Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Walta prevailed under the lemon law

He didn't. But I now see Tippy's confusion and perhaps others as well. It is somewhat understandable.

CDSP is not the same as "using lemon law."
CDSP is just a California arbitration procedure to resolve most any warranty claim dispute.
Resolving a CDSP dispute where you do not get a new car or a refund is not "prevailing under the lemon law."

Lemon laws, in California and elsewhere, are laws that create an obligation (or presumption) that the auto maker must buy back a lemon car or replace it -- if certain lemony conditions are met. Those conditions are very specific.California's are at California Civil Code Section 1793.22(b). Law section.

When someone says they won under the lemon law and all they did was settle a warranty dispute by getting a repair they are mixing up the terms.

fyi, California's actual lemon law requires, roughly:
1. 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer of the vehicle, whichever occurs first, one or more of the following occurs:
(1) nonconformity results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven and
-- the nonconformity has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, and
-- the buyer or lessee has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity.
(2) nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents
(3) The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair . . . for a cumulative total of more than 30 days since delivery of the vehicle to the buyer.

If those conditions are met, there is a rebuttable presumption that the auto maker must buy back the car or offer a replacement. That's what distinguishes lemons from cars with regular warranty claims.
 
He didn't. But I now see Tippy's confusion and perhaps others as well. It is somewhat understandable.

CDSP is not the same as "using lemon law."
CDSP is just a California arbitration procedure to resolve most any warranty claim dispute.
Resolving a CDSP dispute where you do not get a new car or a refund is not "prevailing under the lemon law."

Lemon laws, in California and elsewhere, are laws that create an obligation (or presumption) that the auto maker must buy back a lemon car or replace it -- if certain lemony conditions are met. Those conditions are very specific.California's are at California Civil Code Section 1793.22(b). Law section.

When someone says they won under the lemon law and all they did was settle a warranty dispute by getting a repair they are mixing up the terms.

fyi, California's actual lemon law requires, roughly:
1. 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer of the vehicle, whichever occurs first, one or more of the following occurs:
(1) nonconformity results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven and
-- the nonconformity has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, and
-- the buyer or lessee has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity.
(2) nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents
(3) The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair . . . for a cumulative total of more than 30 days since delivery of the vehicle to the buyer.

If those conditions are met, there is a rebuttable presumption that the auto maker must buy back the car or offer a replacement. That's what distinguishes lemons from cars with regular warranty claims.
Not only are you not understanding the law in question, you are misrepresenting the facts. The Tesla Sales Agreement requires CA owners to agree to arbitration. That's the process and @Walta followed it. Tesla (as most companies would do) settled the claim rather than fight it. That's a win.
 
I think you need to contact the CDSP. They seem to be confused about what they do.

From their page(again):
"The CDSP program offers arbitration to vehicle owners and manufacturers to resolve disputes involving vehicles under California's lemon law."

Really? You are going to keep trying?

And CDSP also resolve regular warranty disputes.
"The CDSP is a free service for vehicle owners with warranty disputes."California Dispute Settlement Program (CDSP) - Arbitration Certification Program

Lemon law is a statutory remedy providing a replacement car or refund -- if the car is a lemon.

Warranty claim is contractual remedy, backed up with consumer warranty protection laws and covers all cars, even if they don't meet the definition of a lemon.

Both types of claims can be made through the arbitration in CDSP.

But all warranty claims are not lemon law claims.
and a new battery isn't a refund or replacement car.
And settling a warranty dispute with getting a new part isn't prevailing under a lemon law.
 
Really? You are going to keep trying?

And CDSP also resolve regular warranty disputes.
"The CDSP is a free service for vehicle owners with warranty disputes."California Dispute Settlement Program (CDSP) - Arbitration Certification Program

Lemon law is a statutory remedy providing a replacement car or refund -- if the car is a lemon.

