High Voltage Battery Recall EXPANDED - ARB6 & ARB7

[gtm]

+1
The HV battery recall remedy work on all these pre-2024 Taycans will never be completed.
It's only a plan to be shared with regulators.

Which begs the question of does Porsche even have a plan for dealing with these cars and customers? Unfortunately I have to agree the work "will never be completed". Stack up a bunch of undriveable and essentially unrepairable Taycans (2% of total production?) and there will be lawsuits. This is not a good look for Porsche.

Sponsored

 

[Tooney]

Which begs the question of does Porsche even have a plan for dealing with these cars and customers? Unfortunately I have to agree the work "will never be completed". Stack up a bunch of undriveable and essentially unrepairable Taycans (2% of total production?) and there will be lawsuits. This is not a good look for Porsche.

1. "We hear what you are saying."
2. "Sincerely, we understand."
3. "What you see is what you get."
4. "Look at these new model year Porsches!"

 

[gtm]

1. "We hear what you are saying."
2. "Sincerely, we understand."
3. "What you see is what you get."

Yup, that's probably the plan in 3 lines.

OK, now 4 lines and #4 really rings true.

 

[Rusty Griswald]

Just got my level two Emporia charger can’t wait to charge my Taycan Turbo to 100%
?

 

[Jonathan S.]

Just got my level two Emporia charger can’t wait to charge my Taycan Turbo to 100%
?

Mayor Johnson has issued an evacuation order for a one-mile radius of your house.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Y'all are reading too much into this. My (simple) interpretation is that the original BMS shipped with the gen 1 chemistry/battery had a bug, which prevented it from detecting defective modules before they actually failed. The previous recalls were reactionary - having identified cars with suspected or known module failures but which could not have been prevented. This recall seems to plug that gap.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

EV's have ruined the experience of ICE cars.

Nah.

I think I'd still enjoy a stick-shift 911 around a track

Yes, do it; it'll restore the experience of ICE cars. I'd say the 911 is better in traffic than the Taycan is at the track. Now, if only the damn thing could tow..

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Which begs the question of does Porsche even have a plan for dealing with these cars and customers? Unfortunately I have to agree the work "will never be completed". Stack up a bunch of undriveable and essentially unrepairable Taycans (2% of total production?) and there will be lawsuits. This is not a good look for Porsche.

Well, not much is a good look for Porsche on this forum.

But again, they're not saying 2% of cars are failing/are undriveable; they are saying that (presumably) .6 of modules could be defective from production, and the car's software doesn't detect failure symptoms early enough, thus allowing the module(s) to fail - and then render the car undriveable.

They probably feel 80% SoC is safe to prevent any further failures to occur while the fix is rolled out.

(Also, "remedy is not available at this time" doesn't mean "we're still thinking"; it takes time to roll out software, especially to such highly regulated, heterogeneous markets.)

 

[Uknown]

Y'all are reading too much into this. My (simple) interpretation is that the original BMS shipped with the gen 1 chemistry/battery had a bug, which prevented it from detecting defective modules before they actually failed. The previous recalls were reactionary - having identified cars with suspected or known module failures but which could not have been prevented. This recall seems to plug that gap.

I would believe that if there was more transparency and data. But the lack of communication and nature of the catastrophic failure scenarios while my family sleeps isn’t really what I expect in a car. I don’t know what they could do differently on the communication front but it seems like a lot for this price point, or honestly for any company that cares about customer satisfaction.

They don’t even describe the real issue or how they resolve it in 2025. If I had confidence in the solution I would consider upgrading just for peace of mind.


that said for now I wait and try not to think about it.

 

[gtm]

Well, not much is a good look for Porsche on this forum.

But again, they're not saying 2% of cars are failing/are undriveable; they are saying that (presumably) .6 of modules could be defective from production, and the car's software doesn't detect failure symptoms early enough, thus allowing the module(s) to fail - and then render the car undriveable.

They probably feel 80% SoC is safe to prevent any further failures to occur while the fix is rolled out.

(Also, "remedy is not available at this time" doesn't mean "we're still thinking"; it takes time to roll out software, especially to such highly regulated, heterogeneous markets.)

The way I read the recall notice is that the new software detects a module before it shorts. It does nothing to repair or save the module, simply alerts Porsche and the owner that it needs to get in to service. The notice doesn't read like the software is a "fix" just better monitoring.

The software should be a quick rollout. I have no idea the possible permutations that might be necessary. But this is a potentially catastrophic problem and the "fix" should be a priority. Installing it will be a slow rollout due to the dealer service department bottleneck. Fixing the bad modules will be an even slower process. And you are right "not much is a good look for Porsche on this forum." A very critical group.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

The way I read the recall notice is that the new software detects a module before it shorts. It does nothing to repair or save the module, simply alerts Porsche and the owner that it needs to get in to service. The notice doesn't read like the software is a "fix" just better monitoring.

