Anyone buying a Rivian?

CJones said:
If AMZN is actually investing in Rivian, you better get your own vehicle now (or not, because support will be a nightmare). If Rivian manages to make headway in delivery vehicle efficiency or cost, AMZN will buy them out and you'll never hear of them again unless you're driving a blue van. See: Kiva Systems circa 2012 and many others since then.
Click to expand...
I literally saw a Rivian/Amazon electric delivery van on my walk around town on Monday. They're starting.
 
Warning, sarcasm ahead, snowflakes may be offended. I have mentioned in at least one other thread, that i have an EV. An EV would not be my only car but, it is great car for us to have for a daily driver. Its a grocery getter, Kia Niro. You can definitely tell it is an adaptation of an ICE rather than designed/built from the ground up. One thing about this thread that really cracks me up is the reactions that a poster gets when asking about how much plane to buy results in responses that involve buying a plane for the normal mission not the once a year mission. However, when it comes to cars, every car needs to be capable of navigating the apocalypse while pulling a boat, travel trailer and toy hauler at the same time.

My experience with my grocery getter EV, I get well over 200 miles per charge. I can drive over 170 miles starting at sea level and ending around 5500 feet at my cabin with at least 30 miles to spare (regenerative braking helps) about 8 to 9 months out of the year mostly due to not wanting to drive it in the snow. Yes, turning on the heat does decrease mileage but, has yet to impact my daily driving needs and i commute about 70 miles per day while only charging every other day. Installing a level 2 charger (plug in so I can take it with me) was easy at both my primary home and cabin. I think it cost me around $700 for charger and materials (plus my labor). I did it myself well over a year ago and I haven't burned down the house, collapsed the power grid, etc, etc. The EV has been wet, accidentally drove through a puddle that was damn close to the bottom of the door last week (please don't tell my wife and I don't want to do it again). I have even plugged it in and unplugged during a rain storm (and lived to tell about it or maybe I'm one of Elon's twitter bots). It is the fastest car I have owned, the acceleration is amazing for merging onto freeways. I have also not driven off the edge of flat earth in my EV yet, because I read on another website that the earth was flat so that must be true.

An EV will not be my only car for sometime because I need a real car to navigate the apocalypse while towing my boat, travel trailer and toy hauler, at the same time while driving across the country. Another downside is the lack of feedback at speed, no vibration or noise when doing 90 (i mean 55). Seriously, i won't be getting rid of ICE subie (or something similar) for quite sometime because I need a snow worthy car for snowboarding trips as well as the random long road trip. I will also likely have an EV for a very long time.
 
NoBShere said:
Warning, sarcasm ahead, snowflakes may be offended. I have mentioned in at least one other thread, that i have an EV. An EV would not be my only car but, it is great car for us to have for a daily driver. Its a grocery getter, Kia Niro. You can definitely tell it is an adaptation of an ICE rather than designed/built from the ground up. One thing about this thread that really cracks me up is the reactions that a poster gets when asking about how much plane to buy results in responses that involve buying a plane for the normal mission not the once a year mission. However, when it comes to cars, every car needs to be capable of navigating the apocalypse while pulling a boat, travel trailer and toy hauler at the same time.

My experience with my grocery getter EV, I get well over 200 miles per charge. I can drive over 170 miles starting at sea level and ending around 5500 feet at my cabin with at least 30 miles to spare (regenerative braking helps) about 8 to 9 months out of the year mostly due to not wanting to drive it in the snow. Yes, turning on the heat does decrease mileage but, has yet to impact my daily driving needs and i commute about 70 miles per day while only charging every other day. Installing a level 2 charger (plug in so I can take it with me) was easy at both my primary home and cabin. I think it cost me around $700 for charger and materials (plus my labor). I did it myself well over a year ago and I haven't burned down the house, collapsed the power grid, etc, etc. The EV has been wet, accidentally drove through a puddle that was damn close to the bottom of the door last week (please don't tell my wife and I don't want to do it again). I have even plugged it in and unplugged during a rain storm (and lived to tell about it or maybe I'm one of Elon's twitter bots). It is the fastest car I have owned, the acceleration is amazing for merging onto freeways. I have also not driven off the edge of flat earth in my EV yet, because I read on another website that the earth was flat so that must be true.

