Elon Musk: Two-Wheel Drive To Be Standard On Tesla Model 3, AWD An Option


Tesla Model 3 Rendering

Tesla Model 3 Rendering (via auto-moto based on Ford concept design)

Tesla Model 3 Renderings

Tesla Model 3 Renderings

At Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting, some discussion focused on the upcoming Tesla Model 3.

Here’s a brief rundown of what was revealed:

  • Two-wheel-drive will be standard (expected to be RWD, but not confirmed)
  • All-wheel-drive to be optional
  • Price still pegged to be $35,000
  • Range could top 250 miles
  • Launch timeline for AWD not mentioned


Quoting Elon Musk on the topic of AWD for the Model 3:

Another Tesla Model 3 Render (via Stumpf Studio)

Another Tesla Model 3 Render (via Stumpf Studio)

“In order to keep the car as affordable as possible, the standard version of the car would have single motor, but we’ll offer dual motor as an option.”

“The base version of the Model 3 would be single motor, but it still will have very good traction control.  In fact, even before we were shipping the dual motor, our highest sales per capita in the world… was in Norway.”


Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

116 Comments on "Elon Musk: Two-Wheel Drive To Be Standard On Tesla Model 3, AWD An Option"

newest oldest most voted

Over 200 mile range? Schweeeet. 🙂

Single motor to control cost, makes perfect business sense. Glad to see AWD will be an option.

Kinda rooting for front wheel drive on the single motor version.

I’m looking forward to this like the rest of you, I just hope they don’t do something stupid like not offer quick charging as standard. Or god forbid, leave quick charging out like they did on the Rav4 EV and e class.

No, Elon’s been clear that SuperCharging will be an M3 feature.

And really, with a big battery that goes 250ish miles, you’d need something fast to charge it on long trips– unlike GM with its Bolt.

GM isn’t including fast charging on the Bolt? Is this confirmed? Because that would just be stupid.

No, I just meant they just have the slow / inferior L3 ‘DC Fast Charging’, which is NOT going to be as pleasant to use for long trips.

Feature or Option. There is a bit of a difference.

Here’s the thing… JB’s n’companys been trying to think of ways to charge money for SC access as they become saturated with customers over time. They’ll need to control this escalating operating cost at some point. I’m speculating that with M3, instead of paying up front when you buy the car– it might be a “Per Use Payment Model” (with payment sent via the car’s computer) for the lower end vehicles to keep the initial purchase price low. That instantly takes $2500 off the sales price right there. That’s also long term income to sustain and expand the SC network; which is not a bad thing. Going a bit further– a logarithmic payment scale could be established that charges more to folks who use it more frequently. This would help reduce Super Charger and battery abuse, and free up stalls. Also promotes selling more home installed EVSE’s for the company. I think it could work and be accepted by new customers, if the cost was compelling and competitive with current fuel prices (unless you’re a vampiric SC Junkie). 😉 For Model S and X Premium Vehicles, you pay up front and never worry about it. This product tiering keeps demand… Read more »

I think a yearly/monthly subscription model would work too just pay a flat rate for access

I don’t think they want to d!ck around w/a subscription service. The SC access can be a $2000 option upfront like it is/was for the Model S. That way the base price still stays low. If somehow Tesla manages to hit $35k for the “base” price, I doubt many will drive out of the lot at that price, if any.

They don’t have to “dick” around with anything. The lower tier cars would negotiate the micro-payment while charging batteries, in the background.

All Tesla has to do, is write software, and the money pours in.

Wasn’t the “flat rate” the price of the SuperCharger option?

I doubt they would do this for the first year of model 3 production. Still too early for that. But I could see something like this slowly rolled in after the first year when sales numbers start ramping up.

The difficulty with rolling billing out, is deciding exactly where that financial line gets drawn. Do it too late, and you have a huge resource-sucking problem. The introduction of the M3 could allow this, especially if the buyer can choose which type / level of SC Access they feel would be most useful to them.

