TSB: Yellow Warning "Vehicle Electrical System Faulty" With HV Fault Entry "Cell ModuleX, Ageing Detected" - May 27, 2026

[Tooney]

Relates to ARB6, ARB7, and WRS0 high-voltage battery campaigns.

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2026/MC-11033652-0001.pdf

Sponsored

 

[Tooney]

@chun loves it when these Taycan HV battery problems are described as "ageing".

My read of the TSB is that these repairs are only covered by Porsche during the HV battery warranty period.

 

[chun]

@chun loves it when these Taycan HV battery problems are described as "ageing".

My read of the TSB is that these repairs are only covered by Porsche during the HV battery warranty period.

Because it's nonsense. The recalls call it a manufacturing defect: torn anode, etc.
The fix can't just rewrite history and call it "aging", which very conviently is the language that allows them to not be covered by the extended warranty.
It should be illegal - and likely it is. But goverments are asleep at the wheel.

The fact that they are allowed to write this shit is mind boggling:

"After we installed a notification system in the car to inform the user of their battery braking down due to MANUFACTURING DEFECTS, we can consider the recall addressed" - without them actually fixing the defects

This has class action lawsuit written all over it, all it takes is a pissed off enough customer - and it will likely happen as soon as the first few cars go out of the "8 year manufacturer warranty" and into the "extended warranty" that won't cover the aging defect, even though they are clearly not aging defects, but unadressed manufacturing defects that abused loopholes in the recall process

 

[AutoX]

Because it's nonsense. The recalls call it a manufacturing defect: torn anode, etc.
The fix can't just rewrite history and call it "aging", which very conviently is the language that allows them to not be covered by the extended warranty.
It should be illegal - and likely it is. But goverments are asleep at the wheel.

The fact that they are allowed to write this shit is mind boggling:

"After we installed a notification system in the car to inform the user of their battery braking down due to MANUFACTURING DEFECTS, we can consider the recall addressed" - without them actually fixing the defects

This has class action lawsuit written all over it, all it takes is a pissed off enough customer - and it will likely happen as soon as the first few cars go out of the "8 year manufacturer warranty" and into the "extended warranty" that won't cover the aging defect, even though they are clearly not aging defects, but unadressed manufacturing defects that abused loopholes in the recall process

I'm surprise that a law firm has not started a class action lawsuit yet. Especially since a significant portion of porsche owners are lawyers.

 

[chun]

I'm surprise that a law firm has not started a class action lawsuit yet. Especially since a significant portion of porsche owners are lawyers.

No taycan is yet older than 8 years, to be hit with "aging defect not covered by extended warranty" yet. But it's not that much longer.

In all likelyhood porsche did the math and its cheaper to settle a class action in 2028-2030 than repair tens of thousands of batteries. Which is funny, considering how budget EVs have had similar or literarly the same issues and yet still chose to not fuck the customers

 

[AutoX]

No taycan is yet older than 8 years, to be hit with "aging defect not covered by extended warranty" yet. But it's not that much longer.

In all likelyhood porsche did the math and its cheaper to settle a class action in 2028-2030 than repair tens of thousands of batteries. Which is funny, considering how budget EVs have had similar or literarly the same issues and yet still chose to not fuck the customers

Other EVs manufacturers using LG batteries settled with LG and then used that money to offset some of their losses when replacing the battery. I wonder if Porsche just took the money from LG and ran.

 

[Tooney]

If a manufacturer warrants a battery for 8 years, I assume manufacturing defects are included in that warranty.

What is the rationale for claiming that manufacturing defects should be covered beyond the warranty period?

Another way of putting this: what is the supposed basis for "lawsuits" some have mentioned?
I am not disagreeing - I don't understand.

 

[chun]

If a manufacturer warrants a battery for 8 years, I assume manufacturing defects are included in that warranty.

What is the rationale for claiming that manufacturing defects should be covered beyond the warranty period?

Another way of putting this: what is the supposed basis for "lawsuits" some have mentioned?
I am not disagreeing - I don't understand.

Well... for one, did your battery get replaced? Because yours and everyone's for sure has a few cells in them with a manufacturing defect.

And ignoring that - extended warranty is supposed to cover the battery, beyond the 8 years of LG warranty. Funny thing is, that only "aging defects" are explicitly not covered. And this is the only aging defect - even though it is not because of aging, but because of bad manufacturing.