I didn't say anything about repairing modules, but I do not think it would be a stretch to prevent a fault; surely the BMS could be altered to not charge a known-defective module/bank/battery? So in a way, it is a fix in that it prevents a fault from occurring. I guess we will have to wait and see.

The software should be a quick rollout. I have no idea the possible permutations that might be necessary. But this is a potentially catastrophic problem and the "fix" should be a priority. Installing it will be a slow rollout due to the dealer service department bottleneck. Fixing the bad modules will be an even slower process. And you are right "not much is a good look for Porsche on this forum." A very critical group.

I'll politely leave aside opinions on how long software rollouts should or can take.

This forum will complain bitterly about anything from deviated stitching to phone as a key, going through calendar integration. I'm sure you realized the sarcasm implied in my remark, and so our opinions will differ on the 'criticality' of the group. It's non-zero - I do agree with that.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

I would believe that if there was more transparency and data. But the lack of communication and nature of the catastrophic failure scenarios while my family sleeps isn’t really what I expect in a car. I don’t know what they could do differently on the communication front but it seems like a lot for this price point, or honestly for any company that cares about customer satisfaction.

I recognize that we all perceive 'risk' differently/subjectively, and it's not my intention to critique anyone else's degree of comfort with operating a car with known failures. (I had to bite my tongue quite a bit on the brake line thread.)

However, as someone on "the other side", that of shipping software to users and hearing/reading their criticism, my first question would be: how would it help you knowing exactly what the bug is, or what I'm doing to fix it? There is definitely some assuredness from being acknowledged, and maybe a little extra trust to be gained when presented with full transparency. That's the optimistic, friendly response, though - in reality there is ridicule, misinterpretation and a perceived entitlement to that transparency, forever and at all times. Demanding communication is a sign of lack of trust, and the only cure is to ship/fix/resolve the problem, quickly and quietly. That, presumably, is where the customer satisfaction comes from.

 

[gtm]

I didn't say anything about repairing modules, but I do not think it would be a stretch to prevent a fault; surely the BMS could be altered to not charge a known-defective module/bank/battery? So in a way, it is a fix in that it prevents a fault from occurring. I guess we will have to wait and see.


I'll politely leave aside opinions on how long software rollouts should or can take.

This forum will complain bitterly about anything from deviated stitching to phone as a key, going through calendar integration. I'm sure you realized the sarcasm implied in my remark, and so our opinions will differ on the 'criticality' of the group. It's non-zero - I do agree with that.

Totally missed the sarcasm. This is a serious forum and sarcasm isn't allowed so I wasn't looking for any.

I did not mean to imply that the software rollout could be quick or easy but don't you get the feeling that Porsche has been aware of the battery problems for a long time? The battery recall notices go back a ways and at least two are for "short circuit" (ARA4 & ARA5 I think). By now the software should be ready for rollout given the nature of the problem. I just can't give Porsche the benefit of doubt that they have suddenly had a new insight into battery short circuit problems.

 

[DerekS]

I've about had it with Porsche on this car.

- The charger has an under-specced cable, which was never replaced and I frankly just gave up trying.
- My car might lose brakes, and I don't know when I can get that fixed.
- My car might CATCH FIRE and I don't know if I am affected, if/when I could get that fixed, or how long I'd be without the car if it does needs fixing.

This. Is. Insanity.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Totally missed the sarcasm. This is a serious forum and sarcasm isn't allowed so I wasn't looking for any.

Duly noted. (<- maybe sarcasm )

I did not mean to imply that the software rollout could be quick or easy but don't you get the feeling that Porsche has been aware of the battery problems for a long time? The battery recall notices go back a ways and at least two are for "short circuit" (ARA4 & ARA5 I think). By now the software should be ready for rollout given the nature of the problem. I just can't give Porsche the benefit of doubt that they have suddenly had a new insight into battery short circuit problems.

It has been a long-standing problem, and this is what I was alluding to: that with this recall, they finally cracked the nut of recognizing problems before they become fatal. I am convinced they have spent a lot of time trying to understand both why the failures occur (as in material defects), and how to prevent them - at manufacturing, during assembly or later, while in use. (So, again, IMO they're not detecting shorts with this update - that's still too late; my take is that they observe module behavior wrt charging/discharging, and try to predict impending failures.)

Coming out publicly with this recall is a bit curious: perhaps they are legally obligated to advertise the capability of diagnosing failures, if they have (acquired) it; or perhaps they are confident in their diagnosis, and are leveraging NHTSA to minimize the potential failures (by scaring owners into not charging to full SoC). Either way, from the moment they have a high confidence solution, until that solution is made compliant/localized/scrutinized for the global markets, some considerable amount of time will pass.

Sponsored