Quad Gen 2 Range / Release Date

[Jivian]

I'm curious where you're seeing that the 371 number is a blended drive mode number? Your other post has a transcript that never says they used a blended drive mode.

I find that I can get pretty close to 400 in conserve mode on my R1S Tri when I'm using highway assist on at modest speeds. Here's a couple different pictures of actual efficiency from driving on 101 (pretty flat) in the Bay Area during rush hour.

I do agree the 371 number is misleading as the vehicle predicted range is 346-350 in AP in my experience with normal driving. That being said, I think it's plausible to hit the 371 EPA range in AP mode under very controlled driving conditions.

Sponsored

 

[portdirect]

Did no one read the shareholder letter? It’s been out since summer 2024. Gen 2 quad is estimated 350miles of range.

I did - And the reality will be less than this. They never got to 400+ for the tri motor (needing to create their own test cycle to say they did) and that's *in* conserve mode, where the Ascent motors are only used for acceleration.

 

[portdirect]

I'm curious where you're seeing that the 371 number is a blended drive mode number? Your other post has a transcript that never says they used a blended drive mode.

I find that I can get pretty close to 400 in conserve mode on my R1S Tri when I'm using highway assist on at modest speeds. Here's a couple different pictures of actual efficiency from driving on 101 (pretty flat) in the Bay Area during rush hour.

I do agree the 371 number is misleading as the vehicle predicted range is 346-350 in AP in my experience with normal driving. That being said, I think it's plausible to hit the 371 EPA range in AP mode under very controlled driving conditions.

Odd that the pictures you post show conserve mode in use whist talking about AP?

Perhaps I should actually start a blog or something for this So rivian just cannot get their story straight on this - there is 0 evidence anywhere to back up the implication that RJ made in that interview with Sandy, but plenty that contradicts it. Note that 371 miles is the midpoint of what rivian submitted to the EPA, and if you read the fuel-economy label that @Electrified Outdoors posted above - the MPGe figures for highway and city correspond to the EPA test cycle MPGe figures for AP and Conserve mode. Note that Rivian's math is all over the place - I honestly think driven by feeling the need to hit numbers that match what they published in documents like the investor report, before they had real world data.

RJ's account during the interview with Sandy (auto transcription):

Sandy: so what's the range on this one here with the tri motor and stuff like that
RJ: so with the tri in um on the EPA test it's 371 miles EPA certified number yeah and to get that number we actually have to test it with uh essentially with all-wheel drive locked because we wanted to have it such that if you put in the uh normal mode the front L axles are both on if you go into conserve mode on this which has uh Dynamic uh rear disconnect so it goes on and off in conserve mode it does around 400 miles but the EPA number is 371 and that's different than our dual motors where we we actually have the dynamic rear disconnect always engaging or disengaging and the reason for that with the tribe we wanted to be able to lock so it's always immediately there full performance at all times even when you're in all-purpose mode so it's a decision we made to trade off a little bit on Range the EPA range but it's still 371 miles but I I'm driving one I I regularly get 400ish miles uh just by you know having it in conserve mode and and the neat thing about conserve mode on this is you can access both it's all wheel drive it's just all wheel drive on demand so the rear axle comes to life when you need it.

Based on RJ’s comments, Rivian supposedly achieved a much higher efficiency level in All-Purpose (AP) mode than even their own documented data suggests. In effect, it halves the gap between Rivian’s reported AP range and the Conserve range, yet keeps all motors active at all times. That’s a bold claim. Note that he never actually states that the 371 number is for AP mode, though heavily implied. Its also the first time rivian have ever claimed the number is EPA Certified (whatever that actually means) - elsewhere they have always caveated it, or even just been straight up and said its to their own estimated cycles - eg: https://rivian.com/support/article/what-battery-options-are-available

Wassym Bensaid's account reported by @Rivian Roamer on Twitter and Threads:

? Demystifying Rivian Range: A Technical Deep Dive
Ever wonder how Rivian calculates the range numbers you see? Let's break it down with some insider knowledge from Rivian's own @WassymBensaid! ?

? Range Calculations:
• The range displayed on Rivian's shop represents the midpoint between Sport (worst case) and Conserve (best case) per EPA testing
• Example: Gen 2 Tri-Motor Max Pack with 20" AT
Sport: 304 miles
Conserve: 352 miles
Displayed Range: 329 miles

? Gen 2 Improvements:
Smarter Conserve Mode:
• Gen 1: Manual front-wheel drive
• Gen 2: Dynamically disconnects rear clutch as needed, matching Dual Motor behavior

Enhanced All-Purpose Mode:
• Sportier tuning in Tri/Quad configurations
• Better balance of performance and efficiency

Real-World Performance:
22" wheel configuration can achieve:
341 miles in All-Purpose
405 miles in Conserve
371 miles EPA official range

Though often owners are seeing better than advertised range in conserve.

