Will the base Model 3 be front wheel drive and the high end version all wheel drive?

[charliestyr]

One of the benefits of the Tesla dual motor design is I'd imagine you could have it either way.

If they wanted (yet another) USP how about your choice, FWD or RWD? Would be kinda cool. People who are cross shopping with 3-series etc would get RWD, someone who would be interested in a long range EV but is uncomfortable with RWD can get FWD without additional cost of having to go AWD.

Personally I think this is unlikely and believe it will be RWD with AWD option but you never know, Tesla has its options open

 

[Red Sage]

I personally think the 3 will compete with Accord and Camry shoppers. The goal is not to emulate the 3 series - at least I didn't think so. What I got was that pricing would be similar.

Elon Musk has repeatedly said that their cars must be demonstrably better and compelling or no one would have any reason to buy them. There is no advantage to producing a wimpy, gimped electric car -- unless your goal is to make sure they do not overtake sales of gas guzzlers. They offer too little for the premium charged for not having to fill up with gasoline or diesel. That's why none of the wimpy, gimped electrics appear in the top ranks of sales charts (and no, I don't count the Toyota Prius as an 'electric').

The base version of the BMW 3-Series is the 320i, which currently has a whopping huge 180 HP twin turbo 2.0 litre 4-cylinder engine (3,280 lbs) and is sold at $32,950 MSRP. The Honda Accord LX starts at $22,105 and has an incredibly powerful 185 HP 2.4 litre 4-cylinder engine (3,192 lbs). The $22,970 Toyota Camry LE has a 178 HP 2.5 litre 4-cylinder engine (3,240 lbs). Neither of these will be the target of the Tesla Model ☰ in performance.

Some are now claiming that the base Tesla Model ☰ should use one of the 188 HP motors from the Model S 60D for either rear wheel drive or front wheel drive... That would be a mistake for numerous reasons. Not the least of which is that the $30,495 Honda Accord EX-L V6 has a mind-numbingly prodigious 278 HP engine (3,554 lbs)... The $33,500 Toyota Camry XSE has a ridiculously light-bending quick 3.5 litre V6 268 HP engine (3,480 lbs)...

Tesla Motors is aiming for a base price of about $35,000. So they must offer a car that is obviously 'worth it' to people who have that much money to spend. Emulating the driving characteristics of a much less expensive car that has greater range will not work when the perception is still that gasoline is 'cheap' and electric cars are 'no good'. People must learn immediately from the test drive that the Tesla Model ☰ is BETTER.

But this is where some of the disagreement comes from. FWD makes sense if you are competing with an Accord. And at $35k base, you certainly can compete. I do think in another few years, people can look at $10000 in gas over 6 years ownership or so and factor that in. Everyone - no, but lots of people.

Others have already pointed out the reasons why front wheel drive is used so much for internal combustion engine vehicles. Those advantages are largely absent for electric vehicles. Unless you intend to drive the car with 300 LBS of ballast in the frunk at all times, there is no need to have the Tesla Model ☰ configured as front wheel drive. It won't improve efficiency, except perhaps in regeneration. It won't improve performance, safety, or handling. It won't improve cargo capacity. It won't improve interior comfort. A front motor should only be used in all wheel drive applications on Tesla Motors vehicles.

I have enough money for an S but there is an Accord in our driveway. My wife would prefer FWD. Put her in the lift-throttle oversteer camp. She certainly doesn't benefit from weight transfer to the rear in hard acceleration. She is an average driver. The average 3 series driver probably doesn't care or notice either. Yes - enthusiasts drive the street creed issue.

Most surface streets in urban areas are posted at 35 MPH or less. A few are posted at as much as 45 MPH. In those situations there is no appreciable difference between handling for a front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, or all wheel drive vehicle to anyone except enthusiasts. For average drivers, the handling characteristics of front wheel drive are a benefit during inclimate weather conditions, though.

I believe that having access to an affordable, efficient, powerful, rear wheel drive car with world class traction control and stability management will make people BETTER drivers. In times past the more powerful an internal combustion engine, the less affordable they were, because they ate gas like no tomorrow. Knowing that you can drive as you like and simply plug in when you get home, then wake in the morning with a 'full tank' every day relieves a lot of the potential guilt of enjoying a great driving experience. Oh, and spending 1/5th or less the amount on 'fuel' costs certainly helps too.

The motor may be air cooled. I admit to not knowing the technical issues here. But I do know that air cooled is cheaper and you have got to cut some money somewhere.

