The 330-Mile Question: Where Are the 260+ Mile R2 Drives?

[ksurfier]

With more than 100 R2s now appearing in the Roamer dataset, one result is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: despite the 330-mile headline range, we still don’t have a single recorded R2 drive reaching 260 miles.

The longest is Out of Spec at 256 miles and 2.80 mi/kWh. The next two are 244 miles at 2.90 mi/kWh and 239 miles at 2.91 mi/kWh. In fact, among the 10 longest trips—all over 200 miles—the highest efficiency is just 2.91 mi/kWh.

That’s important because a ~90-kWh battery would need approximately 3.67 mi/kWh to travel 330 miles. By comparison, sustained long-distance R2 highway performance is clustering much closer to the high-2s, with the best long runs around 2.9 mi/kWh.

There are shorter trips above 3.0 mi/kWh, so it would be too strong to say the R2 cannot exceed 2.9. It clearly can under favorable speeds and conditions. What the data have not yet demonstrated is the ability to sustain anything close to the ~3.6–3.7 mi/kWh necessary for 330 miles over a long highway trip.

At roughly 2.8–2.9 mi/kWh, a 90-kWh usable battery translates to approximately 252–261 miles. At ~70 mph, the existing data suggest something closer to the 240–250-mile neighborhood.

That’s the critical distinction: 330 miles may be the rated number, but the growing real-world dataset is increasingly defining the R2’s actual highway-range envelope—and so far, nobody has cracked 260 miles.

What the longest R2 drives are telling us:

R2	Distance	Avg. Speed*	Efficiency	90-kWh Range Equivalent
OutOfSpec	256.0 mi	66.5 mph	2.80	252 mi
EVentureFamily	244.2 mi	54.7 mph	2.90	261 mi
VegasWeezy	238.6 mi	67.8 mph	2.91	262 mi
LivelySeeker619	223.1 mi	52.5 mph	2.79	251 mi
David_Vaught	222.5 mi	65.4 mph	2.45	221 mi
LosttheBeat	211.3 mi	71.6 mph	2.74	247 mi
launch_rivian	210.6 mi	58.0 mph	2.66	239 mi
skr1988	210.0 mi	70.4 mph	2.74	247 mi
ROAMER859251	205.1 mi	59.7 mph	2.42	218 mi
flex	203.8 mi	55.3 mph	2.41	217 mi

*Distance ÷ elapsed trip time; this is ground-speed average and may include traffic/stops.

It may be time to bring out the GIMP; the Gap In Measured Performance. The 21” was supposed to be the R2’s range king, but after multiple independent tests and tens of thousands of miles of owner data, that advantage is still nowhere to be found. The EPA numbers say there should be a meaningful gap; the pavement says otherwise. At some point, when the predicted advantage repeatedly fails to appear in the measurements, you have to stop arguing about the rating and start asking why the GIMP exists.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

How many of these threads are you going to start?

And the 20s are not as efficient as the 21s. You really need to stop misleading people with the bogus claim about how efficient the 20s are.

I guess I should say you should stop posting the same AI slop about the same misleading topic.

 

[evilyn]

I got my car just two days ago, so didn't have a chance for real road trip. I did ~50 mile round trip today, mostly on freeway, set speed limit at 75mph, though traffic was uneven, one small portion was stop and go -- just a usual traffic on work days. My total when I got home was 3.42 mi/kWh for this trip. Sure it's not a controlled experiment, but it's an indication that the car can do over 300 miles on a single charge for daily driving on freeway.

 

[ksurfier]

I got my car just two days ago, so didn't have a chance for real road trip. I did ~50 mile round trip today, mostly on freeway, set speed limit at 75mph, though traffic was uneven, one small portion was stop and go -- just a usual traffic on work days. My total when I got home was 3.42 mi/kWh for this trip. Sure it's not a controlled experiment, but it's an indication that the car can do over 300 miles on a single charge for daily driving on freeway.

All that means is your average speed was in the high 50s to low 60s…if you sustained a steady 75 mph, you might expect somewhere around 2.5 MPK. If 65 mph steady then you might hit ~3.0 MPK or so…

 

[emroch]

That’s important because a ~90-kWh battery would need approximately 3.67 mi/kWh to travel 330 miles. By comparison, sustained long-distance R2 highway performance is clustering much closer to the high-2s, with the best long runs around 2.9 mi/kWh.

There are shorter trips above 3.0 mi/kWh, so it would be too strong to say the R2 cannot exceed 2.9. It clearly can under favorable speeds and conditions. What the data have not yet demonstrated is the ability to sustain anything close to the ~3.6–3.7 mi/kWh necessary for 330 miles over a long highway trip.

The 330 mile range is not a highway range, and therefore the highway efficiency is not expected to be 3.67, or probably anywhere close to that. And no one is driving 250+ miles on slow urban streets, hitting all the green lights and never stopping, which is probably more akin to the EPA test cycle that generated the 330 mile rage estimate. Long drives are likely to be at higher speeds and therefore have lower efficiency.

I've also noticed that efficiency sucks for the first few minutes of my drives, probably because the battery, motors, and cabin are all super hot so the AC/coolant system has to work hard to cool everything down. Once it reaches a steady state, my efficiency is easily over 3 mi/kWh for the rest of the drive. But with more frequent, shorter, slower drives, my 100% range and overall average efficiency is not going to be anywhere near the 307/3.34 reference values.

 

[en56]

@ksurfier

maybe you could state your end goal?what are you looking to accomplish or convince people of? What’s your point?

There have a number of parallel threads you’ve got going on. It’s my opinion that there seems to be quite a lot of overlap and they do t individually have a distinct value from other threads .

