Jun 10, 2015
pmadflyer I'll probably get whatever has the most range. Every time I hear a tidbit of new information about the Model 3, I get more excited. I can't wait to drive a Tesla.�
Jun 12, 2015
jhoskins Elon answered this question us just the other day at the 2015 shareholders meeting. He confirmed the low end model will be a single motor and the dual motor will be an upgrade option on the model [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans]? Also he made a statement right after that attesting to rear wheel drive being inherently safer in terms of traction control. I would take that as an implication the single motor will be rear wheel drive which makes a lot of sense if it is to compete with BMW M3[/FONT]�
Jun 14, 2015
Candleflame so it really depends now how much torque sleep will add to the range. Probably not enough to make the upgrade worthwhile.�
Jun 14, 2015
JRP3 Depends on how it's priced, and how much all the benefits of AWD are worth to you. Better performance, better handling, better traction in snow, and more range, that's quite a lot to get if it's in the $3K range, (which I realize it may not be.)�
Jun 15, 2015
sandpiper I think that that would be a big mistake. People with smaller cars are so accustomed to driving FWD nowadays that a RWD small car would likely be dangerous just because of the lack of familiarity. RWD would be perceived as a bit of a throwback.�
Jun 15, 2015
JRP3 So people are afraid of BMW's, and see them as throwbacks?�
Jun 15, 2015
EvilNuff I think that might be a bit of an overreaction. I learned to drive on both FWD and RWD as a kid (in a cold, snowy climate) and switching between them is an extremely small difference probably 95+% of the time. IMO it is only very extreme situations (well beyond what you encounter in normal driving) where you feel the difference in a significant manner.�
Jun 15, 2015
electracity If you listen to how Musk lauding electric RWD in snow, he seems to be laying the groundwork for the entry level Model 3. Snow rated tires are as important as AWD. I think it is fine if the entry level M3 is RWD. This didn't hurt S sales much.�
Jun 15, 2015
stevej119 While Tesla did make a small number of 40Kwh cars they never made any cars with 40Kwh batteries. Demand was so low that they never produced any 40Kwh battery packs and instead filled the few orders with 60Kwh batteries which were software limited to 40kwh. For $10k, those owners can, if they wish, upgrade to 60Kwh with a software change.�
Jun 15, 2015
nwdiver Guess we'll have to wait and see :wink:
I agree that Tesla would sell a few more 3s with a RWD option just like they would have sold a few more Ss with a 40kWh option AND a 60kWh RWD option (that's gone too now)... the question is would those additional sales make up for a more complex production process.
My prediction is that Tesla will offer a 3 with RWD... I think there's a 50/50 chance it will make it into production and <10% chance the RWD option lasts >1 year. If ~$3k gets you AWD then RWD will likely be <10% of sales... if it's <10% of sales then Tesla will likely axe the model to streamline production and improve margins.
It will be funny if they only ship AWD cars but people who chose RWD before it gets axed have to pay $3k to activate the front motor :tongue:�
Jun 15, 2015
Model 3 I see my self in the middle of an winter-storm calling Tesla "Hey, enable the AWD now, or send an towing truck!"
�
Jun 15, 2015
JRP3 Elon seemed pretty clear that the base Model 3 needs to have a single motor to hit the price point. I expect it to be far more popular than the "40" S was.�
Jun 15, 2015
dgpcolorado Yes, the target market for the Model 3 figures to be a lot more price-sensitive than the market for the Model S.
Also, the S40 wasn't Supercharger-capable and I would guess that made a big difference to Model S buyers once they grasped the potential of the Supercharger network. Buyers of S60s purchased without Supercharger access knew that they could add it later.�
Jun 15, 2015
nwdiver Anyone know what the 85/85D ratio is? That would give us a pretty good idea of how popular the Model 3 AWD will be...�
Jun 15, 2015
S'toon I disagree. Different economic demographics will have different priorities.�
Jun 15, 2015
nwdiver I agree that low 85 sales don't necessarily bode poorly for a RWD 3 but GOOD 85 sales mean the RWD 3 should sell well.
If Tesla is still selling a lot of 85s then I would expect them to sell a lot of RWD 3s.... low 85 sales wouldn't really tell us anything... like you say... different demographics...�
Jun 15, 2015
Model 3 I cant say anything general on this, but I quote some numbers from Norway:
But I argree with S'toon, this say very little about the demand for the Model 3 RWD.�
Jun 15, 2015
nwdiver 98% AWD?!
WOW... though that IS Norway... still.... WOW
High RWD sales would prove the viability of a RWD 3 but the lack of it certainly doesn't disprove it. We'll have to wait and see.
Still.... 98% AWD?..... WOW.�
Jun 16, 2015
Model 3 It is speculated about that this is still cars cancelled to be replaced by a "D" model order. One of the four cars had a 2014 VIN code... (and one was a 60).�
Jun 16, 2015
Panu Model S buyers tend to pick a lot of options and all the latest and greatest stuff like dual motor. Lower price car buyers are looking for... eh - lower price and I believe RWD will be much more popular in Model 3. Also in smaller car it's possible that there is no room for frunk if front motor is there.�
Jun 16, 2015
sandpiper I was a teenager in the 80s in a cold, snowy climate. And so had the chance to drive many FWD and RWD vehicles in my formative driving years. If safety is a concern, I would never take RWD over FWD. Granted, traction control has changed the equation somewhat but even so, I cannot for the life of me see anything positive in a RWD vehicle. In warm climate, of course it makes much less difference.
- - - Updated - - -
It depends where you live I suppose. Where I live, really nobody buys a 2WD BMW.�
Jun 16, 2015
JRP3 I grew up in a snowy area with both FWD and RWD vehicles. I found that though FWD vehicles generally had better traction to get you going, RWD was more predictable, and with extra weight in the back had no issues. EV's without the front weight bias of ICE's should be fine. AWD for the win in the snow anyway.�
Jun 16, 2015
MassModel3 Totally agree.
When's the last time you saw a front-wheel-drive snow plow? They're typically RWD pick-up trucks with the back weighted down to improve traction. In the Model 3, the rear wheels will be weighted down by the battery, equally weighted with the front. Throw some snow tires on and RWD will perform every bit as well as FWD.
All this talk of FWD vs. RWD is irrelevant when you're talking about FWD in a car that has a huge steel block (ICE) perched between the two front tires. Apples and oranges.�
Jun 16, 2015
EvilNuff If we are ignoring off-roading, AWD is not significantly better or safer than either FWD or RWD. Yes I too grew up in a snowy, icy climate. Knowing how to drive in the conditions matters orders of magnitude more than AWD. Sure its better but the delta is marginal IMO (just talking weather here not other factors).�
Jun 16, 2015
dgpcolorado Around here pickups, including those used for plowing, are AWD or 4WD. Don't know that there are any RWD trucks left, save for handful of very old ones with collector's plates.
