High Voltage Battery Recall EXPANDED - ARB6 & ARB7

[BigBob]

My car's in for service today - OPC confirmed the monitoring software is NOT available yet.

I wonder if the chap who wrote the idiotic letter will write to us with an update. Won’t hold my breath.

Sponsored

 

[D00notD00d]

The WRS0 workshop campaign letter in Dec 24 said that the smoke alarm sw would be available ‘from the first quarter of 2025’. No charging constraints were notified then.
The ARB6 letter issued March 25 says that the sw is expected to be available from the second half of 2025. This notified the ‘do not charge under cover and ‘do not charge adjacent to or under buildings’. Bizarrely it did not preclude charging adjacent to other cars - just as risky. It also notified the requirement for a dealer check every 60 days, and 80% maximum charge limit.

IMO the apparent failure of the ARA4 work, lack of faith in OTA monitoring and the SW development delay all indicate that Porsche has lost control of this issue. The ‘do not charge under cover’ and ‘do not charge adjacent to or under buildings’ DVSA requirement is very significant.

* Please let me know if you’re also now waiting for the ARB6 recall - by DM if you prefer.

 

[Tooney]

@D00notD00d Thanks for sharing the copy of ARB6 letter from March.
The 2nd half of 2025 for the HV battery monitoring software is what I have read from other forums.

 

[D00notD00d]

IMO the apparent failure of the ARA4 work, lack of faith in OTA monitoring and the SW development delay all indicate that Porsche has lost control of this issue. The ‘do not charge under cover’ and ‘do not charge adjacent to or under buildings’ DVSA requirement is very significant.

* Please let me know if you’re also now waiting for the ARB6 recall - by DM if you prefer.

 

[GTSS]

Apologies for the tone of my first post here – I wish it could be a more positive one, but unfortunately I’m dealing with some frustration.


Given the 80% charging limit, mandatory 60-day inspections, and the indefinite delay of the promised diagnostic software – does this, in your opinion, constitute a sufficient basis for legal action within the EU?


I’m especially interested in whether any owners in Europe (or elsewhere) have initiated legal steps or received buyback offers or compensation.


In my case, Porsche’s legal representative confirmed that battery modules will be replaced only if proven faulty – but that doesn’t really address the core issue: the risk is being monitored, not resolved.


Would appreciate any experience or input from members who are also pursuing legal advice or action. Thank you.

 

[whitex]

They said the software patch would be released in Q1, so it should all be sorted in a couple of days time. Or did they leave that bit out of your letter?

Porsche seems to have switched to "Elon time". End of day means end of the month at best, "soon" means some day maybe, "3 months maybe, 6 months for sure" means within a couple of decades, etc. Hey, it worked for Elon, at least until he entered politics (something he originally tried everything to avoid, sadly once your company is large enough, it's impossible to stay out of politics - most large US companies make large donations to both parties, Elon just decided to take sides if he's going to be forced into politics - he always had gone all-in on everything he does).

 

[whitex]

Latest rumour for a while is that the monitoring software expected during Q1 (my dealer wasn't optimistic it would be ready before end of March even at the beginning of January) will now be available in Q2...
Until then I think the uncertainty will inevitably continue and even with monitoring software exactly how any problem may develop is uncertain I suspect.

Isn't it a great sign of a quality company when the originally communicated deadline passes quietly and all the customers have to go on is rumors? What happened to open communication with customers? Is this intentional, or just due to corporate incompetence? *sigh*

 

[whitex]

Given the 80% charging limit, mandatory 60-day inspections, and the indefinite delay of the promised diagnostic software – does this, in your opinion, constitute a sufficient basis for legal action within the EU?

Would a 20% plus whatever actual loss of capacity qualify for warranty claim under Porsche's battery warranty? If so, demand a new battery under warranty, since the old one lost its capacity via a combination of Porsche restriction (20% instant loss) plus aging. If they need to give you a new Taycan with the new battery, I'm sure you wouldn't complain.

 

[D00notD00d]

They said the software patch would be released in Q1, so it should all be sorted in a couple of days time. Or did they leave that bit out of your letter?

In answer to your questions, I’m still waiting for my 100metre long charging extension cable so I can charge away from buildings.

The Porsche Charger manual says ‘don’t use a charging cable extension’. I need a 100m 32a cable. And then not park it next to my oil tank or other cars.

 

[chun]

Before seeing this general thread, I also posted this in the UK specific ARB6 thread ….

