R2 vs. Model Y (by Car and Driver) -- The R2 steps up to the Model Y plate and delivers a home run in its first at bat

[Nixapatfan]

Curious in your experience talking with people does below zero really matter to people? In 10+ years driving EVs, I think I have been below 10% less than a dozen times and below 5% only once.

I just do not want to be in that situation on a trip.

I would say yes, it's the difference between a tow truck ride to the service center or limping along to somewhere to get charged up. With LFP batteries it is more important since they fall off a cliff the closer they get to zero. I prefer the car holding back some reserve for emergency situations than letting the driver play guessing games on how low to go before it dies, will it die at 5% or 0% who knows.

Sponsored

 

[Apprunner]

I don't fit properly and I am sure I am not unique. With seat at B pillar, the footwell is too shallow. Pushing seat past B pillar is awkward. I am average height, there are taller people. And the ride is bad. It's just an uncomfortable car. The only Tesla I liked was MS.

Have you tried the new Juniper version. Its just as soft as the R2. The R2 seats are worse to me though.

 

[CrazyOne]

Are you average height for NBA because that's simply not true. I am actual average height and fit fine. Agree with you on the ride

I have slightly longer legs than average and shorter torso, at avg height. None of the three 3 cars in my garage have that problem, a sedan, SUV and the R1T. I have rented Rouge recently, thanks to Rivian. None of them have this problem. Tesla pushed the dash forward, because there is no engine. But because of the wheels, the footwell stays where it is. If you bought it, you get used to it. But I am frequently in a family members MY, so I notice it more.

Edit: I should add that I am usually in front passenger seat in MY, not driver seat. The foot wells are different for sure.

 

[SlaterGS]

R2 Launch:

Sounds legit: 1/4- Mile: 11.4 sec @ 26mph

 

[r2fb]

Sounds legit: 1/4- Mile: 11.4 sec @ 26mph

Did you not read the whole article and even this thread? They say 126 mph in the article so it's a typo.

 

[SlaterGS]

Did you not read the whole article and even this thread? They say 126 mph in the article so it's a typo.

/s ??

 

[MaskedRacerX]

I have slightly longer legs than average and shorter torso, at avg height. None of the three 3 cars in my garage have that problem, a sedan, SUV and the R1T.

There's something about the "ratios" that never quite clicked with me either. Not terrible, just not great for a "sporty" vehicle ('21 M3P) in terms of optimum position. I guess it didn't help that the seats somehow defied physics and were both a marshmallow and a wooden crate at the same time

Sounds legit: 1/4- Mile: 11.4 sec @ 26mph

Ha! That reminds me (well, in an opposite way) of a Supra I owned, like 13 sec @ 140MPH

 

[skyguyscott]

Just remember C&D extrapolates range in their tests which is why you see the car perform better than our test on 21” at 5mph higher speed

R2 loses range faster at low SoC which this test can’t account for...

RE: EV range --

Comparing EV range estimates between different makes and models and options is only marginally beneficial when the difference is itself marginal.

What would be much more useful is to test range in a variety of situations since EV range will differ dramatically depending on temperature, slope, wind speeds, battery age and so on -- much much more than the ICE vehicles the market is used to driving.

When you get in your BEV and it is 15 degrees Fahrenheit outside, and you suddenly notice your efficiency drops by ~40%, that is real surprise the first time it happens and you are unprepared for the range hit.

Knowing how the R2 or any other EV's range is impacted by various factors is much more helpful in the real world, more helpful than knowing model x gets 10 or 30 more miles of range than model q on a calm spring morning driving on level pavement at sea level.

 

[SactownD]

I like C&D and know they take their testing seriously. One issue though, why don't they do the industry standard 10-80 charge test? Theirs is 10-90. Also, they extrapolate highway range numbers which is fine, but the BMS is a bit different on all BEVs so I do appreciate the tests that run the vehicle down till it won't go any further.

Agree, who charges 10-90? On my R1s anything over 70 is so slow that you’re better off getting back in the road and stopping again.

 

[NeverFollow]

R2 loses range faster at low SoC which this test can’t account for.

It s just physics and the same for any EVs.

When the voltage get lower, you need to increase the current to get the same amount of energy, which increase losses.

In the same way, this is why when testing an EV for acceleration you need to get around 100% SoC.
And Tesla in particular was often "accidentally" wrongly tested against other EVs...

 

[windshieldfarmer]

It s just physics and the same for any EVs.

When the voltage get lower, you need to increase the current to get the same amount of energy, which increase losses.

In the same way, this is why when testing an EV for acceleration you need to get around 100% SoC.
And Tesla in particular was often "accidentally" wrongly tested against other EVs...

Interestingly, when I was at a 25% state of charge in my 2018 Tesla M3, reduced power was pronounced. My 2024 BMW IX50 experiences comparatively modest losses at 25%. Not sure how the R2 will perform. Not mentioned by any of the reviewers.

 

[CrazyOne]

Just remember C&D extrapolates range in their tests which is why you see the car perform better than our test on 21” at 5mph higher speed

R2 loses range faster at low SoC which this test can’t account for.

It also can’t account for usable buffers below 0% which is partly how the Model Y with a huge buffer (also a problem) had such a big result compared to R2 in our test - are people actually going below 0% in real life? Probably not… but the car can do it so we run them until they die

We’ve run our tests the same for years and only because R2 underperformed everyone is upset haha

More info in this thread here:

No one plans their road trips from x% to negative 10% SOC. Range below 0% has some value for someone who is making it back alove from outback, but not for someone on a normal road trip. Who in their right mind would go 20 miles below zero, risking ending up on shoulder or worse.

 

[tivoboy]

Interestingly, when I was at a 25% state of charge in my 2018 Tesla M3, reduced power was pronounced. My 2024 BMW IX50 experiences comparatively modest losses at 25%. Not sure how the R2 will perform. Not mentioned by any of the reviewers.

Interesting. I only had reduced power once in my 2018 tm3lr after I hit 0% SOC and went another 22 miles to an SC. (This was during snowpocalypse 2019)

 

[windshieldfarmer]

Interesting. I only had reduced power once in my 2018 tm3lr after I hit 0% SOC and went another 22 miles to an SC. (This was during snowpocalypse 2019)

The reduced power was only a feeling of less power…not a turtle mode. Like power was throttled back by 30%. It still would accelerate sufficiently and run at highway speeds.

 

[Apprunner]

Interestingly, when I was at a 25% state of charge in my 2018 Tesla M3, reduced power was pronounced. My 2024 BMW IX50 experiences comparatively modest losses at 25%. Not sure how the R2 will perform. Not mentioned by any of the reviewers.

I think Kyle said low SoC still felt responsive. Also, the newer Model 3/Y didn't have as much reduced power at low SoC. My 2024 feels pretty strong until you get below 20%. Power still feels pretty strong above 20% compared to my 2019 Model 3.

Sponsored