Dual-Motor Max & Quad-Motor Large Pack have same highway efficiency - my real world test

[zefram47]

Last weekend, to perform an apples to apples comparison, my friend and I drove both of my R1S’s 300+ miles while staying within sight of each other (prohibiting drafting impact). Results are that the efficiency was exactly the same, at 2 miles/kwh. So, my Max pack should theoretically be able to go 20 more miles than my Large Pack, on road trips like this. Womp, womp. I just saved you from a 7 hour livestream. This warmish (temps in 30s to 50s, with some rain and headwinds) weather test yielded similar results as my first winter drive of just the Max pack on a route I’d driven my Large pack dozens of times. Dang. I’m torn on which to sell, but would probably lean toward selling my Max pack if I could come close to being made whole on the purchase, in the $90s.

Launch Edition Quad Large Pack 20”. Left Denver at 100% 310 miles of range in Conserve mode, and arrived at Rifle ChargePoint via interstate 70 with 78 or 25%, used 232 miles of range to go 192.8 miles (yes, 1/2 mile more than the other vehicle despite resetting tripometer at exact same point and driving the exact same route and having exact same tire pressure), 83% of rated range. 2.04 miles/kWh. Used 94 kWh, 2 hrs 59 minutes, 64 mph avg.

Max Pack Dual Motor 20”. Left Denver at 100% or 360 miles of range, and arrived with 113 or 31%, used 247 miles of range to go 192.3 miles, 78% of rated range. 2.0 miles per kWh. Used 96 kWh, 2 hrs 59 minutes, 64 mph avg.

Launch Edition charged to 224 miles or 71%, and arrived at Montrose ChargePoint with 95 or 30%, used 129 miles of range to go 114.7 actual driven miles, 89% of rated range. 2.06 miles per kWh, used 56 kWh, 1 hr 44 minutes, 66 mph avg.

Max pack charged to 252 or 69%, arrived at Montrose ChargePoint with 113 or 31%, used 139 miles of range to go 114.4 actual driven miles, 82% of rated range. 2.07 miles per kWh, used 55 kWh, 1 hr 44 minutes, 66 mph avg.

I had problems initiating charging via my new Bluedot app, and it only allows linking of one vehicle, can only initiate charging one at a time, and in Montrose the 2 chargers share the 200 kw, splitting power 120/80, so I couldn’t compare charging curve apples to apples, but I have no reason to think they are different.

Configurations are exactly the same other than battery size and # of motors. See my signature for details.

More or less what was assumed since the majority of what the DM got over QM for efficiency was automatically disconnecting the rear motor. Would've been curious to see leaving the QM in All-Purpose vs the DM as well, since I almost never use Conserve unless I know I need the extra range.

Why on earth did you use a ChargePoint instead of the RAN in Montrose?!? Actually, I don't even see a ChargePoint there...were you actually in Ouray?

Sponsored

 

[BrentInCO]

More or less what was assumed since the majority of what the DM got over QM for efficiency was automatically disconnecting the rear motor. Would've been curious to see leaving the QM in All-Purpose vs the DM as well, since I almost never use Conserve unless I know I need the extra range.

Why on earth did you use a ChargePoint instead of the RAN in Montrose?!? Actually, I don't even see a ChargePoint there...were you actually in Ouray?

I always use Conserve on open highway, at highway speeds, dry road conditions. If it's just me in the car, I set the suspension height to Low, as long as I can stand it.

The two 200 kw ChargePoint chargers are in downtown Montrose next to the Tesla SuperChargers. As to why, for one, the Crumbl Cookies location next to the RAN has permanently closed , but for real, as I mentioned in my post, I'm trying out the Bluedot app for the discounts. So, via that app / debit card, it costs $0.30/kwh at the ChargePoint, vs. $0.36 at the RAN, though Bluedot provides a 20% discount at RAN (and Tesla) chargers, so that would have negated the difference. BUT, if I use the Bluedot app to initiate a charge, 5 times, in the first month of usage, then the cost will be $0.25/kwh going forward, as long as I use the Bluedot app to initiate a charge 3 times per month. There are a good number of 200kw ChargePoints along my routes across Colorado now, so I expect to use those more. For example, I also did charge in Ouray, just to test it out, and get one step closer to the 5 charges I need this month, and paid $0.30/kwh instead of the retail rate of $0.58. And on my drive back, I used one at a Starbucks in Glenwood Springs.

 

[BullNBear]

Thanks some interesting findings

However the test was invalidated on mile 1. By driving in conserve mode on the quad you lowered the ride height and dramatically increased wear on your tires While simultaneously decreasing drag and energy use. There have been numerous posts on the tire wear and recently a large car magazine confirmed this as well. The vehicle is not designed to be driven in conserve mode for any length of time.

