We have had the vehicle a little over a month and non-stop issues. Was in the shop for 10 days and supposedly resolved the issues, but only 2 of the 4 issues resolved, but the 2 biggest issues still remain. We are losing 30% more charge in less then 100 miles of freeway only driving, flat terrain.

We drove 45 miles the first day after the supposed repairs and used 72. The next day we drove 60 miles and used 92 miles. Service and follow through is the worst I have ever experienced. First texting, then long waits to no avail on the toll free line. Press 1 for a call back and of course no call backs. Very, very disappointed in this purchase and would not recommend buying one to anyone. We love the vehicle, just can’t continue with the ongoing issues 🙁

Interesting how variable the Rivian experience is from one person to the next. I've had my gen 1 R1t for 2 months now and have about 1600 miles with zero problems . I'm getting the expected range but mostly non highway use so far. Love everything about it other than the customer service innaccesability and their unwillingness to respond to some of my questions. The truck itself so far is amazing.

 

We've had our Gen 1 R1S for just short of ten months, and have accrued 15,000 miles. Had a couple of minor service issues related to wind noise and also a rattle in the dash. Both fixed with one short visit to our Service Center. Have had both five point service checks so far done at home with no problems.

I know our experience is boring and completely devoid of drama. While I don't for a moment doubt that accuracy of what OP has described, it just isn't the experience of us all.

 

We drove 45 miles the first day after the supposed repairs and used 72. The next day we drove 60 miles and used 92 miles.

If you use "premium" miles to fill your tank then it will run better. It's worth the extra cost.

Seriously, what is this supposed to mean? You don't use up "miles" because you didn't put "miles" in your tank in the first place. You put in energy, measured in kWh. If you get less than the EPA range per kWh it's for the exact same reasons you would get less than the EPA range per gallon in an ICE vehicle. Have you ever in your life uttered a phrase like "we drove 60 miles and used 92 miles" about a gas-powered vehicle? I hope not. Instead you probably have said something like "I only got 12 miles per gallon on that drive". If you understand why you got fewer miles per gallon than the EPA number in your gas vehicle, then you should understand why you're getting fewer miles per kWh than the EPA number in your Rivian.

We are losing 30% more charge in less then 100 miles of freeway only driving, flat terrain.

So what do you see as the problem here?
Using 30% of your battery for 100 miles of driving equates to a full-charge range of 333 miles. That's well within what is advertised, depending of course on the size of your battery pack, on whether you have quad or dual motors, R1T or R1S, and type of tires/wheels. You don't mention any of those things, and don't say what you expected to happen, and you didn't say what the EPA rating is for your configuration, so we have no way of telling whether your expectations are reasonable. But you seem to think this is one of your "biggest issues"?

 

If you use "premium" miles to fill your tank then it will run better. It's worth the extra cost.

Seriously, what is this supposed to mean? You don't use up "miles" because you didn't put "miles" in your tank in the first place. You put in energy, measured in kWh. If you get less than the EPA range per kWh it's for the exact same reasons you would get less than the EPA range per gallon in an ICE vehicle. Have you ever in your life uttered a phrase like "we drove 60 miles and used 92 miles" about a gas-powered vehicle? I hope not. Instead you probably have said something like "I only got 12 miles per gallon on that drive". If you understand why you got fewer miles per gallon than the EPA number in your gas vehicle, then you should understand why you're getting fewer miles per kWh than the EPA number in your Rivian.


So what do you see as the problem here?
Using 30% of your battery for 100 miles of driving equates to a full-charge range of 333 miles. That's well within what is advertised, depending of course on the size of your battery pack, on whether you have quad or dual motors, R1T or R1S, and type of tires/wheels. You don't mention any of those things, and don't say what you expected to happen, and you didn't say what the EPA rating is for your configuration, so we have no way of telling whether your expectations are reasonable. But you seem to think this is one of your "biggest issues"?

It’s obvious you can’t do math. We are using 30% more miles than we are getting, with freeway use going with the flow of traffic. If we were towing something then I could see using that much more than we started with, mile for mile.

 

What were the problems? What was Rivian's response. You have multiple threads to complain but not really saying much. Hard to help without details

 

Not sure what happened to my reply earlier today, @Cb9894. Maybe it was part of a deleted duplicate thread with a similar title.

Short version:

(1) Incoming calls FROM me TO 855-RIVIAN-5 have all been answered promptly and responsively. Outgoing calls FROM Rivian Service TO me have mostly been good, with one exception. I stay on the line for a person, so I have no experience with their callback function.

(2) EPA range and mileage estimates are based on best-case scenarios of speed, ambient temperature, and aerodynamics. Few of us actually drive consistently by that best-case scenario, so most of us don't get the EPA-estimated range most of the time. Among EV companies, Rivian is considered one of the more honest about mileage and range.

(3) In its interactions with me, Rivian has consistently tried to do the right thing. Sometimes that was difficult for them, because sometimes I was afraid -- and because fear leads to anger, which is hard for Customer Service staff to process. But as I got more experience with Rivian, I relaxed -- and my interactions with Rivian staff got MUCH more satisfying for all of us.

I hope this helps!

 

T

Not sure what happened to my reply earlier today, @Cb9894. Maybe it was part of a deleted duplicate thread with a similar title.

Short version:

(1) Incoming calls FROM me TO 855-RIVIAN-5 have all been answered promptly and responsively. Outgoing calls FROM Rivian Service TO me have mostly been good, with one exception. I stay on the line for a person, so I have no experience with their callback function.