- - - Updated - - -
Might be a mountain thing, but AWD makes a big difference when going up steep grades in snow. Like my long, curved, steep driveway.
However, when going down a steep grade, AWD cars slide on slick roads just like anything else! Which is another way of saying that they don't stop any better than 2WD cars and all that traction means that drivers with AWD often drive too fast for the conditions.�
Jun 16, 2015
guillaumef Since the X is going to start shipping soon, all we're gonna hear after that is model 3. Start your savings account ! I sure hope it'll be full when the 3 hits the streets !�
Jun 16, 2015
Ingineer This is assuming an AC induction motor driven from the line voltage. VFD inverter drive changes the equation massively.�
Jun 16, 2015
tga For driveways and parking lots, I agree. I suspect MassModel3 may have been thinking about highway plowing. Here in the northeast anyway, those are usually big RWD dump trucks.
EDIT - And those big dump truck usually have a huge load of sand/salt over the rear wheels�
Jun 17, 2015
Candleflame RWD allows you to go faster around a corner. You can really feel how the vehicle starts to suck itself to the ground when you hit the gas rather than breaks.�
Jun 17, 2015
tga RWD compared to what? FWD or AWD? If you're maintaining neutral throttle through the corner, neither AWD/RWD/FWD is inherently faster. If you're powering through the corner (applying throttle at the apex), AWD > RWD > FWD. AWD lets you apply more power sooner than RWD. You'll exit the turn faster and at a higher speed.�
Jun 17, 2015
S'toon My last vehicle was a 4wd. It did OK in winter in the deep snow. My current car is a RWD. I've only gotten stuck once or twice in the years I've had it. I don't know if it's because it's newer and has ESC, or what, but my new car has had better control in icy conditions than my 4wd did.
When it comes to AWD in the snow, I consider it a nice to have, but it's not critical.�
Jun 17, 2015
Yggdrasill AWD is better, period.
But the number of people who need AWD is miniscule compared to the number of people who have AWD.�
Jun 17, 2015
brianman Need is an interesting word at times.
Brian's version:
�
Jun 17, 2015
nwdiver Don't forget.... AWD ICE just gets you better traction...
AWD EV gets you;
- More Range
- AWD regen (less tire wear?)
- Better Traction
EVERYONE benefits from 1 & 2... not just people in snowy areas.�
Jun 17, 2015
JER Could the better torque distribution of AWD ever reduce tyre wear enough to be a net TCO reduction over the car's life?
I'd guess this was at least plausible if you had high-end tyres and a love of burying the accelerator pedal.�
Jun 18, 2015
Red Sage To those of you who believe that base Model ? must be single motor because: 1) it would be difficult to meet the price point otherwise; or 2) due to price sensitivity within the market range... I rather disagree.
It is much more likely the RWD version will be offered as standard (to start) because the profit margin would be higher and the grand majority of end users do not actually need AWD anyway, anytime, anyhow. Further, it will be RWD to satisfy some of the visceral need to demonstrate the superiority of electric drive over ICE in a more traditional, sporting manner, rear ends hanging out, on a track, to satisfy those who somehow dislike the neutrality of dual motor AWD.
If you take a look at other premium cars sold in the range of $5,000 above or below the intended $35,000 base price of Model ?, all offer an AWD version. 3-Series, A4, ATS, C-Class, G50, IS, & TLX. The two-wheel drive versions of these cars, whether RWD or FWD are only a vestigial reminder of the beginnings of automotive transport. It is generally understood that you should be able to get into an AWD car within the price range without breaking the bank.
Do keep in mind that I have argued both sides of this debate in times past. I believe both have merit. When it comes to Tesla Model ?, I think it is rather obvious the result weil be spectacular, no matter what they offer, or when, or why.�
Jun 18, 2015
igotzzoom I'm rather neutral in the matter, since I live in an area that gets approximately 0.00000000001 inches of rainfall a year, and the average temperature is about 74 degrees Fahrenheit. RWD would suit my needs fine. But I could see the appeal of available AWD for drivers in less hospitable climes.�
Jun 18, 2015
JRP3 Those are all essentially the same argument, and I agree with all of them. :wink: Cost is the driving factor.�
Jun 18, 2015
Kevin Harney Elon already stated that it would be a base single motor version and most likely an upgraded dual motor version.�
Jun 18, 2015
JRP3 Sure, as was expected. I was just pointing out that Red's argument that it wasn't because of cost didn't hold up to his own argument :wink:�
Jun 18, 2015
Red Sage Did I not mention I have argued both sides? The same data supports both arguments. It's only a matter of perspective. Because I have no doubt that the base Model ? would be profitable at $35,000 if it hand single or dual motor configuration.�
Jun 18, 2015
MartinAustin Tesla wants to have a certain level of profitability in each car, and it's not 0.1% profit at the minimum because there is always a range of actual profit that you end up with, after accounting for all the unexpected things that happen in the auto business. (starting with a target of 0.1% profit, you could end up taking a loss on each car if certain circumstances arise) Tesla might want the profit margin to be, say, 15%.
If as Elon has said, the base model will be single-motor, then that is clearly because it would still be profitable if it were dual-motor, but it isn't profitable enough. It's single-motor because that achieves the profit they want.�
Jun 18, 2015
TimV Having a RWD entry level Model 3 will likely drive up the ASP. Those people that want AWD are probably also willing to pay for it. Why give something away when you can make it an option and get another $3-5K?�
Jun 18, 2015
nwdiver I don't think anyone here is suggesting it would be 'given away'... but if the sales ratio of a $35k RWD 3 vs $38k AWD 3 is 1:20 then Tesla won't be offering the RWD 3 for long... sure, they'll lose a few sales from people that can't afford the extra $3k but that loss will be made up for by streamlined production and increased AWD sales. The same thing will happen to the RWD 3 that happened to the S60.�
Jun 18, 2015
Red Sage nwdiver: Precisely.
TimV: Look at it the other way around... Why spend the time to engineer the front end of the car twice? Then you must stock replacement parts for both the AWD and RWD versions at all Service Centers. You might save more in R&D and inventory control than you might ever earn by optioning up. Consistency of the drivetrain has its benefits.
MartinAustin: Absolutely. But if it is the difference between build costs calculated as...
$35,000 � 1.15 = ~$30,435
or
$35,000 x 0.85 = $29,750
...then why not go ahead and include AWD standard? You'll end up with more people spending dough on additional options anyway.�
Jun 19, 2015
MassModel3 So it's been mentioned in the forums that there are less than 30 moving parts in the drive train of a Model S. It's those moving parts that present the highest likelihood of wear and tear and eventually needing replacement. If we take the less-than-30 for the rear, then add another less-than-30 twice for the front (far less than 30 for a non-motor version), it's still not that many typically replaced parts when compared to ICE vehicles and typical dealership repair centers. Okay, multiply that times the number of variants (S, X, 3) and you've still got a reasonable number of parts to deal with. Then the seldom used parts will simply be ordered from the factory, or perhaps local warehouses.
