Tesla Cybertruck Owners Who Drove 10,000 Miles Say Range Is 164 To 206 Miles::Also, the charging speeds are below par, but on the flip side, the sound system is awesome and the car is “a dream to drive.”

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      This is a frankly baffling comparison. I don’t think I could think of 2 more different vehicles if I tried. Believe it or not, range is not the only thing people consider when purchasing a vehicle.

      • Enk1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s a truck, meant to tow and haul loads. If this is its range unladen then it’s hauling range is 50% or less of this range. Meaning a full charge gets you 82-103 miles, which makes it nearly useless as the thing it’s supposed to be: a truck.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Believe it or not, some people tow short distances, and some people use trucks as trucks without ever towing at all.

          • Enk1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            But Tesla specifically marketed this as a fully capable truck, which it is not. The F-150 Lightning gets the same range towing as the Cybertruck gets with no cargo.

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Of course it is. Once again, range is not the only factor people consider when choosing a vehicle.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        i had a hitch on my 96 metro. so, yeah. and a geo metro totin a tiny trailer looks a hell of a lot less silly than that silver monstrosity

        i do see your point. but i think it misses main the issue here; that this isnt a good vehicle let a lone truck.

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Can we stop pretending like literally everyone who owns a truck is just gonna use it to commute to the office and shuttle kids to soccer practice?

              Like you do realize there are people who actually do need trucks? Ever driven by a construction site? Ever had a lawn service come through your neighborhood? Or an HVAC service tech? I mean the list goes on…

    • tyrefyre@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, but how long did it take you to refuel your metro? Surely it wasn’t faster than a few hours.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s. Geo metro was only 3 cyl and sipped gas. my lil 92 eclipse for over 45mpg highway, i don’t even think it was rated that high.

      • Sovereign_13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        The early 90s was mostly a perfect storm for fuel economy.

        You had the computing power available to make use of CAD and develop more aerodynamic designs with less significant overhead (i.e., doing it by hand).

        EFI technology had matured and carburetors were broadly defunct, allowing more efficient operation in a broader range of environments.

        The US had updated its archaic lighting regulations to allow for more aerodynamic headlight shapes.

        A lot of the safety technology that adds weight to modern cars either hadn’t been developed yet or hadn’t trickled down to the average vehicle.

        So you had a confluence of more efficient engines, more aerodynamic vehicles, and cars that were still small and relatively lightweight.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        well, i actually had both a '92 3ycl (suzuki engine) and then later had a 4cyl monster metro. i think that was like a 96?

        just dont turn on the ac

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          just dont turn on the ac

          Haha! Same. My eclipse was only rated 90hp from the factory, and i bought it with 150k miles. Good thing it was a stick

      • thejml@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I regularly get 43-46mpg highway with my 4 cylinder TLX, drops off like crazy atoms town though.

        I agree that economy peaked In the 80’s-early 90’s, but if you take into account how much bigger, and heavier cars are today, we’re not that bad. Also, a lot of weight and size goes towards the superior crash safety in modern cars.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s.

        Probably in the early '00s but I mean that’s completely unsurprising considering the strides we’ve made in safety, comfort, and most importantly emissions since then.