(2) EPA range and mileage estimates are based on best-case scenarios of speed, ambient temperature, and aerodynamics. Few of us actually drive consistently by that best-case scenario, so most of us don't get the EPA-estimated range most of the time. Among EV companies, Rivian is considered one of the more honest about mileage and range.

(3) In its interactions with me, Rivian has consistently tried to do the right thing. Sometimes that was difficult for them, because sometimes I was afraid -- and because fear leads to anger, which is hard for Customer Service staff to process. But as I got more experience with Rivian, I relaxed -- and my relationships with Rivian staff got MUCH more satisfying for all of us.

I hope this helps!

There are 2 different threads

 

It’s obvious you can’t do math. We are using 30% more miles than we are getting, with freeway use going with the flow of traffic. If we were towing something then I could see using that much more than we started with, mile for mile.

You said:

We are losing 30% more charge in less then 100 miles of freeway only driving, flat terrain.

If you think that sentence means you are "using 30% more miles then we are getting" then you need to take English lessons. And BTW, it's "than", not "then".

Again, there's no such thing as "using miles". You don't use miles. There are no miles in the tank to use up. You have a comprehension problem here, and unless you can provide details and pose the problem in a logical manner, the rest of us can only guess where your misunderstanding lies. The fact that you keep stating that you use x miles to go y distance is an indication that you don't understand what's happening, so how can you say it's a problem?

My guess is you're looking at the battery gauge behind the steering wheel and not realizing that this is a battery level, just like on your cell phone. There is no way the vehicle can tell you how far you can go with a particular battery % because there is no way the vehicle knows whether you going to be driving uphill or downhill, for example. Just like there's no way for your cell phone to say when the battery will run out, because it doesn't know how you will be using your phone. In the Rivian settings, there is an option that will display this battery level as % or as (% * EPA range), or as both simultaneously. If this is what you are looking at and thinking it's telling you how far the car can go, regardless of where you go or how you drive, then perhaps you should change the setting to % so it doesn't mislead you as to what it's really indicating.

 

You said:

If you think that sentence means you are "using 30% more miles then we are getting" then you need to take English lessons. And BTW, it's "than", not "then".

Again, there's no such thing as "using miles". You don't use miles. There are no miles in the tank to use up. You have a comprehension problem here, and unless you can provide details and pose the problem in a logical manner, the rest of us can only guess where your misunderstanding lies. The fact that you keep stating that you use x miles to go y distance is an indication that you don't understand what's happening, so how can you say it's a problem?

My guess is you're looking at the battery gauge behind the steering wheel and not realizing that this is a battery level, just like on your cell phone. There is no way the vehicle can tell you how far you can go with a particular battery % because there is no way the vehicle knows whether you going to be driving uphill or downhill, for example. Just like there's no way for your cell phone to say when the battery will run out, because it doesn't know how you will be using your phone. In the Rivian settings, there is an option that will display this battery level as % or as (% * EPA range), or as both simultaneously. If this is what you are looking at and thinking it's telling you how far the car can go, regardless of where you go or how you drive, then perhaps you should change the setting to % so it doesn't mislead you as to what it's really indicating.

Why get caught up in the semantics. Everyone knows what he's saying. Drive 60 miles and lose 90+ miles of range. Nobody cares about battery percentage unless you equate that to range...as in miles. We've had our R1S now since May of '23 and the range indicator has been significantly more accurate than our previous Tesla. If you are driving and keeping the Miles per kilowatt over 2...you should be getting the mileage shown. Rivian estimates the mileage base on that 2.0 (at least for the Quad motor Launch Edition) and it certainly should equate to real world range on average.

CB9894, use the graph on the driver display to monitor your energy usage. If you can't see a graph, hold the far left button down on the steering wheel and it will scroll through the different screens until it comes up. I think Rivian may have been optimistic with the other battery packs they've released and are using a different formula for range that is harder to actually achieve. I've see others complain about the range with dual motor large packs.

 

Kind of shocked the service center didn’t explain all this to him .. I have never expected that I would get 90 miles just because the display says it behind the steering wheel indicates that. It’s a ball park number. Because I know this is dependent on how fast I drive, how fast I accelerate at all times, wind conditions, and temperature. It is an estimate .. if I drive super slow and I coast down hills and gently accelerate and turn off the heater .. that 90 miles could turn out to be 95 to 100 if I’m on the other end of the spectrum driving fast .. flooring it from red lights .. a lot of stoop and go .. that 90 could be 60

 

Exactly. But if I keep my average above 2.0 miles per KW on that display, I absolutely expect to get the milage shown. In my experience it isn't far off at least with our Launch R1S. This is exactly how gas cars estimate mileage as well and we're all used to. Everyone knows that if it says 50 miles to empty and you start flooring it, you're not getting anything close. Funny after a track day with my McLaren I filled the tank and it told me I had 75 miles of range! Full throttle is like you are pouring gas out of a cup.

 

I think what the original poster is getting at (and I agree with) is that Rivian's "fuel gauge" misrepresents reality. I've kept records of my road trips and also get an average range that is 70% of what's on the dash. These road trips are "out-and-back" on the same, flat, MN road. The out-and-back being relevant because whatever uphill I may encounter on the way out I recover as downhill on the way back. Still, only 70%. I start with 350 miles and can only go ~250. And yes, I've made note of ambient temperature, wind conditions, traffic conditions, etc. and it's the same thing every time.

Another poster mentions that you don't use "miles" because you don't put "miles" in your car. Fair enough from a physics perspective, but here's the thing, Rivian and every other modern car maker shows your range in miles. So in my eyes, yes, I have a certain amount of "miles" in the tank regardless of whether they're propelled by gas or kWh. My wife's car is an Audi eTron and I took it on a 500 mile road trip this weekend. I got 95% of the range shown on the dash on the same, flat, out-and-back MN highway. My ICE Ram 1500 is also true to the advertised range on generally flat roads. In fact I usually get MORE range than is shown on the dash.

