The report also says "non-US cars", so if I were to guess, they were not recalled because the existing law framework (in whatever locale those batteries did leak) did not require the issuance of a recall. ?
Late comer to this discussion - My reading of the Electrek article and the NHTSA website is different. It is my understanding that there has always been a "battery sealant" to prevent moisture from entering the HV battery. Check this article out that reads in part --
Yea, the recall did not say "new sealant was introduced", only that "sealant was introduced". The word "new" changes the meaning. But even if they just switched to a new sealant, from the report it would seem like the old sealant was not good enough, or else they would not have needed to switch.
So the conclusion is that the old solution was only leaking outside the US then, because there was no US cars reporting leaks yet?The report also says "non-US cars", so if I were to guess, they were not recalled because the existing law framework (in whatever locale those batteries did leak) did not require the issuance of a recall. ?
And, to further the analogy, the original heisenbug was converted into a steady repro by the new feature.
The recall verifier has a VIN leak. (They’ll address it with a recall.)
The APB2 recall currently applies to 900+ (probably undelivered) cars. There are 4777 total Taycans in the US with the potentially bad sealant per the notification. I suspect you will get a notice on or about October 31. Count yourself lucky that you have a car to drive.
My guess is that they added a new sealant vendor as part of their supply chain management activity. For all we know they now have multiple vendors providing battery sealant materials. That would make sense since most companies want multiple suppliers whenever possible.
The recall said "Teroson sealant" was introduced, which has the same meaning as 'new', 'different' (ie it's a qualified noun). Also, these documents are polished and reviewed up and down the chain of several disciplines (engineering, PM, marketing etc.) I'm sure you've participated in security incidents, and so witnessed that process firsthand: you never volunteer unnecessary words or clarifications.
Yes, correct. Back to the security incident analogy - first you try to placate the finder ("it's by design", "it's only in your geo", "you're holding it wrong"); if they prove their mettle (ie have proof), then you admit it, as narrowly as possible.
It makes sense, except for if the new sealant was introduced as part of supply chain management, why mention battery leaks prior to new sealant? If on the other hand new sealant was to address leaks, then shouldn't older car be recalled too?
I would expect nothing happens. For 97% of cars, the new sealant works fine and the cars will be returned to the owner with the recall satisfied after testing.
Here's what I suspect is happening. Cars built before the new sealant was introduced aren't being recalled because they were built to meet existing standards. Cars built between Sept 22 and May 23 with the defective sealant were built explicitly to be "air tight" and the sealant has failed to meet that standard to 100% effectiveness. The ones being recalled are the ones where Porsche and Audi can point at Henkels Automotive and say "Your sealant is failing to perform to the specifications you provided when applied per your instructions."
So what you're saying is Porsche calculated the number of pre-MY23 batteries expected to leak within their battery warranty is low enough that their battery replacement and possible fire liability is cheaper than a recall. For MY23 the new sealant is bad enough that too many batteries will fail, causing larger cost than the recall cost. Did I get that right?
I guess I hope this is the case. This seems like something they'd want to be super certain of, if only for the lawsuits that would result from them deciding to wait for actual failures of a known compromised component causing a fire somewhere.
