Redshift Performance Intro - Taycan ECU Performance Packages

[Mr.Smith]

I have zero interest in this, I rarely get the opportunity to use full power in my CT4S anyway and the main attraction of the Taycan for me is how it drives, not how it accelerates. The chassis mods were worth it for me (torque vectoring 4WS, active ARBs) more power wouldn't be.

Anyway I did my engineering apprenticeship with a specialist gear manufacturer then worked for them 4 years post University and one thing that is easily shown is damage to transmission related to time at high power. Most likely gear surface pitting leading to failure.
The fact that the gears and associated parts are strong enough to take an occasional launch does BY NO MEANS mean using that power level frequently will be fine.

Porsche would have no trouble rejecting any warranty claim on running gear of a modified Taycan, any expert witness would confirm it.
Whether it actually was because of the mod or not is moot.

What if the same ZF transmission is used on the J1 II Turbo GT that produces over 1019hp, in attack mode?
Wouldn't that mean the current J1 platform can also handle the increased horse power, from RWD to Turbo S?

Sponsored

 

[d00d]

OOSR mentioned the rear transmission is strengthened on the GT.

 

[Mr.Smith]

OOSR mentioned the rear transmission is strengthened on the GT.

I heard this, but he wasn't aware exactly, just like he believed the rear motor was bigger, but wasn't sure.
From what I gather, the pulse inverter is 900amp for a 4sec cooling off period in attack mode compared to a 10sec cooling off period in the Push to Pass in the Turbo S.
The transmission timing is different on the Turbo GT, presumably for those higher top end speeds.

To be more accurate, let's look at the J1 II Turbo S with 857hp in Push to Pass with most likely the exact same ZF transmission as the entire J1 platform line up.

As I've been getting deeper into this, I've learned VAG is going to be using more software to define different brands/variants, and slight hardware changes.
This makes sense for VAG bottom line.

 

[d00d]

I wasn't sure either after rewatching, but Porsche mentions `The transmission ratio and the robustness of the gearbox have also been improved...' in a press release.

https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2024/products/porsche-the-new-taycan-turbo-gt-35479.html

 

[f1eng]

What if the same ZF transmission is used on the J1 II Turbo GT that produces over 1019hp, in attack mode?
Wouldn't that mean the current J1 platform can also handle the increased horse power, from RWD to Turbo S?

If so it means it probably won’t break simply because of the torque.

It means nothing about oil film breakdown or pitting risks if used for longer than anticipated in the design specification.

 

[f1eng]

I wasn't sure either after rewatching, but Porsche mentions `The transmission ratio and the robustness of the gearbox have also been improved...' in a press release.

https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2024/products/porsche-the-new-taycan-turbo-gt-35479.html

The 2nd gear ratio will certainly have to be longer to get the advertised top speed.

 

[Electron]

But Launch Control mode is provided by Porsche as standard feature of the Taycan, no restrictions on activating it every single stop. So if I simply activated LC at every opportunity, would that be covered by a warranty?

No, even that smaller change could be legitimate grounds for denying warranty. Changing one single bit will result in non-OEM software and is grounds for denying warranty, even if it doesn’t impact performance.

If Porsche decided to start enforcing this, any change to any ECU would be cause for denial. They aren’t going to go through the software line-by-line to see what changed and make a decision based on that. Either it’s the original software, or it’s not.

If warranty is critical to you, stop thinking about this mod. If you really want the increased power, you must be willing to accept increased risk.

I personally don’t think the risk is that great, especially if you switch it back to stock software/hardware before taking it to the dealer.

 

[whitex]

No, even that smaller change could be legitimate grounds for denying warranty. Changing one single bit will result in non-OEM software and is grounds for denying warranty, even if it doesn’t impact performance.

If Porsche decided to start enforcing this, any change to any ECU would be cause for denial. They aren’t going to go through the software line-by-line to see what changed and make a decision based on that. Either it’s the original software, or it’s not.

