? Official EPA Range and MPGe Numbers for R1T & R1S

[Zeroemit]

What energy consumption were you looking for? It's extremely efficient for a vehicle of it's size and shape. Shit, the xc40 isn't much better and it's a compact SUV. The Etron is marginally better and quite a bit smaller as well, and a Wrangler is much worse. The XC90 is smaller than an R1S, and is definitely likely to be less efficient anyway. The R1T already uses about 18% less energy than the XC90 PHEV on electricity. The Rivian is probably required about 50% more energy to overcome drag than a model X just because it's bigger and not shaped like half an air foil.


I know I'm responding to you, but I'm confused by people in general wanting it to have lower energy consumption. It's obviously less aerodynamic than say... A model 3, and a hell of a lot bigger. It's honestly amazing how efficient it is. Gonna be interested what people say when they see what that the Hummer does.

Compared to ICE powered SUVs its pretty good, and pretty good for its design, much like a traditional SUV/truck.

XC40 and Wranglers are basically ICE powered designs with electric powertrains thrown into them, same with my XC90 PHEV. Iam not familiar with the Etron design elements though.

However, compared to the upcoming Lyriq with its unconfirmed initial spec. its not very efficient. Lyriq has a 100kw pack and can get estimated 300+ miles. Granted they are quite different vehicles in design. One is a true off road EV truck and the other is basically a EV crossover.

As LeoH posted, in certain situations Rivian's can be more costly. In my situation (NYC Condo) my electric charge is $.22kwh. R1S would cost ~ $30 (133kw usable) to charge up full from empty. A Lyriq with a 100kw pack would probably cost ~$22(98kw usable?) not accounting for any heat loss during charge. Iam also guessing the upcoming XC90 EV would probably have similar stats as the Lyriq, considering their Concept is roughly the same profile design.

A Highlander hybrid which easily gets 36mpg, and in some actual drivers cases up to 40+mpg, would cost ~ $27 to travel same 316 miles, at $3 gal regular. Yes, i realize Rivian is a luxury car and a highlander is a main stream, and shoppers for either cars would not really be comparison shopping between the 2.

Sponsored

 

[zmachine]

I don't seem to get the discussion that's going on here. Are some of you really that surprised a full suv and medium truck not as efficient as a city suv or car? Like, when I drive my F-150 I'm not surprised my foot is creating a maelstrom in the fuel tank. Why are some of you not getting that? It's getting very weird, like some of you have never driven a car in your life.

 

[Rousie13]

I don't seem to get the discussion that's going on here. Are some of you really that surprised a full suv and medium truck not as efficient as a city suv or car? Like, when I drive my F-150 I'm not surprised my foot is creating a maelstrom in the fuel tank. Why are some of you not getting that? It's getting very weird, like some of you have never driven a car in your life.

I agree. Everyone is comparing apples to oranges in this thread. I mean the efficiency of the Rivians is absolutely horrible compared to my model 3…..I just can’t believe how inefficient the Rivian is. I don’t expect a large suv or a decently sized truck to be as efficient as a crossover, sedan, etc.

 

[flabyboy]

Where I live I can get a really good variable rate plan, where at night I get below 2c per KW. If I factor in taxes and all other charges, its like 5c a KW, so if I have an empty 135Kw, it would cost me theoretically $6.75 for a full charge, during that day it would cost me around $20. The city next to me has municipal power, their rates with taxes and surcharge jumps to 30c a kw, so their full charge would be $40.5.

if we assume 300 miles, and they have a 30mpg car, at 3.5 a gallon, that's $35 in gas.

So in some areas, buying electric is actually more costly.

I am also blessed with low electric bills in southern MN. 6-7 cents a kW anytime of the day

 

[Ventura]

I don't seem to get the discussion that's going on here. Are some of you really that surprised a full suv and medium truck not as efficient as a city suv or car? Like, when I drive my F-150 I'm not surprised my foot is creating a maelstrom in the fuel tank. Why are some of you not getting that? It's getting very weird, like some of you have never driven a car in your life.

True. I blame the industry for calling wagons SUVs because wagons don't have the same appeal. Some, like the Highlander may be a tall wagon, but they are still a wagon. The Rivian compares to pickups or 4runner/Land Rover-type SUVs. If someone is trying to decide between a wagon and Rivian, they can probably get the wagon.
In fact most people probably don't need two Rivians. A Rivian and a more efficient electric would probably serve many households well. We drive the Prius when we don't need the 4Runner. Can't see that changing in an all electric world.

 

[Tatnai]

Read the entire thread. Lots of good info and much speculation. Glad to see the EPA numbers came is as they did, also confused by the people posting that they are disappointed by the efficiency.

Anyways, have a question for the smart people here. I live in a winter state and will be doing winter road trips for snowboarding. Winter tires is a must (and I did see the nice list posted earlier, thank you). I hate the look of the 21" rims, not an option. I wonder that the snow rated AT tires on the 20s may be my most efficient (even if they are not the best snow traction) snow tire option. Then for summer driving (I don't off-road at all, pavement and occasional gravel only) I will swap to something else.

