News
The very real challenge of a Tesla Pickup Truck
Call it the Tesla Truck, the Tesla Pickup Truck, or the Tesla-150, but CEO Elon Musk has made it clear as revealed in the company’s Master Plan, Part Deux that the electric carmaker plans to make a pickup and heavy-duty truck. In fact, he couldn’t be clearer: he stated in the past that plans call for something to compete with the best-selling light-duty vehicle on American roads: the Ford F-150. This precludes the idea of a small or mid-sized Tesla truck and says that Musk seems to be clearly aiming for a full-sized offering.
A full-sized electric truck seems like a lark to most truck owners and enthusiasts. I live in the heart of truck country, Wyoming, where pickup trucks equal passenger cars in numbers on the road and range from half-ton F-150s, 1500s, and Silverados to heavy-duty and diesel-driven duals. Although many enjoy scoffing at the wannabe cowboys who buy a big, shiny pickup and drive it to the office and back every day – never seeing dirt or any load larger than an IKEA furniture set – the core truck buyer and, indeed, the majority of truck owners do not fit that stereotype.
In general, truck owners fall into three categories: weekend warriors, offroaders, and workhorses. The weekend warrior uses a truck to tow toys (boats, RVs, what have you) and occasionally haul household construction goods for home improvement. The offroader buys the TRD, Pro-4X, and similar packages and spends a lot of time getting mud, dirt, and tree branches stuck on the truck (this would be my personal category, for the record). Finally, the workhorses are those who buy a truck to work with, either as a commercial vehicle or as a personal working machine – these include farmers, ranchers, commercial haulers, tradesmen, and so forth.
Traditionally, the largest truck market are the weekend warriors. These are the folks who buy a truck because they want to haul the family and their playthings around. They tow boats, jet skis, haul camping stuff, tote gear to the game, tailgate, and otherwise use their truck mostly as a recreational vehicle that may or may not be their everyday driver. Next to that market, and not as small as some might expect, are the workhorse buyers. These are the people who buy trucks to work with them and rely on them to get any of a number of jobs done. Most importantly to the industry, these are the repeat buyers – the ones who buy, trade-in and buy again (rinse, repeat). Where I live, for example, it’s not unusual for a rancher to buy a new truck every two or three years. Trading in a machine that will have over 100,000 miles on it is not unusual either. That’s 30,000-50,000 miles driven in only one year. For reference, as a commercial over-the-road driver, I put a little over 100,000 miles per year on my rig. Surveys of the truck market nationally show that in the traditional truck strongholds of the West, including Texas on up to the Dakotas and over to the coast, that kind of mileage is not unusual for the working pickup.
So let’s assume that Tesla plans to make a truck that will sell on the traditional pickup truck market in competition with the best-sellers from Ford, GM, and Ram. We can assume they won’t be doing a hard-core off-road package, but will aim for a 4×4 market in order to appeal to most truck buyers. Here’s a bullet list of criteria for a mainstream Tesla Truck offering, based on the most common features of a mainstream full-size pickup truck today:
- V8-like performance including roughly 400 hp and 380 lb-ft
- Extended and four-door cab offerings
- Cargo bed size of 5.5 feet with option for 7 feet
- Towing capacity of about 10,000 pounds
- Payload capacity of 1/2 ton to 3,000 pounds
- 4×4 capability
- Driving range, under load, of at least 150 miles
- Conventional styling and appeal
Those criteria make up the most common things truck buyers ask for. The recent revamp of the Toyota Tundra, for example, was mostly about style since the previous-generation Tundra was dated and didn’t look like a “beefy truck,” as one friend put it. This may be laughed at by the Teslarati, but it’s akin to the Model S having been designed to look like the Volkswagen Thing rather than the beautiful Euro-styled sedan it is. So don’t scoff.
Now that we have those basic requirements, let’s look at what Elon and Tesla would have to accomplish to make that happen.
