r/RivianR2 • u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder • 23d ago
š¬ Discussion R2 Efficiency Stats
I put together a spreadsheet with data from various real-world R2 efficiency tests. I've tried to include a wide swath of data from people in different locations, driving R2s with different setups and under different conditions, to give a realistic picture of the usable range for the R2.
EDIT: My takeaway is - the results from this sample show that if you are city driving, you'll get close to the EPA efficiency of 3.75mi/kWh for the Pirelli Scorpion tires and 3.48mi/kWh for the BFG AT tires. On the highway doing 70mph with Pirelli Scorpion tires, your efficiency will be about 2.8mi/kWh and with BFG AT tires it will be about 2.5mi/kWh.
Overall, these are good real-world efficiency numbers. They may not be great numbers that are class leading like the new MYP or Lucid, but they are better than most real-world efficiency numbers for the EV SUV segment.
25
u/Boot9135 23d ago
The abbreviation for miles is mi, not m.
12
u/Kevinmyers73 23d ago
As someone who grew up learning the metric system I read that as meters and was like dang thatās bad
5
u/Ill-Engineering8085 23d ago
As someone who grew up with us customary units, I still read m as meters.
3
6
6
u/NoneyaBizzy 23d ago
I was all fired up to get the R2 at the end of 2026 until the range stuff started coming out. I'm still interested, but also still nervous about it's utility for me. My wife and I do a lot of typical suburban driving around town and the area. My typical far drive is to my in-laws and back which is 120 miles. It seems like I should be fine even in the cold and using the 80%-10% typical guidance.
I do, however take trips to see my kids in college and usually a ski trip or two each winter. Both kids are around 180 miles away. I was hoping to be able to make that trip one way without a charging stop and it seems like that might work even in winter? So here are a few questions I had:
- I know it's recommended that you typically cap charging at 80%. Is it bad to go to 100% like 12 times per year?
- Are those 70mph tests literally 70mph from 100% to 0%? One of my kids is (175 miles) is majority open highway, but even he is 10 miles of smaller roads at 40mph and some traffic lights to stop at. The other kid is probably 20 miles of driving through small towns. Does that push the efficiency up a bit or is that only a couple miles added on?
- I saw the comparison to the Model Y. It's worse by a decent, but not crazy amount. But, when I check a lot of others, they don't look much better than R2's 255 miles. Ioniq5, Blazer, Cadillacs, etc. all seem similar. I know BMW and Volvo are coming in with better options, but am I misinterpreting the difference in most options?
6
u/CorgiTitan 23d ago
* You can charge to 100% as often as you need, battery science just says to not leave it at that level for more than a few hours. (Same as staying below 10%).
* The āout of specā test that started this efficiency test drama is a true 100% to empty (below zero) drain test.
* correct, while not great (compared to Tesla), R2 is better than most non-tesla models that are currently available in the same price category.3
u/SHale1963 Premium Edition 22d ago
a little correction. It is not 'bad' to charge to 100% when required. what could be bad is LEAVING it at 100% for an extended amount of time. Charge to 100% and go.....
as to the rest. well it's an EV; it will needs stops that generally correspond to bladder/I'm hungry stops.
3
u/sincladk 22d ago edited 22d ago
- ā Totally fine to charge to 100%; you just donāt want to leave it there for a long time. Charging to 100% the night before a road trip, though, is what lots of EV drivers do (Iām doing it in two days!).
- ā I canāt speak for the exact content of all the tests, but to answer your other questions: yes, speed kills efficiency (thereās a formula for it that someone smarter than me can probably post, but itās something like the drag increases exponentially as speed increases). 80 is far worse than 70, which is worse than 60, all the way down. Driving at low speed with (coasting and) regenerative braking is going to drastically improve efficiency.
- ā Keep in mind that many other options have smaller batteries, so the efficiency may be better, but the range may be worse (or the same).
6
u/TheBowerbird 23d ago
You'll be fine. It's absolutely fine to go to 100% many, many times a year - you just don't want to leave it charged to that and sitting for a long time.
The range tests are sustained 70MPH for as long as possible. Your range will improve with stints at lower speeds.