But I don't know if I agree with the assumption that stocking of parts will come into play when Tesla makes these decisions. Still undecided on the issue, but currently leaning against it.�
Jun 19, 2015
TimV If the sales ratio is really that much in favor of the AWD (20:1 or more), then the RWD may not last long at all. All I'm saying is that the RWD version allows Tesla to more easily achieve the entry level price point of $35,000. Personally, I think a lot of Model 3 customers will be more price sensitive so the RWD version will sell just fine.
Also, they wouldn't have to engineer the front of the car twice, they would do it once and design it to work for both options (RWD or AWD). This really wouldn't take much more effort than designing it for only one way (RWD) or the other (AWD) since they are designing it with the option from the beginning (unlike Model S).�
Jun 19, 2015
Red Sage I guess my point is that I get your point. ;-)
People who play dominoes are fond of saying, "Not all money is good money!" Idea being that sometimes it is better to block a potential play by an opponent than score yourself.
It could be easier for Tesla Motors to guarantee a particular profit margin by allowing the base Model ? to be rear wheel drive. If that means a car that would be sufficiently profitable at $30,000 can be offered at $35,000 instead, shareholders certainly wouldn't object. I'd rather that if this was the case, the RWD would be $30,000, and the AWD $35,000. I guess the question is whether the profit margin goal is a specific number of dollars or a percentage of the whole.�
Jun 19, 2015
MassModel3 With the PowerWall, Tesla is initially introducing it at close to cost, fully expecting that when the Gigafactory is up and running battery prices will drop, but the cost of the PowerWall will not. When that happens, that's when Tesla will begin to realize a favorable profit margin for the devices.
Is it not reasonable to assume that the same ideas could come into play for the Model 3? They could introduce vehicles at close to cost just to hit the promised $35K, knowing full well that when the factory gets fully ramped up, economies of scale really start to kick in, and battery costs drop, they will make their profit margins. Maybe that's not how your typical car company does it, but Tesla is far from your typical car company.�
Jun 19, 2015
TimV The drive train of the Tesla is simple enough such that the components (motor, gear reducer, transaxles) are likely designed to last the life of the car. That doesn't mean that there won't ever be a failure. It does mean that they won't require any regular maintenance such as timing belt replacements, valve adjustments, fluid replacements, spark plugs, etc. Once in a while you might hear of someone needing a replacement motor or gear box but the vast majority of owners will never have to touch the drive train. Ever.�
Jun 19, 2015
MassModel3 Exactly! Which leaves even fewer parts that need to be stocked. That's precisely why I don't think stocking of replaceable parts will be a deciding factor in what gets built. What's going to sell and what people will be willing to pay for -- that's what will be considered.�
Jun 19, 2015
JRP3 I expect Tesla is going to have a tough time hitting the $35K mark with RWD. I'll be happy if they come in under $40K for the base model.�
Jun 20, 2015
omgwtfbyobbq I think the $35+k is in 2014 (or whenever it was announced) dollars. So it could be 37k in 2014, and $40k+ in 2018.�
Jun 20, 2015
EVNow Well, Musk is still talking about $35k. He is not saying $35k in 2014 (or whenever it was announced) dollars.�
Jun 21, 2015
Model 3 No, it was $30K in 2012 dollars.�
Jun 21, 2015
JRP3 I seem to remember that being updated to "$35K in today's dollars" at some point.�
Jun 21, 2015
Model 3 I think you are mixing the memories. It was "$30k in today's dollars" (in 2012), then "$35k without any tax-breaks", and no "in today's dollars" if I recollect correct.�
Jun 21, 2015
JRP3 Could be, I can't find any links stating "$35K in today's dollars".�
Jun 21, 2015
stopcrazypp Digging back to old threads, he did mention $30,000 plus inflation before (although that was before the government incentives talk):
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/9194-Gen-III-Range-Pricing-Speculation/page22?p=301933&viewfull=1#post301933
Although from here, it appears he does sometimes reference to "today's dollars" even when talking about the $35k number.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/10645-Gen-III-reservation-speculation/page7?p=375286&viewfull=1#post375286�
Jun 21, 2015
Model 3 That's not how I read it. He can of course assume that "+ inflation" is implied, but why he specified this so carefully when he talked about the price of "$30k in today's dollars" and not after it was adjusted to $35k? I am assuming that the $5k difference is the excepted inflation from 2012 to 2017/2018. Well, anyway we will get the definitive answer when the Model 3 is released�
Jun 21, 2015
stopcrazypp I couldn't find exact quote, but I'm pretty sure sleepyhead is saying he uses the same "today's dollars" term when referencing the $35k number, although he didn't give a link to where Elon says it (I'm pretty sure he did in some presentations, but those are harder to dig through than something written). The $30k number was before there was any confirmation of incentives not included (the only talk about incentives came with the $35k number).�
Jun 21, 2015
Model 3 My reading of what sleepyhead is saying, is that he (sleepyhead) had heard several times earlier that Elon have stated that he is talking about "today's dollars" when giving any(?) number. And therefore are assuming that this also includes this latest number ($35k). And goes on to say that he is hoping this in not the case here, and that the $35k is indeed including this $5k in inflation. And by saying that I interpret that he has not read/heard Elon saying anything about "today's dollar" in regard to this latest number.
I may very well be wrong, but only sleepyhead can tell us for sure if that what he meant or not.�
Jun 22, 2015
favo I think when Elon says any specific dollar amount at this point, you have to assume that it is at best a rough estimate. There are too many unanswered questions for it to be anything but an aspirational goal. I think they will try hard to meet the $35K mark, but if that means $38 or $39K when it actually comes out, whether due to inflation, cost overruns or whatever, I hope people don't freak out. Same goes for statements indicating a specific quarter and year for shipping vehicles. It is too early for that level of precision.
I think Elon is in a tricky position. If he gives no details, people will start complaining that there is no information and in its absence assume the worst--Model 3 delayed, overpriced, bad range, etc. The downside of providing details at this early(ish) stage is that people take them for something close to guarantees, which is a bit unfair and unrealistic.
Having said that, I have been waiting since 2003 to buy a car like this, so it can't come soon enough, with too many cool features, for too good a price. :biggrin: Watching TSLA go up takes away a lot of the pain.�
Jun 22, 2015
Model 3 Good point :smile: But on the other hand, Elon told us that the Model S would cost (from) $50k, and when released you could buy one for $49.900 if I recollect correct. Yes, that was after tax-break - but this time he has specified that it will be before any tax-breaks. Yes, this was a very short range version but this time he has specified that it will be at least 200 real world miles. And later hinted that 200 real world miles is about 240EPA miles. Yes, this was a version that was retired early, and that may happen again.
