Petrochemical fuels afford a near unbeatable energy/volume and energy/mass density. The best theoretical battery might attain 1/10th this, practical batteries are nearer 1/100th, if that. A ~100 kWh battery holds the equivalent of 2 gallons / 8 litres of petrol or diesel.
Electrics have advantages of vastly more efficient potential-to-kinetic energy conversion (90%= rather than 30% for an ICE), a more efficient drivetrain (often in-wheel motors), and regenerative braking. Air and tyre drag are equivalent for both domains.
Capacity, energy management, and recharge access are all there is.
Two-order-of-magnitude improvements in any non-informational domain are both very hard-won and utterly transformational. Commercial passenger aircraft are ~2 orders of magnitude faster than walking. A semi-trailer has ~2 orders of magnitude more cargo capacity than a man with a wheelbarrow.
Getting two orders of magnitude out of long-haul road-based heavy-cargo EVs is a very tall order. Mains-fed electric trainsets would be a far more likely technology, and are extant and commercially proven
As others noted, we’ve just started taking a serious interest in renovating rechargeable batteries for this use. Lots more can and will be done once the political will is there.
Diesel engines tend to be more efficient the larger they are, with marine engines hitting 50% in fixed speed applications.
Passenger cars net about 90 or so, for a high-efficiency vehicle, gross vehicular weight, at full capacity.
Assuming 140,000 lb GVWR and 7 mpg, I compute 490 ton-mpg. That's roughly equivalent to numbers given for rail ("move one ton of freight one mile on a gallon of fuel), and is likely high, though 100-250 ton-mpg seems likely.
This is not net cargo efficiency, where that rail number may come from. But gives a sense for numbers.
Will you grant double digit km range? Still two orders of magnitude lower than a fuel-based truck in commercial operation?
150 gallons * 7 mpg = 1,050 mi / 1,690 km.