Rivian shouldn't even be in the picture. Cybertruck or Lightning are the only contenders

[EVOverlanding]

Based on the direction for how often you have to clean the cybertruck to prevent corrosion I have a feeling they're not going to hold up as well as people think, especially to different winter road treatments.

The Rivian has been amazing for me out here in Colorado, especially off-road. For their first vehicle and delivering them starting back in 2021 it's amazing that the CT is still so close to those years old specs. The gear tunnel has been awesome, the frunk huge, and I've used the air compressor, camp speaker, and built in door flashlight more times then I can count. I also like the "Tacoma sized" truck because it makes parking in Denver way more manageable. I'm hoping we see more out of the CT with updates and improvement but the steel body and its longevity and the concerns with range for mountain drives and camping trips is not well enough known yet for me to feel confident in following through with my FS CT order.

All that said, if my Rivian ever gets read ended I hope they total it to avoid the headache of repairs.

 

[Cybergirl]

Depending on the distance the Rivian may have the advantage as it has the lowest Cd and largest battery. The 70mph road tests show a 14%-34% advantage. As speed increases past 70mph the Rivian does better vs the others. T/SC will be available for all soon and unless the CT charging curve improves it has no advantage.
The lightning has very poor Cd so if you like 80mph it is not your best road trip truck.

I think the jury is still out on that. Cybertruck may have the greater range in a side-by-side range test. Let me explain why...

Yes, the Rivian has a larger battery, but range depends on how much of the battery capacity is usable. Range also depends on vehicle drive train efficiency, not just aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance.

In a recent range test, Out of Spec Reviews measured CT's overall efficiency to be 484 Wh/mile at 70 mph.

In a similar range test, they measured the R1T's efficiency to be 429 Wh/mile at the same 70 mph. That would indicate that the Rivian is more efficient than the Cybertruck until you take into account the difference in ambient temperatures during the tests.

Cybertruck was driven in a temperature range from 46 to 39 deg F. The Rivian from 52F to 61F. That corresponds to about a 10% decrease in efficiency for the Cybertruck due to colder air temperature (denser air). The Rivian was also driven at a higher elevation (lesser air density). Tested at the same air temperature as the Rivian experienced, we could expect the efficiency of the CT to be 10% better (386 Wh/mile), even better since seat warming wouldn't be needed in the CT.

Both vehicles consumed 124 kWh of battery energy from 100% SoC to dead stop, so Rivian limits the discharge of the 135 kWh battery to effectively be the same size battery in the CT (123 kWh). I don't know why they did that.

Would the result be substantially different at 80 mph? I estimate about 1% better for the R1T. Not significantly better.

I'm very interested in Out of Spec Reviews repeating the range test with both vehicles on the same route at the same date and time. Only then will we have a definitive answer to which truck has the advantage in driving range.

 

[cvalue13]

The Lightning has very bad range.

the Lightning, at worst, has the same range as the Ct.

Good reason to believe that in several scenarios the Lightning will have better range than the Ct.

Used to be, a super meaningful response was “but CT has Tesla supercharger the network”. Increasingly that response isn’t as meaningful. Shortly, the Lightning will have access to both superchargers and CCS fast charging. Likely more supercharger access to follow/expand.

the “Lightning has terrible range” quip was fueled by the exact same lack of understanding or intellectual honesty that is currently being leveled at the CT.

meanwhile, I don’t know how people don’t understand the following about the 4WT:

The Chevy 4WT is a FLEET ONLY OFFERING that is NOT AVAILABLE TO REGULAR CONSUMERS

I can’t understand why people don’t understand this

 

[cvalue13]

The lightning has very poor Cd so if you like 80mph it is not your best road trip truck.

true, but: does is it known to over-deliver on its stated EPA conditions range, where *ahem* others are known for under-delivering on its EPA-stated range?

After all, Ford used the default 0.7 adjustment factor with the EPA, where Tesla has proposed a record-breaking 0.82 adjustment factor for the CT

so yes, the Lightning’s larger size and worse Cd means increases speed will have an increased effect on range

but if that’s offset by the Lightning have more “in the tank”, it’s a wash

 

[cvalue13]

In a similar range test, they measured the R1T's efficiency to be 429 Wh/mile at the same 70 mph.

one tweet here:

the Rivian’s outcomes have a wide range due to having an equally wide range of wheel sizes (up to 22”) and tire availability.

so the most relevant comparison would be the Rivian with range-optimized wheel/tire sets, vs the CT with its range-optimized wheel/tire sets.

 

[HaulingAss]

I think the jury is still out on that. Cybertruck may have the greater range in a side-by-side range test. Let me explain why...

Yes, the Rivian has a larger battery, but range depends on how much of the battery capacity is usable. Range also depends on vehicle drive train efficiency, not just aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance.

In a recent range test, Out of Spec Reviews measured CT's overall efficiency to be 484 Wh/mile at 70 mph.

In a similar range test, they measured the R1T's efficiency to be 429 Wh/mile at the same 70 mph. That would indicate that the Rivian is more efficient than the Cybertruck until you take into account the difference in ambient temperatures during the tests.