No. Air cooling no longer works on a 9,000 RPM piston motor -- that's why it was abandoned by Porsche -- it has no hope of being effective at 14,000+ RPM on an electric motor. Liquid cooling is vastly more efficient and effective in getting the job done reliably. That's why even custom computer builders use liquid cooling for their most ambitious overclocking projects. Attempting to air cool an electric motor for a performance electric car would be equivalent to introducing a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle as the 'solution' for clean air driving in the Arctic Circle. It would be an immense failure in short order as the immediate system failure would expose the terminal stupidity of making such an engineering decision.

I see it all the time on these 3 threads. There are some that expect 80% of an S at 50% of the cost. You have to try and simplify things to make the price point.

Actually, I expect the Tesla Model ☰ will deliver something like 120% of the original Model S experience at 50% of the cost. The biggest point of interest to reduce cost is in the battery pack. Economies of scale for selling a 20% smaller vehicle at 350,000-to-500,000 units per annum, versus 35,000-to-50,000 units instead, take care of all the rest on the financial side. Next is reducing weight by having a new formulation of batteries and the added benefit of a smaller platform built from less material to allow both improved range and better performance than expected.

If the base version of the Tesla Model ☰ has a 60 kWh battery pack, with a reduction of weight to ~3,700 lbs or less (20% smaller than Model S), it will have a range of ~250 miles (208 / 5 = 41.6; 41.6 x 6 = 249.6). We know that a 60 kWh battery pack can accommodate a 302 HP motor, because that was what was in the Tesla Model S 60 to begin with (though it now has a 380 HP standard). Now imagine the uproar if Tesla Motors is able to reduce the cost of batteries by so much that the Model ☰ offered for $34,900 has a 100 kWh battery pack, yielding a 416 mile range... and the 60 kWh version was only $25,900?

 

[andrewket]

I see Omar beat me to it, while I was spell checking, but here is my reply
anyway...:

The increase in efficiency doesn't come from the placement of the motors,
but from the fact that the front and rear motors are differently
geared and because the power gets shifted to what will be most
efficient for the current conditions.

Because of this I think the base model 3 will have AWD.

H

Also increased regen capacity.

 

[glhs272]

I still think there is a good chance that the base Model 3 will feature RWD. Maybe not as good range as the AWD version with the same battery, but will still be 200+ miles range. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see a whole new set of drive units engineered specifically for the Model 3 platform. I wouldn't assume they would just repackage the Model S/X platform.

 

[strider]

I personally think the 3 will compete with Accord and Camry shoppers. The goal is not to emulate the 3 series - at least I didn't think so. What I got was that pricing would be similar.

But this is where some of the disagreement comes from. FWD makes sense if you are competing with an Accord. And at $35k base, you certainly can compete. I do think in another few years, people can look at $10000 in gas over 6 years ownership or so and factor that in. Everyone - no, but lots of people.

Elon has said the 3-series is the target for both price and performance.

Also, I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that "gas savings" that everyone talks about is not real. If you keep the car for any length of time you're going to have to replace the battery and it will eat up most if not all of your gas savings. So just be careful when you talk to people. Yes, the car is very cheap to operate but you will have a big fat bill at some point.

 

[Johan]

Elon has said the 3-series is the target for both price and performance.

Also, I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that "gas savings" that everyone talks about is not real. If you keep the car for any length of time you're going to have to replace the battery and it will eat up most if not all of your gas savings. So just be careful when you talk to people. Yes, the car is very cheap to operate but you will have a big fat bill at some point.

You are partly right about that, but maybe also partly wrong. I think the jury is still out on the issue of battery longevity, 2nd hand value, upgrade cost etc. etc.

 

[favo]

Also, I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that "gas savings" that everyone talks about is not real. If you keep the car for any length of time you're going to have to replace the battery and it will eat up most if not all of your gas savings. So just be careful when you talk to people. Yes, the car is very cheap to operate but you will have a big fat bill at some point.

Well, if you wait long enough, you have to replace the engine, transmission, radiator, water pump, fuel pump, etc. on an ICE vehicle. Plus, at that time, batteries will be cheaper.

 

[strider]

You are partly right about that, but maybe also partly wrong. I think the jury is still out on the issue of battery longevity, 2nd hand value, upgrade cost etc. etc.

Sure. And for folks with higher gas prices (like Europe) the math is different (and better). My point is that there is no free lunch and that the battery is a consumable item and will need to be replaced at some point and it will not be cheap. I'm sure part of Tesla's reasoning for going after the "luxury" market is that those people are used to getting multi-thousand dollar repair and maintenance bills on their cars. Camry/Accord drivers not so much (at least not until the cars are very old). Obviously we all hope that technology will improve and costs will be reduced in the future but I'm just cautioning people that this is a very real thing. After 4 years and 41k miles my Roadster is down 11% in capacity.

