tdelta1000
Active Member
I would prefer to see the following:
RWD 380HP Motor
AWD 188HP & 380HP motors
Performance
Dual 380HP Motors only
RWD 380HP Motor
AWD 188HP & 380HP motors
Performance
Dual 380HP Motors only
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This assumption completely kills your original premise which is that FWD has better parts commonality as it saves from having a third DU configuration (using your assumption of large motor for the rear). Now you would need to build two completely different rear suspensions and frames for the FWD vs AWD which I imagine is a whole lot more expensive than simply having two different size motors in the rear (which they are already doing for the Model S anyways).
In a situation where they keep a similar rear suspension and frame setup for both FWD and AWD, it appears the extra space you get in the rear would only be a fraction (less than 50%, maybe even 25%) of the DU, while for the front, it seems you can recover most of it.
And as JRP3 points out, extra space under the load floor doesn't have as much common use. Just thinking from experience with cars with such spaces, most of the time it is used to store emergency supplies (usually tire kit) and other items not used everyday. And to create a flat floor with seats folded down (which is what usually happens when there is a need to store large cargo), there is usually a cover/divider on top (adjustable for the better designs, fixed for others).
And thinking more closely, I don't think the premise works that well, it would mean:
221hp for the base model
691hp for the higher models
That's a huge gap in between.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Simply comparing hp numbers fails to show the true performance differences between ICE and EV. The full torque available from 0 RPM completely changes the way a vehicle performs, and you should focus on torque numbers and the shape of the torque curve, not HP. At similar hp numbers the EV will outperform the ICE at 0-60 launches.
That picture is misleading, look at the other picture he posted: http://www.myperfectautomobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Tesla-Motor.jpg
The frame rails obviously cut down any available space gains from removing the motor, and the smaller, narrower Model 3 will have even less space. You'll end up with a small sub floor storage bin.
No, you simply design a more compact rear suspension setup that works with both configurations. The Model S has never needed this as there has never been any plan to bring out a FWD version. (Other car makers are able to make compact suspensions without great difficulty.)
I'll agree that it would be a good idea to have a cover so that you have a flat floor with the rear seats folded down. But you could make this cover so that it could lie at the bottom of the cargo space when the rear seats are folded up, but then when you fold the seats flat you could attatch the cover in the raised position. Like you already have on the Model S, only for the entire load floor: Tesla Model S P85D delivery walkthrough - part 1 - YouTube
Having given it more thought, I think my ideal situation with regards to configurations would be:
~188 hp FWD
~409 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~221 hp rear motor)
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
This does mean that there will be three different configurations at the back, but in return, the configuration at the front will always be the same. The alternative would be to have:
~188 hp RWD
~376 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~188 hp rear motor)
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
Then you would have two different configurations for both the front and rear. Or even:
~188 hp RWD
~409 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~221 hp rear motor)
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
Then you would have two different configurations at the front and three different configurations at the back.
- - - Updated - - -
0-60 isn't everything. I think the Model 3 should be able to keep up with the others up to around 100 mph.
As I said in the block of text you quoted, you would need to redesign the suspension and frame.
Last edited:
Those are not facts, only opinions. There are too many variables to consider when comparing FWD and RWD cars. Yes a FWD car, is much better on snow/ice than a 70's or 80's RWD vehicle. No comparison really. When you compare a FWD with the Roadster or Model S, the FWD pretty much sucks on snow/ice. The traction/ABS/stability control on the Model S will outperform a FWD the majority of the time(speaking from experience), although a bit of this may be because the Model S is quite heavy.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
I have owned many front wheel drive vehicles and a few rear wheel drive vehicles. For which I have driven them in all conditions including snow. As others have posted I find it very unlikely but not impossible that the model 3 will be FWD. Unless the Model 3 will feature a radically new platform, the current model S\X platform is not amenable to the FWD configuration. Balance. With a skateboard platform sporting a near 50/50 balance, a FWD design has lost its advantages. If the platform was redesigned to make the car front heavy, then I can see a better case for a FWD version. Another big downside to a FWD vehicle is torque steer. An electric motor with oodles of torque really exacerbates the problem.
On the flip side, a rear wheel drive Model 3 with a front heavy weight distribution would also be a poor performer.
My experience with the Model S is that RWD with 50/50 balance and fantastic traction control creates a decent handling winter vehicle. Only AWD would be better.
On the flip side, a rear wheel drive Model 3 with a front heavy weight distribution would also be a poor performer.
My experience with the Model S is that RWD with 50/50 balance and fantastic traction control creates a decent handling winter vehicle. Only AWD would be better.
PokerBroker
Member
It's seems that everyone's arguments on both sides of the RWD vs FWD argument are based on past experiences with ICE vehicles. How bout we all just admit that we have no idea how these dynamics change with an EV??
