We can’t hide our excitement over Rivian’s new R2 SUV. We’ve been thrilled at the idea of a junior R1S, and that’s exactly what our first drive revealed: all that Rivian goodness in a smaller, more affordable package. But any vehicle seems good with no context; what matters is how it compares to its peers.
No soft-soaping here: We gathered three of the very best electric SUVs on the market for a comparison test. Destination: Mammoth Lakes, California, favored vacationland of Ryan Ono, a beloved MotorTrend staffer who passed away almost exactly one year ago. Ono rarely had a byline on our stories, but he was a beloved, critical cog in the MT machine, and one of his billion jobs was crewing and lending a hand during these comparisons. His spirit remains a big part of our culture, especially during multivehicle evaluations like this.
Gathering the Best in the Segment
Rivian sent us an R2 in top-of-the-line Performance AWD trim with a 656-hp dual-motor powertrain, wood and faux-leather interior, 975-watt stereo, panoramic sunroof, and matrix LED headlights. Options included the Launch package, which adds 4,400-pound towing and Rivian’s Autonomy+ advanced driver assistance system (ADAS; we’ll be using that acronym a lot today). Optional Catalina Cove paint (all colors except silver cost $2,000—ouch) brought the price to $61,485.
Tesla supplied the 524-hp Model Y Performance. Like the R2, it had a premium stereo, matrix LED lighting, and a panoramic roof. Tesla doesn’t charge extra for any paint color—nota bene, Rivian—and the $8,000 Full Self Driving system made for a $66,880 sticker. (Tesla has since eliminated the FSD purchase option; it’s now offered as a $99-per-month subscription.)
Hyundai’s Ioniq 5 won the MotorTrend SUV of the Year title in 2023 and remains a favorite for its high-luxe interior, fast charging, and all-around goodness. The N model most closely matches the R2 in power, but its boy-racer persona wasn’t appropriate to this comparison, so we requested a Limited AWD. Although outgunned at 320 hp, its upscale cabin, Highway Driving Assist ADAS, Bose stereo, and panoramic sunroof put it in the right neighborhood. With $1,000 matte-white paint (really?) and $240 floormats (really really?), the Ioniq was our value leader at $51,815.
The Ford Mustang Mach-E took a surprise win at our last Big Test comparison in Premium eAWD form. For this matchup, Ford supplied the 480-hp dual-motor GT optioned with the GT Performance package (adding 100 lb-ft of torque and MagneRide shocks), panoramic sunroof, and the California Special package with unique wheels and tape stripes. A $995 paint job pumped the sticker to $65,485.
Hitting the Road and Figuring Out the Interfaces
This was all the judges’ first go in the R2, and we were immediately taken by its similarity to the bigger Rivians we like a lot. While the Tesla, Hyundai, and Ford have slick, aero-friendly shapes, the R2 is boxy and upright, basically an R1S in miniature. (Well, not too miniature.)
Rivian’s interface shuns conventional switchgear. You access most functions through the center screen and controls on the steering wheel—not buttons but nifty new “halo” rings. New drivers get an on-screen tutorial, an idea other automakers ought to copy, but we’d much prefer voice recognition; in the Tesla, if you don’t know how to do something, you can ask the car. (The voice-prompted Rivian Assistant is supposed to come to the R2 through a software update, but our test vehicle didn’t yet have it.) We found the navigation system comprehensive but would’ve preferred the option to use apps like Waze. The ride was old-school-SUV busy, and road noise was moderate, but we were happy to drown it out with the excellent stereo.
Opinions on the Tesla Model Y’s ride quality skewed negative, though we all praised the quiet cabin. We have burned many office hours arguing about the Tesla’s minimalist interior and single-screen interface; some (including Ono) call it chic and efficient, but this road-trip crew saw it as cruel cost-cutting. Tesla made an attempt to jazz up the Performance model’s trim, but the LED lighting merely highlighted the poor panel fit. As for that single screen, we thought it was organized more like a cluttered computer desktop than a car dashboard. Those of us who rely on reading glasses found it difficult to use, especially since you can’t change to a large font size unless the car is parked. The phone app, however, is excellent, giving owners unusually broad remote access to the car’s functions.
