YouTube Video: The 2025 Rivian R1T Tri-motor Max Pack Does Its Best With All Terrain Tires! 70-MPH Range Test

[jjswan33]

Seems the Tri-Max is at best marginally quicker with marginally more range based on the only information available to me other than EPA testing done by Rivian.

These are facts except the last statement. EPA testing is done by the EPA not Rivian.

Anyone expecting the TM to have anything more than a marginal range/speed will be disappointed. Now some might have other reasons for upgrading but sounds like you made your decision and seems like a financially responsible one.

Sponsored

 

[JeromePowell]

These are facts except the last statement. EPA testing is done by the EPA not Rivian.

Anyone expecting the TM to have anything more than a marginal range/speed will be disappointed. Now some might have other reasons for upgrading but sounds like you made your decision and seems like a financially responsible one.

If you say so...

Testing at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

Certification Emission Testing
All new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. must be certified to meet federal emission standards, such as limits on the amount of smog-forming and greenhouse gas emissions that they can produce. Most testing is performed by auto manufacturers at their own facilities. EPA then audits the data and performs its own testing on some of the vehicles to confirm the manufacturers' results.

 

[jjswan33]

EPA then audits the data and performs its own testing on some of the vehicles to confirm the manufacturers' results.

Yep right there in the last bit... thanks for playing.

 

[OrthoBlock]

@JeromePowell @jjswan33

It seems that you are both "correct" -- from:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fuel-economy-and-ev-range-testing


Fuel Economy Testing
EPA is responsible for defining the methods used to calculate the fuel economy estimates that are posted on the window stickers of new cars and light trucks. EPA confirms approximately 15% of all test results, but it is the manufacturers that are responsible for providing the fuel economy data used for labeling. Automakers are required to follow very specific test procedures and submit the fuel economy data to EPA for all their models each year. In general, vehicles are tested over 5 defined test cycles that were created to represent typical driving conditions in the U.S.:


I will let the reader decide whether or not 15% of tests confirmed by EPA equates to EPA testing the vehicles in a hollistic sense. Also, no clarity on which vehicles have been confirmed vs. not.

 

[ElGuano]

EPA testing is done by the EPA not Rivian.

Most testing is performed by auto manufacturers at their own facilities. EPA then audits the data and performs its own testing on some of the vehicles to confirm the manufacturers' results.

Yep right there in the last bit... thanks for playing.

The last bit says the EAP performs testing on SOME vehicles. And overall it stipulates that MOST testing is done by manufacturers. To me that suggests they randomly spot-check to ensure compliance. But I don't think we can conclude (if it even matters) whether Rivian or the EPA performed the testing in this case.

 

[JeromePowell]

The last bit says the EAP performs testing on SOME vehicles. And overall it stipulates that MOST testing is done by manufacturers. To me that suggests they randomly spot-check to ensure compliance. But I don't think we can conclude (if it even matters) whether Rivian or the EPA performed the testing in this case.

None of it matters to me because I think there are different EPA testing procedures (cycles) the manufacturers can choose. Porsche and Mercedes-Benz seem to underestimate real-world range, Tesla used to overestimate real-world range, Rivian seems "close" if you drive the speed limit.

I do not love Out of Spec (OOS) but they are creating a comparable set of tests that are closer to my use case (10% Challenge in particular). Just working with what is available. I am not trying to be "correct" or make anyone feel or look silly.

Happy to read everyone's take on this stuff.

 

[jjswan33]

The last bit says the EAP performs testing on SOME vehicles. And overall it stipulates that MOST testing is done by manufacturers. To me that suggests they randomly spot-check to ensure compliance. But I don't think we can conclude (if it even matters) whether Rivian or the EPA performed the testing in this case.

Well I certainly wouldn't expect them to test every single trim of every single model. Companies could obviously cheat the test in a variety of ways but I certainly don't think Rivian is.

A company found a way to do that once.. and now we have EA (for better or worse) to thank for it.

 

[DayTripping]

Thanks for setting me straight and explaining how aerodynamics and rolling resistance work. Please feel free to post your own testing procedures and results at your leisure.

I think I will just keep my Gen 1 and forego upgrading to a new Gen 2 Tri-Max. My used Gen 1 R1T cost me $55k before tax, title, and tags. A new Gen 2 Tri-Max would cost me about $105k on the low side. It just does not seem worth it whether or not the OOS testing(s) had a fluke or possibly both tests were flukes.

