Car and Driver test review: Dual Motor Rivian has similar highway range results as quad

[evhelphub]

Finally, an article that talks about more than just speed!

Mentions highway range test and cabin noise.

Tested: 2023 Rivian R1T Dual-Motor Performance Doesn't Sacrifice Much
Although less powerful than the Quad-Motor, the R1T Dual-Motor still provides neck-snapping acceleration; composed handling; and a classy, comfortable cabin.

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...an-r1t-dual-motor-performance-by-the-numbers/

Sponsored

 

[MrMusAddict]

280 miles of range @ 75 MPH. BOO

 

[VSG]

Our 75-mph highway test revealed the Dual-Motor can travel 280 miles on charge—a bit of a letdown considering the Quad-Motor rolling on the same tires returned an identical number and that the number is significantly shy of the Dual-Motor's EPA estimate.

​

So once again C&D is promoting its misleading take on range and once again they imply that Rivian is fudging the numbers.

Remember when they first tested the R1T and claimed a range of only 220 miles on the 20" wheel? There are thousands of posts here with a combined experience of over 1 million driven miles which totally contradicts that. They were just wrong - that's what happens when you invent your own "real world" tests.

The reason they get a different number than the EPA rating is because they test in different conditions (among other things). Duh, of course they get a different number. The EPA rating is reproducible, so if you use the same conditions you will get the same results. The EPA numbers for the R1T are not a lie, they're a fact. The EPA rating is a standardized test that is useful as a reference number because it's done the same way for all vehicles. The C&D number is not useful at all.

My R1T with 20" wheels gets about 315 miles in conserve mode, and about 290 in all-purpose. That's my reality over 12k miles in wildly varying terrain and conditions. So when I read an article that tells me I'm wrong, and at the same time claims to give me the "true" range and claims to debunk the "official" numbers, I call bullshit.

 

[madgrey]

​

​

So once again C&D is promoting its misleading take on range and once again they imply that Rivian is fudging the numbers.

Remember when they first tested the R1T and claimed a range of only 220 miles on the 20" wheel? There are thousands of posts here with a combined experience of over 1 million driven miles which totally contradicts that. They were just wrong - that's what happens when you invent your own "real world" tests.

The reason they get a different number than the EPA rating is because they test in different conditions (among other things). Duh, of course they get a different number. The EPA rating is reproducible, so if you use the same conditions you will get the same results. The EPA numbers for the R1T are not a lie, they're a fact. The EPA rating is a standardized test that is useful as a reference number because it's done the same way for all vehicles. The C&D number is not useful at all.

My R1T with 20" wheels gets about 315 miles in conserve mode, and about 290 in all-purpose. That's my reality over 12k miles in wildly varying terrain and conditions. So when I read an article that tells me I'm wrong, and at the same time claims to give me the "true" range and claims to debunk the "official" numbers, I call bullshit.

I think C&D points out that it doesn't match the EPA rating simply because it didn't in their test. Not because it should. I didn't see anywhere that they said the EPA lied.

Real world numbers are useful to me, but we need more than one data point. I look forward to more tests besides C&D. How the vehicle performs on a chassis dynometer in a lab isn't really that useful to me without some real-world data to back it up.

 

[R1Maybe]

Most people care about range primarily when driving a long distance at high speed. The EPA range does not capture that metric well. Range at 75mph is the number most people really care about.

If the dual motor does not increase range at high speed then for my purposes it doesn’t matter. When puttering around town I’ll never run into range issues so I couldn’t care less about low speed range.

The EPA test absolutely has value due to the consistency but a version of that test focused on 70-75 mph would be far more useful.

 

[SASSquatch]

Honestly - EPA or no EPA I am not shocked by this.

Why?

Bosch has been designing motors for over 100 years.

Rivian has been designing motors for 100 days?

The Bosch motors are probably as efficient as you can get.

 

[madgrey]

The Dual motor variant doesn't weigh much less. Rivian didn't add new aero to lower the Cd. So, why would we expect the range to be significantly different?

