Any 40 owners upgrade?

[fluxemag]

I also declined to upgrade my 40. 100+ miles of range is plenty, and the only time I ran into trouble was when I started charging exclusively at work (for free). That worked great until the day both chargers were occupied and I had an unexpected 30 mile trip to make after work. Fortunately one of the Volts moved for me. I absolutely love what Tesla did for us 40's in the way of providing the added performance for the same price. I would have been very happy getting the car I ordered even without the free upgrade. As an Engineer however, the extra capacity sitting there unused is hard to ignore, even though I don't need it. But I'll never pay the upgrade fee, it just doesn't make sense for me.

I wonder what would happen if my battery was damaged by road debris and had to be replaced as an insurance claim. Tesla would have to sell me a new or refurb 60kWh battery, but my insurance knows my car is a "40". Would my insurance pay the full amount or would I be forced into paying the additional cost? Accidents and insurance have been a big concern of mine ever since the 40 was cancelled. If someone hit me, I'd likely get a check from their insurance company such that I couldn't replace my car. That's my main concern, being able to get a new Tesla if mine is ever totaled. Kind of scary when you think of all the idiots on the road.

 

[vfx]

I was wondering if at some point it would be easier for Tesla to not deal with a few outliers and just upgrade the 40s to have only 65 and 80s on the road. For now they have to create special software revisions and may have special service work as well.

They could approach the problem with price raises to get those on the fence to pull the trigger sooner (Tesla has used this many times) or they could start discounting the 65 upgrade 20 percent every few months till most sign on board. That last few would just get the upgrade whether they like it or not.

 

[brianman]

I'm curious about these 65 and 80 variants that I've never heard of....

- - - Updated - - -

I was wondering if at some point it would be easier for Tesla to not deal with a few outliers and just upgrade the 40s to have only 65 and 80s on the road. For now they have to create special software revisions and may have special service work as well.

They could approach the problem with price raises to get those on the fence to pull the trigger sooner (Tesla has used this many times) or they could start discounting the 65 upgrade 20 percent every few months till most sign on board. That last few would just get the upgrade whether they like it or not.

"They should just rebate the 60s and 85s the difference vs. a 40. That's so much simpler."

 

[jimb]

I don't like the fact that Tesla made very little, if any, profit on my sale. I thought I was supporting the company by placing an order in 2011 for one of their vehicles, but in the end, they may have lost money on me. Ugh.

Rest assured. I'm sure they made more money on delivering you (and me) the modified 60 KW vs. the 40KW that you ordered. When you consider the manufacturing expense of producing a "short run" of 40's, their motivation for this change was likely profit driven. I can only imagine that they concluded that the cost of switching over the line to produce a small number of 40's was greater than the incremental expense of providing larger batteries on that same number of units. In mass manufacturing, short runs are almost always a financial loser.

However, that's also why the discussion of this being some sort of "entitlement" is non-sense. They had no incentive to provide something special for their smallest customer segment that would upset the larger portions of the customer base.

The better question is, "why didn't they just cancel the orders all together?". And, given the timing, I'm sure that was all about maximizing unit sales. If you remember the discussion about the company back then, it was all about whether they could hit their unit sales targets. They weren't walking away from any orders at that point!

I do think they have a financial incentive to offer a lower price to get some marginal revenue on the (already incurred) expense for the larger battery. But, I agree with the other poster that suggested that the PR hit would be greater than the revenue opportunity.

 

[vfx]

I'm curious about these 65 and 80 variants that I've never heard of....
...

Obviously I do not own one of these mythical beasts.

 

[Shumdit]

Rest assured. I'm sure they made more money on delivering you (and me) the modified 60 KW vs. the 40KW that you ordered. When you consider the manufacturing expense of producing a "short run" of 40's, their motivation for this change was likely profit driven. I can only imagine that they concluded that the cost of switching over the line to produce a small number of 40's was greater than the incremental expense of providing larger batteries on that same number of units. In mass manufacturing, short runs are almost always a financial loser.

However, that's also why the discussion of this being some sort of "entitlement" is non-sense. They had no incentive to provide something special for their smallest customer segment that would upset the larger portions of the customer base.

The better question is, "why didn't they just cancel the orders all together?". And, given the timing, I'm sure that was all about maximizing unit sales. If you remember the discussion about the company back then, it was all about whether they could hit their unit sales targets. They weren't walking away from any orders at that point!

I do think they have a financial incentive to offer a lower price to get some marginal revenue on the (already incurred) expense for the larger battery. But, I agree with the other poster that suggested that the PR hit would be greater than the revenue opportunity.

I think it should be rephrased "they lost less money on delivering...."

To answer why they did not just cancel, I think your reason played a part, but also the PR of having them renege on the promise of a sub $50K car would have been really bad, and there could have been some issues with the loan that the government gave them that required them to at least initially offer a product at that price point although they have now paid back the loan so it's not relevant any longer.

 

[jimb]

I think it should be rephrased "they lost less money on delivering...."

could be. But, the point is that they were acting in their best financial interest by installing 60 Kw batteries in the cars that were ordered as 40's. The fact that those of us that ordered the 40 Kw felt that we got a great deal was likely just gravy in the decision process.

 

[Shumdit]

could be. But, the point is that they were acting in their best financial interest by installing 60 Kw batteries in the cars that were ordered as 40's. The fact that those of us that ordered the 40 Kw felt that we got a great deal was likely just gravy in the decision process.

Yes, I agree it was a huge bonus for you guys. This is why I think those 40 owners who think they should get 60 capability without paying what a 60 buyer paid are just not seeing the lack of logic in their line of thought. I know not all 40 owners think this, so it's not being addressed to all 40 owners. Just the ones who are complaining about the cost of he upgrade.

 

[Sacrament055]

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't need a bigger pack and would not pay what they're asking for something I don't need. If Tesla wants to reduce complexity by eliminating the 40 they're going to have to drop the price or simply continue to account for us because I'm very happy with the car.