So yes, I believe that they will sell a base version of Model 3 for close to $35k without any tax-breaks. But don't worry, I will not freak out if it is a bit over (or under) that price. But the Model 3 has already received a "price increase" for me of almost one third due to price changes between USD and NOK since the $35k price was given. :crying:
Then I have been waiting about 10 years longer then you :tongue: Eagerly looking at every announcement of a new EV, and got disappointed every time - until Tesla :biggrin:�
Jun 22, 2015
RobStark With oil prices rising then holding steady the outlook for the Krone is pretty good.
Norwegian Krone to USD
�
Jun 22, 2015
Model 3 I'll keep my fingers crossed! Ironically that the oil price has so much to say about how much I will have to pay for an BEV�
Jun 23, 2015
RobStark It is the irony of Norway.
Western Europe's largest oil exporter also worlds foremost adopter of BEVs.�
Jun 25, 2015
Red Sage Well, if you go Way Back in the Way Back Machine, you'll find that the original goal was an affordable car in the $25,000 range. That projection did not last long. It quickly progressed to the 'about $30,000 in today's dollars' mark. Then Elon gave up and just settled on a $35,000 price point as a firm goal. Keep in mind that Destination, Registration, Insurance, and Applicable Taxes will also be assessed beyond that mark.
If Tesla Motors ever achieves an approximate ~$90 per kWh mark as an internal cost... They could offer a 60 kWh car for $25,000... And a 100 kWh version for less than $40,000.�
Jun 27, 2015
AnxietyRanger I also watched the general meeting video (it is on teslamotor.com) and noted this particular Q&A. However, I did not walk away with the impression of Elon confirming anything beyond a plan for single-motor standard/AWD option (which he did confirm). The RWD comment was, in my view, more of a general comment on the traction provided by the type of motor in a Tesla and the RWD part was a reference to the current cars they are seeing this on.
While I think RWD may be more more likely for Model 3 given Tesla's history, I don't think FWD is completely unlikely either - it is true that there are marketing reasons for FWD in lower-cost markets, also I wonder if FWD would allow Tesla to add more trunk space, which in this a bit more convential market would probably be appreciated more than frunk space.
In any case, I agree we now have it from the horse's mouth that single motor Model 3 is the baseline, AWD will be an option. Well, that is the current plan anyway - we recall such plans changing on Model S and Model X too.
Finally, as someone who drives in snow and wet plenty, I share the safety concerns of RWD. I think my P85 is one of the less safe cars in this regard I've owned, although the traction control keeps its suicidal tendencies at bay, luckily.�
Jun 27, 2015
Model 3 I doubt it. The space between the rear wheels will be to low and unavailable when eg. standing behind the car to load/unload the luggage to/from that space. It will be difficult to access. I know at least that I'd chosen frunk above trunkspace down between the rear wheels. The exception may be for an third row of seats where the third row footwell may be between the wheels. But then you can't get the third row with AWD...�
Jun 27, 2015
AnxietyRanger Possibly. However, as the smaller car, truths of Model S may not apply to Model 3.
Just to be clear, I was talking of Model 3.
- - - Updated - - -
Unrelated, but in the ICE size class below Model 3, e.g. Audi A3 and Volkswagen Golf have smaller trunks in AWD than in FWD configuration. The reason there is the Haldex clutch in the rear. It interferes with very usable space due to the rear wheels being quite close to the rear end.�
Jun 27, 2015
Model 3
First: Yes, I was also talking about Model 3.
And your right, for smaller cars it may not apply. But I think that we then are talking about even smaller cars then Model 3. Like Golf/A3 that you mention and smaller still.�
Jun 27, 2015
AnxietyRanger True. Model 3 it may still be Model S-like enough for that not to apply. Or maybe not.�
Jun 27, 2015
JER Front wheel drive is a cost and packaging advantage in ICE cars because of transmission, engine access and/or internal space considerations (depending on engine location). It's not in a well-optimised electric vehicle. Unless you prefer FWD dynamics to RWD, there's no reason for it. Traction control eliminates any safety advantage FWD might have had.�
Jun 27, 2015
AnxietyRanger That's the big debate, isn't it, though.
RWD can eat into trunk space, even on an EV.
I agree FWD has numerous benefits in ICE packaging, especially in compacts with transverse engines, but that doesn't mean it couldn't offer benefits in an EV as well - for example, allow for a larger trunk in a small form-factor car (say, a hatchback) because less stuff would be in the rear where trunk would be smaller anyway. A frunk is not as useful or necessary for versatility, because it won't convert when folding seats, but in a small car a trunk that opens up to as big as possible can be very useful. In a very small car, I'd gladly sacrifice frunk for a large as possible trunk, from an everyday usability perspective.
As you say, dynamics is of course another question, RWD has sportier dynamics for sure. If Tesla aims Model 3 against the BMW 3 Series, then RWD dynamics are a bonus. But if they address more the mainstream market, FWD too might become a question of market expectations: The smaller you go, RWD might hinder adoption, not help it. Even with traction control, RWD can seem unpredictable to some. I agree this may not be an issue in the Model 3 price point, so much as it might be in the small hatch segment. Perhaps Model 3 will be large-enough and high-end enough to forgo these FWD considerations and just retain RWD and AWD as an option for cost reasons only.
But just because FWD offers less of a benefit in EVs than it does with ICE, doesn't mean it couldn't offer enough of a benefit for Tesla to consider it. I think RWD+AWD is likelier, but FWD+AWD seems quite possible too, at least at this point when so little is known of the form-factor etc. of the car.�
Jun 27, 2015
aronth5 AnxietyRanger if you had to state in percentages what do you think the odds are that Tesla will offer FWD? IMO less than 10%.�
Jun 27, 2015
AnxietyRanger For Model 3, I would put it at maybe... 20%? It really depends on what their form-factor for the model is, how much rear space could play into it, and their target market is dynamics-wise (is it more the BMW 3 driver or the Volkswagen driver).
I think the likelihood of FWD goes up if the Model 3 is a short, hatchish, versatile blob, and down if the Model 3 is hot coupe.
For a smaller regular car than Model 3, if Tesla were to come out with one, I'd increase the chances of FWD to 40%. For future Model S/X/Roadster, of course, the chance of FWD is 0%, it is RWD or perhaps AWD only there.
But I must stress I find RWD Model 3 more likely given Tesla's precedent. The problem is, Model 3 is a wholly new category for them, so there is no directly applicable precedent.�
Jun 27, 2015
JER That trade-off might work versus some hypothetical electric car optimised for FWD only, but I don�t think it holds against ICE vehicles.
With a couple of exceptions, every car I�ve owned has been a front wheel drive hatchback in the B or C segment. (Yeah, I live in Europe. They are everywhere here.) Every single one of those cars had that space filled with a fuel tank and dead axle (plus the usual linkages), which combined are if anything taking more space that the Tesla drive units do when nestled between independent suspension.
I reckon a compact RWD electric hatchback made with Tesla technology would not lose any boot space compared to an ICE FWD hatchback of the same size.
