Redshift Performance Intro - Taycan ECU Performance Packages

[Mr.Smith]

Thanks, a .2 4S with the somewhat likeable front end, would be preferable to a Turbo, if they both tune to the same result.

I think the tune will make the Turbo and Audi E-Tron GT Performance the same as the Turbo S, but the Turbo GT will be different due to the 900amp inverter.

Sponsored

 

[d00d]

I'm referring to the .2, but the .1 Turbo S has a higher amperage front inverter, so wouldn't the tune be more horses than the non S?

 

[Jenner]

I'm referring to the .2, but the .1 Turbo S has a higher amperage front inverter, so wouldn't the tune be more horses than the non S?

Redshift or Mr. Smith might have more detailed information but it is my understanding that for the same Stage 3 capable Taycan models (GTS/Turbo/Turbo S and/or Audi equivalents) the tuned Turbo S would always be the fastest 0-60 of the group due to it's ability to put more power to the front wheels during a traction limited situation.

From a roll the performance averages out to be the same since the bulk of the performance upgrade is delivered by the rear motor and when in 2nd gear. This can be seen in the gains from Mr. Smith's Audi. The 0-60 gain is small but in the 60-130 pull it is 1 second faster than a stock Turbo S which is huge.

 

[Mr.Smith]

I'm referring to the .2, but the .1 Turbo S has a higher amperage front inverter, so wouldn't the tune be more horses than the non S?

I was referring to .2 as well. The only indication of different hardware between the Turbo GT and the Turbo/ Turbo S is the 900amp inverter. It would seem the .2 Turbo and Turbo S have the same 600amp front inverter

The only difference with the GTS, Turbo, RS E-Tron GT and the Turbo S is the 600amp front inverter on the Turbo S. That's the only reason the stock Turbo S has a better 0-60 to the stock Turbo, yet has the same 60-130mph

Redshift or Mr. Smith might have more detailed information but it is my understanding that for the same Stage 3 capable Taycan models (GTS/Turbo/Turbo S and/or Audi equivalents) the tuned Turbo S would always be the fastest 0-60 of the group due to it's ability to put more power to the front wheels during a traction limited situation.

From a roll the performance averages out to be the same since the bulk of the performance upgrade is delivered by the rear motor and when in 2nd gear. This can be seen in the gains from Mr. Smith's Audi. The 0-60 gain is small but in the 60-130 pull it is 1 second faster than a stock Turbo S which is huge.

My RS front motor is maxed out with the 300amp inverter. The tune did not affect it

When the weather gets better, we are going to do 0-60mph and 1/4mile runs between my RS and the Turbo S to see the difference.
Trying to get a Plaid to do the same race with us to compare it to the RS & Turbo S

 

[Caraholic]

I was referring to .2 as well. The only indication of different hardware between the Turbo GT and the Turbo/ Turbo S is the 900amp inverter. It would seem the .2 Turbo and Turbo S have the same 600amp front inverter

The only difference with the GTS, Turbo, RS E-Tron GT and the Turbo S is the 600amp front inverter on the Turbo S. That's the only reason the stock Turbo S has a better 0-60 to the stock Turbo, yet has the same 60-130mph



My RS front motor is maxed out with the 300amp inverter. The tune did not affect it

When the weather gets better, we are going to do 0-60mph and 1/4mile runs between my RS and the Turbo S to see the difference.
Trying to get a Plaid to do the same race with us to compare it to the RS & Turbo S

Can’t wait to see the results. With the separate asg unit it becomes more tempting.

 

[ZenicaNC]

Are you certain the 8/100 battery warranty covers ev drive train? I don’t think it does.

That said, proving that the “tune” caused battery damage when other models have the same power output would be an uphill battle for the OEM. I imagine battery management and other protections remain in place.

I think your giving the courts far too much credit. IF Porsche got wind of the software tampering, they would deny the warranty claim faster than warp speed. It's simple, it costs them nothing to deny the warranty but it will cost you a retainer to fight it. You'd be at the mercy of your hired experts vs their engineers, the battery manufacturer and any industry experts they hire. Not to mention the mercy of a jury if it is a jury trial.

