Reduced torque after half shaft and clevis mount replacement to fix acceleration judder/rattle?

[DavidO]

I'll be having my half shafts replaced soon. Does anyone know if this widespread shudder issue has been resolved yet by Tesla, with an improved design?

 

[Cuttin]

I'll be having my half shafts replaced soon. Does anyone know if this widespread shudder issue has been resolved yet by Tesla, with an improved design?

I got my half shafts replaced twice. 1st repair lasted a few months. Last one was a few years ago. Haven’t had issue since then and I floor the car all the time. I think they figured it out already.

But mine is a 2017. I think the “raven” ones had a different issue which may not be resolved yet.

 

[dskid]

What is it with you Americans and always suing suing suing. These cars are insanely power-full, can rip axles apart when exposed to the full brunt of these motors and the manufacturer HAD to reduce power to keep things in one piece. Those axles are not made out of some space-alien-unobtanium-alloy. It's just too much for the materials used. Using materials that can actually sustain such loads would make the cars much more expensive. Hypercars use these

Besides the materials/alloys used in those axles, there is the issue with the axle-joint. In ride-height modes other than low/very low, the angle of the axle-joints is too steep. I understand that. I therefore do not reasonably expect full power to be available in modes other than low/very low.
I have no conformation of this at all (it's all level "rumours") but the theorie exists that later on, Tesla found out it's still too much oomph so they reduced the torque the front motor puts out some more, to not damage the car. I'd rather have a car that stays in one piece than one that rips itself apart by overdoing it. But that's just my logic.

To be fair, Tesla made a design mistake by putting too much strain on the materials used and designing the axle-angle in higher ride modes to be too steep from day one. I fully agree on that. But they recognised their mistake and made an adjustment (reducing the max. load on some components).
And they should not have sold the car the way they did, by claiming it can embarrass exotic sports cars at the drag-strip during the lifetime of the vehicle. Do stunts like that too often and the car will get damaged.

What do you think you will gain from suing Tesla? Answer: nothing technical will happen, nothing will improve. The problem WILL NOT BE SOLVED. Those axles are not going to be replaced by some rainbow sh*tting unicorn manure magic alloy.

I know I will get a lot of flak for this but I don't care: Threatening to sue is so American. Sue McDonalds when some idiot pours hot coffee on herself. Sue after putting a pet in the microwave, killing it (no sh*t sherlock). Suing Tesla for "unintended acceleration events" which all of Europe knows do not exist (the car cannot do this due to it's very design), but some folks in the USA believe in it so badly (to cover up their own stupid behaviour, swapping the brakepedal for the accelerator-pedal) and if you tell yourself a bullsh*t story often enough, you will start to believe in it.
The USA has become one large legal kindergarten. In Europe, you will not see these kinds of law-suits. But then again, we don't have the greedy asshole lawyers using "no cure no pay" money-making-models, providing perverse incentives to win cases at any cost. All one needs to do is convince a bunch of half-wits on jury-duty. Something that some lawyers are really good at (I always see this picture of this sleezeball lawyer Ken in Breaking Bad with that licenseplate "Ken wins" on his BMW).

Do what you gotta do. Go get'em.

You know that McDonald’s coffee issue was a lot more complex that you think. The main issue was that after 800+ burn incidents from their coffee at 180F (20F hotter than home brew coffee) they had refused to do anything. The “caution hot” on the cups is purely because the coffee is hotter than you’d reasonably expect. By the way, that lady got 3rd degree burns on her genitalia which wouldn’t have happened to the same extent if it was 160F. So to get McDonald’s to do anything about the situation, a lawsuit was required to force their hand.

It’s similar to what seems to happen in the US. You have to sue to force action on something that seems logical. And for Tesla, they honestly should have been up front and communicated what was happening and what the solution was, and perhaps people would be reasonable about it. Or at least give options and say what the issues are. But Tesla seems to prefer to sneakily make adjustments and only undo them when people sue, sadly. There’s huge financial liability on the line so I can’t blame them but certainly don’t appreciate it. Our X is back in for a second set of Axles and new clevis mount. We drive mostly in chill mode and rarely punch it. I’d be happy to lose a bit of torque and not have to lose our vehicle for a week at a time.