The point being, Rivian's range calculation is significantly off when compared to other companies and many of us have data to prove it. We all understand we're not going to get 100% of the range on the dash, but 70%? Unless someone on here truly believes they can go achieve 90%+ of the dashboard range I'm not sure why we're denying there's an issue.

 

Hi CB -

I went through the (somewhat painful) range learning curve when we first got our Rivian (Quad R1S) last December. It is our first full EV, though we've had a PHEV (Audi A3 e-tron) for a few years. When running around town and not succumbing to the urge to scare everyone in the car with the accelerator, the stated range is generally pretty spot on. At highway speeds, even on flat terrain, the efficiency goes way down. Throw in heat or cold (and running heat / AC), bikes on the back / skis on top, "travel" loads, etc., and the efficiency goes down even further. I sort of knew those things going in, but the reality of it was disconcerting on our first big road trips.

This summer, when driving from Idaho to SFO, with 4 bikes hanging off the back, gear for a 3 week trip in the bay and up in the Sierras, dog, kids, and temps well over 100 degrees, our practical range was around 65-75% of the nominal range displayed in the lower right corner of the dash, depending on winds and terrain.

When driving from Boise to Sun Valley (which is around 3000 feet higher), we usually get around 75% of estimated range. On the way back (net loss of around 3000 feet), it's better than the normal estimation (I did that drive yesterday - with bikes on the back - and the Efficiency screen said I averaged 2.96mi/KWh).

I got some great advice from a friend who uses his Rivian for a lot of longish trips: Ignore the mileage number on the dash, plug in your trip, and let the car plan for you. You'll stop more than with an ICE vehicle, but the app does a decent job of making the stops short (except in the intermountain west where the infra is still pretty terrible). I also find that even though long drives take longer than an ICE car, I arrive feeling less fatigued because i am forced to take a break every 2-3 hours.

Cheers!

 

Hi CB -

I went through the (somewhat painful) range learning curve when we first got our Rivian (Quad R1S) last December. It is our first full EV, though we've had a PHEV (Audi A3 e-tron) for a few years. When running around town and not succumbing to the urge to scare everyone in the car with the accelerator, the stated range is generally pretty spot on. At highway speeds, even on flat terrain, the efficiency goes way down. Throw in heat or cold (and running heat / AC), bikes on the back / skis on top, "travel" loads, etc., and the efficiency goes down even further. I sort of knew those things going in, but the reality of it was disconcerting on our first big road trips.

This summer, when driving from Idaho to SFO, with 4 bikes hanging off the back, gear for a 3 week trip in the bay and up in the Sierras, dog, kids, and temps well over 100 degrees, our practical range was around 65-75% of the nominal range displayed in the lower right corner of the dash, depending on winds and terrain.

When driving from Boise to Sun Valley (which is around 3000 feet higher), we usually get around 75% of estimated range. On the way back (net loss of around 3000 feet), it's better than the normal estimation (I did that drive yesterday - with bikes on the back - and the Efficiency screen said I averaged 2.96mi/KWh).

I got some great advice from a friend who uses his Rivian for a lot of longish trips: Ignore the mileage number on the dash, plug in your trip, and let the car plan for you. You'll stop more than with an ICE vehicle, but the app does a decent job of making the stops short (except in the intermountain west where the infra is still pretty terrible). I also find that even though long drives take longer than an ICE car, I arrive feeling less fatigued because i am forced to take a break every 2-3 hours.

Cheers!

I 100% agree with this last paragraph. When trips are in the navigation system I have always been at or above the estimated charge remaining when hitting charging stops or final destination.

In a gen1 quad R1T with 21’s driving in all purpose I have found range estimates to be spot on for around town and short highway drives. I’d even say the towing range estimates are very accurate towing a 7k pound wake boat to and from a lake that is an hour away and significantly uphill in one direction.

I could never trust the guess-o-meter in my M3 but in my 8 months of ownership I’ve been impressed with my R1T’s reliable estimates.

 

Rivian fared pretty well in estimated vs actual test range in a consumer reports article. Numbers are miles above or below estimated.

Mercedes-Benz EQE 350 4Matic, 2023

72

BMW i4 M50, 2023

47

BMW iX XDrive50, 2023

46

Mercdes-Benz EQS 580 4Matic, 2022

40

Mercedes-Benz EQE SUV 350 4Matic, 2023

31

Ford Mustang Mach-E Premium AWD Extended Range, 2021

29

Mercedes-Benz EQS SUV 450 4Matic, 2023

29

Rivian R1T, 2022

20

Volkswagen ID.4 Pro S AWD, 2021

13

Hyundai Ioniq 5 SEL AWD, 2022

11

Genesis GV60 Advanced, 2023

3

Kia EV6 Wind AWD, 2022

3

Nissan Ariya Platinum +AWD, 2023

−4

Hyundai Ioniq 6 SEL AWD, 20222

−5

Subaru Solterra Limited, 2023

−12

Kia Niro EV Wind, 2023

−14

Audi Q4 50 E-Tron Premium Plus, 2022

−15

Genesis Electrified GV70 Advanced, 2023

−16

Lexus RZ 4503 Premium, 2023

−18

Tesla Model S Long Range, 2021

−39

Lucid Air Touring, 2023

−40

Ford F-150 Lightning Lariat Extended Range, 2022

−50

Difference in estimated versus test range
Chart: Aimee Pcchi Source: Consumer Reports

 

Rivian may not be marketing well to first time EV buyers. if you had a tesla before, the range estimate is pretty good. Corvettes also have good gas mileage, until you floor it. First time EV drivers enjoy the juice in the beginning until it gets old. Likely impacts range perception as well.

