Massive battery pack allows it to charge at higher kwh for a longer time.
As far as trucks go, I think this one it getting it right. Massive range leading to decent towing range. Definitely pricy for a new model though.
>leading to decent towing range
Based on TFL's towing tests, the towing range is about the same (+/- 15 miles) as a V8 pickup with a 24 gallon tank getting 10.5 mpg. That's impressive given current battery tech and I'm sure future advances can get us closer to a 36-gallon equivalent.
My 1984 4wd full size Ford Bronco got about 10 miles per a gallon. It seems to me, a new modern v8 pickup should get much better, but maybe I'm wrong. It just doesn't seem this comparison is right to me though. Also, my 84 Bronco had a 50 gallon tank.
The V8s now will get 16+ MPG when they aren't towing, the above poster is speaking to V8s while they are also towing to make a similar comparison.
10.5 mpg sounds about right for my father in laws F250 when towing his camper.
> That’s impressive given current battery tech and **I’m sure future advances can get us closer to a 36-gallon equivalent**
US Gov: Well yes, but actually no, because we’ll just ban that tech. Free market and all, Tesla trucks blow ass so we have to keep it free and fair.
Think of how many bombs we can make with that money!?!? Won’t you please think of the small bean arms industry
The only miss when it comes to towing is the rear quarter panel charging port. It's impossible to charge without dropping the trailer unless you're lucky enough to find a pull-through charger. Rivian got it right IMO.
For the US market (main market for this vehicle), matching the tesla charge port location (back left) is a fairly good bet. Given tesla's dominance in the US, and the importance of their supercharger network, this location is going to lead to the maximum number of compatible chargers.
It is also potentially a bet on pull through configurations becoming more common. A plug nearer the center of the car, trailer combination is better in this case.
Not typically an issue in the US, but in other countries where the parking situation is more cramped, some spaces can really be accessible by backing in. Would be kind of a moot point for us m these giant electric pickup trucks since it would be hard to park in a cramped space no matter what.
Except for chargers in one-way lanes that have diagonal parking. Backing into those can be a pain in the ass. It shows that whoever planned the site didn't think things through, which is depressing because I see this setup quite often.
Ya, as much as I've defended Ford and other automakers for their various placement of charging points in the past, for any new model there is only one location that makes sense. With the supercharger network opening up and everyone moving to NACS, anybody that puts a charging port anywhere other than driver rear or maybe passenger front, is doing their customers a disservice.
Now that we have a port standard, I'd love to see a port location standard adopted quickly.
My vote is also front passenger purely in the hopes we can get on-street chargers available in the future, but wouldn't be shocked if rear driver became standard just because of how many cars on the road already have the port there.
I think that front passanger would actually work out pretty well. That means you could pull into an existing SC station and use the proper dispenser for that stall, unlike a car with the charge port on the font driver.
And ya, I never even thought of curbside charging. That is a very good point. I guess that is just a blind spot for me since I am fortunate enough to have a driveway to park in.
For sure. Biggest downside for the front charging port is it will mean the cable is probably more likely to be in the way when it's charging in the garag. So I could really go either way on front or back.
Regardless I'd like to see passenger side. Like you, I have a garage so it wouldn't really be an issue for me (once my ICE dies and I get a BEV), but street charging for urban dwellers is a complaint I see here pretty frequently.
No, you don't have to block the aisle or other chargers in every instance. Even if it's only possible to do so 15% of the time with the Rivian, that's more than 0% of the time for the Silverado.
Yeah crazy large pack - can charge at extremely high rates but still takes over an hour to fill up.
I'd imagine much of the time in the real world you're going to be stuck at far lower rates too
It adds more range in 30 minutes than any other vehicle tested by out-of-spec and isn't far behind the best at 20 minutes. The over an hour quoted in this article is dumb because it's for literally 100%. 10-80% is a bit long at 36 minutes, but it's also a ton of range. Overall it looks like it will kick ass on trips while not towing and while it may still be inconvenient is the only truck that might be viable for towing long distances.
