Okay, for those who expressed interest in an update, and have been following the history (incl., quoted post).....
I received a VM and email from my SC Service Manager ("SM") on Tuesday evening, just before close, and picked up my known to all, still vibrating Plaid at open on Wednesday, 12/1. Some key points include;
1. The official Tesla message, after repeated attempts to fix issue was a "normal characteristic of the Plaid vehicles specifically". I agree with most of that language, save for the modifier, "Normal". As you know, normal means, "expected". As we all know, it's anything but as some cars have it, and others do not. Also, some of us didn't have it, then developed it, like me and
@WilliamG. We also know the refreshed MS/LR has it as well, so it's not limited to the Plaid. These are the facts. Also, the communicated, "It is not a safety concern..." Clearly, the response was run by Tesla legal before it was provided to me.
2. Response provided in #1 is not unexpected, however. From a business perspective, if they don't have a fix, or know root cause, officially acknowledging it as a manufacturing or design defect would trigger "disclosure" requirements, by law (SB, Recall, etc.).
3. Most importantly, of my 3 previously stated active options/paths, #2 and #3 are still in play. "One off" cases could and do get different responses, in the name of "Customer accommodation". Should #2 or #3 be approved, a "Release" will need to be signed agreeing they buy back is "good will" gesture to make the client happy, not admission of a "Lemon" buy back. As you may all know, it tagged in any way as a "Lemon," the car is a total write off for Tesla. As a good will repurchase, mine will eventually be fixed and resold at near MSRP, like the crazy prices Tesla sells their beat on demo cars for.
4. As far as Options 2 and 3 resulting in a rightful "win" for me, I think that still looks like a "50-50" proposition. After some unofficial back and forth with the SM, whom I've gotten to know well over the years, and a "in the parking lot face to face chat,” The buyback process definitely includes a customer sentiment component. If you think about it, buying mine back (100%) as a good will gesture, and selling me a new one nets them only a slight reduction in profit on the entire set of transactions, given what they will later sell mine for.
5. I did ask if filing the arbitration request form concurrent with this less formal "Case" route would be helpful. The answer was Tesla prefers a win-win solution for both parties over a more formal "winner-loser" process, such as arbitration. It was also pointed out that the arbitration process can follow the less formal "Case" process if I was not happy with the outcome of that. Of course, I let them know I had the time and resources to pursue that path, if needed, but preferred a "win-win path."
6. So, as I stated above, I still feel like options #2 and #3 could happen, and if they did, I would likely not be able to share details.... Probably only something like, "Tesla and I came to a mutually satisfactory resolution to the matter..."
Note: For "Extra Credit," I had the SM add our safety concern that no parts exist for 2-3 months for the airbag recall on my VIN. You know the one.... "Airbags may not deploy correctly...." ...but, "it's okay for you to keep driving your car..." Crazy, right? How did that memo ever get past the lawyers and released via email on Tesla letterhead?! Anyone else get that "beaut"?
So, what do you think will happen, re Options #2 and #3?
Edit: SM unmatched the MF vin from my replacement order (Option #3), at my request; and given no approval has been granted yet. Both SM and Sales are working together, so I feel pretty good that if approved down the road, the NF reassignment VIN will be fairly expeditious.