Seems the Tri-Max is at best marginally quicker with marginally more range based on the only information available to me other than EPA testing done by Rivian.

Your approach seems pretty similar to mine. I estimated another 50k for Tri Max and 60k for a quad if/when it was released, than buying a used one. I still don't see the extra value there. Than again, I am not a Rivian fan boi, or a Tesla one for that matter either. I'd say where the Tri Max moved the needle over the Gen1 quad, it only slightly did so.

I think Tesla has taught me the error of my ways with dropping too much cash on an "upgrade". I did the upgrade thing from my Model S long range to the S Plaid. At first I think the delta between the two was a 50k difference. No real difference in the cars other than an extra motor along with some carbon fiber bits and bragging rights for the fastest production car at the time. Knocking 1.5 seconds off an already quick car's 1/4 mile time is pretty significant though.

I did the upgrade and got crushed on depreciation. Not as bad as the earliest adopters, but pretty bad. Enough that I am very wary of dropping over 100k on an EV now. I do appreciate the capabilities of the Plaid every time I drive it. But to drop 50k over what I personally consider minor upgrades to my end user experience, aren't a good value. Since I obviously value acceleration, a slight, if any, upgrade over the G1 quad isn't going to do it for me. So, I'd be writing an even bigger check to buy the G2 quad when it becomes available. That would end up flushing even more $$$ down the drain.

To quantify it for me, knocking 0.1 - 0.2 seconds of the 0-60 time, adding maybe 10% in range, maybe an upgraded interior (if you think so), a heat pump, and matrix lights, weren't worth forking over 50k more than a used G1 quad. Now maybe if I had bought a G1 new at the original pricing and I had put quite a few miles on it and wanted a new one, then I might be more inclined to do that. Coming net new into the ecosystem and looking at it objectively and subjectively, I just didn't see the need to drop more dollars for a vastly diminishing return. In that scenario, if I were to do it, the G2 quad makes a lot more sense. At least I am getting more of the performance upgrade I'd like over the G1 quad. I am fine with the 0-50, just would like a lot more 50-100. I can tell the Tri won't give me that but the G2 quad might. I really don't need more range, but I would like faster L3 charging. That would do more a lot more good than a whopping 10% range increase.

Overall I do enjoy my truck. I am still surprised by the number of Rivian Kool-Aid drinkers, not quite as bad as the Tesla forums, but not that far behind. The two best vehicles I've bought in the last 20 years would be my S Plaid and my R1T. They are both are a lot of fun to drive but not without their issue. I keep thinking the G2 quad might satisfy my adrenaline needs in a more versatile package than my Plaid. At the same time, I don't want to get hammered that badly again on depreciation and I am sure that will happen to the G2 Tri and Quad. Expensive EVs values drop like a rock. So at this point I plan to drive my Plaid until it dies.

 

[JeromePowell]

Your approach seems pretty similar to mine. I estimated another 50k for Tri Max and 60k for a quad if/when it was released, than buying a used one. I still don't see the extra value there. Than again, I am not a Rivian fan boi, or a Tesla one for that matter either. I'd say where the Tri Max moved the needle over the Gen1 quad, it only slightly did so.

I think Tesla has taught me the error of my ways with dropping too much cash on an "upgrade". I did the upgrade thing from my Model S long range to the S Plaid. At first I think the delta between the two was a 50k difference. No real difference in the cars other than an extra motor along with some carbon fiber bits and bragging rights for the fastest production car at the time. Knocking 1.5 seconds off an already quick car's 1/4 mile time is pretty significant though.

I did the upgrade and got crushed on depreciation. Not as bad as the earliest adopters, but pretty bad. Enough that I am very wary of dropping over 100k on an EV now. I do appreciate the capabilities of the Plaid every time I drive it. But to drop 50k over what I personally consider minor upgrades to my end user experience, aren't a good value. Since I obviously value acceleration, a slight, if any, upgrade over the G1 quad isn't going to do it for me. So, I'd be writing an even bigger check to buy the G2 quad when it becomes available. That would end up flushing even more $$$ down the drain.

