Growing efficiency Gap: R2 w/ 21" vs. 20" tire sets

[ksurfier]

I'm not an EV expert. Does this efficiency look pretty bad?

It shows that getting more than 250 miles at 100% SOC requires a speed of 65 mph or possibly a little bit less.

so unless you are willing to drive slow or use ~90 % of the battery, getting more than 200 miles of range will be very difficult.

on the flip side, dropping down to 55 mph might get you 275 miles at 100 SOC, in this case you might be able to go 220 miles between stops every 4 hours of drive time.

speed demons can only drive ~2 hours and cover ~150 miles or so, prob. Not the vehicle for anyone wanting to drive much over 70 mph…

Sponsored

 

[rvnxyz001]

so unless you are willing to drive slow or use ~90 % of the battery, getting more than 200 miles of range will be very difficult.

Yeah, the range itself is fine. What bothers me is paying that kind of money for a car that was sold on being significantly more efficient than it apparently is in the real world.

It's like buying an expensive winter coat because the manufacturer claims it will handle extreme cold, then finding out it really doesn't. Sure, it's still a nice coat, it looks great, and you may still want it. But you're now buying it despite the failed promise, not because it delivered what you paid the premium for.


I was willing to excuse poor highway efficiency because I don't do much highway driving anyway. What bothers me more is that it doesn't seem especially efficient even at relatively modest speeds, where I expected it to shine.

 

[cwq93r]

Yeah, the range itself is fine. What bothers me is paying that kind of money for a car that was sold on being significantly more efficient than it apparently is in the real world.

It's like buying an expensive winter coat because the manufacturer claims it will handle extreme cold, then finding out it really doesn't. Sure, it's still a nice coat, it looks great, and you may still want it. But you're now buying it despite the failed promise, not because it delivered what you paid the premium for.


I was willing to excuse poor highway efficiency because I don't do much highway driving anyway. What bothers me more is that it doesn't seem especially efficient even at relatively modest speeds, where I expected it to shine.

Except this vehicle wasn’t promoted as being a Prius. It’s a comfortable outdoor adventure/performance vehicle with plenty of storage. It’s fun to drive except when you don’t feel like it, then there’s autonomy plus to fall back on (when it’s ready). It tocks all of those boxes. On any given day during an average commute, you are seeing good efficiency 90% of the time . Saving money on electricity was never the primary marketing focus of the R2.

 

[rvnxyz001]

Saving money on electricity was never the primary marketing focus of the R2.

Saving money on electricity isn't the point. Efficiency matters because it directly determines range, and range is absolutely part of what you're paying for in an EV.

Rivian's EPA sticker says 330 miles and 114 city / 96 highway / 105 combined MPGe. Based on the real-world R2 data we've collected so far, I think something closer to ~300 miles and roughly 108 city / 83 highway / 95 combined MPGe would set much more realistic expectations. At normal 70–75 mph highway speeds, multiple tests are clustering around ~260 miles.

Of course EPA numbers are never the same as real-world highway range, and I already account for some normal EPA optimism when comparing cars. The problem is that even after giving Rivian that normal offset, this still looks unusually far away from what the 330-mile headline suggests.

I also think Rivian really wants the R2 to compare well with Tesla on paper, and 330 miles obviously looks much better in a comparison chart than 300. But advertised range is part of how I judge whether the price of a vehicle makes sense, along with the interior, capability, software, charging, etc.

At this point the discrepancy is large enough that it actually makes me wonder whether EPA will eventually take a closer look at it. EPA can require a manufacturer to revise its label if testing shows the submitted values are too high. That doesn't mean the 70–75 mph tests alone prove Rivian's EPA certification is wrong, but if an EPA audit or proper certification retest also comes in materially lower, then yes, Rivian could be forced to update the official numbers.

If the sticker said ~300 miles and 108/83/95 MPGe instead of 330 and 114/96/105, I think quite a few more people would stop and think before spending the money.

 

[cwq93r]

Saving money on electricity isn't the point. Efficiency matters because it directly determines range, and range is absolutely part of what you're paying for in an EV.

Rivian's EPA sticker says 330 miles and 114 city / 96 highway / 105 combined MPGe. Based on the real-world R2 data we've collected so far, I think something closer to ~300 miles and roughly 108 city / 83 highway / 95 combined MPGe would set much more realistic expectations. At normal 70–75 mph highway speeds, multiple tests are clustering around ~260 miles.

Of course EPA numbers are never the same as real-world highway range, and I already account for some normal EPA optimism when comparing cars. The problem is that even after giving Rivian that normal offset, this still looks unusually far away from what the 330-mile headline suggests.

I also think Rivian really wants the R2 to compare well with Tesla on paper, and 330 miles obviously looks much better in a comparison chart than 300. But advertised range is part of how I judge whether the price of a vehicle makes sense, along with the interior, capability, software, charging, etc.

At this point the discrepancy is large enough that it actually makes me wonder whether EPA will eventually take a closer look at it. EPA can require a manufacturer to revise its label if testing shows the submitted values are too high. That doesn't mean the 70–75 mph tests alone prove Rivian's EPA certification is wrong, but if an EPA audit or proper certification retest also comes in materially lower, then yes, Rivian could be forced to update the official numbers.

If the sticker said ~300 miles and 108/83/95 MPGe instead of 330 and 114/96/105, I think quite a few more people would stop and think before spending the money.

