Nov 30, 2015
wk057 So, I've been throwing around the idea of upgrading my P85D's pack to a 90 kWh pack. Independent of any Ludicrous update, mind you, which I'm not entirely interested in paying for.
Anyway, when I inquired about a month ago I was given a quote for the process. It was $25,000 for the 90 kWh pack, less a $2,500 "core refund" for turning in my 85 pack, plus minimal labor, and obviously sales tax.
OK, but I don't want to sell my 85 pack to Tesla for $2,500. Why would I do that when they sell on the open market for $15-20k easily? I asked about this and I was told that I could just not do the core refund portion (basically pay full price for the 90 pack) and keep my old pack, provided I transported it away in a timely manner. Cool. This works out then. Long story short, I'm looking for a pack to use for an upcoming EV conversion project and a Tesla 85 pack (dismantled and rearranged) would work just fine. What better way to do it than to just get a new pack for my Model S and use my own old pack? Win-win, right?
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!
Shortly after, it turns out that Tesla doesn't want to sell me a new pack if I'm not going to sell them my old pack for $2,500.I mean, the 85 pack is mine. I own it completely. This isn't a lease and isn't even financed. I'm under no obligation to sell it to them or anyone for any price, let alone 12% of fair market value. That makes no sense from my end of the deal. The 90 pack part is listed as $25k. They offer a buy back/core refund on the old pack to shave a whopping $2,500 off that price to bring it to $22,500... but that would be pretty stupid, IMO. For a little bit of labor and a U-Haul rental you could at the very least just resell the old pack for way more money.
I mean, I know they want to discourage people from upgrading their packs, as per Elon's comments, but really, who would sell them their old pack for $2,500? That is certainly ludicrous.
Anyway, obviously just like I don't have to sell Tesla my pack, Tesla doesn't have to sell me a 90 pack, but I just figured I'd share this in case anyone else was considering anything similar.
Just doesn't make much sense to me. Either the $25k is the actual cost of the pack, or it isn't. If the $25k number is contingent on the core refund of another pack, then the part price should be higher and the core refund should also be higher. If the 90 pack is actually something like $40k, they should price it as such and give a $17,500 core refund on the old pack, not price it at $25,000 and force a $2,500 core.
I mean really, something fishy is going on here. Again, nothing to do with Ludicrous mode. That's another can of worms.
I'm waiting to hear back on a final decision on the matter from the powers that be at Tesla, but I'm not hopeful on it. 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?�
Nov 30, 2015
Drucifer Now we find out the secret place where Tesla DOES operate like a traditional car dealership
Too bad about the "funny money" thing with the trade-in.�
Nov 30, 2015
apacheguy Hmm. If they quote you 25 K for a 90 kWh and you agree to pay the value up front, I don't see why they would have an issue with you keeping your 85. The only reason I can come up with is that the 90 kWh pack is much more than 25 K and that price already has the rebate of your old pack baked in. My guess would be some service rep got the 2,500 number wrong.�
Nov 30, 2015
qwk There is no core charge on new parts. This is just more of Tesla's shady tactics that make dealerships seem honest....�
Nov 30, 2015
David99 Yes Tesla really seems very protective and tight when it comes to battery packs. They really don't want to sell those separate.�
Nov 30, 2015
Max* I could've sworn this was discussed a while back, someone tried to do exactly that (keep the pack), and they were told the core refund is non-negotiable.�
Nov 30, 2015
Mark Z wk057 - Is your battery a version "A" pack?�
Nov 30, 2015
tomas I suspect the issue is that they don't want unqualified people tinkering with a high voltage pack. A mistake would be picked up by press and harm company. I know OP knows what he is doing, but they can't offer an EE exam as alternative to trade in, can they? This is not shady, it's brand protection.�
Nov 30, 2015
luvnMyTS Welcome to the Monopoly that is Tesla. As much as I love the car and certain things about the company is as much as I absolutely hate their attitude when it comes to certain things. Tesla is very much a "my way or the highway" company. I wanted to buy a used battery for my car to replace my degraded battery. All at my own expense, they said no, we'll void your warranty if you do. I wanted to BUY next gen seats for my car. They again said No, they'll void my warranty if I do it on my own. My car's rear was sagging in back. The air suspension needed a simple adjustment. They wouldn't do it for the longest time. I said, OK, I'll do it myself. Again, NO, void warranty, Uhg!
Amazing car, but until the government gets a hold of them and forces some competition, Tesla dictates what you do with the car YOU OWN. Just have to weigh the positives and negatives and decide if you can live with their ways to get what is otherwise an amazing vehicle.�
Nov 30, 2015
brkaus Exactly how (or why) is the government going to get a hold of them and force competition? There are no other auto manufactures out there?�
Nov 30, 2015
CmdrThor FWIW Nissan is doing the same thing with LEAF battery replacements. The cost is $6,499 for a 24 kWh pack and you get a $1,000 core refund which is required.�
Nov 30, 2015
qwk This is actually one of the lamest excuses out there. There is risk doing business in any field, and it's part of being in business.