To quantify it for me, knocking 0.1 - 0.2 seconds of the 0-60 time, adding maybe 10% in range, maybe an upgraded interior (if you think so), a heat pump, and matrix lights, weren't worth forking over 50k more than a used G1 quad. Now maybe if I had bought a G1 new at the original pricing and I had put quite a few miles on it and wanted a new one, then I might be more inclined to do that. Coming net new into the ecosystem and looking at it objectively and subjectively, I just didn't see the need to drop more dollars for a vastly diminishing return. In that scenario, if I were to do it, the G2 quad makes a lot more sense. At least I am getting more of the performance upgrade I'd like over the G1 quad. I am fine with the 0-50, just would like a lot more 50-100. I can tell the Tri won't give me that but the G2 quad might. I really don't need more range, but I would like faster L3 charging. That would do more a lot more good than a whopping 10% range increase.

Overall I do enjoy my truck. I am still surprised by the number of Rivian Kool-Aid drinkers, not quite as bad as the Tesla forums, but not that far behind. The two best vehicles I've bought in the last 20 years would be my S Plaid and my R1T. They are both are a lot of fun to drive but not without their issue. I keep thinking the G2 quad might satisfy my adrenaline needs in a more versatile package than my Plaid. At the same time, I don't want to get hammered that badly again on depreciation and I am sure that will happen to the G2 Tri and Quad. Expensive EVs values drop like a rock. So at this point I plan to drive my Plaid until it dies.

I hear you and generally agree. I purchased a new Porsche Taycan and paid just over six-figures with tax, title, and tags for an "inexpensive" Porsche. It was a very good car, almost great but so many recalls and UX bugs; really annoyed me.

I try to focus on value, but I am an emotional buyer at times after thorough analysis. My limited analytical ability and intuition are not pointing towards another Rivian anytime soon. Maybe the R2 will change my mind. The currently non-existent Scout Traveler does peak my interest as well as the Silverado EV when purchased used because it's just not worth over $100k even for the RST.

 

[ssincl3]

The test seems pretty realistic to me as many people prefer to run all terrain tires for a variety of reasons. Kinda crazy that the test is so far from the EPA rating which I think is around 329-miles on 20" all terrain tires.

I guess it's just about 9% off from EPA rating which is not a 70-mph highway only test. The eye opener for me is how close the Gen 2 Tri-Motor Max Pack on All Terrain wheels is to the Gen 1 Quad-Motor on All Terrains; only 3% better for the Tri-Motor!

I agree. People want to know the best case scenario for the best overall tire with the worst efficiency. You can use the AT tires in all scenarios but the street tires are limited in functionality.

 

[ElGuano]

A company found a way to do that once.. and now we have EA (for better or worse) to thank for it.

Yeah, and it's happened way more than once.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-r...-over-emissions-cheating-mercedes-benz-diesel

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/hyundai-and-kia-clean-air-act-settlement

 

[sg3707]

Too many Rivian fan boys are disputing facts.

I upgraded from quad to the new dual max. Worst decision ever.

New real efficiency gains. Not all heat pumps are made equal. It is loud and inefficient.

R2 line is only for cost cutting. Used quad is the best deal.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Good decision.. Keep your Gen1 QM. Also Tri Max is marginally slower and marginally same range when compare to Gen1. Don't make mistake of upgrading. I regret.

It’s not at all slower. Idk why you keep claiming this BS

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Just like I don’t understand why we are comparing range on the least efficient tires I don’t understand why we are comparing budget. Is it any surprise a used car is going to be a better value than a new one?

Any vehicle in the six figure price range isn’t going to be a good value. That’s not what these are for.

 

[portdirect]

Just like I don’t understand why we are comparing range on the least efficient tires I don’t understand why we are comparing budget. Is it any surprise a used car is going to be a better value than a new one?

Any vehicle in the six figure price range isn’t going to be a good value. That’s not what these are for.

Regarding range comparison - this is the most apples-to-apples comparison that can be made of the new tri motor drivechain - it largely removes the impact of the change of wheels tyres from the equation and actually lets us see how much of an impact moving from 4 bosch motors to an enduro and pair of asents makes. The findings here match what ive been seeing too - that at normal highway speeds in AP mode the tri motor config is less efficient than the original quad was - and ends up with around the same range mostly as a result of other changes - namely the ~9kWh larger battery.

If I could go through things again - and for my situation budget was no concern (Rivian ended up paying ME $7.5k to take a trimax as trade in for my gen1 quad) I would have pushed them to actually provide a ex-demo gen1 quad with <100 miles on the clock. I've commented elsewhere they are both great trucks, but the gen1 is just a tiny bit better as a overall package, if having the latest 'tech' is not your priority in a truck.

Sponsored