Efficiency boost from 2025.10 update? Anyone else seeing this?

[R1Thor]

As has been briefly mentioned in this thread: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/2025-10-update-now-installing.42932/post-768782

I'm seeing a pretty substantial efficiency boost out of nowhere.
[For context, I drive ~144 miles round trip for work. Due to highway speeds driving, as well as elevation changes, and how cold it is in the morning--I start my drive in around 0500--my TYPICAL SoC usage driving in on my nATs is ~35%. Today it was 25%. GRANTED, it's 20F warmer than it has been this past winter, this morning: I was seeing my thermometer read 61F, and last week during my drive in, it was all of 45F. But there's almost no way that a 40% improvement on efficiency is ONLY due to the weather, in my experience. Further, I typically see ~1.5-1.8 mi/kWh on the nATs at highway speeds. This morning I was well over 2.0 the entire trip. I don't recall, even on the warmest weather days, ever seeing that kind of highway efficiency with my nATs.]


I'm simply posting this to see if anyone else is having the same experience. Has 2025.10 made any considerable differences in your mi/kWh or your overall SoC usage for your typically driving?

If this isn't an anomaly for those of us seeing it, this is pretty incredible. Hopefully this isn't an isolated experience!

Discuss!

Sponsored

 

[Shmoe]

This has way more to do with outdoor temperature than it does any specific update.

 

[R1Thor]

This has way more to do with outdoor temperature than it does any specific update.

To be clear.
I have had my truck for over 2 years.
I know it pretty well.

40% improvement in efficiency is absolutely not just due to the modest temperature adjustment.
ESPECIALLY when you figure my battery temps are typically in the 'comfort zone' as my truck is parked in a heated garage.

Thanks for playing!

 

[2kwik4u]

This feels really weather related. Have a look at this data from yesterdays commute on my truck. 37.8% efficiency increase from my morning drive in to my afternoon drive home. Nearly the same deltaT you had 43degF in the AM, 63degF in the PM. Sure feels like a temperature related change from here.

Here's what my truck shows from data collected on ElectraFi regarding temperature vs efficiency. Right at a 10% swing in measured efficiency difference when comparing the 45deg to the 61deg segments. Not nearly as dramatic as our recent commute data would support.

Any data on your battery temps? Motor Temps? Tire Pressures? Assuming the same route to/from the office as well. Any thoughts on average speed/traffic issues that might have contributed?

I've found efficiency is more closely tied to motor temperature and tire pressure than battery temp. I've seen over 2.0mi/kWh with motor temps over 100degF, and tire pressures over 50psi, while battery temps were still under 50degF. For instance, driving in snow mode for the first 10mi or so will warm both motors, then switching to all purpose on my dual will drop the rear motors and get the highest efficiency. This seems to be much more important than battery temps in my experience.

I've also let the tire pressure drop into the mid 40's, and efficiency drops quick. I try to run around 50psi in mine and that seems to be around where the "sweet spot" is. Any more and the ride is garbage with no real increase, any less and the efficiency drops significantly. Mine will swing 3-4psi in the winter between sitting in the driveway and 20mi of interstate driving. Maybe you're right on the cusp here?!?!

Anecdotally (and I've only had the truck since Sept 30th), I've seen well over 2.0mi/kWh for long durations a number of times. Again, typically on road trips once the motors/bearings/etc are good and warm. Made 3 road trips now, 2 to KY and 1 to PA. I'll go back and consolidate the trips and see if my data backs up what I 'feel' like the truck is doing. My gut is telling me that 2.0mi/kWh isn't absurdly out of line with a warm truck with good pressures. You're 1.5-1.8 numbers "feel" like the cold weather numbers I was seeing in the dead of winter this year.

I would have to go back and dig through a ton of data, but I'm wondering if that 50degF range is the "tipping point" to drop us in to lower efficiency numbers. That is to say the 20deg swing from 40 to 60 is of greater importance than the 20 deg swing from 60 to 80, or from 10-30?!?!

Just a thought on motor temp observation above. I know my dual motor truck has oil bathed motors (not sure about your quad), and that would support the above theory. Viscosity isn't linear with temperature, and it thins much quicker in the "lower temps" than it does at higher temps. Pulled the below chart from Engineering Toolbox that corroborates that thought.

Love this kind of discussion. Thoughts?!?!

 

[richpike]

I'm on nATs too and religiously keep them aired up to 58psi cold. I've noticed my efficiency increase, but even before 2025.10 and for me it was tied to the weather finally warming up in Colorado (and we took a Spring Break trip to Phoenix where it was 90+). In general, my battery doesn't fall below 70 degrees now - that seems to have a huge impact on my efficiency (car isn't trying to warm it). Not sure it's so much 2025.10 as it is my battery staying warmer.