- - - Updated - - -
This kind of monopolistic behavior is how consumer protection laws are born....�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 It's a P85D dual motor pack. Pretty sure the suffix is "E", but it's unrelated to any of the old "A" pack supercharging stuff.
But overall, I'm pretty confused. If it's not $25k, quote the right price. If it is, sell it. *shrugs*
What's going to end up happening is Tesla losing out on the parts and service labor sale when I have to buy a salvage pack for my project instead of paying them full price to upgrade my existing pack and keeping my old pack for my project. Cheaper for me to go the salvage route, really.�
Nov 30, 2015
jeffro01 Really??? I mean really??? You want the government dictating to private business how they must operate? Um... last time I checked, this is America, not communist China... I think 'wk057's' post was very reasonable, and I understand the purpose of posting it. Tesla doesn't have to sell a battery separately and can place any terms it wants to on that purchase, provided those terms are legal which it would certainly appear they are. Whatever the reasoning is for Tesla not wanting to sell a Model S battery separately, it's their choice to make. I won't get into any potential reasons for their decision as that's a can of worms I'd rather not be responsible for opening.
Jeff�
Nov 30, 2015
qwk 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. They can't have it both ways. Either the new replacement pack costs half the value of a new Tesla, or
it's $25k. Gimmicks are not cool.
- - - Updated - - -
The problem is that Tesla wants the pack price to appear reasonable, when in fact it's sky high.�
Nov 30, 2015
Johan I dislike their un-openness but I think the underlying motivation is two-fold:
1) they're production constrained for batteries and they want the old packs back, for reuse, refurb, replacements etc.
2) they don't want their packs picked apart, used in EV conversions etc. They don't want to be associated with that and they don't want bad PR from accidents etc.
That said I think it's ridiculous they go back on their word.�
Nov 30, 2015
tomas Sorry, I completely disagree. Letting non-qualified people tinker with a high voltage pack is consumer protection. Providing one to them (without the car) is negligent.
I don't disagree about some of the other items that have been discussed (can't mess with suspension - voids warranty), but this one is COMPLETELY understandable.�
Nov 30, 2015
Andyw2100 I think you are partially missing the point.
I wouldn't argue the point if Tesla came out and openly said, "We will not sell you a replacement battery pack unless you turn in your pack at the same time." That would be fine, and would meet the goal of not allowing their packs to be messed with. (I'm not trying to get into a discussion of whether or not that goal is valid.)
But that's not what Tesla is doing. Tesla is offering a new pack for a price of $25K, and saying that if you turn in your old pack, they will pay you $2500 for it, and then, saying, "Oh, and by the way, you have to sell us that old pack for $2500, or we won't sell you the new pack for $25,000." This is a completely byzantine approach to the problem. Either they are selling new packs, and offering an amount for a core exchange, or they are not. But if they are unwilling to sell a new pack unless they get an old one back, they should be stating that up front, and not pricing the pack the way they are, hiding their true intentions.�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 I would understand if I were just saying, "Hey, Tesla! Sell me a pack!" and not having that pack installed in my car by them. No, I want to buy a new pack, have them install it, and keep my old one. Totally different. It's not up to them what I do with the old one. I could drop it out of my car right now and do whatever I please with it and they couldn't say a word about it, aside from the whole warranty thing.
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
tomas 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
brianman Can you elaborate on what "pulled the trigger" means specifically for this transaction? Thanks.
- - - Updated - - -
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Andyw2100 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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."�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
sorka Tesla won't sell me a 90 pack at all ....period and that's the Fremont service center.�
Nov 30, 2015
freeewilly Base on this article, Tesla isn�t an Automaker. It�s a Battery Company.�
Nov 30, 2015
brianman Was paperwork signed or did money exchange hands? (Just trying to get a clear picture.)�
Nov 30, 2015
AB4EJ 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Zybane Only offered $2500 for by far the most expensive component of the car? Holy hell that's pathetic. This isn't good...�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Discoducky 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...�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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 - - -
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Discoducky Sorry, do you know this for a fact or speculation or other?�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 Second hand information. Just quoting what I was told, hence the quotes.�
Nov 30, 2015
JOEV1 I understand TESLA if You are going to use Your old Pack for Your Solar Project (I had the same idea for my PV) You are simply "sabotage" their Powerwall business. Maybe You are planning to have Your own Supercharger at home. You just wait until the GIGA factory is in full production...�
Nov 30, 2015
ChadFeldheimer It's obvious that $2.5k is grossly underpriced for the used pack.
