Tesla Settles Dispute With Model S P85D Owners In Norway – Offers $7,700 Or Upgrades

DEC 16 2016 BY STEVEN LOVEDAY 15

Tesla Model S P85D

Tesla Model S P85D

Despite Tesla’s disagreement with the Consumer Disputes Commission in Norway, and the possibility of another meeting in court this week, Tesla settled the nearly two-year long battle with Norwegian Model S P85D owners. The original ruling called for Tesla to give each affected owner the equivalent of $6,000 USD. Tesla appealed, however, the final results weren’t better.

Tesla Model S P85D

Tesla Model S P85D

The short of it is that a group of Tesla owners in Norway felt that Tesla had improperly specified horsepower figures for the Model S P85D.

Vehicle marketing information stated 691 horsepower, based on 467 from the rear and 224 from the front.

This is actually correct, however, the car was not capable of pushing the dual motors to their fullest potential. Tesla insisted that the company has always made information clear, but the facts are in the figures.

After the initial decision was made by the commission, Tesla forwarded this statement:

“Testing done by Tesla and independent third parties has demonstrated that the Model S P85D’s acceleration and motor power numbers have always been accurate, even understated. With respect to acceleration, Tesla described the P85D as having a 0-100 kph time of 3.3 seconds, and Motor Trend and others actually achieved a time of 3.1 seconds. Similarly, the motor power numbers used by Tesla were legally required and confirmed as accurate by European regulatory authorities. Based on this information, the Consumer Council previously resolved these issues in Tesla’s favor. Tesla will be reviewing the decision by the Consumer Disputes Commission to better understand the conclusion that it reached.”

After appealing the decision and making no further headway, Tesla was about to face court. At the last minute, the company offered all owners the equivalent of $7,700 each (the price difference between a Model S 85D and P85D). Also available as an option to owners, instead of the cash, are various vehicle packages including a Ludicrous battery upgrade and Tesla store credits.

According to the local newspaper in Norway, most Tesla owners involved, have agreed to the deal. There were officially 132 that originally participated in the lawsuit filing, however Norway sees 1,200 P85D’s on its roadways. Apparently, the other 90% of owners better understood Tesla’s specification information.

Source: Electrek, hat tip to George K!

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

15 Comments on "Tesla Settles Dispute With Model S P85D Owners In Norway – Offers $7,700 Or Upgrades"

newest oldest most voted

“most Tesla owners involved, have agreed to the deal.”
..so not all ..

Tesla/Elon, this is what you get for your stupid marketing stunts.
It would be healthy for the company if the sleaze of Norway’s P85D customers will drain all the profits you’ve made in the country on that model.
Maybe you’ll learn something after all this.

1) So Tesla posted the most optimistic numbers for their car. Was the car so slow as to be unusable? I am all for accuracy, but this is to the point of ridiculousness. A frivolous lawsuit to be sure.
2) Who in the car industry demonstrates more integrity? I can’t think of anyone. This is the company who recalls anything they think *might* cause a problem. Who overengineers the portable EVSE to make up for houses whose wiring is improperly done. Who recalls ALL of their vehicles after ONE seatbelt (to my knowledge) was improperly connected.

Sounds like you are either a paid shill or an unwarranted critic at best.

Why advertise 691 horsepower when your vehicle won’t be able to put out those numbers ? And they knew it, no doubt about it! You do it to mislead potential customers who don’t know much about how the drivetrain works and are looking to be bragging exactly about those numbers. And I think it’s Elon’s fault. I’m pretty sure that at least some engineers and people in the legal department didn’t like this at all. Maybe, now, Elon gets the memo. “Who in the car industry demonstrates more integrity?” Please, don’t change the subject. They never apologized for it; they never made an effort to explain their “mistake”. The solution was an overnight edit of the website. They had a chance to make things right and didn’t take it. That’s that. “A frivolous lawsuit to be sure.” I agree to some extent, but, when you play in so many markets you better learn the rules in all those said markets. Or you risk opening up your company to all sorts of lawsuits/penalties. How hard is it ? “467 from the rear and 224 from the front”. But NO, Elon’s gotta have “691 (imaginary) HORSEPOWER”. Well, there’s your 691, Elon, complete… Read more »

It is not changing the subject! Does Dodge need to get sued now since the Hellcat doesn’t really make 700+HP either unless there are ideal circumstances? The Tesla numbers are more accurate than almost anyone else!