Wassym’s explanation implies that the numbers used in marketing—and apparently on FuelEconomy.gov—are a midpoint blend of two modes (e.g., Sport vs. Conserve). If that’s correct, it would deviate from standard EPA testing procedures, which typically measure range using a single drive mode for consistency. This makes the 371-mile figure less of a straightforward “apples-to-apples” comparison with other EVs, because the multi-mode approach changes how the final number is calculated.

Cross-Referencing the Data
Next, let’s take a closer look at the official city and highway figures to see how they align with the statements above, and to highlight why different sources give different impressions.
The original Rivian submission to the EPA indicates:

• AP: 346.10 miles
• Conserve: 395.64 miles

Wassym provided different figures for 22" wheels:

1. AP: 341 miles
2. Conserve: 405 miles (matches Conserve in Rivian's marketing)

The official FuelEconomy.gov dataset notes:

• Combined: 371 miles
• City: 395 miles (matches Conserve in Rivian’s submission to the EPA)
• Highway: 341 miles (aligns with AP in Wassym’s account)

Interestingly, the city and highway numbers match different sources, and blending them with EPA’s weighting (0.55 city, 0.45 highway) produces that 371-mile figure. It’s also remarkable that the R1T and R1S are reported to have identical test results—this strains credibility, given how the two different body styles and configurations normally yield at least slight variations; with the R1T typically performing a little better.

Where Does That Leave Us?
A 371-mile number is labeled as the “EPA certified number,” yet the method behind it seems inconsistent with standard single-mode EPA testing:

If RJ’s version is correct, then Rivian somehow surpassed its own AP figures—despite locking all motors full-time. If this is indeed what happened then a very cynical perspective would be that they created a drive-mode (or logic within the AP mode) for non-real world optimization under the test cycle.
If Wassym’s version is correct, then Rivian might be using a multi-mode composite approach, which is a departure from the EPA’s typical single-mode methodology - preventing the number(s) being used to compare between vehicles directly, including Rivian's own dual motor models (which lack a dedicated conserve mode, as AP auto disconnects on these models).
Either explanation raises important questions. Whether it’s a bold efficiency claim or a composite calculation, more clarity from Rivian or the EPA would help owners and potential buyers know exactly what they’re comparing. It’s also an important matter for transparency—particularly because these range figures influence everything from purchase decisions to investor confidence.

 

[anthonysfl]

Odd that the pictures you post show conserve mode in use whist talking about AP?

Perhaps I should actually start a blog or something for this So rivian just cannot get their story straight on this - there is 0 evidence anywhere to back up the implication that RJ made in that interview with Sandy, but plenty that contradicts it. Note that 371 miles is the midpoint of what rivian submitted to the EPA, and if you read the fuel-economy label that @Electrified Outdoors posted above - the MPGe figures for highway and city correspond to the EPA test cycle MPGe figures for AP and Conserve mode. Note that Vivian's math is all over the place - I honestly thing driven by feeling the need to hit numbers that match what they published in documents like the one you linked, before they had real world data.

RJ's account during the interview with Sandy (auto transcription):



Based on RJ’s comments, Rivian supposedly achieved a much higher efficiency level in All-Purpose (AP) mode than even their own documented data suggests. In effect, it halves the gap between Rivian’s reported AP range and the Conserve range, yet keeps all motors active at all times. That’s a bold claim. Note that he never actually states that the 371 number is for AP mode, though heavily implied.

Wassym Bensaid's account reported by @Rivian Roamer on Twitter and Threads:



Wassym’s explanation implies that the numbers used in marketing—and apparently on FuelEconomy.gov—are a midpoint blend of two modes (e.g., Sport vs. Conserve). If that’s correct, it would deviate from standard EPA testing procedures, which typically measure range using a single drive mode for consistency. This makes the 371-mile figure less of a straightforward “apples-to-apples” comparison with other EVs, because the multi-mode approach changes how the final number is calculated.

Cross-Referencing the Data
Next, let’s take a closer look at the official city and highway figures to see how they align with the statements above, and to highlight why different sources give different impressions.
The original Rivian submission to the EPA indicates:

• AP: 346.10 miles
• Conserve: 395.64 miles

Wassym provided different figures for 22" wheels:

1. AP: 341 miles
2. Conserve: 405 miles (matches Conserve in Rivian's marketing)

The official FuelEconomy.gov dataset notes:

• Combined: 371 miles
• City: 395 miles (matches Conserve in Rivian’s submission to the EPA)
• Highway: 341 miles (aligns with AP in Wassym’s account)

Interestingly, the city and highway numbers match different sources, and blending them with EPA’s weighting (0.55 city, 0.45 highway) produces that 371-mile figure. It’s also remarkable that the R1T and R1S are reported to have identical test results—this strains credibility, given how the two different body styles and configurations normally yield at least slight variations; with the R1T typically performing a little better.

