The great J1.2 reliability survey

[ze_shark]

Taycan J1.1 has undeniably suffered from questionable to problematic reliability.

J1.2 bears the promise of improved reliability through
- a redesigned high voltage stack
- a redesigned HVAC module
- new battery chemistry

A poll comes closest to rendering an objective assessment of J1.2 progress in this critical area.

EDIT What about J1.1 stats ?
- Battery stats (Red Electrical system error poll)
- Generic reliability (Has your Taycan broken down poll)
- 22kW reliability (Still original 22kW OBC poll)

Sponsored

 

[someTimesJoe]

Aside from buggy software, the connection issue with my PCM was the biggest issue for me. 1.5 months at the service center. It only progressed when they decided to get the conbox replaced and it all worked normally after that. That part took about 1.5 weeks.
Outside of this, nothing else.

 

[Voltaire]

I had to have one of my charging port door modules replaced, because the door would stop halfway open or closed. Other than that, Android auto fails to connect about 20% of the time, and there have been other minor software annoyances, but nothing major.

 

[D00notD00d]

Has anyone seen a detailed explanation regarding how j1.2 gets by without the ARB6/7 Battery Monitoring Software which intends to mitigate a battery module manufacturing defect fire risk and detect impending failure? Or was this safety method implemented from the start of j1.2?

 

[trycan]

I was unsure whether losing LTE connectivity from the PCM was major or minor, so I chose major in the poll above. Car had to go in for a round of software updates, but only took 2 days. Connection has been solid since.
I also have the charge door closes only half way, but like others have said, it seems to be more prevalent if you leave a charging cable connected for an extended time (like a day or more).

The driver assistance features seem to occasionally cut out with an error message in the IPC, but next drive cycle they are back. Sometimes it's understandable due to sleet / heavy rain, but other times the weather has been fine.

 

[Skaffen]

I had an issue with the air suspension - one corner had a leak so would squat after a while while parked (but seemed fine driving). Very quickly fixed under warranty and not something I really worry about too much as that feels like just a standard "dodgy part" issue. Everything else has been pretty much perfect - very easy car to own!

 

[RAHRCR]

My J1.1 has been the most reliable car I have ever owned. Almost 2.5 years and 40K in and only a couple of squeaks and rattles that have been addressed. Would be surprised if .2 wasn’t as good or better.

 

[Boss Hogg]

Has anyone seen a detailed explanation regarding how j1.2 gets by without the ARB6/7 Battery Monitoring Software which intends to mitigate a battery module manufacturing defect fire risk and detect impending failure? Or was this safety method implemented from the start of j1.2?

Battery is a different chemistry/type and new associated power/control hardware so it may be the J1.1 issues don't exist is J1.2 (for the time being at least ).

 

[Boss Hogg]

2x new front struts (at different times on each side) due to knocking noises at low speed.

 

[D00notD00d]

Battery is a different chemistry/type and new associated power/control hardware so it may be the J1.1 issues don't exist is J1.2 (for the time being at least ).

That is the ‘new and improved’ marketing spiel overview.
I’m looking for a deeper ‘what & how’ explanation of the changes which explains how they overcome the product safety risk arising from the possibility of a battery module manufacturing defect:
- What are the battery chemistry/type changes?
- What are the hardware changes?
- What do the associated software changes do?

Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Mini and Porsche are all rolling out Battery Management System software changes to mitigate fire and product failure risks arising from possible battery manufacturing defects. Given those companies past convictions for dishonest collusion on software ‘solutions’, I think product safety regulators should be probing for more information, but I suspect they don’t yet have the knowledge and understanding of the technology, and can only accept glib assurances rather than verify what’s happening.

This isn’t just common to German manufacturers. Stellantis and Geely are also doing software updates to mitigate similar risk concerns about their battery vehicle products which they’ve reported to safety regulators (for Citroen/Peugeot and Volvo/Polestar, respectively).

These companies are all learning on the job. Tesla is a decade ahead. ICE safety technology matured over several decades.

 

[ze_shark]

Tesla is a decade ahead.

This is not a serious statement. This company has no safety culture, never had one, and in terms of fraud, what they have shamelessly been doing on range and odos is pretty much in dieselgate league.

 

[D00notD00d]

I’m judging only in the context of their public fire risk product safety record.
In contrast with most other PHEV and EV manufacturers, Tesla has registered zero HV Battery fire risk product safety recalls in the UK and EU markets. In this respect their early experience plus unique ability to quickly implement OTA solutions puts them way ahead of their competitors, perhaps to the extent that they can mitigate risks without having to publish product safety recalls. Porsche has published 19 such recalls in the EU.
Tesla fire risk mitigation patents date back to 2007.

 

[ze_shark]

Tesla does not recall unless forced to by safety bodies, hence China-specific recalls which never made it to other markets.
Their attitude toward safety has been beyond cynical, AP/FSD being a prime example.

 

[F1Ruaraidh]

This is not a serious statement. This company has no safety culture, never had one, and in terms of fraud, what they have shamelessly been doing on range and odos is pretty much in dieselgate league.

Nevertheless, the EV powertrain just works.

 

[D00notD00d]

Tesla does not recall unless forced to by safety bodies, hence China-specific recalls which never made it to other markets.
Their attitude toward safety has been beyond cynical, AP/FSD being a prime example.

For all products, EU and UK legislation requires manufacturers and importers to report safety issues to a regulator and agree mitigations and remedies. I can see non battery related recalls for TesLa on the EU and UK public websites. There’s also lots on the NTHSA web site, including many that have originated from complaints. Regulatory demands vary by country according to local legislation, regulation and Codes of Practice. Regulator competencies also vary.

FSD isn’t legal in the EU or UK.
Auto Pilot and Full Self Driving are inaccurately named - they’re Driver Assistance Systems. They’re not autonomous - the driver must retain control at all times. It’s hard to see how Tesla could be held responsible for unsafe driving, unless their assistance systems ignored driver input. Even though TesLa caveat usage of those products, because some are more easily mislead than others, I think their product naming is irresponsible. Regulators should correct that.

Sponsored