New J1.2 Taycan Software Update -- New Features Detailed

[W1NGE]

I think the main negative message for me if the J1.1 cars don't get some form of update is that my two year old car is now considered to be "legacy" and it won't be long before the J1.2 cars suffer the same.

I get why we might not want the software gimmicks – but iterative improvements like being able to select what charging networks to prioritise when doing route planning – not being able to be retro-fitted to a MY24 car – sends a strong negative message.

In a world, where Tesla, Apple, Google and Microsoft have set certain expectations around refreshing software.

True but your 8 year old Turbo S will still be going strong if you hang on to it.

EVs aren't necessarily the dawn of disposable motors.

Sponsored

 

[Uknown]

I think the main negative message for me if the J1.1 cars don't get some form of update is that my two year old car is now considered to be "legacy" and it won't be long before the J1.2 cars suffer the same.

I get why we might not want the software gimmicks – but iterative improvements like being able to select what charging networks to prioritise when doing route planning – not being able to be retro-fitted to a MY24 car – sends a strong negative message.

In a world, where Tesla, Apple, Google and Microsoft have set certain expectations around refreshing software.

Yes I worry a little that both J1 models are going to get left in the dust assuming J2 picks up a new platform.

 

[ze_shark]

It's because software is a big component of EVs. Battery management, route optimizer and planner, etc.

This updates contains improvments, bug fixes, stability improvments, and optimizations to many things.

It's not me saying that software is key to an EV, it's porsche. All of the things below are part of this software update, things like high voltage converter, sensors, dampers, battery control unit, charger, air conditioning, etc

Software is very important, as EVERYTHING in the car is managed by software...

So updates that make sure you have the best version of the product you paid for will always be desirable and good.

All the hardware in an EV is no longer analogue. Software makes or brakes the hardware. And why would I not want to have the best version of it?

Most important of all, this brings an update to the OTA module. Which is how security updates are deployed to the car, a car connected to the internet 24/7. I would rather have that update

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCRIT-24V730-8170.pdf Page 9 and below

Of course there's a risk in every update, but there's also a risk in not getting updates. Say the brake electronics have a bug, they missfire every 10.000.000 pedal press. Would you not take the software update, and hope you react in time when it happens?

I think some of the people on this forum don't understand how extensive the update actually is...

I think that there is here a semantic confusion between firmware and software. The list above is essentially a firmware update.

I also believe that the argument is twisted if not disingenuous: most people who call for software updates actually mean software changes/additions, not firmware maintenance or bug fixes. New features, entertaining stuff. ASS, dog mode, fart sounds, and the list goes on.

I can agree that some of the J1.2 improvements are close to the core functionality of an EV, charging/itinerary planning for instance. And i agree that still figuring out how to design a fully featured itinerary planner should not be an agile undertaking in 2025.

What some categorize as "progress" or "the future" is actually transposing the failures and complacency of the software industry into the automotive domain comes down to putting lipstick on a rather ugly pig: requirements tinkering, hasty design, incomplete validation.

 

[whitex]

Find it odd that if this is for J1.2 that references to PDCC are made as this was an option on J1.1. PAR (Porsche Active Ride replaces and no doubt exceeds PDCC).

This might open the window for J1.1?

Oh the wishful thinking we come up with in order to hand onto a glimpse of hope of getting something we want.

Porsche's only motivation to release new J1.2 software to J1 cars would be simplified support:

• less need to train techs and phone support to know different UI's.
• software bugs and fixes are shared between cars

Unfortunately there are also costs:

• they need to test latest J1.2 software on both J1.2 and J1 platforms
• maintain J1 only and J1.2 only features, selected at runtime (remember the J1 cars which got a Homelink update from J1.2 by accident, and software started asking users to press a button which does not exist in J1 cars?)
• essentially maintain multi-platform code (like say Office for Windows and Mac)
• limits new platform progress by having to maintain backwards compatibility - no breaking changes
• deployment is not OTA, so they need to pay dealers to do it

So someone at Porsche needs to quantify costs and benefits, then an ROI can be calculated. They could get creative, and ask owners to pay for the update deployment by the dealer, but adds risk, as such paid software update might backfire if people start comparing it to Tesla's (or other new car companies in the US and China) free updates, generating negative media coverage, highlighting how far behind Porsche is in terms of their OTA plans execution.

Given what I've read so far, there might be an opportunity to hack in the new software to J1 cars, but they you're driving with an unsupported/untested configuration, which can complicate service and/or recalls, both making it harder for service, and you risking that they will partially revert something which will break your car and you'll have to re-hack it again, possibly even not be able to get it to work again if some latest recall software changed and is no longer possible to make work with J1.2 software. While I have hacked parts of my car to enable things I want, I don't want the new software badly enough to sign up to dealing with it (too many ECUs involved, almost guaranteed to have to fix it after most recalls, and figuring where to get and apply J1.2 updates even more complex) - it would be never ending project (at least until J2 comes out and Porsche forgets all about J1.x cars).

 

[whitex]

It's crazy that Tesla frequent software updates are extremely reliable just like iOS..... since 2012.
Many so called experts thought legacy car companies can do the same, but so far no one can in 2025.

Two words - "vertical integration". Apple and Tesla both have tight vertical integration, legacy automakers have the opposite of that.

 

[tophamn]

I find it fascinating that in today's world we can buy something which may have different features and behaviour after we bought it, even without taking it back for an upgrade. Not long ago we could be confident that the toaster we bought wasn't suddenly able to do the laundry or order take-out.

I understand the frustration some on this forum have for Porsche not being up with the modern times but I believe their philosophy, certainly today (early 2025) is: you knew what the car's features were when you bought it and that's how they'll stay; anyone who believes otherwise is deluded. I hope I'm wrong and maybe this will change in the future but the only 'updates' owners of J1.1 cars can expect is fixes.