-Rich

 

[R1Thor]

This feels really weather related. Have a look at this data from yesterdays commute on my truck.

Love this kind of discussion. Thoughts?!?!

Love it. Lots of great stuff in here. I dig data. As an Engineer, I thrive in it.
That said, this kind of efficiency swing is completely out of the norm for me.

I'm not exaggerating when I say: I've _NEVER_ had >2.0 mi/kWh efficiency on the graph for the entirety of my trip when rocking my all-terrains. This includes 80mph highway traffic with a lot of elevation change and no real opportunity for regen. I never dipped below 2.0 today. And this is even true in the summer, when temperatures don't go below 75F on my morning commute.

IF it's obfuscated within the calculation due to whatever algorithmic changes Rivian made that's simply 'showing' a delta in efficiency, it still doesn't make up for the fact that (and I mean it when I say I typically hit a hard 35% SoC trip in versus 25% this morning). I know this, with conviction, because I love to gamify my efficiency and try to eke out an extra 2-3%. It RARELY happens. I'm VERY consistently hitting +/-1% .

Any 'short range' efficiency lost is usually made up for due to the travel distance and traffic speed. That is: even when my battery and motors get rarely cold soaked, I'm back to 'normal' efficiencies by the end of my trip. Truck has PLENTY of time to get warm.

In the summer, with my 21 OE Pirellis, I can get 25% on the way in. For sure. So, I totally get the thermal efficiency. But even then, that's like peak efficiency. Middle of summer with all-seasons does not compute with this cold-ish spring with all-terrains.

So, for me, this is completely anomalous.

To wit: As I'd mentioned: I do have a conditioned garage (because it's also my gym). It's never below 60F in there, year round. Plus, due to the levity of my commute, last week I charged 70% back to the battery overnight, so when I left in the morning at SoC 85%, my battery was 92F. AT 45F, I get that drag goes up due to the barometric pressure of the cold (plus we had some wind), but my battery and motor temps were VERY comfortable. Tire PSI could be a small contributor, but even this morning when they got hot, they hit 51 psi (3 psi delta max, but more like 1-2 given they heat up anyway: friction/time).

But 40% delta. 10% total SoC.
Something's different.

I probably wouldn't be so intrigued if I hadn't seen others with similar anecdotes (the thread I linked in my original).

But maybe it'll all come out in the wash and on my way home I'll mysteriously use another 10%... We'll see!

 

[2kwik4u]

But maybe it'll all come out in the wash and on my way home I'll mysteriously use another 10%... We'll see!

I've spent 20yrs of my career as an R&D Engineer, then I moved into management and I only get to do this kind of thing for side projects or when stuff goes REALLY REALLY sideways at the office. So I enjoy digging into this kind of stuff.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rivian was able to tweak some of the drive efficiencies, they certainly have the capability. I would find it odd they wouldn't advertise this at some level though. Even if not on release notes, something along the lines of a "We've improved average efficiency by over xx.x% just from OTA's alone" to have come out of them at some point. Could be everything, could be nothing. Hard to say due to the really high number of variables here.

Maybe prevailing winds are in your favor since the update? Maybe Rivian "fixed" a bug in reporting and you've always been getting this and it's just now reporting properly? My guess is it's some level of combination between all of these things.

I get the "astounding difference" though. If you've seen the same thing for 2 years and suddenly it's markedly different AND it's nearby a known change, it's easy (and logical) to point to that as causality. I'll be curious on continued reporting.

 

[zefram47]

I'm on nATs too and religiously keep them aired up to 58psi cold. I've noticed my efficiency increase, but even before 2025.10 and for me it was tied to the weather finally warming up in Colorado (and we took a Spring Break trip to Phoenix where it was 90+). In general, my battery doesn't fall below 70 degrees now - that seems to have a huge impact on my efficiency (car isn't trying to warm it). Not sure it's so much 2025.10 as it is my battery staying warmer.

-Rich

How are you liking the nATs? They're near the top of my list to get next month, but don't want to take too big of an efficiency hit vs the OE Pirelli ATs. On the OE tire I was seeing around 2.25 mi/kWh average over thousands of miles in good weather, though most of that is 50-60 mph roads. Since you're around the same elevation as I am, I figure you're data may be more relevant than others'.

 

[diranged]

(Gen1 QuadMotor Notes - early VIN... ~2400)

Anecdotally - because I haven't done much more than around town driving for a few weeks - I have also seen a *significant* miles/kWh improvement over the last few weeks. Like the OP, I generally see my miles/kWh somewhere between 1.8-2. On a long flat freeway, we'll occasionally average 2.2 ... but really never higher than that (unless its downhill or the wind is behind us).

Over the last few weeks I started noticing my around-town miles/kWh at startlingly high numbers - 2.5, 2.6, even 2.8! The thing is, this started before the 2025.10 software update, I actually felt like I noticed it starting shortly after the previous update 2025.06.

