Took my first road trip in the R2! -- 100% to 5% 263 miles range

[dradam]

if you hadn't eaten the burger you probably would have made epa range.

Sponsored

 

[zakool21]

263 miles for a burger. I'm glad I'm a vegetarian

How do know someone is a vegetarian/vegan/pilot? Don't worry, they'll tell you.

 

[CrazyOne]

One would think that Rivian would release an announcement explaining the range issues that seems to be growing in frequency.

Nothing except one reviewer on one R2 was bad. Others including car and driver, edmunds etc were all ok, within expected variations.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

It was a good burger!

I have one right around the block from home. And if the wind is right, I smell it. Once in a while I give in to temptation. And every single time I feel like shit after I devour everything. One of these days I will learn.

 

[NY_Rob]

That’s actually BS, whether you’re aware of it or not. The EPA does not do the tests, Rivian does, and Rivian chooses to use the most optimized and optimistic tests and scenarios. Which is technically allowed but not really ethical in practice.. Not all manufacturers do this. Makers like Hyundai and VW/Audi have faced fines in the past when the stated MPG of their gasoline cars failed to materialize in the real world. Their EVs, not coincidentally, more often meet or exceed EPA numbers in real world tests.

Tesla forged a new frontier in unmet EV range estimates because they could get away with it. Rivian has done the same. It’s not all makers.

Not saying it's not BS (or shame on Rivian) for using the specific test cycle that benefited them. But since they did follow EPA guidelines (in conducting their self-certified testing) they have 100% legally covered their bases and can simply state "we followed the EPA guidelines".

I also think it's BS that car makers can self-certify their own test results.

I also think it's BS that the EPA even offers two sets of test routines.

It would have been very beneficial to me in school if they let me choose which of two test sets to take (I'll take the one that gives me the highest scores, thanks!) and then let me "self-certify" my test score (of course I got 100%, like I have scored on all my other tests!)

 

[RivianInCharleston]

Was going to Portland for Pleasure Burger, but woke up with a migraine and didn't get that all fixed with meds until about 11am... so I drove the R2 from Gig Harbor to Ridgefield, WA for In-N-Out and figured it was the perfect excuse to finally do my own longer-range trip and see what my actual setup would do.

BFG Trail-Terrain 20s
All-Purpose mode
307-mile rated range
A/C running

Outbound:
130.5 miles
3.29 mi/kWh
99.7% to 56.4%
50.1 mph average
77.4 mph max
Light tailwind

Return:
132.4 miles
2.81 mi/kWh
56.4% to 4.9%
55.2 mph average
77.0 mph max
Light headwind

Full trip:
262.8 miles
3.03 mi/kWh
86.8 kWh used

Finished at 5% with 15.5 miles still estimated (I think my battery holds 91.5 kwh)

That projects to about 277 miles of total range, or roughly 90% of the 307-mile rating.

The biggest thing I noticed was how much conditions changed the result. Going south, the overall elevation trend and light tailwind helped. Coming back north, I had the opposite, with the gradual climb from the Woodland/Paradise Point area toward Napavine, a headwind, and the HVAC turned up a little higher.

The telemetry backs that up too. My sustained ~70 mph sections averaged about 2.79 mi/kWh combined, but there was a noticeable difference depending on direction. The southbound section was more efficient, while the northbound section took the bigger hit.

Same vehicle, same tires, same drive mode, nearly the same distance, but 3.29 mi/kWh one way and 2.81 mi/kWh the other. The return also averaged about 5 mph faster, so that likely contributed as well.

For my R2, on the setup I actually drive every day, I’m pretty happy with that result.

Sean came along in his Gen 1 Quad R1T on Toyo all-terrains, which gave us a fun side-by-side comparison on the exact same trip. He covered 274.6 miles at 2.18 mi/kWh overall and finished with about 3% battery remaining. His outbound leg averaged 2.3 mi/kWh, while the return dropped to 2.1 mi/kWh, so he saw the same general trend I did with the drive back being less efficient.

