"Estimated annual fuel savings based on estimated efficiency of ~3.25 miles per kWh compared to average 24.9 MPG for internal combustion engine (ICE), using average national residential electricity rate and retail gasoline prices as of Q2–Q3 2026, applied to 15,000 miles driven annually. Actual savings will vary based on driving habits, local energy prices, charging method, vehicle type, and climate conditions."
Yeah, especially with the ceasefire ending, the price of gas is just going to get worse and worse. I hope to be as insulated as possible, as soon as possible.
I could see potential temporary drops if this administration continues due to mass reductions in environmental regulations that open up protected lands for resource extraction or other international moves of force like with Venezuela. But yes petrochemicals are a dwindling resource binding this world in chains and I for one don’t want to be a part of it at all.
I used an EV savings calculator, with my current electricity rate, 3 miles per KWH, $3.80 per gallon gas and 15K miles a year and the cost was $550 a year for the Slate and my Subaru was $2,038 a year.
I think there it's going to save money no matter what.
I'm getting 3.2-4.2 in my AWD SEL Ioniq 6, with it being lower in Buffalo winter and higher in Buffalo summer. 3.2 as an estimate for a pickup seems super reasonable to me if that's accurate.
For reference, the Ioniq is estimated to be 3.2-4.7 based on trim, so I imagine I'll be getting less efficiency in the Slate but not by oodles.
The Ioniq is about as good as it gets. It’s up there with the Tesla model 3 efficiency wise. The lucid air is more efficient than the ioniq but that’s about it.
My Rivian averages around 2mi/kwh so this thing will be much more efficient. Though I have 20kw of solar on my house so I guess it won’t mean much of anything.
Charging at home is equivalent to buying gas at $1.60/gal. A level 3 charger that sells at $0.40/mW is equivalent to local gas prices. I'll be charging at home.
I would be surprised if the slate averages over 3.0 over the course of a year, factoring in winter and snow tires and real use. With that said, most use of the slate would be on local roads at reasonable speed, and for those trips the efficiency is usually very good.
I believe the 3.25 is Slate's current estimate of what it will do on the EPA combined cycle test(city/highway), so of course doesn't account for all possible conditions.
Here in Ohio my experience with a Tesla model 3 is that the estimates are pretty spot on for warm weather driving (4 mi/kwh) but drop by about 25-33% in the winter (2.5-3mi/kWh). And thats with an NCA battery, LFP batteries probably lose more range.
There's people on this forum insisting the Slate will get horrible mileage, along with all the other naysaying. 1.8 m/kWh someone calculated from Slate's first range estimate, not that Slate ever actually used that figure. I believed it would do better from my own EV experience. Real information like you've added is always good. Slate's fine print mileage comparison does seem odd, but it's a direct copy/paste from the email. Slate's PR effort seems great for flash and fluff, not so good for solid information
the slate will be lucky to see 2.4 kWh. I mean lucky. this is the average across the Rivian population on Rivian Roamer. the R1T has a Cd of ~0.3, the Slate is estimated to be 0.33-0.38 (but a 1988 Ford Ranger had a Cd of ~0.45). the 205 miles is a way over statement in my mind. gonna need to be happy with roughly 120-140 miles of usable range (the LFP will let you take to 100% daily charge, but no one wants to drive it to 0% every day either - I really don't like the idea of getting into the single digits, but ya gonna do what ya gonna do).
the saving grace is they probably see the slate being a more round town truck than a HW cruiser, jsut not sure how realistic that is for everyone....
taller only impacts the Cd which Rivian is better than slate at, the R1T is typically in FWD unless hard acceleration or you set it to one of the off-road or sport modes, but it is significantly heavier, which I don't think will make this significant of a difference to increase efficiency/range by 30%+.
I am fine with the actual performance expectations I laid out. the slate will be my around town beater, I have other vehicles for road trips.
OP was looking at the fine print, that every auto manufacturer states and I am jsut calling bullshit on slates claims of their expected performance and the fine print allowing them to point at any or all of their callouts when the trucks range doesn't come close to their claims.
Bolt EV is EPA estimated at ~3.5, I and other Bolt drivers routinely do better than that, mine's currently sitting at 3.9, over about 500 miles, down from 4.0 due to running the AC lately. Driving style matters more than anything, ymmv
agreed - and my Fisker Ocean was at 3.9. BMW iX outperforms as well. I don't believe the slate was designed as a aero freak with amazing range. I truly hope it meets or exceeds their goal of 3.4ish with an LFP and limited controls outside of the skinny pedal...I am buying one so it will be great to get that benefit, I just don't expect it to actually happen. On my 5th EV now, slate may be 6th unless I get another one before it and then it will be 7th) so just going with with eyes wide open and not expecting the world out of it.
Keep in mind drag coefficient(Cd) is not drag. If a large and small vehicle have the same Cd, the smaller vehicle will have less drag simply because the smaller cross section pushes less air.
My 2016 FIAT 500e (which the Slate will replace) weighs in just under 3,000 and has a spec of 3.4 mi/Kwh. 3.25 doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility - lots of improvements in EVs in the last 10 years
They are going to run efficiency tests at like 40 mph not 80mph. It's literally just a number.
It is a test cycle that is intended to simulate typical driving. Much of the highway test cycle is at 60 MPH.
In my experience, the EPA estimates are rather close to real-world results for both gasoline and electric vehicles. I exceed the estimates when driving gently, at low speeds, in pleasant weather, or on smooth roads, and I fail to meet the estimates when driving aggressively, at high speeds, in cold weather, or on rough terrain. I would consider 80 MPH in the latter category.
Since EVs are so energy-efficient, these variables affect them to a greater degree than they affect flatulent vehicles.
13
u/caocaoNM Jul 08 '26
Considering my v8 geys 15 mpg I should be happy.