Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Slate was far more compelling when we still had the federal EV incentive. Now... you can get a far better equipped Ford Maverick hybrid just around $30k (maybe less with dealer discounts). Hard to see what the market is for the Slate.by woeirua
- There are people who want an EV and not a hybrid, like me.by DangitBobby
- >Hard to see what the market is for the Slate.
Well you quoted a hybrid, which needs fuel. At current local electric rates ($0.07/kw) I can fully charge my E-Transit (~68kwh usable in the battery) for $4.76. Then I can go around 130 miles before coming back home to charge.
Vastly cheaper than a gas van, but lets look at the Maverick which gets even better economy.
Most gas stations I drove by today were $3.15 to $3.39 for 87oct gas. Self reported fuel economy for the Hybrid Ford Maverick on a few sites maxes out around 37mpg combined.
That means for a Slate truck with the larger 84kwh battery you'll be spending $5.90 for a full at home charge in my area which will get you ~240 miles. While if you bought a Maverick you'll be getting around 70 miles for the same cost.
This is all before we even factor in maintenance differences.
EDIT// They dropped the 84kwh battery, but my point still stands.
by officeplant - It's at the second to last page where it says it's an EV. I didn't know and had to scroll down. Also there is no mention of range on one charge, which I think is a miss. The range (especially for an EV) must be on the landing page.
The modular design is cool though.
by dwa3592 - I dug in a bit. Slate has around 63Kwh battery capacity and a range of 205 miles. For pure metrics comparison - chevy bolt has similar battery capacity and a range of 260 miles and similar price range. So basically slate looked at the existing market and said we need a better looking chevy bolt even if it sacrifices range. I guess there will be a market for this.by dwa3592
- On the specs page is say "205 miles" estimated range for the blank slate/minimal version - which is not great
Very surprising it doesn't say the battery capacity anywhere and has no option for a bigger battery
by shawabawa3 - Good criticism. It looks like the car's EV tech is average at best; definitely not outstanding. That's probably why they don't advertise it strongly, and also probably a big factor in why it's so cheap.
They list some details on the Specs page[1]. They quote 200 miles of range, which is not great especially for a small car. They list a 20-80 charge time of 30 minutes so it's probably a 400V architecture, which is becoming outdated as 800V architectures and chargers exist now.
Seems like a fine about-town car, but probably not a great one for road trips. I think that probably aligns with the NVH[2] expectations you should have for a car of this price.
[1] https://www.slate.auto/en/specs
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise,_vibration,_and_harshnes...
by coldpie - Really excited to see this one step closer to release! My first car was a 1999 Mazda b2500 (a rebadged ford ranger). I’m sure I have a bit of nostalgia around it but I’ve missed the compact simplicity of that vehicle ever since. It had manual locks, crank windows, a manual transmission, and sat about 2.5 people. I distinctly remember in that truck that I could very comfortably lean over and crank down the passenger window without taking my eyes off of the road.
This feels much more like a spiritual successor to that truck than the actual new Ranger or Maverick. I’m really hoping this succeeds so that they’ll be around to replace our Dakota when it dies!
by gibspaulding - The b2500 was great. My buddy's dad had one and we would take it to go fishing. This and the 95 or so Ford F-150 are _the_ canonical trucks to me.by tbolt
- These things remind me of my dad's 90's ford ranger. I would love a small functional pickup. I don't need to drive a battle-tank around town. If all works out for these trucks, it's a top contender for my money in the near future.by x187463
- Loved that Ranger my father owned. Rolled it onto the driver's side, totalling it. Still have road rash on my left forearm from when the window broke mid-accident and my left arm dragged a touch.by RhysU
- I have a 91 Ranger Club Cab, 4.0L RWD sitting around waiting to get used again. The only reason I upgraded (2016 Tacoma) was because of how bad it was in the winter (Western Canada, lots of snow and ice). Couldn’t get good tires for it anymore (15” is so passé) and often got stuck on flat icy surfaces. If it had been 4WD I’d probably still be driving it every day.