Warranty claim is contractual remedy, backed up with consumer warranty protection laws and covers all cars, even if they don't meet the definition of a lemon.

Both types of claims can be made through the arbitration in CDSP.

But all warranty claims are not lemon law claims.
and a new battery isn't a refund or replacement car.
And settling a warranty dispute with getting a new part isn't prevailing under a lemon law.

Again, CA is sooo confused about warranty and lemon law.
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Lemon Law): California Civil Code Title 1.7
 
Again, CA is sooo confused about warranty and lemon law.
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Lemon Law): California Civil Code Title 1.7

You typed lemon law but the whole act isn't called the Lemon Law. I get that you are flustered that you are wrong about this, as you probably aren't used to that feeling. But there you have it. Your review of the law would benefit from the precision and thoughtfulness you brought to previous math and physics issues (or am I misremembering and that was someone else?).

The lemon law (the law that provides for a refund or a replacement car for lemons) is contained (at 1793.2(d) and 1793.22(b)) within a the broader consumer warranty act.

If one wants to say that general warranty claims are lemon law claims you are just using legal terms of art imprecisely. You will not be alone. For people who use the terms precisely, you may not communicate effectively. This is now a boring semantic issue.

Walta got a new battery after he settled after filing an arbitration claim. But he didn't get a refund or a replacement car (the remedy provided for lemons under the lemon law) as his car didn't meet the definition of a lemon, and he didn't even claim that it did meet the lemon requirements.
 
You typed lemon law but the whole act isn't called the Lemon Law. I get that you are flustered that you are wrong about this, as you probably aren't used to that feeling. But there you have it. Your review of the law would benefit from the precision and thoughtfulness you brought to previous math and physics issues (or am I misremembering and that was someone else?).

The lemon law (the law that provides for a refund or a replacement car for lemons) is contained (at 1793.2(d) and 1793.22(b)) within a the broader consumer warranty act.

If one wants to say that general warranty claims are lemon law claims you are just using legal terms of art imprecisely. You will not be alone. For people who use the terms precisely, you may not communicate effectively. This is now a boring semantic issue.

Walta got a new battery after he settled after filing an arbitration claim. But he didn't get a refund or a replacement car (the remedy provided for lemons under the lemon law) as his car didn't meet the definition of a lemon, and he didn't even claim that it did meet the lemon requirements.
Nope, wrong again. The CA Lemon Law gives the car manufacturer the option to fix, replace OR buy back. In Walts case replacing made the most sense and he prevailed in his effort.
 
You typed lemon law but the whole act isn't called the Lemon Law. I get that you are flustered that you are wrong about this, as you probably aren't used to that feeling. But there you have it. Your review of the law would benefit from the precision and thoughtfulness you brought to previous math and physics issues (or am I misremembering and that was someone else?).

The lemon law (the law that provides for a refund or a replacement car for lemons) is contained (at 1793.2(d) and 1793.22(b)) within a the broader consumer warranty act.

If one wants to say that general warranty claims are lemon law claims you are just using legal terms of art imprecisely. You will not be alone. For people who use the terms precisely, you may not communicate effectively. This is now a boring semantic issue.

Walta got a new battery after he settled after filing an arbitration claim. But he didn't get a refund or a replacement car (the remedy provided for lemons under the lemon law) as his car didn't meet the definition of a lemon, and he didn't even claim that it did meet the lemon requirements.

It is frustrating when you're trying to be patient with someone, but they refuse to learn.

I didn't type anything. That is a cut and paste from their web page. They are calling the whole thing the lemon law. When they put things in parentheses like that it's called an appositive.

Let's bring the first two sentences of the CDSP web page together and go over them slowly.

California Dispute Settlement Program (CDSP)
The CDSP is a free service for vehicle owners with warranty disputes.

The CDSP program offers arbitration to vehicle owners and manufacturers to resolve disputes involving vehicles under California's lemon law.

