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.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