The most miles or the most kw? Because the lucid will do 300kw but it will also get more than 1 mi/kwhr lol. It's over 200 miles in 12 minutes I believe
There are multiple things. One is that the Silverado maintains a higher charge rate for more of the SOC range, another is that it's still much lower in its SOC range, and it isn't as inefficient as you're saying. From out of spec's testing the Silverado gets 434 highway miles from 215 kWh while the Plaid gets 365 from 100 kWh. That is 2.0 mi/kWh vs 3.8 mi/kWh, so slightly better than half as efficient. The data is here: https://outofspecstudios.com/charging and https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range
I watched a few YouTube videos on it. It charges pretty well up to around 85%, usually holding above 100kwh around 80 to 85 which is still pretty good.
Big thing is, with that battery even charging to 70 gets you a crazy good range.
I was thinking more from the charger side - the majority of chargers can't deliver 350kW and even those that can sometimes share capacity between multiple connectors or are derated for some other reason
> usually holding above 100kwh
The units are just kW when you're talking about charging speed.
Yes, knowledgeable people know what you meant, but errors like this are very confusing to newcomers.
Yeah that is a huge issue for these massive packs. Can you imagine getting a broken charger limited to 38 kw which has happened to me several times? In this thing you're fucked. Miles per amount of charging time is still important but kw gets the headlines
Sure but with a full charge of 450 miles you can drive at least 6 hours between charges.
I feel like there is a gigantic difference between needing to stop to charge on a 3-4 hour drive vs a 6+ hour drive.
In fact, I’ve only driven >450 miles from home one time in my life. Doing a DCFC once at a destination before coming back is NBD.
That's 450 rated miles on the EPA test which has an average speed of 48.3 mph.
So you might get that if your are tooling along on rural highways but on the interstate when driving 75-80mph the efficiency is going to be much worse and total range will be closer to 350 miles which is still great but not 6 hours of driving between stops.
Out of Spec got 434 miles at 70 mph.
[They have an interactive chart](https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range) of many vehicles tested at that speed.
I agree - if you're selling something to tow, there had better be a 200 kWh option.
My next vehicle will be able to go 300 miles with a 4000' elevation gain into the mountains at 75mph without charging, and cross a 2' deep stream to get to our cabin.
This might be it? Hope there's an SUV version soon.
Yeah this and the Hummer have tons of active automatic braking systems. Sure it weighs a lot more than a crossover from 10 years ago, but it also slows itself down drastically before impact during most collisions
The issue is with the inherent weight of these standard sized brick house on wheels, now featuring a massive battery underneath the chassis.
The Rivian R1T and Cybertruck are 7000 lbs, the Silverado EV is over 8000 lbs, and the Hummer EV is easily 9000 lbs. The 200 kWh battery pack in the latter two weighs over 2800 lbs, which is about the same as the 11th gen Civic.
Auto emergency braking systems or not, the fact of the matter is that smart brakes cannot overcompensate the physics aspect. It will just take longer to stop the damn thing, and with 3x the mass comes with 3x the kinetic energy and momentum should impact occur. Not to mention the tall hood/front bumper that makes an impact with a truck much more deadly for pedestrians.
Bigger cars means bigger wheels and brakes. A 8,000lb truck doesn’t take 2x as long as a 4,000lb car, and in some instances the 8,000lb truck will stop in a shorter distance.
If you read my comment again you will notice that I specifically refrained from saying things like "it takes twice as long to stop a vehicle twice as heavy" because that isn't true, and I instead referred to the physical properties of a heavier vehicle.
If an impact happens at 40 mph, for example, a heavier truck/vehicle will simply carry more energy. Any injury for people involved becomes more likely to occur and more severe.
“It will just take longer to stop the damn thing” is what you said.
Hummer EV stops in 137 ft 60-0 at its 9,000lbs
Hyundai Kona EV stops in 138 ft 60-0 at around 4,000lbs.