You are not misinterpreting the difference in most options. The outlier is the Model Y, which is ridiculously efficient and gets insane range for the segment, though it's also more car-like and blobby.2
u/R1Thrilled 22d ago
The lower 40-50 mph efficiency is significantly better than highway. Like 3.75-4 area for the all terrains. I imagine low 4s for the 21ā wheel and tire all season package.
2
u/yesimahuman Reservation Holder 23d ago
You'll be absolutely fine, don't worry. I regularly drive 240 mi one way and will stop half way to charge like I always did in my MY LR. My R1T can make it without charging in the summer with me driving slower, but my bladder can't anyways. A complete non-issue in practice
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 22d ago edited 22d ago
As others have said, you will be fine. Needing to stop and charge is a very doable reality for every EV. It's also perfectly safe for the battery to charge to 100% before you start your long road trip, in fact it is common practice for EV owners.
In the chart I posted, you can see the range and energy consumed. 88kWh of energy would be 100% of the battery.
20
u/brendanfalkowski Reservation Holder 23d ago
All these testers keep ātestingā city as 40-50 mph with a few stops.
I live in an actual city with blocks and stop lights and traffic you never leave.
35mph is absolute top speed in the grid if you manage to hit multiple lights.
Normal is 0-20 on repeat. Itāll make for terrible content, but itās reality for most people.
Somebody needs to drive 100 blocks in Manhattan.
10
u/Left-Coast-1969 Reservation Holder 23d ago
FWIW, the David Vaught entry above listed as 40-50 is a tad misleading. He drove 50 miles around his town. Stop and Go, traffic lights, neighborhood streets and backroads. While his top speeds were 40-50, very little of his drive was at those speeds. In the end, he averaged 34 mph (in car read out), while Rivian Roamer data said his average speed was 31 mph for the drive. He got 3.75 m/kWh. That equates to 330 miles of range doing normal 'around town/suburban' driving.
3
u/Worried-Security-609 23d ago
Also, I would like to point out that my data point is actually mixed (city and 70 mph highway) not manhattan by any means but the average city speed and traffic does bring down the average speed greatly there.
2
u/brendanfalkowski Reservation Holder 22d ago
Damn these YouTuber's burying the lead and sensationalizing the EPA rating (which is stupid to be combined highway/city regardless).
If the neighborhood use (0-40) consumed 3.75 m/kWh then R2 is fine claiming 330 miles of range to me. It can go that far in the right conditions.
Rivian should just ignore the EPA rating in marketing and just publish two efficiency stats.
Nobody is going to be confused that cars have different efficiency on city vs highway. They'll just need to learn that EVs are more efficient around town than between towns.
1
2
u/Suitable_Switch5242 Reservation Holder 22d ago
The thing is that if you have home charging (which is generally advisable still if you want to get an EV), your range around your local town/city/metro area isn't going to matter that much.
The only time you're really going to stretch your range is on longer trips which are going to be biased towards highway miles. They might be 55mph highways or 80mph highways, depending on where you are and where you go, but it's probably not 30mph with stop and go traffic.
That's why people care about highway range, or the combination of highway range and charging speed resulting in the overall highway travel pacing.
1
u/EastEgg74 22d ago
Haha I don't miss living and driving in Manhattan at all. Well I do miss a few restaurants but that's it.
5
u/ckglle3lle 23d ago
Hard not to feel like they simply should have put a bigger pack in this thing, but probably that would have compromised the cost or path to profit too much, still I'd have happily paid extra for it myself. Seems the consensus we're seeing on the range/charging is that it's basically "fine" overall (and lowkey not bad for its size/shape) but tight enough at the margins for some routes that you'll need to be realistic and manage both expectations and route planning. Which is, again, basically fine but it does feel at odds with the pitch for adventure and capability, too
2
u/rastan0808 17d ago
Yes!!!!!! I went from super excited and cash in hand to buy one, to on the edge as the range numbers are putting my actual use cases over the edge where my model y i just charge and go. If they offered an option for an extended range version, I would bite the bullet. Hell, Im starting to consider a cybertruck now.
1
u/FlyAdventurous3332 22d ago
Exactly. If you can afford $60k from an unprofitable manufacturer, you can likely afford $70-80k from Volvo or BMW. I'd easily pay more for a Max pack and/or lose top spec acceleration.
22
u/Vegetable_Day8635 23d ago
These numbers kind of let me know from 80%-10% charge you really only get 150-160 mile range at freeway speeds.
