TSB: Replacement of High-Voltage Battery on Vehicles up to Model Year 2024 - Feb. 24, 2025

[RudolfTurkeyRWD]

Has there been a single user of this forum to have experienced a battery fire? A confirmed fire started due to a manufacturing defect in the battery. The safety recall report also says that Porsche is still investigating the root cause of the fires. At the end of the day, it’s a lot of whining and complaining from select forum members over an perceived issue that has not had any actual effect on them to date, and they are overly dramatic and inflating the issue, they feel entitled to make demands of Porsche and want their hands held like a child. Sell your cars if you’re so unhappy, otherwise drive em and enjoy it, complain and whine if and when something actually happens. So many claims about Porsche is not going to pay up when your house burns down, that’s an unfounded claim made out of thin air, or when you kill a bunch of kids by parking below a school building (like schools have below ground parking ?), bitch and complain when Porsche doesn’t step up when your house burns down, until then, shut up about it. You drive a Porsche, act like it, be a man.

Actually, funny story. My 911 C did catch fire last year, and my Cayman GT4 almost caught fire on the same track day. I track my Tacan TS too, and never was the battery alarming warm or hot. So in my case, the Taycan in general is less likely to catch fire. Like mine, every accident is an story on its own. So we can't have conclusions based on my experience. The same goes for other stories, if a Taycan somewhere on the world catches fire. It does mean nothing for us. It is just another vehicle catching fire.

So like you suggest lets not overreact and wait for Porsche to mitigate issues. Like I told before, insiders are saying everything is under control and will be fixed. Remember, this is Porsche, not Dacia or any random Chinese EV brand. Porsche breaths heritage, so there is way more on the line than losing us as customers, it is losing the brand and its values. (And maybe more important, it is losing stock investors)

Sponsored

 

[Travis]

I did a brief stint in graduate school working as a consultant to Ford on a recall issue, and it was very clear to me that the accountants were running the company. I don't think Porsche or any other auto mfg is very different. They will do a number of calculations on the financial ramifications of their options. 1 - do nothing, 2 - take an 'intermediate' step, 3 - take comprehensive action. The accountants will calculate how much money Porsche will spend based on the company's best estimates of what could happen, and they will chose the path that costs the least.

My guess is that they have chosen 2 - intermediate step, and are willing to expose themselves to a number of individual lawsuits, but will minimize the chance of a large class-action. The 3rd option - replace all the batteries, will cost Porsche some $5BB as my guess, so they can afford a lot of individual lawsuits. However, I am not an atty, and will defer to those with experience in this area.

How on earth are you estimating $5B? Assume that there are maybe 135,000 vehicles that need new batteries as some are no longer on the road, your estimating $37,000 each, this is more than I can buy at retail price. I would estimate Porsche can purchase and install the batteries at $5,000 each. LG will not be making a profit they will likely furnish batteries at no cost to Porsche as their “contribution” to the solution, Porsche will reimburse dealers at cost, no profit, to replace a battery. I would estimate this is under $750M issue. Porsche did $45.3B in revenue last yr, they surely have a cash reserve allocated to unforeseen recalls that they contribute to annually as part of their operational cash flow, I would say it’s safe to assume they have in excess of $750M in reserve for issues such as this and it would have no material impact on their cash position, stock position, or operation. This is about 1.5% of their annual revenue, not to say it’s not a big deal, but far from such a catastrophic issue that they would destroy their global reputation knowingly allowing Taycans to burn and kill people. Obviously in the last 5 yrs, there is ZERO reports of a single injury caused by a battery fire. So this is nothing more than a technical issue they are working through and an accounting exercise. It’s not the doomsday for Porsche some are making it out to be. For comparison, VW paid out over $35B in fines ALONE over the emission scandal and they are doing just fine. That was 10% of their annual revenue, so roughly 7x larger of a problem. This is all assuming that every single battery is replaced which is nothing more than an assumption, but I believe it’s a stretch idea that Porsche would not stand behind their product over money, as the cost of washing their hands of the issue is surely much more costly and damaging to the brand than replacing all the batteries. So to that end, nothing to worry about.

 

[chun]

Like I told before, insiders are saying everything is under control and will be fixed.

I don't mean to be rude or dismissive, but with how many Porsche you have, you are bound to be biased.
And so are the dealers, bound to tell you what you want to hear, so you may buy 25 more Porsche in the future, or 250 more...

Now maybe you are talking about other insiders - say actual porsche engineers, not dealer related, which would make it maybe more believable.

The delay on the "solution" software doesn't scream under control, and doesn't inspire confidence. Neither does Porsche's transparency on the issue.

