Max Pack Battery Capacity Confirmed - 149kWh

[DuoRivians]

Rick, I can accept that also but Rivian is telling us the Max Pack is more efficient than the Large, exactly the opposite of what you said. And even if it is, there is no way it is that much more efficient.

They did the EPA testing of the Max Pack differently than they did the Large in order to hit the promised 400+ miles of range. If they tested it exactly like the Large Pack, they would not have a 400 mile range vehicle. So IMO they are purposely deceiving us. I call that lying.

I know that people here have speculated that the max pack is more efficient. But I don’t recall Rivian ever saying that.

Yes, they have said the enduro motors are more efficient than Bosch. But that’s entirely separate

Sponsored

 

[Jiji]

Rick, I can accept that also but Rivian is telling us the Max Pack is more efficient than the Large, exactly the opposite of what you said. And even if it is, there is no way it is that much more efficient.

They did the EPA testing of the Max Pack differently than they did the Large in order to hit the promised 400+ miles of range. If they tested it exactly like the Large Pack, they would not have a 400 mile range vehicle. So IMO they are purposely deceiving us. I call that lying.

I guess I need to stay in my lane, I don't follow what Rivian publishes on EPA numbers so probably missing something.

My simplistic view is adding battery capacity increases the range while decreasing the efficiency (more weight to lug around). If Rivian says a Max pack is more efficient than a Large pack in a Dual Motor vehicle then I don't understand and need more data to understand why this is the case.

 

[mkhuffman]

Then it’s the EPA that’s lying. No car company can just make up the EPA numbers.

Car manufacturers test their own cars. The EPA does not test cars. Yes, Rivian has to follow the test procedures and document they did, but there are ways to manipulate the results and still conduct the procedure properly. Obviously, because there is no other explanation that makes sense.

 

[CruxOp]

It's pretty straightforward. Look at the ratings of the large pack on the dual motor 21s R1S in the configurator - 352 mi / 127 kw = 2.771 kwh/mi. Now the max 400 / 2.771 = 144.3 which is essentially the usable capacity of the max pack as confirmed. The main difference is the efficiency of testing dual motor in all purpose where it goes into "conserve" automatically, which means comparing apples to oranges in the EPA ratings for quad versus dual, as well as some minor efficiency improvements in the drivetrain.

 

[mkhuffman]

It's pretty straightforward. Look at the ratings of the large pack on the dual motor 21s R1S in the configurator - 352 mi / 127 kw = 2.771 kwh/mi. Now the max 400 / 2.771 = 144.3 which is essentially the usable capacity of the max pack as confirmed. The main difference is the efficiency of testing dual motor in all purpose where it goes into "conserve" automatically, which means comparing apples to oranges in the EPA ratings for quad versus dual, as well as some minor efficiency improvements in the drivetrain.

352 miles of range is for the Dual Motor Large Pack, not the Quad Motor Large Pack.

So the same automatic conserve mode is being used in that test. The Max Pack didn't change that behavior, it just added a higher capacity battery pack.

And they are claiming 410 miles of range for the T, not 400.

And 2 kWh is not a rounding error. It is significant.

This is very, very disappointing to me. Others don't care and that is fine. We each have different wants. I want to be able to drive to my office 143 miles from my house, and back home, without needing to use public charging. So while that 2 kWh doesn't seem significant to you, it is to me.

From posts here and a friend how has a T, I can expect about 2.4 mi/kWh at 80 mph in good weather. That means 142 kWh x 2.4 = 341 miles of range. Which means I should be able to drive to work and back home without public charging. However, that is in good weather conditions and it assumes I drive the truck all the way to 0%.

Winter is coming. Every kWh matters to me in order to avoid public charging, which I hate. Hate. I already have to charge when I go there with my MME. I refuse to replace my MME with anything that still requires a charge to go to work.

Anyway, I might still end up with a R1, but this has definitely cooled my jets.

 

[CruxOp]

352 miles of range is for the Dual Motor Large Pack, not the Quad Motor Large Pack.