I thought the main reason for the dual motor variant was to offer a lower priced vehicle.

 

[DuoRivians]

The Dual motor variant doesn't weigh much less. Rivian didn't add new aero to lower the Cd. So, why would we expect the range to be significantly different?

I thought the main reason for the dual motor variant was to offer a lower priced vehicle.

Dual motor is 400 lbs lighter

 

[emoore]

Dual motor is 400 lbs lighter

I can see that helping in stop and go traffic or around town. 400 lbs pro isn’t going to make a difference on the highway.

 

[madgrey]

Dual motor is 400 lbs lighter

Not according to the C&D article:

The Dual-Motor tipped our scales at 6914 pounds, 122 fewer pounds than the Quad-Motor. Most of that weight loss can be attributed to the Dual-Motor having a tire-inflation kit instead of a full-use spare.

I thought that 400# number was questionable. What's the source?

EDIT: Added C&D quote.

 

[DuoRivians]

Not according to the C&D article:



I thought that 400# number was questionable. What's the source?

EDIT: Added C&D quote.

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2023-rivian-r1t-dual-motor-performance-first-test-review/amp/

 

[usofrob]

I remember finding the weight differences before from the EPA pdfs, but I don't remember where to see it now. It wasn't 400# lighter. I think the 122# is more accurate. You can look at the payload allowance on the door sticker to get a fairly accurate weight. See this good post about it:
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/r1s-payload-stickers.16644/post-359440

 

[Supratachophobia]

​

​

So once again C&D is promoting its misleading take on range and once again they imply that Rivian is fudging the numbers.

Remember when they first tested the R1T and claimed a range of only 220 miles on the 20" wheel? There are thousands of posts here with a combined experience of over 1 million driven miles which totally contradicts that. They were just wrong - that's what happens when you invent your own "real world" tests.

The reason they get a different number than the EPA rating is because they test in different conditions (among other things). Duh, of course they get a different number. The EPA rating is reproducible, so if you use the same conditions you will get the same results. The EPA numbers for the R1T are not a lie, they're a fact. The EPA rating is a standardized test that is useful as a reference number because it's done the same way for all vehicles. The C&D number is not useful at all.

My R1T with 20" wheels gets about 315 miles in conserve mode, and about 290 in all-purpose. That's my reality over 12k miles in wildly varying terrain and conditions. So when I read an article that tells me I'm wrong, and at the same time claims to give me the "true" range and claims to debunk the "official" numbers, I call bullshit.

You forget that while reproducible, EPA isn't a useful metric for real world unless you are using a multiplier based on conditions. 280 miles @ 75mph is actually a much more meaningful metric to me. Just because they show that, doesn't mean it's a hit piece.

 

[usofrob]

It doesn't seem like a hit piece to me. It just seems like they aren't doing a full investigation of the Rivian. They clearly didn't have a lot of time with it, but they also didn't seem to provide much extra information unique to Rivian. This is why we need more enthusiast reviews like Out of Spec or simlar.

When they tested at 220 miles, they didn't share all the details like the enthusiasts do. And because of the discrepancy in their testing (220 with 20" and then 280 with 22"), I wouldn't trust their 280 miles either. 280 miles at 75 mpg is still pretty good.

 

[Eeyore]

My R1T with 20" wheels gets about 315 miles in conserve mode, and about 290 in all-purpose. That's my reality over 12k miles in wildly varying terrain and conditions. So when I read an article that tells me I'm wrong, and at the same time claims to give me the "true" range and claims to debunk the "official" numbers, I call bullshit.

Those numbers pretty much match my experience with 20's.

Verified by multiple round trips between Keizer (Salem) Oregon and Shoreline, just north of Seattle Washington. Stupid navigation usually tries to get me to stop and charge even though it's only 227 miles driving. Last time I arrived with over 50 miles left and I probably averaged 75 mph on the trip.

Sponsored