It's also clear to me that $25k is grossly underpriced for a 90kwh pack. They charge $13k for the upgrade from 70kwh->90kwh - why would the whole 90kwh pack be only $25k?
Furthermore, Tesla has a vested interest in not advertising the true price of the pack. It would adversely affect sales.
If I were in wk057's shoes, I would try my luck at the next service center over. He was minutes away from signing a sales agreement before corporate stepped in - maybe he'll have better luck the next time!�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 I've considered that. I'm also considering the "hmm... oh darn, someone stole my pack/it fell out on the highway/gnomes ate it. where do I get a new one?" avenue.�
Nov 30, 2015
ChadFeldheimer Not a bad tack!
Some people steal catalytic converters for the scrap platinum in them. They'll crawl under a truck or SUV and saw off the converter. Given how the pack was designed for easy swap/replacement, it seems plausible for a Tesla battery pack to be stolen in similar fashion.�
Nov 30, 2015
Discoducky Sorry, by who did you hear this? It is worrying actually from TSLA standpoint...�
Nov 30, 2015
luvnMyTS So you'd rather let Tesla keep a monopoly on it and let them say "It's $100,000 for a new battery or buy a new car" rather than have the government step in to stop their monopoly? Sorry, not me. The government does a good job in this area in preventing companies like Tesla from not being fair to the consumer. All I'm saying is that Tesla either needs to start being reasonable, so as not to project the appearance of a monopoly as they are already strongly showing or the government will step in and put a stop to it to protect the consumer.
This thread is a perfect example of it. The guy has a P85D, meaning the car is no more than 13 months old. Hence the battery is a newer version and not that old and still VERY valuable. Tesla wants to force him to give up his $20,000 battery for $2,500 so they can turnaround and sell it to a consumer for $20,000. Sorry, don't see how that's at all fair or reasonable. If my car has a problem, I certainly don't want Tesla telling me, "your motor broke, it's $50,000 for a new one!" Right now, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. As a consumer in America, I expect to be protected by the laws in place to prevent companies from ripping off consumers. So yes, IF, big IF, Tesla will not start doing the right thing and being reasonable, either in allowing others to work on their vehicles or charging "REASONABLE" prices for replacement parts, then yes, I DO want the government I pay 40% of my income to, to step in and protect my investment.
And I can understand them not wanting to sell a new battery pack outright. But if they're going to force you to give up your original part, then they need to pay a reasonable prorated price for it. If the battery pack new is $25,000 and has an estimated 5 year life, then depreciate it by 20% per year. Even that is extreme considering it has an 8 year warranty. But $20,000 would certainly be far more reasonable for a 1 year old battery than $2,500!!!�
Nov 30, 2015
kirkbauer The free market will make sure Tesla figures out how to treat us well or they will go out of business, that simple.
I agree that requiring a $2500 trade-in is crazy but $25k for a new battery pack is crazy cheap in my opinion. We don't have enough info to determine if that is a reasonable price though.�
Nov 30, 2015
luvnMyTS While Tesla won't reveal the exact price of a new battery, they have already stated that current costs are less than $300 per kWh, so it's simple math. At the full $300 per kWh, that would $25,500 for an 85 kWh battery pack. So $25,000 for a new battery is actually still expensive. Chevy just said they are at around $150 per kWh for the new Bolt they are building. I doubt Tesla is paying twice as much for their batteries. So their cost is likely less than $15,000 for a battery pack. Of course they have a right to make a profit on it, so I don't have a problem with them charging $25,000 grand for it, but any more than that would be price gouging. instead, they are gouging in the mandatory return for only $2,500. Tesla has also stated that once they get the gigafactory open, they expect to get battery prices down below $100 per kWh. So, $25,000 is NOT CHEAP for a battery pack. Chevy sells a Volt battery pack (17 kWh) for $3,800 ($224 per kwh).
And yes, Tesla will go out of business if either, they don't clean up their act and stop aggravating their customers with this kind of crap or the government steps in and puts a stop to it and orders them to either allow other companies to service their vehicles or to charge prices that are reasonable to do it themselves. All other car manufacturers are REQUIRED to produce replacement parts for any car they produce and to do so for a given number of years after the car is produced (10 years I believe). There is no provision that the parts a customer seeks have to replace "broken" parts. Thus if an owner wants to replace a part that's not broken, with any other car manufacturer, they are able to do so with no problem. Certainly not the case with Tesla at this time.�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 I'm not going to name specifics in an effort to protect the innocent. Suffice it to say it was someone I spoke to at Tesla in California and not someone at the service center.�
Nov 30, 2015
rEVhappy I think you misunderstand the concept of monopoly. There are many options in the marketplace to buy another vehicle and government involvement in something like this will simply muddy the waters. If you are talking about monopoly on available battery packs, sure.. you have a point. But then again, no one is stopping you from building a pack of your own with several thousand 18650's and mounting it under a Model S, knowing of course you will void the warranty. This car is a high cost item, your mention of $50,000 for a new motor is commonplace for exotic supercars out of warranty.
