News
Tesla Cybertruck vs Ford F-150: Cost of ownership battle ends with eye-opening results
The Tesla Cybertruck offers several benefits that make it an ideal alternative to conventional pickup trucks like the best-selling Ford F-150. But beyond its polarizing design and healthy set of features, one thing may really be the difference-maker for customers who are considering a Cybertruck purchase: its cost of ownership.
Pickups are very popular in the United States, holding about 17% of the US auto sales market last year. Yet, for all their popularity, trucks are also notoriously expensive to own, thanks to their large engines that guzzle fuel. Considering that the Tesla Cybertruck promises a lower cost of ownership compared to traditional trucks like the Ford F-150, it then becomes pertinent to run the numbers between the futuristic upstart and the tried-and-tested veteran.
This was the topic of a recent video from Tesla owner-enthusiast Ben Sullins of YouTube’s Teslanomics channel. In his video, Sullins compared the cost of ownership between the Tesla Cybertruck and the Ford F-150 over a five-year period. The results were notably eye-opening.
Sullins opted to utilize the Ford F-150 because it is the most popular pickup in the United States. He also selected the 2020 Ford F-150 Lariat SuperCrew as the truck of choice for his comparison, since the variant was the trim which received Edmunds‘ recommendation. This version was compared with the Tesla Cybertruck’s Dual Motor AWD variant, which CEO Elon Musk noted was receiving the majority of reservations from consumers. To make the comparison as fair as possible, Sullins opted for options in the F-150 that would make it as similar to the mid-level Cybertruck as possible, such as 4×4 and a six-seat configuration.
For the vehicle’s true cost of ownership over 5 years, the Teslanomics host referred to Edmunds‘ TCO metrics, which includes Depreciation, Taxes and Fees, Financing, Fuel, Insurance, Repairs, and Maintenance. Considering that the Cybertruck is not on the road yet, Sullins opted to estimate the all-electric pickup’s depreciation, taxes and fees, and financing on the F-150’s numbers. The same was true for the Cybertruck’s estimated insurance costs.
Things started to diverge when maintenance and fuel costs between the two vehicles were considered. The Tesla Cybertruck’s maintenance will likely be marginal compared to the F-150, which is equipped with an internal combustion engine. Fuel costs were also very different between the two vehicles. If one were to consider the average price of fuel in CA and TX and a yearly mileage of 15,000 miles, a Ford F-150 owner in CA could spend about $3,183 in fuel costs per year considering the state’s average fuel cost of $3.82 per gallon. An F-150 owner in TX, where gas prices average $2.24 per gallon, could spend about $1,866 per year in fuel costs.
In comparison, a Cybertruck owner in CA, where electricity costs a pretty steep $0.26 per kWh on average, will spend about $1,950 in charging costs for a year. A Cybertruck owner from TX, where electricity costs $0.09 per kWh, could spend as little as $675 per year. It’s pertinent to note that these costs do not account for off-peak hours, where electricity is cheaper.
Overall, Sullins estimated that the total cost of ownership for a Ford F-150 in CA would be around $72,459 over five years, while one in TX stands at about $65,467. Thanks to low charging and maintenance costs, the Cybertruck would likely have a TCO of $53,379 in CA and $46,610 in TX, respectively. That’s a difference of $19,080 and $18,858 over the course of five years. Of course, if a Tesla owner charges the Cybertruck through solar panels, then the TCO of the all-electric vehicle will be even lower.
Inasmuch as the Cybertruck is polarizing for its looks, it is difficult not to see the value of the vehicle when it comes to cost of ownership compared to traditional pickups. This is something that is key to potential Cybertruck customers such as companies that are managing fleets of vehicles. If something like the Cybertruck comes along and offers the same utility and better performance while offering lower operating costs, there is very little incentive to ignore the vehicle just because it doesn’t look like every other pickup in the market.
