The efficiency history gauge is propaganda

[Bar_Down]

Write to your congressman to have EPA change their test/ratings standards. Why would rivian give numbers that don’t align with what they are required to test to? Does Ford rate their crap ecoboost engines off real world or EPA testing?
If you want change, then be a voice asking for it not from the manufacturer but from the governing body.

I agree... EPA is an "official" number, but generally not representative of "real world". Rivian had to pick something for its base and 2.0 is about as good as any. My lifetime avg. is about 2.2 in all sorts of conditions, speeds, mix of highway/city stop & go.

I am looking forward to the revamp energy app promised in the OTA road map. I think Tesla handles this pretty well giving indications on navigation segments as to what's contributing to better or worse than expected performance.

I also wish there was better information about actual charging vs. expected curve. Several have done charging curve maps. Some times I experienced a tiny bit faster charging than implied by the reviewer's curves, but most times it is less (and sometimes substantially less). It would be good to know if it was the charger or the car. It would be good to know the realistic time to the desired charges level.

Sponsored

 

[Wispitgood]

For a long time other people who drive my Rivians thought they were getting good efficiency by looking at the history view on the instrument panel, which shows a heavy black line around 2 mi/kwh. They thought it was the "target", roughly equivalent to the EPA rated range, and felt good when they got close to it (though few exceed it, normally). Yesterday I told them that EPA efficiency is almost 3, not 2 (it's 2.90), so off by 50%. They were shocked and asked why the black bar isn't at three. I had no good answer other than it's Rivian trying to dark pattern lie to their customers.

Even the EPA rating is a lie, as most people think it means "maximum range", but it's not. It includes a blend of city efficiency, which is normally greater than highway efficiency for EVs. For gas cars, the EPA rating is actually very close to highway range (it's pessimistic in this case, because it includes the lowball ICE city number), but for EVs it is totally wrong when used as a road trip indicator. Most people are coming from gas cars, so they are fooled by the sticker. Rivian should advertise "range" as measured at 70 MPH at 40 degrees F, with automatic climate on.

I have yet to own an ICE car or truck that consistantly met the EPA efficiency on a sticker. Maybe because I might be heavier footed, or carry loads or use average fuels or EPA rating is just never right. I am 72, I have had a lot of vehicles.

Knocking Rivian, or any one manufacturer is wrong, and certainly irresponsible to negatively effecting an emerging and very needed industry.

Here are the reasons EPA average fuel usages is wrong most of the time:

EPA tests are conducted in controlled laboratory settings using standardized driving cycles. These cycles may not accurately reflect real-world driving conditions, which involve variations in speed, acceleration, traffic, and road conditions.

The EPA tests are conducted on base models with minimal optional equipment. Features like larger wheels, roof racks, and all-wheel drive can negatively impact fuel economy. Additionally, factors like tire pressure, vehicle maintenance, and driving habits can all affect real-world fuel consumption.

Aggressive acceleration, speeding, and excessive idling can significantly reduce fuel efficiency compared to the moderate driving style used in EPA tests.

The EPA tests use a standardized fuel blend, or specific test batteries, that may differ from the fuel available at your local gas station or difference in charging systems.

Even within the same model, there can be slight variations in engine performance and fuel or electric consumption due to manufacturing tolerances.

Your difference could be as simple as heat on or AC on, which such things would not be on in EPA tests to achieve best numbers.

 

[McLovin]

Wow another thread by thirteenelectrics digging deep to be negative on Rivian. Who would have guessed? Get a new tune, this one is old.

Agreed. And furthermore, when are we going to learn not to respond to people like this? 4 pages in, and the OP has (once again) gone missing.

We’d be better served by letting his threads die on the vine with 0 responses. That’s what really burns people like this: nobody listening or reacting to them.

 

[Hereforthesnacks]

I have yet to own an ICE car or truck that consistantly met the EPA efficiency on a sticker. Maybe because I might be heavier footed, or carry loads or use average fuels or EPA rating is just never right. I am 72, I have had a lot of vehicles.

My Bronco, old Kia, Passat, RX300, and Pilot all pretty much hit EPA and I drive decently hard.

Not a knock on Rivian.

Plus, OP was referring to the 2 kWh line, not missing his EPA estimate.

 

[BCondrey]

This has been covered many times. Most of us land somewhere between 2 and 3 for efficiency, so it it makes perfect sense that the gauge is laid out the way it is.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Agreed. And furthermore, when are we going to learn not to respond to people like this? 4 pages in, and the OP has (once again) gone missing.

We’d be better served by letting his threads die on the vine with 0 responses. That’s what really burns people like this: nobody listening or reacting to them.

You’re right, that would get them to leave for certain. I cannot resist dragging people like this, but it only feeds them. When you can’t win people over with good thoughts and ideas the next best thing is to anger them with bad ones. Apathy is the opposite of love not hate.

