Search results

Presumably, but I don't think it's been officially stated, yet.

Good input. I'm not worried about it since I've owned 5 EVs that all work this way, but I noticed once that I could see the lights come on in the side view mirror and figured that might ease OP's concern.

They should come on. If you want to confirm yourself, the taillights stick out from the body a bit, so you can see them come on in the side mirror, especially at night.

The confusion is *probably* that the truck is simply less efficient at interstate speeds. At 75mph, it probably has about 240 miles of range on a 100% charge. So, that's why you're getting 80% of 240 miles. But the "standard range" truck will only cover ~180 miles on a 100% charge at 75mph.

Yeah, no way I'm paying that much. I'll just plug into the outlets in the bed.

Good info. I was just throwing some ballpark numbers out there to show it wasn't just $20k "markup", and that it certainly wasn't "an extra $120k."

Yeah, a LOT of which is the best choice is personal use case (like you not needing to fast-charge) and personal preference. I'm glad they all exist: Lightning, Rivian, Cybertruck, etc., and think they're all going to be successful.

The Pro is a great deal compared to the base Cybertruck, AND every other EV truck, including the higher end Lightnings. But if you want an "extended range" EV truck, the Cybertruck doesn't seem overpriced. More expensive than expected? Yep. But compared to the Lightning, you get much higher max...

Lightning has it on the tailgate, so Tesla had to offer it! haha

Stupid headline. It's not an "extra" $120k. The price is $120k, because it includes the truck (normal price $99k), plus "Full Self Driving" ($12k), plus the bi-directional charging hardware (probably a couple thousand or so based on Lightning V2H equipment), etc. It's just saying the first 1000...

I average approximately EPA range, as well, because my "normal" driving is well over EPA, but you get ~2.4 mi/kWh at interstate speeds?! Or like 50-60 mph?

They did change things in the front: hood, bumper, fenders, under hood stuff. Now, I’m sure there’s a limit to how much they can change before it requires more major changes, but clearly they can change some things. Yeah, as a shareholder, hopefully whoever thought 50k/year has since been fired.

It's not spelled out in the original post, above, but the test was done at a constant 70mph. I definitely do better than EPA in normal driving, but at 70mph, I'm more like ~1.9 mi/kWh or so vs the EPA ~2.4 mi/kWh.

They changed the bumper, hood, fenders, and all the stuff under the hood, anyway. They probably could have made it somewhat less snub-nosed. But would the increased range (mostly at high speeds) be enough to justify the smaller frunk? Or would it look so weird it would push away more people than...

The Lightning is very un-aerodynamic. Therefore, it makes sense that it takes a bigger hit when average speeds increase, since aerodynamic drag increases exponentially with speed, not just linearly. Still it's disappointing how far off it is. It lost a notably higher percentage compared to EPA...

Interesting! I didn't get one in late 2022. Maybe me and the thread starter are the outliers, but I didn't think they were still giving these out!

I *believe* this is the adapter that Ford itself provided with some of the earliest Lightnings: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07XQFN8RK/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1

It's also no good for people who have the EA pass to get discounted rates. Similarly, I had to turn off Plug+Charge because then I'd have to pay full price vs activating through the EA app.

They'll be happy to sell you the new "smoked" lightbar and headlights for like $5k!