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

[ksurfier]

The 2018 Model 3 Long Range RWD remains an exceptional efficiency benchmark. It was EPA-rated at 310 miles with roughly 75–78 kWh usable, yet at a steady 60 mph it can reasonably deliver about 4.2–4.3 mi/kWh, or roughly 320–330 miles when new. In other words, its real 60-mph range can slightly exceed its EPA rating.

The R2 Performance is the opposite story. Despite a much larger 88.7-kWh usable battery and a 335-mile EPA rating, current 60-mph data points to only about 3.2 mi/kWh, translating to roughly 280 miles. That puts its steady 60-mph range around 12–15% below EPA, while the Model 3 is roughly 3–6% above EPA. EPA suggests the R2 should have about a 25-mile advantage, but at 60 mph the Model 3 may actually lead by roughly 30–40 miles.

And here’s the real-world challenge: I challenge any R2 owner to beat the range of my 2018 Model 3 with nearly 200,000 miles and only about 80% battery health. Let’s stop debating EPA labels and see who can actually drive 250 miles.

Sponsored

 

[caffeinated]

To the question in the thread title, we will probably see more long range data after US road trip holidays like labor day and thanksgiving.

 

[lefkonj]

My last gas car was rated for 25MPG, I was lucky to get 21. These numbers are all crap and have been for years. Why do we care so much. Drive the vehicle you enjoy for the reason you enjoy and don't worry about the things you can't control. You have plenty of charging options so who cares.

 

[Mos Eisley]

Garbage in - garbage out.

 

[Golferguy]

The 2018 Model 3 Long Range RWD remains an exceptional efficiency benchmark. It was EPA-rated at 310 miles with roughly 75–78 kWh usable, yet at a steady 60 mph it can reasonably deliver about 4.2–4.3 mi/kWh, or roughly 320–330 miles when new. In other words, its real 60-mph range can slightly exceed its EPA rating.

The R2 Performance is the opposite story. Despite a much larger 88.7-kWh usable battery and a 335-mile EPA rating, current 60-mph data points to only about 3.2 mi/kWh, translating to roughly 280 miles. That puts its steady 60-mph range around 12–15% below EPA, while the Model 3 is roughly 3–6% above EPA. EPA suggests the R2 should have about a 25-mile advantage, but at 60 mph the Model 3 may actually lead by roughly 30–40 miles.

And here’s the real-world challenge: I challenge any R2 owner to beat the range of my 2018 Model 3 with nearly 200,000 miles and only about 80% battery health. Let’s stop debating EPA labels and see who can actually drive 250 miles.

I had a 2018 M3. At 48mph I could get 4.1mi/kwh. Not at 60mph. As a former owner I know the real world numbers of that car. And to compare a real SUV with a small sedan is BS. Not sure what trouble you are trying to stir up with misstating real world numbers and apples/oranges comparisons

 

[Eric9610]

I will state it again here as I have in the other threads. It’s a choice to not achieve the EPA range. I have now done several trips of 72 miles each way and the R2 performed as advertised.

I think a lot of people comparing the R2 to a Y on here are wrong in doing that as many would not go from an R1 to a Y. So in this comparison the R2 is about 2x more efficient in my findings.

 

[Budman]

I have been a loyal member of this forum for about 4 years now. Ksurfier has single-handedly made a once enjoyable experience rather unpleasant. I beg you sir, please stop.

Stop perpetuating the myth that the EPA test give an estimated highway speed range

Stop the inaccurate application of statistics

Stop the mind numbing repetition

Stop the very long AI generated slop posts.

For the record, one more time. Here is an example of “REAL WORLD DRIVING “ where the EPA range is achieved.

I recommend folks review what the EPA test actually is.
https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/how-epa-estimated-range-is-calculated

See you later, I might be gone for awhile…

 

[Rade]

What I am aware of is that my R1T-Large costs me a consistent $0.09 cents per mile to drive. When I was driving my Nissan Frontier, the Frontier cost me $0.19 cents per mile.