 

[JRP3]

I am pretty sure Tesla has said multiple times that they don't want to make the regen stronger than it is because it is on the rear wheels. Having the tail drag the car under braking doesn't work as well because the weight shifts to the front wheels and then the rear wheels can lose traction. If the regen came from the front wheels it could be stronger.

More regen means more range ( mostly in the city, but applies everywhere ).

How much time do you spend testing the limits of the existing regen on long distance trips, or even driving around the city? Id say an irrelevant amount of time, which means any potential extra regen that might come from a FWD setup on top of existing regen would be negligible.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that "gas savings" that everyone talks about is not real. If you keep the car for any length of time you're going to have to replace the battery and it will eat up most if not all of your gas savings. So just be careful when you talk to people. Yes, the car is very cheap to operate but you will have a big fat bill at some point.

200+ mile pack cycled 2000 times = 400,000 miles of use. Exactly when during the normal lifespan of a vehicle are you going to be hit with this big fat bill?

 

[richkae]

Elon has said the 3-series is the target for both price and performance.

Also, I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that "gas savings" that everyone talks about is not real. If you keep the car for any length of time you're going to have to replace the battery and it will eat up most if not all of your gas savings. So just be careful when you talk to people. Yes, the car is very cheap to operate but you will have a big fat bill at some point.

I disagree.
If you compare to a BMW 7 series, after 8 years it will retain about $10K value of its original $85K purchase price.
You have spent $25-$30K on gasoline.

If your Model S was $85K new and is worth $0K after 8 years because the battery warranty is up and it needs replacing, you've spent about $3000 on electricity.
You can walk away, and you are ahead.
If a new battery is less than $25K, then you may be able to do much better.

It's not clear how it will all work out in the end, but I think its harder to lose with the Tesla.

 

[Red Sage]

I'm with JRP3 on this...

Also, I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that "gas savings" that everyone talks about is not real. If you keep the car for any length of time you're going to have to replace the battery and it will eat up most if not all of your gas savings. So just be careful when you talk to people. Yes, the car is very cheap to operate but you will have a big fat bill at some point.

Will the battery pack in a Tesla Model ☰ last as long as a plastic gas tank in a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord? Probably not. But you will have to fill that gas tank a whole bunch of times over the course of twenty years, and the price of the fuel will never be zero -- powered by the sun, and will likely go up per gallon in that time frame.

My point is that there is no free lunch and that the battery is a consumable item and will need to be replaced at some point and it will not be cheap.

I have heard that Panasonic has stress tested their 18650 battery cells to withstand 3,000 cycles. I believe that a Tesla Model ☰ 60 would have a range of ~250 miles or so. If you were to drive 250 miles round trip every day... Roughly averaging 91,250 miles of driving per year... Cycling 3,000 times from zero, to full, to zero again... You would drive 750,000 miles... And it would take 8 years, 2 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days. That is just outside the 8 year warranty period.

Keep in mind that insurance companies and leasing firms still make their calculations based upon annual driving of 12,000 or 15,000 miles. At 12,000 miles per year, it would take 62 years and 6 months to drive 750,000 miles. At 15,000 miles per year, it would take 50 years to drive 750,000 miles.

Say you really like to drive. At 30,000 miles per year, you would complete 750,000 miles in 25 years. If you really, really LOVE to drive, and drove 60,000 miles per year, you'd manage 750,000 miles over 12 years six months.

Let's say the engineers were wrong and the batteries are only good for 1,500 cycles in your particular car. If you drove 60,000 miles per year you would cover 375,000 miles in 6 years 4 months. Then the battery pack would be replaced under warranty.

So... What the problem is...? In most cases you will have moved on to another vehicle long before the battery pack died. With the 8 year warranty and the Gigafactory, more capable battery packs will appear to be replaced either under warranty or at lower costs at retail than the originals cost wholesale. Besides, everything in the battery pack is recyclable, so you would get some residual value -- even for a 'dead' battery pack -- upon trading it in for a new one.

Trust that you won't be able to trade in the 19.0 gallon fuel tank on a BMW 7-Series for a 38.0 gallon fuel tank -- ever. However, after ten years a battery pack that may have been good for 250 miles could be replaced with one that weighed less, cost less, and provided a 500+ mile range, using improved battery cells that were good for 5,000 cycles or more.

 

[strider]

200+ mile pack cycled 2000 times = 400,000 miles of use. Exactly when during the normal lifespan of a vehicle are you going to be hit with this big fat bill?

