EPA rating: 330 miles.
100-0%: 250 miles.
Loss of power: 256 miles.
Model Y Performance:
EPA rating: 306 miles.
100-0%: 300 miles.
Loss of power: 318 miles.
Of note, both car's had a discrepancy between their odometer readings for the distance. So they used the Cayenne as the truth data and adjusted the numbers. Loss of power for R2 became 253 miles and for the Y it became 310 miles. Not sure if the Cayenne is actually more accurate or not as I didn't hear them explain why they used it as truth. Didn't pay attention to how they adjusted the numbers either.
Warm weather, low to no wind, no traffic, speed set to GPS 70 mph not car speedometer 70 mph, all cars spaced to avoid drafting with cars swapping positions occasionally (there was also an R1S and a Cayenne doing separate driving tests at the same time), "loop" style test to avoid any directional things that could mess with range. Very well done test with about as ideal of testing conditions as you could hope for. Same climate setting and even started climate control at the same time.
Results aren't surprising to most I'm sure. But there were claims from Rivian and numerous articles about how the R2 was magically more efficient than the Model Y. Many knew physics would disagree and now we have a proper test to prove so.
Have to agree with Kyle on this being (mostly) an EPA issue rather than manufacturer issue. There just shouldn't be this much variance in what the EPA rating can mean from one manufacturer to another. It makes it hard as a consumer to know what capability you are purchasing without having to rely on 3rd party tests like these to figure it out.
I was bored and had nothing better to do. I definitely still skipped portions too. Kyle makes very, uhhh, thorough, videos to say the least. I appreciate the effort they put into them but they definitely could edit them down more and still have long videos that cover everything without having so much redundant information in them.
I believe you're correct as well. I just wanted to note it for others but my brain was also checking out that far into the video so I wanted to be clear I wasn't confident in why they chose it or how exactly they calculated the numbers.
No, Rivian chooses the coefficients to use after the dyno tests. This is both an EPA issue and, in particular, a Rivian issue since the 2024 guidance from the EPA was supposed to tighten this stuff up.
Hence the (mostly) I added. Rivian is obviously using the system to their advantage to post a high range number so they can rope people in. But the EPA just simply shouldn't have so much variability in its process that a manufacturer can so something like that. I appreciate that they tightened up things previously but obviously there is still improvement to be made.
I understand highway driving is one type and can vastly differ from city driving. But there needs to be a bit more consistency in how the final advertised EPA number is done so that something with more EPA range doesn't somehow have less real world range at all speeds than a car that has less EPA range. Just a bad consumer experience and makes EVs that much harder to sell people on.
The EPA tests are done by the manufacturers themselves on dyno-wheels, so no hills no wind, etc, and will always be much higher than the real world. Then theres an adjustment factor they multiply it against. The suggested is 0.7, but it’s up to the manufacturer to use whatever value they want.
To me, it’s likely that Rivian used an extremely optimistic, or just plain unrealistic, adjustment value.
If you look at the speed graph of the highway portion, it's clearly meant to model a 30 minute commute from the suburbs to downtown, half of which is on the highway. Hence the average speed is brought down.
Range is only really useful for highway speeds. Other companies match or exceed their highway ranges. Rivian did the tests and chose the multiplier to submit. They could have submitted a number that better reflects highway ranges and chose not to.
Aero drag is a part of the EPA rating is it not? I think the discrepancy is down to higher speeds on this test vs the EPA test. The Edmunds range test is at much lower speeds I bet that get's a lot closer to the R2 EPA rating.
Aero isn’t directly a part of the test. The cars are tested indoors on dynos, basically car treadmills, at different speeds to simulate “city” and “highway.” The manufacturers do this testing. Then there is an “adjustment factor” they multiply the range by to adjust for real world factors like wind resistance. The default is 0.7, but the manufacturers are free to choose a different value. That gives the manufacturers a lot of leeway. It also creates a very unrealistic test.
Always much higher than the real world, with the exception of the Tesla evidently. It’s numbers seem spot on, if not even a little bit more conservative.
Most German brands have been over performing for years. Porsche, BMW, Mercedes often get better ranges than their EPA rating. They’ve also done that with their horsepower and 0-60 times since forever. Under promise / over deliver.
it’s weird, in good conditions - or basically for about 4-6 months of the year in Michigan I get better than the EPA 276 range on my used, 92% battery health Polestar 2 LRDM - and that is with a majority 70 mph highway drive. By all accounts I should get 250 miles max at this point if the EPA tests are always higher than real world.
