2027 Rivian R2 EPA Certification w/ specs (range, battery capacity, charging rate, efficiency etc.)

[mkhuffman]

Unrealistic EPA range estimates don't appear to negatively impact the sale of Tesla's vehicles. I guess this is a smart move by Rivian. Personally I find it very disappointing.

Real world highway range is not going to be good at all. Assuming it is 30% better than my R1T, it will be 2.4 x 1.3 = 3.12 mi/kWh - 277 miles of highway range. Can it do better than that?

Sponsored

 

[sgtabn173]

Rivian Uses a 5 Cycle Method (allowed) instead of a 2 Cycle Calculation Method. This gives them higher numbers. (Tesla and Lucid do this as well and is a well documented difference as the Consumer Reports chart highlights.) If this were a BMW or a Chevy etc. the EPA range would be:

• 21 inch wheels 306 miles
• 20 inch wheels 297 miles

I dropped the EPA reports posted by the OP into Gemini and asked it to recalculate based on the 2 cycle testing. Details are attached. (Highway range, fwiw is 288 / 274 using the 2 cycle method.)

IOW it is about the same as an AWD Blazer SS (302 miles) not far from teh Subaru Solterra (288) and about 100 EPA miles less than the iX3 when all of them are calculated using the same methodology.

Well, that is... disappointing.

 

[sparked]

Sorry I should have been more clear, I was referring to the more accurate 2 cycle test above compared to their numbers.

It's almost 900 lbs heavier than the equivalent Model Y. Doing pretty good considering all that extra weight. Wonder if there could be a variant that goes on a diet?

 

[DuoRivian]

It's almost 900 lbs heavier than the equivalent Model Y. Doing pretty good considering all that extra weight. Wonder if there could be a variant that goes on a diet?

It has already been on a diet with over 2000lb less than R1S. That vehicle is 12” longer but that is a huge proportion taken out.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

It has already been on a diet with over 2000lb less than R1S. That vehicle is 12” longer but that is a huge proportion taken out.

Fewer pies for the driver and occupants

 

[TexasBob]

The oems are also allowed to voluntarily reduce the sticker to a lower number of if they choose. For example the 2023 BMW IX60 had a tested range of 291 mi using the two-cycle methodology ( which would be about a 320 mi range on the five cycle +/-) but they then further reduced it voluntarily to 274 mi. So in the case of the BMW IX at least for the 2023 model you had what we can call the Rivian or Tesla equivalent of a 320 mi vehicle with a 274 mi sticker. That explains a lot about why we see what we see on the consumer reports chart some manufacturers are focused on trying to get the highest possible headline number to draw in buyers and other manufacturers are trying to push out more conservative numbers to avoid disappointing long-term customers. Both approaches are perfectly legal it is just a choice. But for consumers it is confusing as anything. I wish the EPA would standardize on a single methodology so at least there's an apples to apples comparisons.

 

[RWerksman]

It has already been on a diet with over 2000lb less than R1S. That vehicle is 12” longer but that is a huge proportion taken out.

R1 is just a chonker, so while the comparison looks good unto iteself, in the larger context the R2 is still a heavy vehicle.

That said, my daily is a Silverado EV which weights as much as a small moon, and I can almost eek out 500 miles, so it's probably more of an aero thing.

 

[DuoRivians]

Hopefully Rivian will allow full time AWD on the R2, not default to rear motor decoupling, that automatically resets every 4 hours

 

[Eric9610]

They have stated that the decoupling will happen, but it will be front motor not rear. So, the R2 will be RWD bias. This will improve so much about driving dynamics.

 

[Holler Wanderer]

The oems are also allowed to voluntarily reduce the sticker to a lower number of if they choose. For example the 2023 BMW IX60 had a tested range of 291 mi using the two-cycle methodology ( which would be about a 320 mi range on the five cycle +/-) but they then further reduced it voluntarily to 274 mi. So in the case of the BMW IX at least for the 2023 model you had what we can call the Rivian or Tesla equivalent of a 320 mi vehicle with a 274 mi sticker. That explains a lot about why we see what we see on the consumer reports chart some manufacturers are focused on trying to get the highest possible headline number to draw in buyers and other manufacturers are trying to push out more conservative numbers to avoid disappointing long-term customers. Both approaches are perfectly legal it is just a choice. But for consumers it is confusing as anything. I wish the EPA would standardize on a single methodology so at least there's an apples to apples comparisons.

