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
Elon Musk
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
