The Rivian R2 Reviews are Here!!! 656 HP, 609 lb-ft

[Acoustic71]

I could've sworn I passed a Canyon Red R2 on Hwy 1 near Depoe Bay yesterday. Took me by surprise. Then I wondered if there were out shooting a commercial?

Sponsored

 

[A_E]

I agree with Kyle that these specs, if they hold, are weak. Here is how I am betting they roughly stack:

$45k - 75 kwh RWD, ~260 EPA / ~230 hwy 70 mph range, 10% - 80% ~25 min
$50k - 75 kwh AWD, ~250 EPA / ~215 hwy 70 mph range, 10% - 80% ~25 min
$55k - 95 kwh RWD, ~320 EPA / ~285 hwy 70 mph range, 10% - 80% ~30 min
$60k - 95 kwh AWD, ~305 EPA / ~270 hwy 70 mph range, 10% - 80% ~30 min
$65k - 95 kwh Tri, ~280 EPA / ~255 hwy 70 mph range, 10% - 80% ~30 min

(Updated cost guess and fixed charge time cut / paste error)

If you take the 270 mile range for the base model and use some inference and basic math you’ll get range numbers that are pretty close based on those pack sizes.

270 mi/75 kwh usable is 3.6 mi/kwh on a single motor.

We know they’ll likely use the same motors in the front and rear for simplicity with perhaps different gearing or tuning for the dual motor variants.

We also know they plan on implementing the same rear motor disconnect strategy to essentially be driving single motor the majority of the time in all purpose or conserve mode on the dual motor variants.

Take 95 kwh multiplied by 3.6 miles/kwh gives you 342 miles of range on the 95 kwh pack.

A tri motor variant will likely reduce that by 10% or more if not in conserve mode so based on the R1 dual vs Tri numbers I’d put an R2 tri motor on a 95 kwh pack at around 308 miles of range in all purpose and 340 in conserve assuming same wheels/tires in all examples.

 

[Gen(R3)Xer]

No, it also has shorter front and rear overhangs. It’s significantly shorter than the R1 and R2. The image I posted above has the vehicles overlayed with their front wheels aligned. If you push the R3 up so that its front bumper aligns with the others, you see how much shorter it is.

Ah, I see that. I hope they keep the overhangs short like that. I’m a big MINI fan and they completely ruined the Cooper over the years. They supposedly did this due to safety regulations.

 

[Zorg]

Curious do a lot of people charge 10-80%?

On my longer trips with my R1S most of my charges fall somewhere in the 20-65% range and a lot of times the charges are under 15 minutes.

I will say most of my charge stops are 100-120 miles apart as I prefer to stop for bio breaks and stretch my legs. The benefit of this is it keeps my charges in the higher kWh ranges.

So do I because it takes too long to get to 80%. But a 70% charge would be 170-180 miles which would be perfect while road tripping.

 

[TexasBob]

If you take the 270 mile range for the base model and use some inference and basic math you’ll get range numbers that are pretty close based on those pack sizes.

270 mi/75 kwh usable is 3.6 mi/kwh on a single motor.

We know they’ll likely use the same motors in the front and rear for simplicity with perhaps different gearing or tuning for the dual motor variants.

We also know they plan on implementing the same rear motor disconnect strategy to essentially be driving single motor the majority of the time in all purpose or conserve mode on the dual motor variants.

Take 95 kwh multiplied by 3.6 miles/kwh gives you 342 miles of range on the 95 kwh pack.

A tri motor variant will likely reduce that by 10% or more if not in conserve mode so based on the R1 dual vs Tri numbers I’d put an R2 tri motor on a 95 kwh pack at around 308 miles of range in all purpose and 340 in conserve assuming same wheels/tires in all examples.

FWIW I think this is gross and not useable. The R1 has a 10% range loss just going dual to tri. There is a 2.5% efficiency loss just bumping the battery large to max. So I am expecting degradation on both fronts.

