Just curious to see how much extra people would be willing to pay for an AWD S. I would've been willing to spend another $20k provided the range didn't decrease by >5%.
why would you pay $20k for awd? Does it have that much better traction? Is the acceleration faster? Someone at Tesla leaked that they are going to have an AWD option available in 2014.
Maybe $5k. Maybe.
Unless you go off-road AWD doesn't matter that much. Not in here anyway.
"Unless you go off-road AWD doesn't matter that much."
You don't live in an area with hills that gets snow... do you...
I live in Finland. Good tires matter a lot more than AWD.
When the Model X comes you will be able to see what it costs :)
On the Model X it's only for the 85 kWh or 85 kWh Performance btw.
Bottom of the page.
Zero, all AWD does in my area is make drivers overconfident leading to more AWD drivers in the ditch in the winter.
With RWD and the traction control in the Tesla vehicles I have had no issues in Minnesota suburban or urban driving.
For rural areas, sure, but for me personally, no.
However, there are a lot of people, especially in northern states, that consider AWD a big selling point.
I definitely feel it will be a big selling point.
It just has no value to me.
I drove my Model S here in Mississauga last winter and it was fine. I took it easy and have the 19" wheels though.
I'd have considered an AWD model if it would have been available when we bought our car but I'm concerned about the extra moving parts (given that one selling point of EVs is their mechanical simplicity) and reduced range. Presumably it's not a 1:1 ratio in terms of power consumption per motor installed, given that each motor would have less work to do than the single motor now, but even so... there's a lot of potential for reduced range IMHO.
Probably $5K. While it won't help you stop, AWD definitely helps with not getting stuck. Just last year a major highway was massively backed up in Kansas City on a slick morning due to a slippery incline where all the rear wheel drive cars were getting stuck. Half way up their rear tires would start to spin and they would get stuck in the middle of the road, until limping onto the shoulder. Adding weight over the rear wheels helps, but not nearly as much as having AWD.
How much I would pay might would go up if I get richer, and down depending on how much it hurts efficiency. I think efficiency is something where electric AWD may shine though -- I bet it will lose less than traditional 4WD/AWD systems.
I don't see why you would get reduced range with AWD BEV vs RWD BEV except the weight of the motor, which is small % of overall mass of the vehicle. If motor best efficiency goes to low torque load then AWD could even use less energy than RWD for the same trip, especially in hilly terrain. For regen front wheels can capture a lot more energy than rear, so in hilly area you might want AWD just for better range.
I live in Portland, OR, where during the winter it doesn't get extremely cold and it never or seldom snows. Therefore there is no need to get winter tires. Notwithstanding, once you leave the city valley it's all snow and hills; with no winter tires it is essential to have AWD if you want to go skiing or just want to get to certain places, unless you want to stop and put chains and then take them off every time you enter and leave a snow zone (I guess this is why Subaru is such a popular brand around here). I think this is how it is in most of the Pacific Northwest, Seattle included.
I'm sure these circumstances are not exclusive to the PNW. So yeah I think a lot of people would be willing to pay the extra money just for the convenience that AWD brings to the driver.
It's it possible to be faster too since you have power going to all four wheels?
". The new model could launch as soon as early 2014, and may initially be offered in an ultra-premium (and ultra-expensive) trim with performance equal to or better than the current "P85" drivetrain that delivers 0-60 mph in an impressive 4.2 seconds."
The total power delivered to the wheels won't change.
AWD is essential in Colorado, if (for me) only on hills and driveways. My own driveway is unusually steep, forcing all of my 2WD vehicles to park at street level on occasion. We have long-run streets on hills, making the winters a pileup for 2WD cars sometimes. I'll have to wait for a Model X, AWD version, I'm afraid.
How steep is steep in your case? I too live in hill which gets rather slippery at winter, but with good tires RWD doesn't have any trouble getting up. OTOH I have seen one van sliding sideways all the way to the bottom of that hill. It was rather entertaining to watch and wait if it hits anything in its way. It didn't. Bad tires make any car slide.
$10k with a caveat...
Model S AWD+AWS
Tesla Model S
All Wheel Drive
Four Wheel Steering
You would have the best handling production car in the world.
Without AWD, we have to have 2nd vehicles here in MI for the winters. I think it's worth a lot. Depending on what they give you 5-20k. On the low side if you lose range and do not gain performance. 20k easy if you gain performance and don't lose range.
This will prove to the world that an electric can be just as fast as a high end fosil hungry car, if not faster.
AWD does not contribute speed.
I'd probably pay something extra to avoid AWD. To me it's just more stuff to break down, more weight to lug around. AWD is no help braking and if I can't brake I don't want to accelerate. Good tires, however, make all the difference.
AWD does not contribute speed
The discussion above focuses on improved acceleration potential.
Do you honestly believe that such models as Veyron, Aventador, 911 Turbo S, GT-R, and the list goes on... would achieve the same acceleration results sending power to rear wheels only?
0-60 times are a strong selling point of the MS. Was a 4.2 0-60 achieved due to traction limits, or battery current draw limits?
If it's the former, there's definite potential for a lower 0-60 time if power is sent to four wheels at proper proportions. No one says there won't be any trade offs with extra weight up front when it comes to handling and range efficiency, but the benefit of a quicker car from a performance (selling) standpoint is well worth it.
They quickest cars in the world are rear wheel drive. Top fuel dragsters go 0-100mph in .8 seconds, all wheel drive would slow it down.
In the real world, however, all wheel drive is worth it's weight in gold. On a perfect, dry road rear wheel drive is great, add in any moisture or imperfections and the awd wins hands down. I agree with TDurden make it all wheel steer and it's incredible, add in torque vectoring, and it'd be amazing what it could do. Awd with torque vectoring almost wouldn't need aws. A model X with some long travel adjustable suspension, a motor to each wheel, and all wheel steering would be absolutely incredible.
@Bikezion, not really true that AWD would slow top fuel dragster down from purely theoretical point of view, problem with those is the configuration of the car, you can't really put power to those tiny front wheels from that single monstrous ICE.
As you said in real world it does make difference in handling. Also it might improve regen so much that that alone is worth the extra weight if you use it in stop & go traffic.
I have seen both a Porsche Carrera 4 (AWD only over 25 mph) and a RWD Mercedes Benz SL500 fail to get up our driveway in the Seattle region ice and snow. A Dodge Caravan AWD worked fine. For me the AWD Model X is worth a two year wait.
What kind of tires didmtyat Poesche and Mercedes have? Snow tires? Doubtful.
Tires do make a huge difference but AWD helps quite a lot as well.
Damn! Forgot to proof it once again. Sorry.
*did that Porsche...
The three cars all had all season radials: Pirelli, Michelin, and Goodyear, (Porsche, MB, Dodge) respectively.
No-seasons? Useless. Waste of money.
Think about it this way, all season tires are a compromise in every season.
"Jack of all trades, master of none".