The Truth About Reliability

[Donald Stanfield]

I don’t expect Rivian to be first in reliability. I do expect it not to be dead last after working on these cars for at least seven years and charging a premium price. EVs are actually simpler than ICEs. Look at the great job the Korean manufacturers have done with their first EVs. Volvo as well. Any manufacturer which makes quality ICEs generally make quality EVs.

I also expect service center wait times which aren’t ridiculous, and real loaners.

Your post reads like stockholder fan fiction and you really should disclose how much you own, in the name of transparency. I don’t have any position in Rivian and so I can tell it like it is, without bias.

The truth is that Rivian cars are not reliable, but because they are somewhat niche, they have high satisfaction, like a lot of unreliable cars from other manufacturers, like Range Rover and Jeep. If you want your car to be your hobby, buy a Rivian. If you have other uses for your time, wait for something else.

My financial position is none of your business. The money I have invested in Rivian, including the vehicles, doesn't matter that much to my overall financial picture. I can take a gamble on something that is as high performance as a Rivian because, at the end of the day, if I tire of it, I'll take whatever financial loss and buy something else.

If you think my positive post is an attempt to manipulate the stock price, then you don't understand the stock market, or human nature. No one outside of a few enthusiasts here give a shit about positive posts. I'm not winning anyone new over with this, unlike negative posts that can sour a neutral person's mood. It's basic human nature, we pay more attention to the negative than we do the positive and that's a cognitive distortion I do my best to avoid.

So you might think you are "telling it like it is" but the reality is you're suffering from negative cognitive distortion. Your last paragraph admits I'm right, while the previous paragraph calls it a work of fiction. Admitting Rivian has high satisfaction like other performance-oriented products, but the corresponding low reliability.

There was no point in making your comment if you were going to delve into my finances, call my integrity into question, and finally reiterate what I was saying initially. Did you just want to spread some negativity here? Your post didn't really add anything of value to the discussion.


EDIT TO AD:

Also, I don't know where you get 7 years from. Rivian barely started production in 2021, and if you're counting prototypes that are hand-made under scrutiny vs mass-produced models off a new line, then you don't understand manufacturing very well and probably shouldn't be commenting on it. It's also funny how your examples of better EV manufacturers have all been making cars significantly longer, and none of them have made a car with the same level of performance.

Sponsored

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I’ve had 3 critical failures in the first 7 months of ownership of a brand new R1T. 2 were bad enough the car could not be driven to the SC.

All 3 were attributed to defects that made it out of the factory. The latest was the knuckle bolt / bearing failure. A dab of loctite on the knuckle bolt when it was assembled would have probably prevented it.

I’m critical because I *have* been stranded by my vehicle too many times for being such a new owner. I get the low reliability score.

With that, I want Rivian to succeed! I own stock and I love my truck. It’s the funnest vehicle I’ve ever owned. I’m willing to give it a little longer before I give up and sell/trade it in. Maybe I’ve worked out the remaining gremlins.

My point is this: Rivian is competing with legacy OEMs at this point that have much better service options. Comparing it to a Maclaran shop queen is not going to cut it. With the GM and Ford EV truck options being competitive we are past that.

They need to invest in and improve their quality control and service infrastructure if they want to improve reliability and keep their raving fans.

if they keep the perception of worst reliabilityit will kill the company.

Even just having a proper pre-delivery inspection could help. Dumb things like misaligned door panels and other fit and finish issue no doubt are adding to the service center backlog.

They need to do better while they still can.

The R1 series was never meant to compete with legacy auto mass manufacturers. The cheapest one costs 70 K, which is hardly a mass-market appeal car. My new one costs 112 K. Trying to compare the service of these cars to significantly lower-performing cars isn't fair. Mercedes isn't close to Rivian in terms of performance, and no one is buying their EVs because they are mediocre at best.