 

Why get caught up in the semantics. Everyone knows what he's saying. Drive 60 miles and lose 90+ miles of range.

It's not semantics. The words used are a symptom that reflects the OP's underlying misunderstanding. If the OP doesn't make an effort to understand, then he is going to be forever dissatisfied with his purchase. If he doesn't understand, then there is nothing Rivian service can say or do to satisfy him. And in this case, it's HIGHLY likely that there is NO PROBLEM AT ALL with his vehicle, but that his expectations are completely wrong because he lacks knowledge.

And no, you don't "Drive 60 miles and lose 90+ miles of range" because the battery DOESN'T STORE RANGE. You NEVER HAD 90 range to begin with. You had a certain amount of kWh, and that kWh could be spent on different things. If you spend it going up a mountain, you don't get a lot of distance from it. If you spend it going DOWN a mountain, you get a lot of distance from it. The only number that has any truth at all is the kWh in the battery - the "miles" you get out of those kWh are extremely variable and dependent upon your route, your driving style, your speed, etc.

Let me make another analogy:
If I have $15 and take it to Costco I can get 10 Hot Dogs and 10 Sodas (with refill).
If I take that same $15 to the ballpark, I can maybe if I'm lucky get 1 hot dog and soda.
But no-one has ever said "I had 10 hot dogs in my wallet but was only able to get 1 when I went to the game". See how that works? Everyone understands money, and no one would expect that $15 gets you 10 hot dogs and 10 sodas everywhere.

Again, this language is something totally different than what you would read when talking about gas powered vehicles. It portrays EVs as some incomprehensible device that works differently than expected. If you can get past that and realize that EVs work exactly the same way as the gas powered vehicles we are all familiar with, then you will be much happier in life.

The point being, Rivian's range calculation is significantly off when compared to other companies and many of us have data to prove it.

Bullshit. Rivian's range calculation, specifically the range remaining that is displayed when you navigate to a certain location, is pretty much spot-on. I have 10,000 miles of road trips saved in a spreadsheet that confirms this. If anything, Rivian is extremely conservative in its estimates and will tell you you will have a lot LESS range when you arrive than you end up having in real life. That's because the range calculation in the navigation knows where you are going, knows the elevation changes, knows your drive mode, and has learned your driving style including how fast you usually go on highways. That's enough to make a reasonable prediction of how many kWh you will use and what you will have remaining at your destination.

Do you perhaps own a Tesla? Tesla is the only company that I know of that has systematically gamed the EPA rating system to try to make themselves look better. Every other company's EPA estimates are pretty much accurate in my experience. Both gas and EV.

 

It's not semantics. The words used are a symptom that reflects the OP's underlying misunderstanding. If the OP doesn't make an effort to understand, then he is going to be forever dissatisfied with his purchase. If he doesn't understand, then there is nothing Rivian service can say or do to satisfy him. And in this case, it's HIGHLY likely that there is NO PROBLEM AT ALL with his vehicle, but that his expectations are completely wrong because he lacks knowledge.

And no, you don't "Drive 60 miles and lose 90+ miles of range" because the battery DOESN'T STORE RANGE. You NEVER HAD 90 range to begin with. You had a certain amount of kWh, and that kWh could be spent on different things. If you spend it going up a mountain, you don't get a lot of distance from it. If you spend it going DOWN a mountain, you get a lot of distance from it. The only number that has any truth at all is the kWh in the battery - the "miles" you get out of those kWh are extremely variable and dependent upon your route, your driving style, your speed, etc.

Let me make another analogy:
If I have $15 and take it to Costco I can get 10 Hot Dogs and 10 Sodas (with refill).
If I take that same $15 to the ballpark, I can maybe if I'm lucky get 1 hot dog and soda.
But no-one has ever said "I had 10 hot dogs in my wallet but was only able to get 1 when I went to the game". See how that works? Everyone understands money, and no one would expect that $15 gets you 10 hot dogs and 10 sodas everywhere.

Again, this language is something totally different than what you would read when talking about gas powered vehicles. It portrays EVs as some incomprehensible device that works differently than expected. If you can get past that and realize that EVs work exactly the same way as the gas powered vehicles we are all familiar with, then you will be much happier in life.


Bullshit. Rivian's range calculation, specifically the range remaining that is displayed when you navigate to a certain location, is pretty much spot-on. I have 10,000 miles of road trips saved in a spreadsheet that confirms this. If anything, Rivian is extremely conservative in its estimates and will tell you you will have a lot LESS range when you arrive than you end up having in real life. That's because the range calculation in the navigation knows where you are going, knows the elevation changes, knows your drive mode, and has learned your driving style including how fast you usually go on highways. That's enough to make a reasonable prediction of how many kWh you will use and what you will have remaining at your destination.

Do you perhaps own a Tesla? Tesla is the only company that I know of that has systematically gamed the EPA rating system to try to make themselves look better. Every other company's EPA estimates are pretty much accurate in my experience. Both gas and EV.

I'm glad you're so lucky. I also have thousands of miles of data proving I get 70% of the range advertised on the dash...in Minnesota, on flat roads, at 75-degrees. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Or, if you're so confident all Rivians perform like yours, wanna trade?!

 

The obvious… how one drives (acceleration , deceleration, braking, etc), use of heat/ac/etc, and the external factors (wind, terrain, temperature, etc) affect actual range.

