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

[Andyw2100]

The actual cost is not really $25,000. I read here or at TM Forums that someone was recently told by his or her service center that the replacement cost for an 85 kWh pack is approximately $40,000 or so. If true, there is no way a 90 can be only $25k. This is very strange to me. I agree with those who say why not just price the battery pack properly and offer a proper credit for the trade-in of the old pack? So if the 90 pack costs $45,000, quote that price and offer a $22,500 trade-in value for the old pack. Easy.

If the true price really is that much higher, there's actually another reason Tesla probably shouldn't be pricing the packs this way. What happens when a pack is damaged beyond repair, and has to be replaced under some insurance claim? I imagine Tesla will have to sell to the insurance company at the $25,000 price, and not the "real" price which is much higher. I don't know how often situations like that arise, and perhaps whatever value Tesla gets out of pricing below the true cost is greater than the real dollars Tesla would gain from real sales at the higher price, but this does seem odd.

 

[ChadS]

The replacement cost of an 85kWh pack is not $40k; though maybe it was in the past (or maybe it was confused with a Roadster pack). It's $25k last I heard. Of course Tesla doesn't publish the numbers, but they went to great lengths a few months ago to make sure their employees knew about the $25k number.

 

[stopcrazypp]

As pointed out but ignored, Nissan does exactly the same thing with the Leaf pack. They sell you a new pack for $5500 and have a core charge of $1000 factored in. Nissan was put on the record that they are making a loss on this, but they priced the pack that way so people can have better peace of mind in terms of replacement pack prices. Tesla is probably doing the same here.

If you actually order a complete replacement pack (like in an accident where the original pack was destroyed so no core applies), price probably is far higher.

 

[luvnMyTS]

If the true price really is that much higher, there's actually another reason Tesla probably shouldn't be pricing the packs this way. What happens when a pack is damaged beyond repair, and has to be replaced under some insurance claim? I imagine Tesla will have to sell to the insurance company at the $25,000 price, and not the "real" price which is much higher. I don't know how often situations like that arise, and perhaps whatever value Tesla gets out of pricing below the true cost is greater than the real dollars Tesla would gain from real sales at the higher price, but this does seem odd.

Probably hasn't happened. Typically if the battery gets damaged in an accident, it was a pretty bad accident that likely caused more damage to the car than just the battery. That being the case, I think any car that's had a wreck bad enough to damage the battery has been salvaged with none being repaired by an insurance company.

 

[kirkbauer]

I'll give you $5K for your 85 battery, assuming it's in good condition. You can keep whatever core price Tesla gives you for my 60. We both get upgraded, you get double dollars.

That sounds like an interesting thing to try, I'd be up for it if I was in the market for a new 90kWh battery

 

[brantse]

Although I certainly see where wk has room to be upset with the decisions rendered (primarily because TM was/is being somewhat misleading), I think the purpose of having a battery trade-in system is to replace/upgrade heavily used packs. Unfortunately wk's intent is somewhat different, as his current 85 pack is very healthy and he has other plans for it. Pricing swaps/upgrades the way they are is much more reasonable when you consider that most packs that will get core returned are probably not going to be usable for transportation. Stationary storage OTOH, well I don't think that's something that TM really wants individuals playing around with using their batteries....that is, unless they say "power wall" on the outside.

 

[wk057]

If you actually order a complete replacement pack (like in an accident where the original pack was destroyed so no core applies), price probably is far higher.

Not sure how that can be. I saw the parts pricing screen where it clearly said "$25,000.00" as the price for the 90 kWh pack part number.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll give you $5K for your 85 battery, assuming it's in good condition. You can keep whatever core price Tesla gives you for my 60. We both get upgraded, you get double dollars.

You know... if I could keep the 60 pack... I'd do this in a heartbeat. The 60 would be fine for my project. But since Tesla won't let me keep the 60 pack, it's not worthwhile for me.

Keep in mind, I don't really need a 90 pack. I need an 85 pack for my upcoming EV conversion project. Upgrading to the 90 and keeping my 85 pack is just a win-win all around, which is why I was looking into this option. But I'll probably end up just going with another salvage.

 

[EarlyAdopter]

wk057, if Tesla had told you the new pack was $40,000, which we think is the actual cost, and that they'd give you $17,500 for your old one would you have done that? How is this any different? Bottom line is the same.

 

[reddy]

Why don't you guys do a 3 way deal with Tesla.

Mark Z pays wk057 $5k for his used pack.

wk057 pays Tesla $22.5k for a new 90 pack

Tesla gets Mark Z's old version A pack.

Everyone wins.

wk057's net cost now is $17.5

Yeah, for sure. I'd glady sell you my pack if I could get a 90 pack for my car

Anyway, I didn't expect to start a huge battle here over this. I just found it interesting that they wouldn't follow through with the original plan of allowing me to keep my old pack. I'm still half hoping they come to their senses and I get a call tomorrow about it telling me they're ready to go with the original deal. If not, I'll be in the market for a salvage pack probably Q1.

