Overlanding / Adventuring / Camping - R1T vs Bronco

[Vserra]

Welcome aboard. Great first post.
I also would’ve considered the Bronco if I was willing to stick with an ICE vehicle.

It’s good that you already recognize that it may be year before you have your Rivian. That means you might make it 2 or even 3 months before your post #233 looks more like this:
“WHY HASN’T RIVIAN CONTACTED ME?!?!? WHERE IS MY TRUCK?!?!?”

LOL. Yeah, I'd rather have realistic expectations and be surprised with earlier delivery than get my hopes up and be let down. I'm in no rush - I have a paid-off outback so not itching for that new payment.

Sponsored

 

[cwoodcox]

I’m the weird one hoping I don’t get called up until like December 2022 because then I’ll definitely be able to take delivery in the USA and save thousands of dollars in tax and exchange ?

 

[njcoach24]

When the big Bronco mpg was released the other week

So, I've been doing some calculations as I live in NJ and MPG or kWh cost is important to me. The big bronco has about a 18 gallon tank (using this data: Bronco 2.3L I-4: 16-20/17-22/17-21 mpg)
(17 miles per Gallon, gas in 3.06 per gallon here in NJ currently). So for $55 bucks you can drive 306 miles.

Also, in NJ, electricity costs between 9 to 13 cents per kWh. The R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles, 405 kWh for a full charge so depending on the time of day it will cost $45 to drive 300 miles if you charge at home.

Of course I am in favor of electric for various reasons including the perception that it is better for the environment. Obviously a lot of debate has sparked on that recently due to Elon and Bitcoin. Although, based on the WSJ article, I agree electric is the cleaner option past 20,000 miles of the vehicles life span.

Environmental impact aside, which can be debated in either direction. When comparing these two vehicles (or maybe the best comparison is a Tacoma since it is more or less the same size/audience). Electric vs gas offers very little cost savings at today's prices. And a loaded Bronco at around 50K depending on the model vs a Rivian at 75K (we don't know cost of accessories yet) plus the cost to install charging at your house 2K-5K. That R1T is looking like 80K+ destination fees and whatever else. For me, the extra 30K+ I would have to spend on the Rivian, I just don't see how I ever see my return on investment in under 10 years. That's a very long time to see a break even point. And in the Tacoma example, you can get one of those around 40K. I know people on this forum hate Tacoma lol.

Just something else to think about.

 

[Gshenderson]

So, I've been doing some calculations as I live in NJ and MPG or kWh cost is important to me. The big bronco has about a 18 gallon tank (using this data: Bronco 2.3L I-4: 16-20/17-22/17-21 mpg)
(17 miles per Gallon, gas in 3.06 per gallon here in NJ currently). So for $55 bucks you can drive 306 miles.

Also, in NJ, electricity costs between 9 to 13 cents per kWh. The R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles, 405 kWh for a full charge so depending on the time of day it will cost $45 to drive 300 miles if you charge at home.

Of course I am in favor of electric for various reasons including the perception that it is better for the environment. Obviously a lot of debate has sparked on that recently due to Elon and Bitcoin. Although, based on the WSJ article, I agree electric is the cleaner option past 20,000 miles of the vehicles life span.

Environmental impact aside, which can be debated in either direction. When comparing these two vehicles (or maybe the best comparison is a Tacoma since it is more or less the same size/audience). Electric vs gas offers very little cost savings at today's prices. And a loaded Bronco at around 50K depending on the model vs a Rivian at 75K (we don't know cost of accessories yet) plus the cost to install charging at your house 2K-5K. That R1T is looking like 80K+ destination fees and whatever else. For me, the extra 30K+ I would have to spend on the Rivian, I just don't see how I ever see my return on investment in under 10 years. That's a very long time to see a break even point. And in the Tacoma example, you can get one of those around 40K. I know people on this forum hate Tacoma lol.

Just something else to think about.

You also need to factor in service costs. No oil changes or other “routine” maintenance on an EV. Washer fluid, wiper blades and tires is about all you need to service. Brakes should last the lifetime of the car.

 

[Eager2own]

So, I've been doing some calculations as I live in NJ and MPG or kWh cost is important to me. The big bronco has about a 18 gallon tank (using this data: Bronco 2.3L I-4: 16-20/17-22/17-21 mpg)
(17 miles per Gallon, gas in 3.06 per gallon here in NJ currently). So for $55 bucks you can drive 306 miles.

Also, in NJ, electricity costs between 9 to 13 cents per kWh. The R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles, 405 kWh for a full charge so depending on the time of day it will cost $45 to drive 300 miles if you charge at home.

Of course I am in favor of electric for various reasons including the perception that it is better for the environment. Obviously a lot of debate has sparked on that recently due to Elon and Bitcoin. Although, based on the WSJ article, I agree electric is the cleaner option past 20,000 miles of the vehicles life span.

