First Production Owners: Would you add AWD for 6K?

[KenF]

yeah it is not discussed often enough that you pay for better traction, slightly improved 0-30 but then PAY tesla for a 8% range downgrade..

Note the difference in acceleration between the AWD and the RWD isn’t in the 0-30 mph acceleration, which is insignificant. The difference is in the 30-80 mph acceleration. The AWD is about 0.1s faster from 0-30 mph, 0.5s faster from 30-60 mph, and nearly as fast as the P3D from 60-80 mph. That is why the AWD produces 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile track times that are closer to the P3D than the RWD.

The primary trade off is reduced efficiency — from 200-210 wh/m to 240-250 wh/m on aeros.

 

[more863-also]

Makes me even happier with the RWD, the funnest acceleration is 0-30, to me. I don't zip around cars like a madman or make dangerous passes, so can't see much utility for a super fast 60-80 time.

 

[run-the-joules]

I've forgotten more than most know about snow driving too, I live in the actual mountains outside of Denver. And I think snow tires are so much more important than AWD that it's not super useful for me. I regularly took a Cruze to Vail in storms with Blizzaks and it was fine, let alone the slightly shorter daily commute.

Having an extra 30ish miles of range for less money is a no brainer imo. When you're stuck in ski traffic burning heat you need battery, not AWD.

Ooh the heater usage is a good call actually. I’m a strong proponent of snow tires before AWD, as well, but I want AWD not just for snow but for more fun acceleration. I’d still be comfortable with the range hit though, plenty of super chargers between here and Tahoe.

 

[run-the-joules]

Makes me even happier with the RWD, the funnest acceleration is 0-30, to me. I don't zip around cars like a madman or make dangerous passes, so can't see much utility for a super fast 60-80 time.

The irony being that the car is quite clearly being held back in the 0-20ish range.

 

[mike123abc]

Makes me even happier with the RWD, the funnest acceleration is 0-30, to me. I don't zip around cars like a madman or make dangerous passes, so can't see much utility for a super fast 60-80 time.

All depends on where you drive. If you are always on multiple lane highways and in the city you will never need it. If you are in hilly rural areas with short passing zone trying to pass semi trucks, that is where you need it.

 

[KenF]

The irony being that the car is quite clearly being held back in the 0-20ish range.

Right — 0-30 acceleration on both the RWD and standard AWD is software limited to increase the appeal of the P3D, which accelerates 40-50% faster than both from 0-30.

Bottom line, paying the extra $6,000 for the AWD doesn’t really improve driving in the city. if you want the best driving experience in the city, you have to pay an extra $17,000.

 

[Candleflame]

Note the difference in acceleration between the AWD and the RWD isn’t in the 0-30 mph acceleration, which is insignificant. The difference is in the 30-80 mph acceleration. The AWD is about 0.1s faster from 0-30 mph, 0.5s faster from 30-60 mph, and nearly as fast as the P3D from 60-80 mph. That is why the AWD produces 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile track times that are closer to the P3D than the RWD.

The primary trade off is reduced efficiency — from 200-210 wh/m to 240-250 wh/m on aeros.

sorry 30-60 was what i meant not 0 to 30