The ability to update on-board and control software over the Internet is often very useful for cars and their customers. But connecting cars to the Internet, which the update makes possible, also has a flip side – someone else could be in control of your car.
–
We’re not talking about hacker attacks, although those can’t be forgotten either. This time, Tesla took on the role of the villain when it announced to one of the owners of the Model S after a visit to the service center that it had found another problem with his car and would send him a “repair” over the Internet.
–
Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range.
He has the car for a few months, goes in and does a paid MCU2 upgrade at Tesla after the 3G shutdown.
All goes well. The upgrade is done, car is working fine.
(2/*)
— Jason Hughes (@wk057) July 25, 2022
–
However, the “fix” was the software locking of a third of the battery, so that instead of 90 kilowatt-hours, the owner had only 60 at one time.
–
Reason? A customer purchased a particular Model S used. The car is from 2013 and once received a larger, 90kWh battery instead of a 60kWh battery as part of a warranty repair. So Tesla itself created the Model S 90 from the Model S 60.
–
Since then, the car has changed hands a few times as a 90 version and there has never been a problem – until now. Of course, the customer did not agree to such a “repair” and demanded to restore it to its original state, which the automaker offered him, but for $4,500, i.e. about 110,000 crowns.
–
Furious, he demands they restore it back to the way it was, and they refuse. “We can unlock it for $4,500.”
😡
This guy bought a car, & years later Tesla reaches in remotely with no warning and literally cuts his usable range by a third!
(I confirmed story w/logs)
(4/*)
— Jason Hughes (@wk057) July 25, 2022
–
Unable to convince Tesla to return the 90kWh capacity when he bought the car with it, the owner contacted Jason Hughes, a well-known hacker of Tesla cars. But he couldn’t help without completely cutting the car off from the car manufacturer or risking breaking some other function.
–
He also posted the issue on Twitter in a multi-part “thread” that got a huge response. However, he did not want to say that Tesla is doing something nefarious, in his opinion, it simply once made a mistake by replacing the malfunctioning 60kWh battery with 90kWh and leaving it “unlocked” to full capacity.
–
It used to be common for Teslas to physically have one battery, but depending on which version the customer paid for, the capacity was software limited or not. And if the company changed the battery from 60kWh to 90kWh under warranty, because the smaller battery was no longer in production, it should have locked a third straight away, not after several years and several changes of owner.
–
Following up:
This customer has his full 90 back as of this morning. 🥳
Another customer in a similar boat is also in touch with Tesla and should be getting taken care of by the end of the week.
I’m hoping this helps drives some policy improvements on their side! 🤞🏻 https://t.co/rnYQRBBHLm
— Jason Hughes (@wk057) July 27, 2022
–
Anyway, a big response on Twitter ensured that by the second day after the first tweet was published, the customer got the full 90 kWh back.
–
The next day, Hughes wrote that the same problem had disappeared for one of his other customers.
–
Questionnaire
Who do you think made a mistake in this case?
Tesla when it left the full capacity of the spare battery unlocked and wanted to fix it years later
–
The seller who advertised the car as a 90 version
–
The current owner who did not check the car’s history carefully enough
—
A total of 2320 readers voted.
–
