Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[ckessel]

Almost everything I've ever bought has a disclaimer "specifications subject to change without notice" - usually in association with words like "in association with our programme of continuous product improvement".

You could get a golf cart with a Tesla T on it and still fit within the definition of "specifications subject to change without notice" while folks before and after you got a full Model S, but that is (presumably) beyond what's an acceptable change.

There's a subjective line of reasonable expectation that my car will be equipped at least as well as those before me, particularly regarding major drive train items, and in my case that didn't happen.

 

[Doug_G]

Frankly, I've never been impressed with 90 kw supercharging. It never worked as advertised for me. Always takes about 38 minutes to add 150 miles of range contrary to TM's original claim in Sept 2012 of 30 minutes flat.

I would be in heaven if I could charge in 38 minutes tomorrow. It's going to be quite a bit longer than that...

 

[v12 to 12v]

I hope this isn't the conclusion. I'm on the verge of my first case of full blown Signature angst. One of the main reasons I changed to a Signature reservation was because it was presented as a way to mitigate the early adopter risk because it offered future firmware and hardware enhancements as the car developed. I didn't expect new options to be added but, I did expect have the essential existing options that came with the Signature to be updated. What other reason could there have been for the higher price? I defended the Sig Tax with the thought that our day would come when there would be incremental advancements in technology. Why else would I kick in an extra $35k deposit, pay a higher price for the car and take options that I wouldn't normally order? It wasn’t just so that I could have a red car. I was considering brown if I stuck with my original reservation. If I did stay with my original reservation, my car wouldn't have arrived too much later unless I decided to wait for the other red, which I very possibly could have done.

I was excited to hear about the faster Supercharging coming. I had a nice chat at the West Coast Supercharger Corridor Finish Line event with someone from the Supercharger team and he told me that I could look forward to be even faster charging coming soon because they were working on further enhancements. There never was any reason to believe that I would not be capable of taking advantage of this feature since I had the same base P85 car, but with special Signature amenities. Enhancements were supposed to be a part of those amenities.

When the firmware update arrived I drove to the Superchargers to try it out. I wrote a note to Tesla to let them know that I thought it had a bug because my car wasn't charging like I thought it should at the Supercharger. I never got a response, which is not typical.

 

[napabill]

I would be interesting to find out S3 (120kW) packs degrade 5% per year due to the changes and see how nasty S3 owners get claiming I wanted a slower degrading S2 pack with slower charging. I can only imagine the uproar on this forum.

The issue here is communication. Tesla has a horrible record on that when it comes to customer service. Tell us what we are buying or else the dealership model will triumph. This whole thing could be used to say Tesla can't offer protection from itself to its customers the way a dealership can. That's a not a great argument, but why does Tesla insist on giving ammunition when announcing packs would be easier. They knew the problem. Don't tell me Elon is not detail oriented. If they had announced S3 packs, that would've been enough for me.

This whole communication issue (of which I totally agree) has the stink of over active house counsel. These guys are always arguing that non-disclosed statements are always easier to defend than disclosed statements. I say, shoot them all at sunrise!

 

[RicH]

My MS85 is now just over a year old, with 14k miles. I am a little surprised at the negativity of some given that TM has added chargers in areas that weren't shown on earlier maps, increased the number of chargers at many busy locations, and increased throughput speeds for some. Have we forgotten that we are getting juice FOR FREE -- FOR LIFE? And some think TM is treating us "older" buyers "unfairly." Really? I've probably used SCs for about 800+ Kwh. If I were paying PG&E $.25 on average, that's $200. I say "thanks" to TM as when I placed my deposit 15 months before delivery, I'd been promised nothing like this.

When I took delivery I was told after about 3 months I'd need to pick a 3G plan and pay something. Still free. I was told I'd have to pay for Slacker after 90 days. Still free. I do expect to have to pay at some point, because my guess is right now TM is footing the bill. Ford isn't doing that for my wife's C-Max. Oh, and when TM increased the warranty on the pack to 8 years UNLIMITED miles, how much were we charged?

I for one think TM has gone way beyond what they promised me, innovated faster, and has provided service well beyond that of ANY car I've owned.

 

[Lloyd]

Not to mention free FIRE INSURANCE to keep the insurance rates lower for ALL OF US.

 

[markb1]

I have a contract - in writing - saying that I will receive hardware upgrades as part of my pre-paid service plan.

Where do you see this? I'm looking at the "Tesla Service Plan Terms and Conditions", and I don't see anything about that.

