Underbody Protection Panel damaged. Batteries and coolant lines need inspection. $72.5K replacement & labor cost. Dealership is Tom Wood in Indiana

[whitex]

My impression is that proactive checks for ‘protection plate’ damage is a relatively new thing and that dealers are following a Porsche issued script.

Perhaps dealers, used to cars flying off the lots with ADM over the pandemic, are putting pressure on Porsche now that cars are sitting on lots and require discounts to move? These new battery replacements at $72.5K could be a decent revenue driver for both Porsche and the dealers. Given dealer in question here lowered the price from $72.5K to $44K, I'm going to guess at $72.5K they would have made more money on this transaction than on most Taycans they sell nowadays.

Sponsored

 

[D00notD00d]

Perhaps dealers, used to cars flying off the lots with ADM over the pandemic, are putting pressure on Porsche now that cars are sitting on lots and require discounts to move? These new battery replacements at $72.5K could be a decent revenue driver for both Porsche and the dealers. Given dealer in question here lowered the price from $72.5K to $44K, I'm going to guess at $72.5K they would have made more money on this transaction than on most Taycans they sell nowadays.

I think the $72k price was a ‘mistake’. Insurance companies will have evidence of typical prices. Not surprised that price was challenged. $44k is very close to the UK price for the same job.

Porsche dealers are having to make significant investment in HV skills and resources. They need a return on that investment. My view is that independents won’t get a foothold in EV maintenance for some time and monopoly pricing will prevail.
Myopic numpty legislators have birthed a problem child. Their transition laws will have to change.

 

[whitex]

I think the $72k price was a ‘mistake’.

So your argument here is that if the customer paid the $72.5K, whether covered entirely or partially by insurance, this "mistake" would have eventually been discovered by some Porsche audit and customer would have received a voluntary refund? Should @DerekS be expecting the difference he covered between what insurance was willing to pay for his glass roof replacement and what the dealer wanted? Or do you mean "mistake" wink, wink - dealer has to try to make money, right?

Porsche dealers are having to make significant investment in HV skills and resources. They need a return on that investment. My view is that independents won’t get a foothold in EV maintenance for some time and monopoly pricing will prevail.

Right to repair laws are needed, to allow independents to come in without having to reverse engineer and hack the car, which is what happened in the Tesla market - there are independent shops which will happily repair Tesla batteries or other parts for less than Tesla charges, in most cases. Taycan does not have the volumes to support hacker shops. Heck, at $44K for a scratch like in this case, I would start a business to do a swap of all modules to a new tray for $25K ,given enough customers and access to buy Porsche parts at dealer prices. Of course dealers have no such aspirations, as there is more money they can make with less skilled labor simply swapping batteries. There is an independent shop in the US which repairs Taycan batteries, but they only do it for Porsche warranty or recall covered batteries, and I bet they have some heavy contractual clauses preventing them from offering this to regular customers. There may also be laws in the US protecting the dealers, preventing Porsche from selling parts to non-dealers - dealers have very effective and well funded lobbyists in the US, protecting their bottom line by paying politicians to grant dealers a monopoly of sorts. There are states where it is illegal for Tesla for example to sell or service their cars, because they don't operate through dealers, meaning no money for the dealership associations.

 

[D00notD00d]

So your argument here is that if the customer paid the $72.5K, whether covered entirely or partially by insurance, this "mistake" would have eventually been discovered by some Porsche audit and customer would have received a voluntary refund? .

That‘s not my argument- I’m saying that Insurance Companies have evidence of representative repair costs and were right to challenge the $72k estimate here. Their other option was to write the car off - possibly a better outcome for the owner. Escalation to the Porsche importer did its job and brought the dealer into line. Had an insurance company not been involved I’d like to think that the importer would still help the customer reach a fair conclusion, without legal recourse testing whether the design is fit for purpose.