Offer the Buyer SC Options:

1. Upfront SC Fee added to car price, SC usage free for life thereafter; unless you abuse it. Probably available mostly on higher costing AWD Premium M3’s.

2. Micropayment Option. Pay only as you actually use the network. If you never use it, it saves you the most money. But you still have the peace of mind, in case you might have to.

3. Pay as you go, in monthly / yearly installments. Good for people on a lease.

Nix said:

“I doubt they would do this for the first year of model 3 production. Still too early for that. But I could see something like this slowly rolled in after the first year when sales numbers start ramping up.”

Adding on an access charge after the first year of production would be a public relations disaster. It’s basic human nature: People are always glad when you add something, but they resent it when you take something away.

The question is whether or not Tesla thinks it can sustain the “unlimited free access forever” business model for the Supercharger system, with the Model ≡. For cars sold at a premium price in moderate numbers, like the Model S and the Model X, it makes sense to do it as a lifetime access fee.

But for a car intended to be a high volume seller, it makes much less sense. I expect Tesla to move to some sort of monthly subscription or a per-kWh access fee for Model ≡ drivers using the Supercharger network. And if they do, I expect them to introduce that upfront with the reservation/order process for the Model ≡.

It would be really stupid to not support supercharging but I do expect it to be an extra rather than standard equipment. Alternatively, if it does comes as standard you will have to pay for supercharging.

When(/if) they produce 500k cars per year it is going to be very hard to keep up with the supercharging demand. Charging for it would act as a moderator so it would only be used by those who really need it.


If the sell 500k each with a $2k supercharger access fee, they will have a huge pot of cash to support and expand the network.

Yes but there are still limitations, you can’t have 500 stalls at every location for example. With 500k cars every year wanting to do supercharging the queues would quickly become ridiculously long.

When people pay a fixed sum for unlimited use of a resource people tend to try to use it as much as possible: “I’ve paid for it so I might as well use it”. It is the opposite effect of the moderation in my first comment and it scales poorly.

Rear wheel drive is way more fun to drive

Let me correct you. Way more fun to drive fast.

Main advantage of FWD is packaging efficiency, when compared to conventional front engine / RWD.

Ideal drive location is rear, (if not AWD); weight transfer under acceleration enhances RWD traction.

Weight transfer under braking is to front, good brakes on front.

RWD is soon going to be much cheaper & lighter, for a high performance driveline & suspension.

FWD is better trajectory control and above all more regen and therefore more range. More range is likely more important than faster acceleration on the Model 3. Fast acceleration will be for the P3D anyway.

Regen will be the same F / R, for all moderate regen braking – only if traction is broken will regen suffer. Yes, front regen capacity will be higher, but not necessary for over 95% of normal driving.

Stuart said:

“Regen will be the same F / R, for all moderate regen braking – only if traction is broken will regen suffer.”

Absolutely not. With either front or rear wheel drive, only two wheels get regenerative braking; all the braking energy from the other two wheels is wasted as friction.

Under braking, weight shifts to the front, so the front wheels need more braking pressure and thus can provide more energy from regenerative braking.

So, all else being equal, if it’s a front wheel drive EV, then it can get more regen than a rear wheel drive EV.

“Yes, front regen capacity will be higher…”

If you already knew that, then why claim otherwise?

“…but not necessary for over 95% of normal driving.”

How do you define “necessary”? Regenerative braking is not “necessary” at all to drive the car down the road; it’s just more efficient to recover as much of the braking energy as possible. More efficient = longer range.

“Stuart said:

“Regen will be the same F / R, for all moderate regen braking – only if traction is broken will regen suffer.”

Lensy said “Absolutely not”

Sorry, Lensy, you don’t understand how EVs & regen brakes are set up. The first part of the travel of the brake, and in many cases just lifting your foot off the throttle, switches on regen braking, before any ‘brake’ braking occurs; before pads or shoes touch discs or drums.

