Yes, I think electric trucks represent a niche market and probably will for some time yet, so being #1 in that market is not necessarily a big deal. But I’d be astonished if the CT can outsell the F-150 Lightning, and if it does, it will not likely be because buyers judge it to be a better truck, but because of its bizarre attention-getting looks, which some seem to think looks “futuristic” (I don’t – I think it looks like it was welded together by a hobbyist in his garage – a hobbyist who wasn’t very good at his hobby).
If the ‘traditional’ truck market rejects EV trucks, well, that’s all the F-150 has going for it. The Cybertruck has other niches it can fill.
How about the fact that the Lightning is the electric version of the best-selling vehicle in North America for quite a few years, the Ford F-series? Obviously it’s regarded as a general-purpose vehicle, not just a utility work truck. BTW, for 2023 the two runners-up for best-selling vehicle were also pickup trucks. Clearly there’s all kinds of niches that pickup trucks fill in the automotive marketplace, and if I was getting one (I’m not) I’d rather get it from a reputable company than from a ketamine-crazed lunatic.
I’ll give you a half-point for that. It was close to the concept, but the concept was hanging a lot on the original Beetle styling. Which was pretty different–but we all had 60 years to get used to it, even back in the 90s! And unlike the other 30s-40s cars, loads of them were still on the road.
I’m not going to count hand-assembled production runs of 50 cars or whatever. Gotta sell thousands at least, regardless of what Guinness says.
I’ll give a full point to that one. I feel like that’s a stretch personally, but only because our household had both a '34 Ford coupe and sedan around, with the latter being a daily driver. So the styling cues from that era don’t hit as hard for me, though for others they probably do.
And it’s a real production car, though they only sold 11,700. I doubt Tesla will ship that many Cybertrucks in 24Q1, but I’d guess they do in 24Q2.
They’re only selling ~12k a quarter. It’s not that high a bar.
And they have the downside of their dealer network sabotaging EV sales every chance they get. The dealer-free experience is one of Tesla’s less-appreciated advantages.
Santa Barbara has a very high per capita Tesla ownership rate and I have already seen several around town.
I’m not sure that’s a selling point. In fact, I have heard the opposite: That a big problem the F-150 Lightning has that Rivian and Tesla don’t have is that the Lightning has to compete against other F-150’s on the lot, and it fails the comparison every time. For the same money you can get a gas F-150 a trim level or two higher, and with more range. And the dealers would rather sell you the gas version, as service is a big profit center for most dealerships.
Around here, Lightnings are now being discounted as much as $24,000 to get them off the lots. You can also bet 0.99% 60 month loans for them. The combination makes the Lightning almost interesting again.
I suspect that this notion that dealers are “sabotaging” F-150 Lightning sales probably came from the time when they were on long back-order so dealers felt no incentive to “sell” something that they couldn’t deliver. There’s also a certain amount of ignorance about EVs in traditional dealerships so their inability to answer questions might be perceived as hostility to EVs. Otherwise I don’t see why, with the availability of product, a dealer would turn down an opportunity to make a profitable sale.
As for Tesla’s “dealer-free experience”, that also potentially equates to lack of access to service facilities, entirely depending on where you live. It may be a non-issue, or it may be a really major drawback.
I think a “certain amount” is dramatically understating the depths of their ignorance. And there is actual hostility there due to the obvious threat to their business model.
Dealerships sell ICE cars and EVs. They’d rather sell the ICE as it’ll be back for service much more often. So they’re happy to lie or otherwise to convert the sale to an ICE.
Not really. Sure, service can be a problem in some areas. But there is zero reason why service should be tied to sales in the first place–except that sales loves having a captive market that they can direct to their own service offerings.
In reality, service should be totally independent. That allows the centers to be placed where the cars are, rather than where cars are sold. And probably saves money since it means the centers can be put in some industrial park rather than wherever the local “automall” is. Which, again, isn’t to say that Tesla is absolutely perfect here, but tying it to sales wouldn’t improve matters.