 

[Richbot]

A McDonald's coffee case reference is a pretty clear indication you're talking to somebody who is way out of his lane talking about anything remotely related to keeping a functioning civil tort system running and just wants to throw a few rocks

With love for all things Schweiz

 

[Harvey Danger]

There was a discussion, starting with the post quoted below, in the other shudder thread that seems really germane to the actual topic of this thread:

I drag race our P100D Model X very frequently at a local drag strip. Everytime I go, the battery is at 95% in Ludicrous+ mode with Launch control, batteries heated. The car ALWAYS ran an 11.30 quarter mile time at 118mph.
I had the shudder fix done on my P100D November 26, 2019
Now my Model X runs 12.03 at 103mph after the shudder fix (also had an MCU2 installed, but I doubt that has anything to do with the acceleration difference).
You can see on the timeslips (reaction time doesn't matter), the car is the same for the first 330' of the race and slows down from 331' and on. Losing 8 miles per hour in the ⅛ mile is HUGE......

I mean I love talking about coffee as much as the next guy. And in fact I did learn that the usual understanding most Americans have of the McDonald's settlement is incomplete. So that's good. But anyway I'm wondering if there are enough people left that do "launches" with their Performance Model X's who would even notice if Tesla had nerfed the peak torque at some point..

 

[Richbot]

12.0 at 103? Did he mean 113? In any case, that's a big dropoff. Yeesh.

That sounds...actionable

 

[Kristoffer Helle]

They removed a lot of power in the start.
Our 2018 was quick at lower speed before.
Watching older films just confirming it.
The first thing you have to do when getting a Tesla. Is to test and film these things.
Nice to go back and watch how they trick you.
I live in Norway, so I get unlimited drive shafts as long as I have the car. But it takes a lot of time to do this every 60-90 days. And sometimes we need to go back and argue on other things they broke while fixing this.
I still can't believe someone doing drive unit / line, did this design error. The first thing you learn is this.

 

[mcelotti]

I have also experienced this power loss after half shaft replacement under warrantee on my 2016.5 P90D. Brought it back twice and “no problems found.” Extremely frustrating to say the least. Has there been any headway or solutions found regarding this?

 

[glide]

I have also experienced this power loss after half shaft replacement under warrantee on my 2016.5 P90D. Brought it back twice and “no problems found.” Extremely frustrating to say the least. Has there been any headway or solutions found regarding this?

Probably similar to what Tesla did to the P85D’s. They nerfed it somehow.

Good luck with a fix. I’m still waiting on my class action check. I’m sure the plan is to just wait it out and not admit any responsibility until someone sues them again.

 

[mcelotti]

Probably similar to what Tesla did to the P85D’s. They nerfed it somehow.

Good luck with a fix. I’m still waiting on my class action check. I’m sure the plan is to just wait it out and not admit any responsibility until someone sues them again.

thanks for replying regardless. I’ll keep at it

 

[marrawi]

I just did my P100D half shaft replacement and I can confirm I lost torque power, car is berfed 100%, not placebo.

 

[sorka]

Probably similar to what Tesla did to the P85D’s. They nerfed it somehow.

Good luck with a fix. I’m still waiting on my class action check. I’m sure the plan is to just wait it out and not admit any responsibility until someone sues them again.

When did they reduce power on the P85D? I sold my my P85DL last year and up to that point it had no reduction in power. Still hit 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. I had my half shafts replaced 4 times. The last was NOT even with the replacement part that is supposed to have fixed it, but I lowered the car 1", installed adjustable upper links to fix the camber, and never had the problem again. The 1" I lowered was the same 1" that Tesla raised all S's back in 2014 after the battery strikes. This increased the cv angle by 3.6 degrees on the same suspension settings. So my lowering was just returning it to the original factory height before they raised the S with a software update.

 

[sorka]

I just did my P100D half shaft replacement and I can confirm I lost torque power, car is berfed 100%, not placebo.

What if you use launch control? Still slow then?

 

[EbS-P]

Why was this not an OTA firmware upgrade and only applies at time of service? I’m going to need new axels in the next 5k miles.

 

[sorka]

Why was this not an OTA firmware upgrade and only applies at time of service? I’m going to need new axels in the next 5k miles.

It's probably a service flag that is manually enabled in while in service mode.

 

[glide]

When did they reduce power on the P85D? I sold my my P85DL last year and up to that point it had no reduction in power. Still hit 0-60 in 2.9 seconds. I had my half shafts replaced 4 times. The last was NOT even with the replacement part that is supposed to have fixed it, but I lowered the car 1", installed adjustable upper links to fix the camber, and never had the problem again. The 1" I lowered was the same 1" that Tesla raised all S's back in 2014 after the battery strikes. This increased the cv angle by 3.6 degrees on the same suspension settings. So my lowering was just returning it to the original factory height before they raised the S with a software update.