Environmental impact aside, which can be debated in either direction. When comparing these two vehicles (or maybe the best comparison is a Tacoma since it is more or less the same size/audience). Electric vs gas offers very little cost savings at today's prices. And a loaded Bronco at around 50K depending on the model vs a Rivian at 75K (we don't know cost of accessories yet) plus the cost to install charging at your house 2K-5K. That R1T is looking like 80K+ destination fees and whatever else. For me, the extra 30K+ I would have to spend on the Rivian, I just don't see how I ever see my return on investment in under 10 years. That's a very long time to see a break even point. And in the Tacoma example, you can get one of those around 40K. I know people on this forum hate Tacoma lol.

Just something else to think about.

If you want to only focus on cost of ICE vs BEV, I would agree that BEV still doesn’t beat ICE and this may not be the vehicle for you. Most people buying BEV see other benefits to it over ICE. However, your math does exaggerate the cost differential. It doesn’t take into account the tax credits for the BEV, or the expected lower maintenance costs. Additionally, even a loaded Bronco or Tacoma has fewer features than an Adventure Rivian provides standard. If you’re spending 80K+ on a Rivian, you’re getting A LOT more than on the Ford/Toyota. It also helps that I’m not spending $2-5k installing a charging station. A standard 240V outlet like I use for my current vehicles will be enough for overnight charging.

My wife supports the Rivian purchase for environmental reasons. Unlike you, we don’t feel that “can be debated in either direction.”
However, we can put that aside, and I’ll admit that’s not my primary reason. I’m a performance guy. I have yet to find a Bronco or Tacoma that can do 0-60 in 3.0 secs... or a Bronco that can tow 11,000. Find me a comparable ICE truck that can match that at less than $70k (after my tax credits) and I’ll consider it.

 

[SANZC02]

So, I've been doing some calculations as I live in NJ and MPG or kWh cost is important to me. The big bronco has about a 18 gallon tank (using this data: Bronco 2.3L I-4: 16-20/17-22/17-21 mpg)
(17 miles per Gallon, gas in 3.06 per gallon here in NJ currently). So for $55 bucks you can drive 306 miles.

Also, in NJ, electricity costs between 9 to 13 cents per kWh. The R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles, 405 kWh for a full charge so depending on the time of day it will cost $45 to drive 300 miles if you charge at home.

Of course I am in favor of electric for various reasons including the perception that it is better for the environment. Obviously a lot of debate has sparked on that recently due to Elon and Bitcoin. Although, based on the WSJ article, I agree electric is the cleaner option past 20,000 miles of the vehicles life span.

Environmental impact aside, which can be debated in either direction. When comparing these two vehicles (or maybe the best comparison is a Tacoma since it is more or less the same size/audience). Electric vs gas offers very little cost savings at today's prices. And a loaded Bronco at around 50K depending on the model vs a Rivian at 75K (we don't know cost of accessories yet) plus the cost to install charging at your house 2K-5K. That R1T is looking like 80K+ destination fees and whatever else. For me, the extra 30K+ I would have to spend on the Rivian, I just don't see how I ever see my return on investment in under 10 years. That's a very long time to see a break even point. And in the Tacoma example, you can get one of those around 40K. I know people on this forum hate Tacoma lol.

Just something else to think about.

Not sure anyone was thinking they would be saving money going to an EV (especially a premium EV) at this point in time.

If you are going to do a cost analysis there are other factors as well. There are associated maintenance cost (Oil Changes, Transmission fluid changes, air filters) that need to be calculated. Even your 10 dollar savings over 300 miles in 75000 miles saves about 2450 in fuel. There is also the residual value of the vehicles at the end of the term as well for TCO. With Rivian there is no history so that value would be purely a guess. There are tax and other government incentives that need to be calculated into the acquisition cost.

Some people can charge places for free or at reduced rates (work, existing solar, etc) which comes into play. Then there are negatives as well with increased insurance rates (if Tesla is a good indicator) for the EVs.

I will say even with the free super charging I have with my Tesla the TCO for it is more than my Jeep year over year to date.

Even knowing all of this, I still think that the EV is greener, especially with the push for carbon free electricity and over the long haul the environmental impact is worth what additional I put out to drive the EV and jumped on a reservation for an R1S.

Need to take into account as well the smile you can put on your face with your right foot... That is probably alone worth the price of admission...

 

[Andystroh]

Also, in NJ, electricity costs between 9 to 13 cents per kWh. The R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles, 405 kWh for a full charge so depending on the time of day it will cost $45 to drive 300 miles if you charge at home.

