I'd encourage everyone to check their SOC as well as their pack type after a warranty replacement. I still feel that I got shorted range somewhat with my refurb A with no change from Tesla despite the warranty clearly stating something else. The range improved with 5.9 beta and 5.9 official that followed, but my original pack would likely have improved with 5.9 as well leaving me realizing that my car with only "6k" miles can only charge to 257 max range and that this is a permanent and non-recoverable loss now. Asking Tesla about this resulted in nothing but a service center call. Returning to the service center resulting in nothing done about this. Balancing resulted in minimal change that did not last.
Tips after failure of your pack:
1. Insist prior to the change on a same or better grade pack B to B, C, D, E . . .
2. Insist that the SOC / rated range match or be better prior to the change.
If you educate the service center that these things are important in your situation, maybe you can have both. If you say nothing, you are accepting the readily available refurb as the service centers and Tesla don't have a real policy despite the way the warranty is written.
This whole battery economics thing is quite a case study. As an "A" pack owner, I'm keenly sensitive to these issues, but not without some perspective.
In the case of a century's history of ICE cars, the most critical and expensive part: the engine. In case of an engine failure and replacement, without a test track crew and a stopwatch, a calibrated fuel economy loop, logged prior statistics of same engine, etc., it would be nigh impossible to detect a 3% change in the engine's performance or fuel consumption.
Roll forward to the plug in electric. Most critical and expensive part: the battery. In case of engine failure and replacement, owner has full information to detect 1% change in performance/range.
In both cases, the manufacturer, who must provide a reasonable warranty, prefers to rely upon replacement parts "refurbished within specifications". And, I'm sure Tesla would say that 257 vs. 265 max range after 6 months is "within specifications". As they have said that 90 vs. 120 kW supercharging is "within specification". I'm sure they shake their heads at intergalactic, and think it's a nit. And for those with the higher performing part, it seems like a nit. But it sure feels different for an owner with the 3% shorter end of either stick - whether caused by manufacturing sequence or replacement part availability.
If Tesla always has to produce same or better, which may require multiple swaps, their economics go south and the only recourse is charge more for the car and reserve for that warranty cost.
I've caught myself saying "WTF?!?!?" when reading these threads about indignant B owners getting a refurbished A re-replaced -- when as an A owner produced the same week as B owners I've learned to accept that I don't get that swap.
Just as with OTA software updates, no model years, franchise-less distribution and service - Tesla has to learn as they discover the pitfalls of this new paradigm of complete battery performance transparency. Happy to be part of the experiment, and hoping that reasonable and equitable solutions to these problems will prevail.
