Tesla won't sell me a 90 kWh pack unless I give them my old pack for 12% market value

[brianman]

So I pulled the trigger on it. I was told it'd take a week or so to get the pack to the service center. Cool!

Can you elaborate on what "pulled the trigger" means specifically for this transaction? Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm... actually, I wonder if that has anything to do with it. Is my old 85 pack still covered under a warranty once it's removed from my car and I keep it? That's an interesting thought.

Kind of a grey area there I guess. I personally don't care because I'll be immediately voiding any warranty that may be left on it anyway.

You may be on to something here. Perhaps in the conversation with Tesla you should bring up what warranties, etc. apply to your old pack if you keep it -- and ask them if that's the concern on their end.

 

[Andyw2100]

I think WK was talking substance: he wants the pack. I was addressing why they are justified in not offering the pack. I think you are talking style: how they are communicating they won't give him the pack. I would agree that it would be clearer just to name one price and say "return of old pack is required". But it wouldn't really change anything of substance: they are not going to let people keep their old pack.

I suspect Musk wanted to avoid 85 owners getting all ticked off that a 90 just came out, and wanted to announce upward compatibility and exchange program with the announcement of the 90. Of course, people started asking for details. Not sure they had thoroughly thought through the "how" of the program. Core charge just makes sense... but I'm sure the lawyers rode in and said "you can't let them keep it"... so they're stuck with a core charge and "no-keepie" policy, which seems conflicted to you... but doesn't surprise me a bit.

Since I first started frequenting this forum, I've read a lot of posts from members who want everything completely thought through, packaged as a neat bundle, and bulletproof before it goes public. Any "adaptation" along the way is considered either incompetent or deceitful.

If Tesla operated like that, they would have been out of business long ago. Personally, I love that they fling out new technology as fast as they can, adapt it to what they experience, and stay ambitious. I don't mind a few inconsistencies in the story along the way.

The above makes sense.

The unfortunate part is that wk057 had checked on this some time ago, and was told explicitly he could keep his pack. It doesn't sound like the following is the case, but what if he had made unchangeable plans based on that?

I am fine with Tesla being somewhat fluid in their decision making process. But if a decision has been communicated to a customer, and the customer wants that decision honored, then Tesla should honor it, even if they intend to change the policy going forward. That's just good, honest business.

 

[ChadS]

I think we all agree that Tesla should not change the terms of a deal retroactively. And that if Tesla calls the $2500 a core charge, it makes sense to the consumer for it to be an optional part of the transaction. Though of course Tesla is not required to sell us an upgraded pack at all, much less allowing us to keep the old pack at the same time, even if they use confusing terminology like "core charge".

This is a complete guess, and similar to what others have said, but here's what I think is going on:

1. $25000 is what it costs Tesla to build, deliver and install a 90kWh pack.
2. Tesla is only charging their own cost because they want battery prices to look as low as possible (fear of high battery prices is what keeps a lot of consumers away from EVs)
3. However, they don't really want to sell them at no profit, especially since they could make profit by building it in to a new car (if they are still battery constrained). That's why us selling them the old pack at a low price is required - so they can make some profit on the deal.

I completely agree this "core charge" business is confusing terminology because that doesn't really seem to be what they are doing. I also wish Tesla would be more transparent on pricing (as well as requirements, specs, and just about everything else) and give us more flexibility on what we can buy, though I don't think they should be required to. But I think I can at least see why they would want to do it this way, despite there being clear downsides to doing so.

 

[lolachampcar]

This is but one more example of how Tesla, as great as they are as engineers, are simply amateurs when it comes to retail business and dealing with customers. Wk is correct. Price the replacement battery up and increase the trade value of the 85 KW pack to make it a no brainer. However, you will have to deal with the adverse press of batteries costing $40K. It is a bit of a rock and a hard place. Tesla's go to answer is my way or the highway which works when you are a monopoly.

Another example is offering 12% less than wholesale market value for a trade in to customers that bought some of your first product and are upgrading. If you are experienced enough to know to seek a competing wholesale number and simply ask Tesla for a curtesy pass through trade, the answer is no. You take our low ball number or you forfeit your sales tax credit (for states that have a trade sales tax credit).

