Rivian goes compact and affordable with $45K R2 SUV, surprises with R3 twins

[zohaibahd]

Forward-looking: Electric car maker Rivian is flexing its muscles with major lineup expansion news. At a splashy event in Laguna Beach this week, the company unveiled not one, not two, but three all-new SUV models set to hit the road in the coming years: the R2, R3, and R3X.

Let's start with the R2, slated to arrive first in the first half of 2026. Although it may be Rivian's new addition, measuring approximately a foot shorter than their existing R1S SUV, it's still a proper full-size vehicle. The R2 will offer a choice between a single, dual, or tri-motor setup, with the top tri-motor variant boasting a 0-60 mph sprint time of under 3 seconds.

In terms of range, Rivian is targeting over 300 miles on a single charge for the R2. While not groundbreaking in the EV world, it is entirely respectable. The company is also promoting an advanced driver-assist system, enabled by 11 cameras and five radars, which CEO R. J. Scaringe describes as offering a "very high level of self-driving."

But perhaps the most enticing detail is the projected starting price tag of $45,000. This aggressive entry point could allow the R2 to compete against the likes Tesla Model Y or the Ford Mustang Mach-E.

Overwhelmed by the wonderful response to our new vehicles: R2, R3 and R3X.

In less than 24 hours, we've taken more than 68,000 R2 reservations. We are thrilled to see this vehicle resonate so strongly with our community! pic.twitter.com/tEIBhwlJQC

– RJ Scaringe (@RJScaringe) March 8, 2024

However, the R2 wasn't the only new product Rivian was ready to unveil. The company surprised fans by teasing two smaller (and arguably more interesting) crossover models: the R3 and R3X.

These two models share quite a bit with their larger R2 sibling, including the sleek, signature Rivian styling and short rear overhangs. The key difference seems to be a shorter wheelbase and a smaller overall footprint, designed to make them even more city-friendly.

Under the hood, it's reasonable to assume the R3 lineup will leverage much of the R2's technology, with similar single, dual, and tri-motor powertrain options. We're also likely looking at 300+ mile range ratings and ultra-fast charging capabilities.

Of the two more affordable options, the R3X aims to distinguish itself with a more rugged, off-road focused package. It features burlier tires, a higher ground clearance, and what appears to be additional cladding for tackling trails.

Pricing for the R3 twins has not been announced, but it's expected that the standard model will start somewhere in the $35,000 - $40,000 range to undercut the R2, while the R3X could range from $45,000 to $55,000, given the added premium features. Rivian also indicates that these two models will follow the R2, although specific timelines are unclear.

It's a bold expansion move from Rivian as they look to broaden their lineup and appeal amidst a softening EV market. What remains to be seen is whether the company will be able to back it up with consistent, high-volume production after their early struggles.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/102202-rivian-goes-compact-affordable-45k-r2-suv-surprises.html

 

[Beerfloat]

I'm not in love with the design of the Rivians but don't actively dislike them either. They have one major advantage over Tesla in that I might at least consider ever owning one.

 

[mrvco]

How much would range improve if they dialed back the 0-60 times slightly, say to 5 or 6s instead of 3s?

I live in an area with a fair amount of Rivians and lots of Teslas, but blistering acceleration seems to be a very low priority for the people driving these vehicles.

 

[mountains]

Interesting. I wonder how the Rivians fair on owner privacy with their online facing aspects. Teslas are actually OK cars, but a privacy nightmare.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

More dedicated options in the EV space is a good thing, the major automakers dabble but they're pulled in too many directions and can't commit to EVs properly.

The top down approach for EV's seems like the right business model. Let the whales and early adopters spend the money and help the company get the logistics and kinks worked out of the production model, then slowly move down into more mass market pricing territory once you have the manufacturing process worked out.

 

[takaozo]

What I don't understand is why electric cars dont use large flat surfaces like the roof for solar cells.
This way you can get free slow charge when the car is parked during the day.

 

[godrilla]

I'm not in love with the design of the Rivians but don't actively dislike them either. They have one major advantage over Tesla in that I might at least consider ever owning one.

Check out Polestar. I believe they are owned by Volvo. The Polestar 4 has a nice design imo. Although for the price it's cheaper than the audi q4 etron, Volvo XC40 recharge but has a stiff competition with Woltzwagen ID.4, and many others on this list.

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/electric-suvs

 

[godrilla]

How much would range improve if they dialed back the 0-60 times slightly, say to 5 or 6s instead of 3s?

I live in an area with a fair amount of Rivians and lots of Teslas, but blistering acceleration seems to be a very low priority for the people driving these vehicles.

I drive a lot, it's true for every 100 Teslas, I see maybe 1 speedster. For Rivian vehicles, I have yet to see anyone driving reckless.

 

[Superconductor]

What I don't understand is why electric cars dont use large flat surfaces like the roof for solar cells.
This way you can get free slow charge when the car is parked during the day.