So the same automatic conserve mode is being used in that test. The Max Pack didn't change that behavior, it just added a higher capacity battery pack.

And they are claiming 410 miles of range for the T, not 400.

And 2 kWh is not a rounding error. It is significant.

This is very, very disappointing to me. Others don't care and that is fine. We each have different wants. I want to be able to drive to my office 143 miles from my house, and back home, without needing to use public charging. So while that 2 kWh doesn't seem significant to you, it is to me.

From posts here and a friend how has a T, I can expect about 2.4 mi/kWh at 80 mph in good weather. That means 142 kWh x 2.4 = 341 miles of range. Which means I should be able to drive to work and back home without public charging. However, that is in good weather conditions and it assumes I drive the truck all the way to 0%.

Winter is coming. Every kWh matters to me in order to avoid public charging, which I hate. Hate. I already have to charge when I go there with my MME. I refuse to replace my MME with anything that still requires a charge to go to work.

Anyway, I might still end up with a R1, but this has definitely cooled my jets.

Correct My point was that the math all checks out from the difference in added KWH between the large and max packs based on known capacity added (within 1% variance). The second point is the primary difference is the way the EPA testing is done for the drive modes from a quad versus a dual. Even with the 2.4 your friend is seeing 341 against a 286 mi drive is a 19% buffer, which is substantial. That being said agree that the actual KWH add for max is pretty disappointing. Will be interesting to see how things change once the next gen of competition hits that has 200 kwh packs

 

[mkhuffman]

Correct My point was that the math all checks out from the difference in added KWH between the large and max packs based on known capacity added (within 1% variance).

We will just need to agree to disagree.

The second point is the primary difference is the way the EPA testing is done for the drive modes from a quad versus a dual.

Yes, I agree but the 352 mile range estimate for the Large Pack is for the DM, not the QM. And I am comparing DM Large to DM Max, not QM Large to DM Max.

Even with the 2.4 your friend is seeing 341 against a 286 mi drive is a 19% buffer, which is substantial.

I agree, but winter can easily reduce range by 19%. It is reasonable to expect more than 19% in cold rainy or snowy weather. And sometimes I need to drive around while I am at the office. So 19% leaves me no buffer for side trips.

I really wanted them to keep their plan to put in a 180 kWh pack. So many levels of disappointment.

 

[Supratachophobia]

We will just need to agree to disagree.



Yes, I agree but the 352 mile range estimate for the Large Pack is for the DM, not the QM. And I am comparing DM Large to DM Max, not QM Large to DM Max.



I agree, but winter can easily reduce range by 19%. It is reasonable to expect more than 19% in cold rainy or snowy weather. And sometimes I need to drive around while I am at the office. So 19% leaves me no buffer for side trips.

I really wanted them to keep their plan to put in a 180 kWh pack. So many levels of disappointment.

It's like we are the same person on this topic. Bottom line, I expected better from Rivian, not some shady Tesla behavior.

I understand that things have changed in five years since the 180 was announced. But the secrecy around this is just disappointing. They can do better. RJ can do better.

 

[CruxOp]

We will just need to agree to disagree.



Yes, I agree but the 352 mile range estimate for the Large Pack is for the DM, not the QM. And I am comparing DM Large to DM Max, not QM Large to DM Max.



I agree, but winter can easily reduce range by 19%. It is reasonable to expect more than 19% in cold rainy or snowy weather. And sometimes I need to drive around while I am at the office. So 19% leaves me no buffer for side trips.

I really wanted them to keep their plan to put in a 180 kWh pack. So many levels of disappointment.

Yep, but I imagine you wouldn't be driving at 80 in bad weather so there is some efficiency offset there to consider. Agreed on the 180kwh pack. Especially for the price difference.

 

[scottf200]

This is very, very disappointing to me. Others don't care and that is fine. We each have different wants. I want to be able to drive to my office 143 miles from my house, and back home, without needing to use public charging. So while that 2 kWh doesn't seem significant to you, it is to me.

Did you already account for a typical ~5% degradation in the first year or so? Then tapered more evenly after that.