I see lots of downside for what? The occasional time where you can exploit the vehicles newfound capability? The track? I love HP & torque as much as anyone but have you see the cost of these batteries?? I don't like it that much.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

I think your giving the courts far too much credit. IF Porsche got wind of the software tampering, they would deny the warranty claim faster than warp speed. It's simple, it costs them nothing to deny the warranty but it will cost you a retainer to fight it. You'd be at the mercy of your hired experts vs their engineers, the battery manufacturer and any industry experts they hire. Not to mention the mercy of a jury if it is a jury trial.

I see lots of downside for what? The occasional time where you can exploit the vehicles newfound capability? The track? I love HP & torque as much as anyone but have you see the cost of these batteries?? I don't like it that much.

The hassle argument works both ways; Porsche has been forced to issue an embarrassingly large number of recalls over the short lifetime of the Taycan, and the forums abound with complaints about defects and/or failures. They would need to prove the module has been tampered with, which may imply disclosing how exactly they made that determination - or, worse, what the change is. (Unless their detection is bulletproof, or zero-knowledge proof ?, that is a risky strategy.) Lastly, they’d have to explain why launch control is ok in ‘these’ conditions but not ‘those’.

These are all, of course, hypotheticals, and whether it gets to litigation would depend on the specifics of the failure. But I wouldn’t automatically assume that a) the tune may cause a failure, and b) Porsche has an infallible position.

So, group buy?

 

[whitex]

The hassle argument works both ways; Porsche has been forced to issue an embarrassingly large number of recalls over the short lifetime of the Taycan, and the forums abound with complaints about defects and/or failures. They would need to prove the module has been tampered with, which may imply disclosing how exactly they made that determination - or, worse, what the change is. (Unless their detection is bulletproof, or zero-knowledge proof ?, that is a risky strategy.) Lastly, they’d have to explain why launch control is ok in ‘these’ conditions but not ‘those’.

These are all, of course, hypotheticals, and whether it gets to litigation would depend on the specifics of the failure. But I wouldn’t automatically assume that a) the tune may cause a failure, and b) Porsche has an infallible position.

So, group buy?

You convinced me. I'd suggest a group buy for the Pacific North-West.

@redshift-performance, how many people would it take for you to offer a deal which would include a free duplicate ECU for everyone in the group, and you dispatch a rep up to an organized PNW tuning meet during which your envoy extracts/reads-out/collects everyone's cloning info, then you send us tuned ECU clones?

 

[ZenicaNC]

You convinced me. I'd suggest a group buy for the Pacific North-West.

@redshift-performance, how many people would it take for you to offer a deal which would include a free duplicate ECU for everyone in the group, and you dispatch a rep up to an organized PNW tuning meet during which your envoy extracts/reads-out/collects everyone's cloning info, then you send us tuned ECU clones?

I considered that approach as well, having the mod on a separate module from the factory one so I could swap back. A “bulletproof” means of ensuring the altered code isn’t found BUT in the event that I am unable to make the swap back, like a car accident or break down away from home (and the original module) then it wouldn’t have mattered.

There is also the possibility another module keeps a record of the modules that communicate with it. Possibly all modules do this. Not unlike computers in networking environments.

 

[ZenicaNC]

The hassle argument works both ways; Porsche has been forced to issue an embarrassingly large number of recalls over the short lifetime of the Taycan, and the forums abound with complaints about defects and/or failures. They would need to prove the module has been tampered with, which may imply disclosing how exactly they made that determination - or, worse, what the change is. (Unless their detection is bulletproof, or zero-knowledge proof ?, that is a risky strategy.) Lastly, they’d have to explain why launch control is ok in ‘these’ conditions but not ‘those’.

These are all, of course, hypotheticals, and whether it gets to litigation would depend on the specifics of the failure. But I wouldn’t automatically assume that a) the tune may cause a failure, and b) Porsche has an infallible position.

So, group buy?

Plausible but in my estimation, unlikely.

If the failure fits within the parameters of failures Porsche observed during testing the Mission E, where the parts and prototypes were subjected to a range of abuse designed to find the breaking point they will have enough information to have a working theory on the cause of the failure. Assuming the mods don’t breach that, they still straddle the line.

I am gambling Porsche will know what that looks like and how to prove it.