-
Watch Ben Sullins’ breakdown of the Tesla Cybertruck and the Ford F-150’s cost of ownership in the video below.
-
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck production snaps back after ugly supplier fight
Cybertrucks are piling up again at Giga Texas after Tesla’s court win against a parts supplier.
Cybertruck production at Giga Texas is showing its first visible recovery since Tesla sued a supplier last month over withheld manufacturing tooling.
Aerial observer Joe Tegtmeyer flew over the Austin factory Wednesday morning and counted roughly 100 or more Cybertrucks filling the outbound lot, a sharp jump from the thin numbers seen in recent weeks. The flyover came a day after a judge granted Tesla a temporary restraining order against Angstrom Automotive Group, the parts supplier at the center of the dispute.
Tesla filed an emergency lawsuit in late July after Angstrom told the automaker it planned to close the Troy, Texas facility where Tesla’s die-cast tools, trim dies and other Cybertruck stamping equipment were housed. According to Tesla’s complaint, a shipment of 700 finished parts never left the building, and when Tesla sent representatives to retrieve its equipment, accompanied by law enforcement, they were turned away. Angstrom allegedly then asked for an extra $250,000 a week to keep operating, which Tesla’s filing described as holding its own property for ransom.
TESLA: U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Wolfe of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division granted Tesla a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Replevin in its dispute with Angstrom Automotive (Case No. 6:26-cv-00477).
The order authorizes… https://t.co/E1DKcQSxMn pic.twitter.com/LR8aAiV2Og
— S.E. Robinson, Jr. (@SERobinsonJr) August 5, 2026
The restraining order gives Tesla immediate right of entry to Angstrom’s facility to recover the tooling. It is temporary, with a fuller hearing still to come, but the speed of Wednesday’s rebound suggests the Angstrom shortage was indeed the main bottleneck limiting Cybertruck output. Outbound lot counts are an imperfect measure of actual production, since finished trucks can sit for days before shipping, but a lot that full after a lean stretch is a meaningful signal.
Cybertruck output at Giga Texas has fluctuated all year as Tesla worked through supply issues and introduced new trims, including a cheaper Dual Motor AWD version that drew strong early demand.
Elon Musk
Space finally faced the people living next to its next Terafab mega-project
SpaceX confirmed Terafab’s Grimes County site is locked in, with construction starting within months.
SpaceX and Terafab representatives sat across from Grimes County residents for the first time on Wednesday, telling a packed Commissioners Court room that the $55 billion chip manufacturing project is now a done deal at the Gibbons Creek Reservoir site.
The meeting followed a $10 million check SpaceX sent the county earlier this week, satisfying a payment deadline built into the tax abatement agreement both sides signed in June. Elon Musk shared a post on X confirming the payment, and County Judge Joe Fauth told the San Antonio Express-News his office deposited the check after it beat its deadline.
Wednesday’s session, first reported by KBTX, moved the project from paperwork to construction. Terafab representative Riley Trennell told residents the JETI tax break agreements with Iola ISD and Anderson-Shiro CISD are signed and active, and that civil work and foundation prep are starting almost immediately. Renderings of the facility could be released within days, he said, with construction beginning within months.
The foundations for an exciting future are being built in Texas. Next up: Terafab → https://t.co/jGg52Zhn5I pic.twitter.com/SNfSXNr2tb
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 6, 2026
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
Musk first announced Terafab in March as a joint venture between Tesla, SpaceX and xAI aimed at producing over a terawatt of AI compute annually, an amount that dwarfs the roughly 20 gigawatts the entire global chip industry produces today. Intel joined as a manufacturing partner in April. Musk has said the project needed its own day in the spotlight rather than being squeezed into an earnings call, and for months the Grimes County site remained unconfirmed even as reporting pointed there.
SpaceX attorney Buck Brannon used Wednesday’s meeting to note that the company’s abatement is roughly 78 percent, not the 100 percent some earlier reports suggested. In exchange, SpaceX will pay Grimes County a fixed $20 million a year for 35 years, a total of $710 million, which Brannon said exceeds the $14 million Tesla paid Travis County in 2025.
