Range Extender Class Action Claim

[JackCypher]

Your opening statement is ridiculous, and your assumption of my brainwashing incorrect and condescending. This isn't a faulty vehicle. It's an additional product that was promised and then cancelled. This happens often, and without compensation, across all businesses. I'm not for the big guy or the little guy, only fairness, and fairness based on clear written word, not assumptions.

As far as I know, nothing in the purchase agreement guarantees a range extender. As such, the argument that the purchase of the truck was dependent on the RE, while understandable, is not enforceable. It's like buying a game console because a game that you really want to play is announced as in development for it; but the game gets into development hell and is cancelled. It may have been the reason you bought the hardware, but that was your choice and you don't get compensation. The company has to have the right to cancel a product that isn't working out.

I do think good will/customer relations is a different matter, and that Tesla should have offered something to those that pre-ordered the RE. I suspect they are a small number. I just doubt that they should legally have to, and the only winners would probably be lawyers for both sides.

Thanks for the dialog. Hopefully Tesla reads these posts and gets some perspective on how customers feel about these issues.

Sponsored

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Your opening statement is ridiculous, and your assumption of my brainwashing incorrect and condescending. This isn't a faulty vehicle. It's an additional product that was promised and then cancelled. This happens often, and without compensation, across all businesses. I'm not for the big guy or the little guy, only fairness, and fairness based on clear written word, not assumptions.

As far as I know, nothing in the purchase agreement guarantees a range extender. As such, the argument that the purchase of the truck was dependent on the RE, while understandable, is not enforceable. It's like buying a game console because a game that you really want to play is announced as in development for it; but the game gets into development hell and is cancelled. It may have been the reason you bought the hardware, but that was your choice and you don't get compensation. The company has to have the right to cancel a product that isn't working out.

I do think good will/customer relations is a different matter, and that Tesla should have offered something to those that pre-ordered the RE. I suspect they are a small number. I just doubt that they should legally have to, and the only winners would probably be lawyers for both sides.

You are legally incorrect. Suitability of purpose and implied obligation under contract law, including inducement through stated features is actionable. The idea that somehow a CT owner who ordered the RE has a greater claim for satisfaction in that respect is also specious. ANY purchaser of a CT had and still owns a right to the stated functionality that was ADVERTISED at the time of purchase - not just as outlined in the four corners of the purchase agreement. That’s not how contract law works. Any language to the contrary in the contract will not prevail in court, is unenforceable. Every contract includes an unstated/unwritten warranty of merchantability that looks to the manufacturer’s functionality claims, whether included in the contract or not. This is established and longstanding law - you cannot say that you will provide a function at a future date and then decide to not provide it, when promising such function was part of a key sales inducement.

For me the RE was just that - my use case REQUIRES IT. I cannot use my truck for a key intended use without it. This was clear up front - and Tesla’s written promise to provide it by the end of Q2 was key - because my first use for it was known at the time to be coming up in November 2025. Instead I had to pay a hauler to do the job. And it specifically induced me to trade in (to Tesla) my existing F-350. I have losses in every direction.

I also sit in the position of not having a lot of time in my life for these kinds of battles, so am not inclined to litigate, despite have a very strong case. But the fact is that my truck cannot do a truck thing that I purchased it to do, and for which Tesla promised a very specific answer, on which it then reversed course. I supported and still completely understand their decision to do so, but am due some significant compensation, up to and including repurchasing the vehicle they sold me that is not fit for the purpose for which they knew they sold it to me. That is basic contract law. And yes, it is my area, previously supporting both plaintiffs and defendants in similar claims as an exert witness on related claim value.

The idea as stated in some posts above that the truck does exactly what it was delivered with is a red herring - yes, it does lots of useful things and I love the experience, as I have with every Tesla that I have owned. But Tesla also said it would do a thing as a specific feature they claimed was a couple months away, was supposedly in active development, and which they failed to deliver despite inducing my purchase with that commitment. It was not a best efforts commitment - it was a specific accessory, listed as an existing feature being sold with the truck, just a matter of getting volume production going. That is an actionable loss and obligation. Do I have the willingness or inclination to fight it out? Probably not. But it is a point of basic equity. Tesla has the right to do what it did, as long as they then do the right thing to make purchasers whole on the promises it did not, even perhaps could not keep. And again, spare us the “show me where it says in the contract…” BS, because that’s all it is. Implied warranty of merchantability trumps all, especially when the advertising claims were so specific.