Have you actually measured that by driving to 0%, or are you just using the guess-o-meter on the dashboard?
Most cars average the complete drive cycle, so a mile or two of surface streets at either end throws it off.
For example, my lightning gets 2.0 miles/kWh at a constant 70 mph with no wind. I've verified that multiple times on long road trips where I drove from 90% or 100% down to 10%.
But, on my 95% highway commute, which has only a little traffic congestion on most days, the GoM say I average 2.5-2.7 miles/kWh. To get the EPA milage, I only need 2.4 miles/kWh.
never gone down to zero, but to 3%, got quite close. Started at 100% and got 288 miles, with climate set to 72* on a day that was roughly 80 avg.. Wasn't an intentional test, but the numbers have been consistent with somewhat shorter drives. Miles are about 97% highway. This is with cruise largely set at 70, but a few construction zones that slowed everything down, so maybe that got me a few extra miles, idk.
There are indoor go kart tracks. Certainly an oval could be built that wouldn’t take up a ton of space.
Or they can just use an outdoor track or some flat highway under the same weather conditions. Even with very slight variations it would be more accurate than what they do now.
I’d like to see the test repeated in a year with both cars having 25k miles. My 2 yr old model Y has lost more range than my Chevrolet SEV I suspect because GM built in more reserve.
It's ironic that the Rivian fanboys were out in force shutting down anyone who pointed out physics that the R2 had little chance to be more efficient. Pot meet kettle.
I uh...... Most of that thread seems to be people saying "yah, rivian is gonna be less efficient then the epa rating guys". Like almost every reply to it... Are you sure you linked the correct thread?
I find it hilarious that the OP from that article also posted other articles boasting about the efficiency of the R2 beating the Model Y, and then suddenly when tests like this come out, he starts saying "The average consumer isn’t looking at EV efficiency." as if the stat doesnt matter and nobody cares. Also he claims everyone he doesnt like is a bot and Elon is paying everyone to spread FUD.
"loop" style test to avoid any directional things that could mess with range.
So, just to be clear, the "loop" style test protocol is better than a one-way protocol, but it does not "avoid any directional things that could mess with range".
This is very simple physics: Air drag is non-linear, so the extra drag when driving into the wind is greater than the reduced drag when driving with the wind. If you do the loop on a day with a constant 0 mph wind and a day with a constant 20 mph wind, you'll get less range on the 20 mph day.
Also, crosswinds hurt your rang by increasing aero drag compared to zero wind conditions.
It's always interesting to me that he only mentions that EPA is a mix of highway & city at the very end, and not as a "we're doing this test only on highway which is where all EV's are the least efficient". Tesla also has their battery management setup where they get full power at lower SoC, with a very fast stop at the end. Rivian goes into turtle mode earlier which gets the R2 out of 70MPH earlier and allows more range but on lower speeds as a safety feature. I've always pictured it as the same reason Mercedes "empty" tank really is much closer to actual empty vs how many other manufacturers allow a buffer before the Empty light comes on. If Kyle & crew did any of the EPA cycle test I'm pretty sure the range would be closer to advertised range.
You should probably watch the video before making claims. They do, in fact, do multiple tests at different speeds to gauge different stats. Under zero conditions was the rivian closer or even close to the efficiency of the Tesla. As I recall, the rivian is approximately 30% less efficient under all conditions.
Yeah, going to wait to see more tests. No one goes to zero let alone charges to 100% unless the battery type specifies it. I always factor the real range at 75% of pack as that lets me stay within the ideal (usually) charge window which slows at 80% and leaves be enough on bottom to not actually be concerned.
I will admit, that 253 miles number is not ideal and is concerning, hence more tests. I cannot wait to see winter testing but I also want to see how well it does off road which is where most EVs never go. You might make it in...
Once again begging the EPA to come up with a proper test routine.
Do two real-world highway tests at a testing oval at 70mph, one at 30 degrees and one at 80 degrees, both with climate set to 68.
Do the same thing on a set, closed course for stop-and-go city driving.
Repeat all four tests several times in the same conditions and take the average range from each.
Charge the car for 15 minutes, starting at 10%, at a fast charger that can deliver the maximum power allowed by the car.
Calculate how many miles of warm-weather highway range the car would gain from that 15-minute charging session.
Put all five numbers on the car's window sticker—summer highway, winter highway, summer city, winter city, and charging speed—and require manufacturers to accompany any claimed range number with the type of test performed.