Charging and capacity were reduced on some (a lot) of vehicles. There’s a 400+ page thread here on the forum about it.

 

[sorka]

Charging and capacity were reduced on some (a lot) of vehicles. There’s a 400+ page thread here on the forum about it.

Right. I was referring to power output only. I have at least 100+ posts in the thread you mentioned.

 

[imobiletech]

Hello Mike,

1st poster here, and unfortunately the reason for my 1st post is..... you are correct! I recently had my 1/2 shafts replaced and Clevis Mount added per the service bulletin https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2019/MC-10162295-9999.pdf and I immediately noticed a reduction in torque. It is especially noticeable when accelerating from a dead start, or when I am on the freeway trying to pass people. I have a late 2018 P100D with 70K miles so I have an immense amount of time behind the wheel of a 1.5yr old car. I drive 200+ miles each day and I definitely have a lead foot, hence my purchase of the performance version.

I have searched endlessly on this topic over the last few weeks as I knew I my car performed differently from when I dropped it off at the SC for the update but before I addressed with my SC I wanted to have all my ducks in a row. A few things I found when doing research:

• Apparently when the service update occurs there is a firmware update as well, which reduces the torque upon initial acceleration. I found this from a post by @deletescam May 28 2019.
• Supposedly when the car is in Low or Very Low this reduction in torque is not supposed to occur. I only drive on Low so this is not the case. I was able to find this info from several posts on this forum.

Perhaps this is something we need to collectively bring to the attention of TESLA as I am FURIOUS! I have lost performance and it makes it even worse that there was no mention of this firmware update by my SC, nor was it listed in my Service Agreement after I picked up the car. Not sure if Jon McNeill @JonMc is still President of Global Sales and Service but I read a post from 2017 where @Tech_Guy stated he and others experienced reductions of power and they had to select 'Max Battery' to enable full Ludicrous power. Tech_Guy was able to prove the power reductions and added @JonMc to the thread, and 11 months later TESLA reversed the software update. I also read that another owner @azdryheat filed a lawsuit via Arizona Attorney General. Unfortunately this may be the route we need to go. Hopefully we hear from Jon and this software limitation is removed from our cars.

In addition to the frustration of having my torque reduced to safeguard my powertrain, my battery has also been capped in regards to my charging speed. My car will not charge past 108kw, even when all Supercharger stalls are empty and I am at a V2 station. Obviously this is due to me driving/charging daily. I understand trying to protect the cars power train and battery, but when I purchased the car I was very specific about the amount of driving I do daily and I was never warned that charging each day will cap my car, no were any of us told not to floor the car. To me this is simply a case of false/deceptive advertising. The stats we all read online or at the dealer when purchasing the car are very misleading, as I bought a car that is supposed to accelerate and charge per their advertised rates. Now I find myself with a very expensive car that does not accelerate nor charge at the rates advertised.

Sincerely,

Duane A.

Did this every get resolved? I'm in that position right now.

 

[imobiletech]

After 3 tries I finally got Tesla to fix the infamous acceleration judder/rattle in my 2019 P100D. The fix worked, but I just can't shake the feeling that I've lost some torque. Unfortunately, given my less than ideal experiences with Tesla Service in the past, I am suspicious that they may have nerfed the power a bit as well, or in place of actually doing any sort of fix. I'm not sure how I could ever prove this, but I wanted to see if anyone else here had this fix done and notices reduced torque. I have seen a couple mentions of it around. Was hoping to bring them to light.

Also, see the photo below. Not sure how conclusive this is considering how many external factors could be at play but the set of peaks on the very right side are a series of hard accelerations immediately *after* the half shafts and clevis mount had been replaced. As you can see, I can't get the power anywhere near where I could prior to the fix. I'll continue to test, and may see if I can an official 0-60 to see if it's all in my imagination. Will also ask Tesla to see if they come right out and say they did anything. The invoice (it was covered under warranty) does not mention any other work besides replacing the half shafts and clevis mount.

View attachment 502971

Did this every get resolved? I'm in that position right now.

 

[imobiletech]

I have a thread on this.
Tesla says my car won't go over 231kmt because I just had 70% SOC.
Didn't help when I charged it to 85 or 90..
"BMS is protecting your battery".
So I asked for new appointment this week.
I will update my thread soon.
Nice to have some facts from Tesla on this.

Did this every get resolved? I'm in that position right now.