Jeep’s Off-Road EV Just Spectacularly Failed A Range Test

Menu Home » Jeep’s Off-Road EV Just Spectacularly Failed A Range Test Jeep’s Off-Road EV Just Spectacularly Failed A Range Test By Matt Hardigree October 2, 2026 1:41 pm 102 Comments The Jeep Recon was/is the brand’s attempt at making a vehicle that works as both an everyday electric vehicle and an off-roader that’s true to the company’s trail-rated ethos. We haven’t driven it yet, but just from the stats David felt like the Recon could live up to expectations where the road ends.

It’s where the road exists that seems to be a problem for the Recon, and it might explain why the company has sold so few of them so far this year. The most recent sales report shows that the brand has only sold 82 Recons in 2026.

Car And Driver put the new Recon on its highway range test, and the results were almost offensively bad:

The Recon, with its 94-kWh battery pack, managed just 160 miles of range in our test. That result falls well short of the 222 miles of range the Moab launch trim is estimated to deliver, according to the EPA.

That is not great. This isn’t the EPA cycle, but a specific test C/D does that involves charging up an EV to 100% and getting on the highway and driving at 75 miles-per-hour. In this way, it’s probably more indicative of how Americans drive than the EPA test.

A range of 160 miles is just not acceptable out of that big of a battery. An efficiency of just 1.7 miles per kWh puts it in the same company as the original Hummer EV Edition 1 (1.4 m/kWh) and Mercedes-Benz G580 (1.4 m/kWh). The difference between those vehicles and the Recon is that they’re both gigantic.

A better comparison, sizewise, is the Rivian R2. Here’s the range and performance chart for the R2:

The Rivian, with a smaller 87.9 kWh battery, manages to get at least 330 miles even with two motors and AWD on the EPA range test compared to 220 from the Jeep. In the C/D test, the R2 was able to go 260 miles.

We haven’t done a side-by-side comparison, and it’s possible the Jeep is better off-road than the R2 (it’s also possible it’s worse). It doesn’t really matter if you can never get to where you want to off-road.

Even before there were any details out about the Recon, David guessed this might be a problem:

An inefficient overall vehicle design catered towards off-road capability works as an ICE, but in an EV, it causes all sorts of issues. Because it takes so much energy to get down the road thanks to those tires and aerodynamic inefficiencies like high ground clearance and sharp corners, range decreases just like it does on a gas car. But increasing the “tank size” on an EV is both heavy, expensive, and environmentally taxing. I could probably dig up some ABC coefficients from the EPA and roughly calculate how big of a battery, approximately, one might need in order to score 250 miles of range on a modern Jeep Wrangler (I’d have to make a few assumptions); suffice it to say: it’d have to be big. And thus, the vehicle would have to be expensive and heavy and filled with precious metals.

While the Recon has a more aerodynamically efficient design than a Wrangler, it doesn’t seem to matter much. The combination of the elevated ground clearance, inefficient motors, and all-terrain tires just seems to sap real world range.

I like the way the Recon looks (not a universal thought) and the concept of an electric off-roader is appealing to me. I just don’t understand who the customer is for such a compromised vehicle when Rivian’s most expensive R2 is less than the Jeep’s $70,000 price.

How far does anyone want to go without doors?

It’s almost like geo a $100 fare from JFK to AKL but you have to be strapped to the outside of the plane.

0 HotRod 4 hours ago The range might suck, but at least it’s overpriced …

2 Member CR-V Oswald 4 hours ago * half the range you routinely get in 2026 * $70k

1 Member Fourmotioneer 5 hours ago Just want to point out that used this is a very Autopian vehicle. The bad ones are sometimes the good ones

6 Pat Rich 5 hours ago I realize its apples and oranges, but there is a company that will EV swap an 80 series with a leaf (battery and motor) and with only 30 kwhr they can do at least 45 miles of range. 45 miles of range is damn near worthless, but its an EXTEMELY inefficient car with a lift, big tires, and a shed conversion. How did it do SO bad?

0 Member Ppnw 6 hours ago Given current battery chemistry constraints, I’m usually of the philosophy of “throw more battery at the problem” in order to achieve the desired range.

