R2 vs Model Y 70-MPH Highway Range Test (by Out of Spec)

[caffeinated]

The 250 mile figure is pretty disappointing, but considering the other options I think I'm still on board for now. The MY really is the best like for like competitor IMO. Despite costing more, I have less confidence in the autonomy actually improving on the EX60 and iX3. And the Ioniq 5 RWD would be "fine" for someone like me, but there's that nagging ICCU issue...

Like others have said, I do feel a bit better about this test because it used a realistic HVAC load.

Sponsored

 

[DuoRivian]

The new MY/M3 are very very efficient. Not surprised at the result and in R2 will never catch the MYP even with better charging. But unless you are mainly using the car for road tripping, this is pretty much academic. I bet if you put on the Hankook Ion Evo tires on the R2, you could get 10% better efficiency too.

It is t academic in terms of cost (and environmental impact depending on how your electricity is generated) when one vehicle is c.20% less efficient.
One issues not the boxy shape at the back but the vertical front end. My wife has a Subaru Trailseeker which is wagon shaped and has a boxy backend but has, like the Model Y a sloped front hood and it gets 3.7 to 4 miles/kWh at highway speed and exceeds its EPA figures (with permanent AWD).

 

[DuoRivian]

Interesting that the R2 when at 25% (40 minutes into the video) showed an estimated 85 miles of range when given the actual usage it should be more like 64 miles. Would have expected the range estimation to be closer.

 

[Apprunner]

It is t academic in terms of cost (and environmental impact depending on how your electricity is generated) when one vehicle is c.20% less efficient.
One issues not the boxy shape at the back but the vertical front end. My wife has a Subaru Trailseeker which is wagon shaped and has a boxy backend but has, like the Model Y a sloped front hood and it gets 3.7 to 4 miles/kWh at highway speed and exceeds its EPA figures (with permanent AWD).

Thats pretty good. My EV6 also exceeds the EPA at highway speeds when you put it in Eco mode. Its a wagon though...stupid calling that thing an SUV

 

[Dirtman16]

The 10% challenge is run at 80 mph, and increasing speed is going to scale the efficiency penalty faster in the R2 than the Model Y. So from a time standpoint, they may be similar road trippers with a speed of 70 mph, but at 75-80+ mph, the Model Y is going to win out, even with crappy charging.

To me, the biggest disappointment isn't the overall time to travel on very long trips, it's the compromised distance of that first leg from 100%. There are a lot of destinations I can get to or round trip to in 300 miles. But 253 miles, particularly when it's cold in the winter, means extra stops on trips where I didn't have to make them before.

Not the end of the world, but it's a step back from the large and max battery R1 lines if that's what you're used to.

Of note, however,

Due to the faster charging and larger battery of the R2, we're still looking at them being close to equivalent in charges between 15 and 25 minutes. I don't have a good charge test for R2 from 0% like the Model Y is here, unfortunately, but these are aligned to start at 10% = 0 minutes. The R2 is theoretically adding range faster the whole time. We know that's not completely true because the 10% challenge proved otherwise.

 

[NinjaWrap]

I wonder why in this test R2 got 2.83 miles per kWh but in their efficiency test it got 3.13 mi/kWH? I know there are a ton of variables.

Model Y Performance comes out to 3.77 in both though, which is pretty crazy.

 

[renderpaz]

Guys, it's one test.

As some have pointed out, State of Charge did a test on ATs in hilly gusty conditions and went further.

Everyone will still buy it for the same reason it isn't super efficient: It looks like an SUV instead of a tall car and can go off road.

 

[cwq93r]

It does if you wear hoodies no matter if it is 100F

Kyle has turned the HVAC off in some of his races just to reach a charging stop, and the hoodie never comes off!

 

[Jeremy3292]

I wonder why in this test R2 got 2.83 miles per kWh but in their efficiency test it got 3.13 mi/kWH? I know there are a ton of variables.

Model Y Performance comes out to 3.77 in both though, which is pretty crazy.

AC load and 98 degrees outside I'm guessing. You can get 3 or 3.1 MPK on R2 but you can also get 2.8 or 2.9 at 70mph. Highly variable on account of the brick shape.

 

[Zorg]

If one wants an efficient road tripper, R2 isn't it. It will sell anyway because of shape, cool factor and capabilities.

 

[tivoboy]

The question I really have is, WHY does the CAR think it can go so much farther? The EPA games and inaccuracies aside, I’d like the IN CAR experience to at least be close to accurate.. but if we look at the data reported, distance travelled, for the first 75% nearly of SOC the R2 THOUGHT it could go ~ 300 mile at least.. heck at 75% SOC the car had already travelled 65.5 MILES and the in dash display STILL listed 253 miles of range?

Is the RANGE estimate an estimate of the TOTAL range in TOTAL? I would think that the in dash RANGE estimate is still the REMAINING range available?

At 50%, they had travelled 128 miles, and the in car display still showed 150 miles of “range”.. just simple maths would make me think that CAR at least would have/can travel 300 miles? And yet, the car was only able to manage 80% of that remaining 150 miles indicated at most. Till DEAD?

For you Rivian owners, is this the expectation of the capability of the in car real range reporting? Does one always have to 2nd guess things?

As a Tesla M3LR owner, getting whatever range one is going to get is a moving target, but, BUT the IN CAR reporting remaining available distance is usually in the end within about 1-2%, and yes it takes a little time at speed on highways for the car to adjust with where it’s going and how you are driving, but the adjusted IN CAR indicators are at least accurate.

 

[TexasBob]

No denying the iX is the better range vehicle, just tossing it in as a comparison between EPA range figures and reality.

Agree and my point is just that when you look at the compounding effect of real-world range (mostly aero) and faster charging and bigger battery you get a total charging time that is literally more than twice as long with the R2 than the BMW even when using the pessimistic 348 mile range number.

 

[Zorg]

Agree and my point is just that when you look at the compounding effect of real-world range (mostly aero) and faster charging and bigger battery you get a total charging time that is literally more than twice as long with the R2 than the BMW even when using the pessimistic 348 mile range number.

If road tripping is the goal, get a BMW. What's really disappointing is that Rivian played games with EPA range.

 

[TexasBob]

And putting my cards on the table, I hoped I was wrong but knew I wasn't. Like most folks here, I am a Rivian fan (a 3-time buyer) and I have been really irritated to see what I thought was a strategic misstep by RJ in choosing the 400V and then a second error in choosing a single sized pack for the R2. It was clear long before launch (as my April model showed) that this was going to come in at 250 miles or so (basic math). It was also clear that the 29 minute charging time was going to be under some pretty optimistic (and unrealistic) scenarios (it requires 600A+ chargers!). R2 had the potential to be a new benchmark for EVs. I am afraid it is instead an also-ran that will appeal to a certain demographic but nowhere near enough to hit the sales numbers they need. I'm genuinely sad about that.

 

[mroe]

Rivian Roamer has R2 data logged for 23 vehicles over 15K miles thus far:

It's still a small sample size compared to a full car population over a long period of time (and I assume people drive their car much spicier in the first couple thousand miles), but overall it looks like real world efficiency data is much more similar to the Out of Spec test than to the EPA test results and potentially even worse.

Sponsored