The Rivian R2 Performance on the 21-inch all-season tires is rated at 330 miles of EPA range, and in a real 70 mph highway test this past weekend, mine returned 253 miles from a full charge to dead. That is a 77-mile gap, which is a lot more than I expected when I walked into it.
I spent the weekend in North Carolina with the Out of Spec crew, running a bunch of tests on my R2, and the 70-mph range test was the one I was most curious about. The setup for this kind of test is pretty standard. We charged the R2 to 100%, and we did the same with a Model Y Performance so there was something to sit next to it. The moment charging wrapped, we got on the road with the climate set to 68 degrees on Auto and the R2 in Conserve mode, which is the drive mode you want if you are chasing the best possible number. To keep elevation and wind from skewing things, the route runs in one direction and then turns around and comes back the other way, and you keep doing that until the vehicle has nothing left to give.
On the R2 we hit 0% and it kept going for a little while past that before turtle mode kicked in. Once turtle mode showed up,, the power cut off almost immediately, and I could no longer hold 70 on the highway, so that was the end of it. The final number was 253 miles from 100 to fully dead.
Now, there are variables here that I am not going to pretend away. Wind, traffic, the HVAC running, the weather that day, all of it plays a part, and none of it was controlled in a lab. This was not a perfect environment. But the world is not a perfect environment either, and a number that comes out of a real drive is worth more to me than one that only exists under ideal conditions.
Still, 253 against a stated 330 is disappointing to see written out so plainly. And the part that bothers me is not really about my R2. It’s about the person sitting on the Rivian website right now, looking at that 330-mile figure and building a mental picture of what ownership is going to feel like.
They will not, and that is not a Rivian-specific problem, which is honestly the frustrating part of all this.
My takeaway is that EPA range estimates are not something you should ever plan around. They are generated under conditions designed to make the automaker look as good as possible, and that is true across the board, not just here on the R2. If you are taking a road trip, use the built-in navigation and let it decide where you stop. It plans around real conditions, and it will land far closer to reality than the sticker number ever will.
And to be fair, most people will be completely fine. The day-to-day driving most owners actually do never gets anywhere near the battery’s edge, so this whole thing ends up being a non-issue for them. Where I keep landing is on the EPA itself. The testing methodology and what it allows manufacturers to publish are the real issues here, not Rivian specifically. Until that part changes, we are going to keep running into the same gap with every new EV that comes out, and I do not have much hope that it will change soon.
The fundamental challenge with nearly every EV is highway speed. Where I live, 75 mph is the normal flow of traffic, and that’s how I drive.
The question that matters isn’t the EPA range. It’s the usable range. Almost nobody plans to arrive with 0% battery.
So what does the real-world range look like at 70 mph if you keep a reasonable safety buffer? How many miles are actually available when the battery reaches 20%, 15%, and 10%?
I agree and was quite surprised by the way that Rivian measures range because as soon as 20% hit, the numbers were dropping like flies.
I think what’s important to know jose, is where were you at with 10%, 15% and 20% battery remaining? As a long time and current multiple R1 owner, I went into all of this realistic and expected a solid 20% below EPA for highway speeds.
People don’t arrive with 0% and they also don’t depart with 100% – except at the start of the trip and only if they have L2 charging available. The most practical range number for me on a trip with multiple DC charging stops is distance you get from ~80% to ~10%.
After watching Tom’s range test video it showed the EPA highway range with the 21” tires is 301 (highway) vs. 330 (combined city & highway). Therefore it was only 48 miles off highway EPA.
Since they tell you to only allow a battery to go down to 10%, and you should only charge to 80% for daily driving, I think the EPA sticker should also show 70% of the range, so as to compare with ICE range estimates. For ICE, it shows city, highway & combined. Why not show TOTAL and Daily Driving numbers?
How does this compare to the R1S range? How many miles at highway speed?
Confirms the BS I’ve always said about the 2024 R1T Max Pack and its deceptive 410-mile range. Rivian chooses the sweetest EPA test, and we suffer from misinformation. Very sad.
Agreed, Rivian has done their own range testing and knew what the actual range would be.
Since the EPA range number was higher they went with the EPA number. Deceptive practice!
I’ve been a reservation holder since the reveal and was given a date of September to spec out my R2 Performance. I’m having 2nd thoughts with going through with the purchase now.
I agree, 253 is a pathetic number. I hate say but this bothers me. My NX350h gives me over 40mpg..