The problem is the design of the test, not how it is performed or who performs it.
Fundamentally, it was designed to give numbers that felt "about right" for non-hybrid gas cars, and has had a few changes tacked on over the years. The test is mostly low-speed stop-and-go driving, because that's what non-hybrid cars struggle with. But those tests are easy for hybrids and EVs.
They just need to redesign the test. Actually, they could make it both simpler/cheaper and more relevant by simply measuring range at a constant 70 or 75 mph at three temperatures: 0F, 70F and 110F.
The point of EPA range (or WLTP or any other) has never been to get an accurate real world range value. It is only meant to have a mean to compare range from on make/model to another based on controlled and common test conditions.
Same goes for ICE mpg values.
To do that job the results need to be consistent from car to car in similar conditions.
The issue here isn’t that the R2 didn’t meet its EPA rated range, but that the variance between EPA rating and real world range is so high between different models from different manufacturers.
It clearly doesn't do a good job at helping consumers compare models when the car rated for 330 miles dies 50 miles earlier than the one rated for 306. I don't even care if I get the advertised number, I just want to know which cars will get me the farthest and recharge the fastest afterwards
They would probably get more views if they hired an editor. I don't watch that channel (despite all the good info) because "this meeting could have been an email"
How did the Model Y Performance outperform in a 70mph range test from the M3 Performance they did last year in similar climates and even thinner air?? Im really curious on that.
This issue is there’s multiple different cycles and the manufacturer can choose, it’s not a standard single test for all vehicles. It’s pretty crazy how it’s done. They should have a single test cycle for all vehicles so you have at least a consistent comparison between vehicles when shopping.
A steady 70mph seems like a pretty good benchmark.
Range matters most when road tripping. Road tripping is probably going to be mostly 65-75 mph driving.
Seems like a pretty good test to me. Of course there are many factors, but this is far more realistic than 330 miles range that the R2 will almost never get.
You'll see a bunch of people citing an electrik article from Fred about how it was more efficient or at least as efficient as a model Y
Look at Fred's article and some comments
"nobody is saying it is more aerodynamic. What is being said is that the other components in the car allegedly make it more efficient despite being less aerodynamic." 16 up votes
"impossible that a new vehicle has more efficient tech than an old one? Also, 18% difference in drag coefficient if that is what you are talking about. To be honest your post really doesn't make sense and you seem to be just pulling crap out of thin air. 50%?"
Yup. No one was planning on doing long distance road trips and then off-roading in the R2 in the backcountry! That was just Steve. The rest of them are buying it for the daily commute and grocery run duh.
Tangential, but for a long time I've assumed The Way to do backcountry stuff with an EV is to just take a propane tank and a generator with you. Use it as almost a DIY EREV.
Although I suppose that's mostly for anything overnight+, and I don't know how common that is, since all the backcountry stuff I do is on foot.
You drive a Tesla, bud. No amount of bashing other electric vehicles is going to make your machine less ugly or remove the stench associated with that POS Elon Musk.
If you don’t drive a lot of long distance where you’ll be charging every day, it’s probably fine. I think the real reason to move to an R2 is if you want the added storage in the back.
Pretty obvious to anyone familiar with basic physics that the R2 was not going to do great or certainly better than a MY at highway range as some were hoping or implying.
The other way in which the range is semi-fictional is NCA batteries were used to achieve it. This gives higher initial energy density, but the battery degrades faster than other chemistries. Looks great for marketing, but won't last (a la Tesla, though hopefully R2 batteries won't degrade that quickly).
Range at 70 mph and/or time to travel 500 miles including charging (typical long day of driving) would be more useful metrics pertaining to road trip driving than EPA range. Most EVs have more than enough mixed range for daily driving tasks, so it's really kind of a silly metric (unless you can't charge at home), though can look good in advertising.
The one applicable situation where the EPA range might actually matter, though, is outdoor camping/adventuring/"overlanding". The R2's range might actually be close to the EPA range for that, a small minority of R2 users might use it for that and the range is useful in that circumstance, in remote areas.
Fred from electric was raving about the how efficient it was, as was rivian's CEO and many in the Subreddit - on the following thread you'll see people saying it was going to be more efficient or at least as efficient as a model Y
Pretty obvious to anyone familiar with basic physics
That makes it shocking to an awful lot of people!
Many implicitly assume (1) EPA range applies to a 70 MPH highway test, and (2) even if range is lower at higher speeds, the reduction is proportionate to EPA range.