Where Does That Leave Us?
A 371-mile number is labeled as the “EPA certified number,” yet the method behind it seems inconsistent with standard single-mode EPA testing:

If RJ’s version is correct, then Rivian somehow surpassed its own AP figures—despite locking all motors full-time. If this is indeed what happened then a very cynical perspective would be that they created a drive-mode (or logic within the AP mode) for non-real world optimization under the test cycle.
If Wassym’s version is correct, then Rivian might be using a multi-mode composite approach, which is a departure from the EPA’s typical single-mode methodology - preventing the number(s) being used to compare between vehicles directly, including Rivian's own dual motor models (which lack a dedicated conserve mode, as AP auto disconnects on these models).
Either explanation raises important questions. Whether it’s a bold efficiency claim or a composite calculation, more clarity from Rivian or the EPA would help owners and potential buyers know exactly what they’re comparing. It’s also an important matter for transparency—particularly because these range figures influence everything from purchase decisions to investor confidence.

Amazing write up. If only Rivian would commit to an actual range maximization setup and not use 22’s for a “range” wheel.

My R1S quad large pack, on 20 AT brights on 275/60/20 AS tires (non ev tires) was 8% more efficient than my R1T quad large pack on 21’s. R1S averaged 2.5mi/kwh over 6000 miles at avg speed of 36mph and R1T only managed 2.31mi/kWh over 5500 miles at avg speed of 35mph.

I also did a 100% to 0 test with my S. In AP mode, I got 292 miles. In conserve mode I went 343 miles till 0.

 

[DayTripping]

By changing how they do the EPA numbers, to @portdirect's point, you can't do an apples to apples comparison either to the previous gen or other companies. It might also give them a way, at least on paper, to show improvements in efficiency by going with their inhouse motors rather than the Bosch that were in the G1 quads.

Isn't it curious that there only seems to be Tris with a max pack. Even if efficiency was the same as the G1 quad's, you'll get more range due to the 9% larger pack size. Which for most people will automatically make it seem better. I personally don't need more range than what the G1 large does but If I had a G2 nerfed large pack, I wouldn't. So, I'd be forced into getting the max pack.

They did everything they could to make the Tri seem like a big upgrade over the quad from an efficiency/range perspective but I don't think it is impressive as it seems based on a lot of reports I've seen here and based on the test drive I took. Not saying there aren't gains, but based on how I drive, they weren't massive, or even impressive. If I wanted an electron-sipping vehicle, I'd drive my Model 3 all the time (Elon's antics notwithstanding).

The G2 quad's sticky tires are going to crush it's numbers. I already deal with that on my Plaid running wider than stock, stick Michelins. I wouldn't change that tire combo for the street at all but I absolutely won't drive it when the temps are under 40F on those tires. Still befuddled by why they went with a staggered setup. The disadvantages outweigh the pros in my book.

 

[Jivian]

Odd that the pictures you post show conserve mode in use whist talking about AP?

I find that I can get pretty close to 400 in conserve mode on my R1S Tri when I'm using highway assist on at modest speeds. Here's a couple different pictures of actual efficiency from driving on 101 (pretty flat) in the Bay Area during rush hour.

I specifically called out conserve in reference to the pictures.

I find it odd that I show evidence of the 400 mile range being achievable in real world conditions and then you just make this claim with no evidence.

They never got to 400+ for the tri motor (needing to create their own test cycle to say they did) and that's *in* conserve mode, where the Ascent motors are only used for acceleration.

 

[portdirect]

I find it odd that I show evidence of the 400 mile range being achievable in real world conditions and then you just make this claim with no evidence.

So lets break this down: 400mile range is indeed probably possible under the right driving conditions whist in conserve mode, with good weather, well inflated tires and not much stop and go traffic, but I'd argue not realistic for 99% of folks.

Rivian's own test data shows the following for conserve, so yes for city driving its certainly possible, but that's not the rated rage, which this argument is about:

For AP mode, Rivian recon you should be able to get 369 miles out a tri motor with 22" wheels using the city driving test:

This is about having value that enable you to compare how vehicles perform against each other.

At the end of the day - Rivian are awesome performance vehicles, where that performance is primarily measured in Acceleration, handling etc - they are not terribly efficient machines however - yes you can drive them in a way to get great efficiency, but its not representative of average driving across the USA.

 

[mpshizzle]

I think the EPA has range ratings all wrong for EVs. It needs to be strictly highway driving. That's when people care about max range. That's when you're going to use the whole (or at least most of) battery in one go

400 miles is realistic in low speed, city conditions. But WHO is driving 400 miles in the city, in sitting?? NOBODY!