Because big panoramic roofs are cheaper and more appealing. Integrated solar panels wouldn't produce enough juice worth a *&^%.
Economies of Scale!

These Rivian's are toys for kids (at heart or otherwise...)

 

[toooooot]

Very compact, not much affordable

 

[ScottSoapbox]

How much would range improve if they dialed back the 0-60 times slightly, say to 5 or 6s instead of 3s?

I live in an area with a fair amount of Rivians and lots of Teslas, but blistering acceleration seems to be a very low priority for the people driving these vehicles.

Range estimates are always based on a set of typical driving.

Actual range is influenced by acceleration only if you use it. The fact that an electric engine CAN accelerate strongly has zero impact on how much energy is used when driving normally.

 

[human7]

What I don't understand is why electric cars dont use large flat surfaces like the roof for solar cells.
This way you can get free slow charge when the car is parked during the day.

I have solar on my house and based on what my panels do, the emphasis would be on the "slow" part of the "slow charge". You'd probably get a peak of 400 watts raw production or so on the surface area of a car rooftop with direct sunlight around noon. Assuming 10 hours of sunlight per day with no clouds, you could expect to get an average of 200 watts production (after any losses due to inefficiencies and accounting for morning and evening). So you would get 2kWh of energy out of it per day. Depending on the battery capacity, that would provide a full battery recharge in 2 weeks (~35kWh capacity) to 8 weeks (~120kWh capacity).

Not bad if you planning on going fully off grid and only doing light driving, I guess, but you would definitely want to augment your solar with another power source.

Not sure the bang is worth the buck. If solar panels were cheaper this would be much easier to justify, even if the power rate is low that's still a lot of juice that the grid doesn't have to supply when you add up all the cars.

 

[wiyosaya]

How much would range improve if they dialed back the 0-60 times slightly, say to 5 or 6s instead of 3s?

I live in an area with a fair amount of Rivians and lots of Teslas, but blistering acceleration seems to be a very low priority for the people driving these vehicles.

That's a hold over from the days when 0-60 times meant something to buyers.

If you do crunch the accelerator, you'll drain the battery much more quickly. As to leaving that out of the design, if they have the electronics tuned properly, the vehicle can be extremely efficient even with those fast times.

I recently bought a '24 Prius Prime after having an '06 Prius for 18 years. The new Prime has a 6.6s 0-60 time, and the old one was over 10s. That said, the '24 is far more efficient than the '06 was.

 

[wiyosaya]

What I don't understand is why electric cars dont use large flat surfaces like the roof for solar cells.
This way you can get free slow charge when the car is parked during the day.

The '24 Prius Prime I just bought had an option for a "solar roof." It also has a 13.6 kWh battery. With the "solar roof" it would take something like 6-days to completely charge the battery. The "solar roof" is rated at something like 240W which means that it would take about 4-hours in full sunlight to generate 1-kWh of electricity. Someone calculated that recovering the cost of the "solar roof" option would take something like 5-years on the electricity saved.

If solar cells were 100% efficient, I may have been able to justify paying for the option since on a clear day, the Earth receives about 1-kW per square meter; however, with current efficiencies of solar cells, I see the option as a feel-good gimmick that is not worth the extra money.

 

[daffy duck]

Why is it so damn fugly! What is wrong with today's m0ron designers. Inside and out EV's are as fugly as all crap with a few exceptions.

 

[toooooot]

Why is it so damn fugly! What is wrong with today's m0ron designers. Inside and out EV's are as fugly as all crap with a few exceptions.

I would say it is not as ugly as some other cars. At least it stands out from hundreds of Tesla or Porsche Taycan clones.
The thing that drives me so very crazy is these wheel designs when everything tries to look like a flower. I hate
when wheels look like flowers, that is not pleasant in a car. It is like if instead of cool paint, a car was painted in nature wallpapers with trees flowers and grass.

 

[Uncle Al]

If they got out all the bugs that plagued the truck it would be great, although still way over priced .....

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I like rivians outer design, but that interior is bleh. Slapping an iPad on a dashboard is not design.

Also, given the insane repair costs of the r1t/s, I'd hold off on one of these unless you have deep pockets.

What I don't understand is why electric cars dont use large flat surfaces like the roof for solar cells.
This way you can get free slow charge when the car is parked during the day.

A) such a roof would add significant cost
B) such a roof would be difficult to keep clean
C) such a roof would be fragile
D) such a roof would provide very little power. Likely less then 5 miles a day worth of charge, in perfect weather, in direct sunlight.