Now, the first sentence tells us what the CDSP is. It is a service that handles warranty disputes involving vehicles. Not regular warranty disputes and also lemon law claims. They are trying to be as succinct and precise for you as they possible can. Got it?

So we've established what they are. But how do they handle warranty disputes? That's were the second sentence comes in. If you read it carefully, you will see that they handle disputes involving vehicles under California's lemon law. What disputes are they talking about? Referring back to the first sentence, that would be warranty disputes involving vehicles. So apparently they handle warranty disputes under the lemon law.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the California Lemon Law?
The California Lemon Law requires a vehicle manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund the purchase costs of the vehicle when the manufacturer is unable to repair a vehicle to conform to the manufacturer’s original warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

Who does the California Lemon Law protect?
The California Lemon law protects consumers that buy or lease a new or used vehicle that comes with the manufacturer’s original warranty.

How long does the California Lemon Law protect a consumer?
The California Lemon Law applies throughout the duration of the vehicle manufacturer’s original warranty period. The California State-certified manufacturers extend the filing period to file for arbitration to 6-months beyond the expiration date of the applicable warranty.

Does the California Lemon Law cover used vehicles?
If the used vehicle is covered by the manufacturer’s original warranty, yes.

How many repair attempts are required to qualify under California’s Lemon Law?
The manufacturer is allowed a reasonable number of repair attempts. What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances, but in all cases at least two repair attempts are required.

What if my dealership won’t refund or replace my vehicle?
The manufacturer, and not the dealership, is responsible for the warranty and would be the one to refund or replace your vehicle.

What if my manufacturer won’t refund or replace my vehicle?
If you feel you have given the manufacturer enough time and opportunity to repair your vehicle, but you feel the nonconformity still exists, your next step would be to file for arbitration.

What is arbitration?
Arbitration is a process whereby the dispute between the vehicle manufacturer and the consumer is resolved by a neutral third party, an arbitrator. In California, many manufacturers offer a California state-certified arbitration program. These arbitration programs are required to meet certain standards, such as making a decision on the dispute within a certain number of days. Arbitrators in the state-certified arbitration programs are regularly trained. The Arbitration Certification Program regulates the arbitration programs offering arbitration for new vehicle warranty disputes.

If it makes you feel better, you can choose to limit the definition as narrowly as you need to. I think I'll stick with California's interpretation.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: MikeBur
Just curious: what was the rated range on your new, replacement battery, and what is it now?
I just did a 100 percent charge over the weekend. With this new V3 battery I am getting 272 miles rated range at 100 SOC. That is the same as I was getting in Dec of 2016 when I first got the battery. So after 5 months I have had zero loss in rated miles.
 
The information on his temp battery isn't in that thread, I don't believe. Walta had to send his 1088792-00-A battery back to Tesla for repair.
The battery replacement was straight forward. My initial V1 battery 1063792-00-A was removed and a new V3 1088792-00-A battery was installed. They tried to install a remanufactured V3 , but ran into issues with the install, so gave me a new one instead.I have had the V3 since Dec and have not had any issues, except for the software messing with my power.
 
The statute commonly known as the "lemon law" in California.

Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

Certain relevant provisions below:

CIVIL CODE - CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 - 3272.9]
( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 4. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS [1738 - 3273]
( Part 4 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 1.7. CONSUMER WARRANTIES [1790 - 1797.96]
( Title 1.7 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1333. )
CHAPTER 1. Consumer Warranty Protection [1790 - 1795.8]
( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1333. )

1793.2


(a) Every manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall:

(1) (A) Maintain in this state sufficient service and repair facilities reasonably close to all areas where its consumer goods are sold to carry out the terms of those warranties or designate and authorize in this state as service and repair facilities independent repair or service facilities reasonably close to all areas where its consumer goods are sold to carry out the terms of the warranties.

