Could the Model 3 have a FWD configuration?

[Cloxxki]

I accept the significance of advantages to RWD offered, cost and torque steer. Although some hot hatches seem to perform just fine on FWD, better than most 4WD's.
I'd be surious how much cabin space FWD might open up.

For true economy and cost reduction, I'd like a small motor in the back of Model 3 similar to what's used in plain D's on the front. And with that gearing, in case it's indeed as rumored longer than the rear motors.
The range difference between D and - is too big to ignore. Economy matters, and 200hp is more than enough for a base level RWD BEV. Whether it's a Nissan, Chevy or a Tesla. And I bet that Tesla could get a sub-6 second 0-60mph done with that D's front motor in the back of a lighter Model 3.

Someone, tell me a price difference estimate for motors such as in the plain D today, front versus rear? Even the difference being less when redesigned and built in greater series, perhaps still too much to just stick a big one in the car promised to be $35K and 215mi. Heck, it even would require using more cells with a big motor as stock. A few kWh at $200-300 each?

 

[omarti]

This is an interesting topic. I did see an interview once where Elon said the performance of a RWD is a non issue in snow because of the traction control and number of times per second that the system corrects traction issues. Of course AWD would give an even greater advantage but he was confident in the performance of the RWD vehicles.

As a side note when I first read the topic on this thread a couple of days ago I thought it was about Falcon Wing Doors

 

[Cloxxki]

Model 3 being lower price, a non-P, D model might have two equally small motors. Such as two D front motors, or smaller still.
Which $40 family car buyer needs more than 300hp in an AWD car? Sure, even the ~55kWh base battery could easy delivery (peak) power to utilize bigger motors off the line, but with two, to Teslas standards, really tiny motors, Model 3D would barely have peers in terms of 0-60 and 1/4 mile. $40K (or less) car, really cheap cost per additional mile, seats 4 or 5 decently, front trunk.
To charge a good amount extra for P and PD, Tesla might open up the performance gap a bit with Model 3. Model S/X PD-like motors on the P/PD models that can shortly delivery 762hp or so, doubling what the plain D gets.

Base RWD : <6 seconds 0-60
Base D : <5 seconds 0-60
PD : 3.0 seconds 0-60
100PDL : 2.3 seconds 0-60

Silly thought, could a FWD model enjoy some extra battery modules over the rear axle for an unbeatable hypermiler?

 

[omarti]

At first I figured nah!! But you pose some good thoughts Cloxxki. It will be interesting to see what develops.

 

[Saghost]

I accept the significance of advantages to RWD offered, cost and torque steer. Although some hot hatches seem to perform just fine on FWD, better than most 4WD's.
I'd be surious how much cabin space FWD might open up.

For true economy and cost reduction, I'd like a small motor in the back of Model 3 similar to what's used in plain D's on the front. And with that gearing, in case it's indeed as rumored longer than the rear motors.
The range difference between D and - is too big to ignore. Economy matters, and 200hp is more than enough for a base level RWD BEV. Whether it's a Nissan, Chevy or a Tesla. And I bet that Tesla could get a sub-6 second 0-60mph done with that D's front motor in the back of a lighter Model 3.

Someone, tell me a price difference estimate for motors such as in the plain D today, front versus rear? Even the difference being less when redesigned and built in greater series, perhaps still too much to just stick a big one in the car promised to be $35K and 215mi. Heck, it even would require using more cells with a big motor as stock. A few kWh at $200-300 each?

Either you're confused or I am. Every source I've seen shows the two motors in the D cars as identical, both the smaller size. (Not the PxxDs, of course - they use the original larger motor in the rear and a small front motor. The standard Ds use a small motor on each axle, rated for 259 horsepower these days.)

There are a few hardware differences, since the accelerator is wired directly to the rear motor inverter, but the two are fundamentally the same and you'd need the extra rear motor inverter hardware on a single motor car wherever that motor ended up.

 

[Troy]

This is what Elon said:
source

 

[xmetal]

And there ya go.

Having owned all 3 configurations over the years, and currently driving a FWD Leaf, I would definitely not want Tesla-style power and torque going through the front wheels alone. Yes, Tesla has smart torque distributions, blahbity blah blah, but in the end you are still dealing with physics and having the car constantly need to limit power or shift it around doesn't add up to fun spirited driving.

