[MilesK]

I just saw this rendering and now I really want a two-door R1S! If Rivian made one would anyone pick it over the four door R1S or R1T? I think it would be better suited for off-road driving.

 

[St00k]

I REALLY like it. Love the tires on that bad boy too!

That should be their next model after the R1S and R1T.

 

[SSgt_M]

I drive a 2 door Tahoe. If this came out I would be all over it!

 

[JimmyEV]

I'm all for this as long as Rivian can still give it a high range similar to the 4-door.

 

[MilesK]

I drive a 2 door Tahoe. If this came out I would be all over it!

Those are great trucks! What year is yours?

 

[Griz]

Without a doubt, a two door version would be substantially better off road.

View attachment 385

 

[inkedsphynx]

Better breakover angles are great and all, but if your undercarriage is basically a bulletproof skid plate, I'm not sure you really need to care as much as you do in a traditional offroad vehicle. I personally wouldn't trade the additional cabin space and non-offroad utility for that one benefit. I don't know what other benefit the shorter wheelbase really gets you - maybe a bit more maneuverability, but with tank turns do I really care?

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

Without a doubt, a two door version would be substantially better off road.

In SOME off-road situations, like rock crawling, yes. In others, a longer wheel base is more stable and will provide a better ride and handling at high speeds (think desert).

Offroad is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

 

[MilesK]

Better breakover angles are great and all, but if your undercarriage is basically a bulletproof skid plate, I'm not sure you really need to care as much as you do in a traditional offroad vehicle. I personally wouldn't trade the additional cabin space and non-offroad utility for that one benefit. I don't know what other benefit the shorter wheelbase really gets you - maybe a bit more maneuverability, but with tank turns do I really care?

Tank turns could be handy but I don't know if I'd trust it in certain situations.

 

[inkedsphynx]

It'll all come down to how controllable they are. If it can perform them well at very low speeds then I think it will ultimately be a hugely valuable addition for the overlanding crowd. It would likely take me some time to really trust it, but I can think of several tight trail spots that would be ideal for that type of maneuver. At the same time, I can definitely think of some switchbacks that would have me squeezing the cheeks hard while attempting a tank turn through them....

 

[Griz]

I just saw this rendering and now I really want a two-door R1S! If Rivian made one would anyone pick it over the four door R1S or R1T? I think it would be better suited for off-road driving.

View attachment 385

I would buy a two-door, but not that huge, obese, overweight, soccer mom hog they're making now.

 

[svet-am]

If I recall correctly, the trend to four door SUVs was driven by foreign automakers trying to avoid the tariff on coupes in the late 80s. By making them four door they could classify them as sedans or wagons and thus avoid the tariff. I am pretty sure this is why the two door pathfinder was short lived. So, I doubt we will see any “big” two door SUVs as the taxes/tariffs would be too high. It is easier to get away with on something small like a Suzuki when the sticker price is much lower.

can anyone confirm this for me?

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

I doubt that’s true. Chevy made a two-door Tahoe in the 90’s and discontinued it because it didn’t sell well.

there’s a small cult following that love them (I did) but like manual transmissions, there simply weren’t enough people who were willing to put their money where their mouth was. And of the few who were willing to pay, most accepted the “popular” option after a little groveling, so the manufacturers still got the sale. Not worth the R&D or logistics costs.

 

[svet-am]

I doubt that’s true. Chevy made a two-door Tahoe in the 90’s and discontinued it because it didn’t sell well.

there’s a small cult following that love them (I did) but like manual transmissions, there simply weren’t enough people who were willing to put their money where their mouth was. And of the few who were willing to pay, most accepted the “popular” option after a little groveling, so the manufacturers still got the sale. Not worth the R&D or logistics costs.

Found an article about it from 1993 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e-truck/ad47707d-240f-4211-8089-50878da6c10b/

Nissan Motor Corp. would have us believe that the Pathfinder is a car, or, to use corporate legalese -- "a vehicle primarily intended for the transportation of passengers."
That allows Nissan to ship the Pathfinder to the United States with a 2.5-percent tariff -- way, way below the 25 percent figure for trucks. And Nissan recently won a federal case saying that certain of its Pathfinder sport-utility vehicles, some two-door models made in the late 1980s, qualify as cars.

Eventually, as the story goes, they switched to four doors to cement the "car" argument.

 

[TT97]

If I recall correctly, the trend to four door SUVs was driven by foreign automakers trying to avoid the tariff on coupes in the late 80s. By making them four door they could classify them as sedans or wagons and thus avoid the tariff. I am pretty sure this is why the two door pathfinder was short lived. So, I doubt we will see any “big” two door SUVs as the taxes/tariffs would be too high. It is easier to get away with on something small like a Suzuki when the sticker price is much lower.

can anyone confirm this for me?

Tariffs wouldn’t apply as it would be built domestically. The reality is that the U.S. consumer prefers four doors. There are very few two door cars left for sale in the U.S. Small hatchbacks domestically are mostly 4-doors and even the 4 series and A5 coupes now come in 4-dr versions.