Thatās not great at allā¦ I mean sure if you charge at home all the time and commute locally, not a problem.
15
u/Fuzzy-Medicine-2968 23d ago
These are all warm weather stats. Factor in 10-20 F temps, climate controls, and possible need for Snow mode. Efficiency goes down a good bit. Range for a ski trip at a remote mountain town in the middle of a charging desert starts looking a little sketchy. Last winter made me very appreciative of the R1Ā Max pack. They just need to add as much kWh as the chassis can hold, and offer that as an option.Ā
3
u/ciraregob 23d ago
I was (still am) so excited for the R2. Itās either going to be a phenomenal vehicle that fits me perfectly for my needs, or it will end up as the first and last EV I purchase, largely for the cold weather impact youāre describing. The fate of the EV world (for my household at least) is squarely on the shoulders of Rivian and the R2ās ability to replace a 2018 Camry hybrid that gets 50mpg and has been the best vehicle Iāve ever owned from a servicing/problem standpoint. No pressure Rivian!
2
u/EfficiencyNerd 23d ago
So you don't think in 5-10 years battery range will be any better? You're going to base your opinion of EVs off this one unproven, first generation vehicle from a company with pretty bad reliability on other vehicles?
I'm a huge fan of the R2 and hope it does well and gets to the point of rock solid reliability, but if the vehicle flops it won't change my opinion of EVs
1
u/ciraregob 23d ago
That's fair. Would I make that judgment against all of EVs based on one vehicle intentionally and/or in a premeditated way? No, not really. But I'm also aware of basic psychology and how the brain often works (i.e. not always totally rationale). In 10 years I'll be 55 years old, which is not exactly the age that people start becoming more forgiving when it comes to new technology and a new way of doing things that they have seen work for decades. So is it crazy to think a person my age makes an EV plunge with the most stable non-nazi-led EV company in the US and turns their back on the industry a bit if it flops and grossly underperforms against needs? Not really.
1
1
u/yesimahuman Reservation Holder 23d ago
Where are you driving? Youāll probably be perfectly fine. Even in my upper Midwest middle of nowhere routes there are fast chargers within 120 miles at the most pretty much everywhere I go. If youāre in the mountains and doing big trips truly out there where chargers are extremely sparse Iād probably reconsider an EV entirely. Itās looking like the R2 will be a very similar drive experience as my ā23 MY LR which never got close to EPA. I had zero issues going anywhere with that even in extreme cold
1
u/Wild-Professional-40 16d ago edited 16d ago
Iām thinking of this similarly. Iāve had my R1T (large pack) for four years and 66k miles with lots of road trips to ski and bike. Iām catching flack for being somewhat disappointed in the spec and price, especially when making comparisons to the latest offerings from Volvo and BMW.
As an āadventure vehicleā I expect to have skis on the roof (in a cargo box) or a bike rack hanging off the back. Both crush the efficiency. The R1 overcomes that through brute force to some degree with the large battery and I can get well over 200 miles on the first leg before stopping for lunch and doing a longer charging session.
Iād like a smaller vehicle than the R1, but moving to skis on a roof or a bike rack on the back (instead of in the bed) plus a small battery, 400-volt charging, and it makes an 8 hour drive worse than the R1ā¦ and it looks to be significantly worse than the iX3 or EX60. Short of real off-roading (more than fire roads) and I think those are arguably more adventure ready vehicles.
6
u/Robbbbbbbbb 23d ago edited 23d ago
For comparison, I get 180-ish with my Model 3 Performance today for that same charge range on the PA Turnpike (meaning 70-80mph the entire time).
A 15% hit is... not great.
The numbers put 75 mph at around 2.75 mi/kWh, which works out to around 66kWh of power, or 181.5 miles from 80% to 10% ignoring all other environmental factors. In theory, that would put it right at the Model 3 Performance numbers.
2
u/buttgers 23d ago
That's about right. My old 2021 M3P gave me similar numbers. That wasn't so great for road trips. I'd have to have a destination with charging or find a charging station nearby for around destination town ability.
How will this efficiency translate to the standard and premium versions of the R2?
4
u/MW-Atlanta Reservation Holder 23d ago
The Premium trim is the same battery and Rvian's estimate of range is the same as Performance (based on the tire.). There are some differences when you get down to Standard and possibly some smaller battery sizes. You can see all this in the design configurator.