I don’t care about Dodge at all. Neither should you. They’re not the ones getting sued in Norway.
The truth is that ideal conditions or not, Tesla’s product can’t possibly match the advertised number.
And worst of all, this is a result of ego and appealing to ego. It wasn’t necessary in the first place.
The P85D performs just fine without the misleading marketing.

This could have been avoided.
Now it’s just a very expensive lesson for the company. Hopefully, from now on, Elon will know when to just shut the fvck up and listen to his engineering/legal/marketing teams.
I kinda doubt that’s the case but .. I’m hopeful ..

cmina said:

“The truth is that ideal conditions or not, Tesla’s product can’t possibly match the advertised number.”

That’s perfectly true. But when you assert the following:

“It would be healthy for the company if the sleaze of Norway’s P85D customers will drain all the profits you’ve made in the country on that model.”

…then you demonstrate a level of vindictiveness which makes us wonder what your real agenda is here. Now, if we were talking about something like Volkswagen’s massive “clean diesel” fraud, then it would be appropriate to suggest such a massive fine. But the misleading specification by Tesla didn’t really affect how the car actually performs, as shown by other specs, now did it? Tesla deserved to get its wrist slapped, not a flogging with a cat-o-nine-tails.

“the company offered all owners the equivalent of $7,700 each (the price difference between a Model S 85D and P85D)”

They were all looking for powerful cars. They got P85D’s for 85D prices at this point. That’s decent I’d say. Tesla payed for their “mistake” and I don’t know what the heck more would those that refused the deal -want.

‘ “most Tesla owners involved, have agreed to the deal.”
..so not all ..’

Thus:
‘..the sleaze of Norway’s P85D customers..’

” …then you demonstrate a level of vindictiveness which makes us wonder what your real agenda is here.”

Not really. And I have mentioned:
‘ “A frivolous lawsuit to be sure.”
I agree to some extent… ‘

“Tesla deserved to get its wrist slapped, not a flogging with a cat-o-nine-tails.”
$1mln++ IS a slap on the wrist in this sort of case.

132 x $7,700 = $1,016,400.

So a million bucks to make it go away.

Probably cheaper (and better PR) than dragging out a lawsuit and given Norway tends to side consumer friendly, if they somehow lose then they might be out even more money (have to also compensate the other owners who did not complain).

Otherwise known as the ‘Jackson method’…

I would give them NOTHING & STOP selling them Cars! “N0 SOUP FOR YOU! 10 YRS!….musk “the car nazi”….lol

“Vehicle marketing information stated 691 horsepower, based on 467 from the rear and 224 from the front.

“This is actually correct…”

It absolutely is not correct. The vehicle does not put out 691 horsepower. It’s like me claiming I’m 10 feet tall, because I can achieve that height if I stand on someone else’s shoulders. This is not mere opinion; it’s factually incorrect.

Now, whether or not this actually deserved a lawsuit, I dunno. As has been said, this doesn’t affect the reported performance of the car, including its 0-60 performance. But I, for one, am glad to see this sort of misleading advertising reined in. Too bad it took something like a class-action lawsuit, or something similar if not identical, to do it.

It is correct and incorrect at the same time. It is like advertising that your car has a pair of twin 650 CFM carburetors, when you know the engine would have to spin at 8000 RPM to actually draw 2X650 CFM when it redlines at 5000 RPM. Now would it be false to advertise that the car has a carb that is individually RATED at 650 CFM, for a total rating of 1300 CFM? No, it is not false. It really is a 650 CFM carb. It just doesn’t flow 650 CFM in that application. The carbs don’t become 400 CFM carbs. The Tesla really does have motors that are RATED at 691 horsepower, based on 467 from the rear and 224 from the front. The individual rating of the motors does not drop just because the application drops the available HP at the wheels. And ICE car companies do this all the time too. That 300 HP engine is NOT how much power the engine puts to the ground after accounting for other part in the rest of the car, like the transmission. You are lucky to get 225 HP to the ground on an engine that the car… Read more »

+1

Is this why Rolls Royce used to list their engine power as ‘adequate’?