It looks like SLATE has pathetic EV efficiency. (and a rant).

[zipn]

We recently sold our 23 Bolt EUV. The included battery is a lithium-ion battery with a capacity of 66 kWh rated 259 miles on a single charge. In real-word use around town we prob ably averaged about 4.2 miles/kWh.
66 * 4.2 = 277 miles possible range. FWIW We loved the EUV (daughter still has a BOLT EV), just wife no longer driving and I had an opportunity to sell it for damn near what I pair for it, thinking we'll replace it in a few years with another commuter EV to save to wear and tear on our new Maverick. Nothing wrong with the BOLT's efficiency, but the Slate...

The Slate's smaller battery is rated 52.7 kWh with an expected range of 150 miles. 150 miles / 52.7 ... That's the same as ~2.8 miles/kWh. That absolutely SUCKs. The larger battery pack is about the same @ 2.9 miles/kWh

My only explanation is that SLATE is maybe low-balling the number (or they are just crap at designing an EV). If the real efficiency of the EV is less than 3 miles/kWh, then that puts the SLATE towards hummer EV territory. You would think that the smaller, lighter battery and the plastic body panels with give the SLATE an efficiency boost and would be able to do at least as good, if not a bit better than a nearly 10-year old designed Chevy Bolt. Even weirder is the larger, heavier SLATE pack gets slightly better miles/kWh?

Honestly if the real world EV numbers aren't at least ~4 mile/kWh I'll probably get my $50 back and get a Kia EV / Hynudai EV. There's no excuse for a commuter EV designed in 2025 to get crappy EV Efficiency. WTF Slate?

/rant ON
ALL EVs should have a miles/kWh rating standard. The mpgE rating is confusing at best. In addition, the time to charge to 80% or 100% is absolute BS. The charge time to full is based on the SIZE of the battery! Bigger batteries take longer to charge. A better way of comparing charge time is to simply take the average power delivered (charges at 50KW, charges at 150kW... etc). The industry seems to like the smoke and mirrors approach in promoting vehicle specs and it ticks me off. Miles/kWh is the first thing I look at.
/rant OFF

 

[E90400K]

My observation of the EV market, which I have been following since the early 1990's with the introduction of GM's EV1, is the market really didn't take off until EV reached the 200 to 250 mile range and the MSRP was near $40K. Both the Bolt and Model 3 were planned to hit those metrics, the Bolt actually did at its release. The $40K target price starts to get near equivalency to ICEV when the range is limited to 250 miles, or gasoline needs to be over $7 a gallon. The Model S was the first EV to have over 250 miles of range, but it cost $75K back 12 years ago. Most all early sales were early adopters with the belief the EV was going to curtail some dystopian climate future.

Now we are into the rest of the market, the people who look at dollars and cents when it comes to vehicle purchases. You're right, efficiency needs to be over 4 mile/kWh for any EV being released in 2026. Hopefully the Slate can hit that target or get near it. Perhaps aerodynamics of the pickup truck just doesn't let levels of high efficiencies be reached, regardless of manufacturer(?). But the tradeoff here is the price; one trades a bit of efficiency for a low sales price is probably Slate's thought. IMO, batteries just make for a poor energy storage medium for vehicles, but the market is slowly being convinced (err. forced) to accept the paradigm.

My issue with EV fuel consumption ratings is the EPA fuel efficiency rating (i.e. testing) make no attempt to factor in how ambient temperatures affect the range and refueling time. There should be an equivalent rating system of the ICEV testing that determines a vehicle's highway and city fuel consumption and the average fuel consumption. EV should have summer and winter EPA ratings so the consumer can make an informed decision regarding his EV purchase. The Slate with a 150-mile range and 30-minute recharge to 80% on the small battery is a best-case rating at this point, which is going to really suck in the winter months for those people living in northern climes.

 

[cadblu]

zipn: the time to charge to 80% or 100% is absolute BS. The charge time to full is based on the SIZE of the battery!

Agreed; except that the BMS purposefully slows down the charge rate on any battery as you approach a full charge. From my experience when I first plug in my Tesla , the rate is blazingly high at 20% SOC. The rate drops significantly when the battery is 70% and above. I like that Slate uses the NACS charge connector that will connect to Tesla’s supercharger. But that will come with a subscription (sorry) if you want the Tesla rate.

 

[metroshot]

Um, has anyone seen a Bolt EV/EUV ?
It's a tiny version of my Mach E EV that also is a crossover.

Can't compare Bolt (crossover) to the $25K Slate (pickup truck)..

Slate battery pack combined (pickup truck) compared to a Bolt EUV (crossover) is not comparing apples to apples.