 

[Tpup]

How on earth are you estimating $5B? Assume that there are maybe 135,000 vehicles that need new batteries as some are no longer on the road, your estimating $37,000 each, this is more than I can buy at retail price. I would estimate Porsche can purchase and install the batteries at $5,000 each. LG will not be making a profit they will likely furnish batteries at no cost to Porsche as their “contribution” to the solution, Porsche will reimburse dealers at cost, no profit, to replace a battery. I would estimate this is under $750M issue. Porsche did $45.3B in revenue last yr, they surely have a cash reserve allocated to unforeseen recalls that they contribute to annually as part of their operational cash flow, I would say it’s safe to assume they have in excess of $750M in reserve for issues such as this and it would have no material impact on their cash position, stock position, or operation. This is about 1.5% of their annual revenue, not to say it’s not a big deal, but far from such a catastrophic issue that they would destroy their global reputation knowingly allowing Taycans to burn and kill people. Obviously in the last 5 yrs, there is ZERO reports of a single injury caused by a battery fire. So this is nothing more than a technical issue they are working through and an accounting exercise. It’s not the doomsday for Porsche some are making it out to be. For comparison, VW paid out over $35B in fines ALONE over the emission scandal and they are doing just fine. That was 10% of their annual revenue, so roughly 7x larger of a problem. This is all assuming that every single battery is replaced which is nothing more than an assumption, but I believe it’s a stretch idea that Porsche would not stand behind their product over money, as the cost of washing their hands of the issue is surely much more costly and damaging to the brand than replacing all the batteries. So to that end, nothing to worry about.

To your point the most efficient OEM of battery cell production in 2024 was BYD. Their production cost in 2024 dropped to less than $45/kWh that would put the cost of the battery under $5K before distribution costs. Costs should continue to drop.

Korean production is about 19% higher.

 

[Vim Schrotnock]

https://www.reuters.com/business/lg...ted-918-mln-costs-gms-bolt-recall-2021-10-12/

GM estimated $2BB costs to replace 140,000 Chevy Bolt batteries. I guessed Taycan j2 battery replacement will be +2x the costs. You need to account for all the associated costs, not just the material cost of the battery.

 

[D00notD00d]

Is there anyone under any charging restrictions today? That’s repeated here often but my understanding is that 1) all restrictions have been rescinded,

@Travis - see my post above

 

[D00notD00d]

- according to DVSA in UK, porsche could not prove that reducing charge to 80% will reduce risk of fire

@chun - that’s not completely correct.
DVSA advice is that the fire risk likelihood increases when charging above 80%. The likelihood increases further when charging at rapid and ultra rapid charging speeds.
Whilst a charging limit of 80% reduces the risk, Porsche could not provide DVSA with a 100% assurance that limiting charging to 80% would entirely remove the risk, even when charging at domestic UK speeds (typically 7kw) - hence the DVSA charging location restriction. I should add that this is a general DVSA restriction, applicable to all vehicle manufacturer’s HV Battery fire risk recalls, not just Taycan.

 

[D00notD00d]

https://www.reuters.com/business/lg...ted-918-mln-costs-gms-bolt-recall-2021-10-12/

GM estimated $2BB costs to replace 140,000 Chevy Bolt batteries. I guessed Taycan j2 battery replacement will be +2x the costs. You need to account for all the associated costs, not just the material cost of the battery.

Unless Porsche has struck a deal with LG similar deal to those agreed with GM and Hyundai, but is trousering the money, it is unclear to me why Porsche hasn’t put LG on the hook for this, rather than making themselves the bad guys.

 

[Travis]

We don’t know what agreement or solution Porsche and LG are working on in the background. As stated before, I do believe they will ultimately replace all batteries on their timeframe since there doesn’t seem to be any urgent need, and it won’t have a material impact on Porsche’s finances.

 

[snstevens]

@chun - I've re-read your posts on this matter and can find only 2 Taycan fires possibly related to charging, and maybe 8 more that are related to accidents. This is out of 136,000 Taycans sold at end of 2024. So the likelihood is 1 in 68,000, based on the actual number of fires that are non-accident related.

At the same time you are very busy on this thread talking about regulations, potential class-action lawsuits, lack of transparency by Porsche, and on and on. Let me ask that if you have any other hard data about Taycan fires that are charging related (either during charging or after), please present that. I'm finding your multiple posts and worries to be very theoretical.

Out of curiosity, why are you keeping your Taycan?

 

[Travis]

@snstevens well said. There is a common theme to most @chun post. Hating on Porsche over issues that have not yet happened and have no impact in reality, being negative and pessimistic, with a side of entitlement….with the occasional prompt knowledgeable response to newbies with basic questions. Quite the entertaining character, keeps most threads interesting and full of debate.