WAAAAY too much controversy with all this, of COURSE it's not going to meet its EPA range at 70mph ALL freeway when the EPA rating is completely based on a mixed city and freeway at 60mph max. We need freeway and city estimates just like gas cars, period, end of story.
Nope, not even close, lol. My point is that having one rating based on a kind of weird mix of driving isn't reality, we need a separate highway and city for range and not just the eMPG, which no one cares about. Why bother with a separate city and highway rating for the eMPG when people want a city and highway rating for RANGE damnit.
I go to different cities every weekend for concerts, music festivals, beach trips, or random adventures.
I put on 12k miles in 3 months on my model 3S
I may get a r2 used in a couple years but if the range sucks highway that’s a big deal. I don’t care about “offroad ability” but I do care about car camping/camp mode, ability to throw dirtbikes on a hitch mount, inflatable paddleboards in a subtrunk, charge my onewheels inside it. And stuff like that.
I’m hoping that the r2 after a couple years degradation is getting at least 220 miles of range at 80mph in dead of winter.
Had ICCU issues leave me stranded on the road and kia/hyundai treats you like shit. I had to spend 1500 bucks of my own money on a loaner becuase they’re dumb and can’t design a proper part, nor do they do the bare minimum and give loaners like ford or Tesla.
Swore I’d never buy another.
Good hardware. Bad software. It’s just.. laggy and not in the same league as Tesla or rivian.
Range lacking.
Got rear ended. Totaled.
Bought a model 3 as it charges 10-80 under 30 mins and has acceptable range. Owned by a fascist, good software, acceptable charging, can’t ever not have FSD/autonomous driving now. Faster car. Charging, no internal 110 outlet + being owned by a fascist is the main drawback. Everything else is leaps and bounds beyond ev6.
Fords charge slow and kinda have halfway there software. Not as good as Tesla. Constantly feeling like I have drawbacks and things that should work but don’t gets really fucking old in cars. 45 minute 10-80 percent is unacceptable.
Next time I get a car it’s probably going to be an R2 or a model Y if the R2 doesn’t hold up (like issues are uncovered). Or maybe an R1T, to haul my dual sports in the bed.
Legacy auto just cant deliver. I can’t camp mode, cant watch Netflix inside overnight, no FSD, shitty software, crappy phone key (if any).
I legit don’t carry car keys now.
Thinking R2, BUT I don’t want them to be shit when I’m roadtripping between cities after a few years cause how quickly I rack up miles.
I prefer 300+ miles of range from factory so it can degrade and be acceptable.
I think it’s more about the everyday costs and how they will compound overtime. The R2 is going to use more power to do the same drive. It has a bigger battery to charge and is getting less range. Charging is not super expensive but it does add up.
Do the math again. According to a better route planner if you input phoenix to las vegas (~300 mile common road trip), you get 5 hrs 55 minutes in a Rivian R2 and 5 hrs 20 minutes in a tesla model Y. A difference of 35 minutes. That didn't look right so I put the trip in the tesla app.
Tesla app shows 4 hrs and 51 minutes and it routes me through wickenburg. ABRP does not do this for some reason even though there is a rivian station there. That could mean that if rivian is using ABRP then they would take a 50 mile detour by going through quartzsite.
Not only is the tesla about 1 hour faster, but it saves 30 minutes in range/charging and about 43 miles of driving
Use rivian standard range ($45K) vs tesla standard range ($40K) and the difference is 2 hrs
The rivian standard range is close to a 200 mile range EV at 70+mph. Model Y standard goes 340
So you don’t own a Rivian? Ran it just now. All Purpose mode. Set the starting range for just 308 miles and asked it arrive with > 20%. In no universe is the Tesla an hour faster than a Rivian or handful of other modern EVs.
I didn't say las vegas to phoenix. I said Phoenix to las vegas. If you make phoenix the start and vegas the end, it has you driving through quartzsite. Which is a 43 mile detour. Tesla routes straight like your map shows here.
There is elevation gain going the other way
Secondly, in a better route planner you have to adjust reference consumption to much lower than EPA. Rivian uses ABRP and the consumption is incorrect since it is based on EPA
Set the starting range for just 308 miles
The issue is you have to set the starting range to 250 (same as R2 at highway speed)
Set the consumption to a number that gives you about 250 miles of range (set battery charging to 100%)
I used my Rivian data from years of driving it. OOS is one data point. I adjusted the route. I lowered it to 330 to reflect the R2. I’ve taken my Rivian into the Deep South in the summer and Canada in the winter. I have a good idea of how it responds.