These numbers are meaningless. A pack is "used up" when the pack can no longer hold enough charge to provide the range needed by the owner. That number will vary based on how far the owner needs to drive between charges. We all hope that someday soon we'll all be rolling around on 500-mile packs and if they lose 20% of capacity in 8 years we don't care. We all hope that someday soon there will be destination charging everywhere. But that is not where we are today. I'm not a hater. I have put my money where my mouth is and I fully believe EV's are the way to go. But I'm always careful when talking to people about the real costs of owning. I am open to people about my real experiences of owning our Roadster and Model S. If I'm overly conservative then great. But I would hate it if someone bought a Tesla counting on the gas savings to "make the numbers work" as David_Cary was alluding to (by having drivers factor the $10k in fuel savings into the purchase price) and 8 years later they're facing a $25k bill for a battery.

 

[Red Sage]

These numbers are meaningless.

The numbers are predictive. The numbers are examples. The numbers are very likely to prove correct.

The fears of Naysayers have nothing to back them up. The uncertainties of Naysayers have nothing to back them up. The doubts of Naysayers have nothing to back them up.

A pack is "used up" when the pack can no longer hold enough charge to provide the range needed by the owner. That number will vary based on how far the owner needs to drive between charges.

True enough. This is why we look at the numbers, though. Applying the numbers toward your own situation gives them proper meaning, in context.

If you can make it work even if your real world range drops to 70% of EPA rating, you may be able to persevere. If you wouldn't be able to practically use the vehicle if it was difficult to meet 90% range, you might not find a favorable EV for your needs.

What I argue against most strenuously is the FUD spread by Naysayers who claim your battery pack on any EV will be 'used up' within two years of purchase without any evidence to support the claim.

 

[JRP3]

A pack is "used up" when the pack can no longer hold enough charge to provide the range needed by the owner.

OK, and if you bought a Model S to use it's maximum range on a regular basis you probably bought the wrong vehicle. Few people on the planet have such a requirement so even if someone were to use their car in that manner they are outliers. We know the average person puts about 13K miles per year on a vehicle, so we know the average person is not likely to need a new pack after 10 years and 130,000 miles. Even if after that time the range no longer works for them there is still an opportunity to sell the vehicle with whatever range loss to the millions of people who can easily use the remaining range, and then buy the latest and greatest EV that will more than meet their extreme range requirements. The idea that a significant number of people are going to be forced to install a new pack is not supported by reality.

 

[tga]

No. Air cooling no longer works on a 9,000 RPM piston motor -- that's why it was abandoned by Porsche -- it has no hope of being effective at 14,000+ RPM on an electric motor.

Actually, Porsche abandoned air cooling more for emissions than anything else. It's hard to keep NOx emissions down on those engines, since they run so hot. It also allowed 4 valve/cyl heads (since CHT could be kept down; multi-valve aircooled engines burn up valves and aren't really reliable). The 993 pretty much pushed the air cooled design as far as it could go. Water cooling brought better emissions, more power, better fuel economy, and better reliability.

Water cooling an electric motor also allows you to seal the compartment it's in, keeping out road muck, salt spray in the winter, etc. Otherwise, you need to make sure all that crud doesn't piggyback on your cooling airflow as it travels through the motor.

 

[David_Cary]

Just a small point. HP is not really fair. The torque is where the difference is at. An EV with comparable HP numbers will feel much fast that a Honda ICE. An Accord can be quick but soccer moms don't rev to 6,000 rpms. The Leaf feels quite fast at 100hp. Less than 45 mph, one of those 188hp motors will be faster under normal operating conditions that 95% of cars.

You don't need 300 hp to be fast for the average driver in an EV.

EVs accelerate so much better than an ICE, if you just got comparable 0-50 numbers, people will be very happy.

At best the gigafactory saves $4000 on a 60 kwh battery. Economies of scale save some money too but the numbers are still hard to make work for $35k without cutting somethings.

The Leaf has an air cooled motor and no issues with it. (battery a different story but I'd argue that is battery design rather than lack of TMS). Now Tesla uses a different motor design and I don't know if that has a greater cooling requirement. But in the end, heat is a waste problem. If the motor generates that much heat, they should probably work on the efficiency rather than trying to cool it.

 

[JRP3]

1. Liquid cooling does not add significant cost.
2. Tesla uses waste heat to warm the pack in cold weather. More difficult to do that with air.
3. You'll notice the cooling line coming out of this Nissan LEAF motor, clearly visible around the 12 minute mark.

