Firsthand comparison from an owner of both, between the Rivian SUV and Tesla Model X. The only EV 7-seater SUV's available.

[darrelld]

It's hard to seperate honest reviews from Tesla haters and trolls for there are many more of the later than the former.

The Rivian seems like good a good Tesla alternative but this review is bothersome.

 

[Epradox]

I prefer the rooftop box because it doesn't interfere with the rear parking sensors. Also the trailer hitch boxes make our vehicle too long for some of the areas we park in. Fortunately we don't hear any whistling from the box. I've got a medium sized box and I set it further back so that we don't hear the whistle. YMMV.

interesting, do you see any decrease in range due to the roofbox? I would think anything stuck behind the vehicle would be encapsulated in a vacuum and drag would be negligible compared to having your coefficient of drag increased by having large items above your car which would only amplify drag at higher speeds.

 

[TheLex]

interesting, do you see any decrease in range due to the roofbox? I would think anything stuck behind the vehicle would be encapsulated in a vacuum and drag would be negligible compared to having your coefficient of drag increased by having large items above your car which would only amplify drag at higher speeds.

Yes, on my Subaru Ascent I've noticed about a 5-10% drop in fuel mileage. We average about 22-23 mpg with the rooftop box on, and with a full load of luggage, 3 kids, wife, and dog, while driving at about 75-80 mph with the AC on. Considering the number of people on board, the amount of luggage, and the speed we're going, 22-23 mph in a heavy ICE SUV with 3PMSF all-terrain tires, is actually fairly good efficiency IMO. I haven't tried it yet, but I suspect even without the rooftop box (we really don't need it in the MY due to the extra frunk and sub-trunk storage), the MY driven at 80 mph with the AC blasting is going to cost almost as much to operate as the SUV. Of course this is on the West Coast, where our electricity rates are very high.

 

[TrevTremaine]

I haven’t had a need to use a rooftop box or trailer hitch mounted box but I would think a trailer hitch mounted box would be preferably for efficiency no? I’ve rode in cars with roof boxes before and it seems like they always have a constant whistle which I would find annoying. Personally I’d probably take hitch mounted bike racks over roof and same with cargo baskets over roof boxes purely due to drag and efficiency.

Part of the problem with the X is the low weight limit for unsupported racks. It's 120 pounds, which after the weight of the rack mount is factored in, is rather low. The key is to do an aftermarket hitch to alleviate the issue. The factory mount is convenient, but just doesn't hold weight.

 

[Epradox]

Yes, on my Subaru Ascent I've noticed about a 5-10% drop in fuel mileage. We average about 22-23 mpg with the rooftop box on, and with a full load of luggage, 3 kids, wife, and dog, while driving at about 75-80 mph with the AC on. Considering the number of people on board, the amount of luggage, and the speed we're going, 22-23 mph in a heavy ICE SUV with 3PMSF all-terrain tires, is actually fairly good efficiency IMO. I haven't tried it yet, but I suspect even without the rooftop box (we really don't need it in the MY due to the extra frunk and sub-trunk storage), the MY driven at 80 mph with the AC blasting is going to cost almost as much to operate as the SUV. Of course this is on the West Coast, where our electricity rates are very high.

Yeah that seems pretty good. I came across a video of someone doing a range test against both

seems like theres about a 10% decrease in range with the hitch vs 20% with the roof box at 70mph but id imagine that gets exponentially worse at 80+mph. Im more worried about range impacts in an EV than in an ICE suv. I think id be upset at some 30% range loss due to a roof box on a long trip. Would add hours to my charging and more stops vs in an ICE its fine since the fuel stops are more or less negligible without any planning.

 

[WindPower]

The One Electric Vehicle That Everyone Who Owns One Loves​

The automotive is in the midst of change, with electric cars now increasing in popularity and talks of gas-powered cars being banned by 2035. With their increasing popularity comes choice. Every major car brand is now bringing out versions of electric vehicles, much to consumers' delight. The days of Tesla being the conglomerate brand in this market is now long gone, and one car is wowing consumers more than any, the Rivian's R1T electric pickup (and R1S SUV).