An EV will not be my only car for sometime because I need a real car to navigate the apocalypse while towing my boat, travel trailer and toy hauler, at the same time while driving across the country. Another downside is the lack of feedback at speed, no vibration or noise when doing 90 (i mean 55). Seriously, i won't be getting rid of ICE subie (or something similar) for quite sometime because I need a snow worthy car for snowboarding trips as well as the random long road trip. I will also likely have an EV for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The EV doesn't need to replace every potential use-case. A 2-car family can have an ICE capable of long trips/towing as well as an EV for sub-200 mile round trip runs. They each have a place. My only two complaints about EVs at the moment are 1) the price premium for being an early adopter, and 2) the fact that 99% of the EVs currently in production just have no "soul" about them from a design standpoint. Both of those will change over the next decade, but a Tesla is a completely boring car from any angle, even if the straight-line acceleration can be fantastic when properly-optioned. When they start giving the EVs a bit of attitude and personality, I'll take a closer look, but I don't want my interior to look like the inside of an Apple iStore, nor do I want the exterior to look like a 90's Honda Accord.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Exactly. The EV doesn't need to replace every potential use-case. A 2-car family can have an ICE capable of long trips/towing as well as an EV for sub-200 mile round trip runs. They each have a place. My only two complaints about EVs at the moment are 1) the price premium for being an early adopter, and 2) the fact that 99% of the EVs currently in production just have no "soul" about them from a design standpoint. Both of those will change over the next decade, but a Tesla is a completely boring car from any angle, even if the straight-line acceleration can be fantastic when properly-optioned. When they start giving the EVs a bit of attitude and personality, I'll take a closer look, but I don't want my interior to look like the inside of an Apple iStore, nor do I want the exterior to look like a 90's Honda Accord.
Click to expand...

So you are with me on the remake of the dodge cab over as an EV?
upload_2023-1-18_10-54-1.jpeg
 
No idea what this is - it’s sitting in a field with other abandoned trucks along a road I frequent:

52635679410_4acf96fa6a_z.jpg
 
Everskyward said:
You must not understand, his company his rules, unless there are other laws that supersede them.
Click to expand...

I must not understand? I've never argued otherwise. What I've said is that his rules have reduced his revenue by 40% and, among other actions, put the company itself in danger of bankruptcy. It is indeed his company and if he decides to burn it down in a dumpster fire, it's his right to do so. And it's my right to be amused while watching it happen.
 
$37K for what should be a minor auto body fix. Same problem is going to happen with the cybertruck. Even the Model S, being aluminum, parts are outrageous. Thats if you can even find a body shop near by that can work on it. And the reason why my insurance costs as much as my other two cars combined.

 
I saw one of those Rivians and they are ugly but that's my opinion. Here in Florida, people roll around in trucks and most of those trucks start at 50K. I have an Id.4 that I paid less than that for. My wife was not a big fan of EV's because she didn't like the look of Teslas. She drove around in a Q7 to her office which was about a 30 mi commute each way. I showed her a picture of the eTron and she traded her Q7 for the eTron. We also had 22kw solar panels installed this year at 34k (after govt refund). I also had a level II charger installed when we had out house built. I figure we are saving about $500/mo betwen charging and electric with the panels. Of course they are not for everyone but the few times we might actually need a car for a long drive we would rent it and still be well within our savings for the year.
 
francisco collazos said:
I saw one of those Rivians and they are ugly but that's my opinion. Here in Florida, people roll around in trucks and most of those trucks start at 50K. I have an Id.4 that I paid less than that for. My wife was not a big fan of EV's because she didn't like the look of Teslas. She drove around in a Q7 to her office which was about a 30 mi commute each way. I showed her a picture of the eTron and she traded her Q7 for the eTron. We also had 22kw solar panels installed this year at 34k (after govt refund). I also had a level II charger installed when we had out house built. I figure we are saving about $500/mo betwen charging and electric with the panels. Of course they are not for everyone but the few times we might actually need a car for a long drive we would rent it and still be well within our savings for the year.
Click to expand...

