R2 Highway Efficiency Test: 80 MPH vs 70 MPH Changed Everything

[mkhuffman]

You continue to ignore one of the most highly respected EV journalists there are in Tom Moloughney for some reason. He did an actual real test on 20” AT, in not ideal weather, uphill 2,000 feet, with crosswinds and STILL got 3 MPK. I don’t get it.

Don't you know that all you have to do is a 10 minute drive and you will have all the answers? Come on, man.

Sponsored

 

[Jeremy3292]

Don't you know that all you have to do is a 10 minute drive and you will have all the answers? Come on, man.

Get it in a 140F car parked outside, blast the AC on full, drive a few miles at 70 mph on a 15 min demo drive and then say “Yep its only 2 MPK at 70 mph. I’ll be damned the range is terrible on this thang”

 

[ksurfier]

Get it in a 140F car parked outside, blast the AC on full, drive a few miles at 70 mph on a 15 min demo drive and then say “Yep its only 2 MPK at 70 mph. I’ll be damned the range is terrible on this thang”

Where it really shines it 20 mph!

Even better, put that bad boy in conserve and get 1% more range!!!

 

[ksurfier]

You continue to ignore one of the most highly respected EV journalists there are in Tom Moloughney for some reason. He did an actual real test on 20” AT, in not ideal weather, uphill 2,000 feet, with crosswinds and STILL got 3 MPK. I don’t get it.

Not ignoring the thin air data points, just correcting for sea level…

There are many other data points that show otherwise :

 

[ksurfier]

Don't you know that all you have to do is a 10 minute drive and you will have all the answers? Come on, man.

There’s data here, you may want to go back to the tire threads where you can argue theoretical rolling resistance all day long…

 

[Jeremy3292]

There are many other data points that show otherwise :

“Avg speed” doesn’t work how you think it does as any stopping completely ruins it, which the Redditor said they did multiple times. This is why you must drive straight without stopping for a true 70mph test. You’re trying to infer way too much with so many variables instead of just looking at the best available evidence we have in Tom’s video from someone who actually knows what they’re doing. This “crowdsourced” method from laymans you’re trying doesn’t work and isn’t scientific.

 

[ksurfier]

“Avg speed” doesn’t work how you think it does as any stopping completely ruins it, which the Redditor said they did multiple times. This is why you must drive straight without stopping for a true 70mph test. You’re trying to infer way too much with so many variables instead of just looking at the best available evidence we have in Tom’s video from someone who actually knows what they’re doing. This “crowdsourced” method from laymans you’re trying doesn’t work and isn’t scientific.

We disagree, but I look forward to seeing real world data that suggests the modest 13% cDa improvement R2 has over the R1 translates into 3.0 MPK at 70 mph (264 mile range)…as of right now I don’t believe the R2 50% more efficient than R1 at highway speeds…

In other news, I’m beginning to think the real world difference between 21” and 20” equipped R2 is <10 miles, curious why Rivian is showing 330 vs 307 (23 mile difference)…

 

[Jeremy3292]

We disagree, but I look forward to seeing real world data that suggests the modest 13% cDa improvement R2 has over the R1 translates into 3.0 MPK at 70 mph (264 mile range)…as of right now I don’t believe the R2 50% more efficient than R1 at highway speeds…

In other news, I’m beginning to think the real world difference between 21” and 20” equipped R2 is <10 miles, curious why Rivian is showing 330 vs 307 (23 mile difference)…

Fair enough, but I think you should weigh more heavily the one scientific test we have from a very well respected EV journalist. And I agree , the 20" AT really aren't a huge penalty. Very mild AT tread, lack of 3PMSF rating, and Rivian special rolling resistance compound.

 

[Jeremy3292]

For reference, the 2025 R1S Dual Max Pack got 376 miles, or 381 miles to fully empty, on a 70 mph OOO test below. That is 2.69 MPK (376 miles/140kWh). Not crazy to think R2 would get 3 MPK IMO.

 

[ksurfier]

For reference, the 2025 R1S Dual Max Pack got 376 miles, or 381 miles to fully empty, on a 70 mph OOO test below. That is 2.69 MPK (376 miles/140kWh). Not crazy to think R2 would get 3 MPK IMO.

ABRP says that a 3.75 hr trip would result in 2.5 MPK at a speed of 69 mph…

Same trip with R1S is 1.98 MPK, implying the R2 is 26% more efficient than the R1S

At 69 mph, Model Y is 20% more efficient than R2:

 

[Jeremy3292]

ABRP says that a 3.75 hr trip would result in 2.5 MPK at a speed of 69 mph…

Same trip with R1S is 1.98 MPK, implying the R2 is 26% more efficient than the R1S

Brother, why are you not just using the real world data in front of you? The video is real; you can watch it with your own eyes. It's not some website planning tool like ABRP. The real world data is available in the video lol.

It's not my opinion. It's not subjective. It's literally a real world 70 mph test where you drive it until it dies on the highway.

 

[tivoboy]

ABRP says that a 3.75 hr trip would result in 2.5 MPK at a speed of 69 mph…

Same trip with R1S is 1.98 MPK, implying the R2 is 26% more efficient than the R1S

At 69 mph, Model Y is 20% more efficient than R2:

26% less weight, 26% more efficienct?

 

[Indy avocado]

You continue to ignore one of the most highly respected EV journalists there are in Tom Moloughney for some reason. He did an actual real test on 20” AT, in not ideal weather, uphill 2,000 feet, with crosswinds and STILL got 3 MPK. I don’t get it.

His test had *net zero* elevation and was performed at 5000-7000ft where there's like 15% less air mass.

Elevation up/down doesn't impact range or efficiency much so long as you never have to enter regen.

I believe his test is damn near best case for level ground at sea level.

 

[Jeremy3292]

His test had *net zero* elevation and was performed at 5000-7000ft where there's like 25% less air mass.

Elevation up/down doesn't impact range or efficiency much so long as you never have to enter regen.

I believe his test is damn near best case for level ground at sea level.

Regen efficiency is nowhere near 100% conversion, so it actually does matter a great deal. If you want to net the good with the bad on his test and call it even that's fine, but his test is nowhere near a "best case scenario." The massive boat that is the Rivian R1S got 2.69 MPK on Kyle's 70 mph test. It's not wild at all to get to 3 MPK on the R2. That would only be ~10% more efficient. Not farfetched at all, in fact very likely.

 

[Indy avocado]

Regen efficiency is nowhere near 100% conversion, so it actually does matter a great deal. If you want to net the good with the bad on his test and call it even that's fine, but his test is nowhere near a "best case scenario." The massive boat that is the Rivian R1S got 2.69 MPK on Kyle's 70 mph test. It's not wild at all to get to 3 MPK on the R2. That would only be ~10% more efficient. Not farfetched at all, in fact very likely.

That's why I said never have to enter regen.

For reference, the 2025 R1S Dual Max Pack got 376 miles, or 381 miles to fully empty, on a 70 mph OOO test below. That is 2.69 MPK (376 miles/140kWh). Not crazy to think R2 would get 3 MPK IMO.

Vs the 369mi the dyno numbers suggest - also within margin of error.

I've been using these to anchor my calculator, so I'm quite confident in it.

At sea level, R2 is 265mi on 21" AS and 240mi on 20" AT.

I'd bet my R1T on it.

Sponsored