Range Extender Class Action Claim

[YDR37]

You know what might be more effective than a class action lawsuit? What if thousands of Cybertruck owners politely asked Tesla to make a simple change to the Cybertruck software -- so that the CT could charge while driving?

This would open the door to third-party range-extending options, like big batteries or generators that could go in the bed. Of course, you can already put a battery or a generator in the bed, but the utility is limited because because they can't be used to charge the CT while driving. In theory, Tesla could remove that limitation.

Other manufacturers -- like Ram, Ford, and Scout -- all have forthcoming EREV trucks with generators that can charge while driving. Why not allow a CT to do something similar?

Probably the limitation is in place to prevent people from driving away from a charger while the charge cable is still attached. In that case, there could be a software prompt for the driver to confirm that the charge port is connected to a portable device.

Obviously there is no guarantee that Tesla would honor such a request. But it might have a better chance of succeeding than a class action lawsuit.

Sponsored

 

[Jbrazda]

I have an AWD and on 35” all terrains at highway speeds I’ve gotten 370 miles of real-world highway range without stopping.

Good luck with your project.

No you haven't

 

[Jbrazda]

That's weird, I didn't think the Cyberbeast has that much range difference from the Dual Motor. I can get over 300 miles without even trying.

not at 80% with highway driving you don't.

 

[Cyberkingz]

On May 7, 2025, I received an email stating that Tesla would not sell the Range Extender and that my deposit would be refunded. This sudden change constitutes a misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement and is grounds for a misrepresentation claim. I—and likely others—relied on the promised Range Extender when deciding to purchase the $135,000 Foundation Series Cyberbeast vehicle. Without the Range Extender, the recommended effective daily charging range is 240 miles at 80% charge, which is significantly lower than the 450 miles promised with the Range Extender.

I would not have purchased the Cyberbeast without the promised range increase from the Range Extender.

Is there any support and momentum among the club to move forward with a class-action claim for misrepresentation?

If you're going to share the 80% charge range without the range extender, you should also share the 80% charge range with the range extender. Your post has no credit because of this. You shared 80% charge range of 240 miles, so use the 80% figure with the extender too, which is 360 miles.

 

[Trbizwiz]

If you're going to share the 80% charge range without the range extender, you should also share the 80% charge rand with the range extender. Your post has no credit because of this. You shared 80% charge range of 240 miles, so use the 80% figure with the extender too, which is 360 miles.

This assumes the R/E is a 4680 Cybertruck battery, and not a LFE battery meant to add charge to the trucks pack as needed (basically a couple of powerwalls in a truck box)in which case the extender could be charged to 100%, even when the trucks pack is charged to 80% all managed within the BMS.

 

[Cyberkingz]

This assumes the R/E is a 4680 Cybertruck battery, and not a LFE battery meant to add charge to the trucks pack as needed (basically a couple of powerwalls in a truck box)in which case the extender could be charged to 100%, even when the trucks pack is charged to 80% all managed within the BMS.

Its not that deep. If the advertised 100% charge range was 450 miles then at 80% it will be 360 miles whether the RE is charged to 100% or not. And to add, it's healthier to only charge LFP to 100% once per week instead of every time. I also highly doubt the range extender would've been LFP.

 

[HaulingAss]

Around town?

No, on rural highways with a cruising speed of 60 mph. It goes just as far as the EPA figures suggest, considerably further if conditions are somewhat favorable. There are lots of ways you can make the Cybertruck less efficient (less efficient tires, removing the wheel aero fairings, adding racks, exterior Starlink, running lower tire pressure, bad driving habits, leaving the windows down or the tonneau open, etc) but very few ways you can increase the efficiency.

Judging by some people's comments I assume they either have poor driving habits or have nerfed their range with add-ons or take-offs of aero features. I see a lot of people saying the details don't matter, but they absolutely do, and they are all additive.

 

[carsly]

No you haven't

Bring receipts they say...

 

[HaulingAss]

not at 80% with highway driving you don't.

Why would I only charge 80% if I were leaving on a 300+ mile trip? That would make no sense. I paid for a 123 kWh battery, I'm going to use it.

 

[Cyberbeard]

On May 7, 2025, I received an email stating that Tesla would not sell the Range Extender and that my deposit would be refunded. This sudden change constitutes a misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement and is grounds for a misrepresentation claim. I—and likely others—relied on the promised Range Extender when deciding to purchase the $135,000 Foundation Series Cyberbeast vehicle. Without the Range Extender, the recommended effective daily charging range is 240 miles at 80% charge, which is significantly lower than the 450 miles promised with the Range Extender.

I would not have purchased the Cyberbeast without the promised range increase from the Range Extender.

Is there any support and momentum among the club to move forward with a class-action claim for misrepresentation?

You should be suing for not delivering on auto pilot and just giving you a year of FSD. That was a feature included in the purchase of your vehicle that later Tesla came out and said it was not delivering on it..You have a better chance with that than an accessory add on

 

[henchman24]

You know what might be more effective than a class action lawsuit? What if thousands of Cybertruck owners politely asked Tesla to make a simple change to the Cybertruck software -- so that the CT could charge while driving?

This would open the door to third-party range-extending options, like big batteries or generators that could go in the bed. Of course, you can already put a battery or a generator in the bed, but the utility is limited because because they can't be used to charge the CT while driving. In theory, Tesla could remove that limitation.