For starters, the current powertrain in the Model S or Model X would not be sufficient. If put under load, towing a trailer for example, and with the aerodynamics of a pickup, the current powertrain would be lucky to achieve half the range required. Anyone who doubts this need only consider how much work went into Bob Lutz’ never-selling VIA truck and its plug-in hybrid powertrain, which together only produce marginal range when trailering at capacity. That’s an ICE (internal combustion engine) and electric drivetrain combined. Remember also that every pound of batteries added has a net-reduced benefit to the overall range of the vehicle as it also adds weight. Since Tesla isn’t currently using and hasn’t made a lot of noise about eventually using high-tech, high-density, bleeding-edge lithium batteries to lighten the battery’s weight, we can assume that the current Panasonic cells are what would power a Tesla Truck if it were made in the near future.
To tow a trailer at 7,000+ pounds would require an enormous amount of energy and to do so for a long range like truck owners would expect (e.g. to the lake and back) would be a feat. It’s not insurmountable, of course. There’s little doubt that Tesla’s engineers couldn’t overcome this obstacle, but it will be a huge one.
-
Matching V8-like performance would not be difficult – the Model S and Model X already does this and with the inherent strengths of an electric motor, namely torque from zero, the numbers actually required would be smaller than those needed for the gasoline equivalent.
Next comes another problem – off-road. With the problems the Model S has had in the past with undercarriage breaches on the highway, it’s easy to see concern when going fully off the road. Even the best of dirt roads are rough. Putting an under-pan, as Tesla has done may or may not work well with a truck. Skid plates are not unusual for trucks, of course, but they rarely run past the front engine compartment. Most of the safety is addressed by lifting components high up into the framing to minimize exposure. With a big, long, heavy battery pack, though, this is problematic. A skid plate may do the trick, but this would at the very least be a big marketing hassle for Tesla if nothing else.
Another big roadblock is going to be the price tag. In order to compete with the F-150 and its brethren, the Tesla Truck would need to sell at around the $30,000-$40,000 mark at entry-level. Truck buyers would probably be willing to pay a premium of $8,000, even $10,000 on the truck if the expected fuel savings are big and obvious. Yet even that premium markup is going to be a problem for Tesla because, well, unless of course the pickup will be based off the Model 3. This is where the Gigafactory could possibly pay off, but at this point, that is only an idea that is likely to become reality, but until it is, we have no idea how real its cost-savings in terms of dollars per kWh will be.
Finally, for sake of space, we have not even mentioned dealership woes. The top truck markets are well outside of Tesla’s best markets for the Model S and Model X. Some of those markets, such as Texas, are off limits to Tesla’s direct sales entirely. Yet if that’s overcome, there’s also marketing. Not only are pickup truck buyers exceedingly brand loyal (just ask Toyota and Nissan how easy it is to penetrate the full-sized market), but they’re finicky as well.
The conclusion? Tesla could likely, eventually, field a full-sized pickup truck capable of competing with the F-150, but the challenges are huge. Just as Elon likes ’em. Will they do it? Good question, but it’s fair to say that if they do, they may be treading on the thin crust of a deep, deep lake.
Feature image via Topspeed
-
-
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) reported a beat in revenues and EBITDA in its first earnings call report while also minimizing losses as its business continues to gain momentum.
After its IPO in July, SpaceX saw some tough losses on Wall Street due to a major selloff after a delay in its 13th Starship test flight. The ship launched later that week and completed what was arguably the most successful IFT operation in the Starship program’s history.
Nevertheless, the company is continuing on and reported some encouraging financials while also promoting what appears to be a robust outlook moving forward in its Space, AI, and Connectivity divisions.
