R2 Performance 3.6s 0–60 - which drive mode?

[rvnxyz001]

Something I’m curious about: Rivian advertises the R2 Performance at 3.6 seconds from 0–60, but I haven’t seen them clearly state which drive mode that number is based on.

Does it require Sport with Launch Mode, or can it do 3.6 in regular Sport? The 3.6-second figure was advertised before Launch Mode became available to owners through a software update, so I’m wondering whether Launch Mode is actually required or whether it just makes the car slightly quicker than the advertised number

Also, has anyone seen a measured 0–60 time in All-Purpose mode? That’s probably what most people will use day to day, and I’m curious whether it is still in the high-three-second range or closer to 4-5 seconds.

Sponsored

 

[emroch]

Why do you need sub-4 second 0-60 in "day to day" driving or in All Purpose mode? Its just a stat to showcase the maximum capability of the car. Sports cars advertise top speed, even though most people will (should) never hit that speed.

And as for when it was advertised, Rivian obviously had prototypes with Launch Mode enabled for internal testing well before they released it to the public. Given that people have been recording 3.4s 0-60 in Launch Mode, I'd wager that Rivian measured it in Launch Mode (or an unrestricted internal mode which unlocked max torque), and either padded it a little to avoid false advertising or continued to make tuning adjustments that made the production version slightly better.

 

[rvnxyz001]

Why do you need sub-4 second 0-60 in "day to day" driving or in All Purpose mode?

It’s not a question of need. I just want to clarify the spec. Many cars don’t have any special modes, so it’s clear under what conditions they achieve the advertised performance. Maybe the R2 does 3.6 seconds only in Launch Mode, while All Purpose mode is closer to 7 seconds, which would be a bummer. I just wanted to know what the actual number is.

 

[RoadtripEV]

It’s not a question of need. I just want to clarify the spec. Many cars don’t have any special modes, so it’s clear under what conditions they achieve the advertised performance. Maybe the R2 does 3.6 seconds only in Launch Mode, while All Purpose mode is closer to 7 seconds, which would be a bummer. I just wanted to know what the actual number is.

I think its a valid question. My assumption is that to get all that performance out of the vehicle, it needs to be in launch mode. Sport mode probably is slightly less, but not by too much. All Purpose and Conserve, you might as well walk to your destination.

 

[Great Gatsby]

Having recently driven it, both modes feel about the same to me and pull really hard. Launch mode makes it slightly quicker (3.4 vs the 3.6) but wouldn’t surprise me if you can hit 3.6 in sport mode from a dig and probably around the same or slight slower (maybe 4) in All-Purpose.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Sport launch. R2 is kind of reserved at a stop otherwise. Probably lessons learned from R1.

 

[SmorOfNaivir]

Sport launch. R2 is kind of reserved at a stop otherwise. Probably lessons learned from R1.

I agree with this. Another poster above said it pulls from a stop either in all purpose or sport, but I felt that all purpose from a stop felt restrained, and sport felt like the responsiveness I remember from my R1.

 

[Mos Eisley]

It’s not a question of need. I just want to clarify the spec. Many cars don’t have any special modes, so it’s clear under what conditions they achieve the advertised performance. Maybe the R2 does 3.6 seconds only in Launch Mode, while All Purpose mode is closer to 7 seconds, which would be a bummer. I just wanted to know what the actual number is.

It's been "tested" and documented a number of ways by a number of folks particularly on Reddit and some of the FB groups if you'd do some searching. Including OOS:

 

[rvnxyz001]

It's been "tested" and documented a number of ways by a number of folks particularly on Reddit and some of the FB groups if you'd do some searching. Including OOS:

Thanks !

In All-Purpose mode, the Rivian R2 Performance achieved a 0-60 mph time of 4.3 seconds (19:04).


Direct link to all purpose test

 

[JamboF4]

It’s not a question of need. I just want to clarify the spec. Many cars don’t have any special modes, so it’s clear under what conditions they achieve the advertised performance. Maybe the R2 does 3.6 seconds only in Launch Mode, while All Purpose mode is closer to 7 seconds, which would be a bummer. I just wanted to know what the actual number is.

Good for you. That was a d-bag answer to a valid question. I once asked if the QuadMax 2.5 time (0-60) is achievable in everyday, All-Purpose…it was not. It’s more like 2.8-2.9 (still crazy quick) but I got respectful, accurate answers, which changed my mind about spending a buck-twenty on a new R1T. JMHO

 

[r2fb]

When I test drove the R2, sport or all-purpose mode did not make a difference in how the acceleration felt, it was brutal either way.

 

[RivAW]

Good for you. That was a d-bag answer to a valid question. I once asked if the QuadMax 2.5 time (0-60) is achievable in everyday, All-Purpose…it was not. It’s more like 2.8-2.9 (still crazy quick) but I got respectful, accurate answers, which changed my mind about spending a buck-twenty on a new R1T. JMHO

You made a decision about spending ~$120K on a vehicle based on "respectful answers" in a public forum??

 

[rvnxyz001]

I assume premium R2 is going to be like performance in all-purpose mode. maybe for most people, it will be more than enough. Not everyone will switch to sport mode before entering the highway.

 

[JamboF4]

When I test drove the R2, sport or all-purpose mode did not make a difference in how the acceleration felt, it was brutal either way.

Yes, understood. Seat of-of-the-pants experience is all that matters, unless you’re on timers at a drag strip. The “tenths-of-a-second” discussion is kinda’ funny anyhow: clap your hand together twice, as quickly as you can. Thats about 3-tenths of a second. Can the average Joe feel that difference? Likely not…he/she just THINKS they can.

You made a decision about spending ~$120K on a vehicle based on "respectful answers" in a public forum??

NO, not even remotely. I made a decision to not trade in a flawless ‘22 R1T with 10K miles.. then shelling out ANOTHER $60-$65K for a QuadMax, from DATA I received on this forum. The DECISION was a cost-benefit analysis to actually realize 2-3 tenths, zero-to-60 in All Purpose, have a poor stereo and still have to replace the PPF and Ceramic Pro. But, thank you so much for your insightful, meaningful question, which contributed greatly to respectful exchange of thoughts and opinions on this forums.

 

[ElGuano]

NO, not even remotely. I made a decision to not trade in a flawless ‘22 R1T with 10K miles.. then shelling out ANOTHER $60-$65K for a QuadMax, from DATA I received on this forum. The DECISION was a cost-benefit analysis to actually realize 2-3 tenths, zero-to-60 in All Purpose, have a poor stereo and still have to replace the PPF and Ceramic Pro. But, thank you so much for your insightful, meaningful question, which contributed greatly to respectful exchange of thoughts and opinions on this forums.

I honestly don't get the vibe of this place sometimes. That was such an odd strawman to stand up. Clearly you asked a question seeking facts, received those facts from knowledgeable people in a respectful way that didn't just assume and belittle your intentions, and you made a decision based on how important those facts were to you. Suggesting that you made you decision based on the attitude of the respondents seems like an obtuse take, at best.

Sponsored