 

[whitex]

I considered that approach as well, having the mod on a separate module from the factory one so I could swap back. A “bulletproof” means of ensuring the altered code isn’t found BUT in the event that I am unable to make the swap back, like a car accident or break down away from home (and the original module) then it wouldn’t have mattered.

There is also the possibility another module keeps a record of the modules that communicate with it. Possibly all modules do this. Not unlike computers in networking environments.

Absolutely there is some risk (as per @WasserGKuehlt's post) which you have to be comfortable with. If you have an absolute zero risk tolerance, this would not be for you. Nor would off-road or track driving be by the way, as the warranty has exclusions around those uses. Then again, getting out of bed in the morning has risks associated with it too, so we all have to decide what level of risk we are willing to live with. Folks in the US have the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act which puts the onus on the manufacturer to prove damage was caused by the mod, which may in fact be the case, but as per @WasserGKuehlt, why would launch mode power boost be ok for the drivetrain or the battery but not at highway speeds? Full power at highway speeds is actually probably less mechanical stress than at stand still. I am fully allowed to use LC from every single red light as far as Porsche warranty is concerned, no?

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

You convinced me. I'd suggest a group buy for the Pacific North-West.

Like you needed some convincing.. ?

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Plausible but in my estimation, unlikely.

If the failure fits within the parameters of failures Porsche observed during testing the Mission E, where the parts and prototypes were subjected to a range of abuse designed to find the breaking point they will have enough information to have a working theory on the cause of the failure. Assuming the mods don’t breach that, they still straddle the line.

I am gambling Porsche will know what that looks like and how to prove it.

As I posted elsewhere in this thread (or one of its equivalents), it would be trivial for Porsche to determine if, and what changed about a car’s ECU, or its software in general. This is not what I am disputing - just that using that information to decline a warranty claim is not an automatic, consequence-free (for them) decision.

Put it this way: they built in a switch to differentiate performance across models using the same hardware. It’d be a tall order to justify that the switch was, in fact, a safety feature if/when someone else activates it. They should have tried harder ?.

 

[ZenicaNC]

As I posted elsewhere in this thread (or one of its equivalents), it would be trivial for Porsche to determine if, and what changed about a car’s ECU, or its software in general. This is not what I am disputing - just that using that information to decline a warranty claim is not an automatic, consequence-free (for them) decision.

Put it this way: they built in a switch to differentiate performance across models using the same hardware. It’d be a tall order to justify that the switch was, in fact, a safety feature if/when someone else activates it. They should have tried harder ?.

The software is an integral component of how the car is designed to operate.

The warranty covers what Porsche designed, the warranty takes into account the risks and probabilities inherent to the design.

Change that software and your altering the risk factors for failure events.

I’ve had insurance from major companies that expressly prohibited l use my car at the track, even if I purchased track coverage. Doing so would change my risk factors beyond what my policy was rated and what they’re comfortable covering.

I view the warranty as a similar situation.

I rock climb. sky dive and have tracked vehicles so I’m not risk adverse, I’m just not fiscally foolish. That and if I was going to wager which of us is likely to prevail in litigation, me or Goliath, my money is on Goliath.

If I still have the Taycan out of warranty, I would consider the mod then.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

The software is an integral component of how the car is designed to operate.

The warranty covers what Porsche designed, the warranty takes into account the risks and probabilities inherent to the design.

Change that software and your altering the risk factors for failure events.

I’ve had insurance from major companies that expressly prohibited l use my car at the track, even if I purchased track coverage. Doing so would change my risk factors beyond what my policy was rated and what they’re comfortable covering.

I view the warranty as a similar situation.

I rock climb. sky dive and have tracked vehicles so I’m not risk adverse, I’m just not fiscally foolish. That and if I was going to wager which of us is likely to prevail in litigation, me or Goliath, my money is on Goliath.

If I still have the Taycan out of warranty, I would consider the mod then.

It is, for sure, a matter of appetite for risk - in this case, financial. I am extremely adverse to physical risk (hate rollercoasters, although I ski and drive faster than I should) but, contrary to your definition, I don’t consider myself financially foolish. (Although that would explain my history of cars..)

The point isn’t to convince you this mod is risk-free, but rather that one can’t simple wave around “it’s software, no one understands/anything can be interrelated” as a disclaimer. Some of us do understand software, and probably a lot better than a car manufacturer’s best efforts.

Sponsored