Other manufacturers -- like Ram, Ford, and Scout -- all have forthcoming EREV trucks with generators that can charge while driving. Why not allow a CT to do something similar?

Probably the limitation is in place to prevent people from driving away from a charger while the charge cable is still attached. In that case, there could be a software prompt for the driver to confirm that the charge port is connected to a portable device.

Obviously there is no guarantee that Tesla would honor such a request. But it might have a better chance of succeeding than a class action lawsuit.

Opening that up to the aftermarket is putting a lot of trust in those companies to engineering things properly. Then if they don't customers make a huge deal on how their battery was destroyed and that Tesla is denying them coverage.

There are engineering issues that have to be solved. They are not impossible to solve, but HV connections, power distribution, BMS communication, etc etc are not exactly simple things. It isn't as simple as let people charge while driving. It would require quite a bit more than that.

I'd put it at a zero percent chance that Tesla openly allows anybody to make these types of changes. Opens up to SO many issues that are outside of Tesla's control. And technically, anybody can investigate doing it now. The early packs have some things that people could tap into and make a product (HV and communications available). It would void any warranty to anything it touches though.

 

[JackCypher]

On May 7, 2025, I received an email stating that Tesla would not sell the Range Extender and that my deposit would be refunded. This sudden change constitutes a misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement and is grounds for a misrepresentation claim. I—and likely others—relied on the promised Range Extender when deciding to purchase the $135,000 Foundation Series Cyberbeast vehicle. Without the Range Extender, the recommended effective daily charging range is 240 miles at 80% charge, which is significantly lower than the 450 miles promised with the Range Extender.

I would not have purchased the Cyberbeast without the promised range increase from the Range Extender.

Is there any support and momentum among the club to move forward with a class-action claim for misrepresentation?

Myself as a Foundation owner, was enticed by the 'optionality' of increasing the range. Tesla was not compelled to make the offer - they made the offer, which in itself is some admission that the standard range would not be sufficient. I did not put a deposit on the range extender, as there was no indication is was a 'limited' item - once inventory was created.

Having lived with my first Tesla: Foundation Cybertruck, now for 2 years, there are some issues that were 'trivialized' by the EV community that are more than a triviality when you rely on the vehicle as transportation for local and exdended driving trips - as any vehicle owner would enjoy:

A. Actual Range : Limited by 3rd party charging & Tesla itself. I am in Southern California - which likely has more Tesla chargers than most other US areas. I am seeing as a matter of course, my charging be limited by the Tesla chargers to 80% by limit or fee occurring should I attempt to charge to great than 80%.

This limit is arbitrarily imposed on me - without regards to the distance to my destination driving distance is, when my destination stored in the Tesla navigation system makes that available to the Tesla network.

When towing, the CT range is dramatically lowered; and when in Tow mode connecting to a Tesla charger applies the 80% limit without any regards to severely decreased range of my currently configured vehicle. So that 20% shortfall is actually significantly higher.

B. The steady chain of vehicle and Tesla app software updates, modify my settings, and impose limits again on home and on road charging. I've yet to see the limits increase - only remain/ default back to 80%.

C. The wording associated with the 'recommended 80%' limit creates some anxiety that Tesla could decide limiting warranty periods or support should you routinely exceed 80%.

D. I cannot routinely drive my EV to 0% - warnings occur at 15%. So between 15% and 80% I am left with a safe driving range of 65%? should I strictly follow Tesla's warnings/notifications.

E. Tesla and I agreed for me to make my monthly payments for the CT - I cannot arbitrarily pay '80% of the payment for 'the benefit of my extended financial health'- as an analog to setting an 80% battery charge limit after I made the purchase.

Lawsuits are not fun, however where is my promised lightbar?... or the $$$ in compensation for not providing it. Or is my alternative for me to shut my mouth as the public on these and other forums 'embarrass' me for even asking about it.

Recall these are things that Tesla promised - not something negotiated. They should proactively offer some recovery - for those that want it & ask for it.

 

[YDR37]

I'd put it at a zero percent chance that Tesla openly allows anybody to make these types of changes.

You're probably right. But the question may not go away, if the EREV approach turns out to be successful.

And we may find out soon if that is the case. Ram is currently advertising that the 1500 REV will be available in 2026, with 690 miles of range.

 

[Cyberham]

First off, I only paid $700 Canadian non refundable deposit. Why did some pay more?
Secondly, it pains me daily that I dont have lifetime supercharging, seems I missed that boat by just a month when I bought early.

And finally, one thing that had occurred to me and may help in any lawsuit applications is the interest lost or paid on that money.
For example I could of put that on my credit card or line of credit and lost 8%-20% interested while waiting for it to he built.
Alternatively, and hard to prove, maybe the range extender was a way for them to get an interest free loan to boost their bottom line or pay off some debts, with some shady boardroom deals where they laughed that they would never of even bothered to plan it other than a temporary cash grab/free interest loan

 

[eswimm]

I remember people claiming that Munro never found any evidence of wiring to connect the Range Extender. I wonder if vehicles configured for Range Extender had the extra connections, explaining why there was a non-refundable deposit?

There's really not a lot of financial benefit to taking a deposit like that as far as bottom line goes, you can't recognize revenue for something you haven't delivered.

Sponsored