Free market and government interference philosophy aside, I do disagree with Tesla's tactics of not being transparent and changing their tune at the drop of a dime. Clear cut prices and fine print should be mentioned up front and coherently to build trust with the consumer. They're only doing themselves a disservice in the long run by being hush hush and secretive over things like these.�
Nov 30, 2015
Chris TX I wonder if you remove your 85 battery at your house, then trailer/truck your MS to the service center and ask them for a new battery (85 or even a 90) and see what they say. Just tell them "I think it just fell out in my garage, but no biggie"�
Nov 30, 2015
jeffro01 Wow... Just wow... Are you sure you live in LA??? Sure sounds like Beijing CN... Protect the consumer? From what? Being able to buy a high voltage battery pack off the shelf which could kill him in an instant if not properly handled? Yes I know the OP is highly skilled and knowledgeable in this area but the policy wasn't written for the OP it was written for Joe Shmoe off the street... You do realize that businesses have a right to refuse to sell a product? You also realize they have a right to set whatever price they want for the product they are selling? Who are you, or the government for that matter, to dictate these terms? Who are you to decide what's reasonable? You make a number of claims that you have no foundational ability to back up. Do you know for sure what Tesla does with battery packs they take in upon swap? I don't, and neither do you.
The battery pack belongs to the OP as it's the OPs car. No one is disputing that, but on the flip side, the battery pack needs to be in the car for the car to be functional. Tesla has every right to restrict how it chooses to sell it's new battery packs and if that new sale requires turning in of your previous pack then so be it, that's the policy they have set forth. Don't like it? Instead of running to the government for help, take your business elsewhere. Nowhere else to go? That's not Tesla's fault that they are the only player in the market and again, running to the government to force them to do something because they lack competition is fundamentally wrong.
Jeff�
Nov 30, 2015
luvnMyTS No, actually we're on the same page based on the rest of your statement. Couldn't agree more that their prices should be established up front. Sure a $50,000 motor for exotic cars that cost $250,000 is not unreasonable. Not for a $5,000 motor in a $75,000 electric vehicle. And asking someone to figure out how to develop a battery to fit into their Tesla because Tesla won't sell them a replacement without raping them is off topic. Of course everyone has a choice to purchase a car from another manufacturer or go spend millions in development costs to create your own replacement parts. My point was, once your in, for them not to rape you afterward. Your point about being transparent is a very good point. Their prices for replacement parts should be very well known so that buyers interested in purchasing a Tesla at least have an idea of the costs it will take keep the car running should it break down outside of the warranty. That way they can make a well-informed decision. As it is now, as you stated, they don't share anything and you're stuck with whatever they decide to charge you. Either that or junk the car.
- - - Updated - - -
You COMPLETELY missed the point of my post Jeff. You also cut out the last paragraph of my post that completely negates your argument as well. Need to re-read it more carefully. Your assumption as to the intention of my post makes your argument irrelevant as it doesn't at all relate to the intent of my message.
THE MISSING PARAGRAPH--- FOLLOWED BY AN IMMEDIATE FOLLOW UP POST. GET THE WHOLE STORY JEFF BEFORE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS PLEASE.
And I can understand them not wanting to sell a new battery pack outright. But if they're going to force you to give up your original part, then they need to pay a reasonable prorated price for it. If the battery pack new is $25,000 and has an estimated 5 year life, then depreciate it by 20% per year. Even that is extreme considering it has an 8 year warranty. But $20,000 would certainly be far more reasonable for a 1 year old battery than $2,500!!!
IMMEDIATE FOLLOW UP POST -----
While Tesla won't reveal the exact price of a new battery, they have already stated that current costs are less than $300 per kWh, so it's simple math. At the full $300 per kWh, that would $25,500 for an 85 kWh battery pack. So $25,000 for a new battery is actually still expensive. Chevy just said they are at around $150 per kWh for the new Bolt they are building. I doubt Tesla is paying twice as much for their batteries. So their cost is likely less than $15,000 for a battery pack. Of course they have a right to make a profit on it, so I don't have a problem with them charging $25,000 grand for it, but any more than that would be price gouging. instead, they are gouging in the mandatory return for only $2,500. Tesla has also stated that once they get the gigafactory open, they expect to get battery prices down below $100 per kWh. So, $25,000 is NOT CHEAP for a battery pack. Chevy sells a Volt battery pack (17 kWh) for $3,800 ($224 per kwh).