Hello Jose,
Thank you for doing this. Really appreciate it.
I have been having the same issue with my R1S Tri Gen 2. I purchased it based on the EPA rating of 371 miles. In reality I don’t get even 280; that too at well under 70 miles on highways, and city driving in mild style. HVAV set to 72 degrees Auto. No seat heating/cooling, no load, single passenger. All purpose mode. Getting back to the same point in a fault even terrain so counter any elevation changes, wind speed etc.
Just for context, I got close to the EPA estimates in a R1S dual Gen 1. So it’s most likely nothing to do with my driving style and other conditions.
Didn’t they get over 350 @70 mph with the max pack? Why is yours do low??
Isn’t the 330 mi number the combined city/highway range? So even under ideal conditions, the highway range would be less than 330. 254 is a disappointment regardless, but maybe not as far off from comparable certification numbers. As someone who regularly makes a 335 mi point to point drive that’s 99% highway, I’m bummed at how low this number is. Was really optimistic I’d be able to get through that drive in the R2 with nothing more than a quick top up
Jose: I’m interested in how the Rivian R2 outcome of this effort compares with the Tesla Model Y Performance that was tested along side it.
I’d like to know this to. I think we all would since he mentioned it and then forgot to include anything about it in the final post.
318
MYP was a respectable 310
318
Disappointing. I was looking to purchase but this kills the deal. Time to get my deposit back.
Thank you Jose for continuing the great content (looking forward to seeing more of your R2 experience). This is really helpful for EV shoppers. To newbies, welcome to the world of EPA efficiency ratings. We have all been disappointed in our real world gas MPG ratings in the past too. I’m no expert but thought I would share this here. The EPA EV test is a “balance” of city (45%) and hwy (55%) driving. “Driving cycles: A driver or robot follows strict speed and braking blueprints: City cycle (UDDS): Replicates stop-and-go urban driving with an average speed of 21.2 mph. Highway cycle (HWFET): Replicates smoother highway driving up to 60 mph with an average of 48.3 mph.” Obviously much like gas MPG ratings, this does not reflect how we drive in the real world. Now I’m curious how this compares to the euro test. But some manufacturers exceed their EPA ratings both in gas and EV don’t they?
Jose, thank you so much for putting the R2 through the paces. As a first-time EV buyer, to say this is personally disappointing for me is an understatement. I’m waiting for my R2 number to be called next month, and these numbers certainly make me second guess my decision.
I have a long commute and tack on around 30,000 miles per year. There are just too many competitors with similar/better real world range, much lower cost, and trade-offs I could probably live with for me to give Rivian a pass on this. I love the Rivian looks, ethos, and what the brand stands for. However, I’m not sure the R2 holds up to the adventure-ready machine it was promised to be.
Maybe I’m overreacting, but my dreams of adventuring on extended trips out West definitely seem a little less achievable at the moment.
R2 has a lot of pros but I can totally see what you mean here. I drove 2500 miles and never really ran into issues, I stopped to charge for about 15-20 minutes per stop and was on my way. If you are looking to stop less, then yes I can see wanting something with more range.
Great to hear about your road trip experience, and this gives me hope. Based on past experience, any thoughts on what the winter range hit might be? We get very cold winters where I am from for 2-3 months per year.
There will be a range hit but we’ll have to do more winter testing to see just how bad.
We live at 8000’ in the Sierra Nevada. The colder temp hit is < 10 miles.
Jose, what do you make of the much more
optimistic results of the state of charge people?https://evchargingstations.com/chargingnews/rivian-r2-range-test/
I would really like to see the test run on more R2. Seems like in terms of efficiency yours wasn’t tuned as well as others. What are your thoughts? In your drive home what kind of efficiency numbers where you seeing.
Just like the test we did, different location, elevation, temperature, and traffic. We could run this test a variety of times and get different results every time. The question is how can we get closer to the EPA results while being realistic?
Did you try conserve mode?
I did run in conserve mode although we’ve yet to fully understand what it does on R2
This is lower than I expected but in the text you keep saying “the EPA”numbers but the test isn’t 100% highway…I’m curious what the actual replica, at least percentage of highway/city comes out to. The whole battery estimate/mileage thing needs to be better reported regardless. It’s annoying that after a year or two that’s not even possible bc of degradation.