 

[Bennachie]

Questions:

1. How long did it take LG and Chevrolet (5 years?) and LG and Hyundai to come to an
agreement?

2. Do we know if there are 'discussions' ongoing between LG and VW/Porsche? I can't
believe that there are not.....................

3. Are ALL J.1 Taycans involved or are there VIN sequences involved? (there would
appear to be a number of J.1 vehicles/owners that have not been impacted by any
recall/campaign letters; beit ARB6/7, WRS0)

4. Are all Audi E-Tron Gts affected?

5. Which other V/W Group vehicles have LG Chem batteries? I.D. Series ?

6. Which current manufacturers use LG Chem battery packs?


I think that all of these aspects are relevant. Especially No. 2.

 

[Bennachie]

Kona EV, production from 2016. So another potential 5 years of 'negotiation'. Beats me why LG Chem is chosen to be a battery/cell supplier...............
I note BMW is not in the clear either.................

 

[chun]

@chun regulations, class-action lawsuits, lack of transparency by Porsche

All 3 facts.

Regulations of the auto industry and customer protection laws exist, and differ from country to country, or from zone to zone. And it is relevant to the topic, because, recall letters differ based on this.
Or what is your explanation for why recall letters differ? Do you have official info from the very transparent company, Porsche, always transparent in their communication?

There is a class action lawsuit, it is not a possible one: https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...n-Taycan-Electric-Vehicles-by-Gibbs-Law-Group

There is lack of transparency from Porsche.
Or do you have more info on the topic? Can you tell us what Porsche says will happen in the event a car do catches fire? How will the software actually fix the hardware issue? Why is there a delay? Such things, that a company that values transparency, would publicize in an official manner.

The details of those 8 accidents and what caught fire and how fast it caught fire is an important detail you so willing ignore But sure, taycan battery instantly going into thermal runaway from a 20km/h crash in a parking lot is what we should expect and praise porsche for, i guess.

Anyway, I do not work or am responsible for the accidents/fire department of the planet earth, so i do not have all the data.
Do you actually believe all cases are presented in media? What about the other cases, multiple, porsche became aware of before this recall, that were not in the media, as an example?

Straw-man argument.

You are giving imaginary statistics based on incomplete data, to sell an overly optimistic view.
You are not accounting for any data biases. This is not even high school level statistics that you are trying to sell as correct.

Are you accounting for these biases?

• The time frame over which the incidents were observed (porsche investigated this in 2023, so oldest car was 3 year old - now we have 5 year old cars)
• The conditions under which the cars were operated.
• The potential for under-reporting or other data biases.
• The effectiveness of any remedial measures (80% charging).
• 3rd party chain effects (say the heater fails also, and the driver doesn't know/notices)
• are you taking account of slight differences between 2020 batteries and 2021+ batteries?
• SoH of the cells/modules/battery?
• percentage of DC vs AC charging cycles the car has been put through
• battery standard vs battery plus?
• has the battery been opened in the past?
• etc etc

Risk calculation is often more complex than number of cars that caught on fire and were put on the news divided by number of all car population. I know, shocking.
If porsche is so confident this risk is so low, why are they not putting a number on it, in the recalls? They do have all the data after all, unlike you or me.

 

[chun]

Questions:

1. How long did it take LG and Chevrolet (5 years?) and LG and Hyundai to come to an
agreement?

2. Do we know if there are 'discussions' ongoing between LG and VW/Porsche? I can't
believe that there are not.....................

3. Are ALL J.1 Taycans involved or are there VIN sequences involved? (there would
appear to be a number of J.1 vehicles/owners that have not been impacted by any
recall/campaign letters; beit ARB6/7, WRS0)

4. Are all Audi E-Tron Gts affected?

5. Which other V/W Group vehicles have LG Chem batteries? I.D. Series ?

6. Which current manufacturers use LG Chem battery packs?


I think that all of these aspects are relevant. Especially No. 2.

There are rumors there is an agreement, but Porsche's deals with LG Chem seem to be under NDA at all times, until Porsche releases the info. If there is no lawsuit, it is unlikely the terms of any such agreement will become public knowledge

So far anything related to Porsche has been denied by LG Chem until last moment when Porsche announced it - example is LG Chem saying they have no deal to supply batteries to Porsche the day before Porsche announced the taycan powered by LG chem batteries...

ID.4 uses battery from 2 suppliers, one being LG Energy solutions / LG chem, yes.
Audi e-tron is affected also, yes. Same platform

Only LG chem knows all of their clients: https://news.lgensol.com/tag/partnership/ sadly doesn't look like there is a public list.

LG chem launched LGEsol (LG energy solutions), and LG Chem is now just the research company, while LGEsol is the manufacturer of batteries. Basically a company split.

Sponsored