Efficiency - Too good to be true?

[aim2023]

So, been a year since I got my DMP R1S, 21inch road tires. Just broke into the 10k mark. 1 service done for minor alignment issues and the 7500mile service, rotation etc.
Hit 3.96 when driving thru NYC and 4.14 when driving thru suburbs with A/C on. The maximum I have seen before this was 3.8 in local roads, never on a highway. Extreme winter days were 2.3-2.4. Sometimes a flat 2.

Sponsored

 

[Surferdude]

Either you're going downhill or the numbers aren't accurate.

 

[aim2023]

I have been constantly reaching 3.5 to 4 in the last couple of months. No downhill, been pretty much my everyday driving barring occasional long drives.

 

[mkhuffman]

I have been able to do that as well if the truck is in Conserve, the speeds are 20-50 MPH, and not much stop a go (a few stoplights but mostly constant driving).

 

[Brian-MS90D]

You're going 50 mph on a warm day. Probably a slight downgrade on the elevation. Also, remember that the Rivian graph is the last 15 minutes, not the last 15 miles.

I've seen that high efficiency before in my Rivian. And, I always see a big improvement in efficiency as we get into Spring & Summer.

There was a time many, many years ago now when Tesla had a glitch in their software that caused misreporting the efficiency. It was fixed within a month or so. It's possible it's a glitch, but then you should concurrently observationally see the remaining battery percentage disappearing faster than expected (I would think).

 

[Engineer]

I posted some pics in another thread, but i took a 15 min trip, about 11.7 miles. The 15 min graph said 3.79 mi/kwh and the trip meter said 1.20 mi/kwh... I don't expect them to be the same, but under these conditions they shouldn't be that far off....

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...ate-anyone-else-seeing-this.43205/post-775969

 

[Brian-MS90D]

I posted some pics in another thread, but i took a 15 min trip, about 11.7 miles. The 15 min graph said 3.79 mi/kwh and the trip meter said 1.20 mi/kwh... I don't expect them to be the same, but under these conditions they shouldn't be that far off....

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...ate-anyone-else-seeing-this.43205/post-775969

Whether the efficiency based on time (regardless of speed, distance, elevation, etc) and the efficiency based on distance (regardless of speed, time, elevation, etc) "match" is a mathematical question, the answer to which you haven't provided enough data.

 

[RivianRiverRat]

Whether the efficiency based on time (regardless of speed, distance, elevation, etc) and the efficiency based on distance (regardless of speed, time, elevation, etc) "match" is a mathematical question, the answer to which you haven't provided enough data.

agree - I see the driver screen efficiency as a "learning tool" to condition the driver on how to get the most efficiency based on that instance in time (akin to instant mpg gauges on ICE vehicles)
the main screen is either lifetime of vehicle or a snapshot of a trip based on distance (mileage)

 

[akc5247]

Almost 32,000 miles in my (2024 Dual Motor Large) R1S.

Efficiency is 2.09 mi/kWh

 

[sherold]

So, been a year since I got my DMP R1S, 21inch road tires. Just broke into the 10k mark. 1 service done for minor alignment issues and the 7500mile service, rotation etc.
Hit 3.96 when driving thru NYC and 4.14 when driving thru suburbs with A/C on. The maximum I have seen before this was 3.8 in local roads, never on a highway. Extreme winter days were 2.3-2.4. Sometimes a flat 2.

With update 2025.1, something changed with how Rivian is calculating efficiency in this graph. Someone mentioned they are only using "drive time" in the graph and not including the energy consumption during "idle time". This sounds plausible but, I have not looked into it past that.

I can confirm the graph numbers I am seeing are highly elevated after this update when compared to my numbers over the last 2.5 years of ownership. It is not just due to the warmer weather of spring.

 

[CrazyOne]

I see above 3 when driving at low speeds with AC/heat off. It's closer to 2 once I turn on heat.

 

[JM.]

Too good to be true? YES! It's a lie. Since the recent update the range estimate has gone way up for many people. On Sunday, it completely fucked me. It ended with a 100 mile tow and a bit of a pissup with Rivian. They have assigned a manager to the case and are investigating everything that happened.

 

[JM.]

What timing! The phone just rang, it was the ops manager. Everything has been covered and while they won't say anything more, they took responsibility.

Right now, the estimated range on the driver screen is bogus. Oddly the charging need/arrival charge seems to be accurate. There is fuckery afoot.

Edit to add for clarity: While there was a challenge with the initial call and dispatch, Rivian owned it, assigned a person who called me a LOT to see if I had the needed help, and followed up exactly as promised. The SC advisor assigned to me was beyond fantastic. The only thing this all cost me was some time and a night in a hotel.

If it were not for this event, I would not have discovered the most awesome cigar lounge on the planet.

 

[mkhuffman]

Right now, the estimated range on the driver screen is bogus. Oddly the charging need/arrival charge seems to be accurate. There is fuckery afoot.

I have heard the range estimate on the display called the "Guess-o-meter". Because that is what it is.

I have seen posts that indicate that maybe the GOM uses driving history to help determine the estimated range. If that is true, it should be more accurate. If all it does is default to the EPA range, then of course your range will be worse unless you drive in a way that is as efficient as the EPA test. Most people rarely drive that efficiently.

It is good advice to use the GOM as a reference, but always consider how you plan to drive and do your own calculations based on your expected efficiency. ABRP is great for helping with that estimate.

Sponsored