Unless you're doing like uber or something like that, that's just not a realistic use case for most customers.

 

[bmedfo1]

Came here to see if there was anything about release date discussed.

I think I am in the minority that do not care at all about the range. Even when I do more than 3 hour drives I never have any issue with stoping for a bit to charge or finding a Nema 14-50 at the destination. I always though range was just some BS EV haters would get hung up on but this is coming from Rivian owners so I just dont get it. I have even towed a SXS for a 1200 mile round trip, (Yes it sucked) but not bad enough for me to not drive the vehicle I want to work every day.

 

[portdirect]

Came here to see if there was anything about release date discussed.

I think I am in the minority that do not care at all about the range. Even when I do more than 3 hour drives I never have any issue with stoping for a bit to charge or finding a Nema 14-50 at the destination. I always though range was just some BS EV haters would get hung up on but this is coming from Rivian owners so I just dont get it. I have even towed a SXS for a 1200 mile round trip, (Yes it sucked) but not bad enough for me to not drive the vehicle I want to work every day.

My crystal ball says, pricing is announced during 2nd half of Q2, shipping 'starting' in Q3 with an handful delivered, and being mostly a Q4 thing.

 

[Jared2]

I am LOVING this thread! Totally nerding out on the range specs/analysis.

What's interesting to me is that with my Dual Max Perf, I almost never see anything over 2.6mi/kWh for highway cruise.

Jivian, do you know what your avg speed was to achieve 2.92mi/kWh? Is the front motor in the Tri basically the same as the front motor in the Dual? If so, on the highway, shouldn't we be showing pretty much the same efficiency?

Very intersting stuff guys! Thank you!!

-Jared

 

[DayTripping]

I am LOVING this thread! Totally nerding out on the range specs/analysis.

What's interesting to me is that with my Dual Max Perf, I almost never see anything over 2.6mi/kWh for highway cruise.

Jivian, do you know what your avg speed was to achieve 2.92mi/kWh? Is the front motor in the Tri basically the same as the front motor in the Dual? If so, on the highway, shouldn't we be showing pretty much the same efficiency?

Very intersting stuff guys! Thank you!!

-Jared

I would think it would be similar depending on the tires you are both running. It also helps to quantify the highway cruise speed. In Texas, that would often be 75-80 mph, and some places even higher. Other places you might see much lower speeds.

If I am in Conserve mode on my G1 quad, at a steady 70 mph in Conserve mode, I am about 2.5 mpk, sometimes a bit more. If I am AP mode, it is worse. In colder temps I am at 2.2-2.3. I am running on the Gen 2 all season tires which have a more aggressive tread than the 21" tires I had on there before.

So anyone saying an efficiency number really needs to add context such as speed, type of tire and size, temps, etc. to be able to realistic compare them.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

Over the years I have seen two things with EPA range numbers.

1) The manufacturer games the system to obtain the highest possible range number
2) The manufacturer takes the most conservative and repeatable number and aims for that as the range number.

That's why some EVs can easily outdo their own range numbers when you test them while others ...cough.....Tesla...cough....very rarely live up to their range numbers in the real world.

The thing that bothers me about the overly optimistic range numbers is that customers get turned off and feel deceived when the vehicle fails to get close to those numbers.

Around here, in the Baltimore & DC Metro areas, folks drive fast and hard. Most folks who want long range plan to road trip the vehicle. Highway driving is least efficient...most here already know that...but...you combine that with high speeds like 80-85 mph...and your looking much much lower range. Add onto the fact that most consumers don't realize that after your first stop its only worthwhile to use 70% of the battery.

IMO its better to under promise and over deliver (or not) than to over promise and under deliver.

 

[DayTripping]

The entire EPA highway cycle doesn't even remotely match highway driving for a lot of the US. The average speed is 48 mph and the max is 61. We have neighborhoods where people drive faster than that, let alone the freeway.

 

[VanCityMike]

Not sure why I would need a vehicle this size with 1000+HP, I get it but just seems crazy.

It is crazy, but so is a 707hp TRX, a Trackhawk, Model X Plaid, Demon, Lucid Sapphire, C63 AMG, etc. etc. etc.

Does anyone "need" road-going vehicles capable of two second 0-60 times running single digit quarter mile times? Of course not, but they sure are a lot of fun.

Performance trucks have been around for a long time, things like the Chevy Syclone, SRT10 RAM with a Viper engine, and the new crop of fast trucks like the TRX and Raptor R. Same with SUVs, there is a demand for it.

For me, I can't afford or have room to fit multiple vehicles for different applications. The R1T is a blend of sports car, luxury car, and practical pickup all in one package. Yes, you can get better vehicles in any of those categories but there isn't anything that is better in all three.

Sponsored