 

[nc10]

For a long time other people who drive my Rivians thought they were getting good efficiency by looking at the history view on the instrument panel

I don't think the number on the trucks screen is too meaningful, possibly helps as a rough, instananeous indicator of how far I can go on single long trip without stops. What also counts is how many kwhrs I'm buying for charging the truck. With level 2 charging in my home, I'm getting about 1.8 miles driven/kwhr charged, driving 1000 miles a month, mostly rural and suburban driving. I see 2.3 on the R1T trip screens. Have the Rivian charger. I wish I saw more comments here about "real" kwhrs charged per mile driven, not what the display shows.

 

[bigsky]

I would not use "efficiency" and "Rivian" in the same sentence necessarily, anyway. Compared to EVs, my R1S is one of the least efficient EVs out there. As for the EPA rating, as pointed out already, be cognizant of the "your mileage may vary" disclaimer. It always will depend on how you drive your vehicle.

Personally, I don't care how efficient or inefficient my R1S is. I just drive it and enjoy it. When it is time to charge, I plug it in, move on. Have never felt cheated or even bemoaned the EPA or Rivian for the efficiency rating. It is all over the place--> way you drive, temperature, terrain, wind, mood... Who cares!?

Examples of actual R1S miles/kWh on some of my long trips (> 100 miles): 2.62, 3.68, 2.83, 1.76, 4.42, 2.54, 2.60, etc. And I am never in a big fat hurry when I travel; drive at 65 mostly. Around town, it may get 0.5 miles/kWh or shoot up to 5.0 miles/kWh. It always depends. A different story in very cold weather, but the actual ratings are or should be in line with what most every Rivian owner gets.

Make no mistake, the Rivians are electron guzzlers on steroids. Still, at ~70 MPG equivalent, my amazing 7.500 lb. beast still is far more efficient than any comparable ICE SUV hands down. It is not even close. Soooo glad to have my R1S Quad Gen 1.

 

[DAJA]

People surely get wound around the axle when it comes to advertised range vs. real life range. Remember when looking at advertised range, the phrase "your mileage may vary" is key to the disclaimer.

on my Gen 1 Quad with ATs, I've gone as far as 225 miles on a roadtrip charge, and as few as about 100 miles (crawling up the Sierra Nevada's for example). The Key is to slow down and your efficiency will likely improve. On road trips at about 70mph, I'll get between 150-180 out of an 80-20% charge. That's about 2.5-3 hours of driving...which is plenty as most occupants in the truck are ready for a stretch break by that time.

If I were to buy a new Dual Max with an advertise range of ~400 miles, I would expect more mileage than I'm getting out of my current truck, but I wouldn't ever expect those 400 miles.

True, but a corporate battle cry at Rivian has been "under promise and over deliver". The max pack does not fulfill this goal and -10F weather here in the north makes range anxiety a certifiable medical condition.

 

[dgennetten]

Not sure why they can't make it more useful like the Tesla graph:

This is the full screen graph and not the one in the cluster, but the principle is the same. Have the baseline horizontal line correspond to the rated EPA range for your vehicle and go from there. Some might be 2.7mi/kwh, some might be 2.9. Don't baseline on an arbitrary 2mi/kwh. When I got my R1T I initially thought I was always doing better than rated range until I realized they put a rose colored filter over the graph.

Whether the EPA range is ever achievable, reasonable, or needs to be changed is irrelevant. Right now the trucks are advertised with a given range estimate and it's useful to be able to easily see at a glance how you're doing against that estimate.

One big difference between Tesla and Rivian: Tesla correctly uses mileage on the x-axis rather than time.

 

[s4wrxttcs]

I’m glad someone else noticed. I picked up on this pattern back when they were @NineElectrics. Hoping FourteenElectrics migrates to a Cybertruck forum…

I didn't really have any issues with the OP's post EXCEPT for being a little carried away about the whole propaganda thing.

If he simply stated that there was a better way to do it then I think most would agree. It really conveys no useful information. It falls far short of the Trip Planner graph Tesla has.

Maybe he should simply use ChatGPT and post its translation in future posts.

 

[beatle]

Agreed, the consumption over time isn't very useful since

One big difference between Tesla and Rivian: Tesla correctly uses mileage on the x-axis rather than time.

Yeah, I don't get that either. It's not like your estimated range is measured in hours or minutes.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I didn't really have any issues with the OP's post EXCEPT for being a little carried away about the whole propaganda thing.

If he simply stated that there was a better way to do it then I think most would agree. It really conveys no useful information. It falls far short of the Trip Planner graph Tesla has.

Maybe he should simply use ChatGPT and post its translation in future posts.

The whole point of his post is to exaggerate and accuse Rivian of deceptive practices. So to say it was a good post except for the whole point of the post doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Acoustic71]

The whole point of his post is to exaggerate and accuse Rivian of deceptive practices. So to say it was a good post except for the whole point of the post doesn't make a lot of sense.

Hurmpf, hurmpf, hurmpf, hurmpf-hurmpf-hurmpf!
https://images.app.goo.gl/cfFy48uWHC7nYvAn7

Sponsored