While people are pushing back on some elements . I generally don’t hear a lot of disagreement with what I perceive to be your underlying premise:

R2 isn’t as efficient as it was suggested to be .

I think most people are broadly on the same page about this. Whether or not someone cares is a highly personal matter . But it seems like it must feel we aren’t hearing you . You’re really shouting something from the rooftops here on repeat . But what’s it ?

It feels like every new piece of data adds to a narrative ?

Yes, R2 is not that efficient , yes 21s are not tremendously efficient. So what ?

P.s. my 2 cents constructive feedback. your posts are a touch long and rambling

P.p.s I have a log going of other people’s captures drive data . I have 2 over 260. But it’s not a surprise . It’s entirely predicable that most drives will be under 260 given the efficiency

 

[ksurfier]

The 330 mile range is not a highway range, and therefore the highway efficiency is not expected to be 3.67, or probably anywhere close to that. And no one is driving 250+ miles on slow urban streets, hitting all the green lights and never stopping, which is probably more akin to the EPA test cycle that generated the 330 mile rage estimate. Long drives are likely to be at higher speeds and therefore have lower efficiency.

I've also noticed that efficiency sucks for the first few minutes of my drives, probably because the battery, motors, and cabin are all super hot so the AC/coolant system has to work hard to cool everything down. Once it reaches a steady state, my efficiency is easily over 3 mi/kWh for the rest of the drive. But with more frequent, shorter, slower drives, my 100% range and overall average efficiency is not going to be anywhere near the 307/3.34 reference values.

The early 75-kWh Tesla Model 3 Long Range achieved about 600 miles at a steady 35 mph, roughly 8 mi/kWh; pretty extraordinary demonstration of EV efficiency at low speeds.

Meanwhile, with roughly a 90-kWh battery, the R2 hasn’t even made it to 300 miles in the real-world tests we’ve tracked. Different vehicles and test conditions, of course: but the contrast is pretty remarkable. Go figure.

guess what the model 3 EPA range was!!!

 

[Mysta]

The early 75-kWh Tesla Model 3 Long Range achieved about 600 miles at a steady 35 mph, roughly 8 mi/kWh; pretty extraordinary demonstration of EV efficiency at low speeds.

Meanwhile, with roughly a 90-kWh battery, the R2 hasn’t even made it to 300 miles in the real-world tests we’ve tracked. Different vehicles and test conditions, of course: but the contrast is pretty remarkable. Go figure.

guess what the model 3 EPA range was!!!

As someone who owned a m3p 2018, my real range was 230-240, epa was 309.

 

[ksurfier]

As someone who owned a m3p 2018, my real range was 230-240, epa was 309.

Weird…You should get it looked at, I’m at 200k miles at it’s been 4 MPK since I can remember…

 

[Doogl]

Man the furthest I ever drove my Model 3 at high freeway speeds was 225 miles and that was only necessary because of a gap in chargers that no longer exists.

I have long ago understood that an "EPA Range" is not the same as a freeway range, particularly at the speeds I drive. I am really not worried about this.

Do we need another thread about this?

 

[GRSmith]

Most people 90% of the time, use their car for short trips and the recharge at home overnight. If course you are not seeing 330. Probably never will, because the commuter driver that is getting that mileage is never letting it get below 20-30% if they don't have home charging. If they do have home charging, you'll see a lot of 100s or less.

 

[GRSmith]

As someone who owned a m3p 2018, my real range was 230-240, epa was 309.

As someone with a 2018 RW M3 and a 2023 m3p I agree with this assessment.

 

[VandalSibs]

The early 75-kWh Tesla Model 3 Long Range achieved about 600 miles at a steady 35 mph, roughly 8 mi/kWh; pretty extraordinary demonstration of EV efficiency at low speeds.

Meanwhile, with roughly a 90-kWh battery, the R2 hasn’t even made it to 300 miles in the real-world tests we’ve tracked. Different vehicles and test conditions, of course: but the contrast is pretty remarkable. Go figure.

guess what the model 3 EPA range was!!!

You're comparing one constant 35mph test to data from multiple R2 drives are various (and mostly higher) speeds with vehicles that are very different shapes. Of course you're gonna get vastly different results! The laws of physics are always going to win.

Oh, and going 35mph for 600 miles is NOT a real-world test. That's either driving for 17 straight hours, or stop and go without recharging for even longer, which isn't real world behavior.

 

[GRSmith]

You're comparing one constant 35mph test to data from multiple R2 drives are various (and mostly higher) speeds with vehicles that are very different shapes. Of course you're gonna get vastly different results! The laws of physics are always going to win.

Oh, and going 35mph for 600 miles is NOT a real-world test. That's either driving for 17 straight hours, or stop and go without recharging for even longer, which isn't real world behavior.

Agreed. The 600 miles was a hypermiler test. I haven't heard of one of those yet for the R2.

 

[VSG]

This is getting tiresome, and seems deceptive on your part because I'm sure you KNOW what the EPA range means, yet you keep citing numbers based on conditions that are decidedly not EPA conditions (for example speed) and claiming you've proven that Rivian does not meet its EPA numbers. You even keep comparing the EPA *combined* range with your high-speed highway numbers. That's downright dishonest.

If you drive like the EPA test, you will get the EPA range. Period. Rivian isn't lying to you.

If you drive 100%->0% at high speed on the highway you're not going to get the EPA range. Duh.

And your so-called "real world" numbers are from highly subjective use-cases that don't reflect how an average person uses their vehicle any more than the EPA test does.

Sponsored