When I would fill up the frontier, usually from a quarter tank to full, back in 2024, it ran me an average of $35 for the tank of gas ($2.59 avg ppg) and that gave me about 180 miles of range.

The R1T, when I use the Tesla subscription DCFC, it costs me an average of $18 and it gives me... about 180 miles of range. And that is literally based on where the rubber meets the road.

After nearly 2 years of owning an EV (my first!), I have just stopped with that "must compare apples to oranges" narrative, and just... let it go.

 

[tivoboy]

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

I still have that car (the RWD LR though) and at least initially got frequently at least 275-280 traveling >75 on highways. Today only a bit less.

 

[tivoboy]

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

Technically, the team that did that wasn’t actually hypermiming they were simply driving a defined loop mostly around a closed shopping center. I believe at night and over I believe a holiday weekend. Overall, I think they’re optimal average speed was 31 mph.

 

[Brou]

If nothing else, Ksurfier has consistently demonstrated how easily trollable people are. This thread will continue for dozens more pages as trollees continue arguing with him about what they've already spent dozens of pages arguing with him about in his other thread(s?).

 

[en56]

@ksurfier . Still waiting to hear what your desired outcome is?

@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

 

[tivoboy]

I don’t really understand why anyone thinks the 330 mile EPA rating means how far the vehicle will travel at a constant speed on a highway traveling 70 mph.??

It doesn’t seem like it but it seems like is this or would the R2 be the OP’s first EV?

Yes, the marketing is poor especially for new buyers to EV vehicles because of course if someone truly reads the 330 mile EPA estimated range and thinks that means they can load up their car and drive 70 miles an hour on the highway that they’re going to be able to do that 330 miles is totally inaccurate.
and I would argue irrational. But blame the EPA and not properly communicating what the EPA rated range test means.

Once I get mine in a week or so I’m going to do a parallel test to what I’ve done for road trips in my 2018 Rear Wheel Dr. long range Tesla model three. I’ll drive from home on the Peninsula down to Palm Springs. It’s a good long, duration test because between home and the Tejon Ranch superchargers (~ 290 miles) there are plenty of Tesla superchargers about every 10 miles from Firebaigh to casteic. So the ability to keep driving another 10 miles on the highway and confidently be able to reach the next supercharger is high.

Normally for an a.m. drive my bladder won’t last that long so I’ll have to purposely stop at Kettleman or Harris Ranch only for a bio break.

This is the type of long duration drive I would test the usable range of the R2 against. Not absolute nonstop no wavering no slowing no stopping but a real world point a to point B with all the expected transitions in between. A rest area stop. Some uphill, some downhill, some traffic, several on and off ramps and sometime behind a truck waiting to pass and other times accelerating while passing. Some of those things will use a bit more electrons, but SOME will provide some electrons via regeneration.. certainly some portion of downhill, and deceleration on off ramps, behind slow vehicles, some downhill runs, even just some highway lift off the go peddle.. In the “long range” tests we’ve seen some of they are really as much as possible done as constant speed, no decel, very little if any off-ramps. so there is near ZERO regen. Regen is a true part of EV driving mechanics.

I’ll report back with copious detail.

 

[DaveA]

Time to ignore B*tthole Surfier.

 

[Mysta]

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

I don’t need to, there’s verified data confirming it. Would love to see you prove otherwise.

I still have that car (the RWD LR though) and at least initially got frequently at least 275-280 traveling >75 on highways. Today only a bit less.

Two very different cars. Especially considering wheels, Bjorn has an earlier model 3 performance at 240 mi range at 75mph in summer, i think 211 miles in winter.

You guys act like this is new, early teslas were far off of their EPA, they got better over the years. That's a fact. Were they still efficient, yes, unfortunately not a ton of data around the 2018/2019 time period

Sponsored