Furthermore, if you moved the motor to the front, the space you�d recover would be under the rear seat and between the wheel arches. That�s not a very useful space to free up for the occupants, unless you want a space for smuggling things in.
In that case, you can move the spare wheel you nearly always get in that class of car to the frunk and lower the floor in the back.�
Jun 27, 2015
AnxietyRanger By a small hatch I was talking the likes of Audi A3 and Volkswagen Golf (thus a class beneath where we expect Model 3). In those cars the rear axle is actually under the trunk in big part - and incidentally AWD on those cars eats into trunk space quite a lot (FWD versions have larger trunks). In such form-factors, an FWD EV might be able to spare trunk space in a useful, even necessary fashion. The frunk, by nature not versatile, is never as useful as the trunk.
As for the space recovered, I'm not sure all that you say applies even to the Model S at all. The rear axle is aft of the rear seats and the motor even more so, in the less deep area of the trunk. If that space were free, once could certainly carry more in the trunk. Remove that motor (way aft of the seats) and the entire trunk could become much deeper:
Model S doesn't have a spare, nor does it have room for one (unless counting main trunk area) - ironically other than the frunk in the RWD version.�
Jun 27, 2015
JRP3 Chance of FWD for the 3 is less than 1%. Not sure why so much energy has been devoted to talking about it. Not going to happen, and no good reasons for it. The "space" issue is minimal.�
Jun 27, 2015
Model 3 Correct.
I suppose it will have a similar shape as the Model S, but I don't know...
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, in a supposed future (sub)compact car from Tesla it is more likely with FWD than in Model 3.�
Jun 27, 2015
stopcrazypp A3 is 12.3 cu ft, A3 quattro aWD is 10. I think that is the result of bad packaging. The CLA has 13.1 and remains that way even if you opt for the similar 4matic AWD (CLA is also FWD to AWD option).
From the Model S diagram, you might get a deeper section right behind the rear seats, but compared a frunk it is arguable which one is more usable.�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger Sure, a deeper section in the trunk may be harder to access, but the microwave in the frunk of Model S is even harder.
Of course, I agree it is arguable. Let's take the Model S: On a FWD Model S you'd loose the microwave in the frunk and part of the main frunk, while gaining - let's be conservative - a doubled lower level of the trunk. The latter would be usable for carrying larger pieces, with which frunk wouldn't help, but of course frunk can have everyday practicality for some users - especially if you have very different kinds of cargo to carry, where separation is useful. Me, I use the frunk to keep the CHAdeMO adapter reserve in it (rarely used), once a shopping bag in the past year - it is not very convenient to use, but of course with added automatics Tesla could make it more so in the future. Here's hoping for auto-open/close in Model X...
It really depends a lot on the Model 3 form-factor how this argument were to evolve on the Model 3. Trunk space is an important metric in some markets, while rear-wheel dynamics on others. If Tesla makes the Model 3 with a very modern or out-of-the-box shape, as I believe Elon once hinted at, this could affect things either way depending on what the actual form-factor is. For example, if Tesla makes a very short front-end, the frunk might be minimally usable anyway, so putting the motor there as standard might make sense - especially if coupled with an FWD-oriented target-market in mind. If on the other hand they have a hot coupe with a long front (good for crash safety too) maybe they can make more use of the frunk, while also finding RWD drive dynamics necessary on the base.
Mercedes Benz CLA is a class up the Audi A3 and Volkswagen Golf examples, though, over 30 centimeters longer than the A3/Golf hatchbacks. They have more room there to do stuff, so probably Mercedes decided to package both FWD/AWD trunks the same, while in the A3/Golf case there was more incentive to do two versions (the A3/Golf AWD trunk is notably shallower). It is true CLA also uses the Haldex clutch for AWD as do the A3 and Golf. I merely used the latter as examples on how in small cars the presence of rear-wheel drive can affect things. I agree CLA is likely a better analogy - size-class-wise - to Model 3, than the A3/Golf are and thus why I'd expect Model 3 more likely to be RWD from Tesla, than a hypothetical future sub-compact Tesla, which would increase the FWD odds somewhat in my books.
Even in Model S the presence of the rear motor leaves a sizeable "box" out of use from the lower level of the trunk, so much so that e.g. a spare won't fit there.
- - - Updated - - -
YMMV, but I find discussion of pros and cons of various drivetrain configurations as both educational and interesting.
Anything we discuss of the Model 3 at so early in the game is of limited use, but for the entertainment factor and the intellectual challenge, so to speak.
Also, I find that too often the hardline view of things - especially with this much limited data - isn't necessarily a very good starting point for speculation. It closes too many doors, as was recently witnessed with how many people said Model X wouldn't have an adaptive spoiler, and now we have a photo of it. Keeping an open mind can be useful for speculation. I'd need to see and hear much more of Tesla to assume they wouldn't even realistically consider FWD. Maybe such a datapoint is out there, but I haven't seen it.
That said, I too agree an RWD Model 3 seems more likely than an FWD one.�
Jun 28, 2015
WarpedOne Need for traction control is proof there are problems with RWD.
FWD car without traction control is better than RWD without traction control. FWD with traction control is thus better than RWD with traction control except where high amounts of traction is called for - big amounts of power on the powered wheels.
Powered wheels that can steer are better than powered wheels that cannot steer. It all boils down to that. All other differences can be controlled with computers except straight line high power traction. In high power cars that want as fast straight line acceleration as possible, RWD is better.
In 'road-going civil' cars this straight line acceleration is not that important, steering the powered wheels at low power and speed is still important.
I guess model 3 will be "high powered" in comparison to other cars in its class, so it will have RWD to transfer that power to the road.
Practical limits of what FWD can transfer to the roads are under 200HP. FWD cars with more than 200HP have huge problems delivering that power to the road at lower speeds.
I've read Fiat 500 EV has 'problems' with stability. It is FWD with high tourqe at low speed. Under-steers big time.�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger While I agree with most you write, I would add RWD isn't useful only in straight-line acceleration, but also for cornering dynamics. The over-steer tendency of RWD, while a safety risk in everyday driving, is of course a wished-for feature for track days and other spirited driving. Audi's FWDs (and historically more front-biased AWDs, although that is slowly changing) are constantly at a disadvantage against Porsches and BMWs RWDs in the sportier car press. This is why, if Model 3 looks like an BMW M3, I wouldn't expect it to be FWD. However, if Tesla decides to go after the Volkswagen Passat - let alone the European "hot hatch" market (dominated by spirited FWDs), driver instead with the Model 3, then FWD might be a consideration.