Secondly by driving 64 vs more normal 70-75 highway speed the test was further invalidated due to the quad being lower decreasing it's drag. At normal speeds the difference would have been more noticeable. The comparison is no longer apples to apples.

Had it been driven in normal mode at typical highway speeds and typical height you could expect 30-40 miles difference I would imagine from the combination of the larger battery and two vs four motors.

Last weekend, to perform an apples to apples comparison, my friend and I drove both of my R1S’s 300+ miles while staying within sight of each other (prohibiting drafting impact). Results are that the efficiency was exactly the same, at 2 miles/kwh. So, my Max pack should theoretically be able to go 20 more miles than my Large Pack, on road trips like this. Womp, womp. I just saved you from a 7 hour livestream. This warmish (temps in 30s to 50s, with some rain and headwinds) weather test yielded similar results as my first winter drive of just the Max pack on a route I’d driven my Large pack dozens of times. Dang. I’m torn on which to sell, but would probably lean toward selling my Max pack if I could come close to being made whole on the purchase, in the $90s.

Launch Edition Quad Large Pack 20”. Left Denver at 100% 310 miles of range in Conserve mode, and arrived at Rifle ChargePoint via interstate 70 with 78 or 25%, used 232 miles of range to go 192.8 miles (yes, 1/2 mile more than the other vehicle despite resetting tripometer at exact same point and driving the exact same route and having exact same tire pressure), 83% of rated range. 2.04 miles/kWh. Used 94 kWh, 2 hrs 59 minutes, 64 mph avg.

Max Pack Dual Motor 20”. Left Denver at 100% or 360 miles of range, and arrived with 113 or 31%, used 247 miles of range to go 192.3 miles, 78% of rated range. 2.0 miles per kWh. Used 96 kWh, 2 hrs 59 minutes, 64 mph avg.

Launch Edition charged to 224 miles or 71%, and arrived at Montrose ChargePoint with 95 or 30%, used 129 miles of range to go 114.7 actual driven miles, 89% of rated range. 2.06 miles per kWh, used 56 kWh, 1 hr 44 minutes, 66 mph avg.

Max pack charged to 252 or 69%, arrived at Montrose ChargePoint with 113 or 31%, used 139 miles of range to go 114.4 actual driven miles, 82% of rated range. 2.07 miles per kWh, used 55 kWh, 1 hr 44 minutes, 66 mph avg.

I had problems initiating charging via my new Bluedot app, and it only allows linking of one vehicle, can only initiate charging one at a time, and in Montrose the 2 chargers share the 200 kw, splitting power 120/80, so I couldn’t compare charging curve apples to apples, but I have no reason to think they are different.

Configurations are exactly the same other than battery size and # of motors. See my signature for details.

 

[BrentInCO]

Thanks some interesting findings

However the test was invalidated on mile 1. By driving in conserve mode on the quad you lowered the ride height and dramatically increased wear on your tires While simultaneously decreasing drag and energy use. There have been numerous posts on the tire wear and recently a large car magazine confirmed this as well. The vehicle is not designed to be driven in conserve mode for any length of time.

Secondly by driving 64 vs more normal 70-75 highway speed the test was further invalidated due to the quad being lower decreasing it's drag. At normal speeds the difference would have been more noticeable. The comparison is no longer apples to apples.

Had it been driven in normal mode at typical highway speeds and typical height you could expect 30-40 miles difference I would imagine from the combination of the larger battery and two vs four motors.

Both vehicles were in Standard height, apples to apples.

Conserve mode is intended for use at highway speeds, which is the only time I used it. The dual motor also switches to front wheel drive at such speeds. Apples to apples.

The 64 mph average or whatnot on both legs of the trip is due to driving in the city at times, and traffic on the interstate, at times. Speed limit varies from 65 to 75 mph along the interstate. This is a real world test, highway roadtrip, side by side, apples to apples. I imagine more people are interested in that than a strictly city test, of a quad motor vs dual.

 

[BullNBear]

Thanks for the clarification on the height! Interesting data.

Both vehicles were in Standard height, apples to apples.

Conserve mode is intended for highway speeds, which is the only time I used it.

The 64 mph average or whatnot is due to driving in the city at times, and traffic on the interstate, at times. Speed limit varies from 65 to 75 mph along the interstate. This is a real world test, side by side.

 

[usulio]

This is cool, thanks for sharing. You said average speed for the segment was 64mph, what was the usual cruising speed on the highway? 70?

 

[BrentInCO]

This is cool, thanks for sharing. You said average speed for the segment was 64mph, what was the usual cruising speed on the highway? 70?

75 to 85 where possible, but there's other traffic, of course.