 

Correct - and that applies to any vehicle, EV or ICE. And don't forget tire inflation pressure.

One of the more puzzling things to me was that the OP said "freeway use going with the flow of traffic.." Now, in the 15 months and 24K miles that I have had my R1S, I have found that there are two factors that have the greatest impact on range. First, and everyone knows this, is speed. Even on relatively flat terrain, the driver can see the average mi/kwh drop as the speed increases. So "going with the flow of traffic" can mean a lot of things. One truly has to know the actual speed for this to be meaningful. Second is temperature. I was very surprised last year in a comparatively mild winter that my range was roughly 15% less than when the ambient temps are warm.

 

OP should find a level straight road and record his metrics. Then drive that stretch of road on a calm, temperate day while on driver+ at the legal limit or slightly below. Stop and record his metrics. Do the math using difference in SoC so calculate what he is really taking out of the battery pack per mile.
Everything you do -acceleration, hills, turning, tires, carrying or towing weight, even quality of road surface impacts on energy use. Only by taking up the variables will he know his best case usage.
Then he can examine if his behavior or local setting explains his numbers or if there’s actually something off kilter.
Im said to get 305. I actually get 280. In my area 30m deserts exist so only work with 250 in my thinking. But really try to only have gaps of 200 as I wish to avoid ever charging to 100%.
I do wish the drivers screen showed the following metrics-battery use at that moment and battery use per trip. The 15m usage isn’t that helpful. I would prefer metrics that might influence my behavior. 15m slices don’t do that and the graph isn’t helpful as you can’t correlate your behavior to the graph.

 

When we drove my wife's R1T from Maryland to its new home, we had headwinds in Washington State that reduced our efficiency to about 1.8 miles per kWh at 70 mph. Because R1T is so steady in the wind, we didn't realize how hard the R1T was working until we checked the efficiency.

I hope @Cb9894 is getting confident about the range he will and won't get under various conditions. These are amazing vehicles! Most of us are very happy, after we learn how to manage EVs. Fortunately, our family's Bolts since 2019 taught us most of what we needed to know to be happy with our Rivians.

Glad to see so much constructive input for our new Rivian owner!

 

We have a 2023 R1S Adventure Series; love it. No problems. In regard to EV mileage, as also a current Telsa owner (third Tesla; having owned a 3 an X and now an S); EV mileage is never what is promised or touted on screen or by the mfg. In Tesla, as in Rivian, one will see the estimated mileage number on the dash screen. E.g 300 miles. However, when driving, Tesla also provides a submenu screen which shows you “livetime" actual mileage you can expect to drive based on road conditions, your speed, outside wind conditions, temperatures, and any and all electronics you are making use of in the car. Notably Rivian does not provide this detailed screen. That true mileage you can expect to drive in the Tesla will invariably be quite different from the estimated mileage number that shows on the Tesla dashboard. E.g. on trips we would see we have available 300 miles to drive on the Tesla dash, but opening the submenu, the car shows that in actuality under the current driving conditions our “true" available drive miles is e.g. only 250. On trips we learned never to pay attention to the dashboard mileage estimate but to rely solely on the actual true mileage submenu screen and plan recharging stops accordingly. So even when Tesla (and Rivian) advertises that an EV model will get 350 miles on a single charge, just understand that is bluster. Your actual true mileage in any EV is going to be drastically affected by speed, road conditions, wind, weather, electronics and a barrage of other factors. It would be great and very nice if Rivian provided such a submenu “true mileage” screen for drivers as does Tesla, so Rivian could see at a glance what is the actual “true” mileage available at that minute to them. Greatly relieves the “am I going to be stranded” fear factor on guessing the EV mileage based only on the dashboard estimate.

 

Supplemental: many times in the Tesla S on trips, the “true” mileage subscreen would advise us in detail as to outside wind speed/direction, road elevation changes, temperatures outside and our use on interior electronics while driving and Tesla S itself would do the math and then issue a recommended speed that would provide us so many xxxx miles to reach our intended destination with so many xxx miles left in the battery. I would love Rivian to provide such an info screen!

 

I have had my 2025 R1S, dual motor, max pack for about 2 months and this thread has helped make sense of a few things for me. But first, a little background: This is my first EV, although I had done a pretty decent amount of research into them before my purchase. I knew that unlike ICE cars, EVs tend to get worse mileage on the highway than they do around town and mileage estimates in general are pretty generous. My max pack shows 410 miles of range when fully charged, although I've only charged that high once. I keep it at 70% day to day and about 85% or 90% before leaving for a road trip. I've driven 3,028 miles so far, with a lot of that being trips between Northern VA and South Jersey. I believe the Gen 2 max pack battery is 142 usable KWh, which would mean that the range estimate on the dash equates to ~ 2.8 KWh / mile. I tend to drive about 80 - 85mph (and I still get passed in Jersey - they drive FAST). At that speed, the 15m monitor settles out at a little above 2 miles / KWh, and like the OP, I also get a lot less than the stated range shown on the dash. When I plug my trip into the Rivian GPS, the range it estimates is pretty accurate. I usually end up with a few more miles of range when I arrive than predicted by the GPS before leaving. When driving around town I get better mileage, but I'm not sure that it is above the 2.8KWh that the dashboard battery meter assumes. The 15m range (efficiency) graph shows a line at 2.0 KWh and says that I am adding range above the line and losing range when below the line. I have wondered why they show it at 2.0 since the real "break even" is somewhere around 2.8KWh for my vehicle (based on my understanding of my battery size). Based on some of the other posts, it seems like this is left over from the gen 1 quad motors. Rivian needs to update that line based on which vehicle one has to make it accurate for that vehicle. It sounds like the main complaint of the OP is due to not understanding that EVs tend to get better mileage around town than they do on the highway, which is opposite ICE vehicles. It would be helpful if Rivian updated its 15m range graph for gen 2 vehicles as well. If he was driving around at 80 mph like me, and that graph was showing that his driving is hitting the target range while at the same time getting 30% less than what the dashboard battery range estimates, then I can see how that would create confusion. I've also had a few minor service problems since picking it up. Most have been fixed by rebooting the car, which I've had to do about 3 times over 2 months. (One could argue that needing to reboot your car is a problem in and of itself, as I never had to do that with my ICE cars.) When I picked up the car, the wireless battery charger didn't work and I've got some very minor trim and panel alignment issues. I chuckled to myself that the OP complained about the time his car has spent in service, because even though I entered my service tickets before driving off of the Rivian lot on August 16th, my first appointment is next week. So I echo his service complaints, albeit for different reasons.