It is true AWD and RWD are better for very high powered cars, but I wouldn't put such a harsh limit as 200 on the horsepower FWD can handle, at least the sub-250 hp range is still very doable. 200 hp you mention is incidentally, the beefiest FWD (a turbo four-pot) I have owned once. I have also driven a 2.7 liter high-torque Audi diesel with Multitronic stepless transmission, which is in some ways reminiscent of driving an EV, and it was fine too. In Europe at least there are many FWD models above 200 hp. For example the Audi TT sportscar has a 230 hp (PS) FWD model and Audi A5 coupe, perhaps a contender with Model 3 class-wise, tops out its FWD line-up at 225 hp (PS). The Ford Focus ST has 252 hp.
If we consider Model 3 perhaps coming with a similar setup as Model S, small front motor and larger rear motor, couldn't the cheapest model be a, say, 150-200 hp FWD - and you could punch that up to 400-500 hp with AWD (addition of large rear unit). Now, this is only a hypothetical of course, we have no information on what setup Tesla will choose (beyond indication of a single motor baseline) and RWD has precedent advantage.�
Jun 28, 2015
WarpedOne But we already know it will look like a M3 so this debate is rather over - RWD as base option
Number 200HP is no hard limit. It just that as power increases there are bigger and bigger problems with delivering it to the road without instabilities even in straight line, let alone while cornering. Under 200HP, there is not much such problems, above they are bigger and bigger, depending on exact car configuration and other details. It is just because of weight transfer that RWD can deliver more to the road.
I drive 180HP FWD diesel and torqe is severly limited in 1st, 2nd. In 3rd and 4th gear I get same acceleration rate so even in 3rd gear torque is still under maximum 400Nm the engine can output in 4th,5th and 6th gear.
Gen4, if it ever comes to it, that will target $20k might be a FWD hatch. With AWD as an option.�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger Do we? Source?
This is of course true. In the 250+ hp hot hatch FWD market, suspension works overtime to compensate - there have been some fantastic entries in this car category, though.
Check out stepless Multitronic sometime, if you have a chance, in some car - it is actually quite fun and EV-like to drive (though more rubber band than linear).�
Jun 28, 2015
WarpedOne A bird tweeted it to me the other day�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger
Being serious for a moment - and I am by no means an expert on Model 3 speculation - I think this comment:
What Does 'Not Very Adventurous' Mean? - Page 6
Together with Elon's comments about the feature-creep on Model X and how they'd keep things simple with the Model 3 first, suggests the first iteration of Model 3 will not be too odd. They will make sure they are on time by sticking to the tried and true. Probably no suicide doors or anything weird. Perhaps this even means, the first iteration of Model 3 would not fit the earlier Elon quote where he mentioned something like they'd do something on the Model 3 they hadn't done before - I took that to mean being even more aggressively progressive with the EV roots, instead of going for a normal car - although of course, all that was/is offset by the "no weirdmobiles" comment. There was some discussion at some point of Tesla having two versions of Model 3 on the design table (just in art form), one aggressive and one more conservative. I guess they are now first going for the latter.
That still doesn't quite communicate - to me - what their direction beyond that is. You can make a basic car like a Passat or you can make a basic car like a BMW 3 Series. Both would fit this bill just fine, but with different target markets the FWD/RWD discussion might bear different fruit. I guess one could argue Tesla has more experience with RWD than FWD, to further support the RWD case. That would make sense. That said I do wonder if they make two motors for the Model X, one small front and one large back, that their pricing targets couldn't benefit from offering a version with just the smaller front motor. Could it help make the car cheaper, while still having only two motors (one front, one back), not a wide array of versions?�
Jun 28, 2015
Model 3 I don't deny what you are saying here, but we have one more data point to consider: One of the reasons given for the death of the TMS 40 (not the only one, just one of several) was that Elon felt the car did not have a good performance.
So the image of Teslas cars - as long as Elon is the boss - will probably be of fast and good performance cars. And that will also lower the chance that even a (sub)compact Tesla will be a FWD.
My personal view is that Tesla in the long run will go AWD only, and that TM3 RWD will be just to meet the promised price-point - just like the TMS 40 - and will soon be killed (if it's not a huge success). Remember that the TMS 40 was never introduced to the European marked, even that the European design studio was open and prices given long before the official "killing" of the 40. Maybe we see the same again - TM3 RWD will not be introduced here?�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger That is a fair point. I'm not perhaps quite as comfortable at dismissing FWD Teslas at some point (in the end I guess it really depends on what their view of the small car is and how wheel-motors etc. evolve), but what you say does make sense. And I do remember reading that story back in the day too. That said, in lower price-points, there are plenty of respectable performance FWDs, so maybe what applies in the Model S segment may not apply everywhere.�
Jun 28, 2015
Model 3 Btw: one more thing that is not discussed: We know now that it will have AWD as an option, so we know that they will have to design the car with a motor in the front and in the back. What if they give us the choice: Select FWD, RWD or AWD?�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger I did toy with that idea in the previous FWD/RWD/AWD thread. I guess, in theory, Tesla could quite easily have those three options. Realistically, I guess none of us really expect that.�
Jun 28, 2015
Model 3 Aha, I may have overlooked it...
Sorry to say I agree with you here�
Jun 28, 2015
WarpedOne I'd say we are putting to much weight on FWD/RWD 'dilemma'.
ICE engine is much much bigger part of total car price as is electric motor and it also affects other parts of the car much more than electric motors just for being bigger and having all those weird looking parts ... exhaust, tank, cooling, vibrations, weight ...
Tesla will offer Model 3 with dual motor AWD so they will develop both front and rear motor assembly and they will develop chassis that can accommodate both. The real question is thus what part costs more - front motor assembly or rear motor assembly?
I see front motor assembly as being more complex and thus more expensive than rear one.
If Gen4 is designed as a hatch it would be RWD for exact same reasons. As long the battery is in the floor, there is enough weight on rear axle for good enough traction. Want more? Get AWD.�
Jun 28, 2015
JRP3 To put the space issue in perspective, looking at the Model S motor space, and realizing that the smaller, narrower 3 will have even less space, removing the rear motor would only give a small hole you might be able to drop a small bag into.
They won't design a separate low profile frame for cars without rear motors, plus you still need attachment points for the rear suspension, with or without a motor. If you really need to get one extra small suitcase in there on a regular basis you probably need a larger vehicle, like the Model S.�
Jun 28, 2015
WarpedOne You are showing RWD motor motor from S85.
Rear motor in 85D is already much smaller / narrower still providing up to 220 HP.
�
Jun 28, 2015
JRP3 Exactly, even less space to be "gained" by making it FWD.�
Jun 28, 2015
WarpedOne Indeed.
I was thinking is there a marketable feature of offering both, FWD and RWD?
There are people strongly opposed to FWD and there are those very afraid of RWD.
If they already have both drivetrains for AWD, how expensive is to develop another non powered rear suspension for FWD-only option?
There is not a single car out there offered in FWD and RWD versions, this would be an interesting feature "that only EVs have".�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger I think we have stuck down to semantics by now and unfortunately also fairly strict points of view. No point in digging further at this stage, if there is little concensus and the reality of Model 3 is years away.