‘Brake’ brakes are often only used to hold the car on a slope, or when stopped at a traffic light. So then virtually all energy is recouped through regen; it then becomes irrelevant whether it is FWD or RWD.

Another advantage of regen braking on rear wheels is it’s inherent stability; if eg the brake on one (rear) wheel malfunctions, functioning braked wheel tends to draw toward the centre of mass; for FWD, the opposite is the case.

In reference to Tesla specifically you are both partially right and partially wrong.

When you lift on the “Go” pedal, a Tesla will regen with the same wheel it uses to propel the vehicle. When you press the “Brake” pedal, all 4 wheels engage the Brembo friction brakes and none of that energy is regained. There is no blending on the “Brake” pedal.

Keep in mind that the “Go” pedal is still lifted while you press the “Brake” pedal, so both brakes are engaged if you want think of it that way.

Thanks for the elaboration, Josh.

Plan on driving one one day!

The range might be 250 miles on NEDC but not on the EPA cycle. I’d prefer front wheel drive for the single motor version but I don’t see that happening.


There’s no reason that both a front and rear wheel drive couldn’t be offered.

Very true. It would probably be one of the first cars where you could order either a FWD or RWD depending on your preference. RWD would be prefered by people wanting to drift and FWD may be preferred by people who drive in snow.

I’ll take RWD with proper snow tires over FWD with all seasons any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Extra bonus: The RWD will not have any nasty torque steer 365 days of the year!

You mean 3 season tires, right?


This doesn’t apply to Vredestein. Those really hold their promises.

“Extra bonus: The RWD will not have any nasty torque steer 365 days of the year!”

Given that torque steer is primarily caused by unequal driveshaft lengths or other drivetrain asymmetries, a FWD Model 3 wouldn’t have it either. There is essentially no risk they would build it with an asymmetric drivetrain.

Extra bonus of FWD you spare precious collision safe space between the back wheels where a RWD motor would be to place extra batteries and get evn more range.


The most important “precious collision safe space” is in front, between the front bumper and the passenger compartment.

So if you want to make sure that space has no large heavy solid objects (like a motor) in it, for good crumple zone protection, then you definitely want a rear wheel drive car.

Tony Williams said:

“There’s no reason that both a front and rear wheel drive couldn’t be offered.”

There is an excellent reason why not: Because the car would need to be engineered differently based on rear- or front-wheel drive, and it would significantly increase development costs to develop two versions of the car… or actually three, given the fact that all-wheel drive will also be offered..

Even if you ignore the front/rear weight ratios and the effect that would have on acceleration and handling, there’s the matter of regenerative braking. Under strong braking the car’s weight shifts towards the front, causing the front wheels to need more braking pressure than the rear wheels. This will give a different regenerative braking profile for front- vs. rear-wheel drive.

What Lensman said.

Everything from the steering down to the brakes and suspension would have to be different for a RWD vs. a FWD car. There is way too much difference between RWD vs. FWD.

Adding a smaller motor in the front of a RWD car is small potatoes compared to doing an entire switch from RWD to FWD.

Note that the 85D isn’t a smaller motor in the front, it’s the same motor front-and-back. It seems entirely feasible for Tesla to engineer the 3 to have the front, back, or both motor bays populated.

That said, it’s not just the mechanicals that matter. Maybe not even primarily. I take GP’s point that you’d have to engineer the control software differently depending on motor locations. That said, it’s all a question of how much additional market you can address for the additional effort, isn’t it?

All true and all excellent points. Thanks, John.

However, I’ll point out that the Model S P85D does have a larger motor in the rear, and I’m guessing the Performance version of the Model ≡ will too.

As you say, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis for Tesla: Would the company make more money by selling different front- and rear-wheel drive versions of the car? More money than it would take to develop different versions?

So far as I know, there has never been any mass produced car offered with the option of either front- or rear-wheel drive. Assuming that’s true, I’d say that’s a definite “no”.

