Range Extender Class Action Claim

[pricedm]

@PungoteagueDave interesting your F350 (2020) diesel saw a 50% range reduction when towing. Quite the reduction driving your 2021 F-150 Powerboost (hybrid): "24 MPG empty - but when towing the boat it got 4.5 MPG". Not surprising in a way: efficient propulsion suffers more with an inefficient load than inefficient propulsion does.

I am impressed: towing a very un-aerodynamic 18' box trailer with your Cybertruck results in 150 mile range. Thanks for the details above.

I get 400+ miles on a 1/2 ton ICE truck but 250 miles towing a very light trailer. Sure wish trailer makers would optimize aerodynamics.

Sponsored

 

[PungoteagueDave]

@PungoteagueDave interesting your F350 (2020) diesel saw a 50% range reduction when towing. Quite the reduction driving your 2021 F-150 Powerboost (hybrid): "24 MPG empty - but when towing the boat it got 4.5 MPG". Not surprising in a way: efficient propulsion suffers more with an inefficient load than inefficient propulsion does.

I am impressed: towing a very un-aerodynamic 18' box trailer with your Cybertruck results in 150 mile range. Thanks for the details above.

I get 400+ miles on a 1/2 ton ICE truck but 250 miles towing a very light trailer. Sure wish trailer makers would optimize aerodynamics.

Yes, the issue with hybrid truck efficiency is that they use a twin-turbocharged ecoboost engine to essentially trick the EPA MPG calculation by testing with zero use of the turbos. When towing or doing any truck thing, the turbos kick open - and the theoretically most efficient full size truck in Ford’s lineup becomes its least-efficient truck. Pulling my big boat and largest trailer, the turbos in the F150 ecoboost run full time and simply dump gasoline, and achieving MPG less than half the level in the larger v-8 diesel in the F350. That truck does have a turbo, but it hardly breathes hard, using the turbos only under heavy acceleration, even when towing the heaviest load. Right tool for the job.

From a pulling perspective, the CT is at least as torquey as the big diesel, has no issue towing it well, but uses three times the energy compared to empty, rather than the expected double. Add that to the promised and undelivered RE, I have to pay someone to do my annual treks between homes for that trailer. I can still handle the quad jet ski transfer with either the CT or MY. If I could get 150 miles range the bigger boat would be doable, and at 120, I’d probably tough it out. At sub-90, it isn’t safe or reasonable to attempt.

 

[pricedm]

@PungoteagueDave agree. Towing and rural to remote travel are not easy at this time with EV. Short-term I see a place for Scout-type vehicles with liquid fuel feeding electric motors. Trains do it!

 

[mongo]

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.

One issue, the trailer weight is the 10,260 of the trailer axle plus the tongue weight (and possibly the ball carrier, depending who you ask).
If the trailer is set for 10% tongue weight, the trailer is 11,400 total and slightly over the limit. However, that would put the rest of your payload at only ~231 pounds based on listed curb weight which seems light. Do you have a tongue weight?

Max GCWR is the vehicle's 9,196 GVWR + 90%*11,000 = 19,096.

Weight distribution hitch helps to enable getting the maximum payload along with restoring steering axle load, but it doesn't increase axle or GVWR capacity beyond the published values. (For Cybertruck, others derate when using standard hitch)

 

[PungoteagueDave]

One issue, the trailer weight is the 10,260 of the trailer axle plus the tongue weight (and possibly the ball carrier, depending who you ask).
If the trailer is set for 10% tongue weight, the trailer is 11,400 total and slightly over the limit. However, that would put the rest of your payload at only ~231 pounds based on listed curb weight which seems light. Do you have a tongue weight?

Max GCWR is the vehicle's 9,196 GVWR + 90%*11,000 = 19,096.

