Does ride height make mileage / range difference?

[Hercules10]

I have been setting the ride height to auto. When R1S goes into conserve mode it lowers the suspension to low. Problem I have is Texas highways are not the smoothest. Standard ride height is be better. So the question is how much milage do I lose going from low to standard ride height. Not important around town, but on a trip it would be useful information.

Sponsored

 

[COdogman]

CO also has terrible roads and I leave mine in auto because the suspension still does its job even in low. If leaving it in standard seems better to you I don’t think it would make a huge difference in range, but I’m sure it’s also not nothing.

 

[jemkewl]

I have been setting the ride height to auto. When R1S goes into conserve mode it lowers the suspension to low. Problem I have is Texas highways are not the smoothest. Standard ride height is be better. So the question is how much milage do I lose going from low to standard ride height. Not important around town, but on a trip it would be useful information.

Don't think a test like this has occurred. Hard to account for wind and traffic and such to control the variables and pinpoint how much height is a factor. Tradeoffs always exist - tire wear may be one of them as things like camber change with the heights.

 

[BrentInCO]

I have been setting the ride height to auto. When R1S goes into conserve mode it lowers the suspension to low. Problem I have is Texas highways are not the smoothest. Standard ride height is be better. So the question is how much milage do I lose going from low to standard ride height. Not important around town, but on a trip it would be useful information.

A couple automotive YouTubers (OutOfSpec Kyle and Branden Flasch who has since sold his Rivian) had tested out Low vs Standard, and other heights, and concluded the difference in range was negligible, and a negative side effect was uneven tire wear (and others on this forum have said the same). That said, it was over a year ago so I don’t recall where to find such videos / information; I just recall that conclusion. And contributing to that conclusion, in my opinion, is that the incremental / extra cost of energy ($0.36/kWh at a RAN) due to the ~20% or whatever amount of lower efficiency is less than the cost of uneven tire wear (having to buy new tires far earlier than otherwise would be necessary), so I wouldn’t use Low suspension. Search the forum and you may find existing opinions and experiences.

Fast forward to last weekend. I drove across Colorado, 300 miles one way, 65-75 mph, in winter, with 40+mph winds, sometimes headwind, sometimes cross wind, sometimes a tailwind, and I chose Low suspension setting. Efficiency was as much as 2.53 on one 150 mile stretch between chargers, which is near the best I’ve ever experienced over at least such a distance, and that had occurred in summer / ideal conditions, Standard height. That same stretch earlier in the winter was 2.06, 2.09, 2.22, but weather conditions were not the same, of course. They’ll always vary. Have I measured tire tread to look for uneven wear? No, it was only 300 miles. Will I try Low suspension height on my next, same long distance highway drive? Yes. Why? Because I could skip one RAN and make it to the next one with the extra 20 miles of range over that 265 mile distance, saving me 20+ minutes of the out of the way diversion to that first RAN, during a 6 hour one way drive / trip that ends around midnight. That time savings reduces risks such as a significant delay or road closure ahead of me due to a car accident, jackknifed truck or blizzard, all of which have actually happened to me. Less time on the road at night = less chance of running in to a deer or other wildlife. I will ask Discount Tire if there’s uneven wear on my next 5,000 mile rotation, which is around 4,000 miles from now, or swap removing my winter tires. During the prior 27,000 miles, at Standard height, there’s been no uneven wear. 21k on stock Pirellis; 6k on Blizzaks.

 

[R.I.P.]

I have been setting the ride height to auto. When R1S goes into conserve mode it lowers the suspension to low. Problem I have is Texas highways are not the smoothest. Standard ride height is be better. So the question is how much milage do I lose going from low to standard ride height. Not important around town, but on a trip it would be useful information.

The faster you go, the more of a hit you will take at higher ride heights. It is roughly 3% @ 70mph.

 

[Cascadian]

A couple automotive YouTubers (OutOfSpec Kyle and Branden Flasch who has since sold his Rivian) had tested out Low vs Standard, and other heights, and concluded the difference in range was negligible, and a negative side effect was uneven tire wear (and others on this forum have said the same). That said, it was over a year ago so I don’t recall where to find such videos / information; I just recall that conclusion. And contributing to that conclusion, in my opinion, is that the incremental / extra cost of energy ($0.36/kWh at a RAN) due to the ~20% or whatever amount of lower efficiency is less than the cost of uneven tire wear (having to buy new tires far earlier than otherwise would be necessary), so I wouldn’t use Low suspension. Search the forum and you may find existing opinions and experiences.