Like in the Rivian and Tesla, you access most of the Mustang Mach-E’s functions through the center screen, though vents, seats, and mirrors use conventional controls, which we vastly prefer. The Ford offers an easier-to-use interface than Rivian or Tesla, but it’s aging; we noticed lots of lag and some flickering. Looking up from the screen, we loved the view out over the power-bulge hood—very, very Mustang—and were surprised by how comfortable, quiet, and refined the driving experience was, especially considering the GT’s sporty demeanor. All the better to enjoy the outstanding Bose stereo.
It was almost a relief to board the Ioniq 5, with its futuristic take on conventional controls. The screens looked cutting-edge, but there were plenty of conventional buttons and dials for the stereo and A/C systems. Tons of storage, bright colors, and high-class trim made us forget the 5 cost nearly $10,000 less than the next-cheapest competitor.
An important detail only Hyundai got right: The Ioniq 5 had the only built-in fabric blind for its panoramic sunroof. Ford and Tesla offer removable mesh affairs for around $100, which were missing from our cars. (Rivian doesn’t catalog one for the R2, but we imagine it will.) The thermal coatings on the glass roofs were no match for the ruthless California sun, prompting us to have uncharitable thoughts about Rivian, Tesla, and Ford bean-counters experiencing tortuous heat-related incidents.
Let’s Go Drive Like Idiots
There are some great curvy roads just off Highway 395, and after a quick charging stop in Lone Pine—not so quick, actually, more on which in a moment—we broke our journey for a little tire-squealing fun through Onion Valley. We figured the Ioniq 5 would be disadvantaged here, and it was. Stable and predictable, it was easy to drive in the curves, but pushing hard set off a tug-of-war between stability control and the oversteering chassis.
The Model Y felt notably quick and was by far the grippiest vehicle here thanks to its staggered performance-oriented tires. Only the Mustang Mach-E was quicker in our figure-eight handling test. Driving the Tesla fast felt like playing a video game that never lets you leave the road. Before the tires gave the barest hint of giving up grip, stability control seamlessly took action. That sounds sensible and gave a smoother run than the Hyundai, but it reduced the seat-of-the-pants fun factor to near zero.
The Rivian R2—now that was our idea of fun. It felt ridiculously quick across the speed range, though it pitched and rolled like the big, boxy SUVs it’s trying to be. It gripped the road better than the Hyundai and let go the same way, tail-first. When we set stability control to its more permissive setting, the R2 would give a happy little tail-wiggle, correcting itself if we didn’t take immediate action. Performance brands expend much engineering time and money to make cars act this playful. Granted, this is not the kind of thing you might do on the school run, but once you drop off the kids, all bets are off, right?
Still, nothing can top the Mustang Mach-E for an electric SUV that feels like a sports car. Along with its 700-lb-ft wallop, the GT Performance pack adds the Unbridled Extended drive mode. In regular Unbridled, the Mach-E followed our intended path like a field hunter after the hounds. Unbridled Extended felt like we could power-slide the tail like pros. No question, this is an SUV engineered by true gearheads.
Resting and Recharging
All these shenanigans took a toll on the batteries, so it was time (again) for a charge-up. We knew what to expect, having subjected all four to our MotorTrend Road-Trip Range test, which tells us a battery’s range at a steady 70 mph from 100 percent capacity down to 5 percent, as well as our recharging tests.
The Mach-E has the biggest battery, but it’s also the least efficient. Its 280-mile EPA range is lowest among the extended-range variants, but it delivered just 208 miles in RTR, a 26 percent shortfall. It also had the slowest Level 3 charging rate at 150 kW. A 15-minute fast charge yielded just 77 miles, little more than half what the others gained.
