Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[SFOTurtle]

This gets us back to Tesla's core problem: communications. Why was the OP *told* -- incorrectly -- that his car was hardware limited to 90kW charging?

And why have numerous other Sig owners and a couple early VIN owners reported only 90kW charging using Superchargers that others have reported getting 120kW?

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough, but hey, I was trying.

The second point he was making was that it seems a lot of the SC's that are actually able to handle 120kW aren't actually working at 120kW yet... So for us truly to figure this out (short of getting an "official" answer from Tesla), I think we need to compare apples-to-apples. We need someone to confirm someone actually getting 120kW, and then an earlier-VIN 85 to charge solo at the exact same charger.

Personally, I've charged at a bunch of SC's labeled 120k and only gotten 90k. We're in the low 6000's, so I'm pretty sure from the conversation here that we should be able to get 120k without a problem...which makes me think that the SC isn't operating at full capacity.

Yeah, I know, we all are trying.

I edited after I posted that others have reported obtaining 120kW from the very same chargers. So I don't think the explanation you heard that the stations are labeled 120kW but in reality only supply 90kW holds water, at least not for these folks. I'm just reporting what others have posted and have no first-hand experience since I only have a 60.

I don't know which Superchargers you've used, but in CA, the Hawthorne (at least the original ones there), Folsom, Tejon, Harris Ranch, and original Gilory SCs are all 90kW. Atascadero and Buellton are newer and many folks have reported much higher charge rates using those. I assume the ones up on I-5 north of Redding are also 120kW, as are the ones in Oregon.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

The new supercharger in Quartzsite, Arizona is a 120 kW beast and owners have reported charge rates in excess of 350 miles/hr. Are any early Sig owners with low VIN numbers willing to give this one a try?

 

[neroden]

And why have numerous other Sig owners and a couple early VIN owners reported only 90kW charging using Superchargers that others have reported getting 120kW?

We know about "split charging", where Supercharger equipment is shared between multiple plugs, so if two people are charging on the same station, the rate is cut for both of them. Could this be all it is?

(In which case the only problem is Tesla giving false information to the OP.)

 

[Tacket]

Older Tesla's limited to 90kwh super charging

This is where Tesla can't win. They IMPROVE the product, and then people complain that they can't access the new and improved product. It's insanity,

I think some of us are getting spoiled. Everyone has "I want that" syndrome. GUARANTEED people will be asking for AWD retrofits in a few months. Newsflash, the newer cars cost more, and they get more... that's just the way it works guys.

Well said! Although I will admit, communication from Tesla on this could be improved.

 

[apacheguy]

We know about "split charging", where Supercharger equipment is shared between multiple plugs, so if two people are charging on the same station, the rate is cut for both of them. Could this be all it is?

(In which case the only problem is Tesla giving false information to the OP.)

The first time I charged at Hawthorne I was the only car and saw the 85 kw limit (yes, 85, not even getting 90 anymore). I'm almost certain that Hawthorne was upgraded to 120 kw. Can anyone confirm or reject that claim?

I really hope the tech was correct and this is all just a bunch of misinformation being spread by Tesla. Even though that scenario is not particularly comforting either.

 

[stopcrazypp]

We know about "split charging", where Supercharger equipment is shared between multiple plugs, so if two people are charging on the same station, the rate is cut for both of them. Could this be all it is?

(In which case the only problem is Tesla giving false information to the OP.)

I suspected the power split too. There's also 60kWh vs 85kWh and I believe that not all superchargers labeled "120" actually run at 120kW (probably not activated). SOC and tapering probably matters too. Also, forgot to mention firmware version.

 

[Odenator]

So what's the lowest VIN that's been able to supercharger at greater than 90kW? Going through several threads, it appears that none of the Sig's can go 120. I'm 2607 and limited to 90kW. I haven't heard of anyone with a lower VIN than mine supercharging at 120. There might be an owner in the high 2600's that has charged at 120, but no photographic proof. So maybe we'll just randomly say the cut-off is vin 2650?