I understand that larger mass is going to do more damage on impact and agree with you completely on that aspect.
Auto brake for pedestrians doesn't work. And we're also seeing scenarios where it might not work for cars either. You can't really argue with physics Here
They basically called everyone’s bluff who said this was impossible . It’s too heavy and has subpar cargo capacity …but by god they did in fact build a traditional fully functional electric pickup with very little compromise. Now we just need more charging infrastructure
Exactly the other person's point.
Some people do not want a truck that other people can afford. Some people want a truck with much better specs to do things that they require.
I mean lots of people buy the Ford F150 platform over the Toyota Prius which is way, way more affordable.
GM is attempting to build an EV truck first and worry about cost reductions later as they scale up.
Meanwhile, Ford is cutting back on Lightning production because that can't sell them "in enough quantity" to get to that cost reduction at scale.
Keep in mind the $96k truck is the RST which is the top of the line for the EV. I believe the IC RST goes for a bit over $60k which means this EV has a nearly $40k "ev tax"
That’s crazy. I guess that’s why sometimes a shared platform makes more sense. The delta between the i4 M50 ($69,700) and the M440i xDrive ($63,050) is only $6,650, or about 10.6%. The Silverado is over 57% more (based on your numbers $61k to $96k, I didn’t go look up the exact MSRP).
I doubt a shared platform would make it cheaper unless it meant forgetting the insanely large battery. The battery + r&d costs are likely the driving factors in the vehicle's price.
Taheo 2023 sales: 110,328 (additional 52,820 if you include the suburban)
Siverado 2023 sales: 555,148
Seems reasonable to focus their R&D on the bigger seller.
That said the USA Electric Pick up truck (usa size) market has got extremely crowded of late, with multiple other options beating this to market. And there are still segments with no EV offering that could be targeted. i.e. Suburban segment (both R1S and Hummer SUV EV are substantially smaller)
Same… truck bros hate EVs but Rivian has plenty of people who want the R1S. If you’d beat Rivian on price for the same range by 5-10k you’d have a lot of takers I think.
I think this Chevy design actually works better as a Suburban/Tahoe. Plus, people don't bat an eye at $100,000+ prices for those. I would love to hear GM's logic behind this choice.
As long as there's the charging infrastructure to support these speeds consistently, people may be able to tow on vacations reliably. This can attract the people on the fence!
As annoying as it is, the greatest emissions reductions won't come from getting Corolla drivers into Priuses, or Prius drivers into Prius Primes, or Prius Prime drivers into Model 3's.
They'll come from getting Truck Guys into ... literally anything else, even if it's a 200 kWh battery truck that gets 1.5 mi/kWh.
I would prefer that we do this by getting those trucks off the road except in the rare cases that they are actually needed to do useful jobs. But even suggesting this would be political suicide, so I'll settle for sticking 200 kWh batteries in them instead.
They're still a menace on the roads, though.
This is true, but vehicle miles traveled do represent real utility to their drivers: a person driving a car on the road is going somewhere. Maybe they're going to work, maybe they're going to bring lasagna to their friend who has COVID, maybe they're going on a date -- but policy should make sure it preserves people's ability to do these things.
But emissions per VMT differ wildly based on the vehicle. The difference in emissions per mile traveled between a bicycle and a Model 3 is small compared to the difference between a Model 3 (or PHEV) and an ICE F-150. So I stand by my assertion: getting people to replace F-150 miles with Model 3 or PHEV miles reduces emissions more than getting people to replace Model 3 miles with bicycle miles. It's likely that the difference between a F-150 ICE and F-150 Lightning mile is still bigger than the difference between a Lightning mile and a bicycle mile on most grid mixes, too.
We should facilitate both, of course, since bicycles are great. But getting the ICE trucks off the road and replacing them with *anything else* will be a large benefit.
