3 ms·

Whilst this is possible, it would be better to build an electric specific model. This is because an electric model doesn't need a fuel tank or an engine block

Whilst this is possible, it would be better to build an electric specific model. This is because an electric model doesn't need a fuel tank or an engine block but it will need a large number of batteries. Unilike a fuel tank these could be distributed evenly across the base of the car, lowering the centre of gravity. A 320e wouldn't have this base to store the batteries, but it could store them under the bonnet but that would make for a very poor weight distribution which would affect handling.

S_A_P 10y ago
This is a key point. Tesla's main advantage so far is a purpose built electric car platform. It makes a huge difference in how things are packaged. One of the reasons for teslas great handling despite its size and heft is the low center of gravity the battery pack affords. Cramming batteries into the space previously occupied by a gas tank makes for less total capacity and depending on the location turns the car into a pendulum. Notice how most established car companies have tried this approach and end up with electric ranges of 10-80 miles. It's only just now that car makers are following teslas approach and getting above 100 miles per charge up to 2-300 miles. IMO the on time release of the model 3 will determine if tesla survives or gets acquired/fails.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > Notice how most established car companies have tried this approach and end up with electric ranges of 10-80 miles. To rebut this - the article has a link to a Kriesel-modified 'Scoda Yeti' that can go up to 350km/217miles[1]. So the advantages of purpose-built models don't seem to include 'range'. 1. http://www.kreiselelectric.com/en/projects/electric-yeti-4x4/ http://www.kreiselelectric.com/en/projects/electric-yeti-4x4...