I think they really did just make the one (or more realistically maybe a handful, and only the 1 is known). We probably found out about the new pack in its first days of public beta testing. If this is supposed to be a mass produced fix for whatever critical recall they are still band-aiding, they probably want some real world data showing that the fix is a real fix and not just a more expensive band aid. This would explain the extensive delay tactics we are seeing - they had to design, engineer, and build a new 85 replacement pack that didn't have the presumably hardware-intrinsic defect of the previous packs. I think the general consensus now is the defect is thermal related since EVERYTHING negative Tesla has done from 2019.16 and newer seems to be aimed at lowering pack temps and their initial press release in response to the fires called out both charge and thermal settings. I know if I was planning to replace thousands of batteries I'd want to be 100% certain I only need to do it once (terminally ill replacements excepted - as was the case with Takata recalls in some instances wher ethe same airbag was recalled several times while a permanent fix was still not available but the original was too unsafe to remain in use)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
I am interested in seeing if they install a 350VDC pack and if they do, how will it compare to a 400VDC pack in performance
Got the invoice--here is what they did:
Last edited:
Very high probability. Newer chemistry in the "85" configuration 16 module 400v pack is labeled "90" on the battery sticker. 90s are the same hardware as 85 the capacity jump was chemistry.
Hyperbole is fine. What's your problem with literary devices used to get a point across? The hyperbole across TMC is certainly tolerated in the other direction, in which the guys who have had battery gate happen to them are being called whiney babies and such in various other threads for calling attention to what could be a serious problem.
This premise is false.
A company having a dispute with customers about whether a product problem is covered under warranty, or not, especially when the warranty states in plain english that the problem complained of is explicitly excluded from coverage, would never be described by a competent atty as "We are breaking some big laws here."
That is simply getting the relevant legal rights and duties wrong.
Last edited:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I can't say this is a good thing but:
* that's pretty much how Nissan worded their battery warranty when force to make one
* Nissan still replaced packs with new ones almost every single time even though they had the out legally to put a refurb in.
You just got another "new" pack that degraded as at the same rate as the old one.
So even though the wording for Tesla has changed, I'm not so sure it means much to the customer.
Picked up the car--here is a bit more detail on the replacement pack. Initial thoughts are its a improvement on the prior pack in terms of capacity and pack balance. Its fairly close the pre-16.x trend line on my old pack in terms of range-72.5 kWh is ~10% degredation. While it was perhaps excessively painful and drawn out process, I do think Tesla honored the spirit of the warranty.
The other things to still see: how fast it supercharges and if it will charge to 100%. I have no guesses on the SC speed other than I am not expecting 100kW+. I think the inability to charge to 100% might have been because of the excessive pack imbalance, so maybe that is fixed now. We'll see. The service guy said I should take it though a couple of full-ish charge cycles, so maybe range/capacity will move a bit.
Last edited:
I tend to agree with you. After looking at the other EVs on the market, it seems like the 4yr/100K limit/70% is a de facto standard and Tesla can claim they are being more generous on the S&X with the 150K mile limit. I do think its good that Tesla established an actual benchmark (70% loss) instead of the prior squishy language, even if the milage limit seems like a step backwards given the prior warranty and all the noise about a 1M mile battery.
SmartElectric
Active Member
As my car is a 2013 Model S, the difference from as-factory firmware, UI and feature set to today is beyond my wildest expectations on a 7 year old product with no money spent to pay Tesla for these improvements. Being able to use advanced voice commands is just the latest update that absolutely feels incredible, even if many modern cars have that, this is a 2013 product, and I paid nothing for this improved cool feature that I love. Not to mention the supercharger network that blows others away, it was a couple of chargers, and no way to automatically navigate or know the charging times expected on road trips. Incredible is not hyperbole with that 7 year progress as a consideration.
LOL at the disagrees on facts. FACT, the updates from 2013-2020 are incredible in the context above. Thumbs away!!
SmartElectric
Active Member
I've never called names, and simply explained that a silly use of hyperbolic language "disposable" ruins the actual factual argument that I agree with that Tesla is operating with insufficient communication.
Defence : the old "we're hard done by". Sigh. Thanks for making my point.
After looking at the TM-Spy summary screen, two observations and a dumb question:
1) The pack comes with its history attached
2) Replacement pack has about half the charging (38 kWh vs 62 kWh) and less DC charging (2 kWh vs 7 kWh)
3) Dumb question: on the TM-Spy summary screen, why does DC Chrg opt + AC Chrg tot not equal Charge tot? Is the difference regen? On my old pack, DC chrg tot was 5 kWh and AC chrg tot was 17 kWh, but Charge tot was 62 kWh -- that's a lot of regen!
1) The pack comes with its history attached
2) Replacement pack has about half the charging (38 kWh vs 62 kWh) and less DC charging (2 kWh vs 7 kWh)
3) Dumb question: on the TM-Spy summary screen, why does DC Chrg opt + AC Chrg tot not equal Charge tot? Is the difference regen? On my old pack, DC chrg tot was 5 kWh and AC chrg tot was 17 kWh, but Charge tot was 62 kWh -- that's a lot of regen!
SmartElectric
Active Member
My browser is fully functional on MCU1, no issues, Waze even works. There are some maintenance procedures like clearing out old navigation entries and the workaround to force browser out of memory to restart fresh.
The updates I like that are much better include automatic garage opening closing via GPS, better navigation, voice commands (works great in cold climates to not need to use the screen with gloves on) and more.
Sarcastic fart mode and games replies to my post miss the fact I am in a very old Tesla, and it keeps getting better. Those who bought in 2016+ with auto pilot and the modern UI have missed a lot of improvements over the preceding years, that is the context I am working from. Tesla has done the opposite of abandoning the platform in the context of my ownership experience.
Can't we all see points others make with context and lack of hyperbole and name calling?
I do understand the concern on a subset of the Tesla owners affected by reduced charging and range, but again, this is not a zero sum situation, for some like me, a little balance in the hyperbole would make your argument have a more clear merit than claiming the car is worthless and disposable.
Shouting into the microphone is one technique to get attention, but it's not grade 4 anymore is it.
SmartElectric
Active Member
Really? Interested in citing this evidence.
As a matter of fact (with only three data points), Tesla offered the similar trade in for my S 85 as they did to a friend with a S 60, and another with a P85, and the variance was due to mileage. Classic 2013's are worth a lot less because of the lack of the modern tech in the newer models, not so much on the performance or range of the old cars. I track prices on the EV-CPO tool (amazing tool) and found little variance in features, mostly in age and km driven. A P90DL can be found for nearly same price as a 90D for example.
That’s wrong. The customers are not complaining about something that’s specifically excluded, by which you mean degradation. The customers are complaining about the capping of their capacity, as you well know.
Go to Gmail.com and if you can manage to pull anything up read the big alert message. Google is happy to explain why your browser isn't fully functional.
Reaching into the property of owners and reducing range, power, charge rate and making several other downgrading modifications to hide a dangerous condition the battery has developed is not a warranty dispute. We have established 200 pages ago that this act is not degradation.
That is only because #batterygate is not widely known. If the whole scope of this issue would be known to second hand buyers the affected cars would collect dust as no one wants them. I certainly would not buy one of those cars.