 

[Effonefiddy Lightning]

For all of you naysayers. Here is a real estate analogy to the point I’m making: you purchased a new home from a developer who promised to install a swimming pool in your backyard after you moved in, told you how much it would cost, and requested a deposit. You paid the deposit for the swimming pool, and seven months later, they emailed you to say they would not install it and would refund your deposit. Don’t you believe you have a claim for damages? I believe in forgiveness for any offense and bygones, but it doesn't change how I feel about being misled into thinking I would eventually have a high-performance electric truck with 450 miles of range. That's what they promised and took my money to ensure it.

I would be happy that I got my money back and that they didn't leave me with a big hole in my back yard.
Tesla also said the truck was going to be an exoskeletal design, should you sue them for that?

 

[PungoteagueDave]

I would be happy that I got my money back and that they didn't leave me with a big hole in my back yard.
Tesla also said the truck was going to be an exoskeletal design, should you sue them for that?

No, because we were on notice well before taking delivery that the exoskeleton design had changed. But at delivery Tesla still listed the RE as an existing feature that could be purchased then with a large non refundable deposit (a bigger deposit than they required for the actual truck), or could be purchased later. In the vehicle specifications it listed two ranges, with and without the RE, with a small footnote that the RE was to be available for delivery by 2Q25. It wasn’t speculative or hedged in ANY way except timing and was shown as an EXISTING feature with specific added range, which range is essential to my use case, which is also within specifications.

Towing my 10,300-lb trailer is stated as within specs. Implied warranty of use for intended purpose is slightly shakier grounds for compensation, but I’m sure that an expert would testify that the concomitant range at that weight isn’t reasonable at sub-90 miles, and the implied warranty of merchantability also fails on that point. However, we don’t even have to go that far because the RE promise was specifically in writing.

I will tow that trailer 50 miles today , straight down I-95, at 55, in perfect weather, with only a few non highway miles, and document the range in a clean one-time record. And then maybe stop by my local Tesla venue in Delray Beach. Or not, because I’ve got a flight in 24 hours to motorcycle SE Asia for the next eight weeks. Which is my point about the value of time and the cost of lawsuits.

Life isn’t all about money. Doing these kinds of battles, while probably morally correct, and even with a high likelihood of winning (I place no probability ratio on the merits here), the juice often isn’t worth the squeeze in terms of heartbeats left, and how we choose to use them.

 

[jahansolu]

While I think there was some misleading marketing on Tesla's part with the Cybertruck Launch and the Range Extender (specifically stating the truck will have a range of up to 450 miles with the RE or less without and showing it in the ordering options as if it was an actual option on the truck), your post comes across as very disingenuous. Specifically, you use the 100% promised RE range, but use 80% actual non-RE range you experience. Thus you are intentionally using inconsistent numbers to make your gripe sound more dramatic. You also use the taxes-in cost (not the number you paid to Tesla) to emphasize the cost to you (and thus the high expectations you have, as such a big spender). Overall this reeks of political speak and selective statistics to plead your case, so I think it's rubbing some people the wrong way.

I doubt Tesla is liable for anything, I'm sure they knew the legal situation before offering and then cancelling the RE. That said, I do think it was some misleading marketing and the right thing to do would have been to offer early buyers who chose the RE free supercharging, especially since Elon and the boys specifically said many times people don't need more range because of the great charging network. They should put their money where their mouths are.

The actual fair solution: Tesla should've offered pre-order/RE deposit holders a choice—full deposit refund or lifetime unlimited Supercharging.


This would've benefited Tesla. Most owners (I'd bet ~95%) rarely use Supercharging enough to break even on a $2,000–$2,500 deposit. Example: My Vancouver–Banff round trip since Nov 2024 cost ~$200 in Supercharging. I'd need 10+ such trips to justify keeping the deposit—unlikely, as I rarely road-trip. Tesla keeps the money and comes out ahead.


