Rival: 2026 BMW iX3 reviews are impressive... R2 has its work cut out

[MClayton]

A 500+ mile range BEV is completely unnecessary and in fact the opposite of what anyone should want with an exception for very specialized use cases (like towing). That would require a very large, dense, and heavy battery pack which would be less efficient. So for the typical 80 percent use case where you aren't on the highway, you are carrying around this unnecessarily big pack and lowering your efficiency so that you can satisfy the 20% use case.

Efficiency and charging speed are just as (if not more) important than range. Reliably getting 300 miles in all conditions is a sweet spot especially if you can charge the pack in the time a typical pit stop takes you on the highway (<20 min). 300 miles at 70 mph is nearly 4.5 hours of continuous driving. Maybe you like driving more than that without stopping, but on average, people stop every 2-2.5 hours.

500 miles when? Summer? Winter?

The problem is that we're told to only charge to 80%, so the 500 miles is really 400, before you add in winter efficiency and climate control losses.

I'll take as much range as reasonably possible.

Sponsored

 

[DuoRivian]

500 miles when? Summer? Winter?

The problem is that we're told to only charge to 80%, so the 500 miles is really 400, before you add in winter efficiency and climate control losses.

I'll take as much range as reasonably possible.

That 80% rule is for routine charging and for not apply to all battery chemistries. For long trips, which you typically know you are embarking on, then charge to 100%.

 

[TexasBob]

The problem is we do not have a true "300-mile" range BEV yet, except for maybe the Lucid Air GT. Certainly even if the iX3 50 xDrive hits 400 miles EPA range, it won't be able to do 300 miles of highway range in the winter and between charging stops.

So we are not there yet. When we can drive 300 miles on 70% of the battery at 80 mph, then we will have reached the 300-mile threshold you are targeting.
...

It is almost as if, and I know this is very weird, the people who buy EVs are motivated by something beyond their own naked self-interest and maximizing personal convenience. Its almost as if they are willing to accept the combination of advantages and disadvantages associated with the powertrain for some other thing. Hmm.

Anyway, since the plug-in vehicle market this year (~22 million) is about 50% larger than the total US ICEV market (~14.8 million) and the BEV only market looks like it will also be larger than the total US ICEV market (+/-), at least a few people seem to be finding a way to make this work without 500 miles of EPA range. (Data Source: a credible AI summary that is not mecha-hitler).

 

[mkhuffman]

It is almost as if, and I know this is very weird, the people who buy EVs are motivated by something beyond their own naked self-interest and maximizing personal convenience. Its almost as if they are willing to accept the combination of advantages and disadvantages associated with the powertrain for some other thing. Hmm.

Anyway, since the plug-in vehicle market this year (~22 million) is about 50% larger than the total US ICEV market (~14.8 million) and the BEV only market looks like it will also be larger than the total US ICEV market (+/-), at least a few people seem to be finding a way to make this work without 500 miles of EPA range. (Data Source: a credible AI summary that is not mecha-hitler).

Yeah, well I don't know how buying a heavy, massive $100k truck is something that can be considered to be motivated by anything other than self-interest. Seriously, dude.

If you really care about the environment, you will NOT buy a Rivian anything. You will buy the smallest, most efficient vehicle available.

In fact, you should avoid personal transportation all together and either walk everywhere, ride a bicycle or use public transportation. Right? Otherwise, you are just lying to yourself.

There is no logical argument that a Rivian is better for the environment than walking. Or riding a human powered bike. None.

I bought my R1T because it is an amazing truck. It does things no other vehicle can do. And it is totally in my self-interest to drive my R1T. Totally. Admit it. The same is true for you. And every, single purchaser of a R1. Nobody NEEDS a R1. Nobody.

 

[SASSquatch]

The problem is we do not have a true "300-mile" range BEV yet, except for maybe the Lucid Air GT. Certainly even if the iX3 50 xDrive hits 400 miles EPA range, it won't be able to do 300 miles of highway range in the winter and between charging stops.

So we are not there yet. When we can drive 300 miles on 70% of the battery at 80 mph, then we will have reached the 300-mile threshold you are targeting.

I agree with you that there are trade-offs that have negative consequences. However, the ICEV market has settled on an average much higher than 300 miles:

• Compact sedans (e.g., non-hybrid Toyota Corolla or Hyundai Elantra) → ~32–36 mpg combined, 12–14 gallon tank → 400–500 miles.
• Midsize sedans (e.g., non-hybrid Honda Accord) → ~30–35 mpg, 14–16 gallon tank → 400–550 miles.
• Larger SUVs/crossovers (gasoline-only) → ~20–25 mpg, 18–20 gallon tank → 350–500 miles.

[Source: Grok, but it looks correct to me based on my personal experience.]​

IMO BEVs need to match their equivalent ICEV competition when charging from 10% to 80%, at highway speeds and in the winter. If we take an average of all vehicles, 400 miles seems reasonable. We are far, far from that right now.

Of course this is just highway driving, and does not take into account local driving when you can charge at home. That does change the comparison with ICEVs, since you cannot refuel an ICEV at home.