My question is, how much does ride height matter to aero efficiency, if at all? I can put more efficient summer/all-season tires on and choose 275/65R20 or 275/60R20, and the 60 option would lower the ride height almost an inch (and reduce the tire weight a fair amount for equivalent tires); how much efficiency do we guess (I know we don't know for sure yet) I get back with this strategy, if any? When the OEM A/T tires wear out I will be debating the same thing for my winter tires.

 

[Sully151]

In Orange County, CA the rate for the TOU plan for EVs is TOU-D-Prime with the best rate being 17 cents per kw. Based on EPA charging on 490 watts per mile, to go 316 miles would require a charge using 155 kw and cost 26.35.

In Cochalla Valley, CA you can find the best rate of 11.69 cents a kw so the same 316 miles would be 18.12

Compare that to my Jeep GC where I can get 20mpg on a trip, at 3.79 (cheapest price at Costco, over 4.00 at other stations) a gallon the same 316 miles would cost 58.24

If I had a car getting 33mpg, the same 316 miles would cost 36.29

All of that is assuming you do not have a properly configured solar system to offset the electricity cost.

I am in OC. I drive a Jeep with 4” of lift and 37”tires. I get 12.5 miles to the gallon and get about 220 miles to a tank. I just filled up for $83.

$25 or so to charge would be quite the improvement.

Hopefully going solar will help that even more. We are just starting to look into it.

 

[SANZC02]

I am in OC. I drive a Jeep with 4” of lift and 37”tires. I get 12.5 miles to the gallon and get about 220 miles to a tank. I just filled up for $83.

$25 or so to charge would be quite the improvement.

Hopefully going solar will help that even more. We are just starting to look into it.

Going to Solar will certainly help.

I just had a 6.2 KW system put in in the last couple of months. My average use in the house was around 13 kw a day, I doubled it when calculating what I would need for the Rivian. Last couple of weeks It has been generating 35 to 38 kw a day so certainly will help off set the cost of charging an electric vehicle.

 

[Zeroemit]

True. I blame the industry for calling wagons SUVs because wagons don't have the same appeal. Some, like the Highlander may be a tall wagon, but they are still a wagon. The Rivian compares to pickups or 4runner/Land Rover-type SUVs. If someone is trying to decide between a wagon and Rivian, they can probably get the wagon.
In fact most people probably don't need two Rivians. A Rivian and a more efficient electric would probably serve many households well. We drive the Prius when we don't need the 4Runner. Can't see that changing in an all electric world.

As I said before iam not too surprised at all about its efficiency, it is after all a traditional looking SUV. Not disappointed, I wish it was better though.

However, just comparing it to 4Runners, Landrovers, Land Cruiser, Hummer...(true off road vehicles) will not be the case for I guess approximately 80% of the people shopping for Rivian. Industry estimates less than 20% of people who buys Wranglers, Land Rovers, Tacomas...etc, actually take them off road. Therefore, for the majority of people, the Rivians will be cross shopped with the Lyriq, Tesla X,..and other upcoming EV's and hybrids based on lifted "wagons"

Besides this is a thread about the Rivians EPA economy ratings, or are just comparing efficiency ratings between 20" AT tires to 22" tires, 2WD v 4WD, 8 inch ride height to 10inch...which amount to probably an extra 10-20 miles the only discussion that "people get" here?

 

[Pugster]

Read the entire thread. Lots of good info and much speculation. Glad to see the EPA numbers came is as they did, also confused by the people posting that they are disappointed by the efficiency.

Anyways, have a question for the smart people here. I live in a winter state and will be doing winter road trips for snowboarding. Winter tires is a must (and I did see the nice list posted earlier, thank you). I hate the look of the 21" rims, not an option. I wonder that the snow rated AT tires on the 20s may be my most efficient (even if they are not the best snow traction) snow tire option. Then for summer driving (I don't off-road at all, pavement and occasional gravel only) I will swap to something else.

My question is, how much does ride height matter to aero efficiency, if at all? I can put more efficient summer/all-season tires on and choose 275/65R20 or 275/60R20, and the 60 option would lower the ride height almost an inch (and reduce the tire weight a fair amount for equivalent tires); how much efficiency do we guess (I know we don't know for sure yet) I get back with this strategy, if any? When the OEM A/T tires wear out I will be debating the same thing for my winter tires.

No pro here, but I think the A/Ts will definitely be more efficient than a dedicated snow tire as they have been designed as an EV specific tire. That suggests at least some degree of low rolling resistance to me. Having run dedicated winters and A/Ts (with the snowflake) I’ll add with a high degree of confidence you won’t get the winter performance out of an A/T vs something like a dedicated Nokian. I run snowflake rated A/Ts on the F150 now and switch to Nokians when it starts getting icy. That said my father happily runs the same A/Ts year round with little drama. YMMV.