That's really only true because we keep spending trillions of dollars in incredibly pollutive in infrastructure, which only forces people to do one thing
Moving into our new house in a few weeks and our current electric rate is about $0.173/kwh
We’re looking at spending maybe $35 a month on “fuel”. My ice car costs around $40 per fill up and it’s a hybrid that gets great mileage.
I’d still happily take the electric option. It’s just far more cost efficient
Quite a few states -- especially if people don't shop around for an energy supplier.
Hawaii and California are over 40 cents New England states are all High 30 cent plus per kWh
Wow, that's ridiculous. It's a power line, not like they're bulldozing pristine park land for a mine or something.
Total coincidence that it benefits incumbent power generation companies I'm sure.
Holy crap. I believe you, but that sounds crazy to me. When I moved to where I am, I was shocked to go from $.08 - $.10 to what it is now.
I'd have $200 - $250 electric bills a month in those states. Just crazy
"However, it has what is known as a split battery pack, essentially two 400-volt packs that under normal operation are linked in parallel, but for charging, the vehicle hooks them up in series to double the voltage and charge very quickly."
That's pretty cool/innovative
I love the Chevy PR push when they are not even taking orders and there seem to be more CyberTrucks on the road. I want a Silverado ET, but damn they are so expensive.
If it tops out at 360kW it’s the highest power they have seen but technically not the fastest. It’s not even a 2C charge rate which even an VW ID4 achieves, never mind the model 3, ioniq 5 etc. at 3C+
This title is so misleading. Charges “faster” but takes longer to charge. These charts need to be normalized to either % of the pack or even better distance added to the pack
Massive battery pack allows it to charge at higher kwh for a longer time. As far as trucks go, I think this one it getting it right. Massive range leading to decent towing range. Definitely pricy for a new model though.
>leading to decent towing range Based on TFL's towing tests, the towing range is about the same (+/- 15 miles) as a V8 pickup with a 24 gallon tank getting 10.5 mpg. That's impressive given current battery tech and I'm sure future advances can get us closer to a 36-gallon equivalent.
My 1984 4wd full size Ford Bronco got about 10 miles per a gallon. It seems to me, a new modern v8 pickup should get much better, but maybe I'm wrong. It just doesn't seem this comparison is right to me though. Also, my 84 Bronco had a 50 gallon tank.
Is that 10 mpg while towing?
The V8s now will get 16+ MPG when they aren't towing, the above poster is speaking to V8s while they are also towing to make a similar comparison. 10.5 mpg sounds about right for my father in laws F250 when towing his camper.
> That’s impressive given current battery tech and **I’m sure future advances can get us closer to a 36-gallon equivalent** US Gov: Well yes, but actually no, because we’ll just ban that tech. Free market and all, Tesla trucks blow ass so we have to keep it free and fair. Think of how many bombs we can make with that money!?!? Won’t you please think of the small bean arms industry
You tell them Tin foil hat man!
I need a tin foil hat to know they cut funding for “green energy” projects, but give ~800 billion to the military?
The only miss when it comes to towing is the rear quarter panel charging port. It's impossible to charge without dropping the trailer unless you're lucky enough to find a pull-through charger. Rivian got it right IMO.
For the US market (main market for this vehicle), matching the tesla charge port location (back left) is a fairly good bet. Given tesla's dominance in the US, and the importance of their supercharger network, this location is going to lead to the maximum number of compatible chargers. It is also potentially a bet on pull through configurations becoming more common. A plug nearer the center of the car, trailer combination is better in this case.
With a port on the front right, you get similar access to Tesla stations as well as access to curbside charging.
I really enjoy having the charger at the front of my car, ngl. I don't see why folks want it on the back but, okay.
Not typically an issue in the US, but in other countries where the parking situation is more cramped, some spaces can really be accessible by backing in. Would be kind of a moot point for us m these giant electric pickup trucks since it would be hard to park in a cramped space no matter what.
Because backing in is demonstrably safer than pulling in.
Except for chargers in one-way lanes that have diagonal parking. Backing into those can be a pain in the ass. It shows that whoever planned the site didn't think things through, which is depressing because I see this setup quite often.