(B) As a means of complying with this paragraph, a manufacturer may enter into warranty service contracts with independent service and repair facilities. The warranty service contracts may provide for a fixed schedule of rates to be charged for warranty service or warranty repair work. However, the rates fixed by those contracts shall be in conformity with the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 1793.3. The rates established pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1793.3, between the manufacturer and the independent service and repair facility, do not preclude a good faith discount that is reasonably related to reduced credit and general overhead cost factors arising from the manufacturer’s payment of warranty charges direct to the independent service and repair facility. The warranty service contracts authorized by this paragraph may not be executed to cover a period of time in excess of one year, and may be renewed only by a separate, new contract or letter of agreement between the manufacturer and the independent service and repair facility.

(2) In the event of a failure to comply with paragraph (1) of this subdivision, be subject to Section 1793.5.

(3) Make available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.

(b) Where those service and repair facilities are maintained in this state and service or repair of the goods is necessary because they do not conform with the applicable express warranties, service and repair shall be commenced within a reasonable time by the manufacturer or its representative in this state. Unless the buyer agrees in writing to the contrary, the goods shall be serviced or repaired so as to conform to the applicable warranties within 30 days. Delay caused by conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its representatives shall serve to extend this 30-day requirement. Where delay arises, conforming goods shall be tendered as soon as possible following termination of the condition giving rise to the delay.

(c) The buyer shall deliver nonconforming goods to the manufacturer’s service and repair facility within this state, unless, due to reasons of size and weight, or method of attachment, or method of installation, or nature of the nonconformity, delivery cannot reasonably be accomplished. If the buyer cannot return the nonconforming goods for any of these reasons, he or she shall notify the manufacturer or its nearest service and repair facility within the state. Written notice of nonconformity to the manufacturer or its service and repair facility shall constitute return of the goods for purposes of this section. Upon receipt of that notice of nonconformity, the manufacturer shall, at its option, service or repair the goods at the buyer’s residence, or pick up the goods for service and repair, or arrange for transporting the goods to its service and repair facility. All reasonable costs of transporting the goods when a buyer cannot return them for any of the above reasons shall be at the manufacturer’s expense. The reasonable costs of transporting nonconforming goods after delivery to the service and repair facility until return of the goods to the buyer shall be at the manufacturer’s expense.

(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if the manufacturer or its representative in this state does not service or repair the goods to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either replace the goods or reimburse the buyer in an amount equal to the purchase price paid by the buyer, less that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the discovery of the nonconformity.

(2) If the manufacturer or its representative in this state is unable to service or repair a new motor vehicle, as that term is defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 1793.22, to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either promptly replace the new motor vehicle in accordance with subparagraph (A) or promptly make restitution to the buyer in accordance with subparagraph (B). However, the buyer shall be free to elect restitution in lieu of replacement, and in no event shall the buyer be required by the manufacturer to accept a replacement vehicle.

(A) In the case of replacement, the manufacturer shall replace the buyer’s vehicle with a new motor vehicle substantially identical to the vehicle replaced. The replacement vehicle shall be accompanied by all express and implied warranties that normally accompany new motor vehicles of that specific kind. The manufacturer also shall pay for, or to, the buyer the amount of any sales or use tax, license fees, registration fees, and other official fees which the buyer is obligated to pay in connection with the replacement, plus any incidental damages to which the buyer is entitled under Section 1794, including, but not limited to, reasonable repair, towing, and rental car costs actually incurred by the buyer.

(B) In the case of restitution, the manufacturer shall make restitution in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer-installed options, but excluding nonmanufacturer items installed by a dealer or the buyer, and including any collateral charges such as sales or use tax, license fees, registration fees, and other official fees, plus any incidental damages to which the buyer is entitled under Section 1794, including, but not limited to, reasonable repair, towing, and rental car costs actually incurred by the buyer.