Weight distribution hitch helps to enable getting the maximum payload along with restoring steering axle load, but it doesn't increase axle or GVWR capacity beyond the published values. (For Cybertruck, others derate when using standard hitch)

The tongue weight is actually 700, slightly light but the boat dealer was happy with it and the boat tracks great, no lightness in tongue indicated. So the combination at max load is 10,960, under the spec - and never really the weight when underway due to fuel weight. I was very careful about this. The boat had full tanks during the weigh scale process, which was before the first time I put it in the water, literally on the way home from the dealer, so topped-up. That's as heavy as it will ever be. Normally I run at under half tanks when towing. The boat carries 200 gallons, 100 gallons per tank, so 1,400 pounds of fuel. On today's run I had about half load, so the trailer weighed about 700-ish pounds less than at the weigh station, or 9,560. Add the tongue weight of 700, it weighed 10,260-ish.

The indicated 2,300 pounds shown on the tongue weight gauge in the picture above is a pressure weight, not an actual tongue weight. To get the actual tongue weight I simply placed the trailer on the ball, and saw 700 pounds. I then used the Weigh-Safe app dial-in process to determine that the correct spring pressure for load equalizing is 2300-2500 pounds as indicated on the pressure dial. It's a fairly genius-level system that adds and subtracts equalizer spring pressure in easy, small increments, with the gauge providing micro-detail on status. So it is most definitely all copasetic, without touching any specification chalk lines.

The ball carrier is obviously pretty heavy, but is included in the rear axle weight measurement, so not an issue. A bigger concern for me is the fact that Tesla never provided specs for this or any weight equalizing application, but is very conservative on tongue weight specs. Its specs (unusually within the light truck world) provides tongue weight specs based on rearward distance from the hitch pin to the hitch ball (7 inches normally), and they downrate tongue weight rapidly as the ball or weight fulcrum moves rearward from that point, with even some bike racks with heavier e-bikes not qualifying because they can be 18 inches to two feet back at the center point of the downward weight.

Weigh Safe tells me that consideration becomes moot after adding weight equalizing because the ball, while still there, is removed as a fulcrum point, essentially being locked (in terms of vertical movement and pressure on the truck hitch) into being joined with both the truck's frame and the trailer frame by action of the equalizing structure. I'm no engineer, but Ford's relevant written specs say the rated towing weight specifications at the receiver double when adding weight distribution hitches. I recognize that does not legally apply to Tesla specs, but they have left an important hole in their specs for a function that exists on many camper and car carrier trailers.

I contacted Tesla about their view on weight distribution and was told that they have published specs, and beyond that, use my own judgement, they have nothing further to say. This is why I made sure that everything fit into the basic specs published by Tesla, with any added security gained (probably a lot, certainly feels that way when towing) being just an added cushion. In any case, I can't use the truck despite the cool setup except for local towing due to the range hit, will be paying a guy with a diesel superduty, already retained for this coming May. That saves me a couple days, and the CT will handle the 32' (same length) ski rig at the same time, instead of using the MY and CT together as tow vehicles for the northbound caravan.

Interestingly, the wh/mi hit towing the quad ski trailer with the MY is less than with the CT by about 50 wh/mi - counterintuitive because the frontal area on the MY is much less than with the CT, so more of the trailer sticks out, especially on the sides, but the numbers are the numbers. I'm sure it has to do with air vortexes, vacuums, proximity, etc. that are way out of my league, but not what is intuitive.

 

[mongo]

The tongue weight is actually 700, slightly light but the boat dealer was happy with it and the boat tracks great, no lightness in tongue indicated. So the combination at max load is 10,960, under the spec - and never really the weight when underway due to fuel weight. I was very careful about this. The boat had full tanks during the weigh scale process, which was before the first time I put it in the water, literally on the way home from the dealer, so topped-up. That's as heavy as it will ever be. Normally I run at under half tanks when towing. The boat carries 200 gallons, 100 gallons per tank, so 1,400 pounds of fuel. On today's run I had about half load, so the trailer weighed about 700-ish pounds less than at the weigh station, or 9,560. Add the tongue weight of 700, it weighed 10,260-ish.