How does the $34K for panels pencil out financially? Are your annual electric bill expenses that high? I think we spend about $2K/year in electric bills for an very inefficient 3K sq ft home (built in the 60's). That's a 17-year payback assuming I didn't use any power from the electric company at all during that 17-yr period, not to mention fixed connection fees or interest paid on that $34K. I'd imagine they probably have about a 20-yr useful life, no?
 
tspear said:
Rivan is meh to me. For ugly, look at BMW the last couple years...

Tim
Click to expand...
Honestly the only think that looks off-putting about the Rivian R1T to me is the vertical grill spots. I understand the design-language and trying to have an iconic/easily-recognizable front grill, but it breaks up an otherwise-benign front end. The rest of the truck looks fine. I feel the same way about BMW's comically-large kidney grills over the past few years. It just catches the eye in the wrong way. The R1T grill openings may even be okay if they were blacked out instead of surrounded by lighting as a focal point.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Honestly the only think that looks off-putting about the Rivian R1T to me is the vertical grill spots. I understand the design-language and trying to have an iconic/easily-recognizable front grill, but it breaks up an otherwise-benign front end. The rest of the truck looks fine. I feel the same way about BMW's comically-large kidney grills over the past few years. It just catches the eye in the wrong way. The R1T grill openings may even be okay if they were blacked out instead of surrounded by lighting as a focal point.
Click to expand...

Agree. Change those lights to horizontal and it’s a good looking truck. Also agree on the BMW. Not a big fan of the Lexus abnormally large hour glass grills either.
 
Yes, we use a lot of electricity. Our average bill last is about $350/mo and that's with 11c/kwh. My wife's car probably adds another $100 and mine probably $30 per month. We paid cash for the panels so no interest and I figure our break even in about 7 yrs and that's if they don't raise electric rates which they will. Our house is a new house with a new roof so it's good for many years to come. BTW even after 25yrs the panels are rated to produce 80 percent
 
I saw a F-150 Lightning in the wild near our neighborhood yesterday. Have to say - it looked pretty sharp. Pulled up behind it at a light and said to my wife "Wow. That's pretty sharp for a Ford." Then when it turned I saw the 'Ligthning' badge. This guy had aggressive AT tires on it, so would be interesting to know how much that impacts his range. It seemed to have minimal ground clearance for a fullsize pickup - as in, wouldn't want to take it down the smooth-ish two-track paths I use when hunting WMA land for fear of dragging the ground or filling the belly with grass. It did have some curb appeal though.
 
CJones said:
I saw a F-150 Lightning in the wild near our neighborhood yesterday. Have to say - it looked pretty sharp. Pulled up behind it at a light and said to my wife "Wow. That's pretty sharp for a Ford." Then when it turned I saw the 'Ligthning' badge. This guy had aggressive AT tires on it, so would be interesting to know how much that impacts his range. It seemed to have minimal ground clearance for a fullsize pickup - as in, wouldn't want to take it down the smooth-ish two-track paths I use when hunting WMA land for fear of dragging the ground or filling the belly with grass. It did have some curb appeal though.
Click to expand...

The Lightning is and always has been a street truck, and was always 2WD-only prior to the EV-model. It has low ground clearance because it's a sport truck. Only reason I can think to have A/T tires on one is for those occasional runs across some open fields or a slippery boat ramp that might get marginal improvement from A/T tread. I'd bet the owner just did it for looks.
 
2024 Chevy Silverado EV vids popped up on my YT feed today. I’m not a truck guy but it looks impressive. Still too rich for my blood though.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The Lightning is and always has been a street truck, and was always 2WD-only prior to the EV-model. It has low ground clearance because it's a sport truck. Only reason I can think to have A/T tires on one is for those occasional runs across some open fields or a slippery boat ramp that might get marginal improvement from A/T tread. I'd bet the owner just did it for looks.
Click to expand...

The EV F-150 is not a Lightning. The Lightning was the Ford SVO super fast hotrod truck. It is a standard looking F-150 with the EV mods to make it look fancy.

They picked the Lightning name because it evokes electricity and because they already own the copyright, just like the Maverick is now a truck...
 
IK04 said:
The EV F-150 is not a Lightning. The Lightning was the Ford SVO super fast hotrod truck. It is a standard looking F-150 with the EV mods to make it look fancy.

