PCMc
Member
Sooo many things to comment on from when I last read this thread. None of this magically resolves a mess, but maybe provides some factual info that might help others avoid such mess in the future.
The VIN contains no actual information to tell you the battery capacity. If you want to see a good explanation of what each character in the VIN represents, you can look at the VIN decoder on the TeslaTap website. I'm sure there are others that are equally credible, but this one is one I know and provide the factual definition of each character, not some embellished comments. I know others have made similar comment in this thread already, but people have to quit thinking the VIN is some magic QR code or something that tells you everything.
Any site that tells you the battery capacity from the VIN is either using data they pull from other records that are linked to that VIN, or just plain showing you gobbledegook.
As I hope has been thrashed to ground already, but I'll repeat, Tesla did offer a 60D in this time frame that actually had a 75 battery pack and was software locked. There is nothing here that suggests to me someone swapped the battery and this has anything to do with it being badged or advertised as a 90D. Look back at some of the threads about hurricanes in Florida a couple years ago and Tesla "unlocking" extra range for owners to help them safely evacuate, and those were exactly those vehicles. Tesla removed the software cap temporarily so owners would have extra range, or could charge to higher capacity to hold them until local power disruptions were resolved.
Regarding the "official" Tesla document that the OP posted which the dealer claims they used as the basis of their 90D claim. Look closely at the fine print on the bottom. While the document has a Tesla logo, making it look really official, it is actually from a 3rd party source, autoipacket, which is nothing more than a glorified carfax type of service that will provide you what they feel is "representative" data of what the window sticker might have said. So as the disclaimer states, they make no guarantees or offer any warranty on the factual correctness of that data. The fact they provide it on what looks like an offical Tesla document might fit what some may view as a bit shady.
Do some owners or dealers alter the badging on vehicles? Yes they do. Large range of reasons, some reasonable, some downright shady or manipulative. Yes, that appears to have happened in this case.
Regarding passing the Massachusetts vehicle inspection, if it really did it, then that dealer needs to have their inspection license revoked in my opinion. You can find some decent documents on-line from the MA government that details all the vehicle systems that must be tested to pass. This includes both brake and suspension system checks, and Mass will fail a car for so much as a cracked tail light, let along brakes that are obviously shot. Here's a link in case you want to have it for reference.
Regarding the battery actually in this car, the data provided of displayed rated range of 175 miles at 90%, suggesting current capacity at 100% of 194 miles, suggests about 11% range degradation from the 218 mile rated when new. That's not out of line for a vehicle of this vintage, age, and mileage (note ... calendar time is as much a factor in battery degradation as miles driven).
None of that helps the OP who unfortunately is in what seems like a painful situation. I'm generally not one to jump to legal action, but I totally understand where that, or at least the threat of that, might be fully justified and reasonable in this situation,
The VIN contains no actual information to tell you the battery capacity. If you want to see a good explanation of what each character in the VIN represents, you can look at the VIN decoder on the TeslaTap website. I'm sure there are others that are equally credible, but this one is one I know and provide the factual definition of each character, not some embellished comments. I know others have made similar comment in this thread already, but people have to quit thinking the VIN is some magic QR code or something that tells you everything.
Any site that tells you the battery capacity from the VIN is either using data they pull from other records that are linked to that VIN, or just plain showing you gobbledegook.
As I hope has been thrashed to ground already, but I'll repeat, Tesla did offer a 60D in this time frame that actually had a 75 battery pack and was software locked. There is nothing here that suggests to me someone swapped the battery and this has anything to do with it being badged or advertised as a 90D. Look back at some of the threads about hurricanes in Florida a couple years ago and Tesla "unlocking" extra range for owners to help them safely evacuate, and those were exactly those vehicles. Tesla removed the software cap temporarily so owners would have extra range, or could charge to higher capacity to hold them until local power disruptions were resolved.
Regarding the "official" Tesla document that the OP posted which the dealer claims they used as the basis of their 90D claim. Look closely at the fine print on the bottom. While the document has a Tesla logo, making it look really official, it is actually from a 3rd party source, autoipacket, which is nothing more than a glorified carfax type of service that will provide you what they feel is "representative" data of what the window sticker might have said. So as the disclaimer states, they make no guarantees or offer any warranty on the factual correctness of that data. The fact they provide it on what looks like an offical Tesla document might fit what some may view as a bit shady.
Do some owners or dealers alter the badging on vehicles? Yes they do. Large range of reasons, some reasonable, some downright shady or manipulative. Yes, that appears to have happened in this case.
Regarding passing the Massachusetts vehicle inspection, if it really did it, then that dealer needs to have their inspection license revoked in my opinion. You can find some decent documents on-line from the MA government that details all the vehicle systems that must be tested to pass. This includes both brake and suspension system checks, and Mass will fail a car for so much as a cracked tail light, let along brakes that are obviously shot. Here's a link in case you want to have it for reference.
Regarding the battery actually in this car, the data provided of displayed rated range of 175 miles at 90%, suggesting current capacity at 100% of 194 miles, suggests about 11% range degradation from the 218 mile rated when new. That's not out of line for a vehicle of this vintage, age, and mileage (note ... calendar time is as much a factor in battery degradation as miles driven).
None of that helps the OP who unfortunately is in what seems like a painful situation. I'm generally not one to jump to legal action, but I totally understand where that, or at least the threat of that, might be fully justified and reasonable in this situation,