Connect with us

News

GMC Hummer EV vs Tesla Cybertruck vs Rivian R1T: price and specs comparison

(Credite: GMC, Tesla, Rivian)

Published

on

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. 

Advertisement

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. 

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. 

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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. 

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. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Watch an in-depth look at the GMC Hummer EV in the video below. 

Maria--aka "M"-- is an experienced writer and book editor. She's written about several topics including health, tech, and politics. As a book editor, she's worked with authors who write Sci-Fi, Romance, and Dark Fantasy. M loves hearing from TESLARATI readers. If you have any tips or article ideas, contact her at maria@teslarati.com or via X, @Writer_01001101.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Published

on

(Photo: Hector Perez/YouTube)

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.

Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements

There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:

“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.

This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:

Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.

It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:

I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.

It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.

New Disengagement Categories

This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.

I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.

I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.

I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.

Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.

Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.

Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns

Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.

In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.

Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.

This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.

Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.

“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.

Highway Operation

Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.

However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:

Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs

Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.

I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.

This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.

FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:

FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

Published

on

tesla-asia-model-3
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.

The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.

The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.

Musk said:

“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:

“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.

There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.

Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:

…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.

Advertisement



Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history

SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.

Published

on

By

US Golden Dome space defense system (Concept render by Grok)

SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.

The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.

FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan

Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.

Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.

The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.

The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.

Continue Reading