When I had the $70K Ford F150 Lightning EV (pickup truck) I was lucky to get 2 miles per kWh due to the design and drag.

Now I have a $50K Mach E (crossover) and it gets about 2.8 mi/kWh.

It's all about the design of the vehicle (induced & parasitic drag), weight, and purpose.

NCM batteries are the common denominator in all the above vehicles listed.

Once we get into more efficient batteries (Solid state or sodium) then I can see better battery efficiency.

In the meantime, putting mi/kWh is false and misleading as that number changes by the driver, weather, temperature, use of climate controls, acceleration, terrain, etc....

My efficiency drops from 2.8mi/kWh city driving to under 2.0mi/kWh when I drive over 75 MPH on the freeways.

 

[Shay]

2.7-3.0 miles per kWh is not out of line really. I have tested several EVs from the likes of Mercedes-Benz, Kia, Hyundai, VW and Ford that were in the same arena. The Chevrolet Bolt is one of the most efficient EVs out there. It has much smaller tires and is more aerodynamic. Also, this being a truck the programming on how it uses its power may be biased toward being able to have a payload and move it. A small car can be tuned to tap the battery with a lighter touch.

 

[raybythelake]

My observation of the EV market, which I have been following since the early 1990's with the introduction of GM's EV1, is the market really didn't take off until EV reached the 200 to 250 mile range and the MSRP was near $40K. Both the Bolt and Model 3 were planned to hit those metrics, the Bolt actually did at its release. The $40K target price starts to get near equivalency to ICEV when the range is limited to 250 miles, or gasoline needs to be over $7 a gallon. The Model S was the first EV to have over 250 miles of range, but it cost $75K back 12 years ago. Most all early sales were early adopters with the belief the EV was going to curtail some dystopian climate future.

Now we are into the rest of the market, the people who look at dollars and cents when it comes to vehicle purchases. You're right, efficiency needs to be over 4 mile/kWh for any EV being released in 2026. Hopefully the Slate can hit that target or get near it. Perhaps aerodynamics of the pickup truck just doesn't let levels of high efficiencies be reached, regardless of manufacturer(?). But the tradeoff here is the price; one trades a bit of efficiency for a low sales price is probably Slate's thought. IMO, batteries just make for a poor energy storage medium for vehicles, but the market is slowly being convinced (err. forced) to accept the paradigm.

My issue with EV fuel consumption ratings is the EPA fuel efficiency rating (i.e. testing) make no attempt to factor in how ambient temperatures affect the range and refueling time. There should be an equivalent rating system of the ICEV testing that determines a vehicle's highway and city fuel consumption and the average fuel consumption. EV should have summer and winter EPA ratings so the consumer can make an informed decision regarding his EV purchase. The Slate with a 150-mile range and 30-minute recharge to 80% on the small battery is a best-case rating at this point, which is going to really suck in the winter months for those people living in northern climes.

Very useful and insightful post! I strongly support your idea about the posting of a winter vs. summer range or efficiency number. Come to think of it, that notion applies equally well to ICE vehicles. In regards to the original post in this thread, I can contribute my 2018 BMW i3 efficiency number (based on slightly more than 2 years of ownership) as 4.8 miles/kWh. Summer efficiency hovers around 5.0 and winter about 4.5.

 

[zipn]

I think the slate and the bolt / Hyundai Kia’s, vws, are in fact direct competitors. They are entry level EVs best used as commuter cars. If you are commuting you may not NEED a pickup ( one or two seats is just fine).
If you really need a pickup with honest towing and load capacity… maybe AWD, the Slate isn’t for you.

The main appeal of the slate is the low cost and DIY simplicity… the short bed isn’t that relevant if your just shopping for an entry level EV… of course you can add $$$ for the suv options if you want.

 

[zipn]

If you are commuting at stop and go and lower speeds , the aerodynamics aren’t that relevant Slate should exceed 4 miles/ kWh overall.
Agreed standard efficiency loop should be used by all EVs with a mix of city and highway miles + ratings at say 90f and 20f to be more realistic.

 

[SlatePossible2028]

Im not "into" EVs (the Slate would be my first) but everything ive been seeing about this reminds me of the muscle cars of the 60s - post underwhelming numbers to cover your ass.

I wouldn't be surprised if the big battery is closer to 300 miles and they are just saying 250 to cover their ass for constantly partially loaded beds or mild tows

 

[zipn]

Fwiw out bolt euv weighed in at over 3,700 lbs, and the 4.2 was our average summer/ winter city/highway. the slate is specked at 3,600. It’s lighter and may get crap miles / kWH. No real excuse.