 

[Red Sage]

Just a small point. HP is not really fair. The torque is where the difference is at. An EV with comparable HP numbers will feel much fast that a Honda ICE. An Accord can be quick but soccer moms don't rev to 6,000 rpms. The Leaf feels quite fast at 100hp. Less than 45 mph, one of those 188hp motors will be faster under normal operating conditions that 95% of cars.

There are few Accord or Odyssey owners who don't find themselves possessed by the shade of Shoichiro Honda. Perhaps you are mistaking them for Camry and Sienna owners. Honda owners are pretty much by default all street racers, no matter the power plant under hood.

You don't need 300 hp to be fast for the average driver in an EV.

Yeah, but it will certainly make a more favorable and lasting impression than 188 HP or 100 HP.

EVs accelerate so much better than an ICE, if you just got comparable 0-50 numbers, people will be very happy.

My goal would be to make them positively giddy -- every time they get in the car -- and every time they talk about it to Friends and Family.

At best the gigafactory saves $4000 on a 60 kwh battery. Economies of scale save some money too but the numbers are still hard to make work for $35k without cutting somethings.

Oh, really? So, let's take your number... Presume that $4,000 is equivalent to a 30% reduction in Tesla Motors' cost for a 60 kWh battery pack. So that means their post-Gigafactory cost on a 60 kWh battery pack would be ~$9,333, or ~$155 per kWh. Well, it is said that the cost for a BMW 3-Series 'roller' -- a complete vehicle without power train, is roughly $21,000. Well, if you add $9,333 to that you get $30,333. If we presume that is the build cost of the base version of the Tesla Model ☰, that means that at a $34,900 MSRP, Tesla Motors would have a 15% margin. FYI... Lexus claims a 14% margin on their cars.

The Leaf has an air cooled motor and no issues with it. (battery a different story but I'd argue that is battery design rather than lack of TMS). Now Tesla uses a different motor design and I don't know if that has a greater cooling requirement. But in the end, heat is a waste problem. If the motor generates that much heat, they should probably work on the efficiency rather than trying to cool it.

Sure. The Leaf has no issues with its wimpy motor -- aside from it being wimpy -- on purpose. Big deal. It wasn't designed to blow the doors off of the BMW 335i, Lexus IS 350, or Infiniti Q40 either. No, the Leaf was designed to be a discouraging example of what one is forced to drive when they can no longer afford the punishing weight of purchasing petroleum based fuels and are relegated to the slow lane for their trespasses against the excesses of others.

If a Tesla Motors product is to debut at around $35,000 it must be powerful enough to make a positive impression both on those who have up to $50,000 to spend, as well as those who may have been looking to buy at $20,000 and up. That price point is a sweet spot, just above the current average cost of a new car, and balanced between two extremes of the marketplace. Some who are willing to get more for their money on the high end, and others who need a good reason to spend more up front than they originally expected. The Model ☰ will provide that compelling reason.

 

[gregincal]

These numbers are meaningless. A pack is "used up" when the pack can no longer hold enough charge to provide the range needed by the owner. That number will vary based on how far the owner needs to drive between charges. We all hope that someday soon we'll all be rolling around on 500-mile packs and if they lose 20% of capacity in 8 years we don't care. We all hope that someday soon there will be destination charging everywhere. But that is not where we are today. I'm not a hater. I have put my money where my mouth is and I fully believe EV's are the way to go. But I'm always careful when talking to people about the real costs of owning. I am open to people about my real experiences of owning our Roadster and Model S. If I'm overly conservative then great. But I would hate it if someone bought a Tesla counting on the gas savings to "make the numbers work" as David_Cary was alluding to (by having drivers factor the $10k in fuel savings into the purchase price) and 8 years later they're facing a $25k bill for a battery.

I really doubt any significant number of people are ever going to replace batteries in Teslas. The economics of putting that much money in an 8-10 year old car just don't make sense. When the car no longer meets someone's range needs it will be sold to someone with less range needs (tons of people buy 80 mile electric cars today, so a 200 mile 8 to 10 year old S85 will still have a lot of buyers). Yes the car will have depreciated a lot, but so does every car. I think similar economics will apply to the Model 3.

 

[roblab]

The Leaf has an air cooled motor and no issues with it.

No issues? or Minor issues? I have heard that during a long distance run from north to south west coast US, the Leafs had to pull over and cool off on the long grades in California. Reminds me of how US built cars in the latter half of the 20th Century would have to bring along water when going up a hill so when the radiator boiled over, they could refill. It was a common sight. And the US Auto Industry kept saying "we have no issues". Then Japanese cars started appearing, with larger, more efficient radiators, and all of a sudden everybody figured out how to cool an engine.

Leaf has issues. Trying to ignore issues is one of them. Or, if you live in the California hills, don't buy one.