Unlimited Supercharging is a nice perk psychologically (might encourage more driving), but towing range was always known to be poor for EVs. We never got details on how the RE would integrate with Supercharging—likely much longer stops beyond the current 45–50 min to 80%.


Towing near max capacity still yields ~125+ miles (real-world tests show 90–165 miles depending on load/aero). That's enough to reach most Superchargers, just with more frequent stops. Few tow daily—maybe weekly seasonally—so it wasn't a top priority, especially with weaker-than-expected sales. If Cybertruck had hit 1M+ units, we'd probably have the RE today.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

The actual fair solution: Tesla should've offered pre-order/RE deposit holders a choice—full deposit refund or lifetime unlimited Supercharging.


This would've benefited Tesla. Most owners (I'd bet ~95%) rarely use Supercharging enough to break even on a $2,000–$2,500 deposit. Example: My Vancouver–Banff round trip since Nov 2024 cost ~$200 in Supercharging. I'd need 10+ such trips to justify keeping the deposit—unlikely, as I rarely road-trip. Tesla keeps the money and comes out ahead.


Unlimited Supercharging is a nice perk psychologically (might encourage more driving), but towing range was always known to be poor for EVs. We never got details on how the RE would integrate with Supercharging—likely much longer stops beyond the current 45–50 min to 80%.


Towing near max capacity still yields ~125+ miles (real-world tests show 90–165 miles depending on load/aero). That's enough to reach most Superchargers, just with more frequent stops. Few tow daily—maybe weekly seasonally—so it wasn't a top priority, especially with weaker-than-expected sales. If Cybertruck had hit 1M+ units, we'd probably have the RE today.

Nope - I towed 10,260 pounds today (see CAT scale report below), started with 320 miles range (100%), 35 miles used over half the battery. No way it will make 100 miles assuming 100% to zero. Not even close to 125. Pictures from this morning. Averaged 1,450 wh/mi down I-95 from Boynton Beach to south side of Ft. Lauderdale. Assuming you can use 100% of the battery, which you cannot, max capacity towing = 84 miles. Real world = 60-70 miles. I know because I am doing it. Drove today in hypermiling mode, never once hit the speed limit, right lane all the way. 20 of the 50 total miles was without the trailer, so shows 1,074 wh/mi, but was consistent at 1,400-1500 wh/mi at 55-60 mph. The dips in the chart were rush hour traffic.

 

[Trbizwiz]

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.

Powerwall is LFP, why would you assume RE is not? RE is only meant to charge the main pack. I assume Tesla would have used whatever was cheapest. As there woudl be no impact to performance using a low performance battery. They could ahve built these REs cheaply in China and shipped them cheaply to the US.

Nope - I towed 10,260 pounds today (see CAT scale report below), started with 320 miles range (100%), 35 miles used over half the battery. No way it will make 100 miles assuming 100% to zero. Not even close to 125. Pictures from this morning. Averaged 1,450 wh/mi down I-95 from Boynton Beach to south side of Ft. Lauderdale. Assuming you can use 100% of the battery, which you cannot, max capacity towing = 84 miles. Real world = 60-70 miles. I know because I am doing it. Drove today in hypermiling mode, never once hit the speed limit, right lane all the way. 20 of the 50 total miles was without the trailer, so shows 1,074 wh/mi, but was consistent at 1,400-1500 wh/mi at 55-60 mph. The dips in the chart were rush hour traffic.

Just a little over the gross weight there. You might pull that picture down if this is going to court. That may give them an out, because of the stated gross weight. It's only 400 lbs, but lawyers be lawyering

 

[Cyberkingz]

Powerwall is LFP, why would you assume RE is not? RE is only meant to charge the main pack. I assume Tesla would have used whatever was cheapest. As there woudl be no impact to performance using a low performance battery. They could ahve built these REs cheaply in China and shipped them cheaply to the US.