SpaceX to report first-ever earnings today: here’s what to expect
Earnings Results
- Revenues: $7.8 billion reported vs. $6.7 billion expected
- Adjusted EBITDA: $3.5 billion vs. $2 billion expected
- Net loss of $541 million, an improvement of $467 million from net loss of $1.0 billion
Additionally, CFO Bret Johnsen had these comments:
“2026 has been a momentous year so far, and the second quarter demonstrated the true power of SpaceX. Revenue growth accelerated across all our business segments and we delivered strong operating leverage, with significant margin expansion led by our new AI compute agreements. Our unparalleled leadership in launch, Starlink subscriber growth, new enterprise and government partnerships, and best-in-class AI infrastructure underscore our ability to drive meaningful scale and deliver attractive returns. As a newly public company, we are delighted to welcome our broad base of shareholders and bondholders. We ended the second quarter with $100 billion of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, and $47.5 billion in backlog. This financial strength gives us substantial capacity to invest in Starship, Starlink Broadband and Mobile satellites, and our AI platform, while maintaining a disciplined long-term capital allocation framework.”
Space Business Highlights
SpaceX shared some of its biggest Space Business Highlights for Q2:
- Space revenues grew 55% sequentially and 29% year-over-year to $962 million, driven by a higher number of large customer launches and a favorable customer shift compared to the prior year
- Total costs and expenses for the Space segment were up by $389 million year-over-year, as we continued to accelerate R&D investments in our Starship program, which we believe will reduce the cost to orbit by 99% or more relative to the historical average, and unlock significant revenue potential across all business segments
- Leading launch provider for the world with 78 launches and 1,041 metric tons of mass to orbit deployed over the six months ended June 30, 2026, primarily allocated to Connectivity for the deployment of our Starlink constellation
- Starship V3 development continued to advance towards full and rapid reusability:
- Completed Starship V3’s first suborbital mission in May, Flight 12, which achieved a successful lift off from our new Starbase pad, a precision landing of Starship’s upper stage, and deployment of modified V2 Starlink satellites
- Subsequent to the second quarter, completed Starship Flight 13 in July, which achieved all flight objectives including deploying 20 production V3 satellites, demonstrating in-space relight of a Raptor engine, and executing the softest ever splashdown of Starship, providing critical views of an intact heatshield
SpaceX will report its earnings today at 4:30 P.M. EDT.
-
Elon Musk issued a second pointed warning to SpaceX short sellers on Tuesday, just hours before the company was set to release its first quarterly earnings as a publicly traded firm. Responding to a report highlighting elevated short interest, Musk wrote on X: “I try to warn them, but they just double down …”
The comment came as data from S3 Partners showed roughly 95 percent of available SPCX shares to borrow were on loan, translating to about 34 percent short interest as a percentage of the float. The stock has traded under pressure since its record-breaking IPO in June 2026, declining significantly from early peaks.
I try to warn them, but they just double down … 🤷♂️
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 4, 2026
This marks the second such message from Musk in under three weeks.
On July 17, amid post-IPO volatility, he stated: “The survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low.” At that time, SPCX had fallen roughly 30 percent from its peak above a $2.6 trillion valuation, with short sellers reportedly realizing gains of about $8.7 billion.
-
Musk’s warning aligned with optimistic analyses projecting that Starship-driven cost reductions could enable a multi-trillion-dollar space economy through applications such as orbital solar power, asteroid mining, data centers, and Mars-related projects, positioning SpaceX as critical infrastructure.
SpaceX is scheduled to report second-quarter results after the market close later today, followed by a webcast. Analysts anticipate revenue near $6.9 billion, reflecting growth in Starlink, launch services, and AI-related segments. The earnings release precedes a major lockup expiration on August 6 that could free hundreds of millions of insider shares.
Musk has a long track record of confronting short sellers, particularly regarding Tesla, where he has argued that persistent bearish positions underestimate transformative technologies. Critics view his optimism as overly ambitious given near-term stock fluctuations, while supporters see temporary dips as opportunities in a longer-term expansion of the space economy.
As SpaceX opens its books to public scrutiny for the first time, the high short interest and Musk’s repeated cautions set the stage for heightened market attention on the results and management’s commentary.
Tesla’s AI lead Ashok Elluswamy doubled down on the company’s strategy regarding Full Self-Driving’s speed settings, and owners are definitely confused.