Tesla is still young when it comes to doing retail business. Things are going to be rough for a while and customers are going to get a bit beat up from time to time. I just weight this against all the good they are doing with their direct sales model on the car itself and I think they are still way in the black.

As for consumer protection keeping people from opening the packs, (1) WK has proven that he knows what he is doing and can do so safely and (2) you can buy a salvage pack all day long and have at it. Just because Tesla "lets" you keep your pack does not make them responsible for what you do with it.

 

[wk057]

Can you elaborate on what "pulled the trigger" means specifically for this transaction? Thanks.

You may be on to something here. Perhaps in the conversation with Tesla you should bring up what warranties, etc. apply to your old pack if you keep it -- and ask them if that's the concern on their end.

By "pulled the trigger" I mean told the person I had been discussing the subject with, "OK, I'm game. Let's get the 90 pack ordered."

 

[TexasEV]

Tesla is in the business of making and selling electric cars, not car batteries or upgrades. From their standpoint nothing good could come from having loose batteries out there. They're not an EV hobbyist supply company.

 

[sorka]

Tesla won't sell me a 90 pack at all ....period and that's the Fremont service center.

 

[freeewilly]

Tesla is in the business of making and selling electric cars, not car batteries or upgrades. From their standpoint nothing good could come from having loose batteries out there. They're not an EV hobbyist supply company.

Base on this article, Tesla isn’t an Automaker. It’s a Battery Company.

 

[brianman]

By "pulled the trigger" I mean told the person I had been discussing the subject with, "OK, I'm game. Let's get the 90 pack ordered."

Was paperwork signed or did money exchange hands? (Just trying to get a clear picture.)

 

[AB4EJ]

Exactly. Core charges are for remanufactured parts, which in turn get refurbished to get resold. I have never bought a new part from a dealer that had a core charge.

Oh, I don't know about that. Last time I bought a car battery from AutoZone, I paid a core charge, that was refunded when I brought in the old battery I was replacing. In that case it is to incentivize you to return the battery (containing lead) so that the lead does not end up in the environment. Seems like an odd use of this term to apply it to a Tesla pack.

 

[Zybane]

Only offered $2500 for by far the most expensive component of the car? Holy hell that's pathetic. This isn't good...

 

[wk057]

The unfortunate part is that wk057 had checked on this some time ago, and was told explicitly he could keep his pack. It doesn't sound like the following is the case, but what if he had made unchangeable plans based on that?

I am fine with Tesla being somewhat fluid in their decision making process. But if a decision has been communicated to a customer, and the customer wants that decision honored, then Tesla should honor it, even if they intend to change the policy going forward. That's just good, honest business.

And this is exactly the problem. I don't want to get anyone in trouble over this whole thing. The service center folks definitely are not to blame for this. They're likely just as annoyed about it as I am.

I had made some plans, fortunately reversible, based on this, but still... I shouldn't have to change any plans because Tesla HQ wants to change the game on the fly.

 

[McMuggets]

This sounds pretty straight forward. The battery pack is high voltage and Tesla would be found negligent in allowing a customer to have a battery pack uninstalled into a Model S vehicle by a certified Tesla mechanic. Tesla officially sells the car, they don't sell the car battery seperately. So if you get a battery upgrade, the 90KWh battery needs to be installed fully before handing the car back over to you.

If the consumer, after the fact, decides to remove the battery and open it up and gets electrocuted... then the courts cannot find Tesla negligent.

However, they should really just say the battery upgrade is $22500.00 + your old battery.

 

[wk057]

Was paperwork signed or did money exchange hands? (Just trying to get a clear picture.)

They were working on the paperwork for a deposit and such when the word came down that they couldn't sell me the pack without the $2,500 sell back. Was literally minutes from being signed paperwork.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I don't know about that. Last time I bought a car battery from AutoZone, I paid a core charge, that was refunded when I brought in the old battery I was replacing. In that case it is to incentivize you to return the battery (containing lead) so that the lead does not end up in the environment. Seems like an odd use of this term to apply it to a Tesla pack.