(C) When the manufacturer replaces the new motor vehicle pursuant to subparagraph (A), the buyer shall only be liable to pay the manufacturer an amount directly attributable to use by the buyer of the replaced vehicle prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its authorized service and repair facility for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity. When restitution is made pursuant to subparagraph (B), the amount to be paid by the manufacturer to the buyer may be reduced by the manufacturer by that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its authorized service and repair facility for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity. The amount directly attributable to use by the buyer shall be determined by multiplying the actual price of the new motor vehicle paid or payable by the buyer, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer-installed options, by a fraction having as its denominator 120,000 and having as its numerator the number of miles traveled by the new motor vehicle prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its authorized service and repair facility for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity. Nothing in this paragraph shall in any way limit the rights or remedies available to the buyer under any other law.

(D) Pursuant to Section 1795.4, a buyer of a new motor vehicle shall also include a lessee of a new motor vehicle.

(e) (1) If the goods cannot practicably be serviced or repaired by the manufacturer or its representative to conform to the applicable express warranties because of the method of installation or because the goods have become so affixed to real property as to become a part thereof, the manufacturer shall either replace and install the goods or reimburse the buyer in an amount equal to the purchase price paid by the buyer, including installation costs, less that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the discovery of the nonconformity.

(2) With respect to claims arising out of deficiencies in the construction of a new residential dwelling, paragraph (1) shall not apply to either of the following:

(A) A product that is not a manufactured product, as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 896.

(B) A claim against a person or entity that is not the manufacturer that originally made the express warranty for that manufactured product.

(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 727, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2012.)

1793.22.

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Tanner Consumer Protection Act.

(b) It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been made to conform a new motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if, within 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer of the vehicle, whichever occurs first, one or more of the following occurs:

(1) The same nonconformity results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven and the nonconformity has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, and the buyer or lessee has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity.

(2) The same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity.

(3) The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery of the vehicle to the buyer. The 30-day limit shall be extended only if repairs cannot be performed due to conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agents. The buyer shall be required to directly notify the manufacturer pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) only if the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the buyer, with the warranty or the owner’s manual, the provisions of this section and that of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, including the requirement that the buyer must notify the manufacturer directly pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2). The notification, if required, shall be sent to the address, if any, specified clearly and conspicuously by the manufacturer in the warranty or owner’s manual. This presumption shall be a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof, and it may be asserted by the buyer in any civil action, including an action in small claims court, or other formal or informal proceeding.

(c) If a qualified third-party dispute resolution process exists, and the buyer receives timely notification in writing of the availability of that qualified third-party dispute resolution process with a description of its operation and effect, the presumption in subdivision (b) may not be asserted by the buyer until after the buyer has initially resorted to the qualified third-party dispute resolution process as required in subdivision (d). Notification of the availability of the qualified third-party dispute resolution process is not timely if the buyer suffers any prejudice resulting from any delay in giving the notification. If a qualified third-party dispute resolution process does not exist, or if the buyer is dissatisfied with that third-party decision, or if the manufacturer or its agent neglects to promptly fulfill the terms of the qualified third-party dispute resolution process decision after the decision is accepted by the buyer, the buyer may assert the presumption provided in subdivision (b) in an action to enforce the buyer’s rights under subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2. The findings and decision of a qualified third-party dispute resolution process shall be admissible in evidence in the action without further foundation. Any period of limitation of actions under any federal or California laws with respect to any person shall be extended for a period equal to the number of days between the date a complaint is filed with a third-party dispute resolution process and the date of its decision or the date before which the manufacturer or its agent is required by the decision to fulfill its terms if the decision is accepted by the buyer, whichever occurs later.

(d) A qualified third-party dispute resolution process shall be one that does all of the following:

(1) Complies with the minimum requirements of the Federal Trade Commission for informal dispute settlement procedures as set forth in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as those regulations read on January 1, 1987.

(2) Renders decisions which are binding on the manufacturer if the buyer elects to accept the decision.

(3) Prescribes a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days after the decision is accepted by the buyer, within which the manufacturer or its agent must fulfill the terms of its decisions.