While it is nice to know what the range is at 100% charge, if you are trying to be realistic, you should charge it to 80% and see what the range is with that. Rivian recommends a daily chart charge of 80%. While you say the average person would not have a problem with that range, I tend to disagree. Having to charge up every 3 or 4 days is a great inconvenience. I think rivian needs to consider a better battery and much more range.
Good article.
Really sad about the results, did a quick comparison with the numbers from State of Charge and they are quite similar only with the All Terrain tires.
Now, should I re-think of getting the R2 with it’s average range of 250 miles (from OOO and SoC numbers) or just get it cause it fits my use case for this point in time.
Just rewatched the video. After roughly 3.5 hrs of driving and at a SOC of 10% you drove 230 miles that is fine by me. That is stopping at a Buc-ee’s to stretch and recharge.
Feels very… Class-action-ey…
I know this is about Rivian and EV range but ICE cars, namely the off-road SUVs, have been far below EPA range for years. I’ve owned and driven several Toyotas that claim EPA of x mpg, but it’s super well documented that those figures aren’t achievable unless rolling downhill.
I’m a firm believer that the EPA should have a city range and a highway range. They already have it for MPGe, so why publish the combined range?
This is the biggest problem I have with the car. If I want to stay within the 20-80% range and the realistic highway range is 253 miles, then that’s stopping every 150 miles. In the winter, I drive to my ski mountain 2x/month. There’s probably a 20-40% penalty for freezing temps, 6000ft elevation climb, and traveling with a roof box to fit all the ski equipment. So now, that’s probably 90-120 mile range. Now, that’s stopping every 1-2 hours.
By such conservative calculations, a 300 mile range means you stop every 180 miles. Then with a 20-40% penalty you’re in the 108-144 mile range. That’s also stopping every 1-2 hours.
In fact, you don’t crack the guaranteed 2-hours mark (140 at minimum) using this formula until you hit 400 (!) miles of real-world range (and then it becomes 2-2.5 hours instead, which doesn’t sound much better). Not to mention one conservative extra stop 6 trips a year seem like a pretty good biggest problem to have.
A highway test will never come out even close to EPA numbers, especially for an EV. Average driving is not highway. I know you are home now, but another test of mixed driving with an average of 45mph or less would be a good one for Kyle to do. On the highway, you are recovering very little, if not NO regenerative power and burning added power in windshear. Regen is needed to get near to that EPA estimate.
Totally, I gotta do a “city range test” haha
The Model Y beat its EPA in the exact same test…
I think it matters how you drive it as well.
Just because you average 70 miles an hour in a continuous doesn’t mean you’re not jumping off the line at every stop.
That said, my R1 S that I’ve had for three years now consistently gives me close to 300 miles on the highway if I keep it at 70 or under. That is calculated from multiple recharges and using the full kilowatt hours of my battery as reference.
SLOW DOWN!!! EPA range, even the highway range, is not based on 70mph. And everyone knows your range drops significantly as you drive faster. It’s not an EPA problem. It is the author not understanding what the EPA range means.
Did you watch the video? The testers of the car fully understand the EPA numbers and all the issues with them. The test compared the Model Y with the R2 side by side and the range/efficiency on the Y completely destroyed the R2. Additionally, the Y EXCEEDED its EPA rating while the R2 didn’t get anywhere close to its own. Clearly Tesla chose to publish realistic EPA numbers while Rivian used the most optimistic method of calculating EPA.
The EPA ratings are determined based on speeds between 48.3 mph and a peak of 60 mph (not 70 mph).
I believe the point is that the ratings should be more in line with real world speeds. Go even 60 on almost any interstate and have fun praying each car changes lanes and doesn’t rear end you.
I’d love the ratings to be City (35mph) and Highway (70mph) and then do an average. That would be a pretty good “real world” system to help most people understand what range they will get.
Yeah, you’re right. I was reading it as all EVs fall below what the EPA ratings say…but I see a comment above stating the Model Y exceeded the EPA rating. If that’s the case, then that is disappointing because I thought Rivian was usually pretty accurate with their range estimates.
Jose, thanks for publishing these numbers. The miles per kilowatt hour is better than my R1S, but the R2 range is still not where I want it to be for long range towing, etc. I got my invite yesterday morning to order my R2. However, I’m definitely going to hold off until they come out with a larger battery and see what the numbers look like then.