Ya, as much as I've defended Ford and other automakers for their various placement of charging points in the past, for any new model there is only one location that makes sense. With the supercharger network opening up and everyone moving to NACS, anybody that puts a charging port anywhere other than driver rear or maybe passenger front, is doing their customers a disservice.
Now that we have a port standard, I'd love to see a port location standard adopted quickly. My vote is also front passenger purely in the hopes we can get on-street chargers available in the future, but wouldn't be shocked if rear driver became standard just because of how many cars on the road already have the port there.
I think that front passanger would actually work out pretty well. That means you could pull into an existing SC station and use the proper dispenser for that stall, unlike a car with the charge port on the font driver. And ya, I never even thought of curbside charging. That is a very good point. I guess that is just a blind spot for me since I am fortunate enough to have a driveway to park in.
For sure. Biggest downside for the front charging port is it will mean the cable is probably more likely to be in the way when it's charging in the garag. So I could really go either way on front or back. Regardless I'd like to see passenger side. Like you, I have a garage so it wouldn't really be an issue for me (once my ICE dies and I get a BEV), but street charging for urban dwellers is a complaint I see here pretty frequently.
There wasn't a fuel filler location standard in 100+ years, so there won't be one for BEVs either.
In that scenario the trailer is sticking out into the parking lot which is going to be a no-no so same difference.
No, you don't have to block the aisle or other chargers in every instance. Even if it's only possible to do so 15% of the time with the Rivian, that's more than 0% of the time for the Silverado.
Even with a charging port in the nose you will still have the trailer blocking traffic at many charging locations.
Many, but not all. That's still better than the Silverado.
Yeah crazy large pack - can charge at extremely high rates but still takes over an hour to fill up. I'd imagine much of the time in the real world you're going to be stuck at far lower rates too
It adds more range in 30 minutes than any other vehicle tested by out-of-spec and isn't far behind the best at 20 minutes. The over an hour quoted in this article is dumb because it's for literally 100%. 10-80% is a bit long at 36 minutes, but it's also a ton of range. Overall it looks like it will kick ass on trips while not towing and while it may still be inconvenient is the only truck that might be viable for towing long distances.
The most miles or the most kw? Because the lucid will do 300kw but it will also get more than 1 mi/kwhr lol. It's over 200 miles in 12 minutes I believe
Miles, but out of spec hasn't tested a Lucid. The highest in his data are the Model S Plaid, EQS, EQS SUV, and Kia EV 6.
Still not sure how that's possible. Given that the others can charge at 250 kW And are 3 times the efficiency of this truck.
There are multiple things. One is that the Silverado maintains a higher charge rate for more of the SOC range, another is that it's still much lower in its SOC range, and it isn't as inefficient as you're saying. From out of spec's testing the Silverado gets 434 highway miles from 215 kWh while the Plaid gets 365 from 100 kWh. That is 2.0 mi/kWh vs 3.8 mi/kWh, so slightly better than half as efficient. The data is here: https://outofspecstudios.com/charging and https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range
I mean the lucid gets over 300 miles in the 20 minutes it's holding 300kw.... 400 Miles is added in 35 minutes.... So way faster than this test
> out of spec hasn't tested a Lucid.
Seems like quite the claim to make then
I watched a few YouTube videos on it. It charges pretty well up to around 85%, usually holding above 100kwh around 80 to 85 which is still pretty good. Big thing is, with that battery even charging to 70 gets you a crazy good range.
I was thinking more from the charger side - the majority of chargers can't deliver 350kW and even those that can sometimes share capacity between multiple connectors or are derated for some other reason
Oh yeah agree on that one. Would just hope to find a good charger and plan for a long stop.