Just for fun I tossed this into Gemini. Here is it's speculation for the LARGE pack

 

[Golfer04]

FWIW I think this is gross and not useable. The R1 has a 10% range loss just going dual to tri. There is a 2.5% efficiency loss just bumping the battery large to max. So I am expecting degradation on both fronts.

Just for fun I tossed this into Gemini. Here is it's speculation for the LARGE pack

I think you have to take all range estimates with a grain of salt. BMW i3 has a 108 kw (useable) battery and claims it will achieve a 400 mile EPA range (3.7 mi/k). The i3 form is not THAT different from R2. I would guess claimed efficiency will be 3.5. Then subtract for tires, cold, AWD, etc. i3 doesn't subtract those items either.

 

[A_E]

I think you have to take all range estimates with a grain of salt. BMW i3 has a 108 kw (useable) battery and claims it will achieve a 400 mile EPA range (3.7 mi/k). The i3 form is not THAT different from R2. I would guess claimed efficiency will be 3.5. Then subtract for tires, cold, AWD, etc. i3 doesn't subtract those items either.

Well, if 75 & 95 are not usable, just gross AND the 270 mile EPA RWD range is correct, then the efficiency of the motors would be higher assuming that 270 mile number is accurate and the battery sizes are also accurate. The rest of the numbers would not change. I would not be surprised to see the bigger battery variant of the R2 go 320-350 miles of rated range as the model Y is going to be the biggest competitor here and it's trim levels are:

Tesla Model Y
RWD - 320 Miles - $39,990
AWD - 294 Miles - $41,990
RWD(p) - 357 Miles - $44,990
AWD(p) - 327 Miles - $48,990
Performance - 306 Miles - $57,490

If you compare the "premium" variants of the RWD & AWD then Rivian has got to be pretty close to those on both range and price. I think customers are willing to pay a bit more for Rivian but they are going to want similar range. 330-340 would put them on par or better than Tesla AWD "Premium" with their large pack. My tri motor figures also are right in line with the range that the Performance Model Y gets but I believe the Tri Motor will be much quicker. I'm guessing less than 2.9 seconds 0-60 but greater than 2.6 seconds 0-60. I also think it will cost closer to $70k

I also think that comparing Rivian R2 to Tesla Model Y you will see a 10% higher price but also more features, better range, and an objectively better looking vehicle. That puts my guesstimates on pricing as follows:

My Rivian R2 Guess
RWD BASE - $45,000
RWD LARGE - $49,999
AWD BASE - $49,999 (Honestly not sure they will even do this trim)
AWD LARGE - $54,999
AWD LARGE (Performance) - $59,999 (Likely launch edition but may cost a bit more, wouldn't be surprised if launch edition was $65k but came with a lot of extras as well) I imagine the 0-60 on this will be 3.2-3.5 seconds as sub 3.3 would make it quicker than the model Y for nearly the same price.
TRI MOTOR - $69,999

RJ keeps reiterating that the "average selling price of a new car is $50k" which leads me to believe the R2 AWD Long range will definitely cost slightly more than that...

 

[VSG]

I just googled the benefits of the 46/95 cells in the R2. I definitely seems like it will have better Thermal management possibilities so I would expect it to charge faster.

Pros of the 4695 Battery Cell

• Higher Capacity & Energy: The increased dimensions allow for more active material, resulting in higher energy density and longer range for EVs.
• Improved Efficiency: As a cylindrical cell, it provides better thermal management via air gaps between cells and allows for faster charge/discharge rates compared to other formats.
• Enhanced Safety: 4695 cells often feature thick, flame-retardant, and robust, durable containers designed for high-demand, industrial, or electric vehicle applications.
• Longer Lifecycle: The design focuses on superior longevity and improved performance over time.

That's a total garbage answer.

BTW, for those unfamiliar, 4695 means a cylinder 46mm in diameter and 95mm long. Very roughly 2"x4". For comparison, the size of a "D" cell is about 1.25"x2.25".