The Rivian’s 330-mile EPA-rated range is the longest here, but it also underperformed in our RTR test by 20 percent, delivering 263 miles. At least it recharged quickly, adding 130 miles in 15 minutes. The Tesla came closest to its promise; it missed its 306-mile EPA range by just 9 percent, with 279 miles. A quarter-hour charge added 126 miles, a third-best performance. Also, no car offered more enjoyable diversions than the Tesla, with video games, a virtual whoopie cushion—no, really—and the opportunity to chat with Grok AI, which you may also do while driving. The Ioniq 5 should have been at a disadvantage, with a test-lowest EPA range of 269 miles. It’s RTR was 13 percent lower at 234 miles, but it was the quickest to juice, picking up 138 miles in 15 minutes.
Our road trip quickly began to center around keeping the Mustang charged. While the other cars could have made it to the next charger along the way with 10 or 15 minutes of plug time, the Mustang always needed half an hour or longer, and it was the only car we plugged in at the hotel when we made it to Mammoth. In fact, after our curvy road drive, we had to backtrack to the chargers in Lone Pine because the Mustang didn’t have enough battery to continue to Bishop. The other SUVs would have made it.
Something to Do While We Wait
The Mustang’s slow charging gave us plenty of time to evaluate rear passenger space, amenities, and cargo storage. We figured the boxy, upright Rivian would have the edge. Its cargo bay is huge, and the tailgate’s roll-down rear window is a nifty feature. But the Tesla has even more trunk space, and like the Rivian, it offers a huge hidden cubby beneath the trunk floor. Although the Rivian’s 5.2-cubic-foot frunk is bigger on paper, the Tesla’s looked larger and proved easier to access. Those of us who are vertically challenged found it hard not to rub against the R2’s vertical nose, which was caked with dead insects. Ugh. The Tesla’s pointy front end let us drop stuff right in.
By comparison, the Hyundai and Ford feel more like small hatchbacks than SUVs. On paper the Mustang Mach-E has the most cargo room, but the space is long rather than tall, and the others felt more luggage friendly. The Hyundai’s frunk is so small as to be near useless. The Ford’s isn’t that big, plus it’s a $500 extra-cost option.
We expected the Rivian to have the best back seat, but its floor was a little too high and its bottom cushion a little too low, a common issue with EVs that have batteries under the floor. Stretching your legs increases the comfort factor, but there’s not as much toe room under the front seats as we’d like. The Hyundai offered decent rear space, and the Ford felt a bit cramped. As with the Rivian, they’d both benefit from a bigger “toe garage.”
Tesla’s Model Y was the best of the group. It has a roomy, comfortable back seat with generous leg (and toe) room, plus a comprehensive rear screen that controls audio and climate and plays video games. But for the relentless sun shining through the unblinded glass roof, the Tesla was the best for back-seaters.
Time to Let the Cars Drive
After a photo session and another charge-up in Bishop, we embarked on the final leg to Mammoth, with an eye on ADAS. The Ioniq 5’s standard Highway Driving Assistance system set the baseline, combining adaptive cruise and good lane centering but requiring hands on the wheel. Automated lane changes were supposed to happen at the flick of the turn signal, but holding the steering wheel (as required) can trip it up, as any torque signals to HDA that you’d like to take over.
Our test Mach-E had a BlueCruise subscription ($745 for the year) that allowed us to go hands-off on mapped roads. Unfortunately, most of our route to Mammoth wasn’t mapped, so BlueCruise functioned much as Hyundai’s HDA. Its self-steering felt more jerky in the curves, but its automated lane changes tied the Tesla for ease of activation and smoothness.
The Model Y was equipped with Tesla’s Full Self Driving (Supervised) system, by far the most advanced, or at least the most ambitious. Program a destination into its nav system, and the Tesla will drive you there, though you must always be ready to take control (hence the “(Supervised)” part of the name). We’ve found it great for commuting, but on the drive to Mammoth we were frustrated by the inability to set a specific speed. FSD lets you choose a mode (Chill, Standard, Hurry, Mad Max) but decides for itself how fast to drive. On a desert four-laner like 395, we like to be 8 or 9 mph faster than the 65 limit, quick enough to make time but slow enough that the cops won’t bother with us. FSD either wanted to cling to the speed limit (Standard) or cruise at 13 over (Hurry). The limit drops rapidly from 65 to 35 as you get into town, and we didn’t trust FSD to slow quickly enough to avoid the speed traps.