They may think they’re losing out on after-sale service, but they’re wrong. Consumer Reports confirms what other sources have already told us: that Tesla reliability (and EVs generally) are below average compared to similar ICE vehicles:
But CR’s survey data show that as a category, today’s EVs tend to be more problematic than comparable gasoline-powered or hybrid models. Owners of many new EVs reported problems associated with battery packs, charging, electric drive motors, and unique heating and cooling systems that are required on vehicles that lack a conventional engine.
But CR also says that the Tesla Model 3, specifically, is better than average.
Bit of a truncated article if you don’t have a CR subscription, but FWIW – you get the overview but not the numerical ratings.
Tesla and Nissan Make the Most Reliable EVs - Consumer Reports
They’re definitely losing out on oil changes and brake pad replacement and belts and a bunch of other stuff. I can only see the first part of the CR article so I don’t know how they count things, but I suspect the results would be different if every oil change was considered a service issue.
Dealerships also don’t all have EV repair capability. So even if one does have a service need, it might be going to some other dealership.
In any case, you make a valid point: all that matters is what they perceive is true, not what is actually true. They’re a very conservative industry that’s been selling cars a certain way for around a century, so it’s no surprise that they’d have a hard time adapting.
My understanding is that a great deal of the problems with the F-150 Lightning sales is due to the dealers generally ordering optioned-out versions of them, causing the price to skyrocket (no, I haven’t shopped them to find out if this is true). That totally tracks with my experience, I’ve ordered two cars because they were offered without a sunroof, and I wanted a car without a sunroof. All of the ones the dealers had ordered not only had a sunroof, but also had other weight adding options I didn’t want. So, I traded away any bargaining power I would have, and ordered the car I actually wanted.
One problem with the Lightning is just the general lying that goes on from Ford and the dealers. Go to the website, and it looks like they start at $50k, with a 320 mile range. Nope, $50k is the starting prices for the base model, and cheapest with the extended battery to get a 320 mile range is $70k. So already, I’m upset that they’re telling me the cheapest price paired with the best specs. I know, they all do similar, and it’s still upsetting.
Dig down and it’s $15k for the extended battery, but that requires getting a $5k option package, too. What if I don’t care about 20" wheels, but just want the big battery?
Configuring a somewhat similar F150 XLT 4x4 with a crew cab, 5.5" bed, 20" wheels, and the hybrid engine is $60k, so $10k extra to go fully electric. I didn’t match option for option. Add in tax rebates, and they’re basically the same price.
Here is a video which is going around:
Any predictions as to what the results would be if instead it was a little kid who stuck his arm in there?
I’m pretty sure Tesla engineers get that a child’s arm is a bit stronger than a carrot (which that BMW X7 also took out, BTW).
You can be sure that when they say $TSLA rather than the company’s name, they have no financial interest whatsoever in presenting a misleading picture.
Anyway, it does this with a whole arm:
Even if you curl in your fingers in a way that avoids the pinch sensor, it does not in fact cut your fingers off (though it does latch, which isn’t ideal):
That said, apparently an OTA fix is coming down the pipe:
They must be measuring motor torque via current (which goes up when stalled).
Overall… yawn. But the Cybertruck will be fixed in a few weeks and the X7 will still be chopping carrots… forever.
People, lets give credit where credit is due. The Chevy SSR is the dumbest and ugliest truck.
It’s not just that this cybertruck breaks as he’s wheeling it off the lot, it’s that it presents him with a wall of text and furiously beeping red light that he’s trying to negotiate with as he is actually driving.
But “okay, I’m a mile away, and I have to drive back there at 4 miles an hour” did make me laugh out loud.
Hey - for $15,000 you can get an “EMP Faraday” cover for your Cybertruck!
interesting … how would that work? … and how would that work better than e.g. a 20 ft shipping container?
not snark, real interest
The Cybertruck is genuinely a great vehicle for the loony prepper crowd. Runs off solar power, good with off-roading, can serve as energy storage, and so on. It’s all very silly to start with, but once you’re past that, it’s a good choice. Whether EMP protection is useful is a different matter…
I hadn’t given it much thought, but that makes sense. The other products that company sells are fascinating, by the way… I didn’t know the high-tech prepper universe existed like that. Ballistic nylon totes!