I completely agree, at least when it comes to driving dynamics.
When it comes to economics, I know from experience in working with the production of high-tech products that fewer configurations means less complexity and reduced costs. Standing on the outside, it's impossible to determine exactly how great the costs will be in introducing additional configurations, but Tesla certainly seems intent on cutting down on the number of configurations. The 40, the 60D and the P85+ have all gotten the axe. They've also recently gotten rid of a bunch of options.
Then why propose all these configurations ..... when one would do the trick. Single Rear Motor and adding motor to front for performance version.
Having given it more thought, I think my ideal situation with regards to configurations would be:
~188 hp FWD
~409 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~221 hp rear motor)
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
This does mean that there will be three different configurations at the back, but in return, the configuration at the front will always be the same. The alternative would be to have:
~188 hp RWD
~376 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~188 hp rear motor)
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
Then you would have two different configurations for both the front and rear. Or even:
~188 hp RWD
~409 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~221 hp rear motor)
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
Then you would have two different configurations at the front and three different configurations at the back.
Your posts seem to contradict themselves through this whole thread......
A simplier solution is the 380 in the rear for all cars (amazing performance for a standard car)
with the 221 in the front for a D
and the 380 in the front for the PD
Last edited:
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
Well I am including my experience with my EV (Model S), so I do have some idea.
You need *some* configurations to adress as much of the market as possible. Two configurations seems insufficient to do that. How would you do it?
~188 hp RWD
~376 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~188 hp rear motor)
= no high-end version
~188 hp FWD
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
= no mid-range version
~380 hp RWD
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
= no low-end version
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I'd vote for
~188 hp RWD
~376 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~188 hp rear motor)
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
so what call them
Model 3xx
Model 3xxD
Model Pxx3
replacing the xx with the kwh of the battery?
I really hope Tesla web site and the people on this board stop calling the Model S85 the "85". You already see so many people saying the 85 has better range than the P85. Change that to the S85 has better range than the P85 and there is less confusion. What if down the road there is a X85 and 385 and we have hundreds or thousands of ambiguously worded posts about the S85? For that matter will it be less confusing to say 385, 3-85, or 3/85? Now add the D, do you like 385D, 3-85D, or 3/85D?
Entirely possible that the gen 3 car doesn't share a battery size and reduces the confusion, possible for X as well. But I think that it's wishful thinking to expect people not to write confusing posts no matter the battery size. Still I'll toss it out there.
Okay, so you propose dropping the low-end version entirely. How on earth does that make sense for Tesla's mass market car?
I would keep the naming the same as the Model S
Model 3XX
Model 3 PXX
Model 3 PXXD
- - - Updated - - -
The size of the motor has minimal impact on the cost of the car. Especially if TM already has it in production and can just raise its usage therefore getting better deals on the parts needed. But the use of 2 motors would raise the price thus using them in the upgraded versions where they are paid for by the user.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
I would suggest keeping to the 221HP version motor at a minimum on the single motor base model variant. I don't think Tesla wants to be caught making an inferior performing vehicle.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Maybe you disagree on the models but like the naming convention?
I see the Model 3 as only having two or three models options being
~188 hp RWD
~376 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~188 hp rear motor) (this won't be marketed as a P it would be the equivalent to the S85D not the P85)
~568 hp AWD (~188 hp front motor, ~380 hp rear motor)
or just two of those three (you could argue against the single motor or the mid power dual motor but I like both, I'd rather drop the P model myself and force the people that want a P model to look at the Model S instead).
I'd also say if you are putting a space between 3 and P you need the space between 3 and xx to keep formatting the same.
That gives us
Model 3 xx
Model 3 xxD
Model 3 PxxD
- - - Updated - - -
easy way to do that with 188 hp motor instead is to just not sell a single motor version and have the Model 3 xxD and Model 3 PxxD as the only two options.
- - - Updated - - -
no reason for the larger front motor that is less effecient it raises price and lowers range.
I think the disconnect is you expect this to be all about performance and we expect there to be a cheap option with decent range.
Actually it is the other way around. A larger electric motor is MORE efficient than a smaller one or two smaller ones. And imagine that the base Model 3 outperforms an M3/4
- - - Updated - - -
Yes that was a typo on my part I meant to have a space too and corrected the post.
Last edited:
Given identical gearing, a larger motor can be more efficient than two smaller motors. That's not necessarily the case however with different gearing on the two motors.Actually it is the other way around. A larger electric motor is MORE efficient than a smaller one or two smaller ones. And imagine that the base Model 3 outperforms an M3/4
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think the cost will be sufficiently low. If you look how they've industrialized the 188/221 hp motor, I think Tesla would be insane not to use it on the base model 3. This is the most modern motor they have made. http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/factory-upgrade
Last edited:
Similar threads