Also, Porsche, like many/most legacy car makers, believe their customers are buying a car, not a "smartphone on wheels".

 

[whitex]

I find it fascinating that in today's world we can buy something which may have different features and behaviour after we bought it, even without taking it back for an upgrade. Not long ago we could be confident that the toaster we bought wasn't suddenly able to do the laundry or order take-out.

I understand the frustration some on this forum have for Porsche not being up with the modern times but I believe their philosophy, certainly today (early 2025) is: you knew what the car's features were when you bought it and that's how they'll stay; anyone who believes otherwise is deluded. I hope I'm wrong and maybe this will change in the future but the only 'updates' owners of J1.1 cars can expect is fixes.

Also, Porsche, like many/most legacy car makers, believe their customers are buying a car, not a "smartphone on wheels".

First, expectations change with time. People used to be happy with a rotary phone on the wall. Today they demand a smart phone. The same is happening with cars. And yes, it's the fault of the innovators who produce newer products with features which people learn to expect. If it wasn't for such innovators, people would still rave about their wooden cars with a hand crank to start the engine (Ford Model T). Then again, even those cars were an innovation on the horse drawn carriage, so I guess people expecting to not have to feed their transportation, shield them from weather and disease, and collect its excrement was also a new expectation.

Second; some, like me, may even consider no updates a benefit. My wife and I drove 4 Teslas over a decade. Not all updates were good. To this day I'd prefer the UI from 2013, which was designed for a driver, but since went through a bunch of iterations to look like a tablet app instead. Some of those iterations sacrificed functionality for a cool look (like tiny monochrome buttons near bottom of the screen which were far from driver's view). I even got a couple of dangerous updates, one turned my defrost button into a frost button, almost causing an accident on a road trip. The second one actually caused damage to my wife's car (not covered by Tesla btw) - they decided to auto-unfold mirrors when the car started moving. So my wife folded her mirrors at a particularly tight parking spot where she parked many times before, and she started backing up. Mirror auto unfolded and broke off. Tesla changed this feature but a week or two later to only unfold when moving forward and above some minimum speed of maybe 15mph, but that didn't fix our mirror for which we had to pay for.

Then there is the internet and social media which makes people want stuff. We used to buy cars and never look back at what the new models had to offer until it was time for a new car. Also, features did not change that much. Today people see what other people have, and want it, or often feel entitled to it (e.g. someone buys a car for $100K, 2 months later manufacturer changes the price to $95K for the same car, people are ready to demonstrate, boycott, maybe even more, because they feel they are entitled to the $5K difference. Funny how they don't do that if the price goes up by $5K, never saw people demonstrating demanding the manufacturer take their check for $5K because prices went up). Most people are not rational.

So bottom line is, most people are expecting to buy a smartphone on wheels nowadays, despite what you or I would want. I suspect a marketing campaign for a car telling people how it is not connected to the internet (as it would require updates to stay connected) and will never get any updates would actually cost overall sales.

 

[Uknown]

One that does not is Homelink which can be painful to setup again.

Homelink is annoying on j1.1 even when it is setup ?

 

[anonymouse]

their philosophy, certainly today (early 2025) is: you knew what the car's features were when you bought it and that's how they'll stay

I would think this is (almost) fair if I had not had 34 issues with my Taycan, 2/3 of which could be fixed with a simple software update.

The model you describe was fine in an era when things were primarily mechanical and your OPC / your local garage / you could get in and fix them. This is not the case with software. Software comes from the centre and the fleet should receive updates.

 

[ze_shark]

The second one actually caused damage to my wife's car (not covered by Tesla btw) - they decided to auto-unfold mirrors when the car started moving. So my wife folder her mirrors at a particularly tight parking spot where she parked many times before, and she started backing up. Mirror auto unfolded and broke off. Tesla changes this feature but a week or two later to only unfold when moving forward and above some minimum speed of maybe 15mph, but that didn't fix our mirror for which we had to pay for.

Thank you, good illustration of dumb and frankly infuriating over-optimization, and endemic feature creep/tinkering. I pay a handsome premium for a car experience rooted in integrity, consistency and predictability. The fact that our phones receive updates every other week is not to be celebrated, it is eminently problematic. It should be easy to opt out from anything except security updates.

Is societal boredom so acute that some people need to be entertained by new gimmicks on their phones or in their cars all the time ?

 

[tophamn]

Software comes from the centre and the fleet should receive updates.

Fixes? - yes. New features?.... ?

 

[anonymouse]

Is societal boredom so acute that some people need to be entertained by new gimmicks on their phones or in their cars all the time ?

No. But in addition to bugs, where they had discovered a dumb piece of design, why not clean that up too?

Prime example is the absurdly complicated way we have to set up a target charge level on the original Taycan (create a profile, create a timer, pray). Just look at how many people post on here saying they have no idea how to do it. The new car replaces this with a straightforward "charge to x%" control. That should just be rolled out to everyone. It is a basic update to replace a bad design with a better one.

 

[Watchesandburgers]

Homelink is annoying on j1.1 even when it is setup ?

#Truth

 

[W1NGE]

Homelink is annoying on j1.1 even when it is setup ?

I've had a great experience with mine once I figured out that it doesn't support proprietary rolling codes and then added a Universal Receiver. Now flawless.

 

[Watchesandburgers]

I've had a great experience with mine once I figured out that it doesn't support proprietary rolling codes and then added a Universal Receiver. Now flawless.

It works for me as well. But the implementation on the screen means it doesn't work at the same time as the cameras. So when backing up / out of my garage I want the cameras on to see where I'm going, but then want HomeLink so I can close the garage door. Physical buttons on a rear view mirror don't have the same problem. Ah... technology....

Sponsored