My first mini-trip......It's not a Tesla!! LOL

[kizamybute']

This is one of things I actually really appreciate about the Rivian compared to my Model 3. Sure...the EA experience is not great compared to Superchargers. But the range estimate is so much more forgiving and accurate in my experience.

Had a similar experience going to Lake Tahoe from SF Bay Area. Both ABRP and the on-screen range estimator told me i would need to charge to make it there (and it was my first time, so i did stop to charge a bit) but i would have reached with 15% remaining had I not. Tesla's range estimate is so ridiculously off, i always expect to get 10-15% less than what it says. It's refreshing to drive an EV where you actually get the range it says you will get.

I agree. Rivian's estimated range is of course still learning my driving style. But yes, it is much better than the Tesla. When I left the the charger, it said I had 205 miles in range. 95 mile trip meant I should have 110 left when I got home. Was actually at 86. But, I'm sure it didn't plan on the massive headwind, nor my doing 75-80 MPH. It will learn and adjust over time.

Yes, Tesla's range indicator is completely useless. They give you only the potential range of the vehicle. Doesn't adjust to the driver or based on the trip. The range estimate however, in navigation is far more accurate on the Tesla if you have your destination entered. That one is usually pretty accurate. All other EV's besides Tesla are using the adaptive range estimates which is much appreciated. I don't care what the car can do if I drive it under perfect conditions and like grandma, I want to know what it WILL do. The Rivian, Ford and just about all others give you more realistic range estimates.

Sponsored

 

[momo3605]

I agree. Rivian's estimated range is of course still learning my driving style. But yes, it is much better than the Tesla. When I left the the charger, it said I had 205 miles in range. 95 mile trip meant I should have 110 left when I got home. Was actually at 86. But, I'm sure it didn't plan on the massive headwind, nor my doing 75-80 MPH. It will learn and adjust over time.

Yes, Tesla's range indicator is completely useless. They give you only the potential range of the vehicle. Doesn't adjust to the driver or based on the trip. The range estimate however, in navigation is far more accurate on the Tesla if you have your destination entered. That one is usually pretty accurate. All other EV's besides Tesla are using the adaptive range estimates which is much appreciated. I don't care what the car can do if I drive it under perfect conditions and like grandma, I want to know what it WILL do. The Rivian, Ford and just about all others give you more realistic range estimates.

At 70mph I was more or less matching the EPA estimate with 20" ATs. And my lifetime average over 2000 miles is 2.3miles/KW (mostly highway). Makes sense at 75-80 Your efficiency was lower. But with my model 3, it seems impossible to actually hit EPA range on the highway. My lifetime average is 10% below EPA in my Tesla and that's my WFH car, so it's mostly city driving.

 

[kizamybute']

At 70mph I was more or less matching the EPA estimate with 20" ATs. And my lifetime average over 2000 miles is 2.3miles/KW (mostly highway). Makes sense at 75-80 Your efficiency was lower. But with my model 3, it seems impossible to actually hit EPA range on the highway. My lifetime average is 10% below EPA in my Tesla and that's my WFH car, so it's mostly city driving.

2.3 averaging 70 MPH? Really? Wow, that's amazing. I will have to try that as that's a pretty big difference for just 5-10 MPH to drop to 1.7.

I guess it would be possible in Conserve mode with no AC? Could see it then. I think I averaged closer to 2.0 on the way there in Conserve mode, but still had the AC running full blast. Plus the elevation in Bakersfield was, I think, below the elevation of my starting point, so benefitted some from that, thus why the round trip was the figure I wanted to see, to balance out any such variances. Plus, going up and down steep hills probably does not equal out. Thus 20 miles of mostly level highway is probably more efficient than 20 miles going up and back down the grapevine.

Next week will get a few 100 mile trips in with fewer hills to climb. I also want to try and see if you can get off the lowest suspension setting while in conserve mode? Suspension bottoms out pretty easily when running at the lowest setting and you do feel it over heavier dips in the road. One setting up, running on two motors instead of four might be a more compliant ride, if it's available to do that, but I think I wasn't able to choose the ride height in conserve mode. Will check it next time.