 

[Firstevexcited1]

We recently sold our 23 Bolt EUV. The included battery is a lithium-ion battery with a capacity of 66 kWh rated 259 miles on a single charge. In real-word use around town we prob ably averaged about 4.2 miles/kWh.
66 * 4.2 = 277 miles possible range. FWIW We loved the EUV (daughter still has a BOLT EV), just wife no longer driving and I had an opportunity to sell it for damn near what I pair for it, thinking we'll replace it in a few years with another commuter EV to save to wear and tear on our new Maverick. Nothing wrong with the BOLT's efficiency, but the Slate...

The Slate's smaller battery is rated 52.7 kWh with an expected range of 150 miles. 150 miles / 52.7 ... That's the same as ~2.8 miles/kWh. That absolutely SUCKs. The larger battery pack is about the same @ 2.9 miles/kWh

My only explanation is that SLATE is maybe low-balling the number (or they are just crap at designing an EV). If the real efficiency of the EV is less than 3 miles/kWh, then that puts the SLATE towards hummer EV territory. You would think that the smaller, lighter battery and the plastic body panels with give the SLATE an efficiency boost and would be able to do at least as good, if not a bit better than a nearly 10-year old designed Chevy Bolt. Even weirder is the larger, heavier SLATE pack gets slightly better miles/kWh?

Honestly if the real world EV numbers aren't at least ~4 mile/kWh I'll probably get my $50 back and get a Kia EV / Hynudai EV. There's no excuse for a commuter EV designed in 2025 to get crappy EV Efficiency. WTF Slate?

/rant ON
ALL EVs should have a miles/kWh rating standard. The mpgE rating is confusing at best. In addition, the time to charge to 80% or 100% is absolute BS. The charge time to full is based on the SIZE of the battery! Bigger batteries take longer to charge. A better way of comparing charge time is to simply take the average power delivered (charges at 50KW, charges at 150kW... etc). The industry seems to like the smoke and mirrors approach in promoting vehicle specs and it ticks me off. Miles/kWh is the first thing I look at.
/rant OFF

It's a brick,not a sleek rocket shape.Wind resistance plays a big part in that.

 

[zipn]

Im not "into" EVs (the Slate would be my first) but everything ive been seeing about this reminds me of the muscle cars of the 60s - post underwhelming numbers to cover your ass.

I wouldn't be surprised if the big battery is closer to 300 miles and they are just saying 250 to cover their ass for constantly partially loaded beds or mild tows

Maybe they’re trying to be the anti Tesla… under promise and over deliver, instead of the exact opposite.

 

[Sparkie]

Um, has anyone seen a Bolt EV/EUV ?
It's a tiny version of my Mach E EV that also is a crossover.

Can't compare Bolt (crossover) to the $25K Slate (pickup truck)..

Slate battery pack combined (pickup truck) compared to a Bolt EUV (crossover) is not comparing apples to apples.

When I had the $70K Ford F150 Lightning EV (pickup truck) I was lucky to get 2 miles per kWh due to the design and drag.

Now I have a $50K Mach E (crossover) and it gets about 2.8 mi/kWh.

It's all about the design of the vehicle (induced & parasitic drag), weight, and purpose.

NCM batteries are the common denominator in all the above vehicles listed.

Once we get into more efficient batteries (Solid state or sodium) then I can see better battery efficiency.

In the meantime, putting mi/kWh is false and misleading as that number changes by the driver, weather, temperature, use of climate controls, acceleration, terrain, etc....

My efficiency drops from 2.8mi/kWh city driving to under 2.0mi/kWh when I drive over 75 MPH on the freeways.

Thank you @metroshot .
I was going to remind OP (and others) that the Slate vs Bolt comparison was flawed, but you did it better than me.

Instead, let me derail this thread with a genuine problem.
The farmers in California need to improve their oranges. Here in New England, I can simply rinse my apple and immediately begin eating it. Oranges take too long to peel and you need both hands to eat them. If those California farmers don't quickly fix their orange design flaws, they're going be out of business and we'll only be eating apples.

 

[zipn]

It's a brick,not a sleek rocket shape.Wind resistance plays a big part in that.

Our maverick is a brick too. I see mid 30s on the highway and mid 40s around town. The slate doesn’t have to have a horrible aerodynamic design.

 

[Swinefuzz]

If those California farmers don't quickly fix their orange design flaws, they're going be out of business and we'll only be eating apples.

Yeah, I turned my back on oranges many years ago. I wuz like: all apples, all the time...
Until I discovered the grape and now I barely even remember what an apple tastes like.