I agree with your summary. But I do have a hard time believing these vehicles would not be compatible with a AWD option. Yet- to your point he does specifically reference future portfolio of vehicles indicating this particular model may not be compatible. Thanks for pointing that out.
It's the YT transcript rather than a summary. Emphasis is mine, though.
There are plenty of us that don't need and do not want an AWD vehicle.
Exactly how I feel. They were trying to keep the Slate as cheap as possible. Most people, even up North have been driving for years without AWD. There might be only one day a year I would use it. How much would this add to the cost, $2,000 - $5,000? You would also use more of your battery power so less range. Then you would want to add more batteries.
You all make a good point. The entire thought process would be in my mind is not also AWD functionality but would this also increase towing capacity? From a fleet vehicle standpoint that would definitely increase usability. My friend cancelled his order due to the low tow rating. I understand there’s more to tow ratings outside of motors but it’s a thought.
Ok and I do. there is also plenty of people who do just because you don’t want the option doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a customized option the weeeee will pay the cost of.
Making AWD optional requires extra time and expense, even for the vehicles that don't have the option. Instead they're making the OG model RWD only.
I’d be hesitant to make this argument, as it seems pretty obvious that the AWD system is already in development. Looking at the space under the frunk makes that apparent. So the R&D cost is being spent, or has been spent already.
I think you misunderstand my point.
Hmmm true since it would be on the HV system but it would be the same as the 2 battery’s so I’m fine with it
As @AZFox mentioned, Slate has prioritized the RWD. Just because Slate acknowledges ideas about a potential AWD vehicle, it does not equate to Slate spending R&D time and dollars on the AWD system.