I love the Tacoma for a lot of reasons, but that Ranger really had a lot going for it in the summer.
by tonyarkles - > my dad's 90's ford ranger
The only reason it takes an EV to get this is CAFE.
by jollyllama - Interested to see how this turns out. I'd like to see a size comparison. Is this actually a reasonably-sized vehicle, like a pre-2000 pickup, or just a cheap modern monster truck? Sadly it's not on carsized.com (yet).
If the company is still around 5 years from now, I could see myself getting one of these to replace our current "compact" (but still enormous) SUV.
by coldpie - https://www.slate.auto/en they have a size comparison if you scroll down about 3 pages.by fwipsy
- I wish the design was more function over form. Why is the grill so large? A lower front end would improve efficiency (and thus probably give another 10-20 miles of range), improve visibility, and kill fewer pedestrians.
I know why, the market is nostalgia and it wouldn't sell well if it looked more like a mini kenworth which has a hood that slopes down and in and less like a pickup truck.
That low range is going to turn off a bunch of buyers. I doubt another 10-20 miles of range would capture more buyers than a non-traditional shape would turn off. But I wish the market was that rational.
by bryanlarsen - They have a lowering kit, but it’s “coming soon” and it costs extraby chaostheory
- Yeah 200 miles is pretty much the low end of what I'd consider (and I assume that is an "absolute best case" number, e.g. unloaded at a constant speed on a flat road, not running AC or heat but IDK how those are actually computed).
300-350 miles would be a lot better. That would cover most of my trips (and allow for some payload) with a little bit to spare before I needed to stop to charge.
I guess the price isn't too bad. I still remember something like a Toyota or a Ford Ranger or Chevy S10 selling for under 10K new, but inflation and all... probably not terrible for a compact truck in 2026.
by SoftTalker - A lower hood would shrink the size of the frunk. Also, this isn't a tall vehicle by any means.by greedo
- Saw this on Jay Leno's youtube channel: https://youtu.be/L6_9_HHLOSY
Everything about modularity seems awesome, but you can see panel misalignment in several shots. Are the component tolerances really going to be that low?
by rib3ye - I believe all of these previews are using pre-production units. Production units should be better built with better tolerances since it becomes all factory done, but that's definitely something you'd have to wait and see when it actually begins shipping.
That said, given the price point and the new-ness of the manufacturer, there's all but certainly going to be fit & finish issues.
by kllrnohj - Many people will be pleased to have a vehicle with no communication, sensor, or surveillance systems.
It's hard to estimate how important that might be now that all other cars force them on everyone.
by dtagames - You must be very naive to think that this app that you would need for this vehicle won’t do all that.
- > a vehicle with no communication, sensor, or surveillance systems
Do we know that? The website seems silent on the topic, unless I've missed something.
by wiml - It's most likely will have comms. And it will make 0 difference for most people. Having your most expensive asset NOT have basic tracking is insanity. That said I'm all in for all of this to be easily disabled even tho I struggle to find a valid reason (in actual dictatorships you are fucked multiple ways anyway and in democratic ones you are about to do crime).by dzhiurgis
- It’s going to be very interesting. Has Slate identified an under-served market? Will they see mainstream success?
Or is this another iPhone Mini / Framework / sports wagon where a small, passionate minority ends up disappointed and angry that their priorities are not shared by the mainstream?
I sincerely hope for the former. We need lower-cost vehicles, I like diverse product offerings, and this is a purist’s take on a small truck. But then I like small phones, (the idea of) repairable laptops, and sports wagons.
by brookst - My favorite part about this vehicle is no stupid center console touch screen. Hopefully aftermarket dash kits for a DIN radio become available and we can put proper audio and control back into our vehicles and remove the tyrannical center console screens.by MisterTea
- I love that there are physical buttons for all of the car functions (fuck trying to adjust the temperature/audio/car settings on a touchscreen while driving) but I do feel like having an optional component for a large 1st party screen which sits in the dash with Android Auto/Apple CarPlay would be nice instead of only having the phone mount option.by zamadatix
- I love the lack of a center console touch screen precisely so I can add one I made myself with a raspberry pi and some cool shit from adafruitby mghackerlady
- I don’t care that it’s EV. I’m just stoked that they’re making an actually modular system like this. I don’t know why it’s not possible with other cars.by whycome