The 330-Mile Question: Where Are the 260+ Mile R2 Drives?

[savethemanual]

Sponsored

 

[asellus]

I guess I should say you should stop posting the same AI slop about the same misleading topic.

tbh it feels like half the posts on this forum are either people posting AI garbage or people eating that shit up.

like people opening threads to link a youtube video or an article that got posted with an AI summary of it attached.

it undermines the usefulness of the forum and, frankly, I'm surprised it's allowed here. :\

 

[mkhuffman]

tbh it feels like half the posts on this forum are either people posting AI garbage or people eating that shit up.

like people opening threads to link a youtube video or an article that got posted with an AI summary of it attached.

it undermines the usefulness of the forum and, frankly, I'm surprised it's allowed here. :\

I agree.

I don't mind AI content if it is identified as AI content and not passed off as original content from the thread member.

This is a social media forum, so we should be personally interacting with our own thoughts and our own ideas. Passing off AI slop as your own content is polluting this form and really hurting the social aspect.

 

[aerosenthal]

The 330 mile range is not a highway range, and therefore the highway efficiency is not expected to be 3.67, or probably anywhere close to that. And no one is driving 250+ miles on slow urban streets, hitting all the green lights and never stopping, which is probably more akin to the EPA test cycle that generated the 330 mile rage estimate. Long drives are likely to be at higher speeds and therefore have lower efficiency.

I've also noticed that efficiency sucks for the first few minutes of my drives, probably because the battery, motors, and cabin are all super hot so the AC/coolant system has to work hard to cool everything down. Once it reaches a steady state, my efficiency is easily over 3 mi/kWh for the rest of the drive. But with more frequent, shorter, slower drives, my 100% range and overall average efficiency is not going to be anywhere near the 307/3.34 reference values.

This is super helpful perspective and what I was going to ask. I keep reading stuff about highway range referencing the EPA 330 miles and thinking "Why do people think they will get 300+ miles of range at highway speeds?" Thank you!

 

[Mysta]

This is super helpful perspective and what I was going to ask. I keep reading stuff about highway range referencing the EPA 330 miles and thinking "Why do people think they will get 300+ miles of range at highway speeds?" Thank you!

Right, the EPA test that Rivian used is 55% City and 45% Highway, their city test actually showed 487 mi range in one of the tests(21 mph stop/go), so in theory it should be incredible around town.

My theory, untested, is that R2 actually would win a 45mph test vs Model Y, based on test numbers, but could be close, also.(Though R2 is still less efficient, just has more battery)

 

[richguess]

It would be nice to get a solid 250 mile highway range at, say, 75mph. It doesn’t look like you can really count on that with the R2, regardless of tire size. The BMW IX3, I believe, will do that for sure. I‘m on the R2 list and recently test drove one. I thought it was great. If the R2 meets your range requirements, I think it’s a great choice.

 

[ksurfier]

The M3, over 50,000 miles can achieve an average of 4.2 MPK. That means on average, a new M3 might be expected to drive ~330 miles despite the EPA range of ~310 miles.

The R1 (Gen 1) hit the scene 4 years ago with ~130 kWh and an EPA range of ~314 miles. Averaging over many thousands of miles, it is possible to get ~2.3 MPK. This works out to a real-world range of 299 miles, which is very slightly below the EPA rated range (within 5%).

Fast forward to Gen 2 and now the R2. Now it gets a lot more interesting. For someone reason, Rivian decided to change EPA test methodology without making any actual efficiency improvements to 2025 and later vehicles.

Where we are at now, an R2 with ~90 kWh battery and a claimed EPA range of 330 miles. What’s the actual real-world range? So far it doesn’t appear to be much over 260 miles. It may be even less, 230 or 240 miles? There are people here making completely nonsense comments trying to minimize/apologize this and other issues, some may be financially motivated. At the end of the day this is key/critical info that potential R2 buyers need to know. All the bad actors should put me on ignore, that way they can live in their magical R2 bubble.

Recent R1 (compare to R2)

R1	Distance	Time	Avg. speed	Efficiency
2026 R1S Dual Max	349.7 mi	6h25m	54.5 mph	2.77 mi/kWh
2025 R1T Tri Max	333.1 mi	7h00m	47.6 mph	2.52
2025 R1T Dual Max	315.8 mi	5h10m	61.1 mph	2.52
2023 R1T Dual Max	305.8 mi	5h02m	60.8 mph	2.66

The 315.8- and 305.8-mile runs are particularly useful because their calculated ground speeds are ~61 mph. Despite being the much larger R1, they’re returning 2.52–2.66 mi/kWh while actually covering 306–316 miles.