(4) Provides arbitrators who are assigned to decide disputes with copies of, and instruction in, the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission’s regulations in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as those regulations read on January 1, 1987, Division 2 (commencing with Section 2101) of the Commercial Code, and this chapter.

(5) Requires the manufacturer, when the process orders, under the terms of this chapter, either that the nonconforming motor vehicle be replaced if the buyer consents to this remedy or that restitution be made to the buyer, to replace the motor vehicle or make restitution in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2.

(6) Provides, at the request of the arbitrator or a majority of the arbitration panel, for an inspection and written report on the condition of a nonconforming motor vehicle, at no cost to the buyer, by an automobile expert who is independent of the manufacturer.

(7) Takes into account, in rendering decisions, all legal and equitable factors, including, but not limited to, the written warranty, the rights and remedies conferred in regulations of the Federal Trade Commission contained in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as those regulations read on January 1, 1987, Division 2 (commencing with Section 2101) of the Commercial Code, this chapter, and any other equitable considerations appropriate in the circumstances. Nothing in this chapter requires that, to be certified as a qualified third-party dispute resolution process pursuant to this section, decisions of the process must consider or provide remedies in the form of awards of punitive damages or multiple damages, under subdivision (c) of Section 1794, or of attorneys’ fees under subdivision (d) of Section 1794, or of consequential damages other than as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 1794, including, but not limited to, reasonable repair, towing, and rental car costs actually incurred by the buyer.

(8) Requires that no arbitrator deciding a dispute may be a party to the dispute and that no other person, including an employee, agent, or dealer for the manufacturer, may be allowed to participate substantively in the merits of any dispute with the arbitrator unless the buyer is allowed to participate also. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits any member of an arbitration board from deciding a dispute.

(9) Obtains and maintains certification by the Department of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 472) of Division 1 of the Business and Professions Code.

(e) For the purposes of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2 and this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Nonconformity” means a nonconformity which substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee.

(2) “New motor vehicle” means a new motor vehicle that is bought or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. “New motor vehicle” also means a new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight under 10,000 pounds that is bought or used primarily for business purposes by a person, including a partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or any other legal entity, to which not more than five motor vehicles are registered in this state. “New motor vehicle” includes the chassis, chassis cab, and that portion of a motor home devoted to its propulsion, but does not include any portion designed, used, or maintained primarily for human habitation, a dealer-owned vehicle and a “demonstrator” or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty but does not include a motorcycle or a motor vehicle which is not registered under the Vehicle Code because it is to be operated or used exclusively off the highways. A demonstrator is a vehicle assigned by a dealer for the purpose of demonstrating qualities and characteristics common to vehicles of the same or similar model and type.

(3) “Motor home” means a vehicular unit built on, or permanently attached to, a self-propelled motor vehicle chassis, chassis cab, or van, which becomes an integral part of the completed vehicle, designed for human habitation for recreational or emergency occupancy.

(f) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall sell, either at wholesale or retail, lease, or transfer a motor vehicle transferred by a buyer or lessee to a manufacturer pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2 or a similar statute of any other state, unless the nature of the nonconformity experienced by the original buyer or lessee is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the prospective buyer, lessee, or transferee, the nonconformity is corrected, and the manufacturer warrants to the new buyer, lessee, or transferee in writing for a period of one year that the motor vehicle is free of that nonconformity.

(2) Except for the requirement that the nature of the nonconformity be disclosed to the transferee, paragraph (1) does not apply to the transfer of a motor vehicle to an educational institution if the purpose of the transfer is to make the motor vehicle available for use in automotive repair courses.

(Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 679, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2001.)
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: jerjozwik
So based on all the data we have relating to the P90DL... would you say that removing the ludicrous option and making the car a P90D, is the best way to improve the long term reliability of the drive train? Such that an owner can drive the car anyway they like - enjoying an insane level of performance, though without any chance of damaging the battery?
 
