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

[cvollers]

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

The Scout Terra is body on frame with the bed integrated into the cab (I think). There is a vertical reveal in the bodywork that makes the bed look like it is separate.

 

[AZFox]

The De Dion in the Slate is a solid rear axle. But not a live rear axle in the sense that it drives the wheels.

I stand corrected. I saw"solid axle" as traditional solid axle.

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

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

FTFY 😀

 

[AZFox]

Note that the bed is integrated to the cab.

Picture angle could have been better for showing that.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

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

agree about the rating requirement, but I read it the other way around. How many watt-hours to go 1 mile? My Arcimoto (wierd electric 3-wheeler) is a bit over 200, so a KwH takes it about 4-miles-ish, half that at 80mph.

I think some smart folk can get a 4-wheel, 2-door sedan into that region, about 5 miles/kwH-ish
But not a truck, its 3 boxes with extra added drag! Take the same frame, put a slick body on there and it'll go twice the distance.

I dont buy a truck for efficiency, its all about utility, try putting a bale of hay and a half yard of horse manure in the back of your Bolt. It'll fit! but no-one will ever want to ride in it again!

BTW, a friend has an older leaf (2014), still runs fine, absolutely great little car, just needs more range. She keeps it super-clean, only "nasties" are her dogs. Not at all like my Tacoma which carries a world of !@#$ on its shoulders.

 

[zipn]

agree about the rating requirement, but I read it the other way around. How many watt-hours to go 1 mile? My Arcimoto (wierd electric 3-wheeler) is a bit over 200, so a KwH takes it about 4-miles-ish, half that at 80mph.

I think some smart folk can get a 4-wheel, 2-door sedan into that region, about 5 miles/kwH-ish
But not a truck, its 3 boxes with extra added drag! Take the same frame, put a slick body on there and it'll go twice the distance.

I dont buy a truck for efficiency, its all about utility, try putting a bale of hay and a half yard of horse manure in the back of your Bolt. It'll fit! but no-one will ever want to ride in it again!

BTW, a friend has an older leaf (2014), still runs fine, absolutely great little car, just needs more range. She keeps it super-clean, only "nasties" are her dogs. Not at all like my Tacoma which carries a world of !@#$ on its shoulders.

I prefer miles/kWh. The higher the number, the more efficient so it’s easier for the less informed to “get it”. 4.7 miles/kWh is greater(better) than 2.7 miles/kWh.

 

[Dorbiman]

I prefer miles/kWh. The higher the number, the more efficient so it’s easier for the less informed to “get it”. 4.7 miles/kWh is greater(better) than 2.7 miles/kWh.

It’s a good frame of reference for someone coming from an ICEV too. More MPG is more better.

 

[AZFox]

TL;DR: Miles-per-unit can be deceptive. Units-per-mile is inherently more intuitive.

Units-per-mile is more informative for comparison than -per-unit because it measures the amount of energy or resource used per mile, which provides a direct measure of efficiency. This allows for easier comparison between different vehicles or systems, as it shows how much energy is consumed over a specific distance. For example, miles-per-gallon (MPG) measures how far a vehicle can go on a gallon of fuel, while gallons-per-mile measures how much fuel is used to travel a mile. The latter provides a clearer picture of fuel efficiency and resource consumption.​

 

[RetiredOnPaper]

Ranting out loud! I find it interesting to re-read some of the older posts; what changes, what doesn't.
Range advertising; Always shows the range of a new battery. Does not account for what it will be in 3 years, 6 years, etc. Or at 32F, (0C). (After 7 years of EV driving, I don't even think about it.)
What will the Slate really do? We will not really have a clue until the full production model comes out. I am not as concerned about battery performance as I am about motor performance/efficiency/life.
But...I was concerned about battery access...until I said to myself "How much does it matter withj my current EV? Not at all. However, unless their is a serious pricing issue, I will go with the larger battery. I need to be able to go 100 miles (real mile, not range est.) in 90F or -10F and with a comfortable cab. And do it when the Slate is 8 years old.

 

[bloo]

Slate shhpoots itself in the foot by using a square front end. Other than added frunk space, the grille and horizontal hood is a fashion statemet at tge exoense of arerodynamics.

How about a sloped hood like a 90's SR5 ?

 

[AZFox]

Slate shhpoots itself in the foot by using a square front end. Other than added frunk space, the grille and horizontal hood is a fashion statemet at tge exoense of arerodynamics.

The Truck's form is deliberately designed to be familiar and timeless, knowingly at the expense of some aerodynamic efficiency.

That was a bold decision and, IMHO, an excellent one.

 

[Driven5]

Slate shoots itself in the foot by using a square front end. Other than added frunk space, the grille and horizontal hood is a fashion statement at the expense of aerodynamics.

They're not shooting anyone in the foot. They've done significant CFD on the design, and even used an SR5 as a point of comparison so they're well aware of it. Especially on the leading side, sloped does not inherently mean lower drag, and done right it's probably not a huge difference either way.

To make a substantial highway range improvement they could get rid of the blunt face, rake the windshield back, add an aero-cap over the rear, and reduce the frontal area. I mean, I'd still be in for a Slate that looked like this...

 

[danielt1263]

I'm wondering about the fundamental assumption of this whole post... They are saying 150 mile usable range. That could mean that the 150 miles is only 60% of the total kWh of the battery. How is the efficiency then?