 

[momo3605]

2.3 averaging 70 MPH? Really? Wow, that's amazing. I will have to try that as that's a pretty big difference for just 5-10 MPH to drop to 1.7.

I guess it would be possible in Conserve mode with no AC? Could see it then. I think I averaged closer to 2.0 on the way there in Conserve mode, but still had the AC running full blast. Plus the elevation in Bakersfield was, I think, below the elevation of my starting point, so benefitted some from that, thus why the round trip was the figure I wanted to see, to balance out any such variances. Plus, going up and down steep hills probably does not equal out. Thus 20 miles of mostly level highway is probably more efficient than 20 miles going up and back down the grapevine.

Next week will get a few 100 mile trips in with fewer hills to climb. I also want to try and see if you can get off the lowest suspension setting while in conserve mode? Suspension bottoms out pretty easily when running at the lowest setting and you do feel it over heavier dips in the road. One setting up, running on two motors instead of four might be a more compliant ride, if it's available to do that, but I think I wasn't able to choose the ride height in conserve mode. Will check it next time.

Yes you can choose lowest, low, or standard in Conserve. I’m usually in Conserve and low. Sweet spot for ride quality. I have been using AC by the way. 72-73F for the most part.

 

[C.R. Rivian]

Took my first mini-trip with it today. L.A. to Bakersfield and back. Over the grapevine. Decided to stop and fill it up before coming back over the grapevine as I'm still not sure what the real world range is and just wanted the security blanket. Turns out, total trip took 119 kwh, apparently it has 125 kwh usable, so if that was the case, would have just made it with 6 kwh to spare.

But, was glad to get the opportunity to charge at a public charger for the first time in 8 years. Got spoiled with the Tesla Supercharger network.

Read where many have had issues with public chargers not working correctly. Well, sadly, I got to experience that first hand. Went to an Electrify America charger. Had four available. When I checked, all four were open and had a 350w charger available. Got there, and three cars must have just beat me. There was a 150w charger open.

Unfortunately, after multiple tries, plugging in, unplugging, resetting, etc, etc, called customer service. They had to reboot the charger. After about 30 minutes, was finally able to plug in. Had it worked as it should have, would have been a good trip. Even on the 150 charger, was still charging at over 300+ miles per hour. Charged for 15 minutes. That added 36 kwh. They're not cheap though at $0.43 per kwh. $15.05 was the total cost.

I drove normally there and back. AC on, around 75-80 mph. Used Conserve mode on the way there and All-purpose mode on the way back. Total trip was 206 miles. 1.73 mi/wh. So, my $15.05 charging session was good for about 62 miles. At today's prices, $15 would have got me about 2.25 gallons of gas. Which at about 25 mpg, would have got me 56 miles. So still officially cheaper than gas, but certainly not by much with the Rivian. Got spoiled with free supercharging over the past 8+ years. Definitely had a strong headwind on the way home. So through that, got to get a good gauge as to the "real world" range. With 20" all-terrains, round trip at 1.7 mi/kw with 125 usable means about 212 miles of range. That's about what I can personally count on and use for planning in the future. Just hope the next charging stop is at a charger that works properly!

Also, finally got to get some good use out of Driver+. Have to say, its lane keeping ability is Very Good. It reminds me of the original Tesla autopilot, but is better than that was when it first came out. Did get to see that it doesn't handle construction zones well, or at all. Was cruising along and the lane ended due to construction and the truck wanted to just keep plowing ahead in the lane. So, apparently didn't see cones or the walls that were put up to close off the lane Absolutely have to pay very close attention. Was a bit surprised it didn't react to the cones or wall at all. Not even a little. But other than that, it does a great job maintaining itself in the lane. A few phantom braking events.

Boy howdy...guess you needed to go visit the Central Valley's natural sauna...I lived there once...

 

[LaunchGreen]

Thanks for the report!

Why can't the EV charging networks realize that they need to perform equal to or above the up time/reliability of a gas pump? How often do you see a gas station that 25% of their pumps do not work?

Because electrify America is owned and run by Volkswagen who was forced to create it for cheating emission standards. We literally forced the crooks to run the national charging network.

It has since been spun off but I believe it’s still run by old VW staff.

However, some good new came today. Volkswagen is selling their stake in network to someone that will care about it - Siemens

Sponsored