The R1 was designed to showcase Rivian's capabilities and generate buzz for the company. It's their moonshot, not the family truckster. That's why it off-roads to the level it does, while being as fast as it is. Every premium company makes a car that is their latest tech and has reliability issues. The problem Rivian has regarding their service is Rivian's only cars are these halo cars. Legacy auto has more plain, less complex vehicles and sells more of them than the halo car. These sales help prop up the company from a profitability standpoint. The R2 is Rivian's mass market moment, it will be significantly less complex than the R1 so hopefully it is also more reliable.

 

[dleepnw]

Every day, we have many people posting threads on various issues. Lately, we've had at least three threads on the same consumer reports article ranking Rivian dead last in reliability. The last one is from someone who isn't even a Rivian owner, who talks about how Rivian needs to do better before they consider purchasing one. Setting aside the utility, or lack thereof, of making such a post, everyone speaking to Rivian's reliability forgets one thing.

There is a strong inverse correlation between a machine's complexity and reliability. The simpler a machine, the less likely it will experience a malfunction, everything else being equal. Rivian is at the cutting edge of vehicle design. I have a 7k-pound SUV that accelerates to 60 in 2.9 seconds and runs an almost 10-second quarter mile. Who else is getting that kind of performance out of ANY vehicle, let alone such an atypical sized and weight vehicle? You can count the cars in the same class on one hand.

People need to understand that being first or being best at something is an arduous task. Rivian could make their vehicles Toyota-level reliable if they used Toyota-level parts. That would give you the reliability you want, but your car would function like the cutting-edge vehicle from 30 years ago. If that's what you want, go ahead and buy it. Those cars all say Toyota or Lexus on them and are available everywhere.

To expect your vehicle to push the boundaries of what's possible while having the same reliability as a vehicle with proven technology that's been refined for many years is asinine. Those buying performance vehicles for a while are used to their fickle nature. If you're mad about Rivian's backlog or vehicle reliability, you should purchase a Ferarri. Tell the Ferarri dealer you're sick of how long the service is taking, and they will tell you that you should feel fortunate you have the privilege of owning a Ferarri. A Bugatti Veyron's oil change is in the five figures; tires are 20K minimum on one of those.

A rocket launch takes a crew of thousands and months of preparation. Those are two examples of machines of increasing complexity requiring increasing technical support. I have a pressure washer that I've had for years and haven't ever changed the oil in it or done any other maintenance, yet every year I go to fire it up with its stale gas and crappy oil, and it fires right up and washes off what I need to be cleaned. Not a very complex machine but it handles heaps of abuse.

Rivian's level of performance and complexity explains why the same consumer report that rated Rivian last in reliability rated it first in customer satisfaction. I know I looked at everything when I looked for an SUV to replace my R1T. Only a few choices excited me; ultimately, I bought a Gen 2 R1S. Despite its flaws, Rivian gives me the most vehicle possible. If I have an issue with it, that's the price I pay for buying a car on the bleeding edge of commercially available technology.

Can Rivian get better at service? Of course, they can, but they aren't going to win in reliability ever. Rivian can have fewer flaws, and they have over time, but there will still be flaws. Everyone must ask themselves what they want from a vehicle because all manufacturers have trade-offs. If you want the most extraordinary possible vehicle, Rivian is a good place to look; if prioritizing incredible bites you in reliability, you willingly made that trade. Don't be one of those owners who expects their state-of-the-art vehicle to get new features added to the software monthly but have all those updates work flawlessly. Who wants to be able to run an 11-second 1/4 mile on their way to the Rubicon trail yet have all the mechanicals function like the dogshit slow Toyota with potato cameras and a software interface that looks like it was coded by a HS student for his science fair project.

A few things to add:

• We don't really know how CR collects the data, what exact questions they ask, who responded, how they validate their data, and statistical significance.
• Being on this forum, we all know those that have problems are the ones that tend to post. Those that don't, don't.
• Despite having CR's lowest predicted reliability, it still got the highest customer satisfaction score and the only manufacturer to get 5/5. What does that tell us? Even despite issues, its not enough to dissatisfy the ownership experience.