Does this clarify it?

The basis of the lawsuit is this: how can a manufacturing defect, documented in recalls as a manufacturing defect, be classified as "aging" - specific language used to deny warranty work on it.

The basis of the lawsuit could also be: how can the fix for a hardware manufacturing defect be a notification system.

The basis of another lawsuit could be: why has porsche not repaired affected vehicles in advance of them braking down, like all other manufacturers that used the same LG chem cells, on LG's dime? There is precedent from 2 or 3 other companies on how the defect was treated - full battery replacement. Why did porsche think a notification system is enough - even though they plan to refuse fixing it beyond 8 years and let the cars burn, while 3 other manufacturers thought that is not enough?

Example:
In 2031, a battery cell in your 2022 taycan will break down from a manufacturing defect called: torn anode - defect which has not shown its teeth until 2031. Your battery is out of warranty, but no worries, you bought extended warranty, which include the HV battery. This is a manufacturing defect - yet porsche will deny your claim, because they want to call it "aging defect". Now, you have 2 choices: Let the car burn down or pay out of pocket for a new battery - even though the battery came with the defect in it from day 1 from the manufacturing line

 

[Tooney]

I understand the concern about aging being an exemption on an extended warranty. A primary extended warranty ("platinum" vehicle service plan) offered for Taycans in USA does not cover batteries at all.

Regarding the battery being replaced for a manufacturing defect, the terms of the Porsche manufacturing warranty do not explicitly state that a manufacturing defect in a battery will result in the battery being replaced.

From what I know, the concern with ARB6, ARB7, and other "hv battery may short circuit" recalls was the risk of fire. Porsche tested or monitored the batteries either in the shop or OTA, replaced defective modules or batteries, and installed software to warn/monitor/limit charging for that recall situation. This TSB appears to be a follow-up for those recalls. It looks like the TSB indicates that if the battery monitoring is triggered with the warning and certain codes, replacement will occur at Porsche's cost as long as the battery is within its warranty.

Is a notification system and warranty coverage for eight years for a problem occurring under recall legally sufficient? Actually it is more than mere notification because if an owner chooses not to have the problem he is notified about fixed, the battery charging capacity is reduced to 80% and eventually 50% which apparently eliminates the risk of fire. Perhaps that eight-year warranty limit would be a basis for taking the matter to court.

If Porsche did not handle this like other manufacturers have done, is that a basis for a suit? I don't know.

At least now I know your reasons for possible lawsuits.

 

[gnr3312]

Was going to say the same thing here @Tooney. Wouldn’t it be the external warranty company denying this and not Porsche because the manufacturer itself doesn’t cover batteries with their extended warranty product? At the 8 year mark I’m going to look at the warranty market and find out if there’s one that covers it, but if not then I’ll figure out the vehicle’s worth and replacing the battery if issues happen vs. getting a new vehicle.

 

[KLHubb]

Let's hope that Porsche rises to the ocassion and finds a solution to the HV battery QC/warranty problem.
It would be a same to see these wonderful vehicles in the dumpster.

 

[AutoX]

Let's hope that Porsche rises to the ocassion and finds a solution to the HV battery QC/warranty problem.
It would be a same to see these wonderful vehicles in the dumpster.

Solution is to replace the battery, doubt Porsche will pony up for that unless it's forced to by a lawsuit.

 

[Tooney]

Was going to say the same thing here @Tooney. Wouldn’t it be the external warranty company denying this and not Porsche because the manufacturer itself doesn’t cover batteries with their extended warranty product? At the 8 year mark I’m going to look at the warranty market and find out if there’s one that covers it, but if not then I’ll figure out the vehicle’s worth and replacing the battery if issues happen vs. getting a new vehicle.

Today's version of the US Porsche-branded Platinum EV service plan (contracted with third-party Safeguard) excludes batteries.
I have read that Taycan service plans from Fidelity cover the HV battery.

(Including coverage for the HV battery in a competetively-priced plan seems too good to be true. After 2028 we will find out how well that coverage works.)

 

[KLHubb]

Yes indeed....no doubt too good to be true.

 

[AutoX]

The question will be whether EV batteries are considered a wear item when they fail.

Sponsored