 

[opnwide]

There have been numerous posts on the tire wear and recently a large car magazine confirmed this as well.

I mentioned in my new tire thread that I purposely did not rotate my OEM Pirelli AT’s to kill them faster, and in my QM, I absolutely never use Conserve and my front tires had significantly more wear than the rears. I think the Conserve=front tire wear is a bit overblown in my experience.

 

[BrentInCO]

I mentioned in my new tire thread that I purposely did not rotate my OEM Pirelli AT’s to kill them faster, and in my QM, I absolutely never use Conserve and my front tires had significantly more wear than the rears. I think the Conserve=front tire wear is a bit overblown in my experience.

And my case is the opposite of yours, in that I wanted my stock 20s to last as long as possible, so I've had Discount Tire rotate every 5k miles, including the full size spare, and result is that my tires have lasted at least 20k miles (granted, 5, vs. 4), with the vast majority of my miles (30k, I purchased winter tires in November) over the first year being highway, using Conserve mode.

 

[BrentInCO]

Last weekend, to perform an apples to apples comparison, my friend and I drove both of my R1S’s 300+ miles while staying within sight of each other (prohibiting drafting impact). Results are that the efficiency was exactly the same, at 2 miles/kwh. So, my Max pack should theoretically be able to go 20 more miles than my Large Pack, on road trips like this. Womp, womp. I just saved you from a 7 hour livestream. This warmish (temps in 30s to 50s, with some rain and headwinds) weather test yielded similar results as my first winter drive of just the Max pack on a route I’d driven my Large pack dozens of times. Dang. I’m torn on which to sell, but would probably lean toward selling my Max pack if I could come close to being made whole on the purchase, in the $90s.

Launch Edition Quad Large Pack 20”. Left Denver at 100% 310 miles of range in Conserve mode, and arrived at Rifle ChargePoint via interstate 70 with 78 or 25%, used 232 miles of range to go 192.8 miles (yes, 1/2 mile more than the other vehicle despite resetting tripometer at exact same point and driving the exact same route and having exact same tire pressure), 83% of rated range. 2.04 miles/kWh. Used 94 kWh, 2 hrs 59 minutes, 64 mph avg.

Max Pack Dual Motor 20”. Left Denver at 100% or 360 miles of range, and arrived with 113 or 31%, used 247 miles of range to go 192.3 miles, 78% of rated range. 2.0 miles per kWh. Used 96 kWh, 2 hrs 59 minutes, 64 mph avg.

Launch Edition charged to 224 miles or 71%, and arrived at Montrose ChargePoint with 95 or 30%, used 129 miles of range to go 114.7 actual driven miles, 89% of rated range. 2.06 miles per kWh, used 56 kWh, 1 hr 44 minutes, 66 mph avg.

Max pack charged to 252 or 69%, arrived at Montrose ChargePoint with 113 or 31%, used 139 miles of range to go 114.4 actual driven miles, 82% of rated range. 2.07 miles per kWh, used 55 kWh, 1 hr 44 minutes, 66 mph avg.

I had problems initiating charging via my new Bluedot app, and it only allows linking of one vehicle, can only initiate charging one at a time, and in Montrose the 2 chargers share the 200 kw, splitting power 120/80, so I couldn’t compare charging curve apples to apples, but I have no reason to think they are different.

Configurations are exactly the same other than battery size and # of motors. See my signature for details.

And tonight my friend and I drove both vehicles from the Montrose, CO Rivian charger to Denver, but not via I-70 this time … via US 50 & Hwy 285, two lane highways going over multiple passes, 65 mph speed limit at most. Same results in that both vehicles delivered the same efficiency, +/- 2.6 miles / kWh. “Charged to 100% in Montrose (360 miles in my Max Pack, 278 in my Large Pack in All Purpose mode, or 310 miles in Conserve mode), and arrived in Denver with 86 miles or 24% in my Max Pack, and 54 miles (in Conserve mode) or 17% in my Large Pack. Used 274 miles in the Max Pack to go 265 actual driven miles 97% ratio 2.58 miles / kWh used 103 kWh 4 hours 42 minutes of driving 56 mph average, temperatures in the 60s & 70s. Large Pack used 256 miles of range to go 265 actual driven miles 104% ratio used 102 kWh 2.6 miles / kWh mostly in Conserve mode.”

And for what’s it’s worth, my Quad Large has lifetime efficiency of 2.24 over its 31k+ miles and my Dual Max has 2.2 over its 16k+ miles.

 

[KenCar]

Thank you Brent for detailing your journeys with the two cars side-by-side! Your range efficiency on 20" tires is about the same as my G2 with 22-inch wheels and aero covers.

As a relative newcomer, I have not focused on efficiency

Sponsored