 

[ken830]

I read every post in this thread... It seems the consensus is that somewhere after VIN 2,000-2,500-ish there was a change to the battery pack. that allowed 120kW charging. But my mid-8,000 VIN car was very clearly pegged at 90kW at Gilroy (new chargers), Harris, Tejon, and Hawthorne last weekend. It was especially apparent at Gilroy when I was the only car there with less than 30 rated miles. I noticed GG_GOT_A_TESLA with a much lower VIN (mid 3,000) and a 60kWh battery was able to achieve over 90kW on the same chargers on the same weekend doing the same road trip (Bay Area to LA).

 

[digitaltim]

Older Tesla's limited to 90kW super charging

Here is a snap of my battery SN/PN:

Sig737/VIN628 11/2012 delivery but the battery was replaced 3/2013 and charges at 120kW.

I am curious about the A vs G in the 4th character of the SN in mine vs Amped.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Older Tesla's limited to 90kW super charging

I read every post in this thread... It seems the consensus is that somewhere after VIN 2,000-2,500-ish there was a change to the battery pack. that allowed 120kW charging. But my mid-8,000 VIN car was very clearly pegged at 90kW at Gilroy (new chargers), Harris, Tejon, and Hawthorne last weekend. It was especially apparent at Gilroy when I was the only car there with less than 30 rated miles. I noticed GG_GOT_A_TESLA with a much lower VIN (mid 3,000) and a 60kWh battery was able to achieve over 90kW on the same chargers on the same weekend doing the same road trip (Bay Area to LA).

Ken, that's really strange. I arrived at Gilroy last night around 9:30 pm with 35 miles left. I first plugged into one of the older chargers (the second nearest to the Sony outlet and the couple of AC chargers there) only to see the charge rate cap off at 68 kW. Realizing my mistake and given that there was only one other MS there plugged into the furthest of the new chargeports (that one'd have to back into), I moved my car to the first new port and voila, 105 kW again!

I think the 5.8 firmware didn't quite sit well with your car as far as faster supercharging goes. A trip to the service center is probably in order?!

 

[ViperDoc]

Charging woes

Well, after reading all of the posts, I have mixed feelings. First, I do not feel aggrieved if older Model S vehicles don't charge at 120 kW, and that is coming from the owner of Signature VIN #55. I was promised "supercharging" and initial supercharging had the lower rate. I had assumed we would also charge at the higher rate when I heard that was announced, but complaining that older cars don't charge at a newer rate because of a hardware change in the newer model S strike me a little like complaining my laptop doesn't have as fast a CPU as the one Apple just announced. They are both called a "MacBook Pro" but newer ones have slightly better specs. I can't be too upset when I don't get features that I didn't know about when the car was announced. I hope there will be a way to take advantage of this some day, but I just don't feel that I am missing out on something I was promised. Tesla has changed the paradigm for buying cars. They don't have dealers, and cutting out the middleman saves money. They come to you to service the car (just this past week they came to my home and changed out the charging port that wasn't latching properly. They have given me a P85 in the past as a loaner when they took my Model S in for a bigger service. That certainly is a change in the service paradigm. So if they change the paradigm in car models by continuously improving and adding features as they build them and not changing the model name or "year" explicitly, that is just another change. I think it would be strange/confusing to have the car named (like computer software) with versions like Model S v 1.2.1.4. So just leave it Model S, make those incremental improvements, and hopefully, offer a way for older cars to take advantage when feasible.

On the other hand, communication could clearly be better. We have the prepaid service and warranties, and it is clearly just not clear what upgrades are covered and what upgrades are not. I wish that were better. Also, I am a bit peeved that items that were clearly promised up front but pulled back still haven't been rolled in as upgrades. Namely the rear seat lighting that George Blankenship publicly stated would be retrofit to older cars but hasn't materialized. To a lesser extent there is a question of the lighted vanity mirrors on the sun visors, although I can't swear those were ever explicitly promised—it has been so long that I don't remember!

I might be that Tesla tries to roll out upgrades a retrofit in some circumstances that are affordable and in others they choose not to–it would just be nice if they would make announcements on this that are a bit clearer.

Everyone have a Happy New Year and remember you have some of the nicest cars on the planet!
DJ

 

[apacheguy]

I had assumed we would also charge at the higher rate when I heard that was announced, but complaining that older cars don't charge at a newer rate because of a hardware change in the newer model S strike me a little like complaining my laptop doesn't have as fast a CPU as the one Apple just announced. They are both called a "MacBook Pro" but newer ones have slightly better specs. I can't be too upset when I don't get features that I didn't know about when the car was announced.