What makes me think it might be different for Tesla is the unique design with front and rear bays, either or both of which can be populated. As far as I know, no other car is designed this way. The point being, it might be much less expensive for Tesla to develop and manufacture the additional variant.

(On the other hand, Tesla in its current incarnation appears to be all about reducing manufacturing variation, not increasing it. They’ve been eliminating or combining options for about the last year.)

There are of course plenty of cars that are offered in two variants with one being AWD. For example, most (all?) Audis are offered in both FWD and Quattro variants.

Who cares what it looks like, if it does 200 miles EPA I would drive a baked bean tin on 4 wheels !

*You* might not care about how it looks, but Mitsubishi demonstrated that there are *limits* to the dorkiness that even the greenest of environmentalists will ride in.

I resemble that remark! 😉 (Being a dorky green environmentalist iMiev owner.)

If iMiEV had 200 miles of range it would be a different story.

Even with 1000 miles ev range I would not buy a vehicle that doesn’t have a decent front and back crumple zone.

2WD drive standard seems like the smart thing to do because it reduces costs (by eliminating a motor). This will help get them closer to the desired target price. And having a low base price that they can advertise will help break through to the broader market.

However, I suspect that the AWD model will be a very popular option because it will get better range and a lot of people like AWD.

Good move, Tesla. They really think these things through.

Assuming they can hit their price target, I fully expect a base RWD Model 3 at $35,000 on up to a Performance AWD Model 3 that could push $70,000 fully loaded.

Will they please stop using that artist’s rendition of what they THINK the Model 3 will look like. It SUCKS!! You think the Leaf is ugly…. Someone else said it in another post and that is that Tesla’s engineers would never make a Tesla that looks that ugly!

At least the bar has been set low.

The greenhouse is way too tall. Makes me think of this:

Rejoyce and be merry, for the folks at IEVs have changed it to the far more attractive rendering based on a Ford. 😀

Repent and be sad, for the folks at IEVs have kept the grotesque and hideous rendering based on an i3 on the IEVs front page next to the story squib. 🙁

Oh, you slay me, Sven. 😉

We like to amuse ourselves at other’s expense, (=

In this case, you’re succeeding! 😉

In the Waitbutwhy article, the author mentions that in the design centre, they were already making the full sized clay model for the model3, i think that day is not far when elon musk would hold a press conference to aanounce the first look for the model3.

Doubtful they would waste people’s time with clay…

I expect them to hold their cards close (Since they need to market and promote MX), till they can slap something together and drive them both S-M3 and C-M3 out on stage, using an alpha or early beta of the smaller M3 battery platform.

That would likely be next year, hopefully first quarterish (end of March / early April).

They said there would be a clay model, and the code name is “Blue Star,” if you get that reference, from Wall Street.

“Blue Star” has nothing to do with Wall Street. It refers to the original business plan for Tesla Motors, in which the second model was code-named White Star… which became the Model S… and the third model would be the Blue Star, now named the Model ≡. (The Model X is a side development of the Model X, so is outside that development track.)

Roadster was Dark Star
Model S was White Star
Model 3 is Blue Star

Remember Musk is a space junkie. Here is the color explanation:

Stars radiate light a little like glowing coals in a campfire. Just as a glowing red-hot coal is cooler than a white-hot coal, for example, so a red star is cooler than a white star, and a white star is cooler than a blue star. This was a major scientific discovery… simply by measuring the color of light coming from a star, and applying a little physics, it was possible to estimate a star’s surface temperature. – See more at: http://oneminuteastronomer.com/708/star-colors-explained/#sthash.HyZavliI.dpuf

It was ‘Blue Horseshoe’ in Wall Street.

Right. Blue Star was the airline.

Anon said:

“Doubtful they would waste people’s time with clay…”

I agree, but when the clay model is finished they can quickly get artists’ concept sketches based on the clay model, or even perform a 3D laser scan of the model to make a computer model for rendering. Either sketches or a computer rendering would be sufficient for a PR tease from Tesla.