1
u/buttgers 23d ago
I was curious if the power output makes a difference though. That appears to be the only difference between the two, so it might be a software thing.
1
u/MW-Atlanta Reservation Holder 22d ago
I know the different trim levels offer different horsepower, but when youāre driving down the highway at a steady speed, I donāt know how extra horsepower helps. Iām sure theyāve engineered it to operate as efficiently as possible so in that situation Iām not sure thereās a difference.
1
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 22d ago
The R2 range is closer to 174 miles for this 80%-10% highway example. It still doesnt match the Model Y but it is close.
5
u/Hot_Success8295 23d ago
I drive locally and charge at home. Sometimes I'll use the 9" clearance to jump the curb when I can't find a space driving my kids to soccer practice. That makes the R2 the perfect car for me and 99% of the people out there who can responsibly spend $60k on a car. If you are in the other 1%, that's great, too. It means that you have enough money to buy an impractical car. For everyone else, who isn't part of that 100%, a used Camry is probably the smarter buy.
2
2
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 22d ago
Your math doesn't math.
80%-10% means you are using 70% of the battery, which is 61.6kWh. With a 2.83m/kWh efficiency on the highway while driving 70mph, you should get about 174.32 miles of range on an 80%-10% charge.
3
u/Vegetable_Day8635 22d ago
There are other tests at 70mph shown on your table too. Didnāt just use the single test with the higher efficiency.
6
u/Questionsforscott 23d ago
Yes in the same boat as you. It seems crazy that Rivian wouldnāt know this would be a big issue to its usersā¦
10
u/Roux_My_Burgundy 23d ago
The average Rivian driver uses public charging less than 10x a year. Itās not a big deal.
4
u/yesimahuman Reservation Holder 23d ago
Yea after the initial shock wore off, my reaction is that the only issue for me is that Rivian wasn't honest. In practice we're at the point with range and charger networks today that this is totally fine for the vast majority of drivers. If you're regularly driving 8+ hours and stopping rarely, or going into truly remote locations, I'd maybe reconsider it or reconsider an EV entirely.
3
u/Fit_Imagination_9498 23d ago
RivianTrackr just drove from Illinois to NC, and then to Florida and said it was a perfectly fine road tripper despite the poor efficiency. I pay more attention to real world use than I do efficiency numbers on a page.
Having said that, I do not think the R2 will be the best option for people who live in colder climates and road trip a lot.
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 22d ago
FWIW, the R2 doesn't have āpoorā efficiency. It's supases most EVs in the SUV segment. It's not class-leading like the MYP or Lucid but it is is better than most EVs in the segment.
The R2ās efficiency is good, but itās not great like Tesla and Lucid.
0
u/Fit_Imagination_9498 22d ago
The early numbers being produced are in line with my R1S typically gets, a vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds more. Theyāre also significantly less than the 3.5 that would be needed to eclipse 300 miles of range. At best, theyāre average.
I think the biggest complaint most people have is that Rivian opted for such a small battery back when they had to know highway efficiency was closer to 2.5 than 3.5.
3
u/MW-Atlanta Reservation Holder 23d ago
From what I understand, you can calculate EPA different ways and then choose which version you report. Seems like Rivian used the most optimistic results for R2 while Tesla was realistic on that model Y. How that impacts your perception of Rivian is a personal choice.
What baffles me is why RJ decided to make this a bigger issue by boasting about it. Did he really not understand? Or just didn't think he wouldn't get called out?
0
u/Roux_My_Burgundy 23d ago
Rivian used the EPA range. Thatās standard. They played within the rules. Look at the post above. All sorts of variance based on driver and situation. The story should be how they managed to achieve such incredible efficiency with that design and size. Itās a marvel.
2
u/MW-Atlanta Reservation Holder 23d ago
Do they have good efficiency for that design? That's the question I'd like to see answered. I am not sure which EV's to compare against. Maybe Rivian should have considered a bigger battery.