To sort of summarize on my end:
IMO RWD is more likely. This is obvious. There is both precedent at Tesla for it, Model 3 is not so small as an A3/Golf, and ICE FWD has more benefits from that configuration than an EV FWD.
But no EV motor is tiny at this stage, not even the 85D RWD in that image - that would still take out sizeable box out of the trunk space. Going FWD in some types of cars could still, even in the EV sense, offer space benefits. It just depends on which end you want to save the space in. In a very small car, this could be significant still.
Both front and rear motors eat into cargo space on the Model S and depending on what the Model 3 form-factor is, would very likely to do the same there. We'd have to know what the Model 3 design is to judge whether or not they could or could not save space in either end.
I agree EV FWD space savings are probably not big enough (above the sub-compact segment anyway) to dictate the choice to Tesla. I doubt they would choose RWD or FWD based on frunk/trunk space alone. It will be a matter of a great number of things, if it comes down to that.
FWD probably would be a market-acceptance choice, if anything, and would seem more likely in a smaller car than Model 3 (in some types of car the customer expects FWD). It is probably not a choice Tesla has to pick for Model 3.
So, very likely Model 3 is RWD, with AWD option.�
Jun 28, 2015
Model 3 While I agree with most of what you are saying, just one more data point:
What Tesla is all about is not to match any "market-acceptance". It's about to challenge what the market may accept, and educate the market. An EV with long range and good looking? A family "sedan" with sports car like performance? A sporty muscle car with seating for 7?
So I think that they will make the drive-train they think is the best choice for the car, and educate the marked about it if it's collide with what the marked expect. And if they don't find any particular reasons for the one or the another, they may very well give the customer the choice. (No, I don't expect it on the Model 3, but maybe in a future (sub)compact?)�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger I'm not sure that necessarily is entirely true. Smells a bit of hyperbole. Sure, Tesla is leading the EV revolution and anyone how understands how revolutionary simple its skateboard base is (compared to ridiculous contraptions by competition) gets that, but outwardly they are still striking a balance of a car acceptable to the wider public... Tesla makes cars that look like regular cars, they are fueled in the same spot etc... Tesla doesn't make weird-EVs - unlike the competition - and this is for a very good reason. They want to be car-like... enough.
I wouldn't put it past them to try to be familiar-enough with Model 3 too (so that they have a chance at pushing their revolution through), and FWD vs. RWD could possibly be - especially in sub-Model 3 sizes - such a factor.�
Jun 28, 2015
Model 3 True again, but you forgot one word: "still". On the TMS/TMX they are making that balance as you correctly stated. Original Elon and Franz wanted something else for Gen-III, but seems like they has retracted and goes for the same balance for the Model 3. But they both has stated that they want to challenge this more in the future.�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger This is true, of course. Interesting to see the areas where they choose to challenge in the Model 3 round - and especially beyond. I wonder, could the next-gen Roadster be intriguing?�
Jun 28, 2015
aronth5 Agree.
I'm puzzled why the thought of FWD continues in this thread. The chances of Tesla doing FWD is basically slim and none.�
Jun 28, 2015
MartinAustin Ditto
Let's assume the bodywork is front-to-back neutral, in terms of mass.
HVAC and battery cooling systems need to be in front of the battery to get air coming into the car... so they can't be at the back of the car. These devices, the pipes etc. weigh something.
To put the invertor and battery at the front also, would make the car front-heavy.
To give the car equal weight balance (or... better anyway) they would be behind the battery. The exact number of people complaining about this premium, one-motor car being RWD instead of FWD would be... zero.�
Jun 28, 2015
AnxietyRanger It is years prior to Model 3 release. One can argue that it is puzzling anyone is talking anything if you look at it like that. The resemblance of what we discuss anyway and what Tesla will release are between slim and none in most topics.
It is an interesting question: EV form-factors, drivertrains, pros and cons of which. We all agree RWD is much more likely in the case of Model 3.
I am puzzled by how adamant some people are in their views. "Never gonna happen, why even talk about it" stance can mislead too, like it did so many with the Model X adaptive spoiler.
- - - Updated - - -
Now, without that "Ditto" part - and the last sentence - a perfectly fair post of course. Some new angles there to the question. I appreciate those.
Two things:
- Are we sure Tesla will position Model 3 as Premium? Will they go after the 3 Series or the Volkswagens of this world? Indeed, if their goal is to make it a premium car, that certainly increases the (already large) chances of RWD.
- Why say things like nobody would miss FWD. Obviously historically e.g. three of six mainstream premium manufacturers in Europe are FWD loyal, and out of the three other, Mercedes and BMW have released FWD cars near the Model 3 segment (most notably Mercedes CLA).
It is not unheard of the some demographics Model 3 could target might expect FWD. Especially if Tesla were to target luring non-premium drivers into EVs.
Now, even I of course said RWD is 80% likely for Model 3 - so consider this a mental exercise.�
Jun 29, 2015
stopcrazypp On the subject of a FWD Tesla, I think the reason why they won't go with that is the same reason why BMW did not go with FWD for the i3 (it doesn't get much smaller than the i3 in terms of size either, plus they also had to fit the REx in the back): people in the premium market expect RWD and it's a marketing advantage.
While ICE makers are forced into FWD because of significant cost, efficiency, and packaging advantages (the CLA is an example of that), such an advantage doesn't really exist for EVs (you get a bit more space right behind the rear seats, but that's about it, no real cost/efficiency advantage).
I have discussed with people about the CLA before, and brought up it was FWD. The reaction was disbelief and I had to show them the spec sheet to convince them. Mercedes haven't been doing a lot of marketing about it being FWD and I suspect many people still think it is RWD like a C-Class. Likely because being FWD isn't something to be proud of in the premium segment (at least in the US market, not sure about other markets), while being RWD is continually being trumpeted.�
Jun 29, 2015
AnxietyRanger For every BMW i3 there are tons of FWD Audis, Volvos and historically Saabs. Audi does longitudinal FWD in most of its models which has very little packaging advantages compared to RWD. Aud does FWD because their customers demand it. On the transverse side, Audi TT sells a lot as a premium FWD sports car, even roadster (!).
I guess this all depends where on is coming from. Maybe the openmindedness to FWD is a "Euro socialist" trait.
Which market will Tesla target? I don't claim to know. I agree RWD seems more likely (80%).
p.s. Let's not use BMW i Series as examples of space-efficient EV packaging.�
Jun 29, 2015
stopcrazypp Volvo and Saab have been a market failure and had to be bought out by the Chinese. Audi is really the only one doing fine in the premium segment with primarily FWD cars (although they are mainly famous for their AWD quattro system).
