- May 5, 2009
- 697
- 588
I think it was two years on the battery, in which case it expired last week.
The warranty on the car expired forever ago.
I think it was two years on the battery, in which case it expired last week.
The warranty on the car expired forever ago.
dpeilow
Moderator
I've been told by the SC and have a copy of the FAQ that says the 3.0 warranty is 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever is sooner.
- May 5, 2009
- 697
- 588
OK, then more like a month ago. I'm at 37K miles. But the rest of you sill have a long while.
dpeilow
Moderator
But given that it seems like no one hah actually seen a copy of the 3.0 warranty you may not be any worse off...
backmost
Member
That FAQ is interesting in that it says Roadsters prior to the 2.0 aren't eligible for the 3.0 upgrade
I think that was the case early on, but Tesla resolved the issue and opened it up to all roadsters.
dhrivnak
Active Member
Yes this is resolved as I HAVE a 1.5 with a 3.0 battery so I KNOW it works.
backmost
Member
dhrivnak
Active Member
- May 5, 2009
- 697
- 588
Here's an update for #541 (EU) from simonog. Thanks, Simon!
This is one of the older batteries in the set and had moderate mileage on it, so it's interesting. It looks a lot like #33, which showed a pretty steep drop off by mile, and about average by day. Again, I suspect that a few range charges would bring the CAC up a bit.
I also updated my car, #670. Here, we see continuing evidence that I damaged the battery when I ran it down so low. It also shows how slowly the algorithm is adding in the new information. I now have the lowest CAC recorded in the study at about 182Ah. I'm quite curious when (and if!) this is going to level off and I'll see the more-or-less real state of my cells. I really hope it's close to done, this is a little scary.
This is one of the older batteries in the set and had moderate mileage on it, so it's interesting. It looks a lot like #33, which showed a pretty steep drop off by mile, and about average by day. Again, I suspect that a few range charges would bring the CAC up a bit.
I also updated my car, #670. Here, we see continuing evidence that I damaged the battery when I ran it down so low. It also shows how slowly the algorithm is adding in the new information. I now have the lowest CAC recorded in the study at about 182Ah. I'm quite curious when (and if!) this is going to level off and I'll see the more-or-less real state of my cells. I really hope it's close to done, this is a little scary.
ecarfan
Well-Known Member
That was true when the 3.0 battery was first announced but after many 1.5 Roadster owners complained, several months later Tesla announced that the 3.0 battery would be available for all Roadster versions. I had one installed in my 1.5 a few years ago. (Note: I no longer own the car)
dpeilow
Moderator
I put an order for 3.0 upgrade in September and was told two weeks ago by Westmont (IL USA) SC that Tesla has ceased any 3.0 upgrades and a *new* upgradeable battery is in the works -- and that I should have gotten a refund on my $5k down payment.
Just got off the phone with corporate who effectively gave me no new information (however they could not confirm stoppage of 3.0 battery production). Chasing down the refund has been time consuming...
Attachments
-
upload_2018-12-17_10-5-37.gif -
upload_2018-12-17_10-5-37.gif -
upload_2018-12-17_10-5-37.gif -
upload_2018-12-17_10-5-37.gif -
upload_2018-12-17_10-5-37.gif -
upload_2018-12-17_10-5-37.gif -
upload_2018-12-17_10-5-37.gif -
upload_2018-12-17_10-5-37.gif
dhrivnak
Active Member
I really hope there is an allowance for the early 3.0 adopters if indeed a new battery is in the works. Right now my 3.0 battery has stabilized but only time will tell.
backmost
Member
No idea if it applies to the 3.0, but my original battery always charges a little lower in the winter than summer, by a couple of miles. CAC difference was fractional, however (less than 1 AH).
backmost
Member
shrink
Supporting Member
That's interesting. Thanks for sharing that information. If a new battery is in the new works, why the refund? Wouldn't the initial 5K deposit be applied to the newer battery, which I'll unofficially coin as a 3.5 battery? Or is the thinking since 3.0 has ceased production, they are refunding outstanding and unfulfilled deposits?
I haven't received the full story yet.
I bought the BRA at purchase and my original battery died last summer. SC informed me the 3.0 would cost me $6k with BRA (as opposed to $29k). Now they've told me the new (3.5 as you say) upgrade is covered under BRA.
Unless they've found a way to drive down production cost, I don't see how this is possible.
I'll post information as I get it (maybe better to start a new forum thread on any new battery info)... right now, SC seems to be a better source than corporate.
Similar threads