SpaceX also addressed environmental concerns that have followed the project since Musk’s Terafab partnership with Intel was announced. Representatives said Terafab will not raise electric bills for other ratepayers, will not deplete local water supplies and will not draw down the Navasota River. SpaceX confirmed it owns the Navasota River pumping station, which it plans to use to divert stormwater into the Gibbons Creek Reservoir, and said it will build its own natural gas plants to power the facility rather than pulling from the ERCOT grid.
Grimes County commissioners also approved an addendum letting county employees use ten approved AI chatbots for work, including Grok.
Elon Musk has declared that SpaceX has effectively solved one of Starship’s most persistent engineering challenges: the reliability of its heat shield tiles.
During the company’s first-ever Earnings Call, the SpaceX CEO stated:
“I don’t want to jinx it or anything, but I think I would call the heat shield problem solved at this point. All indications from data and visual inspection is we have solved it. That doesn’t mean we won’t make improvements, but we do not see any technical obstacles to achieving rapid reusability at this point.”
Starship’s heat shield consists of roughly 18,000 hexagonal ceramic tiles covering the windward side of the upper stage. These tiles form the thermal protection system that shields the vehicle’s stainless-steel structure from the extreme heat of atmospheric reentry.
Elon says he believes the heat shield problem with Starship is currently solved.
He called it “arguably the single biggest problem” pic.twitter.com/eEE9vM5zlz
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 4, 2026
During descent, atmospheric friction generates temperatures exceeding several thousand degrees Celsius and creates plasma flows capable of melting unprotected metal. The tiles absorb, radiate, and insulate against this energy, allowing the vehicle to survive and potentially fly again. Without a durable heat shield, full and rapid reusability, the cornerstone of Starship’s design for frequent launches, satellite deployments, and deep-space missions, would remain impossible.
The tiles have long been a source of difficulty. On earlier test flights, a significant number of tiles detached during ascent due to vibration, aerodynamic loads, and imperfect attachment methods using pins and adhesives. Gaps between tiles allowed hot plasma to infiltrate, causing secondary damage and hot spots on the underlying structure.
These issues echoed challenges faced by NASA’s Space Shuttle, whose ceramic tiles required extensive, labor-intensive inspections and replacements between missions, preventing rapid turnaround. SpaceX has iteratively improved materials, standardized tile shapes, refined attachment techniques, added secondary ablative layers, and tested sealing methods such as “crunch wrap” felt to close gaps.
Progress was visible across Flights 10–12, with steadily better tile retention, yet questions remained about whether the system could support the minimal-refurbishment goal of rapid reuse.
Flight 13 on July 24 provided the decisive evidence. Ship 40 flew a deliberately more demanding profile with higher dynamic pressure to stress the heat shield beyond typical operational loads. It successfully deployed 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites, the first such payload on a Starship mission, performed an in-space Raptor engine relight, and executed a controlled reentry.
Elon Musk sheds two new bits of detail on Starship after 13th test launch
Cameras on six of the satellites and onboard sensors captured extensive imagery and data of the shield throughout the flight. The ship then achieved its softest splashdown to date in the Indian Ocean, remaining intact and floating rather than breaking apart or exploding as on prior missions. This allowed drone inspections and continuous telemetry of the heat shield in near-real time.
Post-flight analysis showed the majority of tiles remaining attached with only minor damage and limited plasma streaking at seams. Musk noted that the mission delivered “all the heat shield data we needed and then some.” Combined with visual inspections, these results underpinned his subsequent assessment that the core technical barriers to rapid reusability have been cleared. While refinements will continue, Flight 13 marked a pivotal step toward Starship’s operational future.
Tesla Cybertruck production snaps back after ugly supplier fight
Space finally faced the people living next to its next Terafab mega-project
