-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yep. If you have time to scan through the hundreds and hundreds of replies on this thread, there are definitely a handful of very early sig 'A's that got replaced by 'B's for various reasons and now have the 120kWh charging. That's why we sometimes joke around "keep an eye out for some tow hitches to run over" lol
Good to see someone else understands the irony of this situation. Tesla unveiled 120 as a 33% increase in speed and now that we are brewing up a storm they change their story and say "Well, it's only like 4 minutes and it's totally a nonissue." Sorry Tesla, I'm not buying that. I'm not going to let you guys pull a fast one on me here.
The fact of the matter is that Tesla appears unwilling to offer ANY fix. Essentially, they're telling us to tough it out and stick with what we've got. I find that discouraging.
Last edited:
If you have a 90kW limited 85kWh "A" pack, and concur, I advise that you find a 60kWh owner and suggest to swap battery pack with him.
No, not really. But after reading 90 pages of 90kW drama, one could get the impression that some owners would go above and beyond anything to get higher charge rates at no extra cost.
> If you're going to arrange to run over a tow hitch, make sure you do it right [AmpedRealtor]
3 ball hitch - all solid steel, the heavy kind. If you see it lying flat on the road like this, then you have failed in your mission since it is only 4 7/8 in high. But the other two resting positions are 6 in and 6 3/8 in high - success likely!!
--
3 ball hitch - all solid steel, the heavy kind. If you see it lying flat on the road like this, then you have failed in your mission since it is only 4 7/8 in high. But the other two resting positions are 6 in and 6 3/8 in high - success likely!!
--
When the whole world goes electric the future bat mobile will just drop a bunch if these on the road to disable the bad guys
No, and I'm oddly jealous for some reason.
- - - Updated - - -
Are you certain this applies to cars built before the warranty was extended to include this coverage?If you're going to arrange to run over a toe hitch, make sure you do it right so that your battery actually catches on fire. That's when the coverage kicks in!
What????? Having paid the Sig Tax, the 4 yr ext warranty, 8yrs prepaid service l expect a "free fix for Sigs" (or at least a prorated miles battery swap). I plan to drive cross-country to see friends and family several times a year for as long as the car lasts. So an extra 4-10 mins time x 100's of SC sessions is a VERY big deal!
It's not an "extra" 4-10 minutes though. It takes the same amount of time it's always taken. They haven't slowed your charging down, they've just made cars which are capable of it charge faster. I, for one, am glad that Tesla keeps improving its products (and we as Tesla owners get far more improvements after purchase than any other manufacturer gives) and I'm happy that my next Tesla will be even better than my current one. I bet you'd have been a lot more upset with higher battery degradation if they had just let you charge at 120kW.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Did the warranty and service plan cover all possible future improvements to the vehicle? I'm not sure the charging issue is something to be "fixed" since the car is performing as designed and at the same level as when you bought it. Unless at the time they led you to believe it's charging rate could be increased in the future.
ken830
Model S 85, Model 3 Performance, Model X LongRange
Did 3.X firmware allow Supercharging? I didn't think it did?(weren't too many SC's) Service plan was 'supposed' to cover hardware upgrades/updates, as it was said by Elon(I think).
Charging was spoken of as being improved speed wise.
Elon's comments as well as my DS led me to believe charge rates would be increased.
Anybody have any new arguments to make on this topic?
Unfortunately this will continue until Tesla offers some upgrade path or compromise solution. At present they are offering nothing (not even a paid solution). Furthermore, I am disappointed by Jerome attempting to downplay the whole thing and IMO his response is inappropriate.
Just like the sig tax complaints fell on deaf ears, so will this debacle. I'm sure Tesla will continue the sig tax, until there are no more sig-suckers left. Per the other thread, it looks like Tesla is running out of sig-suckers in the UK, so they cancelled sigs?
So i just had a very interesting back and forth with both Tesla Fremont and my local SC manager. I don't believe the full story/explanation has been told in the thread, so I am going to share what I have learned.
1. I have an older VIN yet
2. I have a brand new battery (while in the SC in December for a repair the car was 'bricked' while in their care, and so they replaced it with a new battery.
here is what I learned:
1. Yes, there has been an optimization to the charging structure of the car, however, this hardware optimization is contained within the battery, not anywhere else in the car
2. Firmware however, controls whether or not a car is 'allowed' to charge at 90kw or 120kw
3. Firmware however, is updated based upon VIN, NOT upon the actual hardware (amazing but apparently true)
4. So while in theory, my car (or any car in a similar circumstance, including for example, an older car VIN that gets the mythical battery swap) has the hardware to charge at 120kw, firmware b/c of my VIN doesn't allow this
5. This silliness is apparently being looked at.
This does not take into account several statements:
1. That Elon suggested in his announcement that ALL Tesla MS would take advantage of this
2. The nebulous, 'all necessary hardware upgrades' service statement.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that:
1. Tesla made a huge deal of this increase from 90 to 120, and IMO they really did, saying how important this was, yadda yadda yet now
2. In the explanation, now that 'oops, not all cars get it', they are saying, 'well its really not a big deal, its only 4 min'
That said:
1. I have asked someone at Tesla to go 'on record' and define what 'necessary hardware upgrades' means, after all, i've pre paid for it, shouldn't i get a clear understanding of what i've paid for and
2. When the firmware will be based on the car's current hardware, not its VIN/Hardware at delivery.
1. I have an older VIN yet
2. I have a brand new battery (while in the SC in December for a repair the car was 'bricked' while in their care, and so they replaced it with a new battery.
here is what I learned:
1. Yes, there has been an optimization to the charging structure of the car, however, this hardware optimization is contained within the battery, not anywhere else in the car
2. Firmware however, controls whether or not a car is 'allowed' to charge at 90kw or 120kw
3. Firmware however, is updated based upon VIN, NOT upon the actual hardware (amazing but apparently true)
4. So while in theory, my car (or any car in a similar circumstance, including for example, an older car VIN that gets the mythical battery swap) has the hardware to charge at 120kw, firmware b/c of my VIN doesn't allow this
5. This silliness is apparently being looked at.
This does not take into account several statements:
1. That Elon suggested in his announcement that ALL Tesla MS would take advantage of this
2. The nebulous, 'all necessary hardware upgrades' service statement.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that:
1. Tesla made a huge deal of this increase from 90 to 120, and IMO they really did, saying how important this was, yadda yadda yet now
2. In the explanation, now that 'oops, not all cars get it', they are saying, 'well its really not a big deal, its only 4 min'
That said:
1. I have asked someone at Tesla to go 'on record' and define what 'necessary hardware upgrades' means, after all, i've pre paid for it, shouldn't i get a clear understanding of what i've paid for and
2. When the firmware will be based on the car's current hardware, not its VIN/Hardware at delivery.
Similar threads
