Agree. I’ve communicated several times with Tesla mgmt that the way to handle these unexpected product conflicts is provide “snookered” customers an attractive credit towards current model. It’s a win win. A frustrated customer gets what they paid for, Tesla gets a new sale (and probably a profitable CPO sale), and the relationship is repaired, improving brand loyalty.Our 2018 X (MCU2/AP2.5) gets upgraded on Monday.
The number of MCU1/AP2/FSD vehicles is a shrinking % of Tesla's fleet. If the MCU1/AP2 upgrade to FSD isn't simple, they should just give up on that and offer owners two options:
This would be a win-win for everyone.
- Refund of the FSD activation fee; lock functionality to whatever runs today on the AP2 hardware (which would include NOAP on limited access highways)
- Trade-up to a new Tesla vehicle:
- Transfer FSD (originally $8K for EAP/FSD; $7K for FSD today)
- Transfer FUSC (if not included with the new vehicle)
- Upgrade credit ($5K?) - since Tesla will be saving development, parts & labor costs by not having to upgrade the original vehicle
MCU1/AP2 owners that have purchased FSD would get a new vehicle with the latest MCU and AP/FSD, plus a few additional benefits (longer range, wireless phone charging, ...).
Tesla could eliminate having to worry about the MCU1/AP2 FSD upgrades - plus would add a few vehicle sales to their next quarter - at no cost.
For such a small % of vehicles - if they don't upgrade MCU1 to MCU2 - why should they have the burden of supporting FSD on the older MCU???
I suspect the issue here is attention. It’s easy to lose the hardware 2.0 issue frustrating a few thousand owners amidst China, Cybertruck, Y launch, German plant, AP3 ambitions, and huge growth expectations.
I believe Tesla’s intent is usually good, and they’ll eventually do the right thing... just that they’ve got too much forward looking stuff going on, and that drives the bulk of their attention.