Went dual motor for skiing and handling, but was disappointed about having to give up 8% range (308 vs. 334 on EPA testing cycle). Several TMC posters, though, cautioned not to worry too much too soon. They pointed out that EPA testing is dyno only, with no way to adjust for aero effects, other than a crude multiplier. They reasoned that with so such a high proportion of actual Tesla highway energy use going to overcome air resistance, and with AWD Model 3’s differing only modestly in weight (about one passenger’s worth) and motor friction (added freewheeling front motor), actual highway range might not be 8% lower than RWD. And, if you think about it, the multiplier multiplies the AWD’s lower dyno efficiency by a constant to imply lower aero efficiency, as well ... which makes no sense. My limited early experience leaves me cautiously optimistic on this front. Today, we took a 160-mile round trip from our house (elev 900) to the Mount Pinos trailhead (8300 feet) and back. A lot of interstate driving (74 mph, except in backups), plus rural and mountain highways (45-65 mph). Spirited, when appropriate. Aero caps off. Average energy use 236 Wh/mile. Which had us burn 160 “range miles” to cover a like actual distance. What really impressed me was the downhill efficiency. Zero energy used during a 50+ mile downhill stretch on the return. Elevation drop about 6000 feet ... a little over one vertical mile. That’s almost a 50-1 “glide ratio” ... a 2% grade that most high-end sailplanes would be proud of. Time and highway driving will tell the tale, but I’m now at least cautiously hopeful that the AWD range hit will prove smaller than many of us had feared. As more AWDs get delivered, I’m eager to hear what others discover. Fingers crossed!