[baybal2]

> We see front-wheel-drive, rear-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive electric vehicles on the road today, driven by 1, 2 or 3 motors. We've seen designs (I don't think any of them are in production yet) with 4 motors - one for each wheel.

This differentiation is superfluous with EVs, and I believe we will not see this living much longer.

There is not much differentiation besides linear cost/performance progression.

Motors? Suspension? Horsepower? All basically more money for bigger motor, hp, and performance.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> This differentiation is superfluous with EVs, and I believe we will not see this living much longer.

Am I understanding your statement correctly? Are you implying that FWD/RWD/AWD doesn't matter for an EV? Because from a handling and safety perspective, it matters just as much in an EV as it does in an ICE.

[baybal2]

Yes, EVs are predominantly city cars. Very heavy, and low-central centre of gravity.

Nobody will be racing them, otherwise the stability provided by weight should be very good.

However, I don't see a real reason for FWD electric cars other than those being retrofit models.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Okay, this is only true if you live in a warm and dry climate and don't have a lead foot.

> However, I don't see a real reason for FWD electric cars other than those being retrofit models.

FWD cars are far more stable than RWD. This is important when driving in the rain as it helps lessen the likelihood of hydroplaning. Non-performance cars aren't just FWD because it's cheaper than RWD to make, but because they're safer.

And if you live in a climate with a lot of snow, you'll definitely want AWD.

> However, I don't see a real reason for FWD electric cars other than those being retrofit models.

As I said, safety. Yes, the traction control in an EV works amazing, arguably better than an ICE, but even better is a drivetrain setup that reduces the need for it entirely.

[baybal2]

> FWD cars are far more stable than RWD. This is important when driving in the rain as it helps lessen the likelihood of hydroplaning. Non-performance cars aren't just FWD because it's cheaper than RWD to make, but because they're safer.

No, when your centre of mass is not that engine block you don't get any of those benefits. FWD vehicles would otherwise be less stable than RWD because of having to fight the pendulum effect.

Remember, economic FWD only became possible thanks to computers both for nailing the best dynamic characteristics on design stage, and helping with dynamic control. That's why FWD were much more crashier before early-mid-nineties.

If there was an option to disable all safety electronics on a modern FWD car, most people would've decided against them in an instant after the first test drive.

[lastofthemojito]

Maybe, but I feel like you could say the same about ICE cars. In general, throw more money at the car, get a bigger, more powerful engine.

There's probably still room for different approaches. Dodge seems to be known for cheap power - you can get a Challenger with a ton of horsepower for way less than say, a Porsche with equivalent horsepower. The Challenger is still based on the Challenger that was released in 2008 (Dodge gets more for their design money by using designs longer) and won't be appointed with interior materials that feel as nice.

Future Dodge might do the same - "let's make the most powerful electric coupe we can for $40k!" as opposed to something like "let's make a nice, comfortable, safe, well-rounded car for $40k".