News
GMC Hummer EV vs Tesla Cybertruck vs Rivian R1T: price and specs comparison
Legacy automaker General Motors recently unveiled the Hummer EV, a monster of a vehicle that will be pitted against other all-electric trucks like the Tesla Cybertruck and the Rivian R1T. The Hummer EV isn’t just another rival in the sustainable pickup truck market. The rivalry between the GMC Hummer EV, the Tesla Cybertruck, and the Rivian R1T also represents the battle between legacy automakers and new kinds of auto manufacturers.
Price
GM seems to have gone a different route when deciding the Hummer EV’s price. GM plans to release four variants of the all-electric “supertruck:” the EV2, EV2X, EV3X, and the limited Hummer EV Edition 1. The base model’s starting price is $79,995 with a reservation fee of $100.
Each subsequent model’s price is raised by about $10,000, except the limited edition Hummer Edition 1. For example, the Hummer EV2X costs $89,995 and the EV3X costs $99,995. The Hummer EV Edition 1, on the other hand, starts at $112,595.
Tesla and Rivian’s EV pickup trucks are priced significantly less than the GM Hummer EV. The Rivian R1T starts at $69,000, though speculations suggest that the production truck will be more affordable. But even at its original price, the R1T is $10,000 less than GM’s cheapest all-electric pickup truck. Rivian’s R1T has a reservation fee of $1000.
When it comes to pricing, however, Tesla’s Cybertruck takes the cake with a starting price of $39,990 for its single motor RWD variant. Tesla set a reservation fee of $100 for the Cybertruck. Tesla seemed to go the opposite direction as the other two automakers and set the price for its top-tier Cybertruck at $69,900. This makes the top-tier Cybertruck Tri-Motor AWD more affordable than the GMC Hummer EV’s base variant.
Price may not be the main factor that sways potential customers from one EV pickup to another. GMC, Tesla, and Rivian have packed their EV trucks with the best specs and features possible. In the end, these specs and features may be the deciding factor for buyers.
-
- The Rivian R1T promises to bring electrification to the luxury adventure industry. (Credit: Rivian)
-
- Tesla Cybertruck futuristic aero wheel makes debut in Los Angeles unveiling event on Nov. 21, 2019 (Photo: Teslarati)
-
- (Credit: GMC)
Range and Performance
When it comes to range and performance in the EV market, Tesla sets the bar high. Tesla’s in-depth knowledge in battery technology has given it a serious edge against the competition, most notably legacy automakers like GM.
For the purposes of this comparison, Teslarati will be looking at top-tier variant of each EV pickup truck. In GM’s case, the Hummer EV Edition 1 has a tri-motor setup with an estimated 350+ miles of range. According to the OEM, the Hummer EV can run 0-60 mph in approximately 3 seconds.
Rivian’s R1T pickups beat the Hummer EV’s range, reaching up to 400+ miles on a single charge. In terms of performance, the R1T matches GM’s Hummer EV with the ability to run 0-60 mph in 3 seconds.
The Cybertruck will be Tesla’s first entry into the pickup truck market, but the company certainly didn’t hold back when it came to range and performance. The tri-motor Cybertruck is expected to have an EPA-estimated range of 500+ miles and can run 0-60 mph in about 2.9 seconds.
Unique Features
When it comes to novel features, GMC has some tricks up its sleeve. After all, the legacy automaker has been in the pickup truck market for decades and has enough experience to understand what Hummer customers want. When Rivian revealed the R1T, it seemed to understand the pickup truck market’s customer base well, too.
When it comes to vehicles, utility is a top priority, most especially for pickup truck buyers. Rivian understood that useful features mattered and included features like a cleaver gear tunnel and “Tank Turn.” Both features were specifically included in the Rivian R1T with the pickup customer in mind.
The GMC Hummer EV also has some features specifically tailored for pickup owners. During its unveiling, GM introduced the Hummer EV’s CrabWalk feature which allows the vehicle to navigate tricky terrain. The legacy automaker also included adaptive air suspension.
-
- (Credit: Tesla)
-
- (Credit: Rivian)
-
- (Credit: GMC)
Tesla’s focus has always been on sustainability, but it still managed to include some unique features in the Cybertruck. The adaptive air suspension GM announced for the Hummer EV was also seen in the Cybertruck during its unveiling.
The bed of the Cybertruck includes 110v/220v outlets, which impressed many pickup truck owners who use power tools for work or recreation. Tesla’s pickup truck also has Camp Mode, which allows passengers to sleep in their vehicles comfortably without draining the batteries.
Camp Mode is not unique to the Tesla Cybertruck. The feature is available in all Tesla vehicles. But it’s one of many features that neither GM nor Rivian has announced for their pickup trucks. Camp Mode will not be the only quirky Tesla feature that will make it to the Cybertruck, too. There are also features like Dog Mode and the multiple entertainment features available in Tesla vehicles like Caraoke.
Conclusion
Tesla and Rivian, especially the former, have forged their own path in the auto industry. Both car companies have committed to manufacturing sustainable vehicles with great performance and look good doing it.
In comparison, General Motors Truck Co. has been one of the leading car manufacturers in the world for decades and has created some of the toughest pickup trucks ever made. So it’s no surprise everyone wondered what GMC would bring to the table when it announced the Hummer EV.
Given each automaker’s competencies, the battle between the GM Hummer EV, Tesla Cybertruck, and Rivian R1T could decide the future of the electric pickup market. Nevertheless, the presence of the three all-electric trucks in the market today bodes well for the shift to sustainability as a whole. Every GMC Hummer EV sold is one less ICE truck on the road, after all.
Watch an in-depth look at the GMC Hummer EV in the video below.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