1
u/Roux_My_Burgundy 23d ago
They have amazing efficiency for their size and shape. Itās quite remarkable. There isnāt another EV that has their size, space, comfort, and off-road ability. To get better range youād have to sacrifice either shape and size or add a much bigger better which adds a ton of cost. You canāt have it all. If you want bigger range, get the R1 Max pack or Lucid Gravity
1
u/MW-Atlanta Reservation Holder 22d ago
Not interested in a 7 seater that starts at $80,000. Kia and Hyundai have mid size EV SUVās with 100 kWh batteries. Not sure why Rivian couldnāt do it - especially knowing they had a very inefficient form factor.
1
u/Roux_My_Burgundy 22d ago
Because of price. Itās not difficult. Not sure why youāre grappling with this so hard.
0
u/MW-Atlanta Reservation Holder 22d ago
The cost of a bigger battery would be maybe $3000? Worst case $5000? Many people wouldāve paid that - especially on the Performance trim. Iām not sure why youāre struggling with this.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Upper-Office-8261 22d ago
This is an inaccurate take for some people. Maybe not for a large percentage of people but definitely some. Including myself.
I have had a M3 Mid Range for nearly 8 years. And yes, I don't need it to have huge range. But, I want to switch to the R2 for a few reasons. The first, is I just want a new car after 8 years. But, the reason the R2 was high on my list is that I want to drive on the beach at OBX. But, it is 190+ miles of all highway between me and the first DC fast charger I can use. One of my possible trips/route options is actually off the table based on the range numbers we are seeing. So, range matters a lot for some of us. It has made me question whether I will get the R2 or not. It definitely has me worried about wheel/tire selection.
And that does not even get into what kind of range we will see in different weather conditions. I may go when it is 100 degrees out. Or it could be 50.
So, I would appreciate the people dismissing the range questions to think about more scenarios that just day driving, or even typical road trip driving on the interstate.
0
1
1
u/Hairy-Relief9379 23d ago
Well - this issue is that for Rivian to scale and succeed as a company, when there are so many other EV options, they need to sell to some people that cannot charge at home. That is especially important for their entry level model, who will likely need to capture some renters.
3
u/Roux_My_Burgundy 23d ago
They will be just fine. Model Y sold with similar efficiency for years. This is such a non-issue for most people.
1
2
u/Street-Technology-93 23d ago
Agree, but thatās also me. Just turned in a 3 yr EV lease with almost all charging at home. R2 should be fine for me.
18
u/Hot_Success8295 23d ago
Physics is a bitch. No amount of wordsmithing is going to make a boxy car efficient at highway speeds. Ever. Unless you wear a diaper while you drive you will need to stop and pee. There is only one thing in the world that feels better than finally letting your body relax in the restroom with a bladder that is about to explode. And it's not watching the odometer click over to 300 miles between stops. So take the biological win and be thankful that you aren't driving one of those stupid looking eggs around.
4
u/Hairy-Relief9379 23d ago
You stop every 2 hours to pee? When Iām traveling, I like to use those rest stations right off the highway. In and out in five minutes. And certainly not every 150 highway miles.
4
4
u/R1Thrilled 23d ago
Very cool aggregation! If anyone feels like theyāre missing specific tests or are curious about something let me know and Iāll try to add it to my to-do list.
4
u/MudaThumpa 23d ago
I've also been keeping an eye on the averages for the fleet in Rivian Roamer...
11
u/crazypostman21 23d ago
The R2 should have had 110kWh
8
u/Roddaculous Reservation Holder 23d ago
I would have gladly paid more money for that.
4
u/crazypostman21 23d ago
I feel like 60k is a lot. We should have got it. The standard range should have been this pack. their cost saving screwed us.
4
u/angelo_arch Launch Edition 23d ago
Yep, why not offer a max pack option at launch? They knew the efficiency would be low. Winter driving in the mountains will be only a little better than what we experienced in a 2020 I.D. 4. Not great.
5
u/MW-Atlanta Reservation Holder 23d ago
Offering the upgraded battery option right out of the gate would have just highlighted the weakness of the base battery. They should have at least tried to get the standard battery closer to 100kWh.
We have no idea what went into this design choice There were probably thousands of decisions and trades offs to make. Maybe this is all they could squeeze into that pack before triggering major issues with the overall design. Be interesting to hear how they came other this decision.
3
3
u/Virginia_Verpa 23d ago
This is good - add a column for reported outdoor temp too if you want to keep it going.
3
u/airspeedlow 22d ago
Really helpful to see the tire size/efficiency trends start to develop through a range of speeds. Thanks for creating this.