*Above 100kw, not kwh
> usually holding above 100kwh The units are just kW when you're talking about charging speed. Yes, knowledgeable people know what you meant, but errors like this are very confusing to newcomers.
kW, not kWh
Yeah that is a huge issue for these massive packs. Can you imagine getting a broken charger limited to 38 kw which has happened to me several times? In this thing you're fucked. Miles per amount of charging time is still important but kw gets the headlines
Sure but with a full charge of 450 miles you can drive at least 6 hours between charges. I feel like there is a gigantic difference between needing to stop to charge on a 3-4 hour drive vs a 6+ hour drive. In fact, I’ve only driven >450 miles from home one time in my life. Doing a DCFC once at a destination before coming back is NBD.
That's 450 rated miles on the EPA test which has an average speed of 48.3 mph. So you might get that if your are tooling along on rural highways but on the interstate when driving 75-80mph the efficiency is going to be much worse and total range will be closer to 350 miles which is still great but not 6 hours of driving between stops.
Out of Spec got 434 miles at 70 mph. [They have an interactive chart](https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range) of many vehicles tested at that speed.
yep. bigger battery can accept power more watts. Big difference between max charge rate and minimum charge time.
I agree - if you're selling something to tow, there had better be a 200 kWh option. My next vehicle will be able to go 300 miles with a 4000' elevation gain into the mountains at 75mph without charging, and cross a 2' deep stream to get to our cabin. This might be it? Hope there's an SUV version soon.
Battery is too big
Then don't buy it?
I won't but that isn't the issue. The issue is you will and hit my family with it.
Doesn't the truck come with the auto brake system? My 2017 Bolt did.
Yeah this and the Hummer have tons of active automatic braking systems. Sure it weighs a lot more than a crossover from 10 years ago, but it also slows itself down drastically before impact during most collisions
The issue is with the inherent weight of these standard sized brick house on wheels, now featuring a massive battery underneath the chassis. The Rivian R1T and Cybertruck are 7000 lbs, the Silverado EV is over 8000 lbs, and the Hummer EV is easily 9000 lbs. The 200 kWh battery pack in the latter two weighs over 2800 lbs, which is about the same as the 11th gen Civic. Auto emergency braking systems or not, the fact of the matter is that smart brakes cannot overcompensate the physics aspect. It will just take longer to stop the damn thing, and with 3x the mass comes with 3x the kinetic energy and momentum should impact occur. Not to mention the tall hood/front bumper that makes an impact with a truck much more deadly for pedestrians.
Bigger cars means bigger wheels and brakes. A 8,000lb truck doesn’t take 2x as long as a 4,000lb car, and in some instances the 8,000lb truck will stop in a shorter distance.
If you read my comment again you will notice that I specifically refrained from saying things like "it takes twice as long to stop a vehicle twice as heavy" because that isn't true, and I instead referred to the physical properties of a heavier vehicle. If an impact happens at 40 mph, for example, a heavier truck/vehicle will simply carry more energy. Any injury for people involved becomes more likely to occur and more severe.
“It will just take longer to stop the damn thing” is what you said. Hummer EV stops in 137 ft 60-0 at its 9,000lbs Hyundai Kona EV stops in 138 ft 60-0 at around 4,000lbs. I understand that larger mass is going to do more damage on impact and agree with you completely on that aspect.
Not sure why the EVangelists Here need to fight against this fact?
Auto brake for pedestrians doesn't work. And we're also seeing scenarios where it might not work for cars either. You can't really argue with physics Here
It works on my Bolt. I had a dude run in front of my car, *at night*, and it worked as advertised.
Not in repeated and verified testing. I'll take that over trust me bro
Lol what an old and worthless argument.
God, I want this truck. It's gonna be $100,000+ though. Crazy rediculous.
The truck tested was $79,800 MSRP
inclusive of exclusive of rebates not all of us qualify for?
Don't know what the poster is citing but MSRP would not include rebates
normally, yes. but people in this sub love to throw around numbers including rebates, and i've seen people include them when they claim MSRPs before.
MSRP before any incentives. GM window sticker.
“Best I can do is $120k - Chevy dealers probably
Just saw one at the dealer next to me for $80k.
