Max Pack Battery Capacity Confirmed - 149kWh

[Ripped]

I was hoping for more in that they were under-promising and over delivering. When I roughly calculated the range vs kWh I guessed it was 155 kWh.

This is even less 149 kWh

Let's see what happens when forum members hit the road with the MaxPack and see where the real-world range results come in at.

That will probably help with the decision.

Sponsored

 

[R1TS]

So 15 kWh bigger than the large pack. Seems not really worth it to me, not for 6K.

The usable capacity increase is actually just 13 kWh if this article is to be believed. That makes it even worse for a $10K upgrade.

 

[Rob Stark]

The usable capacity increase is actually just 13 kWh if this article is to be believed. That makes it even worse for a $10K upgrade.

If they deliver on the promised range it is a massive bonus if the pack is just 13 kWh greater.

It means the gravimetric power density is much improved.

The weight has gone down while the energy stored goes up. Efficiency goes way up.

 

[R1TS]

If they deliver on the promised range it is a massive bonus if the pack is just 13 kWh greater.

It means the gravimetric power density is much improved.

The weight has gone down while the energy stored goes up. Efficiency goes way up.

Heh, that got a good chuckle from me.

Just 13kWh to go an extra 48 miles in a really heavy truck? 3.7 mi/kWh? Hahaha.

 

[pc500]

It's actually impressive how people are guessing at this.

Dump the truck to 0%, charge it, look in charging history. What's the juice say? Was it worth the squeeze?

 

[tosehee]

If true, this is very first time that I am seriously disappointed with Rivian exec team.

 

[LL75]

If true, this is very first time that I am seriously disappointed with Rivian exec team.

First time? ?. I'm a rivian fan boy and it definitely not the first disappointment from upper management.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Shame on you Rivian, they totally need to just make this the large pack and just charge a tiny bit more for it and eliminate the large altogether. 10k more over the large pack for 14ish more kwhs? They should be ashamed of themselves. The large pack itself if you do the math is actually 142kwh gross, it seems like all the did was change the type of cells in the large and do nothing else.

This is what I've been saying for months....

 

[Supratachophobia]

Does this number bear on the debate over whether the Max Pack battery chemistry is much or just a little more efficient?

5800mah cells vs 5000mah cells

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

The battery is just a storage medium...how can it increase the efficiency of the vehicle?

If ABRP is correct, then the max pack could still have an advantage on long road trips. ABRP has both DM Large and DM Max at 2.68 mi per kwh @65. It appears, and I have an email into them, that they have the correct max pack capacity. If I multiply 2.68 by 149 I get 399 and 142 gives me 380.

With the ABRP calcs all things appear equal the extra power over a long road trip equates to less time charging. On a 430 mile trip it saves 15 mins charging time and on a 900 mi trip it saves 54 mins. When towing it appears to save even more time....8 charging stops vs 12 for large on a 900 mi trip. I posted my ABRP trip plans here:

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/my-opinion-on-max-pack-offering.19777/post-408493

This is going to require some real world testing. I still think its probably not worth it for most, but folks with certain use cases may be able to justify it a little easier.

2.68 x 129 kwh usable for large - 345 mi range
2.68 x 142 kwh usable for max - 381 mi range

A difference of 36 miles, BUT.....on a long road trip this results in less time spent charging according to ABRP.

 

[mkhuffman]

A little more math:
352/129 = 2.73 miles per kWh
410/142 = 2.89 miles per kWh
410/149 = 2.75 miles per kWh

Maybe Car and Driver is incorrect regarding the usable capacity. They were told the capacity is 149 kWh, and they estimated the usable capacity. What if they misunderstood and what they were told is actually the usable capacity? Then the numbers make more sense.

Or, is Rivian becoming less conservative, and maybe using the EPA test cycle that Tesla uses to justify 410 miles of range? Does it make sense that the max pack is more efficient than the large pack? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Throwdown]

This is what I've been saying for months....

I remember from some other threads

 

[blturner]

The only way I see for the battery pack to raise efficiency is to be lighter. The max pack may have better ENERGY density ie lighter. I can't see that better POWER density would help range more than just a little bit. lower internal resistance helps and that also helps power density. I am open to explanations if I am misunderstanding the physics.

 

[vandy1981]

The battery is just a storage medium...how can it increase the efficiency of the vehicle?

Wouldn't you get efficiency benefits if the internal resistance of the pack is lower (i.e. resistance of the individual cells and/or the pack circuits)? If you lose less energy to heat with discharge, that extra energy can be conveyed to the motor.

If that's true, an 180 kWh pack that loses 20% to resistance would be equivalent to a 152 kWh battery that loses 5%. I'm completely making up the numbers, BTW.

Another explanation could be that the optimal temperature range of the Max Pack is more favorable than the Large Pack, meaning less energy is needed for conditioning the battery.

 

[dleepnw]

Pretty sure it’s not just 15kwh more but some other change in the chemistry or density. there’s probably more going on under the covers for them to charge that much more. But is it worth $10k more for 14-15% more range? Not sure

Sponsored