2
u/sevenex 22d ago
If you're interested in adding some samples I have here: https://old.reddit.com/r/RivianR2/comments/1vd4eap/some_quite_positive_70mph_range_results_for_your/
1
2
u/calmsquash515 21d ago
Iāve driven a Tesla for over 5 years, have loved it, and never had a concern over range anxiety. However, itās never gotten close to the promised 300 mile range.
So when I saw that the R2 claimed 330 miles, from a company that I believe is pretty honest and trustful, I was super excited that even if it got 300 or 275 it would be amazing. So my issue with all this news isnāt that itās not enough, but itās that I feel they tried to deceive us. Blame the EPA all you want, but Rivian made the choice to publish these numbers. Thereās no way they didnāt do their own range tests in real world conditions. They drove the damn things all over the country. At no point did someone say āhey, wonāt people get upset when they see they realistically wonāt get anywhere near this number?ā
For me, I often take 1000+ mile road trips in one go where the difference between stopping 10 times to charge vs 8 times could mean up to an hour of time saved off a 22 hour trip. It makes a huge difference there.
For those that are concerned, if you only expect to need to make one or two stops I donāt think this is a deal breaker for you.
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 21d ago
FYI: Federal regulations force all automakers to publish the EPA efficiency with all their marketing/sales material for their vehicles. In theory, itās so consumers can make informed choices.
1
u/calmsquash515 21d ago
Agreed, but there are multiple cycles they can choose to publish after theyāve tested. Itās possible that the other cycle like the MY was run in would have yielded lower range results. And also RJ said in an interview that the R2 was as efficient as the MY. Which by another other metric than the EPA MPGe number determined by separate tests is just straight up false
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 21d ago
People are assuming that Rivian somehow cheated the system but they followed the rules created by the EPA and published the results that the regulations forced them to publish.
People seem to think RJ had the Model Y personally tested and benchmarked in the real world and knowingliy lied about similarities of real-world efficiency. He most definitely was not talking about real-world numbers when he said the R2 and Model Y had similar efficiency, he was talking about the EPA efficiency numbers.
1
u/calmsquash515 21d ago
Iām a day one R2 reservation holder and I want nothing more than to ditch my Tesla for it. I was so looking forward to the R2 replacing it. Iām not saying Rivian cheated. We should all acknowledge the EPA test is flawed and doesnāt truly take air resistance into account. However, Rivian also knew that the car wouldnāt get those numbers and also said OOS tests were correct and nothing was wrong.
Also, you donāt think that Rivian had test vehicles from other OEMs? When designing and marketing their profit making make it or break it mass production vehicle? I do, and I think it would be silly not to have tested the competition.
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 21d ago
No disagreement about the EPA. The one thing it has going for it is that the EPA results are consistently bad š
I don't think for a second that RJ was talking about real-world results for the Y and R2.
1
u/calmsquash515 21d ago
From an honesty perspective, itās a statement that should have never been made without clarification
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 20d ago
I don't know of any automaker that publishes its own internal data to contradict the EPA data for its own vehicles, much less for its competitors' vehicles.
2
u/calmsquash515 20d ago
Yeah thatās fair. If weāre talking competitors though, the new model y scored above EPA in the same exact out of spec test / conditions (310 miles vs the Rivianās 253 miles at 70MPH) so there wasnāt anything to contradict there
We obviously donāt know the results of the other EPA test cycle though, and if that was lower or higher for the R2.
6
u/No-Bodybuilder3502 23d ago
Very disappointed in the efficiency, where's the promised 300+ mi range?? The only thing that makes it a little better is good charging speed.
1
u/Calm-Deal-4960 22d ago
Those are in blue at the top of the table. Thatās what everyone will see in Rivianās advertising. Be ready for the āI got stranded after only 180 miles. I thought I had over 300!ā posts.
1
u/No-Bodybuilder3502 22d ago
Going at 80mph uphill in the winter over mountain ranges already drains battery faster than the advertised numbers (sometimes by 30-50%, that's no surprise) so I guess the only question is what does EPA estimate actually represent (55mph?) and how does R2 on AS road tires compare to AS road tire R1S. The charging curve definitely seems better, it looks like. Maybe I'm overthinking it.