That continues to make the R2 results interesting: the R2 has demonstrated similar or somewhat better efficiency—roughly 2.8–2.9 mi/kWh on its longest August runs—but those runs have topped out around 239–244 miles. The explanation is primarily battery capacity: the Max-pack R1 has vastly more usable energy, so modestly worse efficiency still produces substantially greater highway endurance.

It also reinforces an important point for the R2 analysis: mi/kWh alone isn’t the problem. An R2 doing 2.9 mi/kWh is reasonably efficient for its shape, but with roughly 88–91 kWh available, that translates to only about 255–264 theoretical miles using essentially the whole battery. That’s consistent with why we’re not seeing 300+ mile real-world highway drives despite the advertised 300+ mile range.

 

[Doogl]

Man, I like to think of myself as an understanding and patient person, but you really need to give it a rest. None of us can even figure out what your point is, you appear to just be repeating the same talking points filtered through someone's GPU. We aren't all bad actors here. I'm personally getting tired of having to read through a pile of ChatGPT or whatever in your threads, though, and it sounds like others are too.

If you think we've got some kind of ulterior motive, that sounds like an accusation, one that I resent.

 

[rvnxyz001]

I think a lot of people comparing the R2 to a Y

RJ started this mess when he said the R2 was as efficient as the Model Y Plus all this “Model Y killer” marketing.

He could have said something like, “We’re not trying to compete directly with Tesla. The R2 is a very different vehicle. It’s boxy, so we put in a bigger battery to offset the lower efficiency from the aerodynamics, but you can also take it off-road.” Instead, he basically said it was a Tesla competitor.

 

[ksurfier]

Time to ignore B*tthole Surfier.

Wow, you are the adult in the room, nice work!

 

[r2fb]

RJ started this mess when he said the R2 was as efficient as the Model Y Plus all this “Model Y killer” marketing.

He could have said something like, “We’re not trying to compete directly with Tesla. The R2 is a very different vehicle. It’s boxy, so we put in a bigger battery to offset the lower efficiency from the aerodynamics, but you can also take it off-road.” Instead, he basically said it was a Tesla competitor.

It's a Tesla competitor in price and size and roughly range though. But I agree he should have been upfront in saying "look this is a boxy vehicle high off the ground, we can't beat physics but Tesla can't match our looks (and offroad capability) either"

 

[Qamera]

I will state it again here as I have in the other threads. It’s a choice to not achieve the EPA range. I have now done several trips of 72 miles each way and the R2 performed as advertised.

I think a lot of people comparing the R2 to a Y on here are wrong in doing that as many would not go from an R1 to a Y. So in this comparison the R2 is about 2x more efficient in my findings.

I haven’t seen your other posts. Could you expand?

 

[ksurfier]

I have been a loyal member of this forum for about 4 years now. Ksurfier has single-handedly made a once enjoyable experience rather unpleasant. I beg you sir, please stop.

Stop perpetuating the myth that the EPA test give an estimated highway speed range

Stop the inaccurate application of statistics

Stop the mind numbing repetition

Stop the very long AI generated slop posts.

For the record, one more time. Here is an example of “REAL WORLD DRIVING “ where the EPA range is achieved.

I recommend folks review what the EPA test actually is.
https://www.greencars.com/greencars-101/how-epa-estimated-range-is-calculated

See you later, I might be gone for awhile…

For the record (again), what is your long-term average efficiency? Do you feel a 330 mile EPA range is reasonable for you? That is, averaged over thousands of miles you are/will be able to achieve 3.75 MPK? Had you known the 21" tires were not more efficient than the 20" tires would you have made the same choice? If it bothers you so much to shine the light on these issues, I think you should put me on ignore...I keep adding people daily...it's ok I'm not here for them!

 

[Indy avocado]

R2 looks pretty close to in line with EPA rated highway range if you do 65mph.

https://evbench.pluginpath.com/?dr=All+Wheel+Drive&q=Model+Y&sort=label_comb_range_mi&sel=453,454,1086,760,1087&tab=epa&sub=browse

 

[asellus]

Stop the very long AI generated slop posts.

does the mod team even care? what happens if we start reporting AI posts?

Sponsored