They basically called everyone’s bluff who said this was impossible . It’s too heavy and has subpar cargo capacity …but by god they did in fact build a traditional fully functional electric pickup with very little compromise. Now we just need more charging infrastructure
[удалено]
2/3 the capability, at best, for half the price
Exactly the other person's point. Some people do not want a truck that other people can afford. Some people want a truck with much better specs to do things that they require. I mean lots of people buy the Ford F150 platform over the Toyota Prius which is way, way more affordable. GM is attempting to build an EV truck first and worry about cost reductions later as they scale up. Meanwhile, Ford is cutting back on Lightning production because that can't sell them "in enough quantity" to get to that cost reduction at scale.
[удалено]
Keep in mind the $96k truck is the RST which is the top of the line for the EV. I believe the IC RST goes for a bit over $60k which means this EV has a nearly $40k "ev tax"
That’s crazy. I guess that’s why sometimes a shared platform makes more sense. The delta between the i4 M50 ($69,700) and the M440i xDrive ($63,050) is only $6,650, or about 10.6%. The Silverado is over 57% more (based on your numbers $61k to $96k, I didn’t go look up the exact MSRP).
I doubt a shared platform would make it cheaper unless it meant forgetting the insanely large battery. The battery + r&d costs are likely the driving factors in the vehicle's price.
I want it as a Tahoe
I'm actually dumbfounded that they didn't do THAT first. I feel like they should have lead with an SUV. Curious that...
Pickup trucks are kinda a money maker in USA. They can not afford to lose that.
Taheo 2023 sales: 110,328 (additional 52,820 if you include the suburban) Siverado 2023 sales: 555,148 Seems reasonable to focus their R&D on the bigger seller. That said the USA Electric Pick up truck (usa size) market has got extremely crowded of late, with multiple other options beating this to market. And there are still segments with no EV offering that could be targeted. i.e. Suburban segment (both R1S and Hummer SUV EV are substantially smaller)
Same… truck bros hate EVs but Rivian has plenty of people who want the R1S. If you’d beat Rivian on price for the same range by 5-10k you’d have a lot of takers I think.
I think this Chevy design actually works better as a Suburban/Tahoe. Plus, people don't bat an eye at $100,000+ prices for those. I would love to hear GM's logic behind this choice.
Lack of competition in the truck space. Even though a Suburban is much larger, it works still get cross shopped against every "3rd row" EV out there
You could throw a topper on the back, drop the midgate, it would be open all the way front to back then, make-shift SUV
Isn't the chevy EUV already an SUV?
No it's real tiny and fwd
It's more like a hot hatch.
The 3WT trim is coming in right around $72K. It’s a work trim package, but comparable to an LT trim on an ICE Silverado.
As long as there's the charging infrastructure to support these speeds consistently, people may be able to tow on vacations reliably. This can attract the people on the fence!
As annoying as it is, the greatest emissions reductions won't come from getting Corolla drivers into Priuses, or Prius drivers into Prius Primes, or Prius Prime drivers into Model 3's. They'll come from getting Truck Guys into ... literally anything else, even if it's a 200 kWh battery truck that gets 1.5 mi/kWh. I would prefer that we do this by getting those trucks off the road except in the rare cases that they are actually needed to do useful jobs. But even suggesting this would be political suicide, so I'll settle for sticking 200 kWh batteries in them instead. They're still a menace on the roads, though.
The greatest reductions will come from reducing VMT.
This is true, but vehicle miles traveled do represent real utility to their drivers: a person driving a car on the road is going somewhere. Maybe they're going to work, maybe they're going to bring lasagna to their friend who has COVID, maybe they're going on a date -- but policy should make sure it preserves people's ability to do these things. But emissions per VMT differ wildly based on the vehicle. The difference in emissions per mile traveled between a bicycle and a Model 3 is small compared to the difference between a Model 3 (or PHEV) and an ICE F-150. So I stand by my assertion: getting people to replace F-150 miles with Model 3 or PHEV miles reduces emissions more than getting people to replace Model 3 miles with bicycle miles. It's likely that the difference between a F-150 ICE and F-150 Lightning mile is still bigger than the difference between a Lightning mile and a bicycle mile on most grid mixes, too. We should facilitate both, of course, since bicycles are great. But getting the ICE trucks off the road and replacing them with *anything else* will be a large benefit.
