Part of the supposed intent in introducing the Hummer(and the Mach E) was to not make a lame utilitarian EV that no one wanted. They went flashy, higher performance, to win people over.
OT: Electric vehicles
- Thread starter BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap
- Start date
For off-road-oriented vehicles, range basically gets cut in half. Assuming you'll use them like that. So 300 miles of range means you can travel 150 miles into nowhere, then back. No charger along the way.
Agree ICE is still the way for now. Think more PHEV would fill the niche better than BEV or light hybrid.
Posters over at the cybertruckownersclub forums are panning the pricing and features of the CT:
Tesla’s botched Cybertruck event is good news for Rivian, other EV truck makers
Way to not deliver on your promises:
At the original Cybertruck unveiling, Tesla said the truck would start at $39,900, be available in late 2021, have a payload of 3,500 pounds in a 6.5-foot bed, and a tow rating of up to 14,000 pounds max range of 500+ miles for the top-end version (which was meant to start at $69,900).
As of yesterday, we know that none of those numbers are true. The truck starts at $79,990 today (and $60,990 in 2025), has a payload of 2,500 pounds in a 6-foot bed, a tow rating of up to 11,000 pounds, and a range of 340 miles, or 470 with an additional battery that eats up a chunk of your bed space.
There is a question of whether many people were actually cross-shopping the Cybertruck versus more traditional-looking pickup trucks in the first place, but a difference in base price of more than $20,000 can make up for a lot of questionable styling.
The comparison was made directly on Reddit in a post comparing Musk’s past statements about the Lightning’s price with the actual prices of the Cybertruck – which are now much more expensive than the base and even upgraded trims of the Lightning, both of which are available now whereas the base model Cybertruck won’t come until 2025.
Back in 2019 when the Cybertruck was unveiled, Tesla said that the cheapest model would be available first and cost $39,900. But after Thursday’s delivery event, we now know that the $61k cheapest model won’t be out until 2025, and the first-available model starts at $80k.
Don’t see the appeal for RWD truck. It will only dilute the model. Should be marketed as high end and only with dual or tri motor, like the Rivian.
If demand stays strong for the dual and tri, the RWD may never go into production.
2 things:
Dual motor CT is eligible for the $7,500 point of sale fed rebate starting Jan 1, so now you're looking at $72,500. Buyer may also qualify for a state rebate.
Show me another truck with the same specs for $20k less.
You think those that can afford the truck will fall under the income limit?
Don't want to get into a pissing match, which is sometimes difficult with you on Tesla items, since you are a staunch devotee, which is fine.
I had wanted a CT when it was announced, but got tired of waiting. I'm glad I did not wait. I wanted a pickup truck, not a redesign of the DeLorean with a uselessly small bed, the inability to see out the rear view mirror when the tonneau cover is up, and a bunch of useless features like bulletproof skin and glass at a high price.
IMO, it's a novelty item, not a pickup truck. Like Steve Jobs used to do, Elon tries too hard to inflict his will to include kitschy and weird design elements because he thinks they are cool. That steers a lot of people away and needlessly drives up cost. Of course, this is just my opinion, but it is shared by a lot of people.
IMO people who want a pickup truck will look elsewhere. People who want a "look at me!" vehicle will buy a CT. It looks fun in some respects, but I can have a lot of fun for a lot less money.
Some great quotes from that twitter user "The Cybertruck Guy"'s twitter feed...
"Tesla single handedly wrecked the rest of the industry"
"Jason Cammisa: Legacy auto should be humiliated by the Cybertruck and Tesla's automotive breakthroughs."
His slurp level goes to 11.
What cracks me up about the wiring harness tweet(s) is that all these people are engaging in a giant slurpfest over Tesla engaging in cost-cutting measures that increase their profitability at the likely expense of quality and reliability for customers.
I mean, none of us here know if it's a technologically wise thing to do or not. But if it was a wise thing to do, and since it saves the automakers money, why wouldn't everybody do it? Gonna have to wait and see how it goes as the vehicle ages. But my guess is it'll lead to problems.
But if not, good on Tesla.
I mean, none of us here know if it's a technologically wise thing to do or not. But if it was a wise thing to do, and since it saves the automakers money, why wouldn't everybody do it? Gonna have to wait and see how it goes as the vehicle ages. But my guess is it'll lead to problems.
But if not, good on Tesla.
Running on 48V + drive by wire both seem like game-changers to me. I hope Tesla quickly adopts these for all their current and future models.
Remember that time you said that automakers weren't going to attempt to increase range by adding bigger and bigger batteries (even tho they were doing exactly that as you said it)?
Has your tune finally changed now that your cyber-crush has *almost* met its range objective from four years ago by adding a big, space-devouring battery brick option?