The current EV repair market is against consumer and competition law interests, likely an unforeseen uncomfortable consequence of the rush to transition to EVs. I think that will take some time to unravel. In the UK and Europe parts availability isn’t the issue, HV skills, expertise, health and safety are the difficulties. This also affects some aspects of PHEV maintenance. Manufacturers hold all of the cards. Dealers have always made more from maintenance than sales.

What Porsche does in the battery warranty space beyond year 8 will determine whether Taycan becomes a disposable rapidly depreciating consumable with a short term life, like an iPhone or a TV. Porsche cannot stick its head in the sand, that is affecting new and used sales profits, it has to step forward with a solution soon. Blowing £1k on an iPhone every few years isn’t the same as blowing £100k on a Porsche EV every few years.

 

[Boss Hogg]

My impression is that proactive checks for ‘protection plate’ damage is a relatively new thing and that dealers are following a Porsche issued script.
While Porsche claim that changing from metal to composite on the Gen 2 car is for weight saving, I doubt that material will ‘ding’ in the same way that metal does.
I asked if the Gen 2 part could replace the Gen 1 part and the answer was negative. If anyone has access to both generations I’d love to know how different they are.
My last insurer declined to renew my Taycan last year. Nothing had changed my side.

Here is what it looks like. Sounds and feels very brittle, my guess is that the weave within it will spread the force of a point impact better than the metal and/or shatter on heavy impact so be more obviously broken, avoiding arguments over 0.3mm. It certainly does not feel like it will hold a dent.

Will need to get a drawing to check if it is the same size and hole pitch as J1.

 

[thenaimis]

As has been pointed out here - I do feel like I've been held to ransom, I don't know if this is Porsche policy or the dealer but PCNA didn't do anything to contradict what the dealer had said

IANAL but I believe this is going to be a matter of state law. Some states will have stronger consumer protection laws that would have prevented this from happening the way it did.

It's largely academic at this point but you might find Lehto's Law on youtube to be of interest. I'm pretty sure this subject has come up on more than one occasion. (Steve Lehto is a lemon law attorney in Michigan, or at least was when I stopped watching youtube)

 

[whitex]

I was just thinking. I wonder what this whole experience would have been like if @Maelstrom had Porsche Auto Insurance. Would the dealer still try to bill $72.5K? Would Porsche rip them a new one for that? Would a swap of just the battery tray become an option suddenly?

Anyone out there with Porsche Insurance who could call the insurance ask a hypothetical?

 

[Caraholic]

Have a feeling if that was the case a more detailed look would been done to see if there was actually any material damage to the battery.

 

[Maelstrom]

The one thing I really can't get over is this apparent policy of >3mm is an inspection and likely a replacement HV Tray
Think about it, 2.9mm, you're ok 3.1mm you're not - that's 0.2mm which is a tiny amount - this tolerance simply cannot be this tight, it's literally next to nothing!!

 

[Uknown]

Here is what it looks like. Sounds and feels very brittle, my guess is that the weave within it will spread the force of a point impact better than the metal and/or shatter on heavy impact so be more obviously broken, avoiding arguments over 0.3mm. It certainly does not feel like it will hold a dent.

Will need to get a drawing to check if it is the same size and hole pitch as J1.

Maybe it is also a part which can be field replaced cheaper/easier than the metal one which appears to be a full replacement if it is damaged?

 

[Tooney]

The one thing I really can't get over is this apparent policy of >3mm is an inspection and likely a replacement HV Tray
Think about it, 2.9mm, you're ok 3.1mm you're not - that's 0.2mm which is a tiny amount - this tolerance simply cannot be this tight, it's literally next to nothing!!

Since the policy of more-than-3-mm increases non-warranty revenue (repair parts and labor) for Porsche and its dealers while reportedly protecting owners from the effects of potential battery damage, why is understanding the reason for the policy so difficult?
Follow the money.
POSIWID.