 

[Zythryn]

So what's the lowest VIN that's been able to supercharger at greater than 90kW? Going through several threads, it appears that none of the Sig's can go 120. I'm 2607 and limited to 90kW. I haven't heard of anyone with a lower VIN than mine supercharging at 120. There might be an owner in the high 2600's that has charged at 120, but no photographic proof. So maybe we'll just randomly say the cut-off is vin 2650?

We don't know for certain there is a cutoff. We need someone with a low VIN to try a charge at a supercharger where someone else has successfully charged at 120.
I would try this myself, however, I have no superchargers in range yet.

 

[William13]

Sig520, limited to 90kW. No one else at Supercharger. Beginning charge 25 rated miles. Rather quick taper.

 

[ckessel]

OP here. Tesla confirmed again that I'm hardware limited to 90kwh. Given VIN 2281 reported 120kwh support earlier in this thread, that means VINs both before and after mine (2310) have 120kwh support while I do not. That's the crux of my ongoing communications with Tesla. I understand technology advances and there is a cut line, but why did I get old hardware while slightly older VINs got newer? My specific situation is thus slightly more complicated than just missing the cut.

As for older cars in general, I have asked Tesla to clarify the following for the benefit of the overall community:
- What's the upgrade path, if any?
- Is this (or why isn't it) part of the "hardware upgrades" clause in the service contract?
- How do I know, when buying a used Tesla, if it has 90 or 120 capability?

Will update if/when I get more info.

 

[neroden]

OP here. Tesla confirmed again that I'm hardware limited to 90kwh. Given VIN 2281 reported 120kwh support earlier in this thread, that means VINs both before and after mine (2310) have 120kwh support while I do not.

OK, that's seriously what-the-hell.

That's the crux of my ongoing communications with Tesla. I understand technology advances and there is a cut line, but why did I get old hardware while slightly older VINs got newer? My specific situation is thus slightly more complicated than just missing the cut.

As for older cars in general, I have asked Tesla to clarify the following for the benefit of the overall community:
- What's the upgrade path, if any?

There oughtta be one! If there isn't, we'd better have a good explanation of what piece of hardware is not replaceable.

- How do I know, when buying a used Tesla, if it has 90 or 120 capability?

This seems like a crucially important issue as it will definitely affect resale value.

 

[SFOTurtle]

OP here. Tesla confirmed again that I'm hardware limited to 90kwh. Given VIN 2281 reported 120kwh support earlier in this thread, that means VINs both before and after mine (2310) have 120kwh support while I do not. That's the crux of my ongoing communications with Tesla. I understand technology advances and there is a cut line, but why did I get old hardware while slightly older VINs got newer? My specific situation is thus slightly more complicated than just missing the cut.

As for older cars in general, I have asked Tesla to clarify the following for the benefit of the overall community:
- What's the upgrade path, if any?
- Is this (or why isn't it) part of the "hardware upgrades" clause in the service contract?
- How do I know, when buying a used Tesla, if it has 90 or 120 capability?

Will update if/when I get more info.

Thank you for posting. I hope this can somewhat put to rest all of the people speculating that some folks who have reported max of 90kW were not using a 120kW enabled Supercharger or maybe someone else was charging next to the poster or maybe it's because the person charging had a 60kW battery or maybe they weren't on 5.x. Seems pretty clear from your post and the multitude of other Sigs and some low VINs who have charged at brand new Superchargers with 5.x where others have reported 120kW charging that this is indeed real. Now how Tesla responds to your questions remain the big open questions.

 

[yobigd20]

Older Tesla's limited to 90kwh super charging

There's also 60kWh vs 85kWh

60s charging "limited" makes sense when you think about the tapering algorithm.