But there is a limit. 160 miles out of a 94kwh pack is embarrassing no matter the shape of the vehicle.

To get a decent 250 mile highway range to match the R2, it would need a 150kwh battery. To get a more desirable 300, it would need 180kwh.

And that’s just extrapolating these figures, it would almost certainly need more due to the efficiency loss of even greater weight.

I honestly don’t think aero and tires are the only culprits here. The Hummer being nearly as efficient shows something is seriously wrong with the way this Recon is set up beyond just general shape.

0 Member TurboFarts 6 hours ago Reply to  Ppnw “ To get a decent 250 mile highway range to match the R2, it would need a 150kwh battery. To get a more desirable 300, it would need 180kwh.”

You would need even more battery pack for the ranges mentioned because you are adding more mass and reducing your range efficiency (miles/kWh).

This phenomena is known as the Law of Diminishing returns and in this case is due to mass compounding efficiency loss.

2 Member Hugh Crawford 2 hours ago Reply to  TurboFarts The only reason as time cares about range is because charging takes so long and is not uniformly available or cheap compared to home charging.

Tesla figured that out, I don’t understand why nobody else is selling accessibility to charging rather than range,

Nothing is keeping automakers from selling ice cars with 3,000 Miles of range other than total lack or demand

0 Member MrLM002 7 hours ago Height adjustable air suspension and active air dams are the solution

0 Member Johnologue 8 hours ago But increasing the “tank size” on an EV is both heavy, expensive, and environmentally taxing

In fairness, a bigger gas tank that gets used is also environmentally-taxing.

2 Member TurboFarts 7 hours ago Reply to  Johnologue To be fairrrr!

0 1978fiatspyderfan 7 hours ago Reply to  Johnologue Is it? A few more bucks of Metal a tiny loss at the beginning because a few more pounds. But really of the tank is 15 gallons or 30 gallons I doubt the environmental damage is any different. In fact the biggest tank might be more friendly due to fewer slow down and refill miles

1 Member Johnologue 6 hours ago Reply to  1978fiatspyderfan I was more referring to the idea that either “bigger” was facilitating a larger and more inefficient vehicle that would use more fuel regardless.

On an identical vehicle used in an identical way, you’re probably correct. More refill stops would add up in a way more charging stops probably wouldn’t.

1 Member Urban Runabout 6 hours ago Reply to  1978fiatspyderfan Missed the point entirely.

0 Member Hugh Crawford 2 hours ago Reply to  Urban Runabout I think the point hasn’t been missed so much as ignored.

0 Needles Balloon 8 hours ago This was always not going to get great range do to the inherently draggy body style, but Stellantis’s heavy underinvestment into EV tech exacerbated things. The Wagoneer S which uses similar/same components gets 15-20% worse EPA range/kWh than others in the segment despite having a pretty egglike rear (and hiding the profile with a wing), and real world range seems to be another ~10% lower.

If it had a best-in-class powertrain and less knobby tires, I think the Recon would get low-200 miles at 75mph, but nowhere close to 250mi without increasing battery capacity.

1 Member Urban Runabout 9 hours ago Gee – it’s almost like driving a fully-loaded backyard shed-shaped-thing on stilts with big knobby tires down the road at 75mph isn’t the most efficient way to propel oneself…….regardless of what kind of motor you use to push it.

8 Lockleaf 9 hours ago Did they run the test with the doors off? The photos indicate they ran the test with the doors off. I’m fairly confident that aerodynamics are significantly worse with the doors off. If so, how bad is it with doors on? If not, why do all the photos show it with doors off?

5 Member William Domer 7 hours ago Reply to  Lockleaf 75 without the doors? That’s certifiably nuts

2 Member CR-V Oswald 4 hours ago Reply to  William Domer Yeah, that’s pretty extreme masochism.

0 Member JJ 3 hours ago Reply to  CR-V Oswald It’s a Jeep Thing.

1 Member LMCorvairFan 9 hours ago You could tow it with a Ram 1500. Might help Stellantis sales figures. Could be used as a power source when you get to where you are going.

