Using a 3rd Party Home EV Charger Compromises Warranty? Updated response from PCNA

[Vercingetorix]

Let’s be clear here. The charger is in the car. Nobody has ever used a non-Porsche charger.

Sponsored

 

[TDinDC]

Let’s be clear here. The charger is in the car. Nobody has ever used a non-Porsche charger.

So let's be clear for the purposes of this thread. Charger has been used in the layperson's sense of the devices that are plugged into the car but that are not part of the car itself. I would think that should be obvious from the various posts.

 

[Vercingetorix]

So let's be clear for the purposes of this thread. Charger has been used in the layperson's sense of the devices that are plugged into the car but that are not part of the car itself. I would think that should be obvious from the various posts.

Not when quoting Porsche. If they quote charger then they are factually wrong.

 

[TDinDC]

Not when quoting Porsche. If they quote charger then they are factually wrong.

I think that the letter was merely sloppy (I'm sure not written by a tech), and the lay person's usage of "charger" in this context means third-party alternatives to PMCC

 

[daveo4EV]

I think that the letter was merely sloppy (I'm sure not written by a tech), and the lay person's usage of "charger" in this context means third-party alternatives to PMCC

based on what I understand Porsche is hopelessly confused about this - the lawyers and business people are even worse trained than the dealers/service techs - and really do not understand what they are writing legal opinions about - they have no idea what a charger, EVSE, AC, FastDC. Level 1, Level 2, residential, commerical, voltage, amps, AC/DC converters or DC/AC converters or anything means or how it works

and yet they are writting letter and reviewing warranty amendments with no idea what it means or doesn't mean.

I agree the letter is sloppy - and the warranty is worse - but yet there is it - and to say it's subject to interpretation is an understatement…and it's also non EV friendly and reeks of corporate CYA written by someone that has no understanding what so ever what they are talking about.

it's just a giant sh*t show…and the fact that they can't even be precise or know what they are talking about proves it.

I'm sure they thought they knew what they were saying, but yeah they don't.

 

[TDinDC]

based on what I understand Porsche is hopelessly confused about this - the lawyers and business people are even worse trained than the dealers/service techs - and really do not understand what they are writing legal opinions about - they have no idea what a charger, EVSE, AC, FastDC. Level 1, Level 2, residential, commerical, voltage, amps, AC/DC converters or DC/AC converters or anything means or how it works

and yet they are writting letter and reviewing warranty amendments with no idea what it means or doesn't mean.

I agree the letter is sloppy - and the warranty is worse - but yet there is it - and to say it's subject to interpretation is an understatement…and it's also non EV friendly and reeks of corporate CYA written by someone that has no understanding what so ever what they are talking about.

it's just a giant sh*t show…and the fact that they can't even be precise or know what they are talking about proves it.

I'm sure they thought they knew what they were saying, but yeah they don't.

Agreed, but I don't think anyone should place too much importance on the use of the term "charger" in this communications. It seems pretty clear here that the author meant it as the alternative to PMCC and used like one would refer to an "iPhone charger". But even if the author meant "charger" in the sense of the components of the Taycan itself, it wouldn't change anything apart from making it even less risk to us because who is replacing Taycan chargers with third-party chargers?

 

[daveo4EV]

Agreed, but I don't think anyone should place too much importance on the use of the term "charger" in this communications. It seems pretty clear here that the author meant it as the alternative to PMCC and used like one would refer to an "iPhone charger". But even if the author meant "charger" in the sense of the components of the Taycan itself, it wouldn't change anything apart from making it even less risk to us because who is replacing Taycan chargers with third-party chargers?

you could in fact blugend them to death by starting your argument with let's define terms and get them to agree what terms are in fact precise - EVSE vs. Charger would be a key distinction and then ask them to explain every place in the warranty where they refer to charger or charging equipment that there is no such thing as "non porsche" chargers - because that component is in the car and supplied by the factory and there is no practical alternative

the fact that it is soooo imprecise means it's a terrible write up and leaves Porsche open to all sorts of issues if they want to defend it or customers want to circumvent it.

it's frankly laughable how bad it is since terms/components are imprecisely used.