They picked the Lightning name because it evokes electricity and because they already own the copyright, just like the Maverick is now a truck...
Click to expand...
The top-level Ford Lightning will squeeze out a 4-second 0-60. I realize why they used the Lightning name for all of the EV F-150 models, but that doesn't discount the fact that they have trims that will outrun any of the previous SVT Lightning trucks. It's a street truck platform. They will have off-road/Raptor models to handle the higher ground clearance duties.
 
IK04 said:
The EV F-150 is not a Lightning. The Lightning was the Ford SVO super fast hotrod truck. It is a standard looking F-150 with the EV mods to make it look fancy.

They picked the Lightning name because it evokes electricity and because they already own the copyright, just like the Maverick is now a truck...
Click to expand...
Mustang Mach-E, anyone??
 
ok, I am totally confused. The only Ford Lighting I know of is the recently introduced BEV.
What are you guys talking about?
 
tspear said:
ok, I am totally confused. The only Ford Lighting I know of is the recently introduced BEV.
What are you guys talking about?
Click to expand...
The original Ford Lightning was a regular cab F-150 with a hopped-up 351w V8 back in '93 or so produced by a new automotive group called SVT (Special Vehicles Team). It was sort of an answer to GMs variant of their Silverado as 454 SS trucks in 1990.

Then, Ford came out with an updated SVT Lightning around 2003 which was a regular cab with a supercharged 5.4L V8. Pretty mean truck at the time. SVT was also responsible for the Ford Cobra of the same year, dubbed "The Terminator".

Ford revived the Lightning name when the F-150 full electric truck was unveiled.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The original Ford Lightning was a regular cab F-150 with a hopped-up 351w V8 back in '93 or so produced by a new automotive group called SVT (Special Vehicles Team). It was sort of an answer to GMs variant of their Silverado as 454 SS trucks in 1990.

Then, Ford came out with an updated SVT Lightning around 2003 which was a regular cab with a supercharged 5.4L V8. Pretty mean truck at the time. SVT was also responsible for the Ford Cobra of the same year, dubbed "The Terminator".

Ford revived the Lightning name when the F-150 full electric truck was unveiled.
Click to expand...

I didn't know all that history. Interesting.

The Lightning version I saw was definitely the new EV version.
 
1993 Lightning vs. Chevy 454SS.

$20K for a top end "performance" truck in its day -- with RV level MPG numbers and soccer mom minivan 0-60 times. :)


https://www.caranddriver.com/review...ning-vs-1993-chevrolet-454ss-comparison-test/

1993 Ford F-150 Lightning
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door pickup

PRICE
Base/As Tested: $19,523/$21,782

ENGINE
pushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 351 in3, 5752 cm3
Power: 240 hp @ 4200 rpm
Torque: 340 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm

C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.2 sec
1/4-Mile: 15.8 sec @ 86 mph
100 mph: 25.7 sec
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.3 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 5.2 sec
Top Speed: 110 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 184 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.88 g

C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 12 mpg



1993 Chevrolet 454 SS
Vehicle Type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door pickup

PRICE
Base/As Tested: $21,835/$22,119

ENGINE
pushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and heads, throttle-body fuel injection
Displacement: 454 in3, 7440 cm3
Power: 255 hp @ 4000 rpm
Torque: 405 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm

C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 7.1 sec
1/4-Mile: 15.7 sec @ 87 mph
100 mph: 22.5 sec
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 7.2 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.9 sec
Top Speed: 120 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 217 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.79 g

C/D FUEL ECONOMY
Observed: 10 mpg


lightning-454ss-106-1621455035.jpg
 
The 454SS suffered from a terrible 3-speed auto transmission in 1990, and couldn't get traction with all of that big-block torque. They got the 4-speed auto tranny in the subsequent year I believe. I think the next-gen Lightning was where it really made its name. Having a 5.2-second 0-60 with the supercharged 380HP was enough to make it stand out, but the extra appearance package bits (different front bumper/grills/side skirts, side-exit exhaust) were cool, too. A 2-second drop in the 0-60 was pretty significant in the sport truck realm, and aside from the early-90s GMC Syclone, there wasn't anything else going that fast in truck-form.

2001-Ford-F-150-SVT-Lightning-Exterior-001-Front-Three-Quarters-850x566.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top