Fast forward to last weekend. I drove across Colorado, 300 miles one way, 65-75 mph, in winter, with 40+mph winds, sometimes headwind, sometimes cross wind, sometimes a tailwind, and I chose Low suspension setting. Efficiency was as much as 2.53 on one 150 mile stretch between chargers, which is near the best I’ve ever experienced over at least such a distance, and that had occurred in summer / ideal conditions, Standard height. That same stretch earlier in the winter was 2.06, 2.09, 2.22, but weather conditions were not the same, of course. They’ll always vary. Have I measured tire tread to look for uneven wear? No, it was only 300 miles. Will I try Low suspension height on my next, same long distance highway drive? Yes. Why? Because I could skip one RAN and make it to the next one with the extra 20 miles of range over that 265 mile distance, saving me 20+ minutes of the out of the way diversion to that first RAN, during a 6 hour one way drive / trip that ends around midnight. That time savings reduces risks such as a significant delay or road closure ahead of me due to a car accident, jackknifed truck or blizzard, all of which have actually happened to me. Less time on the road at night = less chance of running in to a deer or other wildlife. I will ask Discount Tire if there’s uneven wear on my next 5,000 mile rotation, which is around 4,000 miles from now, or swap removing my winter tires. During the prior 27,000 miles, at Standard height, there’s been no uneven wear. 21k on stock Pirellis; 6k on Blizzaks.

As you say the lower ride height improves efficiency only a small amount, but on a long journey that may be important.
IMO another important reason to use Auto is safety. Lower cg is Safeway higher speed in case of emergency maneuvers.

Question for you
I have used Blizzaks on my Outbacks for years for great winter performance. Do you notice a significant change in efficiency vs your OEM tires?

 

[Singletracker]

Question for you
I have used Blizzaks on my Outbacks for years for great winter performance. Do you notice a significant change in efficiency vs your OEM tires?

I have Blizzacks on my R1T (20” wheels). While there are countless variables, I can’t really say they are any less/more efficient than the standard Pirelli A/T’s. They seem about the same, to me. I’ve also tried the lower ride height settings a few times and really didn’t notice a difference in efficiency. If you are traveling a long distance, at speeds above 70 mph, that’s probably where lowering the ride height will help.

 

[BrentInCO]

I have Blizzacks on my R1T (20” wheels). While there are countless variables, I can’t really say they are any less/more efficient than the standard Pirelli A/T’s. They seem about the same, to me. I’ve also tried the lower ride height settings a few times and really didn’t notice a difference in efficiency. If you are traveling a long distance, at speeds above 70 mph, that’s probably where lowering the ride height will help.

Agreed

 

[goldburger]

So this is a little wild, as I mentioned in the thread in Recon Grapplers my mileage is not great, my regular daily driving doesn’t differ much, and I have a good 15 miles upward elevation I end up at 1.84 and was 2.14 with the OE 21’s.

Dropping to low I am seeing a noticeable difference— I am finishing at 2.05. That’s a wild difference right?

Both are 100% all purpose

 

[shamoo]

From a physics perspective, yes it makes a difference. But your results may vary as it is dependent on a lot of factors. However I probably wouldn't worry even on a longer trip. Maybe you gain another few miles? Hardly impactful. But efficiency is cumulative. A little here, a little there, potentially add up to a lot.

I do want to comment on those who talk about "terrible roads". The Rivian is a pickup/SUV. It is not a low vehicle even at its lowest ride height and I can't imagine roads being bad enough that it would negatively affect something. If it was that bad, you'd see it and slow down. Even the OEM 22" wheels have pretty fat sidewalls relatively speaking.

What then would happen if you were driving a normal vehicle? Would you total it on these so-called terrible roads?

 

[LL75]

I have been setting the ride height to auto. When R1S goes into conserve mode it lowers the suspension to low. Problem I have is Texas highways are not the smoothest. Standard ride height is be better. So the question is how much milage do I lose going from low to standard ride height. Not important around town, but on a trip it would be useful information.

Wind is the most important factors in efficiency in my opinion. I'm in north Texas and it is 15 to 20 Mph wind most of the time. I always put it on auto mode since it is lowering it on highway. Conserve low when I'm travel for trips.

 

[goldburger]

From a physics perspective, yes it makes a difference. But your results may vary as it is dependent on a lot of factors.

not sure if you're replying to my post or the original one, but i'm seeing nearly a 10% difference, which is pretty drastic IMO.

 

[s4wrxttcs]

I've experimented with it a fair amount, and I'm only seeing a negligible difference.

When I say experimented I really mean I've gotten to lower the ride height.

I don't typically use conserve because it changes the way the car handles in the wet, and everyone knows the PNW is perpetually wet.

 

[usulio]

I do want to comment on those who talk about "terrible roads". The Rivian is a pickup/SUV. It is not a low vehicle even at its lowest ride height and I can't imagine roads being bad enough that it would negatively affect something. If it was that bad, you'd see it and slow down. Even the OEM 22" wheels have pretty fat sidewalls relatively speaking.

What then would happen if you were driving a normal vehicle? Would you total it on these so-called terrible roads?

They're talking about ride comfort related to the bumpiness of the suspension. Not anything damaging. In Standard the suspension has a bit more room to absorb bumps.

After using Conserve-Lowest on the highways a bit and feeling huge bumps at boundaries like an overpass, we switched back to Low and it was much better. Didn't feel we needed Standard on that trip but did need to go up to Low.

Sponsored