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

[theonetruestripes]

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

The Slate is a smallish pickup truck, and like any pickup truck shaped vehicle it is about as aerodynamic as a...I was going to say brick, but pickup trucks are even less aerodynamic then that.

The bolt is a small subcompact, so small that it looks extremely off to the american car buying public, and it has everything smoothed to make it more aerodynamic. Which is why it hits 4 miles per kWh, as long as you keep the speed under 65 (go over that and some of the airflow forms vortexes behind it and wind drag eats the efficiency very very quickly).

I had a Bolt EV and it was very nice for what it was: a tiny econoshitbox piled on with gadgets and a quiet efficient electric motor.

There are multiple EV pickup trucks on the market right now and none get 4 miles per kWh. If you baby them just right they may break over 3 on occasion, but the are going to be about 2 as driven in the real world, less if you tow something.

Slate isn’t going to both pull off a miracle of getting 4 miles per kWh and also costing half or a third of what other EV pickups do. Lets be satisfied at the low starting cost and let it actually be an EV pickup and get it’s 2 miles per kWh.

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.

EV efficiency is less about weight and more about airflow.

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.

If you want to compare two EVs a miles per kWh is the right number to have.

If you want to compare a gas vehicle to an EV eMPG is more useful. At this point I would think it would be best to have both published.

Time to charge to 50%, 80% and 100% are not wildly useful numbers except that EVs do tend to have a charge curve that limits charging speed as you get closer to full. Most EVs drop off around 50%, Hyundai has a system that can hold full charge rates up to about 80% and I think Porche demo’ed one that went to 100%, but I don’t know if it is in a production EV.

Generally knowing where the charge rate drops off is useful in that the fastest long distance trip is start full, drive to the charger you can reach closest to 0%, charge until the charge curve slacks off if that can get you to another charger, lather rinse repeat. So most EVs you use the full range (ish) to get to the first charger of the day and the 50% mark for all the rest. A Hyundai will let you go to 80% in all the places other EVs are better off stopping at 50%. Effectively the Hyandai’s charge punches above it’s weight class for long distance trips because it charges fast up to 80% (and also given the right kind of fast chargers it charges really really really fast!).

Maybe the right thing to look at is “total charge time over a 2000 miles in a row trip”? Maybe? I mean that is a good head to head number, it is kind of crap for deciding what to buy. You really want to know that number for your actual trip lengths, and probably actual routes. So that isn’t going to be on a window sticker, it is too specific to each customer. Which makes the 2000 mile number more interesting in general, or run out at a few different standard distances, 200, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000? Something like that? Let the manufacturers stipulate whatever charging equipment they want, but make them specify it on the sticker (“assuming a 500A 800V DC charger” or whatever)

...maybe not really that worth thinking about since I don’t run the world, but...hey...

 

[Cats]

In addition, the time to charge to 80% or 100% is absolute BS.

I think the slate will say to 80 because NMC battery

 

[AZFox]

Or take the tailgate off and run a net instead.

It doesn't work the way you'd expect.

AI query:

Does lowering (opening) the tailgate of a pickup truck improve its coefficient of drag?​

Response:

Lowering the tailgate of a pickup truck generally increases the drag coefficient and reduces fuel efficiency. Studies and expert opinions consistently indicate that keeping the tailgate up improves aerodynamics by creating a "separated bubble" or "locked vortex flow" that helps reduce drag compared to having the tailgate down.​

 

[AZFox]

If you want to compare two EVs a miles per kWh is the right number to have.

Better yet: KWh per mile.

For some reason it's inverted in the USA. I think the rest of the world does it in Units Per Mile, which makes a lot more sense.

 

[dcgray2]

It doesn't work the way you'd expect.

AI query:

Does lowering (opening) the tailgate of a pickup truck improve its coefficient of drag?​

Response:

Lowering the tailgate of a pickup truck generally increases the drag coefficient and reduces fuel efficiency. Studies and expert opinions consistently indicate that keeping the tailgate up improves aerodynamics by creating a "separated bubble" or "locked vortex flow" that helps reduce drag compared to having the tailgate down.​

Nice to know! Thank you!