However, there are many drivers who rent or live in a place where they cannot install a EVSE. To me, that use case is an even better reason for a long-range BEV. Especially when those people will rarely charge beyond 80% (if they are doing what they are supposed to be doing for/to the battery).

Once we reach the 300-mile threshold you point out is sufficient, we will have 500+ mile EPA range BEVs. So actually, maybe we do agree!

How is it that we don't have this 500 mile BEV yet millions of BEVs that don't meet those standards keep getting sold every year?

You don't by a BEV if your primary use case is 4+ hour driving without stopping. Like I said the average driver stops every 2-2.5 hours. That translates to 140-175 miles before stopping assuming you are averaging 70mph. If you use the standard 10-80% rule for charging and go even further and assume a loss of 30% in cold temperatures that translates to a battery rated for ~350-400 miles.

That is worse case scenario and assumes a very steep 30% loss in range during cold temperatures. Rivians do much better than that as do most newer EVs.

 

[mkhuffman]

How is it that we don't have this 500 mile BEV yet millions of BEVs that don't meet those standards keep getting sold every year?

You don't by a BEV if your primary use case is 4+ hour driving without stopping. Like I said the average driver stops every 2-2.5 hours. That translates to 140-175 miles before stopping assuming you are averaging 70mph. If you use the standard 10-80% rule for charging and go even further and assume a loss of 30% in cold temperatures that translates to a battery rated for ~350-400 miles.

That is worse case scenario and assumes a very steep 30% loss in range during cold temperatures. Rivians do much better than that as do most newer EVs.

Your points are reasonable, but if the average ICEV can go 400+ on the highway between refueling stops, why is it unreasonable to expect the competing battery powered vehicles to do the same? What advantage does a BEV provide over a ICEV that can go 2-3 times farther before being forced to stop?

In my opinion, BEVs need to perform as well as ICEVs in order to fully replace them. And range between refueling stops is a huge gap as of today.

Does it matter to early adopters like you and me? Not so much. But to most people I think it does. Time will tell who is right. I bet auto companies keep building longer range BEVs. And I bet they are not going to stop at 300 miles.

The market will decide because really you and I are just guessing. Regardless, personally I want a 500 mile BEV. And I hope Rivian finally puts a 180 kWh pack in the Gen3 R1. Because that is what I want to buy.

 

[TexasBob]

Yeah, well I don't know how buying a heavy, massive $100k truck is something that can be considered to be motivated by anything other than self-interest. Seriously, dude.

If you really care about the environment, you will NOT buy a Rivian anything. You will buy the smallest, most efficient vehicle available.

In fact, you should avoid personal transportation all together and either walk everywhere, ride a bicycle or use public transportation. Right? Otherwise, you are just lying to yourself.

There is no logical argument that a Rivian is better for the environment than walking. Or riding a human powered bike. None.

I bought my R1T because it is an amazing truck. It does things no other vehicle can do. And it is totally in my self-interest to drive my R1T. Totally. Admit it. The same is true for you. And every, single purchaser of a R1. Nobody NEEDS a R1. Nobody.

It’s a very long way to the ground from atop a horse that high, please use caution when you dismount.

Electrification of transport is necessary as a core part of migrating to a sustainable energy future. When you buy an R1 instead of a Land Rover or even a Corolla, you are choosing to pay a premium to help build a company and an industry that is accelerating that transition. You are helping to finance R2 and R3. Itis literally why Rivian exists. The same is true with most any EV purchase (except maybe any Tesla purchased since Elon decided his new mission was to slow to transition to sustainable transportation in exchange for personal gain but that is another story).

 

[SASSquatch]

Your points are reasonable, but if the average ICEV can go 400+ on the highway between refueling stops, why is it unreasonable to expect the competing battery powered vehicles to do the same? What advantage does a BEV provide over a ICEV that can go 2-3 times farther before being forced to stop?

In my opinion, BEVs need to perform as well as ICEVs in order to fully replace them. And range between refueling stops is a huge gap as of today.

Does it matter to early adopters like you and me? Not so much. But to most people I think it does. Time will tell who is right. I bet auto companies keep building longer range BEVs. And I bet they are not going to stop at 300 miles.

The market will decide because really you and I are just guessing. Regardless, personally I want a 500 mile BEV. And I hope Rivian finally puts a 180 kWh pack in the Gen3 R1. Because that is what I want to buy.

You are assuming the only thing that buyers are looking at when evaluating BEVs and ICE vehicles is highway range. That just isn't the case. ICE vehicles have an advantage in terms of convenience of not having to stop to "refuel" as often - depending on the ICE vehicle. There are plenty of ICE vehicles that struggle to get even 300 miles of range.

That said - BEVs don't operate like ICE vehicles and the advantages of a BEV can far outway that specific inconvenience since they:

• Can be charged at home while you sleep
• Charging at home is usually far less expensive than buying gas
• Require far less in maintenance costs
• Smoke most ICE vehicles in terms of technology/acceleration/torque

If your primary use case is highway driving - you should buy a hybrid.