Very fair to gather data on what the max range is under those particular conditions but put it in context. The only passenger vehicle I’ve ever had that could do a legit 5 hours 400+ miles non-stop at 80mph was a Bimmer diesel X3. That thing was a soot machine and very few people want to go that long without stopping. For a more apples to apples comparison go to the landcuiser forum and read all the bitching about range anxiety. Toyota claims 24mpg hwy but many report they are getting 18-20. They whinge about class action lawsuits all the time there too. People think they drive gently when they really have lead feet. Rivian could be more transparent (so could Toyota) but if you want to get EPA numbers drive like it and ignore the hostility of your fellow drivers.
I’d be more concerned with the accuracy of the computer.
Once you got going, did the Rivian provide an accurate range so you knew in advance you had about 253 miles?
The Tesla exceeded EPA numbers. Not sure why you would leave that out of the article.
The range stuff is so overblown. I drive around 30,000 miles/year for work, and I have my battery set to charge to 70% every night, which is about 234 miles of range on my R1S. I used a super charger 6 times in 2025 on longer work trips. That’s it. Everyone panics about range, but the vast majority of people won’t ever get anywhere near 0%. Just like the author said. The average commute in the US for work is 32 miles round trip. Let go of the range anxiety, people. Let’s stop over blowing it.
I’d love to see this test repeated for both the 20″ wheels + factory All Terrain tires as well as those 20″ wheels but with an efficient all-season tire. Theoretically, the smaller 20″ wheel size with an efficient all season tire would give the lowest rolling resistance, but Rivian doesn’t offer that combination.
Look, this absolutely sucks. I was 100% buying an R2 and after all of this… it has given me great pause about going through with the purchase. I have a ’19 Model 3 AWD and I was really looking forward to getting close to the EPA rated range considering I never got more than 250 miles on my 310 mile range Model 3.
Just a quick observation though: the OOS video said you all were traveling almost consistently at 70 mph with very little regen because there was almost zero traffic and you got just over 250 miles of range to empty. Doing some quick calcs from the EPA website assuming a 88 kWh usable R2 battery pack:
R2 usable pack is 88 kWh (google search)
EPA states there are 33.7 kWh in 1 gallon of gas (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=50391)
R2 highway eMPG is 96 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=50391)
Therefore 88 kWh / 33.7 kWh per gallon of gas = 2.611 equivalent gallons of gas.
2.611 gallons X 96 eMPG = 250.7 miles of range… exceptionally close to what you got. Could the lack of regen due to traffic have played a part? It’s worth noting when you take the R2 city eMPG of 114 you only get 297.7 miles of range… so regen has got to play a part in all of this.
Just my two cents and this really really sucks a lot!
I agree The EPA rating is normally a little high. This article is a little misleading. The EPA rating is a combined highway and city driving your test was straight highway at 70 miles an hour, which is always gonna produce a lower range average. I think you needed to clarify that clearly in your write up and you did not.
This is very disappointing and troubling IMO. I have been driving a Gen 1 R1S for 3 years and have never had a result that poor on all highway EXCEPT when it’s WAY below freezing here in Minnesota. Considering this was done in July, this implies that the cold could chop off another 20% which is also normal for my R1S. Rivian is not going to win people over by overpromising and under delivering to the mass-market. I am really hoping that Rivian identifies an issue and fixes it OTA (they have bumped range before). Keep us posted, Jose!
Jose, Curious why you guys are quoting the combined range on a pure highway test and surprised it did not measure up. The highway rating on my R2 sticker is 96 MPGe which converts to 2.85 m/kWh, is there a specific reason this number was not used? Looks like you were pretty much dead on for that number.
The way I see it is when someone visits Rivian.com they see “estimated EPA 330 miles” and so that’s what they’ll expect.
Maybe these test should try to educate people how to read a sticker. Pretty bad to give Rivian a hit when they were pretty spot on for their rating.
You’ve inspired me to do a video on that!
Jose, the goal of EV coverage should be to educate, not perpetuate range myths but that’s exactly what you have done. To give a comparison, that’s like buying a phone rated for 24 hours of battery life and complaining when it dies in 6 hours because you spent the whole day streaming 4K video. Please be more responsibile in the future.
I’m so sorry you feel that way Scott, we were very honest with the data and presented all the facts for others to form an opinion. You can see it yourself in the video and article I wrote.
Appreciate the reply. Part of what I was referring to was your insistence of quoting a 77-mile gap and an expectation of 330 miles. The rated highway range was 301. This should have been the benchmark fair and square. Why you insist on the mixed EPA range doesn’t make sense, hence my phone battery analogy.