Keep in mind that this is not analogous to the situation discussed here. Yes, they are both MacBook Pro's, but Apple releases the full specs of the product you are buying so you know exactly what to expect in terms of performance. Not so in this case.

The more accurate analogy would be two customers walk into an Apple store, they each pay $1200 for the same MacBook, but one of the MacBooks comes with a 3.2 Ghz processor while the other is only 2.8 Ghz. Ask ckessel about this as this is exactly what happened to him. He literally paid the same amount, took delivery at the same time, but the guys before and after him got a technologically superior product.

 

[mitch672]

Here's my battery S/N / Model #, mine was built mid December 2012 (Standard production 85Kw), took delivery in January of 2013, I have the "B" battery, but a low serial number, so it looks like they changed over in Nov/Dec 2012 or maybe a little earlier. I also had my annual service yesterday, lots of TSBs, with bolts and washers being replaced, pano roof creek fixes, work on pillar squeaking noises, steering wheel rubbing noises, wind noise from pano roof fixed, car is a lot quieter now. I was at the service center in Watertown for 6 hours. [Yes, they offered me a loaner multiple times, but I know how I am, I don't want to drive a P85+, I'd then be forced to trade mine in ]

FYI, to check your serial number, put the suspension in "very high" (assuming you have the air suspension), turn the steering wheel slightly to the left, then get on your back, the sticker should be visible, you'll probably need to clean the dirt off it to take a clear picture...

 

[captain_zap]

Another data point. Our Sig has the "A" battery and is limited to 90 kW.

 

[mitch672]

Here is a snap of my battery SN/PN:

Sig737/VIN628 11/2012 delivery but the battery was replaced 3/2013 and charges at 120kW.

I am curious about the A vs G in the 4th character of the SN in mine vs Amped.

Mine has a "L" in the 4th digit, see my previous post. Also mine has a "12" (likely a 2012 mfr date)
The letter could be the 2 week period of the year (only 26 letters and 52 weeks/year)

 

[digitaltim]

Mine has a "L" in the 4th digit, see my previous post. Also mine has a "12" (likely a 2012 mfr date)
The letter could be the 2 week period of the year (only 26 letters and 52 weeks/year)

Sounds reasonable to me - I am generally good at pattern recognition, but did not pick up on it with only a couple of data points.

 

[jerry33]

(only 26 letters and 52 weeks/year)

There might be more than 52 weeks in a year because manufacturing companies often call a period without breaks a week. So every time a holiday falls in the middle of the week, you get an extra week.

 

[mitch672]

There might be more than 52 weeks in a year because manufacturing companies often call a period without breaks a week. So every time a holiday falls in the middle of the week, you get an extra week.

Just putting out a theory... The 4th position is clearly after the year of manufacture, so production week/weeks or month makes the most sense. We've now seen 4 or 5 different letters... Could also signify which "line/station" the pack was built on, but more likely it's some type of a date code.

 

[Musterion]

Mine has a "L" in the 4th digit, see my previous post. Also mine has a "12" (likely a 2012 mfr date)
The letter could be the 2 week period of the year (only 26 letters and 52 weeks/year)

Mine is T13D. Manufactured 4/13. Based on that and others posted above, and matching some VIN conventions, I was guessing the letter is actually a month code. Also following VIN convention they may skip "I".

- - - Updated - - -

I read every post in this thread... It seems the consensus is that somewhere after VIN 2,000-2,500-ish there was a change to the battery pack. that allowed 120kW charging. But my mid-8,000 VIN car was very clearly pegged at 90kW at Gilroy (new chargers), Harris, Tejon, and Hawthorne last weekend. It was especially apparent at Gilroy when I was the only car there with less than 30 rated miles. I noticed GG_GOT_A_TESLA with a much lower VIN (mid 3,000) and a 60kWh battery was able to achieve over 90kW on the same chargers on the same weekend doing the same road trip (Bay Area to LA).

Now you guys are scaring me as I thought I was safe from "The Sig Curse". I have similar VIN and battery serial number around 9000-10000 as you but the battery part number is A! How about you? If the assumptions are correct then even relatively new deliveries may be supercharge limited. We need more people to post their P/N and charging data to figure out.

 

[Musterion]

Here is my label which is example of a new battery but with the "A" part number. Note my supercharging is 90kW limited by firmware 4.5 and would need others to check if newer A batteries like this are 120kW capable. If some new batteries are also 90kW limited, would that make the Sig owners feel better, or just prove the randomness and lack of communication?