MSN

 

[TrevTremaine]

The One Electric Vehicle That Everyone Who Owns One Loves​

The automotive is in the midst of change, with electric cars now increasing in popularity and talks of gas-powered cars being banned by 2035. With their increasing popularity comes choice. Every major car brand is now bringing out versions of electric vehicles, much to consumers' delight. The days of Tesla being the conglomerate brand in this market is now long gone, and one car is wowing consumers more than any, the Rivian's R1T electric pickup (and R1S SUV).

MSN

Well, that would be for those who have received theirs. For those of us with pre-orders, the situation is evolving. Thus far, the tonneau cover, the kitchen, the gear tunnel slider - all "temporarily" removed. Now the newer and cheaper dual motor with a MaxPack can be delivered in 2023, but our pre-orders are essentially deferred until 2024.

 

[sleepydoc]

I certainly won't miss the insta-replies that come through on the Tesla sites. The second they hint there might be something negative about the Tesla, even when there really isn't, they stop reading a post their defensive replies

Unfortunately there are many people on these forums that take it as a personal offense any time someone says anything remotely negative about Tesla. There are plenty of other more balanced people as well, they are just frequently drowned out.

 

[Richbot]

Unfortunately there are many people on these forums that take it as a personal offense any time someone says anything remotely negative about Tesla. There are plenty of other more balanced people as well, they are just frequently drowned out.

Did somebody say my name

 

[kizamybute']

I originally posted that the Tesla likely wins as a road trip vehicle due to better efficiency. And technically, being that it only has a 100 kwh battery, it is more efficient. However, having now road tripped my Rivian several times, I struggle to give the edge to Tesla. Tesla certainly has the edge when it comes to the Supercharging network. Absolutely better than public EV chargers.

Rivian has a 135 kwh battery. But, where I noticed the biggest difference between the two cars is in "Real World" driving. My Tesla would tell me I had 370 miles in range. However, when travelling at "go with the flow of traffic" speeds, which is 75-85 mph on most west coast freeways through the desert, and even then, you get run over by many, my Tesla got around 70% of the rated range at those speeds. Was fortunate to get 259 miles. 260 miles on a 100 kWh battery is still more efficient than a 260 miles in the Rivian on a 135 kWh battery, but I'm not really concerned with that when travelling. What I care about most, is how far can I go with what I have?

In the Rivian, at 75-80 MPH, I actually get very close to the rated range. The truck tells me I have 300 miles in range and I can actually go 300 miles, driving "NORMALLY" and not having to hyper-mile. A couple of weeks ago, for the first time ever, with my Rivian, I was able to comfortably make it from northern Los Angeles city to Las Vegas without stopping to charge. Was never able to do that at those speeds in the Tesla.

Furthermore, the Tesla technically charges quicker than the Rivian does. However, to get the "real world" range back to 260 miles, you have to charge to 100%. As we all know, charging to 100% takes forever as charger slows drastically over 75-80%. With the Rivian, I only need to charge to around 82% to get the same "real world" range. So, what I lose to the Tesla in the early charging, I gain back in the fact that the Rivian is still charging at a higher rate at 80% than the Tesla is at 95+%. In my own "real world" testing, I would have to charge the Tesla for about 70 minutes to get the range I needed. To get the same range in the Rivian, it takes about 40 minutes. So, I save a good 30 minutes. Yes, I'm using more energy in the Rivian, but my road trip is definitely around 30 minutes quicker with the Rivian and the 135 kwh battery than the Tesla is with its 100 kwh battery. For me, I care more about the time than I do spending a few extra dollars for a few extra kwh of battery charging.

Rivian is building their own charging network, which I had the good fortunate to be able to use in Barstow. It was great, just as easy as Tesla supercharging. Problem is, there are currently only a few of them in service versus superchargers being everywhere. Assuming I don't have a problem with public chargers, then personally, I have to say I prefer road tripping in the Rivian since it gets me there 30 minutes quicker than does the Tesla.

So yes, the Tesla is still more efficient. But, the Rivian's bigger battery gives it more capability. Having now experienced it for a few months, my first choice for road trips over 300 miles would be in he Rivian.

