 Rivian R1T. 1984 to present Buyer's Guide to Fuel Efficient Cars and Trucks. Estimates of gas mileage, greenhouse gas emissions, safety ratings, and air pollution ratings for new and used cars and trucks.
www.fueleconomy.gov
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Speaking of 240, the speed limit signs at GigaTexas are all 24 mph. What do you get when those numbers are reversed?
I am looking forward to all the reviews from the folks who had access to the Cybertruck before the release. Looks like it can eat an F-150 raptor for a light snack.
Will be interesting to see the Rivian comparisons as well.
Will be interesting to see the Rivian comparisons as well.
The CT using 48V architecture is big. Automakers have been talking about this switch for decades. CT, and the no doubt the $25K will have this architecture. More 48V components lower the unit price. Soooo, will the MY have it when it gets redone? What better way to extract lower 48V component prices than have it on one of the world's best selling car.
With the tonneu cover, who cares? If that was the only reason and this is indeed "dead space" it was IMHO a poor design choice. I suspect that there was more to it regarding packing, but am not sure what. Maybe required for structure due to the unibody? You're right about the older trucks-"Sportside" was Ford's term IIRC, Chevy was "Step Side". I had an '89 in that body style. Not a real functional bed, but the steps were surprisingly useful for getting stuff in and out of the bed-and to climb on and work to the back bumper when launching a boat.
GhostSkater
Member
The numbers straight from EPA are from the wall including charging losses, so you have to go from the pack size and how much range they gotNot sure where you got 345 Wh/mi
The lowest I see on the EPA website for the R1T dual is 430 Wh/mi, but your point still stands I think.
Fuel Economy of 2023 Rivian R1T
Fuel economy of the 2023 Rivian R1T. 1984 to present Buyer's Guide to Fuel Efficient Cars and Trucks. Estimates of gas mileage, greenhouse gas emissions, safety ratings, and air pollution ratings for new and used cars and trucks.
410 miles using 141884 Wh and adjusted to the 5 cycle test, unless I got something really wrong
Edit: just occurred to me, that EPA number for fuel cost certainly also includes charging losses
And you don't think that the Tesla number you are using is from the wall? Wouldn't it have to be to be used for costs?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