I don't think you're correct. For example, I recoded an ECU to always turn on the tail lights together with DRL (something I could do myself if I just manually turned on my lights every time I drive). If Porsche tried denying transmission warranty based on said mod, they'd lose, at least in the US where we have the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. So no, not every and any modification to any ECU can be used for arbitrarily denying warranty.

 

[Electron]

I have a 2021 Taycan Cross Turismo Turbo S and connected with Mario at RedShift to pick up a modded ASG/ECU. I opted for the backup ECU just in case I need to bring the car into the dealer.

What’s the cost of the second ASG/ECU hardware?

This easy reversion to stock before visiting a dealer makes the mod very appealing to me.

 

[Electron]

I recoded an ECU to always turn on the tail lights together with DRL (something I could do myself if I just manually turned on my lights every time I drive). If Porsche tried denying transmission warranty based on said mod, they'd lose, at least in the US where we have the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act. So no, not every and any modification to any ECU can be used for arbitrarily denying warranty.

I work for a US OEM and I used to lead the warranty administration function. I have also modded and/or re-coded every single vehicle I’ve owned.

Unfortunately, even a non-OEM coding change can be cause for denying the warranty, even if the link is as weak as tail light coding to transmission failures. We never denied on this basis, but it certainly is possible. You are absolutely correct that you can fight it in court under Magnuson-Moss, and maybe win, but the onus is on you to prove that the change caused absolutely zero degradation or change in warranty liability vs. the stock config (even if other cars have the same coding, the OEM may have additional warranty accrual to cover the increased wear/risk on those vehicles, which was not accrued for your vehicle.) But more importantly, it would be up to you to cover your legal expenses and it would be your word against a factory engineer with 20 years expertise in this area.

In reality, fighting the warranty denial would cost more than the repair, and perhaps more money than a new car. It’s all a matter of the OEM deciding where to draw the line.

Luckily, Porsche is historically very customer friendly. Audi, however, has been automatically voiding warranty with the “TD1 flag” since 2013.

For reference, our OEM (not Porsche) technician service tool captured both the coding and the base software checksum every time it was connected to the vehicle. We never denied coverage for coding changes, but absolutely denied coverage due to engine base software changes (where the fueling/power tables are stored.) Imagine catastrophic engine and transmission failures resulting from increasing the pickup truck’s diesel engine torque from 1000 ft-lb to 1500+ ft-lb (and defeating emissions controls) to figure where we drew the line on customer loyalty.

I want to go on the record saying that I think the level of risk posed by the RedShift ECU upgrade is minimal, especially if the factory hardware/software is reinstalled prior to taking it to a dealer. Even without changing back to factory software, Porsche has not historically denied warranty coverage for these types of changes. But you must be willing to accept some level of risk before making the change and realize there is a chance of warranty coverage being compromised.

 

[Caraholic]

While everyone is brining up the magnuson moss act everyone seems to forget you’ll be going up an against a golitah. Who has pretty much unlimited resources in a situation like this.

 

[Murph7355]

....
I want to go on the record saying that I think the level of risk posed by the RedShift ECU upgrade is minimal, especially if the factory hardware/software is reinstalled prior to taking it to a dealer. Even without changing back to factory software, Porsche has not historically denied warranty coverage for these types of changes. But you must be willing to accept some level of risk before making the change and realize there is a chance of warranty coverage being compromised.

The very fact that hiding such changes is being used as "mitigation" is acknowledgement that there's risk.

In the UK, if you had a big accident and this was found, your insurance would/could be voided. The consequences of that could potentially be unthinkable.

We all expect Porsche to be above board and straight with us when it comes to their product being defective. Shouldn't the same be afforded the other way round?

I'm not against modified cars. I own two. Both are not covered by warranty and my insurer has been advised of all mods. No hiding anything.

 

[ZenicaNC]

Tsk tsk tsk, all this talk of warranty coverage. Get back on topic guys

Debating the warranty and a Porsche response ad nauseum is futile until someone with the mod files a claim for a failure related to the mod.

Hasn't anyone with the mod put the car on a dyno? or can't it be done due to the two speed trans?

Sponsored