Nobody who has any knowledge about EVs expects to be able to drive a constant 70 mph and get close to the Combined EPA numbers. My Teslas always got way less than epa even in blended circumstances.
As others have noted, this is very concerning for me. We all know the EPA ratings are almost always on the high side but this is crazy. One of the routes I would be driving often (through SD along I-90) has a speed limit of 80 and you don’t dare go much slower than that. And the number of chargers is limited. Most of the Tesla SC’s are V2 so not compatible. And I would be putting the 20 AT’s on, so knock off another 20. That and I won’t risk driving it down to 0. May have to reconsider. This makes the Subaru Trailseeker look good and I though it was lacking in range.
Have driven EVs every day for 15 years now and EPA v real world has been this way since 2011. You learn quickly what’s most efficient for ICE cars is the worst case for EVs: highway driving. I just assume ~2.5 miles/kWh for EVs @ 75 mph, multiply that by the battery capacity I’m willing to use regularly then make sure my charging segments are no farther than that.
Charging has come a long way since 2011 so we travel far now in our EVs and long ago stopped fussing about range. The charging stops after ~2 hours of driving break up a trip, make each one less monotonous.
This is a flawed “experiment “ . Doesn’t reflect what EPA measures. Dangerous headline which could well put folk off ev adoption which seems reckless. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rivian opted to take you off their preferred list, with cause in my book.
100%
Most EVs EPA numbers do not reflect real-world usage. My Ford Mach-e GT has never delivered the promised 270 miles of range, so I can live with a little slop. 77 miles is a lot of slop, but we now know that’s a real number. Tom at State of Charge came up with a similar range on his test drive in Colorado (different variables). The much faster charging curve on the R2 will help mitigate some of this.
A lot of comments can be answered by watching the whole test video on the Out of Spec Reviews YT channel. It’s long, but every test control parameter is outlined up front and every iterative report at key milestones is included. I just fast-forwarded through the MY portions (don’t care that they have a very efficient vehicle; I ain’t getting a Tesla).
Wondering how many more miles the R2 would have gone by setting the AC to 72 instead of 68. That’s the temp I usually set to.
This is good information and I suspect most of the manufacturers have been leveraging the same, but one truck that has been a real positive supprise on range has been my 2024 Silverado EV 4WT (Max Battery) epa estimate of 450 miles. I’ve been able to get 2.1-2.2 mi/kwh at 70mph and with a 215kwh pack it exceeds the range published. No other vehicle has done this. I think they were trying to upsell to higher trim levels with higher published ranges….
I’ve been driving BEVs since 2017 and own several. As you’ve discovered, the EPA estimates are not at all realistic. I don’t think anyone can really hit them at all unless the BEV is in full conserve mode with no climate control and plenty of long downhill stretches. I generally subtract 20% from them on a new vehicle and then as they age it goes down from there. Case in point: my 2017 i3. 125 EPA range. Nowadays under the most ideal situation I get 75.
Thanks so much for doing this, Jose.
I’ve been really excited about the R2 (my order window is Sept/Oct) and was waiting with anticipation for Rivian Trackr and/or Out of Spec to get a vehicle and do this kind of testing, so when I saw the first video I was super excited.
Like some others however, the results are giving me pause about moving forward.
I’m a first-time EV buyer and range anxiety has been the primary reason I bought one sooner. Unlike a lot of people, we don’t use our car too much for city driving. Our main use is to travel between Chicago and Northern Wisconsin once a month (about 350 miles).
I’d love any advice or perspective you can offer as someone who is an expert in the EV space and who just drove a couple thousand miles in your new R2. The drive is about 30 miles is brutal Chicago traffic and the last 70 miles are between 55-65 MPH speed limit. The rest is 70 mph.
I don’t mind one stop (for 15ish minutes) along the route. We normally do that with our ICE vehicle now. Any thoughts on what is reasonable to expect (both in summer and winter)?
I’m a huge fan of Rivian and love the R2. I’ve driven it twice (test drives) and am beyond excited about the vehicle (more so than any other EV I’ve seen). But based on your experience with Kyle and the team, I’m now having second thoughts.
If you have a minute to offer any advice, I’d be really grateful. Thanks in advance and thank you again for providing such great content for all of us.
Hey Ron, thanks for commenting and happy to help you! Based on what you shared, R2 would work good for you guys. You might have to make a stop for a few minutes but honestly R2 is still a solid vehicle and as someone who did 2500 miles recently.