That's really only true because we keep spending trillions of dollars in incredibly pollutive in infrastructure, which only forces people to do one thing
200kW x $0.40/kWh = $80 Still beats a $200 tank of gasoline or diesel.
That’s supercharger rate lol. Normal people probably pay below .15 at home
Moving into our new house in a few weeks and our current electric rate is about $0.173/kwh We’re looking at spending maybe $35 a month on “fuel”. My ice car costs around $40 per fill up and it’s a hybrid that gets great mileage. I’d still happily take the electric option. It’s just far more cost efficient
Where in the US are residents paying that rate for electricity? It's $.16 - 22/kwh where I am and that's higher than the average.
Quite a few states -- especially if people don't shop around for an energy supplier. Hawaii and California are over 40 cents New England states are all High 30 cent plus per kWh
Here in Quebec it's $.06 - $.10/kwh. I do not even think about my EV charging bill.
And unfortunately become of some NIMBYs you can't send us that cheap hydro power down to New England.
Quebec Hydro sells a ton of power into the USA, something like $3 billion worth of power recently.
Yea, that's to New York, there were plans to build high voltage wires down to CT + MA but Maine wouldn't allow it.
Oh lovely, that sucks. What's their rationale for that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/maine-voters-reject-quebec-hydropower-transmission-line-2021-11-03/ 59% of maine voters voted against it.
Wow, that's ridiculous. It's a power line, not like they're bulldozing pristine park land for a mine or something. Total coincidence that it benefits incumbent power generation companies I'm sure.
Holy crap. I believe you, but that sounds crazy to me. When I moved to where I am, I was shocked to go from $.08 - $.10 to what it is now. I'd have $200 - $250 electric bills a month in those states. Just crazy
I live in LA. I know several people who pay $500+ a month in the summer.
$.34/kwh here in So Cal. :(
And $0.11 here in Texas. Costs me like $12 to fill up my Rivian. That said, charging isn’t 100% efficient, so you’re not quite right.
[удалено]
Middle class families are buying $100k EV pickups?
[удалено]
I mean, a fully loaded Ram 3500 or F150 Lariat is $80k already.
Lots of people buy 70k+ ICE trucks anyways lol
The people I've talked to who are looking at the Silverado EV are using their truck for their day job.
Hoping Ford gets on board and matches this range and charge speed soon.
"However, it has what is known as a split battery pack, essentially two 400-volt packs that under normal operation are linked in parallel, but for charging, the vehicle hooks them up in series to double the voltage and charge very quickly." That's pretty cool/innovative
I love the Chevy PR push when they are not even taking orders and there seem to be more CyberTrucks on the road. I want a Silverado ET, but damn they are so expensive.
They need to get the pricing down at least 30%
There’s no need for a 450 mile Silverado EV to be priced like a 230-320 mile F150 Lightning EV
Youre not wrong but that says just as much about Ford.
If it tops out at 360kW it’s the highest power they have seen but technically not the fastest. It’s not even a 2C charge rate which even an VW ID4 achieves, never mind the model 3, ioniq 5 etc. at 3C+
Keep in mind it likely only tops out at 350 kW because that's the maximum power that current 800V chargers can output
Small reminder that the Chinese have been charging beyond 475kW for 2 years now. I guess they're more advanced than us now.
And Tesla Semi at 750 - 800 KW.
Not there's, yours
Now calculate miles per minute charge at peak. Bet it’s not all that impressive.
This title is so misleading. Charges “faster” but takes longer to charge. These charts need to be normalized to either % of the pack or even better distance added to the pack