R2 Range Limitations and Rivian's Response

[Tejkalra]

Well R1 is not a shining sun either. 403 miles on R1T tri motor max pack gives me around 280 at highway speed out of which you minus some safety buffer of 30 miles you are left with 250. From page AZ to Mesquite NV 192 miles. Started 100%. It started showing I will reach there with 8% and then 6 and then 3%. Ultimately charged at st George. Then charged at las vegas with 87% anticipated range 342 miles. Home is 299 miles away. Ran out of charge by Hesperia CA with 28 miles left. From Hesperia to home is only 37 miles. Do the math. Worst efficiency. Box shape to blame.

Sponsored

 

[ksurfier]

Well R1 is not a shining sun either. 403 miles on R1T tri motor max pack gives me around 280 at highway speed out of which you minus some safety buffer of 30 miles you are left with 250. From page AZ to Mesquite NV 192 miles. Started 100%. It started showing I will reach there with 8% and then 6 and then 3%. Ultimately charged at st George. Then charged at las vegas with 87% anticipated range 342 miles. Home is 299 miles away. Ran out of charge by Hesperia CA with 28 miles left. From Hesperia to home is only 37 miles. Do the math. Worst efficiency. Box shape to blame.

Yep, the Gen 2s are also victim of the Rivian/EPA upside down range world/testing…it seems like they intentionally pretended like all the new 2024/2025 vehicles were more efficient when they weren’t…

 

[daeHelkcunK]

You aren't likely to get 250 in real life. 250 was in good weather, flat roads, not driving faster than 70mph, and most importantly going from 100% to 0%. Under real-world road-trip conditions you will likely get far less than that.

No one is complaining that the EPA estimates should match the 70mph test. The problem is that two cars with the same EPA rating shouldn't vary by around 25% in the same test running side-by-side (not just the 70mph test but even in the city driving simulation and at every other speed). You can blame the EPA for allowing different test paths but if Rivian knew that the results would be misleading then I think they deserve a little blame as well.

It's foolish to compare two cars that are so dissimilar. Of course the highway range is better in one. Maybe take back roads and drive slower if it's such a concern . Maybe buy a vehicle for its intended purpose. One is far more capable off road with a higher ride height and the other is shaped like a suppository.

 

[Acehigh1]

I canceled my R2 order yesterday. The only questions that popped up after clicking the cancel button were whether the price was too high or the timing to order was too long. There wasn't an "Other" button or a way to write in that I cannot justify $60K+ on an EV that will get on the order of 25% fewer miles than the Rivian/EPA estimate b/c I drive highways 95% of the time. I guess Rivian didn't want to know the real reason I canceled, since it wasn't any of the reasons they listed.

My 2026 Tesla MY AWD comes in at approx. 10% less, or just under 300 miles, with a stated EPA range of 327 miles, when I am driving long distances at an average of 70-75 mph with AC or heat on. Without AC or heat on, I am more like 5% less at those speeds. At no time did I ever get on the order of 25% less! At an average cost to charge of 45 cents per kWh - and rising - I now can see that a 250-mile range (at best) for regular highway speeds is not in my cards. I really wanted the R2 after all I initially read and test-drove it for 25 min with much delight. However, with a range that would have me charging way too often on longer trips and paying substantially more in charging costs, it's not for me.

Good luck to those who want it for off-roading and shorter around-town trips. I need a longer range for longer trips and less charging than the R2 offers. I do not want to pay $62K to find out if its range is acceptable. I've seen the smoke; no need to wait around for the fire.

 

[AuntRivian]

The Model Y became the best selling car in the world while significantly underachieving it's stated range. Many owners noticed and complained but Tesla's owner satisfaction and repeat customers were still some of the highest in the industry. Rivian is banking on the same thing. It's not a deal breaker for the average Joe, most people aren't pushing the limits of these ranges. Also consider the good charging curve of the R2 and the reduced range only amounts to a few more minutes at the charger on a road trip.

The R2 is good looking, practical, fun, smooth, not a Tesla, and has industry leading tech short of Tesla. That's what will sell.

 

[windshieldfarmer]

I canceled my R2 order yesterday. The only questions that popped up after clicking the cancel button were whether the price was too high or the timing to order was too long. There wasn't an "Other" button or a way to write in that I cannot justify $60K+ on an EV that will get on the order of 25% fewer miles than the Rivian/EPA estimate b/c I drive highways 95% of the time. I guess Rivian didn't want to know the real reason I canceled, since it wasn't any of the reasons they listed.

My 2026 Tesla MY AWD comes in at approx. 10% less, or just under 300 miles, with a stated EPA range of 327 miles, when I am driving long distances at an average of 70-75 mph with AC or heat on. Without AC or heat on, I am more like 5% less at those speeds. At no time did I ever get on the order of 25% less! At an average cost to charge of 45 cents per kWh - and rising - I now can see that a 250-mile range (at best) for regular highway speeds is not in my cards. I really wanted the R2 after all I initially read and test-drove it for 25 min with much delight. However, with a range that would have me charging way too often on longer trips and paying substantially more in charging costs, it's not for me.