RWD AWD FTW

 

[Cloxxki]

Either you're confused or I am. Every source I've seen shows the two motors in the D cars as identical, both the smaller size. (Not the PxxDs, of course - they use the original larger motor in the rear and a small front motor. The standard Ds use a small motor on each axle, rated for 259 horsepower these days.)

There are a few hardware differences, since the accelerator is wired directly to the rear motor inverter, but the two are fundamentally the same and you'd need the extra rear motor inverter hardware on a single motor car wherever that motor ended up.

Ah, thanks!
I am not very intimate with details actually. May be wrong.
Wiki just told me "....while a second motor of similar size..." so perhaps not identical. Over 400hp (even 500hp?) still, and really, would a Model 3 need any more than 300hp to enjoy the advantage of traction and extra safety? Motors can be much smaller. 150hp may be just about enough to make 60mph in 6 seconds?
Perhaps there is little weight or efficiency to be won by going smaller than the D's current motors, and that'd be fine. Free top end power, always fun.
The D is efficient cruising on mostly the front motor. So that's eitther different or geared longer. If the latter, that may be a trick to get more out of the 3's battery pack. You give up a bit of punchiness off the line, and can safe a good amount in cell to achieve 215 miles EPA.

 

[Saghost]

The D is efficient cruising on mostly the front motor. So that's eitther different or geared longer.

The D is more efficient on the highway than a rear drive car with a similar pack, yes. I'm not sure that we know how much it uses the front or rear or both in cruising (the discussion about cruising on the front motor being more efficient that I've seen applied to the PxxD cars, with the old large motor in the rear - it could be that the smaller motor is simply more efficient overall, or that by running on just one of them the car moves into a more efficient part of the power map.)

I wouldn't be too surprised if Tesla did come out with a smaller motor in the 150-200 HP class. I'm not sure that one of those can deliver the sub six second times promised, so the RWD version might need the midsize motor instead, but I could see the 3xxDs using 2 small motors, and the 3PxxD using one of each for 4-500 HP.

The new small motor might be a chance to start making separate motors on each wheel available for the bigger cars - the ultimate traction control and then dynamic torque vectoring for ultimate handling - the next S or X P might be two small motors in front and two midsize in back as a PXXXQ...

 

[McRat]

Resistance increases with temperature. It is possible two motors running less amps, making less heat, waste less power than a single motor doing the same task. Dunno for sure.

 

[JeffK]

The D is more efficient on the highway than a rear drive car with a similar pack, yes. I'm not sure that we know how much it uses the front or rear or both in cruising (the discussion about cruising on the front motor being more efficient that I've seen applied to the PxxD cars, with the old large motor in the rear - it could be that the smaller motor is simply more efficient overall, or that by running on just one of them the car moves into a more efficient part of the power map.)

I wouldn't be too surprised if Tesla did come out with a smaller motor in the 150-200 HP class. I'm not sure that one of those can deliver the sub six second times promised, so the RWD version might need the midsize motor instead, but I could see the 3xxDs using 2 small motors, and the 3PxxD using one of each for 4-500 HP.

The new small motor might be a chance to start making separate motors on each wheel available for the bigger cars - the ultimate traction control and then dynamic torque vectoring for ultimate handling - the next S or X P might be two small motors in front and two midsize in back as a PXXXQ...

We already know there's going to be ~300kW inverters. There's no need to guess on the HP ratings. It's going to be awesome!

 

[stopcrazypp]

Ah, thanks!
I am not very intimate with details actually. May be wrong.
Wiki just told me "....while a second motor of similar size..." so perhaps not identical. Over 400hp (even 500hp?) still, and really, would a Model 3 need any more than 300hp to enjoy the advantage of traction and extra safety? Motors can be much smaller. 150hp may be just about enough to make 60mph in 6 seconds?
Perhaps there is little weight or efficiency to be won by going smaller than the D's current motors, and that'd be fine. Free top end power, always fun.
The D is efficient cruising on mostly the front motor. So that's eitther different or geared longer. If the latter, that may be a trick to get more out of the 3's battery pack. You give up a bit of punchiness off the line, and can safe a good amount in cell to achieve 215 miles EPA.

I don't know if this changed, but the old RWD versions of the S used a larger motor/inverter in the back like the P100D uses today. Edit: I looked at the Tesla page, this is still true in the new versions.

So it may simply be that the smaller motor/inverter combo is more efficient. The gearing is definitely different for the smaller motor that the big one, but I'm not sure if in the 85D there is any difference between the front and rear when using the same motors.