 

I've had my gen2 R1S since Aug 19th. Dual Performance Max AT. I have had various problems, most of them minor. However I am also not getting anywhere near the Advertised Mileage. I posted another thread about this after my first 800 mile trip, where I only averaged 1.91 m/kw. I was told overwhelmingly in that thread, that I was driving "too fast" (75ish). Since then, I have put about 500 more miles on it, with none of it over 55, and still am not getting anywhere near the Advertised Mileage, I am only getting about 2.07 m/kw. Now to get my Advertised Mileage, the car would need to be at 2.5 m/kw. I came from a Chevy Volt, I have had some experience with electric/batteries, and I routinely got the advertised mileage in my daily commuting, exception being in the winter cold.

Some of the issues that I have had since picking it up:

• Door Locks unlock on their own, without me being near the car. (ie too far for my phone to trigger the unlock)(Side note, the Gen2 doesn't come with Keyfobs, which in my opinion is a big miss)
• Cruise control not working (Unavailable at this time message)
• Missing fasteners in the fender well
• Trim misaligned
• Rattle coming from dash area
• Drive Cam not working (I set it up, and after leaving the car for a few hours and coming back, it will not work, and has turned off power to the USB ports. Only a software reboot will restart the power to the USB ports)
• A faulty parking sensor, shows object hitting car, when nothing is there, and sensor is clean
• Unable to pause audiobook I am listening to, when cellular is unavailable

The 15m range (efficiency) graph shows a line at 2.0 KWh and says that I am adding range above the line and losing range when below the line. I have wondered why they show it at 2.0 since the real "break even" is somewhere around 2.8KWh for my vehicle (based on my understanding of my battery size). Based on some of the other posts, it seems like this is left over from the gen 1 quad motors. Rivian needs to update that line based on which vehicle one has to make it accurate for that vehicle.

I think ChrisG makes a great point, the Efficiency Graph, should be adjusted based on your particular spec of vehicle, which then gives a goal for drivers to shoot for. In addition, the batteries rated mileage on the dash, should be replaced with a number that shows your most recent, say 1k miles, of usage range, or make this an option in the menu. (IE 100% battery for me, would show like 300 miles, not 370.)

Some other things that I think would be good, may be specific to me.

• A way to reset the cellular connection (my work uses cell jammers, and when I get in the car, I cannot access anything, normally for my phone I put in airplane and back and bypass the jammer.)
• Option to turn on the charging lightbars, during charging, even when the car is locked (IE I walk away at work, and its plugged into the Level 2 charger, coworkers could see if its charging/current state of charge) I am already plugged in, not like they would slow the charge by a significant margin.

-The ability to buy 3 or 1 Cargo Cross Bars, they are only sold in sets of 2, and there are 3 spots on the R1S.

I also still have not received my spare tire kit, my all weather mats, or the 2 key fobs I ordered before leaving with the car. Earliest available service date was Oct 4. Which I am not even sure if they are going to honor, as the nearest service center is 7 hours from me.

All that being said, I really do like the car, and it drives smooth, comfortable, and quiet (except the rattle), it has plenty of power, and suits my needs for size and use. But all these little things, and the big range question mark, spoil the enjoyment. Rivian customer service has been super nice on the phone, and showed genuine concern over the issues I have been having, however it seems to break down when they try to schedule the service center to fix anything.

Lastly the order process with preorder pricing, was atrociously bad. If there was a competitor with similar features/options/price, I would have jumped ship. It made me feel like I was not appreciated as someone who committed to purchase, before the product was even made.

 

We have had the vehicle a little over a month and non-stop issues. Was in the shop for 10 days and supposedly resolved the issues, but only 2 of the 4 issues resolved, but the 2 biggest issues still remain. We are losing 30% more charge in less then 100 miles of freeway only driving, flat terrain.

We drove 45 miles the first day after the supposed repairs and used 72. The next day we drove 60 miles and used 92 miles. Service and follow through is the worst I have ever experienced. First texting, then long waits to no avail on the toll free line. Press 1 for a call back and of course no call backs. Very, very disappointed in this purchase and would not recommend buying one to anyone. We love the vehicle, just can’t continue with the ongoing issues 🙁

Sorry to say but that seems pretty normal. That's roughly what I'm getting with my Gen 1 R1T. I drive the hell out of it every day for work and pleasure and it's the best vehicle I've ever driven or owned in my life and that includes my wife's Model Y.

