News
Can electric trucks breakthrough gas and diesel pickup loyalty?
Electric trucks haven’t yet made their way to the market, but plenty of them are announced. The big question is: Will EV trucks ever see the success that sedans and crossovers have? Can they be more popular than the gas and diesel trucks that are widely utilized across the world?
Pickup trucks are popular outside of the United States. In Canada, China, and even Australia, pickups are used by everyone from construction use to daily drivers. Their versatility as a luxury vehicle or a way to move large objects from one location to another makes them one of the more feasible types of vehicles available to consumers. For years, trucks have been listed as powerful, sturdy, and capable machines that have loyal consumer bases because of their adequacy for a wide range of activities.
But with the ongoing transition away from gas powertrains and toward electrification, trucks are simply next on the list to receive battery-powered operation. With several manufacturers releasing designs, pricing, and other variables for electric trucks, the question remains of whether or not the EV truck segment as a whole will be able to make a dent in the popularity of petrol-powered trucks in the future.
There seem to be several boundaries that EV trucks need to cross into to gain the trust and secure a sale to a driver who is interested in a truck but has their mind set on gas or diesel powertrains. I believe that one is going to be proving effectiveness in “work” settings like towing, off-roading, and hauling. The other is breaking through the brand loyalty that many truck buyers have with a certain manufacturer. Interestingly, it is tough to determine which will be harder for an EV truck maker to break, but it will likely be switching an owner away from their usual manufacturer.
Truck owners seem to hold a loyalty to their favorite manufacturer that is unmatched by owners of other segments. All too often, especially in my neck of the woods, I see and hear truck owners talking about why their manufacturer is the best, why others cannot seem to compare, and why they’ll never buy another brand of truck. Sometimes, you’ll even see the infamous bumper sticker of a kid peeing on a rival truck maker’s logo.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
But breaking a consumer away from a brand that they have put many years, and many dollars, into owning a certain vehicle is arguably one of the most difficult parts of selling cars. Past the production issues, which have plagued many car companies, Tesla included, for years, growing a brand is difficult. To have a consumer willingly switch brands is a tough task, and it usually relies on that company providing a massive shortcoming to that consumer in particular.
For example, bad customer service, poor quality, or even a political stance can cause a consumer to switch sides and consider other options. But these things are rare occurrences, so to really convince someone to try a different brand without any negative experiences really requires a product that makes someone go, “Wow, I need that.”
Credit: @KimPaquette | Twitter
Electric trucks certainly have the pizzazz and the appeal to make this happen. I would argue that the Cybertruck is probably the truck that will most likely drive more people to switch from gas or diesel-powered machines to electric ones. Simply because the design is so unique, many people may just be looking for something new that looks “tough” and “durable.” The Cybertruck certainly fits that bill.
However, the Rivian R1T has it’s own advantages too. Because of the fact that it has more of a “traditional” truck look, which is exactly what Tesla and Elon Musk were looking to avoid, it may be more fitting for many recurring truck buyers. It has the durability; it has the look, it has the options. It also is around the same price as many other trucks on the market, so the “too expensive” argument goes out of the window for those that still use it.
The next real test is proving durability and effectiveness. We have seen the Cybertruck pull the F-150 in a tug of war, but people still may be looking to see the vehicle perform normal everyday work. Same with the R1T.
The typical truck buyer is likely hauling things as small as 2x4s or as large as a boat. Before religious pickup buyers truly accept EV trucks, the manufacturers will have to prove that their products are capable of hauling normal, everyday things and large and difficult items. Performance and overall use capabilities will be proven before any truck buyers consider an electric option.
Please e-mail or tweet your thoughts about this subject. I am certainly interested in hearing what you all have to say about trucks and how EV makers can start making a dent in gas-powered pickup sales once deliveries begin. I think it will take more than a new, fresh, and fun way to drive a car to swing consumers to the “other side,” unlike it was with the sedan segment. Sedans are sedans, and they’re all pretty similar. I don’t believe there is as much brand loyalty on that side of things, but I could be wrong.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
