2027 R2 Performance vs. 2026 Model Y Performance - highway efficiency test (Out of Spec comparison)

[Jeremy3292]

70mph range test coming later today so @Indy avocado can have more data points

Sponsored

 

[Count Orlok]

These tests are meaningless without including calculations for The Count's bladder capacity.

 

[Apprunner]

In the end, I'm more disappointed that Rivian EPA isn't closer to real world. Its Tesla's playbook from 5 years ago. Tesla actually gets EPA or much much closer these days. The Model Y is more efficient at every single speed and situation from the tests that Kyle ran. I was hoping Rivian held itself to a higher standard and was more trustworthy but I guess not.

If Rivian was just more conservative and said that their car did 300 miles EPA, then expectations vs. reality would be more aligned and trust would be much higher.

BTW, the new MYP uses NCMA cells so degradation may be much better than the NCA cells used in the other Model Y variants.

 

[DuoRivians]

If people want to buy an R2 because of its looks, off-roading, or other reasons, that’s great. But, efficiency of the vehicle shouldn’t be a reason. This, along with the 10% challenge, is sufficient data.

I’m curious to see how the iX3 and EX60 will do.

 

[Eric9610]

When you calculate the R2 vastly significant charging profile that will only get better, the R2 is more efficient. You can't fix the poor battery setup in the Y. Here is the real breakdown, do you want to spend significantly less time charging or stay on the road another 5min. I believe OOS said that it only took 30min to go from 0-90% charge. The Y will take 45-50min to hit same level.

 

[Dennisis]

In my real world use, I haven’t noticed any difference in road tripping in our Model Y RWD (the most efficient) and Cyberbeast (least efficient. In both we stop every couple hours, and that’s when we charge. Is that time spent at the charging stop different? Probably, but by the time we use the restroom, get a snack/drink and walk around and sit down for a few minutes, we are ready to go on for a couple hours.

I think road tripping more back when superchargers weren’t everywhere retrained how we approach traveling. The difference will only matter in Y vs R2 if you are in a hurry (I’m not, I don’t even speed) and have a bladder that lasts 12 hours (I don’t, never have).

Exactly. Have made many western trips through the mountains (MY LR) and stopping every two hours is easy peasy. I have zero worries. And as others noted, you’re not driving full speed all the time.​

 

[Ps702]

As long as efficiency isn't like a Hummer EV, it's an overhyped topic.

MPG isn't a constant discussion with ICE cars because that's not the important element of the car or driving experience.

 

[jtm1631]

This wasn’t a road trip test, it was an efficiency test at various speeds and the R2 isn’t as efficient as the MY.

Rivian absolutely has a better charging curve than Tesla. But that’s not a measure of efficiency. As others have said, the Rivian will cost more to operate because it isn’t as efficient. R2 uses more juice to go the same distance as MYP.

For a lot of people, myself included, that doesn’t matter. Just like when deciding on an ICE vehicle, for some people, MPG won’t be the determining factor in their purchase. But for some people it is.

It should still be pointed out that RJ said the R2 was more efficient than the MYP. It’s not.

 

[rvnxyz001]

If people want to buy an R2 because of its looks, off-roading, or other reasons, that’s great. But, efficiency of the vehicle shouldn’t be a reason. This, along with the 10% challenge, is sufficient data.

I’m curious to see how the iX3 and EX60 will do.

Almost nobody will take an R2 properly off-road, or even to a remote trailhead. Rivian’s reliability record is worrying enough, and the R2 being brand new adds even more uncertainty. Then there’s the simple problem of finding a charger nearby. For most owners, the off-road image will be mostly marketing.

Volvo and bmw are as efficient as a brick they compensate by using giant battery

 

[macb00kemdanno]

This wasn’t a road trip test, it was an efficiency test at various speeds and the R2 isn’t as efficient as the MY.

Rivian absolutely has a better charging curve than Tesla. But that’s not a measure of efficiency. As others have said, the Rivian will cost more to operate because it isn’t as efficient. R2 uses more juice to go the same distance as MYP.

For a lot of people, myself included, that doesn’t matter. Just like when deciding on an ICE vehicle, for some people, MPG won’t be the determining factor in their purchase. But for some people it is.

It should still be pointed out that RJ said the R2 was more efficient than the MYP. It’s not.

Exactly, Apple to Apples, the R2 is going to be a cost more to charge … period. Charging efficiency isn’t going to save your wallet.

I’m just thinking a few months ago, people were poo-pooing the iX3’s 800V architecture, saying it doesn’t matter because most people aren’t roadtripping all the time and that most charge at home.

Now that the Model Y cleans the R2’s clock in efficiency, the narrative has shifted to the R2 does Level 3 charging faster.

I bought into the hype because RJ said it would be as efficient as the Model Y P, so I figured I wouldn’t be losing much compared to my wife’s Model Y Long Range. But if it can’t even match the MYP, my wife’s Y will probably blow it out of the water in efficiency.

I charge 90% of the time at home, so fast charging isn’t much of a factor to me. But I’ll notice a 25% efficiency difference in my power bill each month (I drive 20,000 miles a year on average).

I’m still on Team R2 Launch Edition, but I’m tempering my expectations on everything going forward.

 

[RoadtripEV]

Almost nobody will take an R2 properly off-road, or even to a remote trailhead. Rivian’s reliability record is worrying enough, and the R2 being brand new adds even more uncertainty. Then there’s the simple problem of finding a charger nearby. For most owners, the off-road image will be mostly marketing.

Volvo and bmw are as efficient as a brick they compensate by using giant battery

I one of those exceptions as I will be taking it shortly after pickup on a LONG roadtrip. Also taking it to remote trailheads, offroad (within reason of course!) and even having an iKamper on the roof which will reduce efficiency. I should probably record it given the thirst for information and to quell the concerns people have about various aspects of range and efficiency.

 

[DuoRivians]

Almost nobody will take an R2 properly off-road, or even to a remote trailhead. Rivian’s reliability record is worrying enough, and the R2 being brand new adds even more uncertainty. Then there’s the simple problem of finding a charger nearby. For most owners, the off-road image will be mostly marketing.

Volvo and bmw are as efficient as a brick they compensate by using giant battery

It’s not true on the iX3. It gets nearly 400 miles on highway range. That implies a pretty strong miles/kWh, even after accounting for a big battery

 

[Jeremy3292]

I’m shocked so many people thought a box would be as efficient as an egg…that never made any sense logically. Just some stupid EPA test BS. I was hopeful the extra kWh in R2 would make up for it, but it appears they cut too many cells out to make up for it sadly.

 

[blipit]

There's not a meaningful difference between these IMO. Based on the side-by-side data, you get 20% less efficiency but you'll have 8-15% more battery (Model Y battery likely will lose ~5% in the first year, R2 probably none). 10-80% is faster. All adds up to maybe 2 minutes per charging stop.

Space, looks, and handling are the differentiators. Not range and efficiency.

Time isn't really an issue. But R2 owners are paying for about 25% more energy on road trips. Some of these DC fast charging rates are getting absurd.

 

[boiseultrarunner]

When RJ made this claim it was evidence at how superior Rivian is and what a great job they did with the R2.

Now that his claim is disproven- ah it’s no big deal!! Who needs efficiency for an adventure SUV?!

Sponsored