And here’s hoping that such a tease comes soon, because then InsideEVs will no longer subject us to amateurish fanfic “concept drawings”!

RWD in snowy Michigan scares me. I guess if the Model S is working OK in snowy parts of the world like Norway, it’s not too much of an issue. However, I’ve had problems with RWD vehicles before. I wish I could get FWD for the Model 3. Maybe I’ll just have to shell out for the AWD. That $35K sticker is becoming more & more unattainable I think.

I prefer front wheel drive also, but part of the reason conventional RWD cars are so bad in the snow is because of the big heavy engine up front. Trying to push the heavily loaded wheels with the lightly loaded wheels is problematic. With the Tesla RWD the motor is in the back and battery in the floor, now the weight bias is rearward so still not as good as FWD but much better than conventional.

Yeah, to me it makes no sense to have a RWD smaller sedan or crossover – make it FWD so it handles better in bad weather.

I wrote a blog article a few weeks ago about how the Model 3 will miss the 35K selling point, but not for the expected cost-overrun reasons, rather high demand and the options to make the Model 3 an appealing car for customers (250 mile pack, AWD, supercharging, etc.).

I think your equating ICE FWD handling with EV FWD handling. The difference is that in an ICE FWD the majority of the weight (engine & transaxle) are over the drive wheels. In the Tesla EV design the majority of the weight is from the battery, which is distributed quite evenly. RWD will handle great as it does in the Model S RWD variants. There are many that have been sold in Norway and they are certainly no strangers to snow and ice.

And then you have the people who mistake ICE FWD torque steer for a law of nature.

I think one question will be what’s more expensive — increased costs to build FWD vs RWD (the RWD should be a little simpler to manufacture), or potential sales lost to people who “know” that FWD is better in snow and are unresponsive to the message that it’s different with EVs. Don’t underestimate the power of forty years of knowing something is true. Hard to un-learn.

Given the popularity of the rear-wheel-drive Tesla Model S in snowy Norway, I’d say this won’t be a major factor affecting sales. It didn’t take people long to understand the difference that ABS (Anti-lock Braking System) and other traction control technologies have made in making driving safer and better on slick and snowy roads.

I hope you’re right, although I’m not so confident the Norwegian market is an accurate predictor for the American market, for various reasons.

If anybody is really, really worried about FWD vs. RWD because of the snow where they live, they should be getting the AWD.

Ether the snow isn’t enough of a problem that RWD vs. FWD really matters, or the snow is that bad. If it is that bad, it is bad enough to warrant AWD.

With that said, I’ve owned all three in some very, very snowy places. When people ask me whether they would be OK with a RWD in the snow, I always advise them to stick with whatever vehicle they have the most experience with. Because driver experience/skill in the snow with whatever drivetrain is more important than the drivetrain itself.

Are you kidding me? The rendering, again? It won’t be a hatchback.

I hope it is a hatch back. It’s a much more useful shape than a sedan for day to day use.

What you really are looking for is a station wagon/estate. A hatchback makes sense for a small car, but the Model 3 should not be a higher range LEAF. It would be to expensive and I doubt you could fit that many batteries in such a small car. I would love it if Tesla built a station wagon, but Tesla sells most cars in the U.S. so until Europe gains some Tesla share it won’t happen.

Can you tell me? What is the difference between a hatchback and a Station Wagon? I really thought they are the same… Except marketing naming.

Traditionally, a station wagon was a modification of a sedan. The passenger compartment “box” is extended at the rear, providing a lot of cargo area behind the rear seats, or less commonly, a 3rd row of (usually rear-facing) seats. A sedan’s trunk is replaced with a tailgate or hatchback, giving access to the rear cargo area.

A traditional station wagon:

A modern station wagon:

Wow- I like this. Wished we get it here. Anyways, if tesla offers the hatch, I’m in.

Well, on reading back I see I didn’t finish my spiel.