OK, then, we’d ditch FSD and use adaptive cruise and Autopilot lane centering. Surprise, surprise: Tesla has taken away Autopilot, so you must either use FSD or have no lane centering at all. FSD has lots of fans—Ono was among them—but not all drivers are ready to hand over that much control, and it still has faults. It seems silly that there’s no middle ground. Our sub-$25K long-term Kia K4 has lane centering, so why doesn’t a $60,000 Tesla?
We thought the Rivian R2 struck the best compromise. Its Autonomy+ system bridges the gap between HDA and FSD, allowing you to go hands-off on almost any road but not doing its own navigation. It steered surely and smoothly, though lanes at Y-splits and exits confused it, and automated lane changes didn’t work on much of the 395, which it must not have recognized as a multilane road.
Finding the Best Among Near-Equals
Arriving in Mammoth, we were reminded why Ono loved this place. We met at the trailhead his family has adopted for a memorial and reflected on how lucky we were, not just to do the job of our dreams but to work with colleagues like him who became close friends. It was a bittersweet moment of remembering good times with him and feeling the ache of his absence. We could picture him standing there with us, chiding us for talking about him here when we should have been ranking these stellar SUVs.
Bittersweet also describes the Ford Mustang Mach-E’s fourth-place finish. It was the best to drive, we loved its character and attitude, and we thought the California Special looked really sharp. But this SUV badly needs an update, as indicated by its laggy infotainment, short real-world range, and slow Level 3 charging. The last two are of little consequence to local drivers with home chargers, but this was a road-trip comparison, and the Ford was a thorn in our side. EVs age in dog years—a year for a normal car feels like seven for an electric—and the Mustang Mach-E is getting old before its time.
Second and third place were much tougher. The Tesla Model Y and Hyundai Ioniq 5 were exceptionally close but for entirely different reasons. The Tesla was best for back-seat and cargo space. It delivers on its range promises, and while we can debate FSD until the sun falls out of the sky, we admire Tesla’s ambition. But it also had the chintziest interior, the dullest styling (we parked our Performance Launch Edition next to a base model and could hardly tell the difference), and the most frustrating user interface. Also, the elimination of Autosteer seemed silly to us. We know a lot of tech-forward Tesla buyers who are eager to act as beta-testers for this cutting-edge technology, but not everyone is there yet.
The Hyundai, by contrast, had a lovely interior and easy-to-use interface, offered a serene (if not exciting) driving experience, and was the fastest charger of the group. But its ADAS was the least advanced, and it trailed the Tesla on speed, cargo space, and rear passenger room. Overall, it felt the most luxurious and approachable of these four. That alone might have been enough to give it the edge over the Tesla, but once we considered its price tag—lowest here by a massive margin—we had our answer: Tesla Model Y in third place and Hyundai Ioniq 5 in second.
That leaves the Rivian R2 as our winner. It’s a compelling package: good looks, lots of space, exciting performance, and an interface that’s both approachable and cutting-edge. Best of all, it’s an SUV that’s not afraid to look, feel, and drive like an SUV. The Hyundai Ioniq 5, Tesla Model Y, and Ford Mustang Mach-E are all excellent electric vehicles, but on this lovely road trip, the Rivian proved to be our favorite. We think Ono would have approved.
4th Place: 2026 Ford Mustang Mach-E GT California Special
Verdict: Rapidly aging technology sinks an otherwise exceptionally enjoyable electric SUV.
3rd Place: 2026 Tesla Model Y Performance
Verdict: An SUV designed by people convinced they can make better decisions than you, even if they can’t.
2nd Place: 2026 Hyundai Ioniq 5 Limited
Verdict: Three long years after winning our SUV of the Year award, it remains the benchmark all-arounder.
1st Place: 2027 Rivian R2 Performance
Verdict: Boasts traditional SUV virtues in a modern electric package. What’s not to love?