To be fair, what he meant to say was that "normal" cars wouldn't add bigger batteries. Pretty sure he clarified his earlier statement when challenged on it by allowing for the likelihood that luxury or expensive (i.e. non-ordinary) vehicles would increase range.
I mean, yeah, it was a rationalization for an errant statement in the first place. But at least he conceded he was wrong w/his clarification (even though, like the Fonz, he couldn't actually say he was wrong).
At least that's how I remember it.
i'm not sure if i follow moistbuddha. but i do follow shitheadsteve."Moist Buddha"?
If only it's a woman's account. Then that's what she said.
You post a fair amount of good stuff, and this made me laugh-especially the gif.. My day is better and I had a rush of endorphins seeing I rate with you.
Huge old Ford and Mustang fan.
I was a huge fan of Lee Iaccoca too. Kind of like the people who are in the cult of Elon for a short while. Wanted to go to Lehigh, cause that's where Iacocca went.
We had a 1969 Gran Torino GT with a 351 Cleveland 4 barrel. That M'fer could fly. So much so, my bro crashed it and totaled it. He walked away unscathed.
Had a brand new 1988 Mustang GT 5.0 that I bought myself for graduation. Manual transmission. Loved chirping the wheels of that machine.
Anyways, happened upon a 1967 Mustang out in Arizona where we have a second home by chance. Guy was going into a restaurant. I politely asked if he was ever selling it would he call me. He was selling it. Next day it was mine. It's a 289 ci. Does not have the balls of the 5.0 or the 351 Cleveland 5 barrel, but oh do I love the sound of that engine.
As to the Fastback, they only made the Fastback convertible in the 1964 Mustang in Metallic Mint Green. Only available in Poland with the snow plowing package. (I'm Polish, so everyone can calm down).
A pickup is, quite simply, as normal as a vehicle can get, a category without a luxury segment.
To the extent that the Cybertruck is not normal, it's because Tesla failed to meet its own brief and focused instead on extraneous nonsense.
hahahaha dumbass I am, I saw 67 mustang and I SWEAR I did not read anything else
I had a 89 convertible GT my dad bought me, wish I still had it!
I'm in the mkt for a 69 mach 1, almost bought one a few years ago and passed. Then the day after I was set on buying a 67 firebird I bought a boat....dumb
I will get a mach 1, need one old classic for each of the boys. love me some old classic cars
That's true, the CT is not a luxury vehicle at all, judging from all available interior photos at least. I'd say it's abnormality is it's goofy triangular shape, ugly spartan appearance, and the chosen materials.
There's a giant 19" screen to see out the back. To each his own, but i suspect you're forming your opinion from the naysayers CT handbook from 2019 when little was known about the final specs.
Nope. Watched videos of the recently released CT. Glad I passed. I'm ecstatic with my F150 Lightning. The CT looks like a post modern freak show. But as you said, to each their own.
You haven't said if you're getting one or not. You're working hard to sell them here. But are you actually putting your money where your mouth is?
B/c legacy auto is reliant of 100s of suppliers all using 12V. Changing course on a giant ship isn't easy. With the ever-growing power demand of modern vehicles, the switch to 48V is long overdue. Tesla will drag everyone else into the future. Just like they did with electrification in general, giant castings, minimalist interiors, software based UI, and now 48V.
One of Tesla's greatest successes is convincing buyers than spartan interiors are a luxury feature and not a cost management shortcut.
That's the GM playbook. Our EV tech sucks, so let's just pack the thing full of batteries. See Silverado & Hummer.
The dual and tri motor CT has a 123 kWh pack. That's smaller than any EV pickup on the market with similar range.
The range extender pack is an option.
My tune hasn't changed 1 bit. Hauling thousands of lbs of unused batteries isn't practical, unless you actually need the range. I'm gonna guess the range extender isn't a big seller considering the small % of truck owners that regularly tow/haul. IDK if Tesla would consider renting the range extender pack, but I have heard that idea kicked around.
This company has a better idea. Put the range extender ON THE TRAILER:
Smart, putting it where you need it. Unless you need more range for other reasons.
I would agree that modern vehicles can require greater power demands. Both my recent cars have lithium ion batteries due to increased power demands over traditional 12V. And other cars from other brands are doing similar things.
In my sports car, it's just the one LiPo battery with some amount greater than 12V (I can't remember the exact numbers 'cause, well, it's irrelevant and uninteresting to me). In the SUV, there's both a traditional a 12V lead-acid one, plus a LiPo one (lending some support for your argument about existing supplier relationships, in other words, including the lead-acid one was almost certainly done for cost saving reasons rather than engineering reasons, and the lead-acid one will almost certainly be phased out in subsequent model refreshes).