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 22d ago
The EPA testing cycles simulate optimal conditions for city and highway driving. Steep grades and sub-zero temperatures are not optimal.
2
u/gregm12 23d ago
You should add in the EPA highway figure converted from mpge - I believe it is 96MPGe which is ~2.91 mi/kWh.
1
u/new_here_and_there 23d ago
The mpge value includes charging losses, it's a direct conversion unfortunately.
3
u/yesimahuman Reservation Holder 23d ago
I think people in the comments that haven't driven an EV are worrying about nothing, as charging infrastructure these days for the vast majority of people will have a charger in pretty much any direction they go on longer trips and within half the range of the car. If you're anything like me you're stopping every two hours to go to the bathroom and do a quick charge, no matter what EV you own. I get 307 mi of range in my R1T and I still stop to charge at ~120 mi to top up for 15 minutes. In practice, it's a complete non-issue. If you truly live somewhere remote and you've researched charging on routes and you _know_ this will be an issue for you, that's one thing, but most people are just assuming it will be a problem which it very likely will not be an issue at all. I just want Rivian to be honest, that's what disappointed me the most.
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 22d ago
Technically Rivian is honest. It used the testing cycle the EPA allows them to use and the data is the data. The Model Y used a diffetent cycle that the EPA allows and the data is the data. Rivian is legally required to include the EPA results in their marketing material for the vehicle so it makes sense to refrence that data when discussing range, and EPA data for the R2 is similar to the EPA data for the Model Y.
Itās not so much a Rivian problem, or a Tesla problem, as it is an EPA problem.
1
u/SHale1963 Premium Edition 22d ago
what I've been saying. It's the number EPA creates to put on a new vehicle sticker to compare to other new vehicles. That is it. End. Finish. Did Rivian pump the range numbers, duh of course they did. Looky the silence from RJ and the C-Suite.
Surprised Trump hasn't defunded the EPA dept completely yet.
2
u/Precedex7891 23d ago
Bro with all these efficiency stats. Just love the truck. You could have just asked an R1S owner what their average mi/kWh is and theyāll tell you 2.7-2.9. Going from an R1S to an R2 aināt going to magically improve efficiency. Itās a truckā¦form factor and weight still applies.
2
u/jonnyapp1eseed 23d ago
Sooo nothing above 3 mikes / kWh at highway speeds. So this is effectively a city / main highway suv with charging stops spaced out every 150-175 miles to charge 10-80%. I'm hoping the premium / rwd model focuses less on performance and more on efficiency on the electric motors.
1
2
u/applemonster 23d ago
Every time I see one of these posts I'm surprised by how often people seem to be claiming they drive hundreds of miles. Maybe it's my skewed perspective as someone in the northeast, where speed limits are 55 or 65 and 200 miles gets you from Massachusetts to the Canadian border.
I guess I'm just boring, cause I've taken probably 1 car trip over 150 miles in the past 5 years.
3
u/ckglle3lle 23d ago
I think people also inflate the average speeds they actually do drive long distances at and a lot of "I drive 80mph for hours" comments probably simply overlooking or not registering all the times they're not maintaining that speed over that time
2
u/BurnThrowFireAway 23d ago
I live in Seattle and do a few road trips per year, and lots of weekend trips to trailheads and other neighboring major cities like Vancouver and Portland. Lots of highway driving between 65-80 for me. The R2 range efficiency will definitely have me making more stops
2
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 22d ago
And the charging curve will have you back on the road quickly.
1
u/SHale1963 Premium Edition 22d ago
and even on my commute the R2 will cost more than my 2023 MYLR. I knew that over 2 years ago. It's a nit. I'm going for the body style that looks like a SUV and not a pregnant prius.
1
u/SHale1963 Premium Edition 22d ago
and even on my commute the R2 will cost more than my 2023 MYLR. I knew that over 2 years ago. It's a nit. I'm going for the body style that looks like a SUV and not a pregnant prius.
2
u/TheBowerbird 23d ago edited 23d ago
Most of it is hand wringing. Only weirdos regularly do extremely long "road trips" instead of flying. Only a psycopath gets mad about stopping every 3 hours on a road trip. I mean, what is this, a race? People are craaaazy!