 

[gtm]

The one thing I really can't get over is this apparent policy of >3mm is an inspection and likely a replacement HV Tray
Think about it, 2.9mm, you're ok 3.1mm you're not - that's 0.2mm which is a tiny amount - this tolerance simply cannot be this tight, it's literally next to nothing!!

Since the policy of more than 3 mm increases non-warranty revenue (repair parts and labor) for Porsche and its dealers while reportedly protecting owners from the effects of potential battery damage, why is understanding the reason for the policy so difficult?
Follow the money.

The Porsche policy of an inspection was in fact correct, with the added bonus of creating what appears to be a very lucrative repair. The 3mm dent did contact the cooling channel. The protection plate flexed to some extent, possibly by a decent amount if the impact was centered between the mounting bolts. So the actual impact was some amount over 3mm. The part that doesn't feel right is why there was no attempt to repair the coolant channel or explain why it couldn't be repaired. It is unlikely to be finned internally like a radiator and the fins were crushed. That construction would require a complicated process of connecting the fins to the battery bottom to transfer heat. Most likely it's a shallow open channel with a restriction on the exit/return side and a variable speed pump. If that is how the coolant channel is constructed it is easily repaired. As the customer I would like an explanation of why a repair is not possible. I would think the insurance company would want the same. Just feels disingenuous not to have an explanation.

 

[Tooney]

The Porsche policy of an inspection was in fact correct, with the added bonus of creating what appears to be a very lucrative repair. The 3mm dent did contact the cooling channel. The protection plate flexed to some extent, possibly by a decent amount if the impact was centered between the mounting bolts. So the actual impact was some amount over 3mm. .

This is a vehicle safety problem. It ought to be reported to NHTSA.
A 3mm dent to the HV battery apparently means the battery cooling has been affected and the battery must be replaced. That's what owner has been told.

Is the Taycan HV battery and its cooling system too fragile/unsafe?
Is the underbody protection plate for the Taycan too fragile/unsafe?
Is the design ok but in this case the battery and/or underbody protection were not to spec/unsafe?
If the design and manufacture are up to spec, are the maintenance procedures (inspections, warning systems, etc.) sufficient to detect HV battery failures and possible accidents and fires from 3 mm dents?

Owner was unaware his HV battery was catastrophically damaged.

Report the incident to NHTSA.
A lot more people who count will read about the issue from NHTSA complaint than in this forum.

 

[gtm]

This is a vehicle safety problem. It ought to be reported to NHTSA.
A 3mm dent to the HV battery apparently means the battery cooling has been affected and the battery must be replaced. That's what owner has been told.

Is the Taycan HV battery and its cooling system too fragile/unsafe?
Is the underbody protection plate for the Taycan too fragile/unsafe?
Is the design ok but in this case the battery and/or underbody protection were not to spec/unsafe?
If the design and manufacture are up to spec, are the maintenance procedures (inspections, warning systems, etc.) sufficient to prevent HV battery failures and possible accidents and fires from 3 mm dents?

Owner was unaware his HV battery was catastrophically damaged.

Report the incident to NHTSA.
A lot more people who count will read about the issue from NHTSA complaint than in this forum.

Totally agree with you on this. On reporting it to the NHTSA and your points on the fragility of the construction. Porsche's 3mm criteria seems to be correct. How a very small dent can total any car is nuts. Really should be investigated.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

The one thing I really can't get over is this apparent policy of >3mm is an inspection and likely a replacement HV Tray
Think about it, 2.9mm, you're ok 3.1mm you're not - that's 0.2mm which is a tiny amount - this tolerance simply cannot be this tight, it's literally next to nothing!!

Here's another perspective: the tray is designed for no damage or bending whatsoever; up to 3mm may be tolerated without serious consequences (other than financial, I mean) but 4mm would be unsafe. So you have to pick a number because that's how rules work.

I second the call for a damage report; since payment has been authorized, neither the dealer nor Porsche can claim confidentiality anymore. I understand the bit about core exchange, but I imagine you still have the right to examine the part you're giving away in exchange.

Sponsored