However, electrification existed before Tesla existed. And minimalist interiors are not any kind of a feature; they're a cost saving measure being marketed to easily fooled idiots as a feature.
And what is this "software based UI" to which you refer?
Software has had software based UI since the very first human-interactive computer program was written. Where'd you get the idea that Tesla is someone inventing that or inventing anything related to it? FInally, there's nothing magical about the choice of 48V. Modern cars might need more than 12V at times, but they don't all need 48V and there's no great reason for it in most cars. Trying to claim a specific voltage is some sort of brilliant breakthrough by Tesla is pretty ridiculous. Step back from the abyss man, you're being brainwashed by Tesla marketing into saying silly nonsense.
side note question...did you lease or buy your Porsches? starting preliminary investigation into the next vehicle. my friends who have germans all recommend just leasing them...depreciation on them is bad and long term maintenance costs are high.I would agree that modern vehicles can require greater power demands. Both my recent cars have lithium ion batteries due to increased power demands over traditional 12V. And other cars from other brands are doing similar things.
In my sports car, it's just the one LiPo battery with some amount greater than 12V (I can't remember the exact numbers 'cause, well, it's irrelevant and uninteresting to me). In the SUV, there's both a traditional a 12V lead-acid one, plus a LiPo one (lending some support for your argument about existing supplier relationships, in other words, including the lead-acid one was almost certainly done for cost saving reasons rather than engineering reasons, and the lead-acid one will almost certainly be phased out in subsequent model refreshes).
However, electrification existed before Tesla existed. And minimalist interiors are not any kind of a feature; they're a cost saving measure being marketed to easily fooled idiots as a feature.
And what is this "software based UI" to which you refer?
FInally, there's nothing magical about the choice of 48V. Modern cars might need more than 12V at times, but they don't all need 48V and there's no great reason for it in most cars. Trying to claim a specific voltage is some sort of brilliant breakthrough by Tesla is pretty ridiculous. Step back from the abyss man, you're being brainwashed by Tesla marketing into saying silly nonsense.
I
Of course you won't. But you should. The argument was about range. Battery stuffing was just a means to that end.
The Cybertruck already surpasses the range you swore was enough, and they still felt the need to add extra battery (for even more price).
Guess that's one of those groundbreaking innovations only Elon could have come up with
Of course you won't. But you should. The argument was about range. Battery stuffing was just a means to that end.
The Cybertruck already surpasses the range you swore was enough, and they still felt the need to add extra battery (for even more price).
Guess that's one of those groundbreaking innovations only Elon could have come up with
Bought. Interest rates are crap, so made no sense to lease or finance right now. In general, I think leasing rarely makes good financial sense unless one can write it off as a business expense. And even then, it depends on a number of factors (tax bracket and income, interest rates, lease terms).
Maybe your friends leased prior to inflation driven interest rate hikes?
Depreciation depends on the specific car. For instance, there is no depreciation at all on the GT3 at the moment. I have just under 2K miles on it now, and could easily sell it for quite a bit more than I paid (and I paid quite a bit more than MSRP). The demand is many times more than supply. Of course I have no idea how long that will continue. But it's been increasing since the prior generation (991) and shows no signs of slowing down so far. People right now are paying more for low-mileage used 992 GT3s than I paid for it new. Is nuts.
The Cayenne, OTOH, is depreciating, and rapidly. But leasing still doesn't make sense, to me at least, because of current interest rates. The high rates and depreciation are always baked into the lease terms. There's really no escaping it. Back when rates were 3% or less, than it made great sense 'cause investing the money instead led to large net gains given the low interest rates. That's just not the case at the moment.
As for long term maintenance costs, they are definitely high. But... lease, finance or cash, maintenance costs are what they are. Leasing doesn't automatically obviate one from paying for new tires, brakes, oil changes, etc. I guess one can always purchase a maintenance plan and bundle it into the lease. But you're still paying for it that way, plus paying high interest on it. Presumably some brands "sweeten" lease deals by including maintenance, but for German luxury cars or performance cars, I suspect such sweetening is sweeter for the dealership than the customer.
The more important thing with some of the cars/brands is to either (a) sell or trade-in before the warranty ends, or (b) depending on the specific car, get an extended warranty. It's the cost of dealing with out of warranty problems that can be prohibitively expensive. I personally wouldn't keep a Porsche past the warranty period unless I get a really good extended warranty. Replacement parts are crazy expensive and labor is often as well due to how engines and so forth are packaged. With 911s, for instance, some repairs or certain maintenance requires pulling the rear bumper or dropping the engine.
Meh. The article is pure politics and not really a good fit with this thread, which is 99.9% apolitical.