 

[emoore]

I don’t expect Rivian to be first in reliability. I do expect it not to be dead last after working on these cars for at least seven years and charging a premium price. EVs are actually simpler than ICEs. Look at the great job the Korean manufacturers have done with their first EVs. Volvo as well. Any manufacturer which makes quality ICEs generally make quality EVs.

I also expect service center wait times which aren’t ridiculous, and real loaners.

Your post reads like stockholder fan fiction and you really should disclose how much you own, in the name of transparency. I don’t have any position in Rivian and so I can tell it like it is, without bias.

The truth is that Rivian cars are not reliable, but because they are somewhat niche, they have high satisfaction, like a lot of unreliable cars from other manufacturers, like Range Rover and Jeep. If you want your car to be your hobby, buy a Rivian. If you have other uses for your time, wait for something else.

Cool then don’t buy a Rivian. I had another CR worst buys in a VW GTI. had one issue in 12 years. Most reliable vehicle I had at the time. My 2 year old R1T, One issue and that it.

 

[malditofman]

Every day, we have many people posting threads on various issues. Lately, we've had at least three threads on the same consumer reports article ranking Rivian dead last in reliability. The last one is from someone who isn't even a Rivian owner, who talks about how Rivian needs to do better before they consider purchasing one. Setting aside the utility, or lack thereof, of making such a post, everyone speaking to Rivian's reliability forgets one thing.

There is a strong inverse correlation between a machine's complexity and reliability. The simpler a machine, the less likely it will experience a malfunction, everything else being equal. Rivian is at the cutting edge of vehicle design. I have a 7k-pound SUV that accelerates to 60 in 2.9 seconds and runs an almost 10-second quarter mile. Who else is getting that kind of performance out of ANY vehicle, let alone such an atypical sized and weight vehicle? You can count the cars in the same class on one hand.

People need to understand that being first or being best at something is an arduous task. Rivian could make their vehicles Toyota-level reliable if they used Toyota-level parts. That would give you the reliability you want, but your car would function like the cutting-edge vehicle from 30 years ago. If that's what you want, go ahead and buy it. Those cars all say Toyota or Lexus on them and are available everywhere.

To expect your vehicle to push the boundaries of what's possible while having the same reliability as a vehicle with proven technology that's been refined for many years is asinine. Those buying performance vehicles for a while are used to their fickle nature. If you're mad about Rivian's backlog or vehicle reliability, you should purchase a Ferarri. Tell the Ferarri dealer you're sick of how long the service is taking, and they will tell you that you should feel fortunate you have the privilege of owning a Ferarri. A Bugatti Veyron's oil change is in the five figures; tires are 20K minimum on one of those.

A rocket launch takes a crew of thousands and months of preparation. Those are two examples of machines of increasing complexity requiring increasing technical support. I have a pressure washer that I've had for years and haven't ever changed the oil in it or done any other maintenance, yet every year I go to fire it up with its stale gas and crappy oil, and it fires right up and washes off what I need to be cleaned. Not a very complex machine but it handles heaps of abuse.

Rivian's level of performance and complexity explains why the same consumer report that rated Rivian last in reliability rated it first in customer satisfaction. I know I looked at everything when I looked for an SUV to replace my R1T. Only a few choices excited me; ultimately, I bought a Gen 2 R1S. Despite its flaws, Rivian gives me the most vehicle possible. If I have an issue with it, that's the price I pay for buying a car on the bleeding edge of commercially available technology.

Can Rivian get better at service? Of course, they can, but they aren't going to win in reliability ever. Rivian can have fewer flaws, and they have over time, but there will still be flaws. Everyone must ask themselves what they want from a vehicle because all manufacturers have trade-offs. If you want the most extraordinary possible vehicle, Rivian is a good place to look; if prioritizing incredible bites you in reliability, you willingly made that trade. Don't be one of those owners who expects their state-of-the-art vehicle to get new features added to the software monthly but have all those updates work flawlessly. Who wants to be able to run an 11-second 1/4 mile on their way to the Rubicon trail yet have all the mechanicals function like the dogshit slow Toyota with potato cameras and a software interface that looks like it was coded by a HS student for his science fair project.

