2024 Tesla Cybertruck Foundation Series All Wheel Drive ~ Available Now! on 2040-cars
Camarillo, California, United States
Body Type:Pickup Truck
For Sale By:Dealer
Transmission:Automatic
Engine:Electric 600hp
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 7G2CEHEEXRA017091
Mileage: 200
Model: Cybertruck
Make: Tesla
Number of Doors: 4
Exterior Color: Silver
Interior Color: Black
Drive Type: AWD
Trim: Foundation Series All Wheel Drive ~ AVAILABLE NOW!
Sub Model: Foundation Series All Wheel Drive ~ AVAILABLE NOW!
Transmission Description: 1-Speed Direct-Drive Automatic
Drivetrain: All Wheel Drive
Cab Type (For Trucks Only): Crew Cab
Tesla Cybertruck for Sale
2024 tesla cybertruck foundation series cyberbeast(US $155,000.00)
2024 tesla cybertruck cyberbeast(US $134,999.00)
2024 tesla cybertruck cyberbeast(US $124,444.44)
2024 tesla cybertruck foundation series all wheel drive(US $119,950.00)
2024 tesla cybertruck all-wheel drive foundation series! delivery miles!(US $149,800.00)
2024 tesla cybertruck cyberbeast(US $159,000.00)
Auto Services in California
Z Best Body & Paint ★★★★★
Woodman & Oxnard 76 ★★★★★
Windshield Repair Pro ★★★★★
Wholesale Tube Bending ★★★★★
Whitney Auto Service ★★★★★
Wheel Enhancement ★★★★★
Auto blog
Tesla strikes back against Lemon Law King over Model S dispute [UPDATE]
Thu, Apr 10 2014*UPDATE: We have now also received a statement from the Model S owner in question, which has been added below. When we asked Tesla Motors for a statement on the lawsuit filed by the "King of Lemon Laws" the other day, the company told us that it does not comment on pending litigation. Fair enough. That's a standard response. But the company has since felt the need to comment on the issue using its own company blog. In a post called "When Life Gives You Lemons...," the Tesla Motors Team called lawyer Vince Megna (indirectly) an "opportunistic lawyer" and basically called him a liar. To wit: "... there are factual inaccuracies in the lawyer's story." Tesla says that the three claimed incidents when the Model S owner in question asked the automaker to buy the car back did not happen (Tesla acknowledges it happening once). And then the company basically says the owner was breaking his car on purpose: ... the car's fuse blew on three occasions. Each time, our engineers explored all possible explanations and were never able to find anything wrong with the car. Still, just to be sure, we replaced several parts that could have been related to the alleged problem – all at no expense to the customer. When the fuse kept blowing despite the new parts, and faced with no diagnosis showing anything wrong with the car, the engineers were moved to consider the possibility that the fuse had been tampered with. After investigating, they determined that the car's front trunk had been opened immediately before the fuse failure on each of the three occasions. (The fuse is accessed through the front trunk.) Ultimately, Tesla service applied non-tamper tape to the fuse switch. From that point on, the fuse performed flawlessly. We've got the entire response below, along with Megna's response to Tesla's statement. The key line: "There are companies, great companies run by Billionaires, that force consumers to give up their Freedom of Speech and Right to Trial by Jury just for the opportunity to buy an electric car." You can watch Megna's original video introducing the world to this case here. When Life Gives You Lemons... By The Tesla Motors Team April 9, 2014 We were taken by surprise by a lemon law claim recently filed against Tesla by a Wisconsin lawyer, describing himself as the "Lemon Law King", who says that we ignored his client's three demands for a buy-back after alleged problems with a Model S.
Recharge Wrap-up: Child Tesla driver hits baby in Chinese mall, Ram adds new CNG offering
Mon, Mar 9 2015A five-year-old child in a China shopping mall started a Tesla Model S at a display and hit a baby in a stroller. The baby fell out of the stroller and was unhurt, according to the report. A reporter from a local newspaper arrived at the scene to find the other Model S on display still powered on, this one with another child in the driver's seat. The cars had wooden blocks under the brake pedals and stickers warning the public not to touch the touchscreen. Police have opened an investigation into the incident. Read more and see all the photos at Car News China. Ram will add a new compressed natural gas pickup truck to its lineup. The new offering, which is smaller and less expensive than the current CNG pickup (pictured), will be available as a regular cab two-door with two-wheel drive and a long bed. Ram has sold 1,000 of the current 2500 CNG four-door 4x4 offering since going on sale in 2012. Ram believes the new offering will expand sales to fleet operators looking for a less-expensive truck. Read more at Automotive News. New methods of harvesting energy are being explored for automobiles. By now we're all familiar with regenerative braking, but thermoelectric harvesting from the motor, range extender or possibly even the exhaust could come to cars soon. Energy harvesting shock absorbers and exhaust turbines are also viable. Wind turbines could generate electricity while the car is parked, and piezoelectric energy harvesting could run minor electrical systems while the car is in motion. Enough energy harvesting could allow cars to use much smaller engines, and could extend the range of electric vehicles. Read more at Energy Harvesting Journal.
FTC staff comes out in favor of Tesla, direct vehicle sales
Mon, May 19 2014On the subject of Tesla Motors and its efforts to legally sell its electric vehicles directly to consumers without franchised dealerships, the FTC has taken aim at Missouri and New Jersey. The Commission hasn't made any nationwide decision on the subject quite yet, but in a May 16 statement it encouraged the two states to reconsider policies that would further prohibit automakers from selling directly to consumers. And the FTC didn't mince words, calling such laws an example of "protection that is likely harming both competition and consumers." This is much further than the FTC has ever gone before in support of direct vehicle sales. FTC didn't mince words, saying such laws were "likely harming both competition and consumers." The statement follows an April blog post from three FTC officials, who wrote that the anti-direct sales mandates were "protectionist" and "bad policy." Tesla has been doing battle with a number of states as well as lobbying efforts from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which represents 16,000 new car and truck dealerships representing about 32,000 domestic and international franchises. The NADA has been supporting dealers who oppose Tesla's direct sales for years. In fact, Jonathan Collegio, vice president of public affairs for the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), maintained that the states need to retain the right to regulate the automobile sales distribution channel. "These arguments ignore the fact that fierce competition between local dealers drives down prices both within and across brands. When three Ford dealers compete for the same customer, the customer wins, period," Collegio wrote in an e-mail to AutoblogGreen. "Finally, it's a major fallacy to compare buying cars with buying other goods, like books or computers. New cars are major purchases that require licensing, insurance, complex financing involving trade-ins, contain hazardous materials, and if operated incorrectly can cause serious bodily injury." Tesla representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from AutoblogGreen. New Jersey and Missouri have both been in the news lately. Garden State politicos have created a bit of a grey area, first voting in mid-March to stop Tesla stores from selling cars starting April 1, then extending the deadline to April 15.