And I'm sure this post will really rile up the Tesla faithful. Say what you need to, to make yourselves feel better. I love Tesla's, but have now experienced both and am simply speaking the reality. Want to change? Tell Tesla to put a bigger battery in their cars, then they'd be both, more efficient and able to travel further. It's not about the Rivian being better, rather, just that they chose to go with a bigger battery, making it better in terms of how far it can go on a single charge. Absolutely nothing personal. It is what it is. For a 250 mile trip, then the Tesla is probably better. For over 300 miles, I'd rather have the Rivian.

 

[TrevTremaine]

I originally posted that the Tesla likely wins as a road trip vehicle due to better efficiency. And technically, being that it only has a 100 kwh battery, it is more efficient. However, having now road tripped my Rivian several times, I struggle to give the edge to Tesla. Tesla certainly has the edge when it comes to the Supercharging network. Absolutely better than public EV chargers.

Rivian has a 135 kwh battery. But, where I noticed the biggest difference between the two cars is in "Real World" driving. My Tesla would tell me I had 370 miles in range. However, when travelling at "go with the flow of traffic" speeds, which is 75-85 mph on most west coast freeways through the desert, and even then, you get run over by many, my Tesla got around 70% of the rated range at those speeds. Was fortunate to get 259 miles. 260 miles on a 100 kWh battery is still more efficient than a 260 miles in the Rivian on a 135 kWh battery, but I'm not really concerned with that when travelling. What I care about most, is how far can I go with what I have?

In the Rivian, at 75-80 MPH, I actually get very close to the rated range. The truck tells me I have 300 miles in range and I can actually go 300 miles, driving "NORMALLY" and not having to hyper-mile. A couple of weeks ago, for the first time ever, with my Rivian, I was able to comfortably make it from northern Los Angeles city to Las Vegas without stopping to charge. Was never able to do that at those speeds in the Tesla.

Furthermore, the Tesla technically charges quicker than the Rivian does. However, to get the "real world" range back to 260 miles, you have to charge to 100%. As we all know, charging to 100% takes forever as charger slows drastically over 75-80%. With the Rivian, I only need to charge to around 82% to get the same "real world" range. So, what I lose to the Tesla in the early charging, I gain back in the fact that the Rivian is still charging at a higher rate at 80% than the Tesla is at 95+%. In my own "real world" testing, I would have to charge the Tesla for about 70 minutes to get the range I needed. To get the same range in the Rivian, it takes about 40 minutes. So, I save a good 30 minutes. Yes, I'm using more energy in the Rivian, but my road trip is definitely around 30 minutes quicker with the Rivian and the 135 kwh battery than the Tesla is with its 100 kwh battery. For me, I care more about the time than I do spending a few extra dollars for a few extra kwh of battery charging.

Rivian is building their own charging network, which I had the good fortunate to be able to use in Barstow. It was great, just as easy as Tesla supercharging. Problem is, there are currently only a few of them in service versus superchargers being everywhere. Assuming I don't have a problem with public chargers, then personally, I have to say I prefer road tripping in the Rivian since it gets me there 30 minutes quicker than does the Tesla.

So yes, the Tesla is still more efficient. But, the Rivian's bigger battery gives it more capability. Having now experienced it for a few months, my first choice for road trips over 300 miles would be in he Rivian.

And I'm sure this post will really rile up the Tesla faithful. Say what you need to, to make yourselves feel better. I love Tesla's, but have now experienced both and am simply speaking the reality. Want to change? Tell Tesla to put a bigger battery in their cars, then they'd be both, more efficient and able to travel further. It's not about the Rivian being better, rather, just that they chose to go with a bigger battery, making it better in terms of how far it can go on a single charge. Absolutely nothing personal. It is what it is. For a 250 mile trip, then the Tesla is probably better. For over 300 miles, I'd rather have the Rivian.

Nope, don't have a problem with this. What is the real solution here? Perhaps it's a matter of Tesla re-aligning their range estimates or at least providing more details with regards to range in a more realistic situation. Perhaps it's up to the authorities to set a proper test scenario that prevents this level of inaccuracy.