I live in CA in the Bay Area - so our climate is pretty mild in general... it has gotten warmer over the last month, so we've gone probably from an average of 60-degrees to closer to an average of 70. Obviously that's warmer ... but I have a hard time believing there is much difference in battery behavior at those temperature ranges.

That all said, I'm a bit of a skeptic that any software update would make that big a jump. My theory has been that there was some kind of calculation change in the way they generate that number. I am not using ElectraFi (as much as I love data, I did not want them to have my location information all the time) - so I can't really correlate the dashboard data with the underlying usage data that could be collected there.

I'm looking forward to seeing others chime in here, and perhaps those with ElectraFi data can share their experience comparing that data with the "watt-o-meter" on the dash.

 

[R1Thor]

I've spent 20yrs of my career as an R&D Engineer, then I moved into management and I only get to do this kind of thing for side projects or when stuff goes REALLY REALLY sideways at the office. So I enjoy digging into this kind of stuff.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rivian was able to tweak some of the drive efficiencies, they certainly have the capability. I would find it odd they wouldn't advertise this at some level though. Even if not on release notes, something along the lines of a "We've improved average efficiency by over xx.x% just from OTA's alone" to have come out of them at some point. Could be everything, could be nothing. Hard to say due to the really high number of variables here.

Maybe prevailing winds are in your favor since the update? Maybe Rivian "fixed" a bug in reporting and you've always been getting this and it's just now reporting properly? My guess is it's some level of combination between all of these things.

I get the "astounding difference" though. If you've seen the same thing for 2 years and suddenly it's markedly different AND it's nearby a known change, it's easy (and logical) to point to that as causality. I'll be curious on continued reporting.

Exactly.

This is exactly why I posted the poll.
Maybe everyone else is going to come back and say "nah, it's all in your head bro." And then I can rationalize it later with the ideation that a combination of temperature, SoC when leaving, traffic, the wear on my nATs + tire pressure and all the stars aligned. Then I made something out of it (confirmation bias) by seeing 2 other people post about their new efficiency numbers.

To be clear: I'm definitely not trying to dismiss anyone's thoughts. Anyone I've replied to, I wasn't trying to poopoo their theories. I'm just flabbergasted at this point.

The only thing I can assume Rivian wouldn't post about is if either A) it's not hitting all vehicles, at which point a lot of people would come out of the woodwork to complain "Where's *my* efficiency gain??" or B) they can't without re-acquiring EPA approval or something.

Or maybe I've just been getting less-than-anticipated efficiency this entire time, and my subjective experience is that now I'm getting 'anticipated' numbers. While everyone else stayed the same.



As an aside: I can empathize with you. One of the reasons I'm in the gig I'm in now. I'm a 'technical' manager. That is: I manage people, and my projects. However, I still get to do the Engineering work as well. It's the best of both worlds. And one of the very reasons I hummed and hawwed really hard when I was asked if I wanted to be groomed for directorship. Because my Director does almost 0 technical work. I'm not verily interested in spreadsheets, risk analysis, powerpoints, and project management templates + leadership meetings 3x/week. Regardless of the salary boost!

 

[richpike]

How are you liking the nATs? They're near the top of my list to get next month, but don't want to take too big of an efficiency hit vs the OE Pirelli ATs. On the OE tire I was seeing around 2.25 mi/kWh average over thousands of miles in good weather, though most of that is 50-60 mph roads. Since you're around the same elevation as I am, I figure you're data may be more relevant than others'.

Not to derail the thread, but I absolutely love them:

• Stellar in the snow
• Quiet
• Great wearing (have about 15k miles on them and just went past 80% using the integrated wear gauge)
• Look great
• Good off-road in the small amount I've taken them on (mainly loose gravel/baby heads on steep incline)
• Price is great

Biggest drawbacks:

• Small hit in efficiency. We do a ton of road-trips and I drive fast, so it's a bit tough to say exactly with so many variables (and I track our efficiency closely), but I'd estimate around 5% versus when the Pirellis were new (Pirellis got much more efficient as they wore, just like I'd expect the nAT to as well).
• Not great on ice (but to be expected in a 7000lb SUV)

We have a Land Rover Discovery 5 (wife) and Jeep Wrangler JL (son) as well. Both of them run Toyo Open Country AT3s - which I also love. But if I could, I'd switch my wife's Disco to the nAT (sadly no 19" available). We've owned tons of different AT tires: Duratracs (Range Rover), Scorpions (Rivian), K02 (Wrangler), OC AT3s (LR4, Disco, Wrangler) and some I'm sure I'm forgetting on our LR3, Toureg, etc. nAT and OC AT3 are the best and it's not really close for us. The nAT is $150 cheaper than the OC AT3, so it makes it an easy decision.