The packaging advantage of FWD is largely related to the elimination of the drive shaft. This results in a hump which the middle rear passenger has to straddle and significant efficiency loss as well as extra cost. There is also a traction advantage related to the engine being over the drive wheels. These factors are non-existence in an EV.�
Jun 29, 2015
AnxietyRanger The packaging advantages of FWD are two-fold, first and foremost it allows for transverse engine placement (sideways). This is the main reason why Mercedes did it in the CLA, and why the likes of Skoda Superb are so vast in interior space, because less of the car needed for basically "the bonnet". Audi uses transverse engine placement only in their small models that share VW platforms, the Audi A1, A3, Q3 and TT.
The other benefit, lack of central tunnel, is actually used very little in larger premium cars for a simple reason: it is used for exhaust and with AWD sister models having two different packagings is found an unnecessary cost anyway. All those longitudinal FWD Audis, where engine takes just as much space of the front as on RWD, have central tunnels still. It is not a consideration for them or their buyers. Audi uses none of the FWD packaging benefit in larger models.
This brings us to the main FWD benefit in premium, above compact cars that is: FWD has a unique driving dynamic preferred by some demographics. Audi today makes FWD cars because their demographic demands them, just like BMW makes RWD cars for theirs - historical reasons for both of course. Audi has toyed with RWD in labs and it has always been nixed eventually (outside of R8) for fear of alienating customers. One thing, I guess, we are skirting around (no pun intended) is that FWD cars sell a lot to the high-end family car as well as female demographics, where its driving dynamic is preferred. It is no wonder Audi TT, even in its FWD form, sells a lot in the latter demographic. With CLA, Mercedes can target these demographics - and does. It is not targeting the hardcore BMW petrolhead or Porsche enthusiast.
Audi even makes the Audi A8 in front-wheel drive. These cars don't have 50:50 weight distribution, because in those demographics that buy these FWD cars, it really doesn't matter. For them FWD is the safe, sensible choice that they are familiar with. They are not buying a track weapon, quite the contrary.
Tesla being a new manufacturer, of course has no such historical baggage of its own to consider - except for, by now, a core group of fans and early adopters, whom I would assume find RWD acceptable in general and would be suspicious of FWD, if TMC is anything to go by anyway.
If Tesla wants to introduce their revolution to the masses, it needs to pick its battles carefully and maintain a certain amount of familiarity in areas that are not crucial to change in their revolution. This is why Model S looks like a regular car, it charges around the spot where you'd fuel a car, those Superchargers look like retro gasoline stations and so forth - the magic, for most part is hidden under a layer of familiar. I'm guessing the front vs. rear wheel drive question is not pertinent to Tesla's mission at all, so in theory I would expect them to look at the issue fairly impassionately as a company (individuals may of course have strong views) and choose the one that helps them sell most cars. I don't think EV revolution in itself demands Tesla to take a stance on FWD vs. RWD, it is not important to the question at all.
RWD in Roadster and Model S segments is more common, easy choice - check. In Model 3, there is a lot more FWD competition... so a little more pause. In a hypothetical future sub-compact Tesla, a lot more pause over this question.
So, in my estimation, the question boils down to: What drivetrain configuration helps them sell most Model 3s and thus usher in the EV revolution fastest? I think they will stick with RWD due to their precedent (even though Roadster and Model S are in wholly different categories) and because I think they will target BMW 3 Series, but considering most of the cars sold in the world in general are FWD, the case for an FWD Tesla down the road is not an impossible one. For that FWD driving demographic, taking the leap to EV is already hard for some, why ask them to leap to RWD (if AWD is not economical) too and put in one more roadblock... That was my line of thinking I was getting philosophical on.
p.s. If you are trying to link Volvo's and Saab's failure to their proponency of FWD, I think we can agree to disagree. Hopefully that is not what you are trying to say. Also, I'm betting you there are tons more RWD car manufacturers out there that are no longer in existence.�
Jun 29, 2015
WarpedOne AA put it nicely - there are people who like FWD and there are others who like RWD. Both groups are quite strong on their POV.
TM3 will have AWD with FWD and RWD in a single car. I don't think anyone expects tesla will go single motor + driveshaft route for AWD.
So, just delete that RWD from AWD version and voila - FWD for those who see it as better than RWD and cannot afford/need/want AWD. It might be a bit more expensive than RWD or maybe not even that.�
Jun 29, 2015
AnxietyRanger Agreed. While, as said, I don't find the FWD/RWD/AWD option a very realistic one for Model 3 productio, in theory it could work very nice for the above-mentioned demographics:
- Base FWD model, the smallest motor, "safest" driving dynamic
- Mid-level RWD model, larger motor, nice horsepower, good dynamic
- Top-level AWD, both motors for maximum grip and horsepower
It is a nice idea anyway. Doubtful to happen, but at this early stage, fun to toy with.�
Jul 12, 2016
Toyolla2 From a manufacturer's POV here's a suggestion. It's the three card trick RWD, FWD or AWD and you want the customer to make the "right" choice' ...
For the Tesla marque and the Model 3 then AWD is obviously the preferred config.
A Nissan Leaf with RWD is fine but with Tesla you're going to pay more and expect more. I see the main differentiator is always going to be AWD going forward.
So you offer either AWD with 75Kw motors on one hand or a 150Kw RWD on the other.
However, and this is most important, the RWD version will come with a $7K upcharge.�
Jul 14, 2016
Winston Wolf Wow. Old thread. I'd be over the moon if the M3 came standard with dual motors. Would give me $4k to spend on other options.�
Jul 14, 2016
Red Sage Hmmm... 75 kW is about 100.6 HP... 150 kW is right at 201.2 HP. Do you work for General Motors?
The least powerful AC induction motor that Tesla Motors has offered was a 154 HP unit used in the Toyota RAV4 EV. and that was just a detuned unit -- at the specific behest of Toyota -- of the 300+ HP motor used in the Model S 40 and Model S 60. Tesla does not make slow cars. There is absolutely NO benefit to be gained by having a wimpy motor in any version of the Model ?. The car is meant to take over an entire market segment from the BMW 3-Series. That won't be done by matching the performance profile of a BMW 320d. It is more likely to happen if the base version of the Model ? exceeds the capabilities of the BMW 340i instead.
Elon Musk has already stated that the base version of Tesla Model ? will be Rear Wheel Drive. I'm sure he has noted that there are those who lament the passing of a a RWD version of the Performance oriented Model S. I also think he has probably dismissed that concern, in light of learning that dual motor all wheel drive is simply BETTER -- for safety, range, and performance. The only way there will be a Performance level Model ? with RWD, as an 'upcharge' is if Elon decides to take pity on those who want to hang out the rear on a track. I sincerely doubt that likelihood. No matter how much 'fun' people claim to have, driving sideways has never been the fastest way around a track. And it sure as [HECK] isn't the safest. Only the most stylish.�
Jul 14, 2016
Twiglett Indeed
All those folks wanting ECO modes with wimpy motors or extra paddles for assorted regen braking options need to be looking somewhere other than Tesla for their cars. According to all the press releases almost every manufacturer is going to be building one, eventually.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét