Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Elon Musk, Tesla CTO Talk Model X Details, Model S Upgrades 155

Posted by samzenpus from the things-to-come dept.
joe5 writes "Tesla Motors tries to keep product details quiet for the most part, but in a recent Q & A session in Norway (Teslas sell extremely well there) Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the company's CTO JB Straubel discussed some interesting nuggets about the Model S, the upcoming Model X SUV, and the company's planned Model E sedan."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elon Musk, Tesla CTO Talk Model X Details, Model S Upgrades More

Elon Musk, Tesla CTO Talk Model X Details, Model S Upgrades

Comments Filter:

  • First he has to fight the main stream FUD (Score:3)

    by bazmail ( 764941 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @03:43PM (#46211749)
    And good luck to him!!!



    Hooray for Beta. I love it. Fuck off whining babies. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

  • Best new feature: (Score:5, Informative)

    by schneidafunk ( 795759 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @03:46PM (#46211779)

    Since the summary is unsurprisingly lacking any details, I found this feature the most important:

    "Tesla is shooting for a battery cost for the Model E of 30 to 40 percent less per kilowatt-hour than the Model S. This will help Tesla hit its price target of $30,000 to $40,000, competitive with the BMW 3-Series. Part of the cost reduction will presumably come from the huge "giga-factory" Tesla envisions to build Model E batteries."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

      Hopefully those improvements can be "backported" to the S and X, reducing their price.

      • why would they lower the prices on those? They compete against cars that are 50-100% more in price range. In addition, they will take about 1/3 to 1/2 of the market place in the 80-200K vehicles with these 2 and that is without a fraction of the salesfloor as well as no marketing budget, that MB, Audi, Caddy, BMW, Lexus, etc have.

        So, with that in mind, Why would they want to lower their price?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 )

      Since the summary is unsurprisingly lacking any details, I found this feature the most important:

      "Tesla is shooting for a battery cost for the Model E of 30 to 40 percent less per kilowatt-hour than the Model S. This will help Tesla hit its price target of $30,000 to $40,000, competitive with the BMW 3-Series. Part of the cost reduction will presumably come from the huge "giga-factory" Tesla envisions to build Model E batteries."

      So.. it's vaporware. That's what we call it when a company pontificates about the amazing advancements of their not-yet-invented technology, right?

      Here's another, less 'vapor-y' statement from TFA:

      The Model X will actually have a lower drag coefficient than the super-slick Model S. But because of its increased frontal area, the total drag will be higher. Combined with a slightly heavier weight, the Model X will have an energy consumption about 10 percent higher than the Model S. (Musk did not say whether the Model X battery size would be increased in order to maintain the same range as the Model S.)

      So, it's going to be heavier, create more drag, and use more energy (and thus, probably have a lower range) than a Tesla S. Oh, and it has AWD standard, and all sorts of fancy electronics to keep those gullwing doors (because that's what those are called, Elon) from whacking into stuff.

      For less than half the price

      • AWD is not standard. Says so right on their website. http://www.teslamotors.com/mod... [teslamotors.com] Scroll all the way to the bottom.

        • AWD is not standard. Says so right on their website. http://www.teslamotors.com/mod... [teslamotors.com] Scroll all the way to the bottom.

          So, then TFA is wrong when it says

          All-wheel drive, using a separate electric drive motor for the front wheels, will be standard on the Model X.

          Consequence of the source, I suppose? Why the hell do people keep linking greencarreports articles when they're so poorly researched?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AaronW ( 33736 )

          According to your link:

          "Model X comes standard with Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive."

          "Model X will be offered with a 60 kWh or an 85 kWh battery and will be dual motor all-wheel drive."

        • it does not say that on that page. In fact, it shows only AWD.

          Model X will be offered with a 60 kWh or an 85 kWh battery and will be dual motor all-wheel drive.

      • Re:Best new feature: (Score:5, Informative)

        by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @04:02PM (#46211939) Homepage

        Reading comprehension fail. Model X is their upcoming SUV, bigger and probably as expensive or costlier than the Model S. Model E is their planned economy model, presumably a smaller car, weaker engine, smaller batteries. They're going to be very different beasts.

        • Reading comprehension fail.

          Well, to be fair, it is one of the most poorly written "articles" I've ever seen.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by fnj ( 64210 )

            Just from reading the summary, it was super obvious to me what the X and the E were.

            • I wasn't complaining about the summary, dink.

              Compared to the 'article' it links to, the summary reads like Dostoyevsky (that is, intelligent and well-written).

        • not a reading comprehension, just a troll.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rmstar ( 114746 )

        Oh, and it has AWD standard, and all sorts of fancy electronics to keep those gullwing doors (because that's what those are called, Elon) from whacking into stuff.

        What's wrong with AWD?

        The gullwing doors, however, really look like a stupid idea. Sure, they look great, but I would be surprised if they are anything but inconvenient unless you have lots of parking space.

        • Re:Best new feature: (Score:4, Informative)

          by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @04:18PM (#46212067)

          The gullwing doors, however, really look like a stupid idea. Sure, they look great, but I would be surprised if they are anything but inconvenient unless you have lots of parking space.

          On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.

          • The gullwing doors, however, really look like a stupid idea. Sure, they look great, but I would be surprised if they are anything but inconvenient unless you have lots of parking space.

            On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.

            I prefer Lamborghini's solution. Nothing against gullwings, but Lambo doors just look sweet, plus they don't need fancy sensors to keep from whacking stuff.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by icebike ( 68054 )

              I prefer Lamborghini's solution. Nothing against gullwings, but Lambo doors just look sweet, plus they don't need fancy sensors to keep from whacking stuff.

              The Lambo doors are fragile. Single mount point requiring frame stiffening. Open them in a garage, and you better have 4 feet of clear space above because that is how far they stick up. (There are parking garages with way less than that).

              Ask anyone who has had one for more than a year. They've all had to have them adjusted due to whacking stuff.

              • I prefer Lamborghini's solution. Nothing against gullwings, but Lambo doors just look sweet, plus they don't need fancy sensors to keep from whacking stuff.

                The Lambo doors are fragile. Single mount point requiring frame stiffening. Open them in a garage, and you better have 4 feet of clear space above because that is how far they stick up. (There are parking garages with way less than that).

                Oh, yea, forgot about the whole 'roof clearance' thing... Works out well for Lambourghini, since most of their cars are less than 3 feet tall from ground to roofline - won't work out so well on, say, a Rav4.

                Of course, gullwing doors have their own perils - mainly, that in the event of a rollover, they trap you inside. Thank goodness Tesla is only planning on putting them in the back.

                • And there is another difference between the gull wing and the falcon wing doors. Since the falcon door itself is double hinged (unlike gull-wings), it is possible for the lower part to be opened.
                  BTW, NHSTA could not roll the Model S except for forcing it over. I would expect the same thing in the Model X. Those batteries are low.

                  • And there is another difference between the gull wing and the falcon wing doors. Since the falcon door itself is double hinged (unlike gull-wings), it is possible for the lower part to be opened.

                    BTW, NHSTA could not roll the Model S except for forcing it over. I would expect the same thing in the Model X. Those batteries are low.

                    You know, this obsession with me that you've developed is quite flattering, but borderline creepy...

                    "I would expect the same thing"

                    Oh, gee, how scientific. No wait - the opposite of that.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by icebike ( 68054 )

            On the contrary, it looks like they need less space than convention doors. They are not like the ones on McFly's DeLorean. They are double hinged. If you can drive into a parking space, you can open the doors.

            On the image on the Model X [teslamotors.com] page, there is a slider that animates the doors.
            It looks like the doors take about 5 to 8 inches beyond the side of the car, but only after sliding straight up. This design takes advantage of the slope if the sides in adjacent cars.

            The doors are supported all along their top edges, way more practical and less damage prone than Lamborghini fragile solution of single pivot point.

            I see nothing about this design that would require sensors, it takes way less room than a swinging door

          • That's a huge misconception. My Delorean needs only 11" of clearance between me and the car next to me in order to fully open my door. Try doing _that_ in a sedan. The hinges aren't needed at all :)

        • They call them that to distinguish from typical gull wing doors. They Hinge and cantilever. So that the just lift straight up without extending outward from the car.

          The real issue will be when owners discover they cannot park in some extremely short underground parking garages.

          • I think that all parking garages are at least 7'. If so, then this will fit. Otherwise, not only will this car not fit, but few trucks and SUVs.

        • AWD, at least on typical gas-powered cars, reduces fuel economy significantly, usually 2-3mpg. All that extra spinning mass and gearing takes energy to turn. Regular (manual) car transmissions already impose a ~15% hit on fuel economy; that's how much energy is lost just using some gears to multiply your torque (and decrease the output shaft rpm by a proportional amount). CV joints also impose a fuel-economy hit. Of course, it's pretty hard to drive without these, so we accept them, but putting more gea

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by icebike ( 68054 )

            But electric motors may not have that problem. There is no longitudinal shaft, simply a motor+differential on the front and another on the back.
            Some designs by Protean [aedve.info] use one motor per wheel, built into the wheel. But this is a lot of un-sprung weight.

            Mercedes and Tesla put their motors inboard of the wheel [ggpht.com] because its simpler. You still end up with short shafts and a shallow angle CV joint (which is a lot more efficient).

            • No, they'll still have the same problem. There's no longitudinal shaft, but there is an extra set of CV joints (with a non-shallow angle: this is an SUV with greater ground clearance), and an extra differential, and an extra transmission. You left the last two out of your last paragraph: Teslas have a single motor, plus a transmission (single-speed gearbox), plus a differential, plus CV joints/driveshafts. They're really not that much different from a regular car; they've only replaced the engine with an

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by fnj ( 64210 )

                Bull. If the CV joints are (to grab a number from the air) 90% efficient at power transfer, and the total cruise hp is 20, then two front CV joints passing 10 hp each waste a total of 2 hp, and four CV joints front and rear passing 5 hp each waste a total of ... tada ... exactly the same 2 hp.

                And exactly the same with the transmissions and differentials.

                GP nailed it. Electric is a huge win for AWD efficiency. You completely missed the engineering point.

                Your note on four individual electric motors is dead on

                • Bull. If the CV joints are (to grab a number from the air) 90% efficient at power transfer, and the total cruise hp is 20, then two front CV joints passing 10 hp each waste a total of 2 hp, and four CV joints front and rear passing 5 hp each waste a total of ... tada ... exactly the same 2 hp.

                  And exactly the same with the transmissions and differentials.

                  You're totally forgetting about frictional losses. Why else do you think AWD cars always get significantly worse fuel economy than their non-AWD counterpar

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by icebike ( 68054 )

                and an extra differential, and an extra transmission. You left the last two out of your last paragraph: Teslas have a single motor, plus a transmission (single-speed gearbox), plus a differential, plus CV joints/driveshafts.

                No, the SUV Tesla X will have two motors [teslamotors.com] and those angles are pretty flat compared to most cars [bmcnamara.com] let alone SUVs. Looking at this shot of the rear of the Model S [wikimedia.org] you can just see the boot for the CV, and the shallow angle it has.

                The Model X will be higher, but not that much. The frames look pretty comparable. If you were expecting ground clearance, you will be disappointed. This is definitely an on-street socker-mom's SUV.

                • That looks almost exactly like the Model S chassis demos. And you're right, the ground clearance sucks; it's definitely an on-street vehicle only, aimed at rich bimbo soccer moms like you said.

                  Anyway, I only said that the current Teslas have a single motor (plus transmission plus differential). With the Model X, clearly they're just doubling everything, and putting in two motors (front and rear), each with its own transmission and differential.

                • ice, it may actually have better clearence than you realize. Until it shows up at park meadows, we will not really know.
            • Yes. It is well known that conventional automobiles suffer drive train power losses of ~15% or more, which gearheads know is the reason you get different numbers whether you measure horsepower and torque at the wheels or at the engine's output shaft. If you are using electric motors at each wheel with less spinning hardware you also have less loss, though we also know that comparing power ratings of electric motors to traditional cars is troublesome. So as you are alluding to, AWD electrically-driven cars s
      • No, we will just color you full of lies.
        Your first big lie, is when you claim that the X will be less than 1/2 of the price.
        Falcon doors are gull wings, in the same way that Humans are Chimpanze.

        And calling a scale up of manufacturing in which the new factory will double the world's production, vaporware does not have the same meaning.

        • No, we will just color you full of lies.

          Well, somebody got his butt hurt, didn't they? Tell us how you really feel.

          Your first big lie, is when you claim that the X will be less than 1/2 of the price.

          That's not a lie, it's a mis-statement based on the fact that TFA is ridiculously difficult to parse. I presume you didn't actually RTFA, which is why you're attacking me.

          FYI, a lie is an intentional misrepresentation, whereas in my case, if you had spent more time reading my posts and less time being angry, it was a simple misunderstanding. But please, don't let that stop you from getting all red in the face about it, fanboy.

          Falcon doors are gull wings, in the same way that Humans are Chimpanze.

          Uh, no.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dave420 ( 699308 )
            These doors are not like gull-wing doors - they don't operate the same, and take up different amounts of space. Tone down your hatred slightly :)
          • and yes, it is obvious that you do not have a clue about what vaporware is. It means that something is claimed, but has not been fully developed yet. Giga-factory is not a big deal. Same process, only geared and using cheaper lithium. As such,it is no more vaporware, than claiming that Windows is vaporware because it is installed on N, rather than N+1 machines.

            • OK, fanboy, if it's not vaporware, then by all means, prove me wrong; show us some pictures of the nonexistent factory mentioned in the article. Go on, the world is waiting for you to make good on your word.

              For someone so ready to call everyone else a liar, you sure suck as backing up your own claims, you know that?

    • I should point out that Toyota, Ford, Fiat, Honda, and even Chevy are all rolling out $26,000 to $30,000 all-electric cars.

      One assumes this is not for the US markets where electricity primarily comes from coal, but for the 90 percent of the US GDP-creating middle class that lives in places where electricity comes from solar, wind, nuclear fission, and hydroelectric sources (mostly the West and NorthEast).

      For us in these areas, solar is cheaper than coal, and wind is cheaper than oil. Which makes a full tank

      • They tend to be either regular cars retrofitted with electrics, which suck, or tried to hard to make a futuristic or different-looking car, which sucks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by icebike ( 68054 )

      The summary isn't the only thing lacking in details.

      The first link in the story, about Tesla selling "WELL" in Norway isn't backed up by a single statistic. Following the link show a figure of 13,000 electric go-carts in Oslo, and mere mention of Tesla, with another link that suggests there may actually be ONE Tesla in all of Norway. The only reason it is mentioned at all is that the Tesla Chargers trip off due to fluctuation on the Norwegian electrical grid that are considered normal there, but would not

  • Tesla naming like mercedes (Score:3)

    by slew ( 2918 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @03:52PM (#46211833)

    Seems like Tesla is attempting to follow Mercedes...

    S-class - top of the line expensive (100K)
    X-class - baby SUV (to come out real soon now)
    E-class - something for people that envy those that own a S-class but don't have enough money
    C-class - crap that ruins the company's reputation

    I wonder when Tesla will announce the C-class...
    Mercedes seem to think there will be success with an A-class below the C-class, we'll see how many people they can get to part with their money for that badge...

    • You might have something there. Actually it was Mercedes that saved Tesla from bankruptcy at some point, and also many small bits and pieces on the Model S come from Mercedes. If I remember correctly, they are also a pretty good investor in Tesla.
      • nope. Mercedes invested very little. They own less than 5% currently. OTOH, Toyota did a lot. There was a lot from Mercedes that was on the roadster, but very little on the Model S (and I think that most of it is gone).
    • And since I forgot to mention it, only in North America (and maybe China - but heck, they think Buick is prestigious over there) is Mercedes seen only as a prestige brand. In Europe, there are plenty of Mercedes rental cars and taxis. Inexpensive cars don't ruin a company's reputation - they provide capital to develop things like the next S-Class.

      • In Europe, there are plenty of Mercedes rental cars and taxis.

        Sure, but that doesn't mean they are not a prestige brand. That ARE a prestige brand. It's just that you can hire them, and some countries have better quality taxis than others.

        • No, it's because Mercedes is like GM over there, but without different "brands" (Chevy, Buick, Cadillac, GMC). Over here, we have GM selling both shitty little Aveos and high-end Cadillacs, and big GMC trucks (and previously giant Hummers, and Pontiac/Saturn 2-seaters, etc. before they downsized). The high-end Cadillac buyers aren't put off by the Aveos. It's the same over there, except it's all one brand, Mercedes. They make a whole range of vehicles. It's just that they don't sell that whole range ov

          • No, that's not it. The most common Mercedes taxi is the E-Class. Which is not the cheap range,and it is sold in the USA.

            • I never said the taxis were cheap; we don't use econocars for taxis here in the US either. But as I understand it, Mercedes has a lot of cars, including small economy cars, which aren't sold in the US.

    • The C-class is not crap if you look at similar cars in the same price range.

    • Or....

      S = Standard
      X = Crossover (X being a common abbreviation for that vehicle class)
      E = Everyone

      The next vehicle after that I believe will be the

      T = Truck

    • They have already trademarked "Model Y". So according to Musk, they've put a trademark on SEXY.

  • Confusing TFA (Score:3)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @03:58PM (#46211909) Homepage Journal

    So, the article* talks about 3 different models, the S, the X, and the E, in a very mercurial way, that leaves me asking more questions than I got answers to...

    - What's the projected price point for the Model X?

    - What are the features/specs of the Model E, other than the (currently vaporware-based) price point?

    - What will be the price difference between a current Model S and one of the new ones with all the fancy new additions, like AWD and hill assist?

    Really, TFA reads more like a press release written by a schizophrenic, than the results of a "town hall" Q&A sesssion.

    Which doesn't surprise me, considering the source is greencarreports.com.

    * No, I don't watch the videos on articles. If you can't be bothered to type out the transcript, I can't be bothered to care.

  • About those falcon doors (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's funny that they're promoting the Model X's falcon doors in Finland. How well will people be able to get into the vehicle when there's 10cm of snow on top of it? It's a lot easier to brush snow off the sides of a vehicle than to brush it off the top.

  • Tesla should have concentrated on producing a credible hatchback, Volkswagen Golf competitor they could sell worldwide. If they could get a section of that market then things would change very rapidly. As it is they're simply chasing after niches and not gaining enough critical mass.

    • Re:Model X is the Wrong Model (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CaptSlaq ( 1491233 ) on Monday February 10, 2014 @04:40PM (#46212291)
      Have you looked at the pictures that have been released? Some would say that the X *is* a hatchback. Bigger than a golf, granted, but still the design is firmly in the hatch territory. They call it an SUV because the nomenclature of "station wagon" has huge negative implications, and hatchback is codespeak for "cheap car that's almost a station wagon" in the US. [url]http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx[/url]. The third row will be unusable of you're of normal adult height due to the roofline.
      • The X is not a hatchback in any way shape or form and certainly not with that gull-wing.

        • The X is not a hatchback in any way shape or form and certainly not with that gull-wing.

          Then may I get an understanding of what your definition of "hatchback" is?

          • It is a hatchback, just like ALL cross-overs, jeeps, and SUVs.
            However, the Model X is absolutely not a wagon since it is too large. The industry calls it a 'Full-size crossover utility vehicle'. That is the industry. Heck, it is bigger, and better performing then others cross-overs like BMW X5 or X6, which are also called a crossover utility vehicle.

    • He just understands the nature of income distribution.

      Until he can achieve significant improvements across the board in batteries in terms of capacity, cost and manufacturing efficiency, a Tesla car will be on the wrong side of affordability for the middle class. His cars will not sell and he will lose money.

      However, if he targets the upper end of the spectrum, people who are able to spend $50-80,000, he has to offer them an SUV choice in order to not lose sales to people who don't want a sedan.

      It's like t

      • exactly right. My wife is dying to buy a Tesla, but she does not want the S. She wants the X, so, we wait.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AaronW ( 33736 )

      I hate to break it to you but the Model S IS a hatchback with a lot of space. A month ago I hauled a new dishwasher in the back of mine with plenty of room to spare. I'm sure Tesla did a lot of market research before coming out with the model X. Right now they're focusing on the luxury segment due to the current high cost of the large battery packs. Once they get their giga factory built they expect to come out with a 30-35K car though that probably won't be until at least 2018.

      There is already a lot of dem

      • I hate to break it back to you but the S is not a hatchback in any way shape or form and it's stupid to say that it is. The Golf segment hatchback in the US and throughout the rest of the world dwarfs anything else. As it is he's got no chance of selling US-centric cars in the rest of the world and will forever be painting himself into a niche.

        • I hate to break it back to you but the S is not a hatchback in any way shape or form and it's stupid to say that it is. The Golf segment hatchback in the US and throughout the rest of the world dwarfs anything else. As it is he's got no chance of selling US-centric cars in the rest of the world and will forever be painting himself into a niche.

          "The golf segment" means "compact car". I think "Mid size" would be generous. If you want a compact, Tesla is not catering to you. Sorry. Largely due to the fact that even in a smaller dress (Like the original Tesla Roadster) it will still be outrageously expensive (Like the original Tesla Roadster) for its size.