Good luck to those who want it for off-roading and shorter around-town trips. I need a longer range for longer trips and less charging than the R2 offers. I do not want to pay $62K to find out if its range is acceptable. I've seen the smoke; no need to wait around for the fire.

Sounds like you made the right decision for your specific use case. Clearly the MY has more highway range. Having to pay $99 extra per month if all you want is lane keeping assist is a bummer however.

 

[VandalSibs]

Yep, the Gen 2s are also victim of the Rivian/EPA upside down range world/testing…it seems like they intentionally pretended like all the new 2024/2025 vehicles were more efficient when they weren’t…

At least it's not the WLTP test - apparently that one has been horrible over in Europe...

 

[rvnxyz001]

It's not a deal breaker for the average Joe, most people aren't pushing the limits of these ranges.

If a 60k car has the range of a cheap EV, why would you pay more?

 

[AuntRivian]

If a 60k car has the range of a cheap EV, why would you pay more?

Why are you assuming maximum range is the only thing that matters in a vehicle? There's obviously a lot more to consider.

 

[rvnxyz001]

Why are you assuming maximum range is the only thing that matters on a vehicle? There's obviously a lot more to a car...

Sure, but I assume it is still the most important factor when people decide to buy an EV, and I'm not sure Rivian offers anything magical as a car. It is not a luxury car, just a good $45K-level car, and it is not materially better inside or out than any other good EV.

 

[AirplaneDr]

EPA mileage has always been a very prescriptive test which allows for manufactures to tailor their tuning to get an unrealistically inflated number. In the gas world this, IMO, is in large part the reason for so many cars seeing turbos being spec'd. A turbo's boost tuning can be set to kick in just above the EPA test cycle so during testing the car is almost never in boost and gets a great number. In real world driving the engine goes into boost much more often and real world mileage takes a huge hit. Ford 3.5L Ecoboost on the F-150 is probably the best example of this, especially since Ford has continued to make the 5.0L NA available for comparison. The Ecoboost consistently underperforms EPA numbers while the 5.0 exceeds them. Heck, VW even got caught programming the ECU to recognize the testing cycle and specifically adjust to the test (I know it wasn't mileage testing where they did this, but the point stands: car companies "teach" to the test, not the real world).

As far is Rivian and specifically the Out of Spec/Rivian Trackr R2 vs Model Y 50-80 MPH mileage test it has issues, to say the least. Kyle loves to use the word "scientific" in his testing but he needs to be much more judicious in the claims he makes based on a very limited comparison like the one he did with R2 and MY Perf. Each of the speed tests he did were of very limited distance (6-30 miles) on a single day. There was very little in any of those tests that qualify as scientific. If Kyle had severe time limitations to do this comparison test to the point it compromised the test then the video should not have been released. Junk data leads to junk results. On top of the fact that the Model Y Performance he was using is a company loaner that he requested specifically to perform this comparison. Given all that Tesla has riding on maintaining its market leader status can we really assume that they didn't send in a ringer?

I don't doubt that R2 Performance does worse than MY Performance on a Miles/KW basis but R2 also has an ~18% larger battery. It is unfortunate that Out of Spec released a video along with claims based on very limited data that are driving a narrative that the Rivian R2 has range issues.

 

[windshieldfarmer]

If a 60k car has the range of a cheap EV, why would you pay more?

Please reference a cheap EV that can do 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, the 1/4 mile in 11.3 seconds, get to 100 mph on 7 seconds, handle 19” of water, has 9.5” of clearance, and can handle light to moderate off-roading. A $90,000 392 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon doesn’t have the “range” of an econobox yet people want them for other capabilities. To me the R2 is a high value proposition despite its range limitations. There is more to driving than the size of the “gas tank”.

 

[dleepnw]

I think the issue with the EPA range and real range being off is that Rivian also compromised on charging speed. Lets face it, the charging speeds are slow for a 2027 vehicle. The only reason it wont get killed for this is that the Model Y also has relatively slow charging speeds.

 

[savethemanual]

I think the issue with the EPA range and real range being off is that Rivian also compromised on charging speed. Lets face it, the charging speeds are slow for a 2027 vehicle. The only reason it wont get killed for this is that the Model Y also has relatively slow charging speeds.

It's kind of shocking how bad the charge curve is on the Tesla MY with how many years head start they've had. But I guess that efficiency makes up for it!

As for the R2, it's actually great for a 400v vehicle. They had to make compromises to get it to market at that price point as it's sink or swim for them.

 

[Qamera]

3...

IMO, I would not trust a 3 or Y

If a 60k car has the range of a cheap EV, why would you pay more?

because range is only one of many factors for consideration?

Sponsored