I'm new to EVs so just getting caught up on charging - but why does it use 405kWh to charge a 135 kWh battery? I would have assumed it would cost ~135 kWh, plus a little loss for transmission. Maybe 150kWh?

Or maybe it's the first part "R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles" - wouldn't it be per 300 miles, their indicated range?

Thanks in advance for the clarification- just want to make sure my calculations are correct since this is different than I assumed.

 

[timesinks]

Also, in NJ, electricity costs between 9 to 13 cents per kWh. The R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles, 405 kWh for a full charge so depending on the time of day it will cost $45 to drive 300 miles if you charge at home.

I'm new to EVs so just getting caught up on charging - but why does it use 405kWh to charge a 135 kWh battery? I would have assumed it would cost ~135 kWh, plus a little loss for transmission. Maybe 150kWh?

Or maybe it's the first part "R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles" - wouldn't it be per 300 miles, their indicated range?

Thanks in advance for the clarification- just want to make sure my calculations are correct since this is different than I assumed.

@Andystroh, your gut is right -- that calculation doesn't make sense.

We expect 135kWh to take you over 300 miles, which comes out to 450Wh/mi of energy consumption -- that's 0.45kWh per mile driven. If you want to adjust for your efficiency from the wall to the battery, call it 85%, and you're at 0.53kWh per mile driven.

So multiply your 100 miles times your consumption times your energy cost: 100 mi * 0.53kWh/mi * 0.13 dollars/kWh = a cost of $6.89 per 100 miles driven (or, 6.89 cents per mile driven). 300 miles? $21 (at those energy prices and with a conservative efficiency WAG of 85%).

 

[SANZC02]

I'm new to EVs so just getting caught up on charging - but why does it use 405kWh to charge a 135 kWh battery? I would have assumed it would cost ~135 kWh, plus a little loss for transmission. Maybe 150kWh?

Or maybe it's the first part "R1T is 135 kWh per 100 miles" - wouldn't it be per 300 miles, their indicated range?

Thanks in advance for the clarification- just want to make sure my calculations are correct since this is different than I assumed.

I missed that when I first read the post.

You are correct, the Rivian is rated at 300+ miles for the large pack which is 135 KW assuming a 10% loss for charging efficiency it would be 148 KW for 300 miles and at 13 cents a KW would be around 19.30 or $35 cheaper over 300 miles.

It is not that simple though as that is rated range and would be like calculating an ICE car on the rated MPG. You would have to look at what your average watts per mile are and then calculate out actual cost.

An example, Tesla uses 300 watts per mile to calculate the Model S range, I use closer to 320 watts per mile so I typically only get 93% of my rated range.

 

[Andystroh]

Thanks for the clarifications. A little uncertainty since no one has the real numbers, but if these are close the savings are pretty significant in fuel- if you drive about 12000 miles per year, using those same costs over ten years you'll save on the order of 10-15k in fuel.

 

[njcoach24]

300+ miles for the large pack which is 135 KW

I've read this in numerous places trying to understand the cost of charging at home, "an electric car's energy consumption is measured in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles (kWh/100 miles)"

a cost of $6.89 per 100 miles driven

So based on your calculation, I am not understanding. If electric in NJ costs 11 cents per kilowatt hour I arrive at 14.85 per 100 miles driven.

Even your 10 dollar savings over 300 miles in 75000 miles saves about 2450 in fuel

I agree with all these things and the others you've mentioned (oil changes, blades, brakes, ect). But if the cost of the car is 30K+ different, my point is just that even paying for all of that it will take me 10+ years to see the economically value of going premium electric. Especially if it's being marketed as an adventure truck which is why I want it. Camping, off roading, biking ect.

If I wanted a car for luxury at 75K+ I wouldn't get a Rivian. I would buy a Maserati. And if it had to be electric I'm looking at a Porsche starting at 80K. Audi e-tron starts at 65K. But for an adventure vehicle that is going to get dirty and possibly banged up, I really am starting to look at the up front costs (and break even point) even though there is the tax credit with the Rivian, you do still have to front the money.

 

[Andystroh]

I've read this in numerous places trying to understand the cost of charging at home, "an electric car's energy consumption is measured in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles (kWh/100 miles)"



So based on your calculation, I am not understanding. If electric in NJ costs 11 cents per kilowatt hour I arrive at 14.85 per 100 miles driven.

I think your error here is "100 miles" vs "300 miles". its 135 kWh for 300 miles; if you want the "kwh/100 miles" value you need to reduce 135kWh/300 miles to 45kWh/100 miles. This gives you $4.95/ 100 miles at the $0.11 rate, or a bit more if you include transmission loss.

I agree with all these things and the others you've mentioned (oil changes, blades, brakes, ect). But if the cost of the car is 30K+ different, my point is just that even paying for all of that it will take me 10+ years to see the economically value of going premium electric. Especially if it's being marketed as an adventure truck which is why I want it. Camping, off roading, biking ect.

