I wasn't doing either. I was responding to a post that implied that you had to go straight to litigation when you're wrongly denied warranty coverage for something you did that shouldn't have voided a warranty. You've now misread it what, 8 times
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
- Thread starter Ingineer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
I wasn't doing either. I was responding to a post that implied that you had to go straight to litigation when you're wrongly denied warranty coverage for something you did that shouldn't have voided a warranty. You've now misread it what, 8 times
OMG! After reading your post and then looking, I just discovered the ignore button!!! Very cool. Just added two frequent posters
Especially since Nissan actually denied my warranty coverage. Fortunately in this case first line defense consumer organizations made it easy to get a remedy without seeking a lawyer.
I agree 100%. When I thought it was 95% likely before that the MT car was a ringer, now I believe 100% this is what happened.
With Mag Moss in place, Nissan arguably never had any legal basis on which to deny your warranty, and you were never even at risk, unless your filter caused something to break, or you broke something installing it.
That much has already been stated and is not in dispute.
Let's see you install open source software into your Tesla, and successfully use the same avenues you describe above to successfully avoid a warranty issue.
Let us know when you're about to make your attempt.
When you can do that, then your comparison and attempt at equalization of risk between the two examples being discussed, might get legs. But until then, there is no comparison whatsoever in terms of level of risk between the two.
Nissan arguably never had any legal basis to deny your warranty. That's been pointed out several times now.
Which post, BTW?
And I never disputed that.
You've now misread what I wrote 8 times.
Last edited:
n2mb_racing
Active Member
Also, let's tweet this at the following people to try and get attention!
@RyanFelton13
@RaphaelOrlove
@Teslarati
@elonmusk
@TeslaMotors
etc
@RyanFelton13
@RaphaelOrlove
@Teslarati
@elonmusk
@TeslaMotors
etc
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
The wired thing is that "L" money bought you different levels of performance depending on the production variant you bought. The V3 people were the only ones that got what Tesla promoted at the launch and are having their cars reduced to V2s. The core of the problem is that Tesla has not been held to the announce spec so it seems strange to fight being reduced in power when previous versions were shipped and accepted with that lesser power.
Not sure the above makes sense.
Not sure the above makes sense.
Yes, it does.
And I alluded to the concept of this pages back.
Tesla has never acknowledged the existence of "V1", "V2" or "V3".
On a side note, people who had so called "V1s" and V2s" never insisted that their cars be "upgraded" to "V3s" either. At least not in here, there was no public outcry.
But effectively, what Tesla has done, by not acknowledging the existence of "three shades of P90DL", is give themselves an out to say to a V3 owner after reducing his power; "Your car is STILL a P90DL, just like your buddy's P90DL that we sold him back when we first started selling them."
Last edited:
That's an easy out.
They'll say that it can, and for proof, point to the MT car, which for all we know, could be in the crusher by now.
That no private owner has stated a 10.9 quarter, won't hurt them. Especially since people were reaching the 0-60 spec and in some instances, showed themselves to doing it.
This has the potential to be a long and drawn out fight. And they've laid the groundwork for that to be the case.
dont forget while you are at it
(tho they are most likely already aware)
@Kopeedunt
@MontanaSkeptic
@markbspiegel
n2mb_racing
Active Member
Yeah, strange. "Accelerated wear" doesn't indicate if they are going to cover that wear under warranty or not..
n2mb_racing
Active Member
Because Tesla sets some expectation that a "software update" will somehow fix the issue, just as with the 691HP debacle. Of course, that update is never coming, quite the opposite. If we bought this car from Nissan/BMW/etc/etc, owners would immediately hold the manufacturers feet to the fire over what they didn't deliver.
edit - this is our goodwill taken advantage of.
Walta
Member
This is one of my biggest complaints about this whole power reduction issue. From day one and based on the implementation of L+ , continuing on today, is the attitude Tesla promotes about driving their performance cars aggressively. Which I would expect, most all the P90DL owners adhere to. Such is why we spent the $10K for L mode.
"No I want my mommy" will be something I discuss with my SA when we talk about countergate.
Tesla upper management is basically braindead. I think most of these aholes came from existing manufacturers or other beancounting jobs. They truly have no clue. Pissing off customers that write $100k+ checks for these cars, and hoping to get new buyers down the road is no doubt going to ruin the company. A good reputation takes a long time to build, but only a moment to ruin....
Certainly "No, I want my Mommy" seems extremely aggressive when looked at in the context of the Countergate.
It reads almost like a snub.
Similar threads
