Gen 1 Quad vs Gen 2 Tri Range Difference

[2kwik4u]

So 3.04 vs 3.4, those don't seem like big numbers, but in 0-60 time, that's a pretty big difference. The dual performance would suffer significantly so long as the tri is in sport mode. Ultimately, both vehicles are way more than anyone needs out of a daily driver, and the dual performance is still putting up 0-60 numbers that best my wife's i4M50, so it's nothing to sneeze at.

As someone who had a Gen 1 quad, and now a tri, I can say that even comparing those two, the tri feels substantially faster. I think the rear power bias makes a fast car much more fun to drive and that's the primary reason.

I'll agree pretty strong with this.

The larger difference between a Dual and a Tri/Quad is over 50mph. The Dual falls on it's face pretty badly above 60mph. The Quad and Tri pull like freight trains all the way up to the limiter.

With that said, I put a car length on a BMW M3 Competition this morning to ~60mph in my non-performance dual motor R1T. I caught a good light and he didn't. I was a car and a half ahead at 40, but the was coming on really strong and came by my fast enough to damn near pull the paint off the truck at about 70mph. Supposedly the same 0-60 time as my truck, but launching on the street is much harder in his car than my truck. If I had been in a tri or quad motor I likely would have held him off to the limiter. That extra HP in those trucks is really noticeable on the top end, the instant torque, heavy weight, and strong traction really make any of these trucks brutal off the line.

Sponsored

 

[2kwik4u]

I agree completely with @2kwik4u about wishing they'd just give Dual a standard AWD All Purpose mode + conserve mode.

I would even be OK if the truck "started" in Conserve every time and I had to force it to "All Purpose". I already disable the automatic ride height every drive, I can swap drive modes while I'm at it.

I'm sure there is some EPA logistics that dictate what mode the vehicle "wakes up" in.

 

[Great Gatsby]

I'd offer that except on a dragstrip it's an inconsequential difference and the driver, road surface in each lane, etc. will make most of the difference.

My context is my Model S Plaid. On launch there is no rearing of the front end as there is on the R1, no lateral movement (torque steer), not even tire squeal. Just brutal acceleration, and brutal is probably the right word for it - it's not entirely comfortable. That's 2.0-2.1 seconds 0-60 real-world or a full second faster than the Tri. If you launch a Hummer EV you have even more sensation due to the fact it feels like you'll almost flip over on launch, but it's just too much mass.

Despite the fact that I'm a performance nut, when I was deciding on a Cybertruck I went with the AWD vs. the Cyberbeast as neither is a performance vehicle or track weapon - they are pickup trucks. Mechanical lockers and default RWD won the day, I couldn't be happier a year+ later. At some point, and we're at that point, we've gone from 80+% to 90+% to 99% of the capabilities not being useful in everyday driving - they are just numbers on a spec sheet. Put the average driver in a 3 second 0-60 car and a 4 second 0-60 car and they'd have a hard time telling the difference - and finding out where to use the added acceleration safely on public roads.

i'm glad Rivian is able to sell Tri's and Quad's, they certainly need the margin to keep the business going long enough to start the R2 ramp.

I don't know. I've driven several cars, and while a lot of these new EVs are stupid fast, there are always people out there who want more - such as myself. While I love my Gen 1 Quad, and it really is fast as hell, I wouldn't oppose a faster car. As a matter of fact, I wish it was faster from 60-90, as I find myself really asking for more power on the highway. I couldn't see myself getting anything slower than 3.5s to 60 and even then would want to test drive it too see how it does past the initial 0-60. I have always gotten the performance version of whatever car I ended up owning, assuming it didn't mean the ride was complete garbage, so as long as they keep cranking it these insane HP 0-60 monstrosities, I'll be listening. My issue with the new Quad was that it really, behind the wheel, did not feel that much faster than the tri or old Quad. It seems like the only real speed advantage comes in the launch mode...which to me is not worth the premium for.

 

[strykerwsu]

Agreed. I did it a few times and just decided that it was not worth it. Passing power is non-existent in conserve mode. Sounds like Gen 2 remedies this issue with the rear motors kicking in when needed, so that is a plus over the Gen 1.

I’m surprised by this. I always use conserve on road trips for the extra 10% but ensure not in auto suspension to not eat tires. I‘m on a lot of 2 lane 70 mph roads and never had an issue passing in conserve. My non EV passengers are surprised by the power not knowing 2 motors are off.

Now I do feel it at lower acceleration for sure so usually engage at 40 mph. I’ve never had any of the clunk some report.

 

[mackgriggs]

Have gen2s gotten rid of the issue where there is a camber issue in lowest/low ride height? In gen1 quad...I'm under the impression that you only ever want to be in conserve mode low ride height when not doing a lot of braking or making aggressive turns (basically, more or less constant highway driving, so no in town turning/braking). I know that in conserve where its FWD only that tires will wear faster in the front from accelerating/braking only in the front, but...that the camber really messed up the tires on the edges due to camber...