And yes, Tesla will go out of business if either, they don't clean up their act and stop aggravating their customers with this kind of crap or the government steps in and puts a stop to it and orders them to either allow other companies to service their vehicles or to charge prices that are reasonable to do it themselves. All other car manufacturers are REQUIRED to produce replacement parts for any car they produce and to do so for a given number of years after the car is produced (10 years I believe). There is no provision that the parts a customer seeks have to replace "broken" parts. Thus if an owner wants to replace a part that's not broken, with any other car manufacturer, they are able to do so with no problem. Certainly not the case with Tesla at this time.�
Nov 30, 2015
Ryan MF This is really just an issue of communication. Upgrading battery packs is a very new phenomenon and clearly the service centers haven't been through the nuances of how the core refund works. This might be the first time it's even been requested.�
Nov 30, 2015
hockeythug Really not liking the inter workings of this company. Scary to think what will come with more cars on the road if this trend continues.�
Nov 30, 2015
Mark Z Now that is sad. You have an "E" version that can charge at 120 kW and my old "A" pack can only charge at 90 kW. There IS a market for getting your old battery into my car! I'm the one with a slow battery that needs an upgrade!
Think the battery is the only item that depreciates? Think again! Tesla Motors offered $51,000 trade-in value for my Sig Red P85 @ 55,000 miles.
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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.
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Mark Z The Model X should arrive soon, so the pack upgrade issue can pass to a new owner of my Model S.
I asked Tesla Motors what the cost would be for a 90 kW pack several weeks ago. They never got back to me!
I wonder if the Petersen Automotive Museum could give me more donation value for Signature Red P85 than what the public will pay?�
Nov 30, 2015
AmpedRealtor 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
DriverOne 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Andyw2100 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
luvnMyTS 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
kirkbauer 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�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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 - - -
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
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
�
Nov 30, 2015
Canuck 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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.
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)�
Nov 30, 2015
FlasherZ 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Andyw2100 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Canuck 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�
Nov 30, 2015
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
James Anders So what if the battery pack was stolen?�
Nov 30, 2015
wk057 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 - - -
That would be... impressive.
Aside from that, who knows. Insurance company would probably total out the car anyway.�
Nov 30, 2015
James Anders Thought experiment.�
Nov 30, 2015
green1 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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Canuck "Sorry, sir, we made a mistake and had the wrong information." He's definitely owed that apology.
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.
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.�
Nov 30, 2015
Andyw2100 Whomever you you made that inquiry of was not well-informed.
The battery swap program was never designed to allow you to swap your battery for another for the price of a tank of gas, while allowing you to keep the swapped battery. That would have been insane, as people could have swapped degraded batteries for better ones, as you mentioned you would have liked to have done. That program required that you make your swaps in pairs, each for about the price of a tank of gas. The first of the pair would swap out your battery for a charged loaner battery, and the second would swap that loaner battery back for your original battery, now recharged. So you get a fully charged battery each time, but wind up with your own battery in the car after the pair of swaps. Someone who failed to complete the second swap would have been charged a hefty fee, or in some other way held accountable.
At least that is my understanding of how the program was designed to work.�
Nov 30, 2015
brianman "Dingo stole my 85 pack!"�
Nov 30, 2015
AWDtsla 
�
Nov 30, 2015
GasKilla I really hope Tesla has this all sorted out in 10 years when I want to replace my pack.�
Dec 1, 2015
luvnMyTS Let me clarify, the "price of a tank of gas" was for the luxury of being able to swap batteries in 90 seconds rather than have to wait and hour to charge. You are correct that in most cases, they expected you to swap it back on your return trip. The whole battery swapping program was unfortunately scrapped before ever really having a chance to take off. Tesla sent out a few invitations to try it and of the very few they sent it to, even fewer of those were either not interested or did not have a need to swap at Harris Ranch, which was the only place it was offered. Sad that they made a final decision based on a just 1% sampling of all Tesla owners as they only invited select people from the Los Angeles area and San Francisco area. I certainly think there would be a demand for it, especially on busy weekends. On the Tesla forum, there's a photo of 15 cars waiting in line at the Tejon Ranch supercharger. Over an hour wait just to be able to start charging. And with that many cars and all chargers full, most reported that it was only charging at a rate of 90 +/- miles per hour rather than the normal 300+. 80% charges were taking 90+ minutes. Some stated they spent a total of THREE HOURS at the charger. How much you want to bet if there was a swapping station there, all 15 cars in line would have gladly paid the $40 or $50 to swap out their batteries?? I would have!!!