Just a little over the gross weight there. You might pull that picture down if this is going to court. That may give them an out, because of the stated gross weight. It's only 400 lbs, but lawyers be lawyering

They could be LFP, but I just doubt it because mechanical footprint, BMS optimization for two different chemistries in the truck etc... But anyways 80% of 450 miles is still 360 miles.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Powerwall is LFP, why would you assume RE is not? RE is only meant to charge the main pack. I assume Tesla would have used whatever was cheapest. As there woudl be no impact to performance using a low performance battery. They could ahve built these REs cheaply in China and shipped them cheaply to the US.

Just a little over the gross weight there. You might pull that picture down if this is going to court. That may give them an out, because of the stated gross weight. It's only 400 lbs, but lawyers be lawyering

It does not exceed specs in any way. I have the optional AT tires on an AWD. The specs are well inside the limits

Front axle = 3,580, Tesla spec = 4,255
Rear axle = 4,460, Tesla spec = 5,247
Trailer = 10,260, Tesla spec = 11,000
Total weight = 18,300, Tesla spec = 20,169 (11,000 + 9,169)

I am anal about towing specs and ensuring compliance for legal exposure reasons - with is why you can see that I have an exceedingly rare (in the boating world) weight equalizing hitch, which for most trucks dramatically increases the published rating numbers. Tesla is the only truck manufacturer that chooses to not publish separate numbers with weight equalizing, so I made sure to set it up in a way the meets the minimal published specs, knowing that my method adds significant capacity, which in this case is just belt-and-suspenders in the absence of published specs.

 

[Trbizwiz]

They could be LFP, but I just doubt it because mechanical footprint, BMS optimization for two different chemistries in the truck etc... But anyways 80% of 450 miles is still 360 miles.

Well I think you're basing this on the wrong assumption. The Cybertruck 4680s have a capacity of 123 kwh, and a range of 312 miles or so. That would charge to 80%. The R/E had a capacity of 47 kwh and could be charged to 100% if its an LFP pack. So you'd effectively have 99 kWh and 47 kWh. Only marginally better, but 372 miles. That said, its not uncommon to charge to a higher level occasionally for a long trip. You may not supercharge to 100%, but if you're leaving a destination charger, you may plan to have your truck to 100% when you leave. I do this often before a road trip.

 

[Trbizwiz]

It does not exceed specs in any way. I have the operated AT tires on an AWD. The specs are well inside the limits

Front axle = 3,580, Tesla spec = 4,255
Rear axle = 4,460, Tesla spec = 5,247
Trailer = 10,260, Tesla spec = 11,000
Total weight = 18,300, Tesla spec = 20,169 (11,000 + 9,169)

I am anal about towing specs and ensuring compliance for legal exposure reasons - with is why you can see that I have an exceedingly rare (in the boating world) weight equalizing hitch, which for most trucks dramatically increases the published rating numbers. Tesla is the only truck manufacturer that chooses to not publish separate numbers with weight equalizing, so I made sure to set it up in a way the meets the minimal published specs, knowing that my method adds significant capacity, which in this case is just belt-and-suspenders in the absence of published specs.

OK, my mistake. I assumed the weight of the vehicle and the max towing capacity of 11,000. I did not account for the max cargo capacity and max towing.
I am impartial to this either way. But I never underestimate what a lawyer will come up with in a deposition. Your math looks reasonable to me, a non lawyer.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Well I think you're basing this on the wrong assumption. The Cybertruck 4680s have a capacity of 123 kwh, and a range of 312 miles or so. That would charge to 80%. The R/E had a capacity of 47 kwh and could be charged to 100% if its an LFP pack. So you'd effectively have 99 kWh and 47 kWh. Only marginally better, but 372 miles. That said, its not uncommon to charge to a higher level occasionally for a long trip. You may not supercharge to 100%, but if you're leaving a destination charger, you may plan to have your truck to 100% when you leave. I do this often before a road trip.

When towing heavy, you do wait for 100% charge at Superchargers. No choice. I’ve never been hit with the threatened fees, but have never been at a Supercharger near capacity with other charging vehicles. California might be another story. When towing heavy, all the rules about charging at the lower end of the battery go out the window - you need every bit.