If an empty 85kw starts at 120kWh power charging, and continues to taper off at a given rate , when it reaches "25kw" charge level (60kw remaining) it's not charging at 120kWh at that stage anymore. It's probably down to about 90kWh. A 60 is not going to start at 120kWh. If it's safe to charge at 120kWh at that level, why wouldn't the 85 start at 120kWh and still be charging at 120kWh when it reaches the same capacity as an empty 60? It's not. And that's why a 60 isn't going to be able to charge at 120kWh ever. The battery's simply cannot distribute safely 120kWh between 60kw worth of empty batteries.

 

[SFOTurtle]

The first time I charged at Hawthorne I was the only car and saw the 85 kw limit (yes, 85, not even getting 90 anymore). I'm almost certain that Hawthorne was upgraded to 120 kw. Can anyone confirm or reject that claim?

I really hope the tech was correct and this is all just a bunch of misinformation being spread by Tesla. Even though that scenario is not particularly comforting either.

I would be surprised if Tesla upgraded these stations. They haven't done that for any of the other original Supercharger locations from what I've read. I had heard that Hawthorne added another charging bay, so that one might have 120kW, but I think that would only be 1 of 6. In Gilroy, the addition of 6 (I think it's 6) new bays have been confirmed to be 120kW capable, but I've not heard of any plans to upgrade the original 4 bays that were 90kW limited.

 

[Kraken]

I'm pretty sure the labels at Harris ranch said 120

-

 

[markb1]

OP here. Tesla confirmed again that I'm hardware limited to 90kwh. Given VIN 2281 reported 120kwh support earlier in this thread, that means VINs both before and after mine (2310) have 120kwh support while I do not. That's the crux of my ongoing communications with Tesla. I understand technology advances and there is a cut line, but why did I get old hardware while slightly older VINs got newer? My specific situation is thus slightly more complicated than just missing the cut.

Not really. The cars don't get built in exactly the same order as VINs are assigned. The VIN is more like the order that it enters production, but for various reasons, not all cars leave production in the same order that they started.

 

[TSLAopt]

Not really. The cars don't get built in exactly the same order as VINs are assigned. The VIN is more like the order that it enters production, but for various reasons, not all cars leave production in the same order that they started.

Im VIN 4887, does anyone know if I should have 120kw charging ability?
tried using the supercharger in Darien CT a couple weeks ago but it seemed to only go to 90

 

[markb1]

I would be surprised if Tesla upgraded these stations. They haven't done that for any of the other original Supercharger locations from what I've read. I had heard that Hawthorne added another charging bay, so that one might have 120kW, but I think that would only be 1 of 6. In Gilroy, the addition of 6 (I think it's 6) new bays have been confirmed to be 120kW capable, but I've not heard of any plans to upgrade the original 4 bays that were 90kW limited.

Certainly both cabinets at Barstow are labelled as 120, and that was one of the original locations. Also, Hawthorne is Tesla's flagship supercharger.

 

[NoMoGas]

While I'd agree in general and it'd (mostly) be fine if that were actually the case.

I paid the same and got less Supercharger capability than people who took delivery the same week. Less even than someone whose car was built before mine.

BUT, when you got the car was 120KW even available? Doubt it so it's not something you "paid" for... it's an add on that you don't have for whatever reason. I've heard of some people getting free Tesla merchandise... don't complain I didn't get that. We need to be happy with what we got, so long as it is what was promised and paid for. Show me where it says you're guaranteed access to upgraded Supercgarging speeds and I'll agree, otherwise this isn't really something to complain about.

THAT BEING SAID, I do think Tesla is doing themselves a SERIOUS dis-service with all their changes and upgrades. They'd do much better to just save them for the next model year and that would distinguish the difference in cars and prevent just these types of complaints. I mean c'mon, adding folding mirrors mid model year? What's the cost of all the order changes that created?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm pretty sure the labels at Harris ranch said 120

-

As I said, I don't think the labels mean much. If I remember correctly (will have to dig for the pictures) there were pictures of "120" superchargers before 120kW was actually enabled. So it's possible for a "120" station to not actually output 120. Only if the station (or more accurately the specific cabinet, as a station may have a mix of cabinets at different power levels) has been confirmed by others to have successfully charged at 120 should it really be considered a 120kW station.