About the only thing I would question with your comparison is whether you're dealing with an older Tesla or a newer one - I simply don't know your situation. Between the new thermal management, differing/higher charging rates and more efficient motors, I'd be curious to know if they are closer with newer Teslas or not.

 

[IronCoffee_Max]

I love Tesla - own 2, my mom owns 1 and my son owns 1. We also own a Leaf. My wife wants to upgrade her 3 to an X. She loves the yoke and capacitive buttons. That said, I’m thinking of introducing her to the Rivian R1S. I think she might like aspects of it.

Here is the thing - I consider myself a Tesla fan. But that doesn’t mean I’m only tied to Tesla. I’m happy with multiple EVs - as long as their are built from the ground up as an EV. So happy that your Rivian does better than your Tesla for your needs.

 

[kizamybute']

Nope, don't have a problem with this. What is the real solution here? Perhaps it's a matter of Tesla re-aligning their range estimates or at least providing more details with regards to range in a more realistic situation. Perhaps it's up to the authorities to set a proper test scenario that prevents this level of inaccuracy.

About the only thing I would question with your comparison is whether you're dealing with an older Tesla or a newer one - I simply don't know your situation. Between the new thermal management, differing/higher charging rates and more efficient motors, I'd be curious to know if they are closer with newer Teslas or not.

My Tesla is the 2019 Model S Raven, so it has the updated battery and came with all the changes that Tesla incorporated to get the rated range from 335 to 373 miles. The new Long Range now claims 405, so 32 miles better than what I had. While I've driven the new version plenty of times, I haven't taken one on a road trip. I can only guess that they're using the same calculation factors to determine their range estimates as they were previously.

Personally, my Raven version, despite being rated at almost 40 miles more per charge, get nearly identical figures in terms of wh/mi as my 2018 did. The battery size didn't change, but the range figures from Tesla have kept increasing. The battery size still hasn't changed. At the time, the improvements were, from memory, better wheel bearings, better front motor efficiency and I believe, newer battery chemistry. I was surprised that my real world results with the 2019 were basically identical to my real world results with the 2018. Same wheels/tires. So, personally, I never got more range with my 2019 than I did with my 2018. It was certainly better than my 2015, but that was only a 90 kWh battery and was a Performance model.

How they got it up to 405 now, I have no clue? Again, same size battery. More powerful motors as the new long range is 3.1 0-60 vs my 2019 at 3.8. So, assuming they were just more "efficiency" improvements. Others that travel in the 75-80 mph range from L.A. to Vegas would have to chime in to provide their real world figures in the refreshed LR Model S that's rated at 405 miles. Possibly it's better than my 2019? But then again, my 2019 was supposed to be better than my 2018 and it really wasn't in that respect. However, it was actually a far improved car overall. Was very impressed with the changes made between a 2018 and 2019. Range improvement just wasn't one of them. If I were a betting man, I'd bet pretty significantly that the New Model S won't get close to 405 miles in range at 75-80 MPH between L.A. and Vegas. Assuming the same 70ish percent, likely closer to 284 miles at "go with the flow of traffic" speeds. That would just barely get me from my house to Vegas with about 0 miles remaining. Certainly wouldn't try it. With the Rivian however, it said I had 300+ miles in range and even at 75-80 MPH, it actually went over 290 miles on a single charge.

Naturally, Tesla likes having the bigger number out there for marketing purposes and they could still market the car as having that and I wouldn't have any problem with it. I do wish however, that the car itself, would do what pretty much every other EV does, and adjust the range remaining to your driving style and actual real world driving results. With the Rivian, I'm much more confident that I'll get what it says I will. The Tesla, you have to be prepared that it will not and plan your trips accordingly. Unfortunately, with the Tesla not giving you a real world figure based on your own driving and results, you're left to figure out what your real world range is on your own.

To Tesla's credit, if you enter your destination into the Navigation, the percent remaining upon arrival is much closer to reality than is the range reflected above the battery in the instrument cluster. However, from experience, I have watched that number rapidly decline as the trip went on. But, whereas the main battery display is probably off by 30+%, the navigation figure is probably closer to 85-90%, based on the original figure it gives you at the start of your 300+/- trip.