Regarding whether the RE would have been LFP - highly unlikely. There already would have been a payload penalty - a deduction for whatever the pack weighed - could have been half the payload rating. LFP batteries weigh far more than standard Li, are less dense per kWh, so it would be that much worse. That tradeoff alone could have been a factor in axing the RE program - the loss of payload tradeoff with RE against the desire to tow heavier loads were likely in conflict, and may have been a rock and hard place. If the RE added 1,000 pounds to the truck and removed that much payload capacity, you would not be able to have the 1,000-pound tongue weight needed to safely tow a 10,000-pound trailer, after deducting the weight of two large male occupants, assuming no luggage and nothing in the bed.

Bottom line from AI:

• Weight Penalty: LFP packs are generally heavier and larger to provide the same range, increasing the gross vehicle weight.
• Tesla Energy Density Experience: LFP density ranges from 90–160 Wh/kg, whereas NMC/NCA is higher, at 150-300 Wh/kg.

 

[Cyberkingz]

Well I think you're basing this on the wrong assumption. The Cybertruck 4680s have a capacity of 123 kwh, and a range of 312 miles or so. That would charge to 80%. The R/E had a capacity of 47 kwh and could be charged to 100% if its an LFP pack. So you'd effectively have 99 kWh and 47 kWh. Only marginally better, but 372 miles. That said, its not uncommon to charge to a higher level occasionally for a long trip. You may not supercharge to 100%, but if you're leaving a destination charger, you may plan to have your truck to 100% when you leave. I do this often before a road trip.

Okay haha 373 miles is if your wild theory is correct. It makes no sense to have two different chemistries in the same truck, charging and monitoring become a nightmare among other things. And lastly, LFP is not supposed to be charged to 100% every day anyways, it’s still stressful on the cells and will cause lithium plating - just like NMC except NMC is already in the truck and is way more energy dense taking up less space in the bed. Therefore, your theory is still wild although it may sound plausible to some.

 

[pricedm]

Nope - I towed 10,260 pounds today (see CAT scale report below), started with 320 miles range (100%), 35 miles used over half the battery. No way it will make 100 miles assuming 100% to zero...

Serious questions:
1. What range did your diesel 250/350 truck get without load, and with this load?
2. Why would one expect a basically half-ton truck to safely tow such a load?

That boat has "needs F250/ Chevy 2500" for towing written all over it!

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Serious questions:
1. What range did your diesel 250/350 truck get without load, and with this load?
2. Why would one expect a basically half-ton truck to safely tow such a load?

That boat has "needs F250/ Chevy 2500" for towing written all over it!

How is it unsafe? it is SQUARELY inside Tesla's specs. I own several Super Duty trucks on my farm but cannot use them in Florida due to HOA regulations.

My latest F350 (2020) had a diesel engine, 48-gallon tank. It got a legit 18 MPG empty and had an 800-mile range. Towing an identical boat (the one in the pics is a 2026, but I had the same model & weight 2005 version previously), it got slightly over 9 mpg. It had a 400+ mile range towing that rig.

On the other hand, because of the HOA issue, I also had a 2021 F-150 Powerboost (hybrid) with 14,400-lb towing capacity. It normally got 24 MPG empty - but when towing the boat it got 4.5 MPG - and with a 32-gallong tank my range was under 150 miles per tank - not as bad as the CT, but still a pain - but at least there I didn't have to deal with charging and unhooking a trailer at every fueling - I could go under the canopy, fill up in 5 minutes and proceed.

You are correct that there's a right tool for every job - and a super duty truck is better - but the CT was sold as having this capacity - and it does a GREAT job of towing the boat - at least as good, and perhaps more stable than the F350 - because it weighs more than the F350 and has great towing tech, air suspension, etc. It just doesn't have the needed (and promised) range, so isn't suitable for its advertised purpose. There were lots of publicity pics showing CTs towing multi-engine boats and campers until the final release version put that to rest.

I have sensitized this a lot of ways - I have an 18' box trailer that I use to pull my antique cars (lightweight stuff like a '52 MG-TD, old VW's, etc.), so am generally pulling around 4,500 pounds in that trailer - it does way better despite essentially pulling a giant brick - easily gets 150 miles range. But doing the most important thing I need it to do is an impossibility despite it being well inside the listed specifications.

Sponsored