If I wanted a car for luxury at 75K+ I wouldn't get a Rivian. I would buy a Maserati. And if it had to be electric I'm looking at a Porsche starting at 80K. Audi e-tron starts at 65K. But for an adventure vehicle that is going to get dirty and possibly banged up, I really am starting to look at the up front costs (and break even point) even though there is the tax credit with the Rivian, you do still have to front the money.

Can't disagree here, if you want an adventure vehicle it's not the most economical. My 20 year old 4runner is satisfying me for adventuring now, and replacing it with another used truck would save a lot of money compared to rivian. But I have been holding out for an electric adventure vehicle (the reduced emissions is important to me - even if breakover is around 20k miles, thats 80+% of the vehicle life), and the fuel savings do help justify the cost, even if they don't get it in the price territory of a comparable ICE adventure vehicle.

 

[timesinks]

I've read this in numerous places trying to understand the cost of charging at home, "an electric car's energy consumption is measured in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles (kWh/100 miles)"

That is one way to express efficiency, but you seem to be substituting the size of the pack for an efficiency number, which it's not. For the Rivian, the efficiency measurement is 45kWh/100mi (expressed in your chosen units). The size of the battery pack is 135kWh. The energy in the battery pack goes a lot further than 100 miles. It, in fact, goes 300 miles. So to normalize 135kWh per 300 miles to X per 100 miles, you would divide both numbers by 3 and get 45kWh/100 miles.

So based on your calculation, I am not understanding. If electric in NJ costs 11 cents per kilowatt hour I arrive at 14.85 per 100 miles driven.

450 watt-hours-per-mile times 100 miles is 45000 watt-hours, or 45 kilowatt-hours. At 11 cents, that's $4.95 (if you want to de-rate 85% for charging efficiency, call it $5.82).

 

[cwoodcox]

Unlike you, we don’t feel that “can be debated in either direction.”

Because it can’t. Time for my dissertation.

But it’s just using electricity from burning coal/natural gas!

Doesn’t matter. Power plants are more efficient overall than even the best car engines. Even taking generation, transmission, and charging losses into account, electric vehicles still win (on average) because once that power is in the battery, nearly 100% of it ends up pushing the car down the road. Mercedes-Benz had an F1 engine that was able to break 50% thermal efficiency, most cars barely break 35%.

Furthermore, window sticker calculations already take this into account when they show emissions numbers, and, on average, electric vehicles are much lower. See:


But producing an electric car produces more emissions than a gas car!

True! But again, it doesn’t matter. The difference in production emissions will be easily offset within the vehicles lifetime, probably within the first 5 years of use, depending on the size of the battery. In coal-heavy areas, this is less true, but power plants are lots easier to transition to “greener” fuels than tens of thousands of little tiny power plants under hoods. We need to get started on this sooner, rather than later.

The vast majority of emissions are still the result of car use, not manufacture. Electric still wins. See:


But the batteries just end up in a landfill!

Nah. There are plans to reuse them for street lights, PowerWall-type uses (whole-home backup), smart grids, and others. Once they’re totally dead, though, they can still be recycled. The recycling industry is figuring this out. It’s not a technical limitation, there are processes to extract the cobalt, lithium, and nickel from battery cells and turn it back into elements usable for new cell manufacture. These processes just aren’t economically feasible today, mostly because cells are so varied in size, shape, and application. As demand for electric cars increases, so will the profitability of recycling operations, as the industry will see a rush of identically sized cells they can tool to recycle easily. See:


But, let’s pretend for a minute that this were true. The problem at hand right now is carbon emissions. Humans are pulling carbon out of the ground that has been there for thousands if not millions of years, and expelling it directly into the atmosphere. This is bad. A bunch of lithium batteries in a landfill will not worsen this. With proper control over the waste stream and proper management of a landfill, this isn’t a concern for the problem at hand. This is a can that we could safely kick down the road a few more decades if we needed to. (We don’t.)

 

[njcoach24]

450 watt-hours-per-mile times 100 miles is 45000 watt-hours, or 45 kilowatt-hours. At 11 cents, that's $4.95 (if you want to de-rate 85% for charging efficiency, call it $5.82).

Thank you for this. Obviously I was incorrect. I will revisit my calculations.

Because it can’t. Time for my dissertation.

Just for clarity, I am 100% in the camp of electric cars are better for the environment. I was just pointing out that it can be debated, as it is being debated currently. Not that I am debating it. I've wanted to go all electric for a long time. My concern is a $400 dollar monthly car payment vs a $1,200 dollar car payment. I can't be living in my Rivian (I guess I could if I get the roof top tent).

Sponsored