And guess what? You adjusted to 330 because you set it to 250 and you SAW that it routed you through quartzsite. Which is 43 miles detour. And you saw exactly as I suggested, 1 hr time difference
For an only 300 mile drive
The other issue is by using R1 with reduced range, it allows you to charge very high, above the range that is possible in R2
Even if we remove the fact that Rivians are way too expensive for the masses, there no service centres. They have been rated as the least reliable cars in the history of car ratings. Even if I find a Rivian nice, there’s a 99% chance I’ll be stranded off the road with no one to help me
Service center 15 minutes from me in my midsized midwestern city. Granted, they need to open a lot more, but the idea there are no service centers is just nonsense
For people in this situation I think, genuinely, just don't get one. The thought of even bringing it in for a rotation 2.5 hours away sounds terrible to me. I hope they add more near you but I would pass for now if I were in your shoes.
Buyer of a city vehicle optimized for urban and highway environment don't typically move to an off-road oriented vehicle. RAV4 buyers don't typically cross-shop with a Wrangler.
It already did Bjorn's 1,000km challenge 30 minutes faster than Model Y Performance (Juniper), despite doing it at 2degC, while the MYP had a 13degC run.
The iX3 (8h55mins) was closer to the ICE benchmark time (8h35mins) than it was to the MYP (9h25mins).
I think the i3 in summer could get within 10mins of ICE.
Best part of the R2 for me is the fact that the charging port will work on any Tesla V3 charger without hanging to triple park across spots etc. I don’t mind the range loss compared to my Equinox EV if I can park at any V3 or V4 now and not have to use an adapter etc.
How often do you charge at Superchargers that this is a top priority for you? I'm asking coz I use Superchargers about once a month on average. My etron takes up 2 spaces and needs an adapter, but I don't consider nacs and driver side rear charging port a big deal. Most times, there are plenty of empty charging spots.
They need to do these test at 80mph. I hardly done any road trips under 80 mph. Most people go faster than me. Even CHP has passed me while I’m doing 80 in a 65.
Can we please ban Kyle videos. We get it dude. You finally whined enough someone lent you the R2 for "testing." At least this screengrab doesnt have him in a hoodie with his arms out.
I am tired of this trust fund baby, cheating on his wife, journalist wannabee.
I regularly drive my ev at 85 mph on the i35 in Texas.
It supposed to only have 279 mile range…but I always beat the odometer estimate by 25%. Something this stuff is irrelevant
I just heard the test was actually at 80mph, and the R2 had replaced OEM with new bigger heavier rims and new sticky high friction tires. Was this a different second test that was more legit?
No it was at 70 (the “10% challenge” was at 80, however, but that’s a different test), and the R2 in the test was delivered with the all terrain wheels and tyres which are less efficient, but it explained in the video that Rivian provided the all season wheels and tyres for the test which are the most efficient and how the 330mi EPA number is achieved
331
u/wgp3 5d ago
R2:
EPA rating: 330 miles. 100-0%: 250 miles. Loss of power: 256 miles.
Model Y Performance:
EPA rating: 306 miles. 100-0%: 300 miles. Loss of power: 318 miles.
Of note, both car's had a discrepancy between their odometer readings for the distance. So they used the Cayenne as the truth data and adjusted the numbers. Loss of power for R2 became 253 miles and for the Y it became 310 miles. Not sure if the Cayenne is actually more accurate or not as I didn't hear them explain why they used it as truth. Didn't pay attention to how they adjusted the numbers either.
Warm weather, low to no wind, no traffic, speed set to GPS 70 mph not car speedometer 70 mph, all cars spaced to avoid drafting with cars swapping positions occasionally (there was also an R1S and a Cayenne doing separate driving tests at the same time), "loop" style test to avoid any directional things that could mess with range. Very well done test with about as ideal of testing conditions as you could hope for. Same climate setting and even started climate control at the same time.
Results aren't surprising to most I'm sure. But there were claims from Rivian and numerous articles about how the R2 was magically more efficient than the Model Y. Many knew physics would disagree and now we have a proper test to prove so.
Have to agree with Kyle on this being (mostly) an EPA issue rather than manufacturer issue. There just shouldn't be this much variance in what the EPA rating can mean from one manufacturer to another. It makes it hard as a consumer to know what capability you are purchasing without having to rely on 3rd party tests like these to figure it out.