The indicated 2,300 pounds shown on the tongue weight gauge in the picture above is a pressure weight, not an actual tongue weight. To get the actual tongue weight I simply placed the trailer on the ball, and saw 700 pounds. I then used the Weigh-Safe app dial-in process to determine that the correct spring pressure for load equalizing is 2300-2500 pounds as indicated on the pressure dial. It's a fairly genius-level system that adds and subtracts equalizer spring pressure in easy, small increments, with the gauge providing micro-detail on status. So it is most definitely all copasetic, without touching any specification chalk lines.

The ball carrier is obviously pretty heavy, but is included in the rear axle weight measurement, so not an issue. A bigger concern for me is the fact that Tesla never provided specs for this or any weight equalizing application, but is very conservative on tongue weight specs. Its specs (unusually within the light truck world) provides tongue weight specs based on rearward distance from the hitch pin to the hitch ball (7 inches normally), and they downrate tongue weight rapidly as the ball or weight fulcrum moves rearward from that point, with even some bike racks with heavier e-bikes not qualifying because they can be 18 inches to two feet back at the center point of the downward weight.

Weigh Safe tells me that consideration becomes moot after adding weight equalizing because the ball, while still there, is removed as a fulcrum point, essentially being locked (in terms of vertical movement and pressure on the truck hitch) into being joined with both the truck's frame and the trailer frame by action of the equalizing structure. I'm no engineer, but Ford's relevant written specs say the rated towing weight specifications at the receiver double when adding weight distribution hitches. I recognize that does not legally apply to Tesla specs, but they have left an important hole in their specs for a function that exists on many camper and car carrier trailers.

I contacted Tesla about their view on weight distribution and was told that they have published specs, and beyond that, use my own judgement, they have nothing further to say. This is why I made sure that everything fit into the basic specs published by Tesla, with any added security gained (probably a lot, certainly feels that way when towing) being just an added cushion. In any case, I can't use the truck despite the cool setup except for local towing due to the range hit, will be paying a guy with a diesel superduty, already retained for this coming May. That saves me a couple days, and the CT will handle the 32' (same length) ski rig at the same time, instead of using the MY and CT together as tow vehicles for the northbound caravan.

Interestingly, the wh/mi hit towing the quad ski trailer with the MY is less than with the CT by about 50 wh/mi - counterintuitive because the frontal area on the MY is much less than with the CT, so more of the trailer sticks out, especially on the sides, but the numbers are the numbers. I'm sure it has to do with air vortexes, vacuums, proximity, etc. that are way out of my league, but not what is intuitive.

Ah, full tanks, I also forgot to account for the increased trailer weight due to the WD hitch being loaded. We're running a Continuum hitch to make charging stops disconnects easier. Agree that the WD counteract the torque that limits pin to ball weight.

Spoiler: scale tickets

Truck

Trailer with WD unloaded

Trailer with WD

I'm looking into an roof rack/ aero fairing to try to reduce the range hit with our travel trailer. Also considering questionable techniques like dropping the trailer halfway to go get a fresh charge...

 

[Effonefiddy Lightning]

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.

Good luck with your lawsuit.

 

[cybguy]

Well, sir, if I understand your question correctly, you are asking me to show you an official source that states my range. If the catchword is "promised," you got me, but if you are looking for where/how much range is stated, I am smh because it's on the first page of the Tesla order page, where it differentiates between all-wheel and cyberbeast. It doesn't say "promised"; it says "range." Your point is deflecting my point. I honestly believed that with the Range Extender, I would have the best of both worlds, performance and long range. Had the range extender not been offered, I would have considered the dual motor more seriously. I purchased my first Tesla in 2016, a Model S, and I currently still own it. For me, range is the golden ticket in EV's.

As you can see this forum mostly a fashion show for those that want attention (even if it's mostly negative attention). If you didn't opt out of collective bargaining ( I always recommend doing so but inexcusable not to with Musk as CEO of Tesla) then you really don't have any remedy beyond what is out;ined in that agreement. While FS are significantly less desirable versions as they are associated with early problematic Cybertrucks, maybe just sell the thing at 50% cost and move on. And I mean did you really think the range extender was anything more than Musk lying to deliver more Cybertrucks early on. I actually posted that on this site when deliveries were just starting.