Cybertruck was driven in a temperature range from 46 to 39 deg F. The Rivian from 52F to 61F. That corresponds to about a 10% decrease in efficiency for the Cybertruck due to colder air temperature (denser air). The Rivian was also driven at a higher elevation (lesser air density). Tested at the same air temperature as the Rivian experienced, we could expect the efficiency of the CT to be 10% better (386 Wh/mile), even better since seat warming wouldn't be needed in the CT.

Both vehicles consumed 124 kWh of battery energy from 100% SoC to dead stop, so Rivian limits the discharge of the 135 kWh battery to effectively be the same size battery in the CT (123 kWh). I don't know why they did that.

Would the result be substantially different at 80 mph? I estimate about 1% better for the R1T. Not significantly better.

I'm very interested in Out of Spec Reviews repeating the range test with both vehicles on the same route at the same date and time. Only then will we have a definitive answer to which truck has the advantage in driving range.

Also, the Rivian had the All-Season tires, the Cybertruck had the All-Terrains. The difference in efficiency between tire types alone can be substantial, so this is super important for an apples to apples comparison.

I will point out the useable capacity isn't an important distinction here since both battery sizes quoted were of useable capacity. Yes the Rivian has a bigger useable battery capacity (unless Tesla discovers they can unleash more capacity, which they have done in the past, on cars with different batteries in them). When a battery version is new to the market they have to be somewhat cautious with useable capacity until they have enough data to perhaps release some more capacity without fear of it causing excessive warranty costs down the road.

I would like to see Tesla come out with a "Range Mode" that maps the throttle with a wider sweet spot at cruise speeds to make it less likely that the driver cycles between mild regen and mild acceleration accidently. Tesla's normal throttle mapping doesn't do that because they want a mostly linear response from acceleration to regen braking and what I'm suggesting would give the throttle a little bit of a nebulous feel in the area just above regen braking. When an EV is not driving on cruise control, subtle sub-optimum throttle movements will have a significant negative impact on efficiency. It's less of a problem if you are blazing along at 80 mph, because you will be deeper into the throttle, where it barely matters at all. It's when babying it along at 45-55 mph that it really matters.

 

[VDR]

In a recent range test, Out of Spec Reviews measured CT's overall efficiency to be 484 Wh/mile at 70 mph.

In a similar range test, they measured the R1T's efficiency to be 429 Wh/mile at the same 70 mph. That would indicate that the Rivian is more efficient than the Cybertruck until you take into account the difference in ambient temperatures during the tests.

Cybertruck was driven in a temperature range from 46 to 39 deg F. The Rivian from 52F to 61F. That corresponds to about a 10% decrease in efficiency for the Cybertruck due to colder air temperature (denser air). The Rivian was also driven at a higher elevation (lesser air density). Tested at the same air temperature as the Rivian experienced, we could expect the efficiency of the CT to be 10% better (386 Wh/mile), even better since seat warming wouldn't be needed in the CT.

Maybe you did the math wrong but you think the CT would do 20% better with a 14F(average) temp increase added to the lower air density of the higher elevation? 484 x .2 = 97 (484-97=387)
I believe there has been an update since that particular R1T test that improved the range, possibly using some of that kwh buffer(in the DM test they went to 132kwh).
Looking forward to the more accurate side by side tests.

 

[VDR]

Also, the Rivian had the All-Season tires, the Cybertruck had the All-Terrains. The difference in efficiency between tire types alone can be substantial, so this is super important for an apples to apples comparison.

The test in question was from a year ago with a Quad motor on 34" all terrains. I believe there has been an update since which improved range as well.

 

[Art O'Connor]

the Lightning, at worst, has the same range as the Ct.

Good reason to believe that in several scenarios the Lightning will have better range than the Ct.

Used to be, a super meaningful response was “but CT has Tesla supercharger the network”. Increasingly that response isn’t as meaningful. Shortly, the Lightning will have access to both superchargers and CCS fast charging. Likely more supercharger access to follow/expand.

the “Lightning has terrible range” quip was fueled by the exact same lack of understanding or intellectual honesty that is currently being leveled at the CT.

meanwhile, I don’t know how people don’t understand the following about the 4WT:

The Chevy 4WT is a FLEET ONLY OFFERING that is NOT AVAILABLE TO REGULAR CONSUMERS

I can’t understand why people don’t understand this

The main problem with the 4WT is Chevy is not serious about making them. 500 a month is ridiculous. Even fleets cannot get them. My local Chevy dealer has had 20 on order since May. He expects 2 to show up in mid February.

 

[Art O'Connor]

No, everything is going to have 'bad range' by that definition. Hardly anyone is going to get the 4WT.

-Crissa

So, my current K2500 has 325 miles of range with no significant load. The 4WT has 450 with no loads. If Tesla can get the CT up to 350 or better with out range extender, end of range argument. Most current EV's have more range than my K2500. Not sure why there is so much range anxiety?