My UK ARA4 recall was completed July-August 24. Analysis of the car’s logs showed one module needed replacing and the others were ok. I thought that was it.

Last week I received the ARB6 recall. Its impacts are:
- do not charge under/in or adjacent to a building
- workshop attention every 60 days
- maximum charge 80%

From this it seems that the ARA4 recall and Porsche’s previous analysis, both OTA and the VAL submission that was the basis of the module replacement, cannot be relied upon.
The delay in availability of the ‘smoke alarm’ monitoring sw also seems to indicate that its development is troublesome.

- Has any one else who has already had a module swap recall now also received ARB6?
- Compared to mine above, were any different charging constraints communicated to you?
- If you have OTA monitoring and updates in place, do you also now need a workshop visit every 60 days? (This indicates OTA monitoring is unreliable?).
- How are you coping with the ‘don’t charge under or near any building’ constraint? Are you still parking next to other cars while charging? (Where do Porsche dealers charge cars that have this constraint?)

I understand that 2019 ipace models (also with LG batteries) were scrapped because dealers considered them unsafe to work on and because of the repair costs.
Some Mercedes with LG batteries are also under recall and have charging constraints.

Me.

I also had ARA4 done, and received letters for arb6 and 7.
Under a work campaign associated to the ARA4 recall, they have replaced 3 modules. Sadly in switzerland they are not required and they do not give detailed info. Could also be just because they are french...

So far the dealer said there is no avaliable work campaign for either arb6 or arb7, so nothing to do but follow the restrictions from the letters. Which is impossible, as i can only park in a inside underground parking, and I have to charge often to 100% as I actually drive my car (30.000km just last year), and i of course charge it in that undeground parking, because porsche is not actually paying for my fast charging away from buildings.

The new software for OTA battery monitoring is not avaliable, again, according to my dealer. At least in Swiss.

I am also not taking the car every 60 days to the dealer, because the dealer told me not to, as they can't do anything and won't do anything even if I take it. So clearly porsche central doesn't understand the effort required by the dealers to do these checks, and doesn't enforce the dealers to do them either, therefore some dealers simply turn you down when you ask about it.

 

[D00notD00d]

Would a 20% plus whatever actual loss of capacity qualify for warranty claim under Porsche's battery warranty? If so, demand a new battery under warranty, since the old one lost its capacity via a combination of Porsche restriction (20% instant loss) plus aging. If they need to give you a new Taycan with the new battery, I'm sure you wouldn't complain.

The battery warranty is 80% at 3 years and 70% at 8 (happy to be corrected on the 8 yr figure). So it reasonable to argue that Porsche is complying with the battery warranty. Whether the car is of satisfactory quality, fit for the intended purpose, and ‘quiet possession’ is being denied are the likely legal points.

I can live with bad comms. I can live with missed targets. I can’t live with unsatisfactory repairs and then being told I can’t charge my car at home, and nowhere else I’m aware of.

 

[GTSS]

MY battery health is at 85% at 60.000km, according to OBDLink. This is bad by itself. With 80% charge limit it is much worse.

 

[whitex]

The battery warranty is 80% at 3 years and 70% at 8 (happy to be corrected on the 8 yr figure). So it reasonable to argue that Porsche is complying with the battery warranty. Whether the car is of satisfactory quality, fit for the intended purpose, and ‘quiet possession’ is being denied are the likely legal points.

If Porsche has limited the battery capacity to 80%, then any aging would bring it beyond the capacity loss for 3 year threshold. Whether a hard limitation (no Taycan is really allowed to charge to 100% of every cell, software stops it at less) or a policy based limitation (a letter instructing you not to charge above 80%), it should be counted the same - it's a loss of capacity. Warranty protections should kick in for anyone with a <3 year old Taycan who Porsche instructed to limit their battery capacity. If not, what is the warranty for? Any battery manufacturer could just limit the battery capacity "for safety" and claim zero degradation until the end of battery warranty.

 

[D00notD00d]

MY battery health is at 85% at 60.000km, according to OBDLink. This is bad by itself. With 80% charge limit it is much worse.

Here’s the battery warranty. For cars under 3 years old the manufacturers defect warranty should apply.

 

[Fish Fingers]

I wonder if the chap who wrote the idiotic letter will write to us with an update. Won’t hold my breath.

I think his Mum actually stopped him writing any more letters till he's a bit older.
She took his crayons off him just to be safe.

He was upset at first, but is happy enough now, running round the garden with his friends in his Batman outfit.

Sponsored