Hi Jose, I was unsettled when I saw this measurement you and Kyle made. Obviously day to day it didn’t matter, but for…adventures I was worrying it would. A question I have for you is: do you think the trip planner on the rivian site is accurate? I
Was worried about your results, and was thinking of changing to an R1 with max pack, but when trip planning a long trip the R2 ended up showing the same or less total time because of faster charging times. Does that make sense? If so then this is a non/issue for me. I also compared it to a model y on teslas trip planner for the same trip and the R2 also
Came in as a faster total time for the trip (21 hours and 20 minutes). So….given your data can I trust the trip planners data from rivian?
I find the Rivian navigation with R2 right now to not be very accurate in terms of arrival state of charge but that issue happened in R1 and corrected itself so I force this being improved with over the air updates for certain.
Since the R2 is rated for 301 highway of the 330 Combined Highway/City why would you not make 301 your story? We can go on and on that the EPA testing is flawed but I think it would be more helpful to call the test numbers what they are. You did a highway range test so I would think it would be better to just say the highway range test result (253) vs the EPA highway range (301). Still disappointing and I would love to see the range test with the 20’s.
So so disappointed in what Jose and OOS have done here. I’m all for transparency, but comparing a 70 mph flat-out highway test against the 330-mile combined EPA result (when the R2’s actual EPA Highway rating is only 301 miles) creates instant clickbait. And we know that’s all the internet cares about. Will the R2 ever match the Model Y’s aero at 70 mph? No. But the ‘test’ had a couple of serious flaws.
The R2’s tyres were barely broken in. Jose said he drove straight from factory pickup in Normal to the test site in North Carolina – 700-ish miles, nearly all from that one drive down. New tyres run meaningfully higher rolling resistance than broken-in ones, so that alone plausibly costs the R2 somewhere around 20 miles or more of real range, before wheel design or aero gets blamed for anything. Do we even know the Tesla’s 2,000-mile figure is accurate, or just rounded off a video? Either way, the two cars weren’t on equally worn rubber and that’s hugely significant and potentially a big source of the variance.
Plus this thing was just launched. BMS tuning and thermal management are still on early versions for a brand-new platform. OTA refinement over the next few months is a given.
Hi Jose,
Thanks for doing this testing, very eye-opening.
After watching the above video I got concerned about range and started looking into an R1 max-pack. What I seemed to discover, using Rivians trip planner online was that for a particular trip I would like to take the R2 on, the R2 could do it faster than an R1 max-pack. This is for a 1400 mile trip I’d like to take. So my big question is, can I trust the rivian trip planner times? If so it seems like the R2 charges faster. The trip planner never had me going more than 170 miles before charging again. I also compared it to the tesla trip planner for a model Y for the same trip and it seemed like it was a wash between the R2 and model Y. What can I trust?
I really appreciate the work you and Kyle are doing to bring some clarity to these real world concerns.
I roadtrip all the time in my 9-year old Model 3, which at this point is lucky to get 185 actual miles on a full charge. Long drives in an EV are all about charging locations and charging speed, as well as overcoming range anxiety – which is a HUGE factor for most new EV owners. Is 250 a letdown? Yeah, a little, but would that keep me from driving it wherever I want to go? Not a chance. Also, good on those guys for doing the test, but it certainly wasn’t without tons of variables. And chances are as the software continually improves and new tire/wheel options become available, that number will go up.
I noticed your window sticker said you’d have a 307-mile average range, so I’m confused on where this 330-mile range is advertised?
Jose, I believe that switching to a different wheel and tire configuration could potentially improve the range of the R2. Based on my experience owning a Model 3 Performance and a Plaid X, I found that swapping to forged lightweight wheels with removable aero covers and Hankook Evos significantly increased the range.I gained about 4 to 5% more range on both car setups. I drive the same route Gainesville Ocala 5 times a week. I am currently having a custom set made for my R2. Hope fully I’ll have some number is a couple months. Great job on the testing disappointed that Rivians EPAs are way off but it’s been similar with the Teslas as well. The 3 and X I owned never came close to the estimates unless I swapped the wheels out.
Thank you performing this test – it’s doing a great service for the entire community!
I’d highly encourage you (and every other new R2 owner) to log your numbers with the EPA’s FuelEconomy.gov website (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do) so that those of us contemplating an R2 can get a better idea of what the _actual_ MPGe of each trim level is.