  • Like
Reactions: xborg
The battery replacement was straight forward. My initial V1 battery 1063792-00-A was removed and a new V3 1088792-00-A battery was installed. They tried to install a remanufactured V3 , but ran into issues with the install, so gave me a new one instead.I have had the V3 since Dec and have not had any issues, except for the software messing with my power.

Oh, you just flat out got a new battery? That's pretty slick. Way better than the loaner junk that @jerjozwik is dealing with.
 
So based on all the data we have relating to the P90DL... would you say that removing the ludicrous option and making the car a P90D, is the best way to improve the long term reliability of the drive train? Such that an owner can drive the car anyway they like - enjoying an insane level of performance, though without any chance of damaging the battery?

I don't think there is a threshold. The more aggressively you drive the harder it is on all of the drivetrain components. Apparently, Tesla has determined that the level of performance they sold us with a v3 ludicrous mode will cause a higher number of warranty claims than they are prepared to accept. Does this mean all v3 cars would have had problems? Probably not. Just more than they wanted to repair. If all cars are driven in insane mode will there be no problems? Probably not. But not too many as to be a warranty cost issue. I had to send my P85+ battery back for repairs, and it doesn't even have insane mode.

So if you are bhzmark, you buy a P90DL and leave it in sport mode rather than buy an S90D for some reason. Personally, I usually lease vehicles because after the warranty the cost of maintaining any car starts to increase rapidly. Fleets replace their cars after three years as a cost optimization.

I want the performance I purchased and have no problem using it whenever "needed".

Well, there is a threshold. If you use wot and it draws enough current to instantly blow the bonding wires, but I don't think we are there.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is a threshold. The more aggressively you drive the harder it is on all of the drivetrain components. Apparently, Tesla has determined that the level of performance they sold us with a v3 ludicrous mode will cause a higher number of warranty claims than they are prepared to accept. Does this mean all v3 cars would have had problems? Probably not. Just more than they wanted to repair. If all cars are driven in insane mode will there be no problems? Probably not. But not too many as to be a warranty cost issue. I had to send my P85+ battery back for repairs, and it doesn't even have insane mode.

So if you are bhzmark, you buy a P90DL and leave it in sport mode rather than buy an S90D for some reason. Personally, I usually lease vehicles because after the warranty the cost of maintaining any car starts to increase rapidly. Fleets replace their cars after three years as a cost optimization.

I want the performance I purchased and have no problem using it whenever "needed".

Well, there is a threshold. If you use wot and it draws enough current to instantly blow the bonding wires, but I don't think we are there.
I should have been more specific - when stating battery damage I meant damage incurred from aggressive use only. It seems from the data that owners with V3 batteries and at least one owner of a P85DL have triggered the battery service required warning? Also Tesla's actions to reduce power support the idea that there is a threshold that they implemented to protect the battery. I am guessing it is something around 1500 amps ? So if you were to roll back the ludicrous option to insane you would be going from 1500 back to 1300 maximum amps... though with the V3 it's more like 1600 to 1300 amp reduction. I don't expect to see any battery damage related to performance usage with a max of 1300 amps. At least till this point no one has reported an issue with insane mode.
 
yah, whats up with that! @Walta why did you get your battery replaced in december of 2016?
Funny things is if I had my way - I would have had the battery replaced in Dec of 2015, Though at that time only V1 batteries were available, So when Tesla FINALLY agreed to replace my battery a year later, due to the unusually quick range loss my V1 battery exhibited - the V3 battery was already out there ripping off a 10.8 quarter mile, and owners reported max range of 270 ish and holding steady. So when Tesla asked me what I wanted - I told them a V3 battery. On the day they were installing the V3 battery my Tesla app kept reporting a system type error coming from my car. Then it went quiet. That was because they eventually gave up on installing the remanufactured V3 battery, and installed a new V3 instead.