3 Member FormerTXJeepGuy 8 hours ago Reply to  LMCorvairFan Thats why they’re counting on Ram sales growing so much. You have to buy one to tow your Jeep Recon to the trail.

1 1978fiatspyderfan 7 hours ago Reply to  FormerTXJeepGuy Didn’t ram sales actually beat jeep sales for the first time ever?

0 1978fiatspyderfan 7 hours ago Reply to  LMCorvairFan But it wouldn’t have any power left. Charging it at the campground only to use it at the campground then nothing to get home that’s Ridiculous. Image Ridiculous popping in here since we can’t do memes yet.

1 Member LMCorvairFan 7 hours ago Reply to  1978fiatspyderfan That’s why you need to buy a 1500 to tow it with. Stellantis could come up with a package deal. You could install a generator to charge your short range Jeep in the bed of the 1500. I’m sure it’s a practical solution in there somewhere.

1 Member G. K. 9 hours ago I just bought a new Rivian R2. It doesn’t get anywhere near its stated highway range either, especially with the all-terrain tires and smaller wheels, as mine has. This is because of the boxy shape and how Rivian chose to rate the thing.

And with fast charging, I’m fine with the range it gets.

6 Member Tekamul 9 hours ago Reply to  G. K. I bet those tires are the culprit. How’s the R2?

1 Member G. K. 9 hours ago Reply to  Tekamul I mean, even with the 21″ wheels and street tires, the all-highway range is still not fantastic. The reason I went with the smaller wheels is that it’s more sidewall and there are more options for tires with that size, whereas there’s just one tire option readily available for the 21″ wheels. I can absolutely switch out the all-terrain tires for regular all-season ones, if I choose.

Experience-wise, the R2 is a bit glitchy, but surprisingly less so than any number of vehicles I’ve had from legacy automakers who ought to know better, and it even seems to be going better for me than for other people with new R2s. For example, I’ve not had any trouble with the Phone-as-a-Key operation. It locks when I walk away from the car with my phone, and unlocks when I approach it and allows me to start it just fine. Fit and finish is short of Lexus or Mercedes-Benz levels, but it’s competitive with, say, GM (and the Cadillac Lyriq I had in the past). And if you’re not doing a 75-mph trip on the highway, it’s pretty efficient, too; I’m averaging about 3.6 mi/kWh currently.

For me, I understand that new cars are going to have issues, especially new products from a fledgling automaker. So it comes down to:

a) To what extent those issues can be remediated post-manufacture and post-purchase, and b) What the customer service experience is like when I do bring up those issues

I’ve had it for just over a week, but so far I’m impressed with the customer service. I made an appointment to get the slightly misaligned panels corrected and address some interior rattles; the local service center gave me a loaner and had it done within a few hours.

I am less impressed with the cultiness of some of the Rivian fans, who can’t seem to tolerate any criticism levied toward the R2 or Rivian itself, and when people voice very valid concerns about the present state of QC—or who let us know that they’re going to go with another brand/product because of it—the fanboys respond with rude, sarcastic and unhelpful rhetoric. It’s reminding me a lot of Tesla Bros, or the Toyota Truck people, for all the wrong reasons, and I don’t want to be associated with it.

8 1978fiatspyderfan 7 hours ago Reply to  G. K. I need to ask regular vehicles can switch from seasonal to snow tires, race cars can change tires 4 times in a race, they can switch from slicks to rain tires, why can’t these switch from road to off road tires?

0 Member Hugh Crawford 2 hours ago Reply to  1978fiatspyderfan I suspect that headlight aiming, and brake dive as well as brake proportioning are all factors. All of those could be electronically dealt with. Modern stability control can give the greasiest of pigs cutting horse handling.

0 Member Ppnw 6 hours ago Reply to  G. K. Congratulations on the purchase!

A lot of ink has been spilled regarding the R2 not meeting its range estimates. I think the EPA having multiple tests the automaker can choose from (and the consumer being blind to which one was used) is a huge transparency issue in the whole rating system.

330 EPA for the R2 in no way means it should do 330 at 75mph. But that’s how a lot of naysayers are choosing to interpret it.

In any case, super jealous from an American living overseas where we don’t get Rivians!