Edit: I'll probably follow up with them on it tomorrow anyway and offer to sign a liability waiver, waiver of warranty on the old pack, NDA, or whatever else they'd want to allow me to just not have to trade in my old pack and see if that gets things moving at all.

 

[Canuck]

What company has a list price for a product, has that product in stock, and has a customer with a check in hand willing to pay that price.... and then doesn't want to sell it?

Nissan. Its battery is $5,499 after a $1000 credit for the old pack which you can't keep.

There's no proper use for the old pack that would absolve Tesla (and Nissan) of liability, not only for personal injury and death, but also property damage arising from fires, or potentially both. A Release would also mean very little, if you were willing to sign one, since it would only apply to the person signing it, and not everyone potentially exposed to harm that can be done from that battery. Tesla would be the first party named in the lawsuit, as the deep pocket, and no reasonable car maker would allow these batteries to be used for any other purpose than in a Model S. The test for negligence is whether the harm is reasonably foreseeable. Clearly, it is in this case, in my personal opinion.

Tesla has the Powerwall for other purposes. This battery is only for use in a Model S and for good reason. Of course, you own it and can do what you want with it, but you can't expect Tesla to share in your risk by expecting them to sell you a new one without returning the old one. That would be incredibly foolish of them.

 

[wk057]

wk057, if Tesla had told you the new pack was $40,000, which we think is the actual cost, and that they'd give you $17,500 for your old one would you have done that? How is this any different? Bottom line is the same.

Not exactly. The way things stood before, $25k resulted in me having two packs: a new 90 in my car, and an 85 for my project. A total street value of like, $36k+.

If the 90 pack were $40k and they gave $17.5k for the sale of the old pack, that would be a fair deal, but it wouldn't be the deal for me.

Why don't you guys do a 3 way deal with Tesla.

Mark Z pays wk057 $5k for his used pack.

wk057 pays Tesla $22.5k for a new 90 pack

Tesla gets Mark Z's old version A pack.

Everyone wins.

wk057's net cost now is $17.5

See above. I don't really need a 90 pack. I need a pack for my other project, and upgrading to the 90 and keeping my old pack was a good way to go about it if it had worked out. (Basically would have worked out to the 90 pack costing me ~$7k when factoring in the street price of an 85 pack)

 

[FlasherZ]

PS: When the Power Switch Upgrade was done for my "A" pack, the loaner "B" pack Supercharged at the 120 kW rate, so the Signature Model S can support a newer battery pack version.

My signature car has a refurbished rev D single-motor 85 kWh pack as the result of my "power switch" (contactor) failure in Feb 2014, before they instituted the "your pack is your pack forever" policy with repairs at the service centers - I can confirm that I get 120 kW charging.

 

[Andyw2100]

Nissan. Its battery is $5,499 after a $1000 credit for the old pack which you can't keep.

There's no proper use for the old pack that would absolve Tesla (and Nissan) of liability, not only for personal injury and death, but also property damage arising from fires, or potentially both. A Release would also mean very little, if you were willing to sign one, since it would only apply to the person signing it, and not everyone potentially exposed to harm that can be done from that battery. Tesla would be the first party named in the lawsuit, as the deep pocket, and no reasonable car maker would allow these batteries to be used for any other purpose than in a Model S. The test for negligence is whether the harm is reasonably foreseeable. Clearly, it is in this case, in my personal opinion.

Tesla has the Powerwall for other purposes. This battery is only for use in a Model S and for good reason. Of course, you own it and can do what you want with it, but you can't expect Tesla to share in your risk by expecting them to sell you a new one without returning the old one. That would be incredibly foolish of them.

I won't argue with or question any of the above.

My concern over this is a) Tesla told wk057 in very clear terms some time ago that he could purchase a new pack without having to return his. Personally I'm not thrilled with Tesla going back on their word, and much more importantly, b) Tesla is wording this whole battery purchase option and core value trade-in as if the trade-in is optional. Why do that if the trade-in is, in fact, required?

tomas pointed out that perhaps this was just a change in policy. But if the liability is as significant as you make it sound, Canuck, and to be honest, I think it probably is, how could that have been missed in the first place? There are growing pains, and then there are things that really make you wonder just what is going on. I'm feeling the sum of what seems to be taking place with this situation is leaning towards the latter.

 

[Canuck]

My signature car has a refurbished rev D single-motor 85 kWh pack as the result of my "power switch" (contactor) failure in Feb 2014, before they instituted the "your pack is your pack forever" policy with repairs at the service centers - I can confirm this.

This guy had his pack replaced with another pack recently at the Vancouver service centre and the replacement was his to keep:

2013 model s 85 battery failure - Page 3

 

[luvnMyTS]

OP, have you considered purchasing the Tesla Power wall batteries? Just a thought. No need to trade anything in for those and I think you can buy as many as you choose. Not sure if they're available just yet though?