 

[emoore]

Car manufacturers test their own cars. The EPA does not test cars. Yes, Rivian has to follow the test procedures and document they did, but there are ways to manipulate the results and still conduct the procedure properly. Obviously, because there is no other explanation that makes sense.

Then blame the EPA testing procedures. If the max pack doesn’t fit your needs then that’s ok. might have to wait until a 500 mile truck is on the market.

 

[Jiji]

From posts here and a friend how has a T, I can expect about 2.4 mi/kWh at 80 mph in good weather. That means 142 kWh x 2.4 = 341 miles of range. Which means I should be able to drive to work and back home without public charging. However, that is in good weather conditions and it assumes I drive the truck all the way to 0%.

Winter is coming. Every kWh matters to me in order to avoid public charging, which I hate. Hate. I already have to charge when I go there with my MME. I refuse to replace my MME with anything that still requires a charge to go to work.

A cold, cloudy day in Central NY so a good day to answer some questions by logging some Rivian data.

First I want to reach out to my fellow MME owner (I have a GT) and state the Rivian definitely has more range than the my MME GT but that isn't really a surprise. I also want to split some hairs and state that when driving you don't care about efficiency you care about range since that is what gets you to your destination.

I see the above efficiency at 80 mph and wonder how much better would the range be if one slowed down to 60 mph? The range should be higher but how much higher since it is well known that you slow down to extend your range as aero losses are proportional to the square of the speed. So let's measure some range.

I will drive a round trip highway course at three different speeds: 55 mph, 65 mph, and 75 mph. Being a round trip means I eliminate any change in elevation and the new UI allows me to manually log the outside and battery temperatures at the start and end of each trip in case they were to vary. The key items to focus on are the vehicle range consumed, the average and maximum speeds, and the change in SoC.

With luck I'll have three of these reports to share and get @mkhuffman to the office and back without stopping to charge with his new Rivian.

 

[Supratachophobia]

Then blame the EPA testing procedures. If the max pack doesn’t fit your needs then that’s ok. might have to wait until a 500 mile truck is on the market.

It's not so much the EPA, it just smells like Rivian didn't do the *same* testing procedure between large and max. That's the disingenuous part of all this.

 

[mkhuffman]

Did you already account for a typical ~5% degradation in the first year or so? Then tapered more evenly after that.

Great point. My MME GT is 2 years old and the battery SoH is 93%. Based on what others have reported, that is about typical. Some have worse, some have better.

So more new battery capacity is even more important over time. If I start with 142 kWh, in two years it could be 10% less. And now I am charging every time I go to the office, and fighting with the L2 freeloaders.

 

[mkhuffman]

A cold, cloudy day in Central NY so a good day to answer some questions by logging some Rivian data.

First I want to reach out to my fellow MME owner (I have a GT) and state the Rivian definitely has more range than the my MME GT but that isn't really a surprise. I also want to split some hairs and state that when driving you don't care about efficiency you care about range since that is what gets you to your destination.

I see the above efficiency at 80 mph and wonder how much better would the range be if one slowed down to 60 mph? The range should be higher but how much higher since it is well known that you slow down to extend your range as aero losses are proportional to the square of the speed. So let's measure some range.

I will drive a round trip highway course at three different speeds: 55 mph, 65 mph, and 75 mph. Being a round trip means I eliminate any change in elevation and the new UI allows me to manually log the outside and battery temperatures at the start and end of each trip in case they were to vary. The key items to focus on are the vehicle range consumed, the average and maximum speeds, and the change in SoC.

With luck I'll have three of these reports to share and get @mkhuffman to the office and back without stopping to charge with his new Rivian.

It is true that driving the speed limit will measurably improve efficiency and range. I don't like driving the speed limit and getting passed by dump trucks. I want to drive 80 like I do now, and have enough range to avoid public charging.

The R1 (and just about any vehicle that costs more than $10k) is a want, not a need. I don't need a battery powered truck. I want one. I don't need to drive 80 mph. I want to.

Sponsored