-Rich

 

[malditofman]

As has been briefly mentioned in this thread: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/2025-10-update-now-installing.42932/post-768782

I'm seeing a pretty substantial efficiency boost out of nowhere.
[For context, I drive ~144 miles round trip for work. Due to highway speeds driving, as well as elevation changes, and how cold it is in the morning--I start my drive in around 0500--my TYPICAL SoC usage driving in on my nATs is ~35%. Today it was 25%. GRANTED, it's 20F warmer than it has been this past winter, this morning: I was seeing my thermometer read 61F, and last week during my drive in, it was all of 45F. But there's almost no way that a 40% improvement on efficiency is ONLY due to the weather, in my experience. Further, I typically see ~1.5-1.8 mi/kWh on the nATs at highway speeds. This morning I was well over 2.0 the entire trip. I don't recall, even on the warmest weather days, ever seeing that kind of highway efficiency with my nATs.]


I'm simply posting this to see if anyone else is having the same experience. Has 2025.10 made any considerable differences in your mi/kWh or your overall SoC usage for your typically driving?

If this isn't an anomaly for those of us seeing it, this is pretty incredible. Hopefully this isn't an isolated experience!

Discuss!

Way too much minutiae here to be concerned about. So many variables affect efficiency and range. Instead of spending time nerding out and graphing my vehicle data in Excel I use the time to enjoy nature in my beautiful R1T. Drive well.

 

[Engineer]

I came on here to start a thread about how my Lie-O-Meter was overly optimistic after the last update... On my drive to the store yesterday it was even pegged at 4+ for a while, which i have NEVER seen before. (20" AT's here) Battery was 50F and it was ~60 outside. I never saw these efficiency numbers on the 15 min graph before, even when i lived in NC and temps were warmer more consistently (in MA now). Overall i was at 3.5 m/kwh for the 5 mile trip to the store, i usually get 2.1 m/kwh if i feather it and hit all green lights. The actually miles consumed seemed to be consistent with what i am used to, so i am chalking it up to fudged math on the display.

 

[2kwik4u]

Exactly.

This is exactly why I posted the poll.
Maybe everyone else is going to come back and say "nah, it's all in your head bro." And then I can rationalize it later with the ideation that a combination of temperature, SoC when leaving, traffic, the wear on my nATs + tire pressure and all the stars aligned. Then I made something out of it (confirmation bias) by seeing 2 other people post about their new efficiency numbers.

To be clear: I'm definitely not trying to dismiss anyone's thoughts. Anyone I've replied to, I wasn't trying to poopoo their theories. I'm just flabbergasted at this point.

The only thing I can assume Rivian wouldn't post about is if either A) it's not hitting all vehicles, at which point a lot of people would come out of the woodwork to complain "Where's *my* efficiency gain??" or B) they can't without re-acquiring EPA approval or something.

Or maybe I've just been getting less-than-anticipated efficiency this entire time, and my subjective experience is that now I'm getting 'anticipated' numbers. While everyone else stayed the same.



As an aside: I can empathize with you. One of the reasons I'm in the gig I'm in now. I'm a 'technical' manager. That is: I manage people, and my projects. However, I still get to do the Engineering work as well. It's the best of both worlds. And one of the very reasons I hummed and hawwed really hard when I was asked if I wanted to be groomed for directorship. Because my Director does almost 0 technical work. I'm not verily interested in spreadsheets, risk analysis, powerpoints, and project management templates + leadership meetings 3x/week. Regardless of the salary boost!

Hadn't thought about the EPA side of things, nor the "not everyone is getting the update" premise either. I could definitely see the quads getting a different calibration than a dual, that's different from a tri. So many configuration differences, glad I'm not managing that!

To continue the aside.......I was ready. I spent years and years doing detailed engineering work. Stress calculations, structural calcs, design of experiments, then the actual experiments, FEA work, all that stuff. I was completely ready to move to the "softer side" of the business. I went back and got my MBA at nights to move towards the business side and away from the engineering side. I learned there that the workload of an MBA (even with the rest of life) is nothing compared to engineering school. It's been nice to be able to concentrate on less "nuts and bolts" and more "big picture" stuff. Company took my initiative and gave it a huge boost. I moved from R&D Engineer role to a President role in a sister company in less than 3yrs. It's been a ride for certain.

 

[diranged]

it was even pegged at 4+ for a while

Oh that is a good point - something I absolutely noticed after either the most current or last update was that my lie-o-meter actually would go _above_ 4! In all the time I've owend the car, no matter how much downhill we were driving it always pegged right at 4 or 3.99 (which happened at some point in the software update process). On a recent trip down from the mountains It was reading 6-7+ during some of my downhill stints!

Sponsored