 

[metroshot]

It doesn't work the way you'd expect.

AI query:

Does lowering (opening) the tailgate of a pickup truck improve its coefficient of drag?​

Response:

Lowering the tailgate of a pickup truck generally increases the drag coefficient and reduces fuel efficiency. Studies and expert opinions consistently indicate that keeping the tailgate up improves aerodynamics by creating a "separated bubble" or "locked vortex flow" that helps reduce drag compared to having the tailgate down.​

Yah, they did those tests when the Ford Lightning EV truck came out.

They also found that adding a bed topper decreases range even though it may appear aerodynamic - the weight of the topper outweighed the aerodynamics.

The only thing that does help improve range is lowering the truck to sedan type height which negates the purpose of having a truck.

I still don't understand why people would buy a truck with normal height and lower it - why defeat the purpose of a truck (haul and tow). Maybe people are so vain ?

 

[AZFox]

They also found that adding a bed topper decreases range even though it may appear aerodynamic - the weight of the topper outweighed the aerodynamics.

I think you're referring to what's known as a "camper shell" in my neck of the woods -- as opposed to a bed cover / tonneau.

If so, it begs a question:
How does a tonneau cover affect aerodynamics?

 

[AZFox]

The only thing that does help improve range is lowering the truck to sedan type height which negates the purpose of having a truck.

I still don't understand why people would buy a truck with normal height and lower it - why defeat the purpose of a truck (haul and tow). Maybe people are so vain ?

Having owned an S-10 that was lowered, I can answer that.

TL;DR: Lowering a truck slightly doesn't negate the purpose completely, or even much at all. Even bed of an El Camino or Ranchero is still pretty useful.

I owned a 1989 S-10 that that had already been tastefully lowered before I bought it. That truck was one of the most complement-attracting vehicles I've owned, but the main reason for that was probably because I had it made into a convertible.

Like most city-dwelling pickup owners, I rarely hauled heavy loads unless I was hauling some heavy personal belongings during a move. Mostly I just used the bed for things like bicycles and various and sundry items from the Big Box Home Improvement Store.

Consider the Chevy El Camino and a Ford Ranchero. They're cars with beds, not trucks, but still purposeful.

Other than that, as far as the pros and cons of lowering go, there's a thread for that.

 

[cvollers]

Having owned an S-10 that was lowered, I can answer that.

TL;DR: Lowering a truck slightly doesn't negate the purpose completely, or even much at all. Even bed of an El Camino or Ranchero is still pretty useful.

I owned a 1989 S-10 that that had already been tastefully lowered before I bought it. That truck was one of the most complement-attracting vehicles I've owned, but the main reason for that was probably because I had it made into a convertible.

Like most city-dwelling pickup owners, I rarely hauled heavy loads unless I was hauling some heavy personal belongings during a move. Mostly I just used the bed for things like bicycles and various and sundry items from the Big Box Home Improvement Store.

Consider the Chevy El Camino and a Ford Ranchero. They're cars with beds, not trucks, but still purposeful.

Other than that, as far as the pros and cons of lowering go, there's a thread for that.

All unibody “trucks” are cars with beds. Ridgeline, Maverick, Santa Cruz. Even the R1T. I had a buddy in high school with an El Camino…man, that thing was fun. And not unibody.

 

[AZFox]

All unibody “trucks” are cars with beds. Ridgeline, Maverick, Santa Cruz. Even the R1T. I had a buddy in high school with an El Camino…man, that thing was fun.

There's a name for cars with beds (unibody or not): "Coupe Utility Vehicle"

The SUV Kits are CUV-to-SUV conversion kits.

 

[cvollers]

There's a name for cars with beds (unibody or not): "Coupe Utility Vehicle"

The SUV Kits are CUV-to-SUV conversion kits.

This definition of what a truck is is interesting. Does it have to be body on frame to be a truck? Does it need to have a solid rear axle to be a truck? Does it need a pickup bed to be a truck? My FJ has two of the three and I still don't call it a truck. Its a SUV...and definitely not a "car". The Slate has two of the three and to me seems more like a truck. Being able to convert it into a SUV is absolutely brilliant.

