Cybertruck AWD $79,990 Before Tax Incentives

[Opa]

Agreed on the other trucks. Plus, IMO, the Cybertruck is too odd looking
(It looks like a stealth fighter and the stainless steel body screams WRAP!)

Sponsored

 

[dj_stang]

Tesla Cybertruck needs separate battery pack in the bed to get the range it promised | Electrek

I think 340+ miles of EPA range that’s the main headline number is still very impressive for a vehicle with those… let’s say.. “aerodynamics.”

And I wish this cope about “oh they’re just over promising with fake EPA numbers” would end. Comments about hating the game not the player aside. People take delivery of brand new MachEs and don’t even hit the numbers Ford promises, which are already way lower than Tesla’s. It’s not that other companies are more conservative with their numbers, the ones that hide behind this excuse have less range because they’re simply less efficient and/or have smaller battery packs to reduce input costs.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

People aren't buying electric pickup trucks to do truck stuff. That's why the lightning is not selling and Chevy postpone (decrease production of) the electric Silverado. There's no clout with driving an electric version of the traditional trucks that looks the same. If anything, your truck buddies will likely laugh at you.

The people that will buy the CT, wants the attention, they're the look at me crowd. They're not going to tow a horse trailer or take it to the lumber yard. They may put an atv in the back. But that's about it.

 

[ChasingCoral]

I think 340+ miles of EPA range that’s the main headline number is still very impressive for a vehicle with those… let’s say.. “aerodynamics.”

And I wish this cope about “oh they’re just over promising with fake EPA numbers” would end. Comments about hating the game not the player aside. People take delivery of brand new MachEs and don’t even hit the numbers Ford promises, which are already way lower than Tesla’s. It’s not that other companies are more conservative with their numbers, the ones that hide behind this excuse have less range because they’re simply less efficient and/or have smaller battery packs to reduce input costs.

Sorry to insult the products of the Grand Imperial Elon but the numbers from independent journalists show Tesla's reputation for over estimation is demonstrated to be true in their testing.

 

[duckieslight]

Sorry to insult the products of the Grand Imperial Elon but the numbers from independent journalists show Tesla's reputation for over estimation is demonstrated to be true in their testing.

i dont understand, why is tesla so much negative? wouldn't that be like fradulent advertising? and how is porsche so positive?

 

[nvabill]

Sorry to insult the products of the Grand Imperial Elon but the numbers from independent journalists show Tesla's reputation for over estimation is demonstrated to be true in their testing.

Ok, let me see if I have this straight, according to your chart Teslas get between 10-12% less range that they advertise.

Would you mind looking at this chart I got from your same sight, INSIDEevs, showing the Ford Lightning. I'm no engineer although I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express on occasion. Doesn't it say that the Lightning Lariat Extended Range model gets 15.6% less than Ford advertises?

But since the Mach E only loses 6% Ford doesn't lie about range as much so it's ok? Kind of like if I rob a bank and only take a little bit it's ok? ? ?

 

[nvabill]

i dont understand, why is tesla so much negative? wouldn't that be like fradulent advertising? and how is porsche so positive?

And why is it that literally not one single Ford EV gets the range Ford advertises but Ford good and Tesla bad? Is it because Ford doesn't lie as bad as Tesla, you know just a little lie right? I mean in all seriousness look at all the EV's exceeding the range they advertise! ?

 

[Ghost Ryder]

And why is it that literally not one single Ford EV gets the range Ford advertises but Ford good and Tesla bad? Is it because Ford doesn't lie as bad as Tesla, you know just a little lie right? I mean in all seriousness look at all the EV's exceeding the range they advertise! ?

Don't go down this road. I've been suckered in too many time to the debate. You'll just end up banging your head against the wall.

 

[nvabill]

Don't go down this road. I've been suckered in too many time to the debate. You'll just end up banging your head against the wall.

Oh I don’t mind I find it comical reading about all the Elon Musk and Tesla hate on the forum. Sometimes I think @ChasingCoral works for Ford with what he says. I mean seriously how else can you explain him purposely omitting the Lightning range deficit while calling Tesla out? ?

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Oh I don’t mind I find it comical reading about all the Elon Musk and Tesla hate on the forum. Sometimes I think @ChasingCoral works for Ford with what he says. I mean seriously how else can you explain him purposely omitting the Lightning range deficit while calling Tesla out? ?

There are a few Authentic Tesla haters on this forum, but most members here are relatively reasonable. If you really want to go to forum that is nothing but tesla haters, then head over to Jalopnik. It's down right toxic over there.

 

[nvabill]

There are a few Authentic Tesla haters on this forum, but most members here are relatively reasonable. If you really want to go to forum that is nothing but tesla haters, then head over to Jalopnik. It's down right toxic over there.

Thanks, I may check that one out!

 

[dbsb3233]

It says it is $79,990 on that site if you click purchase price. They are suggesting "$11,100" in probable savings.

Edit: They are assuming you'll be eligible for the $7,500 Federal Tax Credit and get $3,600 on fuel savings over the course of three years as compared to an ICE vehicle.

There's some things I like about Tesla but that tactic of counting "gas savings" in the headline price of the order page is just so fricking sleazy. I can maybe see counting the $7500 tax credit, but it's so sleazy to count "gas savings". They have no clue what vehicle anyone is coming from. Could be a 15 MPG truck, could be a 45 MPG subcompact, could be another EV. Could even be a new driver.

The ACTUAL price should always be listed. Then if they ALSO want to show the price minus $7500 tax credit below it, fine.

 

[nvabill]

There's some things I like about Tesla but that tactic of counting "gas savings" in the headline price of the order page is just so fricking sleazy. I can maybe see counting the $7500 tax credit, but it's so sleazy to count "gas savings". They have no clue what vehicle anyone is coming from. Could be a 15 MPG truck, could be a 45 MPG subcompact, could be another EV. Could even be a new driver.

The ACTUAL price should always be listed. Then if they ALSO want to show the price minus $7500 tax credit below it, fine.

Agreed but at least it’s easy to pick purchase price or price with savings. I just chalk it up to marketing 101, you have to be an educated consumer at all times.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

There's some things I like about Tesla but that tactic of counting "gas savings" in the headline price of the order page is just so fricking sleazy. I can maybe see counting the $7500 tax credit, but it's so sleazy to count "gas savings". They have no clue what vehicle anyone is coming from. Could be a 15 MPG truck, could be a 45 MPG subcompact, could be another EV. Could even be a new driver.

The ACTUAL price should always be listed. Then if they ALSO want to show the price minus $7500 tax credit below it, fine.

Did you actually go to Tesla's website to check out the pricing or did you just go by what's posted here? On the website, it list purchase price as 79,900. If you select the tab that says potential savings then it would change to a lower price taking into account the rebate, fuel saving etc. But it's pretty obvious what your purchase price would be. And for some reason, if you're still confuse, it would be crystal clear if you went and ordered a Tesla.

 

[dbsb3233]

Agreed but at least it’s easy to pick purchase price or price with savings. I just chalk it up to marketing 101, you have to be an educated consumer at all times.

There's marketing and there's purposeful deception. The page defaulting to displaying only the deceptive number falls a lot closer to the latter IMO. Granted, at least we don't have to dig 3 pages deep to find the actual price (like some airlines do), but that's still no excuse. The initially displayed price should always display the real price clearly and prominently.

The easy and non-deceptive way to do it (that many others use) is something like:

$79,990 MSRP
-$7,500 Federal Tax Credit*
-$3,600 Potential Gas Savings*
$68,890 Price After Savings

Sponsored