We must be careful in defining the term “hatchback”, because it can be use in two ways: It can be use to refer to the rear lift gate itself, or it can be used to refer to a type of car. When a car is referred to as “a hatchback”, the term means a car no longer than a sedan of the same class, often (or perhaps usually) slightly shorter, which has a hatchback instead of a trunk. A station wagon is noticeably longer than “a hatchback”.

Thanks a lot lensman.

RS said:

“A hatchback makes sense for a small car, but the Model 3 should not be a higher range LEAF. It would be to expensive and I doubt you could fit that many batteries in such a small car.”

1. Tesla put the Model S battery pack on the bottom of the car, and I expect it will do the same for the Model ≡. That way it won’t limit room inside the car. It may make the car taller, just like the BMW i3, which also puts the battery pack on the bottom.

2. The Leaf actually is a fairly large car. If the Model ≡ is going to be only 20% smaller than a Model S, as Tesla says, then I doubt there will be a lot of difference in size.

3. The Model S is a hatchback, or “liftback”. It’s reasonable to expect the Model ≡ to be a hatchback too.

Dear InsideEVS, can you please stop using that hideous rendering with every model 3 update. It is fugly.

Tesla shareholders might even be affected by it 😉

I agree . . . get rid of that hideous amatuer unofficial rendering.

Use the one based on the Model S if you have to have an image. Or use that Model 3 logo close-up.

Sorry to be a contrarian, but I actually like it. I agree with Sean, a hatchback is infinitely more practical than a sedan.

Model S is a hatchback….

I strongly suspect the Model ≡ will have a hatchback, just like the Model S, the BMW i3 and the GM Bolt.

And my guess is that the Model ≡ will look more like the Bolt than like the Model S.

Looks like the model 3 will be severely decontented to make the $35000 claim.

I wonder how long the base model will exist before it is discontinued.

I threw such an eye-roll, I burned about 1200 calories…

Battery renting incoming 😀

No. Look what happened with Renault and initial Zoe sales, because of renting batteries. 😛 The whole auto industry learned from that mistake.

I’ve not driven a RWD car with a really good traction control system, which in Tesla’s case would be some of their software magic. In my personal experience on slippery pavement, accelerating is easier with FWD. Also, I would think regeneration would could capture more energy if the power was being regenerated by the wheels which do most of the work decellerating the vehicle, those which are attached at the front of the vehicle.

Have you driven a RWD Model S yet? It handles amazingly in our Minnesota weather with the right tires! Completely re-wrote my historical perception of RWD vehicles.

i laugh every time i see that ugly rendering

I expect a front wheel drive, front motor hot-hatch for a base model with a front biased AWD as an option.

I don’t see how you can fit a motor under the rear seats of a small car.

The M3 platform should be very similar to the Model S / X one, but about 20% smaller.

The motor’s aren’t big at all, so there should be plenty of room for two motors with no intrusion into the upper ‘opportunity space” in the cabin.

This is one of the advantages of designing a BEV from the ground up and not converting an ICE into an EV.

Yeah. 20% smaller than a large luxury sedan is a long way from being a “small car”. I expect there will be plenty of room in the rear for the motor. And given that the Model ≡ will be designed to include an AWD version, we know that Tesla does plan to put a motor in the rear, whether or not it’s actually “under the rear seat”.

Sheesh still so many people that haven’t experienced:
1) Modern, well balanced RWD car
2) Modern snow tires

RWD is simply not an issue–In fact is better. Handling is better, no torque steer, wheels don’t spin when you accelerate a little too sharply (because the weight transfers to the rear)

I wonder how much extra the awd version will be?

Vaporware, at least at 35k. Won’t happen. Certainly not pretax credit. I am still betting the car is going to cost 50k after equipped with any reasonable amount of necessary options. I suspect they’ll strip out the supercharger access unless you pay a fee. I think it will be a great car, but Tesla is not going from a (realistic) 85-115k price market down to 35k. It leaves a big gap in the middle.