Consumer Reports became an inaccurate joke decades ago. Enough said. Drive well.

 

[Zoidz]

I stated previously that I hold little faith in CR. Found this article this morning, excerpts below. Read the whole article and take it for what it is worth....

GadgetReview.com - 3 Year Investigation Reveals that 75% of Consumer Reports’ Reviews in 24 categories are Potentially Fake

"Our research exposes widespread flaws in Consumer Reports’ review process, raising serious questions about its overall credibility.

• Alarmingly, 17 of the 23 categories we investigated earned Consumer Reports our “Fake Reviewer” classification. Only three categories showed evidence of credible testing.
• Their reviews often follow a cookie-cutter format, with the same sentences repeated in nearly identical paragraphs used across different products.
• Claims of rigorous testing are undermined by vague terms like “excellent,” with no measurable results or real-world photos.
• Despite its massive revenues, CR relies on vague scores with little or no test data for readers to evaluate independently.
• Reviews also lack visual proof, such as photos or videos of testing, raising doubts about whether CR evaluates products as rigorously as it claims.
• CR scored just 45.49% on our Trust Rating, which is a failing grade.

CR’s reviews often rely on repetitive, templated language, especially in high-demand categories like air purifiers, monitors, blenders, routers and TVs. Sometimes the written sections are 100% duplicated, like what we discovered in CR’s blender category. In many other categories, most of the reviews are duplicated with only minor tweaks, still copying and pasting identical, unhelpful phrases like “excellent picture quality” or “very good sound” across reviews."

 

[Zoidz]

And another issue with Consumer Report - credibility and ethical issues.

"Objective, impartial testing, reviews, and ratings lie at the heart of consumer choice—and at the heart of Consumer Reports. " But that objectiveness appears to be for sale via licensing! IMO you simply cannot be held at a high level of credibility when you license your endorsement.

The CR Web Site says no commercial use, but they have allowed Subaru to promote that they are "Best Mainstream Automotive Brand", apparently under the "Licensing" clause, which has vague requirements.

Consmer Reports Policy

Here are the guidelines that govern the use of CR’s content by other organizations:

• We encourage linking through websites or social media to any of our free, current content (i.e., posted within the last three years) using neutral language. Here are two examples:
  “See what Consumer Reports says about ______.”
  “The ___ was recently featured in Consumer Reports.”
• We welcome retweeting, tweeting us @ConsumerReports, tagging us on Instagram @ConsumerReports, use of hashtags, links, and other sharing through social media.
• We allow one-time, non-commercial use of our videos, which can be done by linking to or embedding the video from our Consumer Reports website (ConsumerReports.org) or our Consumer Reports YouTube channel.
• All other activities require a license. Licensing includes the use of the CR Recommended mark, reprints, e-prints, single copies of our publications, and bulk sales of subscriptions of our products. We also allow the licensing of our content, including videos, but you may not discuss a specific rating or excerpt content except as expressly permitted by Consumer Reports. The use of any Consumer Reports’ trademark is only permitted as an integrated part of licensing our content. For more information, please submit requests to consumerreports.org/licensing.

 

[Robin]

Every day, we have many people posting threads on various issues. Lately, we've had at least three threads on the same consumer reports article ranking Rivian dead last in reliability. The last one is from someone who isn't even a Rivian owner, who talks about how Rivian needs to do better before they consider purchasing one. Setting aside the utility, or lack thereof, of making such a post, everyone speaking to Rivian's reliability forgets one thing.

There is a strong inverse correlation between a machine's complexity and reliability. The simpler a machine, the less likely it will experience a malfunction, everything else being equal. Rivian is at the cutting edge of vehicle design. I have a 7k-pound SUV that accelerates to 60 in 2.9 seconds and runs an almost 10-second quarter mile. Who else is getting that kind of performance out of ANY vehicle, let alone such an atypical sized and weight vehicle? You can count the cars in the same class on one hand.