 

[Garlan Garner]

A FWD electric car would be disastrous. Too much torque.... It would be very hard to steer under acceleration.

To much torque? Is that even possible? I don't understand what "too much torque" means. That term is blasphemous. Simply Ludicrous.

 

[diamond.g]

Ah, thanks!
I am not very intimate with details actually. May be wrong.
Wiki just told me "....while a second motor of similar size..." so perhaps not identical. Over 400hp (even 500hp?) still, and really, would a Model 3 need any more than 300hp to enjoy the advantage of traction and extra safety? Motors can be much smaller. 150hp may be just about enough to make 60mph in 6 seconds?
Perhaps there is little weight or efficiency to be won by going smaller than the D's current motors, and that'd be fine. Free top end power, always fun.
The D is efficient cruising on mostly the front motor. So that's eitther different or geared longer. If the latter, that may be a trick to get more out of the 3's battery pack. You give up a bit of punchiness off the line, and can safe a good amount in cell to achieve 215 miles EPA.

For reference the Bolt has 200 hp and fairly short gearing (that is what lowers top speed right?) and it can't hit 60 in less than 6 seconds. If you actually look at the S 60 it is just under 6 with over 300hp (and like 1000 lbs over the Bolt).

To much torque? Is that even possible? I don't understand what "too much torque" means. That term is blasphemous. Simply Ludicrous.

Torque steer does exist in FWD cars. It is not fun...

 

[JeffK]

To much torque? Is that even possible? I don't understand what "too much torque" means. That term is blasphemous. Simply Ludicrous.

 

[Garlan Garner]

For reference the Bolt has 200 hp and fairly short gearing (that is what lowers top speed right?) and it can't hit 60 in less than 6 seconds. If you actually look at the S 60 it is just under 6 with over 300hp (and like 1000 lbs over the Bolt).
Torque steer does exist in FWD cars. It is not fun...

I don't understand. What does torque steer have to do with anything? I want torque and a lot of it.

As I've said before sub 1 scond 0-60? I wouldn't complain at all.

 

[McRat]

I don't understand. What does torque steer have to do with anything? I want torque and a lot of it.

As I've said before sub 1 scond 0-60? I wouldn't complain at all.

You would not enjoy the suit especially on a hot day, trust me. It only looks nifty, SFI-20 gear is a serious PITA, and now you need HANS too. You need help to get in the car now.

Anywho...

FWD torque steer is dead. Electronics killed it and buried it in an unmarked shallow grave in the Mojave. There was no funeral. It was a side effect of that damned Stability Control. When will they ever learn? Now that all cars have SC, you must turn it off to experience torque steer, but on some cars without LSD in the nose, you cannot turn off that part of the logic. Sadly, the Bolt will most likely be in that class.

 

[Lysol]

I'll say this again....

A FWD electric car would be disastrous. Too much torque.... It would be very hard to steer under acceleration.

I don't know if many have actually driven a FWD car with a decent amount of power, but when you apply a lot of torque to the front wheels from a stop and try to steer, it's a whole different game...

I had a '12 Honda Accord with 270HP and 250lb/ft torque. It had bad FWD torque steer with stability control. There might be some cars that can limit your throttle input more accurately when steering, but it still sucks.

 

[Red Sage]

And there ya go.

Having owned all 3 configurations over the years, and currently driving a FWD Leaf, I would definitely not want Tesla-style power and torque going through the front wheels alone. Yes, Tesla has smart torque distributions, blahbity blah blah, but in the end you are still dealing with physics and having the car constantly need to limit power or shift it around doesn't add up to fun spirited driving.

RWD AWD FTW

Toyota chose to have Tesla cut the power in half for their Front Wheel Drive offering in the RAV4 EV, which used a similar motor to that of a Model S 60.

 

[Red Sage]

I wouldn't be too surprised if Tesla did come out with a smaller motor in the 150-200 HP class. I'm not sure that one of those can deliver the sub six second times promised, so the RWD version might need the midsize motor instead, but I could see the 3xxDs using 2 small motors, and the 3PxxD using one of each for 4-500 HP.

The new small motor might be a chance to start making separate motors on each wheel available for the bigger cars - the ultimate traction control and then dynamic torque vectoring for ultimate handling - the next S or X P might be two small motors in front and two midsize in back as a PXXXQ...

Wow. Uhmmm... NO.