 

The R1T is a box put on a box. The S a bigger box put on a box. There are modest elements to decrease wind resistance. Looking at my 15m graph it seems there are stepwise declines as you go faster. I think this is due to different areas losing laminar air flow so increasing parasitic drag.i think rate of acceleration and ultimate speed are the two most important discretionary factors in range and battery drain.
due to excellent engineering you have much less appreciation of accelerating from a stop sign or light then in other vehicles. So if you want to save your tires and improve range a light foot is mandatory.
on the highway you do gain some going to driver + or cruise control. Seems to be a little difference between 60mph and 70. But a bigger difference between 70 andanything over 80. The step between 80 and about 85 also seems to be significant.
around here going slow isnt a. safe option on the highway so have learned to live with 70 in the middle travel lane. Right lane requires slowing up and speeding up at many exits and entrances. In the left most lane you’re going too slow at 70. Oh well…..
think a major improvement in range would occur if Rivian have us instantaneous battery drain. As we have found the problem and it is us.

 

What was the outside temperature? Were the roads wet? Did you plug your destination into the NAV system, if so what did it claim battery usage would be? If it was dry with optimum temperature and you are getting 30% worse miles/kwh then something is wrong with it. I have an R1T which I have found to be very conservative in its range estimate, unlike my Tesla which is overly optimistic. I love the R1T so much I just ordered an R1S max pack to replace my Model Y which I frankly never much liked (poor visibility, trash UI, loud interior noise (I have first year production), and poor range perfomance.

 

I wish I had seen this post. I picked my R1S Gen 2 up in mid-Sept. 2024 and have only had constant issues and major ones and many: 12 Volt battery, electrical circut failure, locking not always working properl, car not turning off after parked, turtle mode going on multiple times, now danger electrical shock warning on the dash, the list is really long. It has already been in the shop for two weeks which means I have only had in my possession for a short time and most of that time it has not worked. I wanted to love this car but now am so disappointed and angry about it. Trying to see if I can return the car as a lemon.

 

Thanks, @Zipper, for your response.

Glad your wife is getting better than advertised efficiency/range with her Tesla. That's not what I hear from most Tesla owners, but maybe they've improved or maybe she's unusual.

I would like to be both reasonably accurate and reasonably concise. I might not have met that standard this time.

You're right that EPA numbers are from standardized cycles, not the best imaginable scenarios. I believe you could get better-than-EPA numbers on reasonably level straight road at a steady 35 mph -- but who drives that way?

What would have been more accurate to convey what I was trying to say? Not precisely "best-case scenarios." How about "specific scenarios, more economical than the average driver?"

Best wishes!

 

Kyle O'Conner from Out of Spec Motoring does a 70 mph range test that he tries to keep somewhat standardized. The 2024 Tesla Model 3 AWD got over 380 miles at a steady 70 mph GPS speed, well over it's combined EPA range number. And that's driving at 70 mph over the entire capacity of the battery, from 100% to 0%.

My wife's Model 3 with 110,000 miles that had higher than the EPA combined efficiency was a 2018 Long-Range RWD and she rarely drove at 30 mph (and certainly not at a steady speed as she's always driving in traffic). Now she has a 2024 Model 3 Performance that's also hitting EPA combined numbers (or better) with 249 Wh/mile (more than 4 miles per kWh). But it has improved since she seasonally replaced the staggered sport tires (very wide rear tires) with a square setup of all-weather tires she will be running through the winter/spring. 90% of her miles are either on the Interstate going 60-75 mph (when not stuck in a Seattle traffic jam) or on State highways going as fast as traffic will allow (generally 55-60 mph).

Keep in mind that EPA combined numbers include the more efficient city drive cycles, so she is bettering those numbers even when only matching them.

My Cybertruck was sitting at 385 Wh/mile with the stock All-Terrain 35" tires for the first 3000 miles of ownership, just bettering the EPA number, until I put a "winter" set of All-Terrain 35's on there, now I'm sitting right at 399 Wh/mile but this includes a huge amount of off-roading on rugged roads in the Cascade Mountains where I only get 450 Wh/mile. It also includes lots of full throttle launches and sport driving on twisty mountain highways and wood-cutting (hauling loads up to ~2400 lbs.). It has a combined EPA rating of 387 Wh/mile with the AT 35" tires and aero covers (which I've never run). And I was bettering EPA with the OEM tires even though about 33% of those 3000 miles were on steep rugged trails in the mountains.

Sure, most people don't get EPA MPG with gas cars either, but it's because they don't drive in a manner representing EPA combined test cycles (or they are running different wheels/tires/sport racks, etc.). But the narrative that Tesla's do particularly poorly (relative to EPA) is a narrative started and propagated by those who hate Elon/Tesla. In the real world there is not much difference between results between different brands when it comes to how closely they match EPA numbers.

A lot of the "noise" about Tesla being particularly poor at getting the EPA range numbers has to do with the hidden range buffer all Tesla have below 0 miles on the trip computer. Other brands will run out at 0 miles (or 2-3 miles above or below 0 miles) while Teslas will generally go 25-32 miles below zero miles. That explains most of unknowledgeable Tesla owners claiming they can't EPA range numbers, at least amongst those who aren't out to dissuade people from buying a Tesla.

And then there are people like you who have never owned a Tesla, they just parrot what they have heard, even though it has no valid basis in reality.

 

Good evening, @muath.mahmoud6!

Your post #48 appears to have been posted within a minute after you joined the Forum. I don't know how long or how extensively you researched the forum before your posting.

Just so you know, @O. horridus is one of this forum's longstanding and reliable members. Others disagreed with his post #25, while I found it useful. But I don't recall seeing anyone, ever, calling for a ban on @O. horridus' contributions.

We all do best when we respect each other -- even when opinions differ. I hope you will do the same.