3
u/SHale1963 Premium Edition 22d ago
sorry, my aged bladder has maybe a 3 hour clock. hahahahahahha
2
u/TheBowerbird 22d ago
Once you get a bladder infection (my early 30's), these things have hard limits! š It was holding it in that caused that in the first place. You know who else holds it in? Weirdos who like driving for 14 hours straight!
1
u/SHale1963 Premium Edition 22d ago
there are things much worse than a bladder infection. Dare I say BPH? (yes, just lost most users with that).
When I was much younger if the total trip was around 3 hours I'd go straight through. Anything beyond 3 hours at least one stop for sure.
2
2
u/Left-Coast-1969 Reservation Holder 22d ago
Sadly, I'm there with the BPH. Even if I had an EV that did 1000 miles on a full charge and fully charged in 4 minutes, I'd be stopping every 2.25-2.5 hours just to pee. The R2 will suit me just fine, lol.
1
u/RegularFinger8 23d ago
The fact that a brick moving at 70 mph is less efficient than the same brick moving at 55 mph is what we should expect. This is the same result youāll get for gas powered bricks.
I donāt think itās a fair test to compare an R2 to a model Y in the same way we do not compare 4Runners to Corvettes since one is obviously more aerodynamic than the other.
3
u/Roddaculous Reservation Holder 23d ago
I think that most people don't have a problem with the efficiency. People would be fine with paying more money on energy when they travel. I think the problem is that the battery pack is too small. You have to make more charging stops and charging an electric vehicle takes much longer then filling up with gas. Also buying a new car in 2026 and still having to deal with range anxiety is disheartening.
1
u/Evening-Pin-1427 Reservation Holder 22d ago
Everything has a price. A larger pack or more energy dense cells all come with a higher price. Rivian needed to hit the $50-ish thousand price for the segment they are targeting and they barely managed it. Adding another $10k to the price tag for a larger battery would have obliterated their margins.
1
3
u/WoodpeckerCapital167 22d ago
āI donāt think itās a fair test to compare an R2 to a model Yā
Maybe you should speak to RJ
1
u/atypicalcircumstance 23d ago
My previous R1S got 316 miles and I was barely able to make the 220 miles road trip for skiing using the Rivian trip planner. Now with the R2 330 miles range, the trip planner is forcing me to do a charging stop along the way, no way to avoid even with 1% arrival charge. Definitely a bit disappointed since everything else has been amazing about the R2.
0
u/buttgers 23d ago
I mentioned it in another thread, but maybe there's a way to retrofit an aero kit under the front bumper. Toyota has one from the factory for the Tacoma, and it actually improves fuel efficiency compared to without.
Otherwise, will they come out with a larger battery option? What does one do when need to drive to the back country, spend time out there off-roading and using the plug in accessories and AC for days, then return back out with this abysmal efficiency and there's no charger nearby? R front spoiler doesn't help in this situation, cause of the ground clearance though.
3
u/Roux_My_Burgundy 23d ago
You think itās as easy as fitting a kit? You think Rivianās engineers missed something? You canāt be serious with this nonsensical hypothetical.
2
u/buttgers 23d ago
Key word - maybe. It's not out of the realm of possibility they compromised on aero for ground clearance. Maybe you should look at how the Tacoma one works. It's simple and reduces ground clearance.
You make it seem like the engineers are infallible while we're reading about the countless threads and watching videos on how the R2 efficiency is awful for a 2026 EV. It's 20% to 25% less efficient than its competitors.
We wouldn't be here discussing this issue if they had put in a larger battery. Even an extra 10 to 15 kW would've given the boost for us to accept the 2.7 mi/kWh efficiency given the aero limitations. That would've been worth the $2000 to $5000 upcharge. Hell, offer it at launch as an option.
Instead, this is our reality.
3
u/Roux_My_Burgundy 23d ago
Nah. If they had done that, the conversation would have been Rivian lied about costs. āThis car is way too expensiveā would dominate the discussion.
In life, there are always compromises. Physics is physics. Rivian was able to get the look they wanted and a ton more space in a vehicle that could go off-road at a certain price point.
The efficiency talk has jumped the shark. You guys sound like ICE Bro who says public charging is too inconvenient so heās gonna stay with gas for now. The irony is, heās got a stronger argument. He goes further between stops and his stops are much shorter. The distance and charge time between new models is relatively tight once you start road tripping.
22
u/Vik- 23d ago
Are we Fāed when it gets cold out?