 

[sefar]

So here's my serious answer.

First off, class-action does not benefit you the way you clearly think it does. If you have a good claim, you are much better off as an individual than joining a class. A class action lawsuit results in a team of lawyers making big bucks over many years, and each person that joins the class ends up getting a paltry sum after the lawyers are paid.

Secondly, to win any case you need to have to have a good claim of damages, expressed as dollars. What are your damages for them not selling you a product that you didn't pay for? Sure, you can argue that you wouldn't have bought the vehicle with the knowledge that this add on accessory wouldn't be available. But that didn't cost you anything. You paid for a vehicle equipped exactly the way you were charged. Others have deemed that the price you paid was fair market value. You have no damages.

Just my opinion, but good luck.

I am a lawyer, and I agree. Class actions in theory are awesome, they make it feasible to bring cases where there are a lot of victims with similar small damages. In my opinion they get abused where there are big injuries (agent orange) and the lawyers get paid while the victims don't. You can still sue, if you can find a lawyer willing to take the case. If you have a 50k retainer you will find one but on a contingency? Ima say no.

Proving you were fraudulently induced to buy a truck with the promise that you could later buy a range extender is beyond a long shot. Tesla has historically overpromised so many times that it would difficult to prove you reasonably relied on the representations. Besides, the sales order is silent on the range extender possibility. Their defense here is strong- it wasn't feasible either scientifically or financially to sell the range extender given demand for it.

Proving damages is another tough hill to climb- your loss is the difference in value between what you got and what you hoped to get if you spent more money. Too many FSD owners who didn't order the range extender- see above re financially feasible- to prove what you lost. You could have mitigated your damages by selling the truck the moment it was announced that no range extender was forthcoming too although the value was 20k less by then due to other circumstances like demand and hate for Musk.

You have every right to be angry of course but that doesn't translate into winnable litigation.

 

[CyberLucky]

It seems to me your claimed damages are that you bought a truck you otherwise would not have.

What efforts have you made to return the truck to Tesla? What was Tesla's response when you attempted to return the truck?

It will be helpful in fully understanding the situation if you share the correspondence related to your unsuccessful attempts to return it, and whether Tesla made any offers to buy it back from you.

 

[b2ezu01]

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.

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?

Yes. I'll join.

 

[b2ezu01]

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?

Yes. I'm in.

 

[mhaze]

....

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?

I like this idea because the lawyers pushing it and seeking to profit from it would lose their time and money. Plus get laughed out of court. Hopefully they wouldn't get dismissed on summary judgement but go on for years losing.

 

[bg002h]

I am a lawyer, and I agree. Class actions in theory are awesome, they make it feasible to bring cases where there are a lot of victims with similar small damages. In my opinion they get abused where there are big injuries (agent orange) and the lawyers get paid while the victims don't. You can still sue, if you can find a lawyer willing to take the case. If you have a 50k retainer you will find one but on a contingency? Ima say no.

Proving you were fraudulently induced to buy a truck with the promise that you could later buy a range extender is beyond a long shot. Tesla has historically overpromised so many times that it would difficult to prove you reasonably relied on the representations. Besides, the sales order is silent on the range extender possibility. Their defense here is strong- it wasn't feasible either scientifically or financially to sell the range extender given demand for it.

Proving damages is another tough hill to climb- your loss is the difference in value between what you got and what you hoped to get if you spent more money. Too many FSD owners who didn't order the range extender- see above re financially feasible- to prove what you lost. You could have mitigated your damages by selling the truck the moment it was announced that no range extender was forthcoming too although the value was 20k less by then due to other circumstances like demand and hate for Musk.

You have every right to be angry of course but that doesn't translate into winnable litigation.

Wouldn’t this sort of thing been tried dozens of times before? Surely Tesla isn’t the first to over promise and under deliver and I bet they do so on advice from good counsel.

 

[REM]

Wouldn’t this sort of thing been tried dozens of times before? Surely Tesla isn’t the first to over promise and under deliver and I bet they do so on advice from good counsel.

Can you show us the promise that Tesla made to you?

Sponsored