***

My lifetime miles/kWh in mixed driving and mixed weather is about 2.4 mi/kWh.

However, "your mileage may vary" is a cliché because it's absolutely true. MANY things can reduce range -- including winter weather.

Cold weather also reduces power-train efficiency of ICE vehicles -- by a lot! All the air entering the cylinder must be heated in order to produce power. That's very significant!

However, because EVs are intrinsically more efficient than ICE vehicles, cold-weather inefficiency shortens total range by a greater percentage in our EVs than in any ICE vehicles we still own.

***

If you're dissatisfied with your range, @muath.mahmoud6, consider spending more time on this forum reading about others' experiences.

If you think you've done enough research to be confident in your expectations, consider calling Rivian Service (855) RIVIAN-5 for personal troubleshooting. Based on my experience with them, I'm confident that you'll receive at least as much respect as you give.

Rivian wants you to be satisfied with your purchase, if that is possible.

***

Very best wishes!

 

Good evening, @muath.mahmoud6!

Your post #48 appears to have been posted within a minute after you joined the Forum. I don't know how long or how extensively you researched the forum before your posting.

Just so you know, @O. horridus is one of this forum's longstanding and reliable members. Others disagreed with his post #25, while I found it useful. But I don't recall seeing anyone, ever, calling for a ban on @O. horridus' contributions.

We all do best when we respect each other -- even when opinions differ. I hope you will do the same.

***

My lifetime miles/kWh in mixed driving and mixed weather is about 2.4 mi/kWh.

However, "your mileage may vary" is a cliché because it's absolutely true. MANY things can reduce range -- including winter weather.

Cold weather also reduces power-train efficiency of ICE vehicles -- by a lot! All the air entering the cylinder must be heated in order to produce power. That's very significant!

However, because EVs are intrinsically more efficient than ICE vehicles, cold-weather inefficiency shortens total range by a greater percentage in our EVs than in any ICE vehicles we still own.

***

If you're dissatisfied with your range, @muath.mahmoud6, consider spending more time on this forum reading about others' experiences.

If you think you've done enough research to be confident in your expectations, consider calling Rivian Service (855) RIVIAN-5 for personal troubleshooting. Based on my experience with them, I'm confident that you'll receive at least as much respect as you give.

Rivian wants you to be satisfied with your purchase, if that is possible.

***

Very best wishes!

Thank you! I absolutely respect everyone no exceptions, I am just frustrated seeing people posting wrong information because it delivers the wrong message and makes people make wrong decisions. All those factors needs to be put in place when people review them and not give people best case scenario. I am satisfied as a car only but the range i feel i was ripped off. Nothing wrong with the car.
The only time it can give more than 2.0 is local in the winter. Highway winter is about 2.0 with speeds like turtle.

matter fact, I decided to start a review channel to expose all those fake reviewers for the car. Every single person and reviewer i seen online doing it for the money. I do own multiple EVs and frustrating seeing what people are saying vs reality.
That 2.4 kwh range is definitely achievable in summer or drive in city but not in highways even driving at 70mph its impossible.

just a little background i have a tesla, polestar 3 abd bmw I4 they all give better epa than rivian. If the rivian actually had that improved air suspension everyone is talking about i wouldnt even care about that milage anymore. The suspension at small bumps makes me wanna catch superman and i am exaggerating and rivian said this is normal. If this is normal for 100k car then j can tell you this is a piece of old slow screen and crapy “junk” air suspension not even honda would use

 

all range estimates are wrong, all range estimates across all EVs

So you're saying there's a vast conspiracy involving ALL EV makers, even direct competitors, where they've all agreed to blatantly lie about the EPA range estimates? While those same manufacturers tell the absolute truth about the EPA range of their ICE vehicles? That's some messed-up thinking.

You're exactly the sort of person I was talking about. If you don't get the EPA rating for any of your vehicles, the common denominator is you. The fact that you have to invent some multi-national corporate conspiracy to deceive people about EV range with the complicity of the US government, then it's clear that nothing anyone can say will change your mind.

People needs to be banned from wrong information and posting here.

@Administrator , can you please ban first-time poster @muath.mahmoud6? At his request ...

 

I have a gen 1 R1T with the off-road package and 20” wheels. It’s carrying a bunch of extra weight around. It has the large not max pack. So it has lousy range. Supposedly ~300m. But I run the heat high as between 68-74F even when not on auto I get cool air blowing at my knees and the heated seats and steering wheel is always on. The tunnel is always filled with stuff and I have the weight of the interrobang bed cover. I have a heavy foot and keep the suspension on soft with tire pressures at 47psi to improve ride. Many of my trips are short, stop for awhile, then go. So tires may not a chance to heat up during a day of driving. In short I have done everything wrong to improve range. If given a choice to get somewhere over dirt or tarmac I pick dirt. My garage is set to 40f and I don’t start a charge when I preheat the interior.

but who the hell cares. In reality unless doing interstate travel I have no problem leaving my setting at 70%soc. And no problem never dropping below 30%soc. I exclusively charge on my home level 2 charger. My behavior and decisions about how to spec the vehicle has absolutely no effect whatsoever on my vehicle use or my satisfaction with the vehicle. Neither does it have any negative effects on battery life.

I understand my opinion is based on my charging at home with electricity I make from my solar panels. I make enough that I sell back to the grid even in winter. House use is decreased by no load of significance due to geothermal heat and excellent HERS rating. I understand that if you are paying for non home charging it’s another thing. In that case both the Rivian offerings are big and heavy. Both make little concessions to aerodynamics. Both are inefficient EVs. And you made a bad choice. Should have looked for something that gets better efficiency.