Other than that, yes, your best option is likely to purchase a Salvaged car since Tesla won't support a car that the insurance company deems to be salvaged, regardless of the condition of the car. I see quite a few Salvaged Teslas pop up on E-bay in the less than $20,000 range. Sounds like that would be a cheaper option for you. Take the batter and resell the car for parts. Probably end up out less than $5,000 or $10,000. You mentioned a 60 kWh battery would work for you, so any Salvaged 85 kWh should be more than enough.

I wanted to do that to replace my degrading battery. As is typical Tesla, they said no, we'll void your warranty if you do. Despite the fact that I was willing to pay for the battery and the 90 second swap. They wouldn't give me a reason for saying no, only that it would void my warranty. They tried to BS me and say because the battery numbers wouldn't match up anymore. When I inquired how they can offer to swap batteries in 90 seconds and offer a program where you can keep the battery that was swapped into your car without returning it for the price of a tank of gas, they stumbled on their words and could only come up with "well that's different". Don't see how. Typical Tesla, their way or the highway. Made no sense for them to prevent me from swapping out my battery with a newer, less degraded one. OK, I'm venting now. I'll get off the soap box.

Just wanted to share the idea of the power wall batteries as an option. Although I think it would be far more cost effective to just pick up a Salvaged vehicle. I'm sure Salvaged 90 kWh cars will start showing up as well before too long.

 

[James Anders]

So what if the battery pack was stolen?

 

[wk057]

OP, have you considered purchasing the Tesla Power wall batteries? Just a thought. No need to trade anything in for those and I think you can buy as many as you choose. Not sure if they're available just yet though?

Other than that, yes, your best option is likely to purchase a Salvaged car since Tesla won't support a car that the insurance company deems to be salvaged, regardless of the condition of the car. I see quite a few Salvaged Teslas pop up on E-bay in the less than $20,000 range. Sounds like that would be a cheaper option for you. Take the batter and resell the car for parts. Probably end up out less than $5,000 or $10,000. You mentioned a 60 kWh battery would work for you, so any Salvaged 85 kWh should be more than enough.

I wanted to do that to replace my degrading battery. As is typical Tesla, they said no, we'll void your warranty if you do. Despite the fact that I was willing to pay for the battery and the 90 second swap. They wouldn't give me a reason for saying no, only that it would void my warranty. They tried to BS me and say because the battery numbers wouldn't match up anymore. When I inquired how they can offer to swap batteries in 90 seconds and offer a program where you can keep the battery that was swapped into your car without returning it for the price of a tank of gas, they stumbled on their words and could only come up with "well that's different". Don't see how. Typical Tesla, their way or the highway. Made no sense for them to prevent me from swapping out my battery with a newer, less degraded one. OK, I'm venting now. I'll get off the soap box.

Just wanted to share the idea of the power wall batteries as an option. Although I think it would be far more cost effective to just pick up a Salvaged vehicle. I'm sure Salvaged 90 kWh cars will start showing up as well before too long.

Even if the Powerwalls were actually available (I've seen no evidence of this), the Powerwalls are ~$350/kWh. Salvage 85 packs are ~$210-$240/kWh. The original deal with Tesla would have landed me a 90 kWh pack at $278/kWh and a "free" 85 pack.

Salvage vehicles themselves seem to be hit or miss. Lots of effort needed there. I'd prefer to just buy a pack off of someone who already is parting out a salvage rather than part out my own salvage that may or may not have a good pack.

- - - Updated - - -

So what if the battery pack was stolen?

That would be... impressive.

Aside from that, who knows. Insurance company would probably total out the car anyway.

 

[James Anders]

Thought experiment.

 

[green1]

That would be... impressive.

Not THAT impressive, they are after all designed to be swapped quickly (under 3 minutes) with no access to the locked parts of the vehicle, and are very high value ($20,000+)
Seems to me it's only a matter of time until someone tries it.

 

[Canuck]

I won't argue with or question any of the above.

My concern over this is a) Tesla told wk057 in very clear terms some time ago that he could purchase a new pack without having to return his. Personally I'm not thrilled with Tesla going back on their word,

"Sorry, sir, we made a mistake and had the wrong information." He's definitely owed that apology.

and much more importantly, b) Tesla is wording this whole battery purchase option and core value trade-in as if the trade-in is optional. Why do that if the trade-in is, in fact, required?

I think this is going to be the standard in the industry since Nissan does the same thing too. Why doesn't Nissan just make their battery $5499 since you must return the old one? I think for the same reason Tesla does. Because customers generally don't want their old battery and they feel at least they are getting something for it. Plus, when Tesla has to sell a new one, and there are legitimate reasons why a car may need a new one without returning the old one (water damaged as one example) then Tesla can get full value for the new battery.

There are growing pains, and then there are things that really make you wonder just what is going on. I'm feeling the sum of what seems to be taking place with this situation is leaning towards the latter.

I think people over analyze Tesla at every step. He was first told they could do it likely because it wasn't properly considered. Upon further review and consideration they changed their position. He's probably the first one to ask so growing pains perhaps come into play. However, even companies that have been in business many years provide wrong information from time to time and change their position. I don't see how any harm was done in this case. No company, run by humans, is perfect and I haven't found any run by anything else.