News
Tesla Cybertruck vs Ford F-150: Cost of ownership battle ends with eye-opening results
The Tesla Cybertruck offers several benefits that make it an ideal alternative to conventional pickup trucks like the best-selling Ford F-150. But beyond its polarizing design and healthy set of features, one thing may really be the difference-maker for customers who are considering a Cybertruck purchase: its cost of ownership.
Pickups are very popular in the United States, holding about 17% of the US auto sales market last year. Yet, for all their popularity, trucks are also notoriously expensive to own, thanks to their large engines that guzzle fuel. Considering that the Tesla Cybertruck promises a lower cost of ownership compared to traditional trucks like the Ford F-150, it then becomes pertinent to run the numbers between the futuristic upstart and the tried-and-tested veteran.
This was the topic of a recent video from Tesla owner-enthusiast Ben Sullins of YouTube’s Teslanomics channel. In his video, Sullins compared the cost of ownership between the Tesla Cybertruck and the Ford F-150 over a five-year period. The results were notably eye-opening.
Sullins opted to utilize the Ford F-150 because it is the most popular pickup in the United States. He also selected the 2020 Ford F-150 Lariat SuperCrew as the truck of choice for his comparison, since the variant was the trim which received Edmunds‘ recommendation. This version was compared with the Tesla Cybertruck’s Dual Motor AWD variant, which CEO Elon Musk noted was receiving the majority of reservations from consumers. To make the comparison as fair as possible, Sullins opted for options in the F-150 that would make it as similar to the mid-level Cybertruck as possible, such as 4×4 and a six-seat configuration.
For the vehicle’s true cost of ownership over 5 years, the Teslanomics host referred to Edmunds‘ TCO metrics, which includes Depreciation, Taxes and Fees, Financing, Fuel, Insurance, Repairs, and Maintenance. Considering that the Cybertruck is not on the road yet, Sullins opted to estimate the all-electric pickup’s depreciation, taxes and fees, and financing on the F-150’s numbers. The same was true for the Cybertruck’s estimated insurance costs.
Things started to diverge when maintenance and fuel costs between the two vehicles were considered. The Tesla Cybertruck’s maintenance will likely be marginal compared to the F-150, which is equipped with an internal combustion engine. Fuel costs were also very different between the two vehicles. If one were to consider the average price of fuel in CA and TX and a yearly mileage of 15,000 miles, a Ford F-150 owner in CA could spend about $3,183 in fuel costs per year considering the state’s average fuel cost of $3.82 per gallon. An F-150 owner in TX, where gas prices average $2.24 per gallon, could spend about $1,866 per year in fuel costs.
In comparison, a Cybertruck owner in CA, where electricity costs a pretty steep $0.26 per kWh on average, will spend about $1,950 in charging costs for a year. A Cybertruck owner from TX, where electricity costs $0.09 per kWh, could spend as little as $675 per year. It’s pertinent to note that these costs do not account for off-peak hours, where electricity is cheaper.
Overall, Sullins estimated that the total cost of ownership for a Ford F-150 in CA would be around $72,459 over five years, while one in TX stands at about $65,467. Thanks to low charging and maintenance costs, the Cybertruck would likely have a TCO of $53,379 in CA and $46,610 in TX, respectively. That’s a difference of $19,080 and $18,858 over the course of five years. Of course, if a Tesla owner charges the Cybertruck through solar panels, then the TCO of the all-electric vehicle will be even lower.
Inasmuch as the Cybertruck is polarizing for its looks, it is difficult not to see the value of the vehicle when it comes to cost of ownership compared to traditional pickups. This is something that is key to potential Cybertruck customers such as companies that are managing fleets of vehicles. If something like the Cybertruck comes along and offers the same utility and better performance while offering lower operating costs, there is very little incentive to ignore the vehicle just because it doesn’t look like every other pickup in the market.
Watch Ben Sullins’ breakdown of the Tesla Cybertruck and the Ford F-150’s cost of ownership in the video below.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