Earlier versions of Full Self-Driving allowed owners to set a max speed that the vehicle could travel while operating under the semi-autonomous driver assistance platform. This allowed more customization for the driver, giving them the ability to experience FSD’s robust performance with their own personal preferences.
Speed is massively important for obvious reasons — it’s not only a question of keeping the vehicle occupants comfortable by traveling at a safe speed, but it’s also something that could contribute to a ticket or infraction from law enforcement.
With the release of FSD v14 last year, Tesla removed the ability to set a max speed and instead opted for five Speed Profiles, ranging from “Sloth,” the most conservative, to “Mad Max,” the most aggressive and spirited. These profiles not only control speed, but also how frequently the vehicle will execute passes, perform lane changes, and other contributing factors.
The removal of the Max Speed setting was a major complaint amongst the Tesla community because it left owners scrambling for a way to experience suitable behaviors while traveling at an appropriate speed. Most felt the driving profiles would be a good indicator of the behaviors, while speed would still be left up to the discretion of the driver.
Instead, Tesla’s Speed Profiles determine both, and the constant tinkering of how they behave has been a major bottleneck and point of confusion for both owners and the company. From update to update, the Speed Profiles will change, sometimes more drastically than others. Some owners have complained that the “Standard” profile is too fast, while others have experienced “Mad Max” traveling below the speed limit:
What has happened to Mad Max?
At one point it was going 32 in a 35. Traffic ahead had pulled away considerably https://t.co/bjKvaMVTNX pic.twitter.com/aaZSWmLu5v
-— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 24, 2026
These things change with each update, but the big complaint is that owners are on the hook for any tickets that come from FSD’s infractions; that’s the caveat of the suite being named FSD (Supervised). It ultimately means the driver is responsible, and the automaker has no liability when it comes to speeding tickets or general traffic infractions.
It is the driver’s responsibility to take over or adjust based on this.
Elluswamy essentially confirmed that there are no plans to bring back Max Speed control, because it is what he referred to as “an anti pattern.” He then echoed something that CEO Elon Musk has started to really push with FSD, and that’s the idea that Tesla is really honing in on the preferences of the driver.
Max speed control is an anti pattern.
We are working on better learning of user’s implied preferences.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) August 3, 2026
-
Owners were confused by Tesla’s decision, stating that there must be a better way, especially considering disengagements for incorrect speeds are common:
This…. is not the way
— Kyle Conner (@itskyleconner) August 4, 2026
😭 I appreciate this mentality ! But currently the no.1 reason I disengage in Australia is incorrect speed zones.
— Ryan’s Model Y (@ryanjaycowan) August 3, 2026
This is fine but you need to start accepting liability for speeding tickets then. https://t.co/lyCgdA83gQ
— Jeremy Judkins (@jeremyjudkins_) August 4, 2026
-
Okay https://t.co/nOvoXQkNg1 pic.twitter.com/jGRtF2xtox
— Chad Moran (@ChadMoran) August 3, 2026
From personal experience and using FSD for over 72 percent of my driving miles since v14 was released late last year, I make Speed Profile adjustments constantly. If FSD is traveling a tad too quickly, I will scale it back, and if it’s too conservative, I’ll make it more aggressive.
I don’t complain about making the Speed Profile changes too frequently, but it would certainly be nice to have it happen less frequently. There are far too many times I am concerned about getting a ticket, even in Standard mode.
The biggest issue for me, personally, which seems to be echoed throughout the community, is the fact that Tesla’s goal is to minimize disengagements. Many drivers are stating that speed is a major reason for disengagements.
However, Tesla is not willing to bring back this one level of input because it would technically be a regression.
-
Whether it’s right or wrong in your opinion, it is what Tesla is going with, and it seems like it has pivoted quite a bit from its other strategies for minimizing interventions by pushing its AI to behave in a way that would fit the occupant’s personal preferences.
SpaceX reports beat in first earnings while minimizing losses
Elon Musk sends second warning to SpaceX shorts ahead of first earnings