 

[R1Thor]

Have gen2s gotten rid of the issue where there is a camber issue in lowest/low ride height? In gen1 quad...I'm under the impression that you only ever want to be in conserve mode low ride height when not doing a lot of braking or making aggressive turns (basically, more or less constant highway driving, so no in town turning/braking). I know that in conserve where its FWD only that tires will wear faster in the front from accelerating/braking only in the front, but...that the camber really messed up the tires on the edges due to camber...

This a perceived issue that is not the norm.
I have 42k miles on my truck and zero extra wear on my tires due to 'camber.' My truck stays in all-purpose mode and auto-ride height 97%+ of the time. And my daily commute has over 55 miles of high speed highway, meaning my truck is in 'low.'

If you're experiencing accelerated wear due to camber, this is an issue specific to your truck, but is not pervasive amongst the fleet.

 

[mackgriggs]

This a perceived issue that is not the norm.
I have 42k miles on my truck and zero extra wear on my tires due to 'camber.' My truck stays in all-purpose mode and auto-ride height 97%+ of the time. And my daily commute has over 55 miles of high speed highway, meaning my truck is in 'low.'

If you're experiencing accelerated wear due to camber, this is an issue specific to your truck, but is not pervasive amongst the fleet.

Fortunately, I'm not noticing undue wear due to camber, but I'm also treating my Gen1 r1t in a way to avoid the camber issue. As in, I've been warned to only use "low" ride height and conserve mode on the freeway where you are not doing a lot of braking or doing tight turning (like you would on a city street).

And yourself as well...." And my daily commute has over 55 miles of high speed highway, meaning my truck is in 'low.' ". Right...you are fine to be in "low" height on the highway.

My question is...if Rivian has changed the actual suspension where there is not a camber/toe issue in low ride heights with Gen2 vehicles, so you could be in low or conserve mode even in city driving and not worry about excessive wear.

 

[windblowlc]

I don't know. I've driven several cars, and while a lot of these new EVs are stupid fast, there are always people out there who want more - such as myself. While I love my Gen 1 Quad, and it really is fast as hell, I wouldn't oppose a faster car. As a matter of fact, I wish it was faster from 60-90, as I find myself really asking for more power on the highway. I couldn't see myself getting anything slower than 3.5s to 60 and even then would want to test drive it too see how it does past the initial 0-60. I have always gotten the performance version of whatever car I ended up owning, assuming it didn't mean the ride was complete garbage, so as long as they keep cranking it these insane HP 0-60 monstrosities, I'll be listening. My issue with the new Quad was that it really, behind the wheel, did not feel that much faster than the tri or old Quad. It seems like the only real speed advantage comes in the launch mode...which to me is not worth the premium for.

Alternative view. The Quad go faster is not the only thing of value.

If performance is absolutely important then spending $12K more for the Quad from the Tri is a bargain. I don't lease so the current incentives are meaningless for me. For this money, it gets you an extra motor, the nearly 200 hp difference, the RAD Tuner customizable drive modes and the Super Sport wheel package w/Michelin tires w/underbody shield (other tidbits not counting). You get the torque vectoring to mitigate torque steer, the 22" lightweight forged high performance wheels (the only wheel I'd consider) for less unsprung weight, the beefier ultra high performance Michelins for better stopping distance (20 ft shorter from 60-0), more road contact and higher speed limit, they all add up for better performance, all from the factory. I always drive in sport mode so range is much less of a concern.

 

[Great Gatsby]

Alternative view. The Quad go faster is not the only thing of value.

If performance is absolutely important then spending $12K more for the Quad from the Tri is a bargain. I don't lease so the current incentives are meaningless for me. For this money, it gets you an extra motor, the nearly 200 hp difference, the RAD Tuner customizable drive modes and the Super Sport wheel package w/Michelin tires w/underbody shield (other tidbits not counting). You get the torque vectoring to mitigate torque steer, the 22" lightweight forged high performance wheels (the only wheel I'd consider) for less unsprung weight, the beefier ultra high performance Michelins for better stopping distance (20 ft shorter from 60-0), more road contact and higher speed limit, they all add up for better performance, all from the factory. I always drive in sport mode so range is much less of a concern.

All fair points. The more I think about the new Quad, the more I've become more interested in it. I think my initial thoughts were marred by Rivian marketing it as the ultimate performance 2.6s, basically plaid version of the R1S...which it was not. But in thinking about the vehicle as a whole, it was certainly the most polished and complete Rivian I've driven. The ride in sport mode was genuinely good, not just acceptable, and its passing speed on the highway was exactly what I would have liked from my gen 1 Quad. The steering feel and weight felt better calibrated. I didn't get to play with the RAD Tuner since its not available yet, but genuinely interested in how well that would work.

Still rather expensive, and if buying new I'm still leaning Tri for the value and 90% of the car, but if I'm patient enough to buy a used Gen 2 Quad, now that is a different conversation.

Sponsored