Bigger cells do not mean higher energy density or more material in the pack as a whole. You can fit EXACTLY the same amount of active material in a battery pack that has large cylindrical cells as you can in a battery pack that has small cylindrical cells. It's just simple geometry. Energy density does not increase just because you make the cells bigger.

Cylindrical cells have gaps because circles can't completely fill a plane. In fact they only fill about 90.69% of the plane, regardless of the diameter of the circle. That doesn't mean thermal management will be better - hexagons with conductive casings will fill the plane 100% and can use the casing for heat transfer, for example. And for cylindrical cells, if heat transfer is done at the ends of the cells instead of in those gaps, then the gaps are actually diminishing the effective capacity of the pack.

Any safety or lifecycle improvements have nothing to do with the cell form factor, and everything to do with the chemistry, packaging, and battery management of the pack as a whole.

Given the same chemistry, a benefit of larger cells is lower internal resistance, which improves both peak current and heat generation, both for charging and discharging. But there are also tradeoffs, so it's not simply a matter of bigger is better.

Bottom line, the R2 will use larger cells, but that is really not an important fact - it's just an implementation detail.

 

[CharonPDX]

ABRP may be owned by Rivian, but it's still being run 100% independently, the developers have said that Rivian R2 and R3 battery sizes, efficiency, and charge curves are completely uneducated guesses. They have no inside information.

 

[TexasBob]

I think you have to take all range estimates with a grain of salt. BMW i3 has a 108 kw (useable) battery and claims it will achieve a 400 mile EPA range (3.7 mi/k). The i3 form is not THAT different from R2. I would guess claimed efficiency will be 3.5. Then subtract for tires, cold, AWD, etc. i3 doesn't subtract those items either.

The BMW is using similar 4695 cells (obviously different pack architecture 800V vs 400v). The difference in size is (if the rumor is to be believed) 113 vs 95 (both gross) or 85%. If both have the exact same efficiency then we are at 400 miles (EPA) vs 336. If there is a 10% efficiency gap (BMW is allegedly an "efficiency beast") then 3.7 bmw is 3.3 R2 and we are right back at barely breaking 300 miles.

Rivian needed to "oversize" the battery given the form factor. Let's hope it has. Everything so far is just rumor (except for the leaked video from InsideEVs) but it is the same data from ABRP last year "R2 Standard Pack: ~74-75kWh R2 Large Pack: ~98kWh" so there's that.

 

[NY_Rob]

That's a total garbage answer.

+1
It read like a garbage AI generated answer to me.

Rivian uses end plate cell cooling (it only cools the small positive and negative end caps of the cells) which is one reason they have a limited amount of cooling they can offer when DC-Fast Charging. Tesla on the other hand cools their cylindrical cells using a "lasagna noodle" style system that partially wraps around the sides of cells which offers much more cooling area per cell and leads to faster DC charging times.

Rivian..

Tesla...

 

[VandalSibs]

Well, Rivian uses that thermal management method in R1... Do we know for sure it's the same with R2?

 

[NC-Rivian]

Well, Rivian uses that thermal management method in R1... Do we know for sure it's the same with R2?

I would assume that, all things being equal, Rivian would stick with what they’re familiar with.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

I would assume that, all things being equal, Rivian would stick with what they’re familiar with.

My understanding is that the 4695 cells are a single stack instead of a double stack like the 2170 cells. Not sure if that changes the cooling mechanism.

 

[DuoRivian]

I think you have to take all range estimates with a grain of salt. BMW i3 has a 108 kw (useable) battery and claims it will achieve a 400 mile EPA range (3.7 mi/k). The i3 form is not THAT different from R2. I would guess claimed efficiency will be 3.5. Then subtract for tires, cold, AWD, etc. i3 doesn't subtract those items either.

The BMW estimate includes AWD and is more aerodynamic. No manufacturer subtracts range for cold etc. that is a known factor to take into account for buyers.
400 miles EPA can be compared with a vehicle with 300 mile EPA range and that 400 mile vehicle will have more range in the cold.

Sponsored