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, while the typical battery swap plan was to swap in a loaner and swap back your original on the return trip, there was a provision that if you called ahead and let them know you would not be returning, they would run a diagnostic on your car to check the health of the battery in your car and have an equivalent battery waiting for you. In those cases you wouldn't be required to return the battery that was swapped into your car. Which gets back to my original point, clearly its possible to swap a battery with another used battery. Tesla had no logical reason to deny allowing me to buy my own alternate battery and swap it out. I could have picked up the used battery for around $7,000 and it had only 4,000 miles on it with virtually no degradation. After selling mine, would have likely been either a free swap or I would have picked up a few bucks. For them to tell me they were going to void my warranty if I did that is just wrong. And I clarified, they would void the entire car's warranty, not just the warranty on the battery. I could have lived with them saying they won't warranty the replacement battery, but to void my entire car's warranty because I replaced the battery on my own, when clearly at one point, they were willing to replace batteries with other used batteries is again, just Tesla flexing their "my way or the highway" muscles. I wish I didn't love the car so damn much, otherwise I'd be out! Just can't deal with that kind of attitude. And scary to think they're this way with a new company that should be kissing their customers asses to build the company. What's it going to be like when they get even more powerful??�
Dec 1, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Tesla cannot void your warranty because you modify something. They can only void your warranty if you modify something that causes a failure. That is the law. But if you want your legal rights you'd probably have to be willing to sue to get them.
I don't like Tesla's business practices either. But Elon Musk's ruthlessness ix part of the reason why I think Tesla can succeed. (The other key reason being the unwillingness of other manufacturers to commit to long-distance electric.) At this point I'm hoping Tesla survives 2016 because I want a Model 3 in 2019, but I 'm hoping there's competition so Tesla has to adjust its model.�
Dec 1, 2015
whitex All this could be avoided if Tesla simply quoted a "85-90 pack upgrade price" rather than "90 pack" and "core". Just like the LTE upgrade, it is advertised as such and no, you cannot keep the old modem - I know, I tried�
Dec 1, 2015
Panu It is expected that Tesla charges a lot for battery upgrade. I've said it before but everybody disagreed and said it's good for Tesla to offer very cheap upgrades.
In my opinion the reason is "free" Supercharging. When it's time to replace the battery it's also time to pay for the supercharging for the life of that new battery. When I've said this before everybody kept saying "no no it's for the life of the car". Yes of course but as along as Tesla has monopoly for it's batteries (which I believe is as long as there is "free" supercharging) they will make sure the supercharging costs are covered this way.�
Dec 1, 2015
artsci Not to go off topic, but China isn't communist or even socialist. That disappeared long ago. It's a capitalist oligarchy ruled by a small number of wealthy elites. Sound familiar?�
Dec 1, 2015
tomas Someone's been listening to Lawrence lessig.�
Dec 1, 2015
CmdrThor This issue does not apply to people who want to replace heavily degraded packs. In your case, you would want to return your pack to Tesla and get a nice new ~150 kWh pack. This issue is for people who want to buy a new pack and use their old pack for other purposes (stationary storage, EV conversion, etc).�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 The end result is that Tesla is the only auto maker in the world that is currently getting away with refusing to sell parts to people who want to buy them. There are 2 ways this can go:
1) all other manufacturers follow suit and we all completely lose our right to repair anything we own. This is the equivalent of losing the ability to truly own a car, the manufacturer owns it, and they tell you what you can and can't do with it.
2) courts, and/or the government get involved, and Tesla gets forced to play nice with others, stop being openly hostile to their customers, and we all win, even Tesla.
I wish there was an option 3 where Tesla realizes that they are being dicks, sabotaging their future, creating lots of ill will, and does the right thing on their own. But I just don't see it ever happening without option 2 happening.�
Dec 1, 2015
brkaus 3). Similar cars become available from other manufactures, they make parts available, Tesla follows suit. (They will likely do this sooner rather than later, that's part of staying competitive)�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 I was looking for an option likely to happen this century�
Dec 1, 2015
galangg I was considering it, but we chatted about the cost on Saturday and I ditched the idea immediately. More so, now.�
Dec 1, 2015
Caligula The Chinese government may disagree with you on that one.
III. The Party in Power
And regarding my cited source, the "China Internet Information Center":
�
Dec 1, 2015
Max* I don't understand this whole liability nonsense that someone on the forums started. No one at Tesla said it's a liability issue, so why are people speculating?
If things couldn't be sold due to liability and being used incorrectly
1. Scissors. The horror, I could cut my finger off instead of cutting paper
2. Microwaves. What if I put paper in it and start a house fire and die? Nope, let's recall that
3. Pencils. I may be so bored at work, that instead of writing on paper, I'll poke my eye out. Let's not sell anymore pencils.