This makes a lot of sense. I thought it seemed almost impossible for the R2 to hit those kinds of numbers.

 

[Holler Wanderer]

Rivian Uses a 5 Cycle Method (allowed) instead of a 2 Cycle Calculation Method. This gives them higher numbers. (Tesla and Lucid do this as well and is a well documented difference as the Consumer Reports chart highlights.) If this were a BMW or a Chevy etc. the EPA range would be:

• 21 inch wheels 306 miles
• 20 inch wheels 297 miles

I dropped the EPA reports posted by the OP into Gemini and asked it to recalculate based on the 2 cycle testing. Details are attached. (Highway range, fwiw is 288 / 274 using the 2 cycle method.)

IOW it is about the same as an AWD Blazer SS (302 miles) not far from teh Subaru Solterra (288) and about 100 EPA miles less than the iX3 when all of them are calculated using the same methodology.

So this is how they got the "more than 300 miles" number. Pretty disappointing.

 

[portdirect]

putting aside the confusion re heat pump - it’s great to see a heater specifically called out in the HV coolant loop. The omission/undersizing/placement of battery heating is what’s plagued gen2 r1 heating over the last few winters for some of us - great to see this addressed.

 

[Kaiju]

Surprisingly weight doesn't matter a whole lot to efficiency. Yes, it takes more energy to accelerate but about 80% of that is recouped with regen braking and weight means essentially nothing once you're moving at constant speed. So if you're 20% heavier, you're only actually losing about 4%.

At any speed over 40 mph it's mostly about drag. Some rough math suggests the R2 frontal area is about 80% of the R1. If the drag coefficient is the same or at least similar, drag is directly proportional to area so you'd expect the R2 to be straight up 25% more efficient at highway speed. Motor and inverter losses are proportional to the amount of juice used so it's a pretty fair guesstimate.

I believe lots of people were somewhat incredulous about the Gen 2's efficiency with the much smaller large pack. It's possible they've made some advancements with the motors or the inverters again, but I'm not expecting an earthshattering difference between the R2 motors and the enduro motors on the newer R1s. You can eke out a few percent here and there but I'm not sure the R2 price point is going to include a better inverter than the R1.

If I remember on-paper a Gen 2 R1 is supposed to get 2.6-ish mi/kWh EPA, so that lends itself to 3.3 being an entirely reasonable number for the R2 on test, up to around 3.5 when you factor in the mass difference. So the spitball math says that it should get about 33% more real-world range than an R1 for the same jiggawatts. More than that would be a much better drag coefficient which seems unlikely given its brickness.

 

[mkg3]

Surprisingly weight doesn't matter a whole lot to efficiency. Yes, it takes more energy to accelerate but about 80% of that is recouped with regen braking and weight means essentially nothing once you're moving at constant speed. So if you're 20% heavier, you're only actually losing about 4%.

At any speed over 40 mph it's mostly about drag. Some rough math suggests the R2 frontal area is about 80% of the R1. If the drag coefficient is the same or at least similar, drag is directly proportional to area so you'd expect the R2 to be straight up 25% more efficient at highway speed. Motor and inverter losses are proportional to the amount of juice used so it's a pretty fair guesstimate.

I believe lots of people were somewhat incredulous about the Gen 2's efficiency with the much smaller large pack. It's possible they've made some advancements with the motors or the inverters again, but I'm not expecting an earthshattering difference between the R2 motors and the enduro motors on the newer R1s. You can eke out a few percent here and there but I'm not sure the R2 price point is going to include a better inverter than the R1.

If I remember on-paper a Gen 2 R1 is supposed to get 2.6-ish mi/kWh EPA, so that lends itself to 3.3 being an entirely reasonable number for the R2 on test, up to around 3.5 when you factor in the mass difference. So the spitball math says that it should get about 33% more real-world range than an R1 for the same jiggawatts. More than that would be a much better drag coefficient which seems unlikely given its brickness.

What you say is true and is missing one other key item. Wheel size/tire width. Narrower tires have lower rolling resistance and does make a noticeable difference. For similar wheel diameter, it has narrower width tires than R1; thereby, adding further efficiency.

 

[RivianTrackr]

Hopefully Rivian will allow full time AWD on the R2, not default to rear motor decoupling, that automatically resets every 4 hours

It will, that is why it offers a Conserve mode!

Sponsored