 

[AZFox]

This definition of what a truck is is interesting.

Defining what constitutes "truckness" may be above my pay grade.

Does it have to be body on frame to be a truck?

Not to me it doesn't, but it helps.​

Does it need to have a solid rear axle to be a truck?

Definitely not. If so, the Slate Truck isn't a truck.​

Does it need a pickup bed to be a truck?

Flatbeds and box trucks are trucks, so no.​

Is an 80's K-5 Blazer a truck? It could be argued either way.​

 

[AZFox]

All unibody “trucks” are cars with beds.

There's a name for cars with beds (unibody or not): "Coupe Utility Vehicle"

On second thought I suppose "unibody" has multiple meanings. I'm not sure what @cvollers has in mind. Behold the 1961 Ford F-100 Unibody Pickup:

View attachment 38143
^^ Looks like a truck to me.

AI Query:

If a motor vehicle is "unibody" what does that mean?​

Response:

A "unibody" vehicle means that the body and frame are constructed as a single piece, providing a more rigid structure that supports the vehicle's weight and holds the suspension and wheels. This design typically results in lighter vehicles that are more fuel-efficient and safer in collisions due to integrated crumple zones.​

AI Query:

What is a "coupe utility vehicle"?​

Response:

A coupé utility vehicle, often called a "ute," is a type of vehicle that combines a passenger compartment at the front with an integrated cargo tray at the rear. This design originated in Australia in the 1930s and is distinct from traditional pickup trucks, as the cargo area is part of the vehicle's overall body structure.​

These vehicles typically feature a closed passenger cabin and an open cargo area, making them versatile for various uses. Over the years, several manufacturers have produced coupe utilities, including the Chevrolet El Camino and Ford Ranchero in the United States. [...]​

 

[GaRailroader]

On second thought I suppose "unibody" has multiple meanings. I'm not sure what @cvollers has in mind. Behold the 1961 Ford F-100 Unibody Pickup:

View attachment 38143
^^ Looks like a truck to me.

AI Query:

If a motor vehicle is "unibody" what does that mean?​

Response:

A "unibody" vehicle means that the body and frame are constructed as a single piece, providing a more rigid structure that supports the vehicle's weight and holds the suspension and wheels. This design typically results in lighter vehicles that are more fuel-efficient and safer in collisions due to integrated crumple zones.​

AI Query:

What is a "coupe utility vehicle"?​

Response:

A coupé utility vehicle, often called a "ute," is a type of vehicle that combines a passenger compartment at the front with an integrated cargo tray at the rear. This design originated in Australia in the 1930s and is distinct from traditional pickup trucks, as the cargo area is part of the vehicle's overall body structure.​

These vehicles typically feature a closed passenger cabin and an open cargo area, making them versatile for various uses. Over the years, several manufacturers have produced coupe utilities, including the Chevrolet El Camino and Ford Ranchero in the United States. [...]​

Note that the bed is integrated to the cab. In a frame truck the bed is attached to the frame and then there is about an inch gap between the bed and the cab which is also attached to the frame.

PJ

 

[Saint Alban]

Having owned an S-10 that was lowered, I can answer that.

TL;DR: Lowering a truck slightly doesn't negate the purpose completely, or even much at all. Even bed of an El Camino or Ranchero is still pretty useful.

I owned a 1989 S-10 that that had already been tastefully lowered before I bought it. That truck was one of the most complement-attracting vehicles I've owned, but the main reason for that was probably because I had it made into a convertible.

Like most city-dwelling pickup owners, I rarely hauled heavy loads unless I was hauling some heavy personal belongings during a move. Mostly I just used the bed for things like bicycles and various and sundry items from the Big Box Home Improvement Store.

Consider the Chevy El Camino and a Ford Ranchero. They're cars with beds, not trucks, but still purposeful.

Other than that, as far as the pros and cons of lowering go, there's a thread for that.

Same 😁