I stand corrected. I must have been looking at an older version of it online (a couple of days ago). The text I see now says warranty is based on date of purchase, though it does not clarify if that means date of original sale, or does every re-sale resets the purchase date (so for example a 2019 MS sold as used today would get its warranty limited to 150K miles and now have the software loophole). Tesla could have made it clear and base it on manufacture date (instead of ambiguous "purchase date") like the rest of the industry, but they didn't, so there must be a reason. Yea I know that might seem like nit picking, but I still have the car Tesla sold me with 691hp, only to clarify a couple of years later that the number only applies to the theoretical motor capabilities had it been installed in a different car with a better battery and drive unit (there was no other hp number listed for P85D either) - the hp they actually delivered would have needed a 50% boost to reach the advertised number. They did similar sleazy re-interpretation of their own words with lifetime transferable Free Unlimited Supercharging too. With Tesla you always have to assume literal meaning and that if they leave possible interpretation loophole, they will likely use it to their advantage.
No argument there. Skirting the law never stopped Tesla before though. They count on people knowing that suing is just not worth the hassle.
While I generally agree, I also know that early Tesla owners have been somewhat forgiving, but also have dealt with reality. Reserving battery capacity may appease a broader audience, but isn't this kicking the can down the road? What happens several years down the road when the inevitable degradation occurs and the reserve will no longer mask those ill effects?
What if the older car is sold as used today, does the new or old warranty apply? Which "purchase date" counts, the original, or latest? If the original, why didn't they just make it a production date like the rest of the industry?
Charging the battery to 100% causes higher degradation. Preventing customers from doing so, prevents this degradation. Therefore, capping the battery, indirectly prevents the higher degradation. Battery capping also solves the problem of people slow supercharging at 3KW to get the last few miles out of the battery (the Taycan starts at well over 200KW but even towards the 90% it still charges at 80KW).
Not true with FUSC. When resold via 3rd party dealer, you don't get the free unlimited supercharging originally sold with the car AND some credit which comes with new cars - you get no free supercharging at all. Tesla plays by its own rules, which it changes for its own gain (FUSC used to be fully transferrable, through 3rd parties or not, but with the profit kick Elon is on, they changed the original terms and count on that nobody will sue them).
This "FUSC used to be fully transferrable, through 3rd parties or not, but with the profit kick Elon is on, they changed the original terms and count on that nobody will sue them" is misleading. The terms that specified whether FUSC was transferable for any one car was spelled out with the purchase. I remember distinctly when the policy was changed for new purchases (in late 2016/early 2017). It is also stated in the owner's Tesla account. Cars sold by Tesla certainly no longer carry transferable FUSC.
A warranty is only good if it is honored. Otherwise it is nothing more than false promises that often give a false sense of security.
The legacy auto makers probably knew Tesla was pushing the batteries when they did their bench marking and tear downs.