70-75 is not normal for a typical commute. It’s also not a 100-0 speed range tested by the EPA. You are confusing YouTubers as government agency employees.

 

[rvnxyz001]

70-75 is not normal for a typical commute. It’s also not a 100-0 speed range tested by the EPA. You are confusing YouTubers as government agency employees.

I’m not confusing EPA testing with YouTube tests. I’m looking at the actual data: Out of Spec got 253 mi at 70 mph, Car and Driver 260 mi at 75 mph, and Edmunds 304 mi on a 60/40 city-highway mixed route.

Obviously 70–75 mph isn’t the EPA cycle. That’s exactly the point: 330 is a lab rating, while real highway use keeps landing around 260. And nobody cares about 330 miles for a commute when you charge at home, it can be 100 miles and you will be fine , range matters on road trips.

 

[Eric9610]

What's really funny is that i called this before the EPA number was out saying the real range is 250-285 and people on here laugh at me. It's a box, a cow is more arrow dynamic.

With that said the EPA number is achievable just not how most people CHOOSE to drive.

 

[dub]

With that said the EPA number is achievable just not how most people CHOOSE to drive.

I'd say it as - the EPA number is likely fairly representative for most people, but not at times they would be plotting out their stops on a multi-hour trip.

There are people who only use a car for road trips, or who commute over an hour each way almost exclusively on open interstate, but they aren't necessarily the majority.

However, the multi-hour trips are also when you most likely are going to have a huge efficiency hit due to variable speeds. My napkin math put the full 85 mph range of the R2 at 180 miles. At some point drag and recharge times mean you aren't getting a time benefit from going faster.

 

[Budman]

Saving money on electricity isn't the point. Efficiency matters because it directly determines range, and range is absolutely part of what you're paying for in an EV.

Rivian's EPA sticker says 330 miles and 114 city / 96 highway / 105 combined MPGe. Based on the real-world R2 data we've collected so far, I think something closer to ~300 miles and roughly 108 city / 83 highway / 95 combined MPGe would set much more realistic expectations. At normal 70–75 mph highway speeds, multiple tests are clustering around ~260 miles.

Of course EPA numbers are never the same as real-world highway range, and I already account for some normal EPA optimism when comparing cars. The problem is that even after giving Rivian that normal offset, this still looks unusually far away from what the 330-mile headline suggests.

I also think Rivian really wants the R2 to compare well with Tesla on paper, and 330 miles obviously looks much better in a comparison chart than 300. But advertised range is part of how I judge whether the price of a vehicle makes sense, along with the interior, capability, software, charging, etc.

At this point the discrepancy is large enough that it actually makes me wonder whether EPA will eventually take a closer look at it. EPA can require a manufacturer to revise its label if testing shows the submitted values are too high. That doesn't mean the 70–75 mph tests alone prove Rivian's EPA certification is wrong, but if an EPA audit or proper certification retest also comes in materially lower, then yes, Rivian could be forced to update the official numbers.

If the sticker said ~300 miles and 108/83/95 MPGe instead of 330 and 114/96/105, I think quite a few more people would stop and think before spending the money.

As I've posted on this forum many times, I drive a 165 mile route over and over again. My R1T, on that route, gets the EPA rated efficiency and range. My R2 does also. Nothing funny going on. If you drive a route profile that mimics the EPA cycle you will get the EPA numbers. If you don't, you won't. I see nothing nefarious with the R2 numbers. In my experience, the R2 EPA numbers are as accurate as the R1T EPA numbers.

 

[Bullwinkle]

As I've posted on this forum many times, I drive a 165 mile route over and over again. My R1T, on that route, gets the EPA rated efficiency and range. My R2 does also. Nothing funny going on. If you drive a route profile that mimics the EPA cycle you will get the EPA numbers. If you don't, you won't. I see nothing nefarious with the R2 numbers. In my experience, the R2 EPA numbers are as accurate as the R1T EPA numbers.

Most Rivian owners can charge at home according to Chat: “If you mean U.S. electric-vehicle owners, the best recent estimates put it at roughly 85–90% who have access to charging at home.”

The market leader Tesla MY goes 25% farther on a charge when driving 70mph. Since mixed driving is most often done at home, the Rivian’s range is arguably less helpful than Tesla’s range. It also may not meet customer expectations from the time they ordered. I think most of us R1 owners and RIVN owners were expecting R2 hwy range to be close to MY.

 

[rvnxyz001]

As I've posted on this forum many times, I drive a 165 mile route over and over again. My R1T, on that route, gets the EPA rated efficiency and range. My R2 does also. Nothing funny going on. If you drive a route profile that mimics the EPA cycle you will get the EPA numbers. If you don't, you won't. I see nothing nefarious with the R2 numbers. In my experience, the R2 EPA numbers are as accurate as the R1T EPA numbers.

Driving in conserve mode?

 

[Budman]

Driving in conserve mode?

Yes.

 

[rvnxyz001]

Yes.

Is the efficiency much worse in normal mode?

 

[Eric9610]

Is the efficiency much worse in normal mode?

I don't believe so as it only reduces the sensitivity to throttle, nothing more. Essentially AP mode and Conserve would get the same results.

 

[windblowlc]

It shows that getting more than 250 miles at 100% SOC requires a speed of 65 mph or possibly a little bit less.

so unless you are willing to drive slow or use ~90 % of the battery, getting more than 200 miles of range will be very difficult.

You keep forgetting that Car and Driver did 260 miles at 75 mph.

Sponsored