People need to understand that being first or being best at something is an arduous task. Rivian could make their vehicles Toyota-level reliable if they used Toyota-level parts. That would give you the reliability you want, but your car would function like the cutting-edge vehicle from 30 years ago. If that's what you want, go ahead and buy it. Those cars all say Toyota or Lexus on them and are available everywhere.

To expect your vehicle to push the boundaries of what's possible while having the same reliability as a vehicle with proven technology that's been refined for many years is asinine. Those buying performance vehicles for a while are used to their fickle nature. If you're mad about Rivian's backlog or vehicle reliability, you should purchase a Ferarri. Tell the Ferarri dealer you're sick of how long the service is taking, and they will tell you that you should feel fortunate you have the privilege of owning a Ferarri. A Bugatti Veyron's oil change is in the five figures; tires are 20K minimum on one of those.

A rocket launch takes a crew of thousands and months of preparation. Those are two examples of machines of increasing complexity requiring increasing technical support. I have a pressure washer that I've had for years and haven't ever changed the oil in it or done any other maintenance, yet every year I go to fire it up with its stale gas and crappy oil, and it fires right up and washes off what I need to be cleaned. Not a very complex machine but it handles heaps of abuse.

Rivian's level of performance and complexity explains why the same consumer report that rated Rivian last in reliability rated it first in customer satisfaction. I know I looked at everything when I looked for an SUV to replace my R1T. Only a few choices excited me; ultimately, I bought a Gen 2 R1S. Despite its flaws, Rivian gives me the most vehicle possible. If I have an issue with it, that's the price I pay for buying a car on the bleeding edge of commercially available technology.

Can Rivian get better at service? Of course, they can, but they aren't going to win in reliability ever. Rivian can have fewer flaws, and they have over time, but there will still be flaws. Everyone must ask themselves what they want from a vehicle because all manufacturers have trade-offs. If you want the most extraordinary possible vehicle, Rivian is a good place to look; if prioritizing incredible bites you in reliability, you willingly made that trade. Don't be one of those owners who expects their state-of-the-art vehicle to get new features added to the software monthly but have all those updates work flawlessly. Who wants to be able to run an 11-second 1/4 mile on their way to the Rubicon trail yet have all the mechanicals function like the dogshit slow Toyota with potato cameras and a software interface that looks like it was coded by a HS student for his science fair project.

 

[raylepper]

To me, reliability means being able to count on the vehicle getting me to my destination and back—never having doubts. I would love to see data showing the number of major Rivian failures (e.g. 12v battery failure, anything that prevented the vehicle for being driven, anything that required a tow to SC, etc.). Although doing a poll on this forum would not nearly reach/capture the entire Rivian population, it could still be interesting.

And BTW, I've had my 2024 R1S for almost a year (8.5k miles). Only issue was the switch on one side of the center armrest stopped working. Fixed under warranty. Appointment was two weeks out.

So my experience of Rivian reliability is 100%.

 

[Dark-Fx]

When my Rivian died because of a 12-volt battery failure, it was a real eye-opener. It was electrically inert. You couldn't open the doors or put it in neutral. They had to drag it onto a tow truck with the rear wheels locked and dragging. In my opinion, having experienced it myself, that shouldn't ever happen ever to any EV. It was one event, but it was so bad that it made all other assessments mostly irrelevant. And it happened without any warning. That is why I agree with CR's results.

Engineer here, this is what we call "fail safe". You don't want to make it easy to get the vehicle out of park lock because people are going to do it in an unsafe manner.

It's actually not a difficult process to unlock the parking brake, but it does require hardware to do it- because you have to energize the system to unlock it.

 

[RedRiv]

Except the bulk of reliability issues have nothing to do with Rivian’s new tech or advanced EV stuff. The reliability issues are as to all the other basic stuff that can and should be done way better.