Exactly. At the same time, you're under no obligation to bring your old battery back to Auto Zone if you don't mind not getting the core charge reimbursed, but you probably will since the old battery is likely less useful to you than the amount of money they'll give you in return for it.

In the case of the Tesla core reimbursement, $2500 is way less useful to me than my fully functional 85 kWh battery pack.

 

[Discoducky]

They were working on the paperwork for a deposit and such when the word came down that they couldn't sell me the pack without the $2,500 sell back. Was literally minutes from being signed paperwork.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly. At the same time, you're under no obligation to bring your old battery back to Auto Zone if you don't mind not getting the core charge reimbursed, but you probably will since the old battery is likely less useful to you than the amount of money they'll give you in return for it.

In the case of the Tesla core reimbursement, $2500 is way less useful to me than my fully functional 85 kWh battery pack.

I wonder if this is more about lack of available batteries, in that they intended to re-use parts of the 85 pack...overall it does seem weird that it is a requirement to provide an old pack for a new one.

Also, it would NOT seem strange if they required a purchase of a new pack and installation into an owned vehicle...

 

[wk057]

This sounds pretty straight forward. The battery pack is high voltage and Tesla would be found negligent in allowing a customer to have a battery pack uninstalled into a Model S vehicle by a certified Tesla mechanic. Tesla officially sells the car, they don't sell the car battery seperately. So if you get a battery upgrade, the 90KWh battery needs to be installed fully before handing the car back over to you.

If the consumer, after the fact, decides to remove the battery and open it up and gets electrocuted... then the courts cannot find Tesla negligent.

However, they should really just say the battery upgrade is $22500.00 + your old battery.

I'm cool with that. They can install the 90 pack and all. That's fine. I just want the 85 pack back first.

I wonder if I could buy the 90 pack and have them install it if I drop the 85 pack myself first then tow it in for the 90 install. lol.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Maybe Tesla has good reason to want the old battery pack back.

Since they are constrained in producing new cars by the amount of new batteries available, maybe they want to use the slightly degraded, used ones, in a supercharger or something like that to free up those new batteries to produce another car.

Maybe they want to tear down, for testing and quality control, batteries that have been used by consumers to improve the product.

Maybe they want to use them in Fremont, or at the GigaFactory for battery backup when solar and wind are not available to run a bit greener.

Could be lots of reasons they want them back at the Mothership.

I am in the toner cartridge remanufacturing business. We often require customers to turn in a used cartridge when they want to purchase a reconditioned one from us. This replenishes our supply of production material. Probably not the same reasoning as Tesla, but might be something like that also.

 

[wk057]

I wonder if this is more about lack of available batteries, in that they intended to re-use parts of the 85 pack...overall it does seem weird that it is a requirement to provide an old pack for a new one.

Also, it would NOT seem strange if they required a purchase of a new pack and installation into an owned vehicle...

Apparently there is "plenty of stock" on the part in California, and I doubt these packs are flying off the shelves.

I agree they should definitely be the ones installing the newly purchased pack.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe Tesla has good reason to want the old battery pack back.

Since they are constrained in producing new cars by the amount of new batteries available, maybe they want to use the slightly degraded, used ones, in a supercharger or something like that to free up those new batteries to produce another car.

Maybe they want to tear down, for testing and quality control, batteries that have been used by consumers to improve the product.

Maybe they want to use them in Fremont, or at the GigaFactory for battery backup when solar and wind are not available to run a bit greener.

Could be lots of reasons they want them back at the Mothership.

I am in the toner cartridge remanufacturing business. We often require customers to turn in a used cartridge when they want to purchase a reconditioned one from us. This replenishes our supply of production material. Probably not the same reasoning as Tesla, but might be something like that also.

Probably so. But don't do it on my dime. Selling them the old pack for $2,500 is crazy. That'd be like me selling my car for the price of a base Honda Civic. If they offered something reasonable for the sale of my old pack, I'd consider it.

 

[Discoducky]

Apparently there is "plenty of stock" on the part in California, and I doubt these packs are flying off the shelves.

Sorry, do you know this for a fact or speculation or other?

 

[wk057]

Sorry, do you know this for a fact or speculation or other?

Second hand information. Just quoting what I was told, hence the quotes.