 

[Sportstick]

You are assuming the only thing that buyers are looking at when evaluating BEVs and ICE vehicles is highway range. That just isn't the case. ICE vehicles have an advantage in terms of convenience of not having to stop to "refuel" as often - depending on the ICE vehicle. There are plenty of ICE vehicles that struggle to get even 300 miles of range.

That said - BEVs don't operate like ICE vehicles and the advantages of a BEV can far outway that specific inconvenience since they:

• Can be charged at home while you sleep
• Charging at home is usually far less expensive than buying gas
• Require far less in maintenance costs
• Smoke most ICE vehicles in terms of technology/acceleration/torque

If your primary use case is highway driving - you should buy a hybrid.

You just nailed my rationale for BEV

• Zero road trips over an hour or so each way. Otherwise, just drive to the airport!
• Most trips are under 5 miles, out and back total (very well designed suburb!), some shorter
• For the very rare, if ever, outlier drive, 200 mile total range would be fine
• Charge in home garage benefitting from 59 solar panels on the roof
• Primary benefit is eliminating gas station visits forever and being subject to the oil industry
• Reasonable performance is fine, don't need high performance, RWD is fine as well
• Zero interest in any ADAS features. I don't rush-hour commute and like to drive.

 

[DuoRivians]

I would say that if an EV gets 400 mile range and great charging (350kw+), they become a lot more viable for apartment residents, which represent a large segment of untapped EV owners. They would only need to charge once a week (or every two weeks)

 

[mkhuffman]

It’s a very long way to the ground from atop a horse that high, please use caution when you dismount.

Electrification of transport is necessary as a core part of migrating to a sustainable energy future. When you buy an R1 instead of a Land Rover or even a Corolla, you are choosing to pay a premium to help build a company and an industry that is accelerating that transition. You are helping to finance R2 and R3. Itis literally why Rivian exists. The same is true with most any EV purchase (except maybe any Tesla purchased since Elon decided his new mission was to slow to transition to sustainable transportation in exchange for personal gain but that is another story).

We both drive R1s, so it appears your horse is just as high as mine.

BTW - driving a Corolla is better for the environment than driving a R1, especially if you buy a used Corolla instead of a new one. So we can agree to disagree.

 

[mkhuffman]

You are assuming the only thing that buyers are looking at when evaluating BEVs and ICE vehicles is highway range. That just isn't the case. ICE vehicles have an advantage in terms of convenience of not having to stop to "refuel" as often - depending on the ICE vehicle. There are plenty of ICE vehicles that struggle to get even 300 miles of range.

That said - BEVs don't operate like ICE vehicles and the advantages of a BEV can far outway that specific inconvenience since they:

• Can be charged at home while you sleep
• Charging at home is usually far less expensive than buying gas
• Require far less in maintenance costs
• Smoke most ICE vehicles in terms of technology/acceleration/torque

If your primary use case is highway driving - you should buy a hybrid.

There is a large percentage of the population who cannot charge at home, and the maintenance on a ICEV is really not that bad. Oil changes every 10,000 miles means most people have to do it once per year. Not so bad. Most other maintenance isn't needed at all if you lease and return the vehicle after 3-5 years.

When driving long distances, I agree a ICEV is better. I think many people want that capability even if they rarely use it. It is much like buying a massive truck that can rock crawl and never ever driving it over rocks (or never even going off the pavement).

It will be interesting to see how the market develops and if you are correct. What we want and need is still TBD, but I know what I want: 500+ miles of range. 100%.

 

[sparked]

I would say that if an EV gets 400 mile range and great charging (350kw+), they become a lot more viable for apartment residents, which represent a large segment of untapped EV owners. They would only need to charge once a week (or every two weeks)

400 miles would help with cold weather range reduction too. Buyers in the $50k+ market want more than the bare minimum. Having higher ranges will help convert more new EV owner sales and calm any anxiety. The US market probably even needs to add EREVs to accommodate people with bigger vehicles and demanding use cases like towing.

 

[Mark_AZR1T]

Range is the number‑one concern for everyone I know who doesn’t own an EV, with charging coming in a close second. We can drive straight from AZ to our place in San Diego (339 miles), on a single tank at 75–85 mph in our gas car. The only stop is a quick drive‑thru for coffee and some egg thingy. Our bladders don’t demand a break every two hours.

For us, a two‑Rivian household, the holy grail is 350 real‑world miles at 75–80 mph with a 10% buffer left. That’s the benchmark we’re waiting for.

If it iX3 can do 300+ miles at freeway speeds and sells for $60K they will sell all they can build.

 

[mkhuffman]

For us, a two‑Rivian household, the holy grail is 350 real‑world miles at 75–80 mph with a 10% buffer left. That’s the benchmark we’re waiting for.

I can almost do that now in my R1T. I bet if they put the originally planned 180 kWh pack in there, 350 miles at highway speeds is achievable. I have all my fingers and toes crossed that the Gen3 R1 will have a bigger battery and 800V charging.

Sponsored