 

[LL75]

My two rivians are much more reliable that all the ICE cars I had, included the two teslas. Only more reliable one I have is my 250k miles Chevy tahoe.
My only wish for Rivian is to improve theirservice center and back log waiting. On cars that can be driven, they should call customers to bring in a day or two before parts are ready to be fix instead of sit in the lot.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

I agree that the Rivian is cutting edge tech that gets regular OTA updates. Notice how at least three of the brands with the lowest reliability also are in the top six for customer satisfaction.

Complexity while also lowing reliability also has the drawback of perceived poor reliability due to some owners not familiar with or educated on how to use it.

High-tech, cutting edge, and rock, solid reliability are not something that exists currently, and I would venture to S.A.Y. will not exist for the foreseeable future.

If you want mind, numbing, boring, rocksolid reliability, then buy a Toyota.

 

[Riviot]

I stated previously that I hold little faith in CR. Found this article this morning, excerpts below. Read the whole article and take it for what it is worth....

GadgetReview.com - 3 Year Investigation Reveals that 75% of Consumer Reports’ Reviews in 24 categories are Potentially Fake

"Our research exposes widespread flaws in Consumer Reports’ review process, raising serious questions about its overall credibility.

• Alarmingly, 17 of the 23 categories we investigated earned Consumer Reports our “Fake Reviewer” classification. Only three categories showed evidence of credible testing.
• Their reviews often follow a cookie-cutter format, with the same sentences repeated in nearly identical paragraphs used across different products.
• Claims of rigorous testing are undermined by vague terms like “excellent,” with no measurable results or real-world photos.
• Despite its massive revenues, CR relies on vague scores with little or no test data for readers to evaluate independently.
• Reviews also lack visual proof, such as photos or videos of testing, raising doubts about whether CR evaluates products as rigorously as it claims.
• CR scored just 45.49% on our Trust Rating, which is a failing grade.

CR’s reviews often rely on repetitive, templated language, especially in high-demand categories like air purifiers, monitors, blenders, routers and TVs. Sometimes the written sections are 100% duplicated, like what we discovered in CR’s blender category. In many other categories, most of the reviews are duplicated with only minor tweaks, still copying and pasting identical, unhelpful phrases like “excellent picture quality” or “very good sound” across reviews."

Consumer Reports reported to be least reliable consumer reporter. It's like an Onion article, but real!

 

[COdogman]

And another issue with Consumer Report - credibility and ethical issues.

"Objective, impartial testing, reviews, and ratings lie at the heart of consumer choice—and at the heart of Consumer Reports. " But that objectiveness appears to be for sale via licensing! IMO you simply cannot be held at a high level of credibility when you license your endorsement.

The CR Web Site says no commercial use, but they have allowed Subaru to promote that they are "Best Mainstream Automotive Brand", apparently under the "Licensing" clause, which has vague requirements.

Consmer Reports Policy

Here are the guidelines that govern the use of CR’s content by other organizations:

• We encourage linking through websites or social media to any of our free, current content (i.e., posted within the last three years) using neutral language. Here are two examples:
  “See what Consumer Reports says about ______.”
  “The ___ was recently featured in Consumer Reports.”
• We welcome retweeting, tweeting us @ConsumerReports, tagging us on Instagram @ConsumerReports, use of hashtags, links, and other sharing through social media.
• We allow one-time, non-commercial use of our videos, which can be done by linking to or embedding the video from our Consumer Reports website (ConsumerReports.org) or our Consumer Reports YouTube channel.
• All other activities require a license. Licensing includes the use of the CR Recommended mark, reprints, e-prints, single copies of our publications, and bulk sales of subscriptions of our products. We also allow the licensing of our content, including videos, but you may not discuss a specific rating or excerpt content except as expressly permitted by Consumer Reports. The use of any Consumer Reports’ trademark is only permitted as an integrated part of licensing our content. For more information, please submit requests to consumerreports.org/licensing.

Agreed. I'm ashamed I used to really value their opinions but slowly over time realized that taking their advice and buying the products they suggested didn't actually result in more reliable or better items.

I've received better advice asking my appliance repair guy which brands to avoid....

Sponsored