Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Did anyone upgrade from 48 to 72 Amps?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

K-MTG

Sunshade Captain of TMC
Oct 24, 2015
4,815
3,511
Irvine, CA
Did anyone "enable" after delivery for $1900. Is this just a software limit, I assume it is by the word "enable".
Screen Shot 2016-08-30 at 8.31.12 PM.png
 
That is the dual charger option. You have to have actual hardware installed to get the upgrade.

That used to be the old charger. There was either a single or a dual charger option. Now there is only one charger both in the Model S and X that is software limited to 48 amp and can be 'upgraded' to 72 Amp if you pay. There is no different hardware and any installation. It's just a software limitation.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: hiroshiy and Aljohn
That used to be the old charger. There was either a single or a dual charger option. Now there is only one charger both in the Model S and X that is software limited to 48 amp and can be 'upgraded' to 72 Amp if you pay. There is no different hardware and any installation. It's just a software limitation.
If that is correct, that seems like an odd thing to do.

Some might point to the AP option for an analogy, but I don't see that the same way. With AP there are significant and ongoing costs for software development that need to be paid for. So while every car currently being produced has AP hardware, if you want AP functionality in your car you have to pay the option cost, in essence "turning on" software that is in the car, but software that has a lot of cost for Tesla.

If the current onboard AC charger hardware can do either 48A or 72A then the software is present to handle either of those settings and that software development is done, no ongoing costs.

So why is Tesla doing that way? Or is there really a hardware difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlyF4
If that is correct, that seems like an odd thing to do.

Some might point to the AP option for an analogy, but I don't see that the same way. With AP there are significant and ongoing costs for software development that need to be paid for. So while every car currently being produced has AP hardware, if you want AP functionality in your car you have to pay the option cost, in essence "turning on" software that is in the car, but software that has a lot of cost for Tesla.

If the current onboard AC charger hardware can do either 48A or 72A then the software is present to handle either of those settings and that software development is done, no ongoing costs.

So why is Tesla doing that way? Or is there really a hardware difference?

In my view they do this because in order of reasons:

1. They charger more to enable hardware features later, thus making more $ cumulatively. $500 more for AP later for example, more for charger enabled later, more for battery upgrade later, etc.

2. With good design, and more of a "flip a flag or variable" approach, then they don't really occur any additional software expense to do it this way, its too simple to do. The same software has to be written and distributed either way, just check if enabled or not.
 
That used to be the old charger. There was either a single or a dual charger option. Now there is only one charger both in the Model S and X that is software limited to 48 amp and can be 'upgraded' to 72 Amp if you pay. There is no different hardware and any installation. It's just a software limitation.
That seems like an odd thing for Tesla to do, but based on the fact that the configuration page clearly states that the 72A capability can be "enabled" later for an additional charge I don't see how there can be a hardware difference.

Some might point to the AP option for an analogy, but I don't see that the same way. With AP there are significant and ongoing costs for software development that need to be paid for. So while every car currently being produced has AP hardware, if you want AP functionality in your car you have to pay the option cost, in essence "turning on" software that is in the car, but software that has a lot of cost for Tesla.

If the current onboard AC charger hardware can do either 48A or 72A then the software is present to handle either of those settings and that software development is done, no ongoing costs, and there is only one version of the hardware.

So why is Tesla doing it that way?
 
But apparently not an OTA software change.

I can't say for sure on that, at the time it seemed all refreshed cars that ordered the 72 amp were delivered with 48. There was a thread where we all shared our info and one person claims they got the fix pushed over the air. I think they where a few hours away from a service center so they were very thankful. I didn't try contacting technical support phone number at the time to ask.
 
I can't say for sure on that, at the time it seemed all refreshed cars that ordered the 72 amp were delivered with 48. There was a thread where we all shared our info and one person claims they got the fix pushed over the air. I think they where a few hours away from a service center so they were very thankful. I didn't try contacting technical support phone number at the time to ask.
Is this something we should just ask about at deliver? I live 3 hours away from service center and ordered 72AMP
 
image.jpeg
Is this something we should just ask about at deliver? I live 3 hours away from service center and ordered 72AMP

You can tell at delivery, with the car unplugged from a charger select the lightning bolt / charging icon at the top of the main screen. You will get a screen that shows charging percentage and at the bottom right it shows charge current and max amps in this picture you can see what I saw on my car before it was fixed max 48A, it now shows max 72A
 
Last edited:
Back when we initially had this discussion, one user guessed that the heat strain on the charger at 72A might increase the odds of failure, and that the uncharge was intended to pay for the warranty claims. That seems like a bad business model, but it was the only remotely plausible reason I saw posted.
Thanks. I find that possible explanation to be not plausible. I think there is a reason, we just can't figure it out because we lack the necessary information.