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
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
