EV's & Tundra's

Just because people buy the wrong vehicle for their uses doesn't make the CT any less of a failure as a truck. Put it into a commercial fleet that needs and works their trucks (telecom, oil fields, equipment hauling, etc.) and it will fail, miserably.

It is a shit truck, even if people who don't work a truck buy them.

 

Does this mean the Tundra is a shit truck since I rarely see them used in the fleet uses you describe above? The Tundra is not exactly know for its payload or towing capacity compared to some of the other makes.

 

True.

my contention is - the aesthetics.

I would be in one if it was more pleasing to the eye.

 

Agreed. Seems this is often the case with many vehicles. You either hate or like the aesthetics. Example: the newest BMWs with the grill that has gotten too damn big that it looks like some kind of whale shark. I am not a fan.

 

I'll add.

when you are sitting in a CT, it is awesome.

the fit is better than my Tundra.

the layout & tech are awesome.

performance is top notch.


but


it's fugly.

 

That kind of proves my point. A CT can't even compete with a design that is nearly 20 years old. Keep in mind, in 2007 the Tundra was class leading in the half ton market. It didn't have payload issues or towing problems. It was kept around to the point it fell behind, but it still outclasses the brand new CT as an actual truck. Would you be saying that the 3rd Gen wasn't a failure if it launched with the 2.5 gen specs and capabilities? Hell, some still call the 3rd gen a failure, and it'll eat the CTs lunch.

The million mile tundras were work trucks hauling heavy crap all across the country. A tundra modified to the same extent that CT was would be able to do the Rubicon. How many people on here haul their travel trailers hundreds of miles a day for multiple days to get across the country?



CT are too limited on range if they are loaded or towing, and have shit off road capability. Hell, I've seen several videos of them struggling in average snow storms.


The CT is a failure as a truck. It is a success as a marketing tool to generate discussion and buzz.

 

as I'm pondering the CT-

I wish Tesla would have concerned themselves with the demographic that has/had the ability to purchase it.

and not so much the fashion-forward design.

us old farts (GenX) don't like it. and we have $

young folks, who may like it, can't afford it.


which is why we buy ICE trucks.

 

It was a publicity stunt. How long ago was it launched, and we are still talking about it?


It worked.

 

I hear you and agree.

and

whatever publicity it got was not the kind they wanted or expected.

 

It keeps Tesla in the news. If people are talking about the brand then they are aware, and though they may say the CT is shit, as I do, they might follow it up with "if I were going to get an EV it'd be a Tesla Model S/3/X/Y"... as I do.

That's a marketing win.

The "green" idiots were also a guaranteed market that would buy whatever had the Tesla nameplate in order to feel like they were playing Captain Planet... right up until Musk got involved in politics. That eroded some of that psychotic inbuilt base, but not enough that the CT didn't sell enough to be a relevant marketing tool for the brand as a whole.

 

LOL Godzilla, sure the CT is not made for the rubicon trail, not many vehicles are. Overall its like any 1/2 ton truck, v similar except you can fill in 5 minutes and it takes me 30~, but i wake up with a full tank every morning for $.15k Kw. Roughly $15 if it was empty. Superchargers are a bit more they run around $.32, rarely use as i usually dont drive over 300 miles in a day.

How often and how far do you pull trailers?

Ive pulled 2-3 times so far and its not an issue actually handles great. Live North of Denver a bit and we have explored the Alamosa area, Winter park, & up near Leaville no issues with range. Imo the tech, fsd, air suspension, & four wheel steering more than make up for the time it takes to charge on road trips.

I've had the truck since mid October and currently have 25,943 miles. No warranty claims so far, just rotated tires & added washer fluid.

 

That one was modified. A lot. Reread my statement that a similarly modified Tundra would have made it. I didn't make a claim that any stock vehicle is taking the Rubicon or that the Rubicon is some easy thing. Neither was ever implied. However, to counter your point, a Rivian did the Rubicon trail. The CT is not only falls short of ICE trucks int he off road arena, it loses out to another EV truck.

No, it's really not. It's like any EV, but it's not in the same league as any other 1/2 ton for capability.

For now it's cheap. What would happen if the EV mandate went through and demand skyrocketed? Electrical prices would skyrocket too. Same thing happened to diesel fuel. Used to be cheap, people bought up diesel trucks to take advantage of it, and the price rose to the market demand.

Also, how much was the CT? Any cost over what an ICE truck can be had is just an up front cost that the ICE defers out over the course of ownership as fuel and maintenance. And EV tires are way more expensive, further closing the imaginary gap in savings.

Anecdotal and not relevant to the comparison with other trucks. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it's as good an iteration of a truck as everything else. It's not about you and your use, or me and mine, but where it falls short of other trucks' capabilities. It cannot tow as heavy for as far, or drive as far as quickly, or tackle terrain as rough as others. It falls short in all metrics.

Again, it's not about my use in this comparison, but I won't dodge the question. My towing needs are inconsistent. I've had times where I towed multiple times in a week and I've gone months without towing. I generally tow light, but my trailer catches a lot of wind. Several trips come to mind where the CT would not have been capable of making the trip or would have taken much longer because of the distance of my tow runs.

1. A 1500 mile round trip to California towing a Uhaul trailer to pick up a motorcycle that was an almost non stop turn and burn in order to meet time constraints. A CT could not make that trip in that time frame, especially not towing.
2. 600 mile round trip towing to visit a buddy. This was split in two 300 mile legs 4 days apart, but had elevation, wind, and lots of towing. The 300 mile return trip took twice as many fuel stops as normal because of the wind, and on the route there is 1 single charger. I would have been stranded in a CT.
3. Towed a motorcycle 400 miles to sell it to @T-Rex266 and hung out a few hours before towing the trailer 400 miles home again. The CT would have added multiple stops to charge and significantly more time to the trip.

Those were all in one year, and don't include several smaller trips towing/hauling that would have just been longer in a CT. None of that matters though, because it's anecdotal and doesn't apply to this comparison. One person saying "it works/doesn't work for me" doesn't negate the shortcomings/successes; which is why we compare to the competition and full capabilities.

And this is the key, it's opinion. You are comparing your use case against other trucks and declaring the truck worth it. That's fine, because "worth" in this case is subjective, but capability is not. The CT is a far less capable truck than it's ICE competition. That is objective, rather than subjective.

 

This might apply to the CT tires, but not when you compare similar ICE vehicles to the MY.

I know you're talking CT details.. but for me, the savings is not imaginary. The cost of ownership of a Y compared to a Pilot, Explorer and Highlander is easily defended.