A $20k American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, no screen

150 mile range makes it close to useless. As soon as you take it on a highway, the range will likely drop by half. Which means you can only do a round trip of 37 miles before you have to charge.

Even a very aerodynamic Model 3 loses half of range at highway speeds.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/vkz0SOnR45Gved9B-q9n...

If I'm reading the chart properly it looks like the M3LR gets a smidge better than the advertised range at 65mph?

EVs dont lose 50% of their range at highway speeds. Even if they did, I'm not sure why you think you could only go 37 miles between charges (I think you meant 75 mi?).

It really depends on how they define their mileage rating. If it is an inflated number like some EV manufacturers, then yeah. If it is a conservative rating, then it's a useful amount of range for an "in town" vehicle.

Round trip, you can go somewhere up to ~37 miles away and drive home to recharge on a single charge. You're both saying the same thing:)

It's not about "inflating" it. It's more that the energy needed to move your car a certain distance is quadratically related to the speed, due to aerodynamic drag.

Efficient vehicles spend less energy on other stuff besides moving the car (e.g. by having heat pumps, induction motors that can be turned off without any drag, etc), so tests conducted at a lower speed will appear to have a better range than tests at a higher speed. Meanwhile, less efficient vehicles that waste energy at low speeds will appear to have more similar range at both low and high speeds.

The article does talk of it being a relatively simple proposition to embiggen the range with an bigger battery kit if that helps. But yeah, it's not a ton of range.

> EVs dont lose 50% of their range at highway speeds.

Yes, they do, compared to 25 mph. I even gave you the chart.

Tesla does not quote a 550 mile range for the Model 3, any more than an ICE car’s range is stated as what a hypermiler could get.

As the chart shows, the reverse would be true: if they’re advertising a 150 mile range you would be able to beat that considerably if you drove at 30mph.

> if they’re advertising a 150 mile range you would be able to beat that considerably if you drove at 30mph.

Yes, because it's true. But who drives at 30 mph? Grandmas maybe. Not exactly target audience for a truck.

The peak efficiency is actually at 25 mph, not 30.

The range figure is determined by a test regulated by the EPA and actually does account for a variety of driving conditions, specifically including highway driving. The graphic you linked to actually shows that the advertised range is very close to the range at all highway speeds.

People who buy trucks because they need a tool to do a job? The guys who buy one instead of getting hair plugs are commuting to work at 85mph but people who actually haul things tend not to want their cargo getting damaged. This isn’t the vehicle for someone doing long distance towing but it’s a great choice for someone who wants to carry cargo around a farm, supplies and tools around their local job radius, carry bikes or surfboards, etc. and the modest size means they’re not only saving a ton of money up front but also paying less over time since it’s cheaper than gas and they can charge without a special trip.

The guy who mows my lawn drives under 100 miles a day, doesn’t need a huge cargo capacity, and certainly doesn’t want to overpay for a work truck. I’d bet there’s a sizable market of people like that.