The $35,000 is pre-tax credit price. It has to be, since Tesla will be phased out soon enough (at 200,000 cars).

Also, Musk made it clear that it was pretax. The GM Bolt is $30,000 post tax ($37,500).

There is no way that the base $35,999 car will include Supercharger. The competition from GM or Nissan don’t even have something like that.

The competition from the BMW 3 series must buy gasoline.

Supercharger will be extra, but how it is billed will be interesting.


Any day now we should expect a delay announcement in both models.

In response to some of the discussions about supercharger stations….Tesla is able to offer them for free because, they are place between urban areas….that way they the primary users will be travelers….Most people will keep their cars fully charged at home since, electric is relatively cheap fuel….some people living near superchargers are likely to use the SCs more frequently but, in the grander scheme of things the costs for Tesla even out…

They are not free. Model S owners prepaid for access and there are no contractural restrictions on charging at SC stations.

Locals are free to charge to their hearts content (and should feel no compulsion to limit their charging if they need it).

About half the car buying population is NOT in a detached single family dwelling (house).

They may be in apartments, on a military base, condos, etc, that have little or no access to overnight EV charging.

I drove a FWD car on snow and ice once … never again! The problem is, when going down and icy hill, if you use regenerative or engine braking the front wheels dig in and the back wheels slide out. In other words, you end up doing 360’s down the hill. Not good!!! For ice and snow, an RWD – BEV with even weight distribution is better, but AWD is best by far.

Most people in the snow belt use FWD for their daily driver and don’t seem to have a big problem with it. I did for many years. That said, AWD is obviously superior.

The problems you describe with putting regen braking on the front are no different from any other braking asymmetry problems and can presumably be addressed by the control systems in the same way. If the car can do ABS, it can control the regen braking too. If it can’t, shame on the manufacturer. This is completely different from engine-braking with a manual ICE car, where there’s no electronic control system in the loop.

We’ve already seen a crack in Tesla’s claim that Supercharger access will be “free forever” after paying the access fee, with Musk writing that people using Supercargers for everyday charging will be sent a letter reminding them that Superchargers are for long distance travel, not for local charging.

I suspect Tesla will move away from the “unlimited Supercharger access” business model with the Model ≡. Either a monthly subscription or a per-kWh access fee makes sense. A fee per use doesn’t make sense to me, because that would cost the same if you used a 10 minute charge or a 45 minute charge.

That seems to stray from what was promised to owners. Oh well.

Think different. Single wheel drive.

Just sounds like Telsa is already having issues meeting that $35K mark…

So, it will just nickle and dime you all the way up to $60K from bare bone $35K (barely 200 miles) range.

What’s with all the Tesla bashing here?

In what way would the Model ≡ be different from any other car if few people actually bought it for the base MSRP price? How many people actually buy a new car, any car, with no optional equipment? How many people actually buy the stripped-down base model which would have the lack of options suggested by the MSRP?

Every auto maker, every single one, talks about pricing for its automobiles based on the base model. Why is Tesla getting bashed here for following industry standard? Did anyone really think the Model ≡ was going to be sold “well equipped” for $35k?

This is just bizarre.

“Well Equipped” would be $50k or more, easily.

I’m thinking it is easier to make a FWD base with a dual-motor option in the rear. This way, the differences between the drive transaxel, steering, suspension, etc would be lesser. However, it may be cheaper to make a RWD first to get the cost inline.

If it’s front wheel drive, you want the motor in the front; the opposite for the rear. Motor in the rear, batteries on the bottom, with the front end used for luggage space and crumple zone, like the single-motor Model S, seems to make the most sense from a safety and engineering viewpoint.

Having driven a front-wheel drive car pre-ABS tech, I can say that I prefer front-only to rear-only if it doesn’t have ABS or other traction control. But with more sophisticated electronic control of the wheels, the Model S has proven that rear-wheel drive works just fine. Even in snowy Norway, where the Model S has been wildly popular, even when it was strictly rear-wheel drive only.