News
What Tesla Cybertruck pricing could look like based on inflation
Tesla Cybertruck deliveries are set to begin in roughly one month on November 30 at Gigafactory Texas. Although Tesla confirmed this significant detail last week during its Quarterly Earnings Call, the automaker left out a few important details, including available trim levels and pricing.
While NHTSA documents confirmed trim levels just a few days after Earnings last week, pricing still remains up in the air, and there could be several reasons for this.
One could be the uncertainty of market conditions, as Tesla has routinely changed prices in 2023, and announcing a specific cost of each trim now could change by the time deliveries roll around. Another reason is that Tesla could simply be undecided or not ready to announce a price.
This vehicle is so anticipated that it could likely make early reservation holders pay a premium. With uncertainty looming in macroeconomic conditions, the company could try and make the most of the early deliveries.
While the Semi was produced and delivered to its first buyers without a price, we don’t expect Tesla to do the same with the Cybertruck. The Semi is an entirely different vehicle class and not something that will be driven on roads by the everyday person.
Even though pricing has remained relatively out of the public realm since Tesla delivered the first Semi units to PepsiCo. last year, there is no way the company would or could do this with the Cybertruck, a vehicle that has amassed over 1 million orders, CEO Elon Musk said on the Call last week.
Nevertheless, there is data out there that could point us in the right direction, giving us a rough estimate of what the Cybertruck could cost based on the price of full-size pickups in 2019 when the vehicle and pricing for the trims available at that time were announced.
Using data from Kelley Blue Book, the cost of the Cybertruck would have theoretically increased by 30.7 percent. In November 2019, a full-size pickup’s average price was $51,140, not including applied consumer incentives. Over the next four years, leading up to 2023, the cost of pickups has increased every year, except for this year, as the average cost of a new truck decreased by about $1,500 from 2022.
The most recent KBB data available is for September 2023, when Full-Size Pickups landed at an average transaction price of $66,841.
When Tesla announced the Cybertruck in 2019, there were three trims: Single, Dual, and Tri-Motor. They were priced at $39,990, $49,990, and $69,990, respectively. With only the Dual and Tri-Motor configurations still standing, we can calculate what the Cybertruck would cost today in a perfect world.
With the 30.7 percent increase in new, full-size pickup prices since 2019, the Cybertruck would, in a perfect world, cost:
- Dual Motor – from $49,990 in 2019 to – $65,336.93, an increase of $15,346.93.
- Tri Motor – from $69,990 in 2019 to – $91,476.93, an increase of $21,486.93.
Of course, this is in no way a confirmation of Tesla’s pricing, as it could have many other things factored into the cost, especially as the vehicle has changed in sizing and design over the past four years.
The price of the Cybertruck has been highly speculated since Tesla removed pricing from the Online Design Studio a few years ago, as it was still mulling over potential configurations.
It has not stopped people from posting things on social media stating they have been contacted by Tesla and given a price for their Cybertruck reservations, either.
Hmm… is the Tri-Motor Performance Cybertruck pricing set? $98,990 before FSD and the usual taxes & delivery fees… wow that’s a lot of coin. pic.twitter.com/uQyvH0NxR9
— ?TACOS +⚡️TESLAS (@TacosandTeslas) October 24, 2023
Tesla will likely start contacting reservation holders soon to set up their delivery, as the first units will be handed over at a delivery event at Gigafactory Texas.
How much do you think the Cybertruck will cost? Let me know your estimates! Email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