Two different Rivians, two different tire setups, same route, and both showed how much direction, wind, elevation, speed, and HVAC can move the efficiency numbers around.

I should have a video about the trip tomorrow.

I'd be perfectly content with 277 miles of range with those avg speed/top speed stats.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

Did a down and back to Augusta today, almost all state highways with UHD set to 65 for the majority. Of note, I used Conserve on the way down and AP on the way back, same route and same efficiency. My takeaway is that conserve is effectively pointless with the way AP is set up.

This is on new 20" ATs. Based on previous experience, that's probably worth 10-15% efficiency gains once they are broken in.

 

[VSG]

That projects to about 277 miles of total range, or roughly 90% of the 307-mile rating.

The big takeaway here is how utterly normal and EXPECTED the results are, and how they are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the EPA rating.

 

[ksurfier]

The big takeaway here is how utterly normal and EXPECTED the results are, and how they are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the EPA rating.

Why the all-caps, we can🧏 you…

 

[ksurfier]

Did a down and back to Augusta today, almost all state highways with UHD set to 65 for the majority. Of note, I used Conserve on the way down and AP on the way back, same route and same efficiency. My takeaway is that conserve is effectively pointless with the way AP is set up.

This is on new 20" ATs. Based on previous experience, that's probably worth 10-15% efficiency gains once they are broken in.

That’s a decent result suggesting 65 mph 100% range of ~265 miles (86% EPA). Scaled up to 70 mph, suggests your 100% range would be ~240 miles (78% EPA). At 75 mph this would work out to ~210 miles (68% EPA). EPA range may be achievable around 55 mph.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

Why the all-caps, we can🧏 you…

Some are clearly deaf. I mean how many threads are there arguing over the subject?

 

[VSG]

Why the all-caps, we can🧏 you…

Emphasis is clearly required because even in this thread posters are saying this result proves that Rivian lied and is lying.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

Emphasis is clearly required because even in this thread posters are saying this result proves that Rivian lied and is lying.

These threads give me a headache. Maybe I should start one to blame Rivian. /s

 

[ksurfier]

Emphasis is clearly required because even in this thread posters are saying this result proves that Rivian lied and is lying.

There is a substantial and difficult-to-reconcile discrepancy between Rivian’s 2022–2023 EPA range representations and its post-2025 EPA range figures. A 2023 R1S equipped with an approximately 128-kWh usable battery was rated at roughly 289 miles of EPA range, with published highway range figures around 282 miles. By comparison, a 2026 R1S Dual Standard is advertised at 258 miles of EPA range despite having a substantially smaller, approximately 92.5-kWh battery. On their face, those figures imply an increase in rated efficiency from approximately 2.26 mi/kWh to 2.79 mi/kWh—an improvement of roughly 23%—without a corresponding change in vehicle architecture that would reasonably appear capable of producing an efficiency gain of that magnitude.

Accordingly, the later EPA range figures cannot be meaningfully compared with the earlier figures as though they were generated on an equivalent basis. If Rivian was aware that changes in EPA testing methodology, test-cycle selection, adjustment factors, or certification procedures materially inflated the apparent efficiency or range of later vehicles relative to earlier model years, yet continued presenting those ranges to consumers without clearly disclosing the lack of comparability, that conduct could constitute a materially misleading representation of vehicle efficiency and range. At minimum, the magnitude of the discrepancy warrants scrutiny as to what Rivian knew, when it knew it, and whether consumers were adequately informed that the later EPA estimates were not directly comparable to the earlier ratings.

 

[rogunenode]

Emphasis is clearly required because even in this thread posters are saying this result proves that Rivian lied and is lying.

They didn't lie; they did decide to use and market the car using the EPA cycle, which they knew would result in a higher range than the cycle used by the leading sales model in the segment. Justify that however you want.

Sponsored