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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