 

[Endymio]

You'd probably get a peak of 400 watts raw production or so on the surface area of a car rooftop with direct sunlight around noon. Assuming 10 hours of sunlight per day with no clouds, you could expect to get an average of 200 watts production (after any losses due to inefficiencies and accounting for morning and evening). So you would get 2kWh of energy out of it per day. Depending on the battery capacity, that would provide a full battery recharge in 2 weeks

Your calculations imply a capacity factor of 42% (10/24 * 50%). But solar cells in ideal environments are generally around 30% -- and the roof of an automobile is far from ideal, as cars are usually driven or parked near or underneath trees, buildings, overpasses, etc, where they receive little to no light. Driving in a skyscraper-ridden urban city center or along a tree-lined avenue, such a vehicle would be lucky to get 2 hours of solar insolation, much less 10. And, of course, if you tell the owner of a fancy new Rivian they have to keep it exposed to the elements when parked, rather than safely in a dimly-lit parking deck or garage, they won't be happy.

Even still, it might be worth putting solar cells on EVs ....except there's no such thing as a free lunch. The cells themselves and associated inverters, wiring, mounts, etc, all add weight. And parasitic weight is the bane of all vehicles.

 

[human7]

Your calculations imply a capacity factor of 42% (10/24 * 50%). But solar cells in ideal environments are generally around 30% -- and the roof of an automobile is far from ideal, as cars are usually driven or parked near or underneath trees, buildings, overpasses, etc, where they receive little to no light. Driving in a skyscraper-ridden urban city center or along a tree-lined avenue, such a vehicle would be lucky to get 2 hours of solar insolation, much less 10. And, of course, if you tell the owner of a fancy new Rivian they have to keep it exposed to the elements when parked, rather than safely in a dimly-lit parking deck or garage, they won't be happy.

Even still, it might be worth putting solar cells on EVs ....except there's no such thing as a free lunch. The cells themselves and associated inverters, wiring, mounts, etc, all add weight. And parasitic weight is the bane of all vehicles.

It's an intentional overestimate to show that even in ideal conditions it would take a considerable time to recharge the battery.

Not sure we would need the inverters, though, solar panels produce DC electric, which can be fed directly into the battery. We need them for houses because we put A/C on the grid and in the walls. As for mounting, I imagine it could be seamlessly integrated into the roof, which would be better for aerodynamics, too.

I don't doubt that it would add weight, and it would certainly add cost. I think it's a good idea - provided the costs can be kept low enough to only add a grand or two to the price of the car. Any more than that and I don't see it being worth it unless the price of electricity skyrockets. The panels also need to last a while. The ones on my roof come with a 25 year warranty, but they aren't experiencing g-forces (beyond the 1) every day, either.

As for storing the car... a rise in greenhouse garages, maybe? I dunno, but I wouldn't want it to be exposed to the elements, either. I suppose if you have an EV you are more likely to have solar on your home, too.

 

[human7]

I like rivians outer design, but that interior is bleh. Slapping an iPad on a dashboard is not design.

Also, given the insane repair costs of the r1t/s, I'd hold off on one of these unless you have deep pockets.
A) such a roof would add significant cost
B) such a roof would be difficult to keep clean
C) such a roof would be fragile
D) such a roof would provide very little power. Likely less then 5 miles a day worth of charge, in perfect weather, in direct sunlight.

Right on the other points, but I don't think it would be difficult to keep them clean. The panels on my home can get power just fine when there is a light covering of snow on them, for example. The real question would be making sure that the chemicals in car washes and such doesn't cause them to deteriorate.

 

[Thrackerzod]

I will never like having big iPads for dashboards.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

I have solar on my house and based on what my panels do, the emphasis would be on the "slow" part of the "slow charge". You'd probably get a peak of 400 watts raw production or so on the surface area of a car rooftop with direct sunlight around noon. Assuming 10 hours of sunlight per day with no clouds, you could expect to get an average of 200 watts production (after any losses due to inefficiencies and accounting for morning and evening). So you would get 2kWh of energy out of it per day. Depending on the battery capacity, that would provide a full battery recharge in 2 weeks (~35kWh capacity) to 8 weeks (~120kWh capacity).

Not bad if you planning on going fully off grid and only doing light driving, I guess, but you would definitely want to augment your solar with another power source.

Not sure the bang is worth the buck. If solar panels were cheaper this would be much easier to justify, even if the power rate is low that's still a lot of juice that the grid doesn't have to supply when you add up all the cars.

The other issue is that solar panels are easily damaged compared to a metal panel. And damage is usually unrepairable. So not the type of thing you want on a car exterior.

 

[bviktor]

How much would range improve if they dialed back the 0-60 times slightly, say to 5 or 6s instead of 3s?

I live in an area with a fair amount of Rivians and lots of Teslas, but blistering acceleration seems to be a very low priority for the people driving these vehicles.

Most car companies solve this by adding an eco mode that reduces performance. Not Tesla, apparently.

 

[Endymio]

Most car companies solve this by adding an eco mode that reduces performance. Not Tesla, apparently.

Um, Tesla doesn't add an "eco mode", for the simple reason that electric motors don't have a widely varying efficiency band like internal combustion engines do. Restricting their power output therefore accomplishes essentially nothing.

Tesla does have a "range mode" -- but it doesn't affect performance. It simply reduces the cabin heating/AC, and turns off the exterior running lights.