And again, not a knock on Tesla itself. Amazing car that performs incredibly well. Simply, a knock on the choice of Tesla to only display the maximum potential range based on perfect driving conditions at much lower than traffic flow speeds. Simply forces the driver to do their own calculations rather than the car doing them for you, as most other EV's do.

 

[DCGOO]

How they got it up to 405 now, I have no clue? Again, same size battery. More powerful motors as the new long range is 3.1 0-60 vs my 2019 at 3.8. So, assuming they were just more "efficiency" improvements. Others that travel in the 75-80 mph range from L.A. to Vegas would have to chime in to provide their real world figures in the refreshed LR Model S that's rated at 405 miles. Possibly it's better than my 2019? But then again, my 2019 was supposed to be better than my 2018 and it really wasn't in that respect. However, it was actually a far improved car overall. Was very impressed with the changes made between a 2018 and 2019. Range improvement just wasn't one of them. If I were a betting man, I'd bet pretty significantly that the New Model S won't get close to 405 miles in range at 75-80 MPH between L.A. and Vegas. Assuming the same 70ish percent, likely closer to 284 miles at "go with the flow of traffic" speeds. That would just barely get me from my house to Vegas with about 0 miles remaining. Certainly wouldn't try it. With the Rivian however, it said I had 300+ miles in range and even at 75-80 MPH, it actually went over 290 miles on a single charge.

I do not have any hands-on experience with the S, but I have a 2022 X, coming from a 2018 X100D, so I expect similar results. The battery was actually reduced in the refresh'd X (I assume it was also reduced on the S). My new X has a 93 kWh battery. my 2018 X100D was just north of 98 kWh. The 2022 X has the much more efficient, more powerful, lighter weight permanent magnet motors both front and rear. Producing 670 HP, about 170 more than my 2018. New more efficient and more powerful motors, lighter total weight, means higher performance and greater range, even with a smaller battery.

Nominally, I was consuming 330 Wh/mile summertime in my 2018 X 100D. My 2022 LR consumes more like 250-270 Wh/mile in the summer.

Naturally, Tesla likes having the bigger number out there for marketing purposes and they could still market the car as having that and I wouldn't have any problem with it. I do wish however, that the car itself, would do what pretty much every other EV does, and adjust the range remaining to your driving style and actual real world driving results. With the Rivian, I'm much more confident that I'll get what it says I will. The Tesla, you have to be prepared that it will not and plan your trips accordingly. Unfortunately, with the Tesla not giving you a real world figure based on your own driving and results, you're left to figure out what your real world range is on your own.

Actually Tesla did provide that information with the energy graph. Unfortunately that is not available with current refresh X & S, although rumor has that coming back.

To Tesla's credit, if you enter your destination into the Navigation, the percent remaining upon arrival is much closer to reality than is the range reflected above the battery in the instrument cluster. However, from experience, I have watched that number rapidly decline as the trip went on. But, whereas the main battery display is probably off by 30+%, the navigation figure is probably closer to 85-90%, based on the original figure it gives you at the start of your 300+/- trip.

Just change your gauge to indicate % capacity (which is what you really want to know anyway) and use the energy graph for real world remaining range.

 

[TrevTremaine]

I do not have any hands-on experience with the S, but I have a 2022 X, coming from a 2018 X100D, so I expect similar results. The battery was actually reduced in the refresh'd X (I assume it was also reduced on the S). My new X has a 93 kWh battery. my 2018 X100D was just north of 98 kWh. The 2022 X has the much more efficient, more powerful, lighter weight permanent magnet motors both front and rear. Producing 670 HP, about 170 more than my 2018. New more efficient and more powerful motors, lighter total weight, means higher performance and greater range, even with a smaller battery.

Nominally, I was consuming 330 Wh/mile summertime in my 2018 X 100D. My 2022 LR consumes more like 250-270 Wh/mile in the summer.


Actually Tesla did provide that information with the energy graph. Unfortunately that is not available with current refresh X & S, although rumor has that coming back.