As far as ride height it absolutely will have an effect, increasing drag relative to speed. Not sure how much of an effect 1” will have though, my guess is that it will be negligible.

 

[SoCal Rob]

However, just comparing it to 4Runners, Landrovers, Land Cruiser, Hummer...(true off road vehicles) will not be the case for I guess approximately 80% of the people shopping for Rivian.

I think the issue is that people buy what they want and not what they need, at least in the U.S. I’ve seen plenty of 4Runners when off-road but almost no Land Rovers (except ours), Land Cruisers, or Hummers.

Therefore, for the majority of people, the Rivians will be cross shopped with the Lyriq, Tesla X,..and other upcoming EV's and hybrids based on lifted "wagons"

I think your conclusion relies on logic (consumers shop based on needs rather than wants) which makes perfect sense in theory, but doesn’t work in reality. Others are simply pointing out that the same people buying ICE vehicles they want (but don’t need) will probably be buying EVs they want (but don’t need) in reality.

 

[kneebuster]

My question is, how much does ride height matter to aero efficiency, if at all? I can put more efficient summer/all-season tires on and choose 275/65R20 or 275/60R20, and the 60 option would lower the ride height almost an inch (and reduce the tire weight a fair amount for equivalent tires); how much efficiency do we guess (I know we don't know for sure yet) I get back with this strategy, if any? When the OEM A/T tires wear out I will be debating the same thing for my winter tires.

The 1" ride height increase is going to account for an increase of approx 1.4% is aero drag (very rough calculation).

 

[guernsej]

As I said before iam not too surprised at all about its efficiency, it is after all a traditional looking SUV. Not disappointed, I wish it was better though.

However, just comparing it to 4Runners, Landrovers, Land Cruiser, Hummer...(true off road vehicles) will not be the case for I guess approximately 80% of the people shopping for Rivian. Industry estimates less than 20% of people who buys Wranglers, Land Rovers, Tacomas...etc, actually take them off road. Therefore, for the majority of people, the Rivians will be cross shopped with the Lyriq, Tesla X,..and other upcoming EV's and hybrids based on lifted "wagons"

Besides this is a thread about the Rivians EPA economy ratings, or are just comparing efficiency ratings between 20" AT tires to 22" tires, 2WD v 4WD, 8 inch ride height to 10inch...which amount to probably an extra 10-20 miles the only discussion that "people get" here?

People can compare it to whatever they want, but complaining about efficiency relative to smaller more aerodynamic vehicles is silly.

Also lol at the person claiming regenerative braking doesn't improve city range. Thanks for contributing.

 

[Zeroemit]

People can compare it to whatever they want, but complaining about efficiency relative to smaller more aerodynamic vehicles is silly.

Also lol at the person claiming regenerative braking doesn't improve city range. Thanks for contributing.

I didn't realize that comparison shopping between vehicles, weighing pros and cons, between each are considered "complaints"

This thread is beginning to remind me of discussions on Tesla forums, where everything that can be considered a negative aspect is met with scorn. Hence, the moniker- Tesla fanboy, Elon cult...

As a prospective Rivian owner i certainly hope we don't have - Rivian fanboys, RJ Cult members in the making.

 

[SeaGeo]

Read the entire thread. Lots of good info and much speculation. Glad to see the EPA numbers came is as they did, also confused by the people posting that they are disappointed by the efficiency.

Anyways, have a question for the smart people here. I live in a winter state and will be doing winter road trips for snowboarding. Winter tires is a must (and I did see the nice list posted earlier, thank you). I hate the look of the 21" rims, not an option. I wonder that the snow rated AT tires on the 20s may be my most efficient (even if they are not the best snow traction) snow tire option. Then for summer driving (I don't off-road at all, pavement and occasional gravel only) I will swap to something else.

My question is, how much does ride height matter to aero efficiency, if at all? I can put more efficient summer/all-season tires on and choose 275/65R20 or 275/60R20, and the 60 option would lower the ride height almost an inch (and reduce the tire weight a fair amount for equivalent tires); how much efficiency do we guess (I know we don't know for sure yet) I get back with this strategy, if any? When the OEM A/T tires wear out I will be debating the same thing for my winter tires.

The 20s should be pretty good in the snow, they're 3 peak rated. The folks who have been in the Rivian so far also said they perform quite well on road. @DuckTruck was planning on getting both the 22s and 20s, but after visiting Normal and talking with RJ he's going with just the 20s.

The ride height will definitely help, and that's one of the questions that I have regarding real world data. You can very roughly play with that by acting as if it drops the cross sectional area if the car by the change in height. The ratio of the two would be a theoretical best case efficiency gain. I'm curious to see what tools Rivian includes to conserve power on the highway and how effective they are.

At the end of the day, I suspect running with 20s year around may be the best overall answer given how they apparently perform.

Sponsored