          If you want something right now, your best bet is probably a Ford CMax or Nissan Leaf. The stupid little thing that Mistubishi is pushing is a city car. While they have their applications,

    • Tesla should have concentrated on producing a credible hatchback, Volkswagen Golf competitor they could sell worldwide. If they could get a section of that market then things would change very rapidly.

      Just like Nissan has with the Leaf? Or Mitsubishi with the i-Miev? Or Honda with the Fit Electric? Chevy Spark? Focus Electric?

      There's a whole lot of competition in that market; I don't think it'd be unfair to credit Tesla's relative success with the fact that they DIDN'T try to do that.

      • Just like Nissan has with the Leaf?

        The Golf market segment is not one inhabited by the Leaf. That's just daft.

    • And you do realize that the Model S and Model X are BOTH hatchbacks!!!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lluc ( 703772 )
      An all electric Golf-sized hatchback that costs $60k+ would be a much smaller niche than a full-size CUV at the same price point. Tesla will supposedly build a $40K Model E as their low end sedan, but the Model X will be much more expensive. Your Golf competitor already exists. It is the Nissan Leaf.
      • They would have to make it cost less then $60,000, and there would be the challenge and the potential.

        Anyone who thinks the Nissan Leaf is a Golf competitor is an idiot.
        • Actually, you are the idiot. VW is now delivering e-golf, has a weaker motor, much slower speeds (the golf will do 0-100 km in 11.2, the regular leaf does it in under 8), same distance and costs more.
          BUT, to make matters worse, they do NOTHING for the heat issue, in the same way that Nissan has blown this.

          The leaf is not that great, but it beats the daylights out of the e-golf (and the golf for that matter).
      • actually, the Model E is NOT their low-end sedan. It is an executive compact and will be their mid-range car. They actually have plans to deliver even lower price cars, but not until after 2020.
    • Amazing that you were modded up. The golf is a POS that ppl buy because it is cheaply made and over charged for. That is the LAST car that anybody should EVER consider copying.

      Instead, Tesla is doing the right thing. They are starting higher end, making profit that allows them to grow. At the same time, they are installing showrooms, service centers AND super chargers all over America and Europe. This is all funded by currently 30K cars / year, and next year, it will be 50K cars / year. Compared to the bi

  • Musk says AWD has never been put on a car with no loss of efficiency before.

    2012 Lincoln MKS:
    FWD version: 17/25 mpg.
    AWD version: 17/25 mpg. And the AWD version is more powerful.

    2013 Cadillac CTS:
    RWD version: 18/27 mpg.
    AWD version: 18/27 mpg. AWD version has same power (same engine) as RWD version.

    So yes, AWD has been added without a loss of efficiency before.

    Elon, it would be fantastic if you would bother to check to see if what you say is true before you say it.

    • Car and Driver seems to disagree with your Lincoln claims, but your Cadillac statement seems to be accurate
      2012 Lincoln MKS: http://buyersguide.caranddrive... [caranddriver.com]
      2013 Cadillac CTS: http://buyersguide.caranddrive... [caranddriver.com]
      Both cars get around 1 MPG less with AWD compared to their 2WD counterparts with same engine. And for the Lincoln, SAME ENGINE is the key word. The AWD Lincoln is able to achieve the same MPG as the FWD one assuming you upgrade to the EcoBoost engine, which, while yes is more powerful, is a com

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      He talks about no loss of efficiency with the SAME ENGINE. Check your examples, one does not have the same engine, the other doesn't really maintain efficiency if you check around for tests.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Musk says AWD has never been put on a car with no loss of efficiency before.

      2012 Lincoln MKS:
      FWD version: 17/25 mpg.
      AWD version: 17/25 mpg. And the AWD version is more powerful.

      2013 Cadillac CTS:
      RWD version: 18/27 mpg.
      AWD version: 18/27 mpg. AWD version has same power (same engine) as RWD version.

      So yes, AWD has been added without a loss of efficiency before.

      Elon, it would be fantastic if you would bother to check to see if what you say is true before you say it.

      Erm, these are not efficient cars. 18 MPG is 13L/100 KM which is shocking fuel economy.

      There is more loss to an AWD drive train compared to a FWD or RWD drive train, it can be minimised but its impossible to eliminate it. So chances are the Lincoln and Cadilac simply fudged the figures (easy to do when you already have shocking fuel economy).

  • Honestly, they would be wise to sell just the chassis with the drivetrain. That approach would allow for kit cars to be developed on these. I suspect that it would also lead to other companies developing some interesting type cars.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close