4. Cars. What if I ... drive over someone and kill them.
etc. etc. etc. *
I don't buy for 1 second that the reason Tesla isn't selling battery packs is due to liability.
*(I didn't bring up guns to avoid this post getting moved to politics)�
Dec 1, 2015
tomas OK, then don't believe it. Your option. Tesla is trying to convince market that BEV cars are viable, safe long distance vehicles. They are under a media microscope. When road hazard incidents raised concerns about battery fires in accidents, they raised suspensions and added shielding. When garage fires occurred (due to owners' faulty wiring), they added charging fault detection software and lowered charging amps if conditions weren't perfect. Do you think they want news and potential suits of some owner getting electrocuted playing with their battery? It is not because it is more dangerous in wrong hands than cars, guns, or pencils. It is because it is distinctly BEV.�
Dec 1, 2015
Max* All technology is new and bleeding age at one point or another. I don't recall reading about other manufacturers, that are disrupting the market, not selling components due to liability. Other reasons like keeping their internals proprietary? sure.
I understand why you think the way you do, and you're completely entitled to it, as such I'm completely entitled to think you're wrong.
- - - Updated - - -
Also, people can buy salvage batteries and get electrocuted. The news isn't going to say "Person X bought a salvage Tesla battery" the news will say "Person X got electrocuted by a Tesla battery"
When there's a will, there's a way. Yes, your counter argument will be that Tesla is keeping the battery market smaller, by not selling batteries themselves, but again, due to the above, I don't see it as a liability issue.�
Dec 1, 2015
brkaus I have to think it will... as more cars roll off warranty options will open up. No aftermarket company is going to make parts for them now and no one is going to learn to service them with the minimal cars that will be serviced outside of Tesla. Who takes their brand new BMW to "insert name of auto shop" for warranty work or buys parts at AutoZone?�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 Go to the BMW parts counter, they'll sell you any part you want, no questions asked.
Go to Tesla, they'll tell you you can't buy this part unless you have this particular Model S, they'll tell you you can't buy that part unless you're an authorized Tesla body shop, they'll tell you you can't buy this other part unless you hand them the old one back for pennies on the dollar.
Not exactly the same thing.�
Dec 1, 2015
tomas Will Toyota sell you a Mirai fuel cell?�
Dec 1, 2015
kirkbauer How do you support your claim that option two is better for Tesla? I'm assuming Tesla doesn't agree with you.�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 So far, I don't think they'll yet sell you a Mirai, so we don't know.
Thing is, there are right to repair laws on the books that cover this stuff, and every other manufacturer has to abide by them. There are various arguments claiming that Tesla is immune to those laws for one obscure reason or another, I don't buy it for a second. But we really won't know until it goes to court, and the way Tesla is going, it WILL go to court, the only question is when.�
Dec 1, 2015
apacheguy To be fair, there are many salvage packs available and anyone can get their hands on those. The OP has extensive, documented experience working with these packs. I find it hard to believe that someone who bought a pack from salvage and electrocuted themselves would cause bad press for Tesla. The only difference here is that the part is acquired directly from Tesla. Even so, I don't see how the media could spin that story. Perhaps I just lack imagination.�
Dec 1, 2015
AWDtsla Maybe so but when you claim not allowing consumers to buy or do whatever they please with these battery packs is "consumer protection" it makes my skin crawl. It is not consumer protection, it is corporate protection.
Doublespeak Doublegood.�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 Right now Tesla is production constrained has no competition, and almost all it's cars are under warranty. That won't always be the case. People will put up with all sorts of hostile behaviour from a supplier if there's no other viable option. Once Tesla has to compete with another player in the market, and large numbers of cars are out of warranty, and people start hearing these horror stories, nobody in their right mind will choose Tesla over a competitor who sells spare parts, makes service manuals available, etc. Tesla can create good will right now for free, or they can cling to this stupidity until they piss off so many people that they have trouble selling cars once there's competition.
I personally think that not pissing off your customers is better business in the long term.�
Dec 1, 2015
brkaus I agree 100% with you. But you can also go to most auto parts stores and purchase aftermarket parts and/or refurbished parts. So at this point BMW has little choice. I too want to see Tesla more open and not excusing them, but do think more pressure will come to open things up as warranties run out on a greater number of vehicles.�
Dec 1, 2015
AWDtsla There won't be any pressure. But the price of out-of-warranty Tesla's will nosedive as people realize they can't be fixed or can't be fixed for reasonable prices.�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 BMW doesn't sell parts to compete with autozone, they sell parts because the law says they have to, and to compete with audi and mercedes, and lexus.�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 None of these arguments make any sense, really.
Tesla has absolutely zero control over what happens with the product once in customer hands. If I want to tinker with the car and end up electrocuting myself, nothing Tesla can do about it.