 

[TDinDC]

you could in fact blugend them to death by starting your argument with let's define terms and get them to agree what terms are in fact precise - EVSE vs. Charger would be a key distinction and then ask them to explain every place in the warranty where they refer to charger or charging equipment that there is no such thing as "non porsche" chargers - because that component is in the car and supplied by the factory and there is no practical alternative

the fact that it is soooo imprecise means it's a terrible write up and leaves Porsche open to all sorts of issues if they want to defend it or customers want to circumvent it.

it's frankly laughable how bad it is since terms/components are imprecisely used.

I think she may have actually cut and pasted the less relevant bullet point from page 5 of the warranty pamphlet.

The more relevant language from page 5 of the warranty pamphlet is as follows:

"Batteries damaged from storage, lack of normal vehicle use, or non- Porsche approved electrical or accessory installation."

I cannot imagine that the use of a non-Porsche EVSE would make it possible to gain "unauthorized access to vehicle data or software" in a manner that could result in damage to the vehicle's hardware or software (or loss of personal information).

 

[daveo4EV]

I think she may have actually cut and pasted the less relevant bullet point from page 5 of the warranty pamphlet.

The more relevant language from page 5 of the warranty pamphlet is as follows:

"Batteries damaged from storage, lack of normal vehicle use, or non- Porsche approved electrical or accessory installation."

I cannot imagine that the use of a non-Porsche EVSE would make it possible to gain "unauthorized access to vehicle data or software" in a manner that could result in damage to the vehicle's hardware or software (or loss of personal information).

I agree 100%

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

IANAL, but this is a very weak statement: "The warranty would be compromised due to using a third party charger."

Compromised != void. If anything, if "compromised" is interpreted as "loss of integrity", then there is a very specific legal meaning of the construct "breach of warranty" - and it's on the side of the provider/guarantor of that warranty. Put plainly, the manufacturer acknowledges they could not fulfill their obligation in that case _without implying user fault_.

Glad for OP that PCNA offered them a private settlement (as several forum participants said would be the case).

 

[TDinDC]

IANAL, but this is a very weak statement: "The warranty would be compromised due to using a third party charger."

Compromised != void. If anything, if "compromised" is interpreted as "loss of integrity", then there is a very specific legal meaning of the construct "breach of warranty" - and it's on the side of the provider/guarantor of that warranty. Put plainly, the manufacturer acknowledges they could not fulfill their obligation in that case _without implying user fault_.

Glad for OP that PCNA offered them a private settlement (as several forum participants said would be the case).

To me, it's clear that this wasn't meant to be a legal statement. It was meant as a lay person warning to be careful: "don't do X or you will compromise/impair your warranty". I also think that this person may not be a native English speaker (and I don't meant this as an insult). Sometimes when you translate from your language to another, you can get the meaning basically right but the details wrong. Literally lost in translation.

I mean, no question that it is sloppy. I just don't think it can be used.

I am also glad OP reached a good outcome. I was one of the many persons who supported this approach over litigation.

 

[DerekS]

This thread is absurd.

The J-1772 standard exists for a reason.

It is laughable to think you're somehow voiding your warranty by using any non-Porsche J-1772 equipment to charge your car.

The way I read this is that if (and only if) some third party charger provably caused damage to the car, it's not Porsche's problem. Which is completely reasonable and fair.

 

[Replika]

Denying a warranty for using a non-Porsche charger or charge connector would be the biggest scandal in EVs. It’s not going to happen.

I am quite surprised that about this whole charge cable-gate though. My Mini electric came with a pretty kickass charge connector with modular heads. It’s built like a tank and has no problem charging at its rated limit. I imagine they would replace it immediately if it were proven to be defective.

 

[B61]

The way it reads, at least to me, is if the car is damaged by using a defective non-Porsche home charger that damage isn't covered under warranty. Makes perfect sense to me. I doubt this is a common issue unless you are buying a cheap no-name home charging solution.

I don;t believe that anyone would buy a non-name charging solution….but it looks that Porsche deliver bad one in the States….

 

[B61]

I think that the letter was merely sloppy (I'm sure not written by a tech), and the lay person's usage of "charger" in this context means third-party alternatives to PMCC

It’s written & signed by Porsche.
Period.

Sponsored