What? He's simply stating the EPA range and states that cold likely impacts. He is an owner and we just got a software update about impacted range in cold.Sad to see yet another influencer perpetuate that the claimed range in AP is 371, and make up a justification for it displaying lower
Just add some cheap Killmat off Amazon, speakers and door thump will both sound better.
Thanks! Couple parts of the article definitely went over my head, but the gist was āat very high and very low temps heat pumps are not as efficient as the AC/PTC comboā. So, I guess the answer to whether the switch to a heat pump in Gen 2 will benefit you is dependent on youāre local climate. For Marques in New Jersey, it will likely be more efficient throughout the course of the year, though not necessarily at all times.
You are in the sweet spot for heat pumps whereas I am not. Hence the reason in every thread where I commented that for me it isn't much of a benefit and can be a detriment. A lot of my days are typically 80+ for months on end with a lot of 100+ days. So for me heat pumps aren't as much of a benefit and I don't deny that they can be. You need to be in the sweet spot where most of your temps are basically about 25-80F and there is a clear benefit.
What Drive Mode Corresponds to the Advertised 371-Mile Range?
Thanks for posting that. I was looking for that reference earlier.What Drive Mode Corresponds to the Advertised 371-Mile Range?
In shortānone.
According to Rivianās own testing and submissions to the EPA:
Yet, Rivian promotes a 371-mile āEPAā range figure. This number appears to result from mixing data from different drive modes: applying AP mode efficiency for highway driving (45% weighting) and Conserve mode efficiency for city driving (55% weighting). This methodology is entirely backward and not standard practice for EPA ratings.
- All-Purpose (AP) Mode: ~346 miles
- Conserve Mode: ~395 miles
By blending results from two distinct modes, Rivian achieves a more appealingābut less transparentārange estimate. However, this figure cannot be directly compared to any other EV on the U.S. market, as no other automaker takes this approach. Despite this, Rivian submitted the 371-mile figure to Fuel Economy for inclusion on the Monroney label.
Is This Misleading?
Technically, EPA guidelines sometimes allow multi-mode testing, meaning Rivian may not be violating explicit rules. However, this approach only holds up if Rivian can convince the EPA that the majority of drivers actually use Conserve mode in city driving and AP mode on the highway (which is highly questionable).
As a result, R1T owners and reviewers frequently ask why no drive mode actually displays ā371 milesā on the dashboardāleading to repeated attempts to rationalize the discrepancy - like Marques did in the video here. This raises concerns about transparent reporting of electric vehicle range and how automakers can āgame the systemā by merging results from multiple modes to produce a more attractive but less realistic number.
This practice isnāt an apples-to-apples comparison with other EVs and makes it difficult for consumers to accurately assess real-world range expectations.
The Problem Becomes Worse When Executives Make Misleading Statements
This situation shifts from creative marketing to borderline deception when statements like the following are made publicly:
Transcript from Sandy Munroās Interview with RJ Scaringe (Rivian CEO)
Sandy: So whatās the range on this one here with the tri-motor setup?
RJ: So with the tri, um, on the EPA test, itās 371 milesāthatās the EPA-certified number. And to get that number, we actually had to test it with all-wheel drive locked because we wanted it so that in normal mode, the front axles are both on. If you go into Conserve mode, which has a dynamic rear disconnect, it does around 400 miles. But the EPA number is 371. Thatās different from our dual motors, where we actually have the dynamic rear disconnect always engaging or disengaging. The reason for that is that with the tri, we wanted to be able to lock it so it's always immediately there for full performance, even in AP mode. So itās a decision we madeāto trade off a little bit on EPA rangeābut itās still 371 miles. But Iām driving one, and I regularly get around 400 miles in Conserve mode. And the neat thing about Conserve mode on this is that you can access bothāitās all-wheel drive on demand, so the rear axle comes to life when you need it.
The Certification ProcessāOr Lack Thereof
Notably, Rivian has not yet been audited for the 2025 R1 values they submitted, and without pressure likely never will be, meaning the certification is currently just a rubber-stamp approval.
Also, notice that RJ never explicitly states that the 371-mile figure corresponds to AP modeāyet, given all the information above, itās understandable why most people would assume that an EPA cycle would produce a 371-mile range in AP mode. That assumption, however, is simply incorrect.
#RangeGate?
Oh, I know some people wonāt like thatā¦
In my post, I mistakenly referenced the R1T throughout - sorry. What's actually in some ways even more eyebrow-raising is that, as far as I'm aware, Rivian only submitted full test results to the EPA for the R1S but used the same values for both the R1S and R1T. Itās surprising that they got away with that.
From my understanding, R1S has consistently been slightly less efficient than R1T, even though they initially thought the opposite would be the case. Using R1S for both is probably safe.
Itās probably somewhat safe (you are spot on in that the R1S has consistently performed slightly worse in the EPA test cycles than the R1T), however claiming it to be āEPA estimatedā is highly dubious without having submitted any paperwork to that effect. Iād have no issues with that marketing material if they stated āRivian Estimatedā - which they use for some values (eg note they never claim the 405 conserve value is EPA cycle derived).
