News
Tesla owner reports almost $65/day fuel savings after using Cybertruck to tow construction trailer
A Tesla owner and contractor in Missouri recently shared an observation on social media that stunned several members of the electric vehicle community. As per the Tesla owner, he is currently saving almost $65 per day on fuel costs just by using his Cybertruck to tow his construction trailer.
Dan Burke, who operates White Wolf Construction & Home Inspection, shared his experience in a post on social media platform X. As per the Tesla owner, the Cybertruck has become his around-town tow vehicle for his construction trailer. Even if the Cybertruck’s range is reduced by the trailer, the vehicle’s range is still enough for his day-to-day needs. Overall, the Tesla owner noted that the Cybertruck saves him almost $65 per day in fuel savings alone.
Cybertruck doing the work . It’s replaced my Ram as the around town tow vehicle for the construction trailer. Even with reduced range, most of my trips are 15-20 miles each way a few times a day. Saves me almost $65 a day in fuel!! pic.twitter.com/cv9aVWxu9q— Dan Burke (@DeBergo) August 13, 2024
The Tesla owner’s post unsurprisingly caught a lot of attention on social media, with skeptics doubting the Cybertruck owner’s claims. As per Burke, however, his daily fuel savings are so high because his previous around-town tow vehicle, a Dodge Ram, had a number of performance mods and a dedicated towing tune, resulting in the pickup truck requiring premium fuel and getting only 9 mpg. Thus, on a typical day, Burke noted that he would spend about $70 on fuel for his Dodge Ram.
Love seeing how people are using their Cybertruck to save money. As a bonus it's also fun to drive when not being used for work https://t.co/mixUqc8Iix— Wes (@wmorrill3) August 14, 2024
With the Cybertruck, the Tesla owner noted that his fueling costs are significantly lower. Burke noted that he charges his Cybertruck at home, where off-peak power rates are at 4.5 cents per kWh. This results in daily fuel savings of about $65, or about $325 per week on a five-week workday. Estimated savings on a regular 20-day month would be about $1,300, and since a common year is comprised of 260 work days, the Tesla owner’s annual fuel savings could reach up to $16,900.
$65 a DAY in fuel savings….
That’s dudes cybertruck payment, paid for…. In FUEL SAVINGS.
EV trucks are a no brainer for 95% of the truck population. https://t.co/bALSTK8iCG— Greggertruck (@greggertruck) August 13, 2024
“That’s how much gas I put in my Ram almost every day when I pull this trailer. It weighs 6300-ish pounds on a normal day, and the Ram gets right at 9 mpg pulling it. The Ram has a bunch of performance mods, which is great for power but sucks down fuel. Premium fuel no less because of the towing tune I run on it. The Cybertruck is averaging 675 wh/mi on the same drive if I stay off the highway. On the highway, it’s around 824-875 depending on wind. So on a typical day, 160 miles /9mpg x 3.95 = $70. If I charge at my house, off-peak it’s 4.5 cents a kWh. 100 kWh back to the battery at 4.5 cents and that’s about $65 a day in savings,” Burke explained in a post on X.
Buying a cybertruck for a work truck is a no brained. You save on fuel, maintenance and it’s fast and fun to drive on top of that.— Dan Burke (@DeBergo) August 14, 2024
Granted, one could argue that Burke is a special case since his business needs fit perfectly with the Cybertruck’s current capabilities, but one could also argue that there are a lot of business owners that could see comparable benefits today just by using Tesla’s all-electric pickup truck. There are a lot of enterprises, after all, whose operations are centered on short to medium distance towing. For these, the Cybertruck seems like a very valid viable choice today, even if Tesla is still exclusively producing Foundation Series variants for customers.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