Just change your gauge to indicate % capacity (which is what you really want to know anyway) and use the energy graph for real world remaining range.

Sorry to ask this, but do you have pictures of the yellow X?

II was curious to hear the comparison old to new as I've not checked it closely thus far. I think you might still be able to get to the energy graph via voice command - unless they actually cut it.

 

[DCGOO]

Sorry to ask this, but do you have pictures of the yellow X?

Yes, a couple. Rather than further pollute this thread, search for the thread "New 2022 in Yellow"

II was curious to hear the comparison old to new as I've not checked it closely thus far. I think you might still be able to get to the energy graph via voice command - unless they actually cut it.

It worked in 2022.16, but in 2022.20.x "Command not available" It might be different on something newer, but I have not heard anyone mention its return. There is a thread about it being part of a complete re-write of the energy graph with much more detail.

 

[strider]

Agree on the off-road capabilities of the Rivian but the MB EQS SUV is a 3 row SUV and a more direct competitor to the MX.

EQS - Luxury Electric SUV

The EQS SUV raises the bar for an electric SUV, with cutting-edge features and timeless elegance. See design, performance and technology features, as well as models, pricing, photos and more.

www.mbusa.com

I wish Rivian well but I cannot get over how ugly the front end is. I cannot own one no matter how great the vehicle is.

 

[TrevTremaine]

Agree on the off-road capabilities of the Rivian but the MB EQS SUV is a 3 row SUV and a more direct competitor to the MX.

EQS - Luxury Electric SUV

The EQS SUV raises the bar for an electric SUV, with cutting-edge features and timeless elegance. See design, performance and technology features, as well as models, pricing, photos and more.

www.mbusa.com

I wish Rivian well but I cannot get over how ugly the front end is. I cannot own one no matter how great the vehicle is.

Go look at any recent BMW and you'll realize that Rivian can grow on you. BMW just looks like it's like a rhinoplasty patient waiting for surgery. In fact, I wouldn't call the MB any looker either, although the interior fit and finish is better.

 

[strider]

Go look at any recent BMW and you'll realize that Rivian can grow on you. BMW just looks like it's like a rhinoplasty patient waiting for surgery. In fact, I wouldn't call the MB any looker either, although the interior fit and finish is better.

Yes, I'm no fan of the BMW schnoz. While I dislike the looks of the EQS Sedan, the SUV version has better proportions to my eyes. The most attractive EV SUV to my eyes is the Eletre, though it is only 2 row and the rear end looks a lot like the Ioniq 5.

Also, Volvo is coming out with a 3 row SUV, the EX90. Reveal is next week I believe. Volvo range numbers have so far failed to impress (loved my XC40 Recharge but Wh/mi was ridiculous) although Polestars have been well received. I am interested in how much cross-pollination there is and what the EX90 specs are.

All in all, still a bit away from customer deliveries, but Tesla and Rivian will no longer have the segment to themselves.

 

[TrevTremaine]

Yes, I'm no fan of the BMW schnoz. While I dislike the looks of the EQS Sedan, the SUV version has better proportions to my eyes. The most attractive EV SUV to my eyes is the Eletre, though it is only 2 row and the rear end looks a lot like the Ioniq 5.

Also, Volvo is coming out with a 3 row SUV, the EX90. Reveal is next week I believe. Volvo range numbers have so far failed to impress (loved my XC40 Recharge but Wh/mi was ridiculous) although Polestars have been well received. I am interested in how much cross-pollination there is and what the EX90 specs are.

All in all, still a bit away from customer deliveries, but Tesla and Rivian will no longer have the segment to themselves.

I absolutely agree. Tesla has the lead going forward, but competition is coming and should be welcomed. Love the Lotus, wish Jaguar would do something to up the ante with it's I-Pace that's been too stagnant. Hopeful that Volvo puts something out that can be well received, BMW is DOA, Mercedes is meh, and Audi needs to do likewise as Jaguar.

The hope is that it'll ensure that Tesla is kept on their toes and works toward improving the overall quality of their vehicles (which I think that, overall, they've done with the refresh but things like the turn signals, horn and steering wheel aren't the end all to be all).