The battery packs specifically... I have 2 full battery packs (plus 1/4 of another) running my house in my custom solar project that uses them. Others have torn down the batteries as well. Nothing Tesla can do about that either. If I electrocuted myself in the process it wouldn't be Tesla's fault by any stretch of the imagination.
- - - Updated - - -
Hmm... right to repair. Wonder if I could order a pack in Massachusetts?�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 Probably only with a lawsuit�
Dec 1, 2015
dsm363 Tesla won't sell me a 90 kWh pack unless I give them my old pack for 12% mark...
It wouldn't be Tesla's fault in reality but the media doesn't always care about that. Headlines would include words Tesla and electrocution. Of course if this would really impact Tesla is unknown and unlikely and hopefully we never find out with someone less knowledge than you attempting something like this. As you pointed out you could always go to a salvage yard for an 85kWh and maybe 90 soon. I guess Tesla wants a little more control if ordered from them.�
Dec 1, 2015
tomas Let's separate out two things: the general issue of Tesla reluctance to sell parts... and the specific issue of Tesla not willing to let owner keep battery after upgrade. They are getting deeply conflated here, and we probably need a separate thread for the former.
Tesla won't let WK keep the extra battery. Why? It is either economics: as some have suggested, they fudged the numbers to imply a lower battery price by lowballing the mandatory trade-in. Or, it is because WK's stated purpose (and the only use other than sale to another Tesla owner) is to dis-assemble (requiring skills WK may have but Tesla cannot certify) and use for something that it was not designed for... and they are concerned about the potential downsides (PR/liability) of that type of activity. I wonder if the answer would have been different had the first such request come from someone without a history of dissecting batteries and less vocal about their intent. (that's not intended as slight of WK, just a fact of this case).�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 The issues can't be separated because they are the same issue. They're refusing to sell him a part. In this case the part is the battery pack.
If I buy any part from any other manufacturer, they never insist on getting the old one back to do the deal. Sometimes they'll put a core charge on something to incent me to return the old one, but that's merely them offering to buy the old one, not a condition of the sale.
Now if he was leasing, maybe it would be different because he wouldn't technically own the original, but if they sold him the car, they have no claim on any part of it.
Maybe Tesla shouldn't have offered to sell cars, maybe they should only have leased them, that way they could do anything they wanted with them (see GM EV1) but that wasn't what Tesla chose to do.�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 I think the two are completely related. Tesla will not sell me the 90 kWh pack (a part) unless I sell them my existing pack for basically nothing, which means Tesla will not sell me the part.
Seems others without similar intentions were also told they can't keep their pack based on what I've seen around the forum.
What it appears to be is Tesla just making the price of the pack look artificially low, subsidizing the cost by refurbishing the original pack, while the actual new pack cost is much higher than they list. So when I don't want to sell them my old pack for $29/kWh they don't make a profit on the sale of the 90 pack.�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 If that's truly the case, it brings up two points. First is that they need to set their pricing accordingly. The second is that if they can't make a 90kWh pack for $25,000 then they are in pretty big trouble as that's $278/kWh and their competition can make them for not much more than half that price.
However neither of those fix their hostile practice of refusing to sell parts.�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 ^ This. I own the car outright. No lease, no financing. Every nut, bolt, and lithium ion cell is mine to do with what I please. Unrelated, but granted there are potential warranty consequences if I do certain things, but it would still be my choice to do so or not and there is nothing Tesla can do to stop me from doing whatever I want to the car.
Like I said, earlier. Just like I don't have to sell them my old pack for $2,500, they don't have to sell me a 90 pack for $25,000 based on whatever reasoning they feel like applying. That's just how it goes. I can't force them to sell me the 90 pack, and I don't plan on pursuing anything along those lines. Doesn't make sense for me when I can just buy a salvage pack and have what I need for my project for less money than I'd be paying Tesla.
I just figured it'd be nice to get the 90 upgrade in the process and end up with an 85 pack for my project with a known history, even if the cost were slightly higher than the 3rd party route. Seems that doesn't work for Tesla.
I just find it weird. I mean, I don't own any other brand of car currently except the donor car for my EV conversion project. If I went to that company and told them, "You have this part listed for $X. Here's $X in cash." I guarantee you they'll provide me with the part if it is in stock. Why does Tesla have to make this difficult?�
Dec 1, 2015
Mark Z Let's not forget that using your vehicle's battery pack to power the home is competition for the PowerWall.
PowerWall is 7 kWh for $3,000 x 12 = 84 kWh for $36,000
PowerWall is 10 kWh for $3,500 x 8 = 80 kWh for $28,000
Spare pack is 85 kWh for $25,000�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 Tesla's choice of pricing is not our concern.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét