Porche Taykan Owners ; we were sold a Prototype , not a product

[Dee]

44 posts but not a single one from the OP?
Another thing that annoys me is that he doesn't even know how to spell Porsche AND Taycan...

What useless topic has this become?
The irony is that most people are very happy driving their Taycan so thanks for bringing up this topic.

Sponsored

 

[Crazymind]

Porsche have expanded their client base with their Taycan. People happy to pay a premium to get a dishwasher on wheels with a Porsche logo on it.
Their expectation is completely different from the client base coming from Ice Porsche.
As Ice porsche client I know that buying a brand new Ice porsche will give me 2/3 trouble free years of ownership. If I buy second hand the price tag is lower but maintenance becomes hefty. There is no such thing as a perfectly reliable porsche. Never been. However compared to other cars porsche have built their cars to provide a cost effective maintenance even at high mileage. Any porsche over 80/90k miles has bore scoring issues… annoying but who buys one is happy to have it fixed and spend 8/9000 for a repair…
Which is a disaster but we can somehow accept it.
The only good thing is that if you repair a porsche at 150k miles there is no fear to use it for another 50k or more. It is always worth repairing them and use them.
I didn’t think it was going to be different when buying the first Taycan.

 

[whitex]

The Facts:
1. Porsche is discontinuing the entire Taycan line by 2030. Not just the sedan — the Cross Turismo, the Sport Turismo, everything. The only full-electric Porsche will be erased from production.

First, it's not yet confirmed. Second, when did Porsche ever commit to you to manufacture Taycan for decades? Give me an example of a manufacturer which introduced a new model with some sort of guarantee that if they discontinue the model before 20, 30 , 50 years, they will give you some sort of compensation?

2. We were sold prototypes disguised as finished products. The 22 kW OBC charger is a known factory defect across Europe. The electric fan fails. The 12V battery needs factory re-programming (Campaign WS6). These are not isolated incidents — they are systematic failures that Porsche quietly "extended warranties" for, admitting guilt without admitting fault.

Welcome to 21st century cars. Want a car that stays unchanged, I suggest the Ford Model T. The reality is all new cars are like this. Sure, Porsche could have handled things better, but at least they are doing the recalls. I have plenty of complaints about my Taycan, stupid things like AC not there until I restart the car, or car unable to shift into PARK until I restart it. Then again, I drove 4 Tesla Model S'es for a decade, so I know issues do arise. Given, Tesla handled them better than Porsche, but I still don't think Porsche lied to me, perhaps just created a lesser product than I envisioned.

3. Depreciation is catastrophic. The Taycan loses over 60% of its value in 5 years — worse than mass-market brands. For a Porsche, this is unheard of. The 911 loses 15%. We were sold a "luxury Porsche" that depreciates like a disposable appliance.

I call bullshit on this argument. I've owned many, many cars since I was a teenager - all but my very first one were brand new. I could do marvelous trading Honda Civic's, even Acura Integra after two years, but once I got into sig digit prices cars. >50% over 4 years was the norm across all manufacturers. As a matter of fact, the highest depreciation car I ever owned was a 2001 Porsche 911 Carrera 4, fully loaded with every tech and functional option. I sold it after 2 years, it lost more than 50% in value (I sold it because I started a family and needed bigger car (plus one for my wife), so I bought two VW Passats, negotiated a good price by buying 2 (W8 and V6), then borrowed >100% MSRP on both at some promotional rate of 0.9% APR in order to finance my upside down position in the 911). 911 GT3 RS type cars are not representative of the market for a 4 door sedan prices >$100K. Heck, my 2000 Toyota 4Runner had a 54% residual after 4 years, while same model year Jeep Grand Cherokee had 36% 4 year residual.

Yea, I've been a car guy since I was 16 and bought my first car, so I owned many, many cars. 60% depreciation in 5 years is not unusual, especially in options heavy cars like the Taycan - all options above the trim level depreciate essentially to zero after 5-6 years, so yes, a fully loaded Porsche Turbo S with every single option is worth about as much as base Porsche Turbo S of the same model year. Sure, there are exceptions, if you ordered PTS+ in pink with green specs and green leather seats, if someone out there really really wants that spec they might pay you more, but that is not the norm.

4. Now Porsche abandons us. After taking our money, after selling us defective cars, after watching us absorb the depreciation, they announce the model is dead. No compensation. No extended support program. No loyalty gesture for the early adopters who believed in their first EV.
This is unacceptable.

I don't think we are owed any "loyalty gesture". Honestly. Will I buy another Porsche EV (I basically decided that outside of buying a dedicated track car, I will stick to BEV drive train), that will depend on how my Taycan lasts and the experience of others with cars like Cayenne EV (currently the front runner to replace my Taycan and my wife's e-Tron). Would some loyalty incentive push me towards it? Sure! But I don't think I'm owed one.

Bottom line, Porsche did not lie to me. The only exception might me if they try to stick me with 11kW OBC when my 22kW OBC dies again. There I'm willing to hold their feet to the fire, pursue a buyback if necessary, but also open to creative resolutions (which others may not even consider). When I switched from a decade of driving 4 Tesla Model S'es (would have been longer had they not forced the stupid stalkless yoke on performance model buyers) to Taycan, I was hoping I was getting a finished product. I got another early adopter car with worse support than Tesla, but such is life. Whether I end up buying two Cayenne EV's or some other car in the next few years will depends on how well Porsche does with their new offerings. I always preach "voting with your money is the most true type of democracy", since money is what you get for your work/efforts.

 

[snstevens]

I agree with you!

I love my Taycan precisely because it’s a true performance EV infused with Porsche DNA. What I don’t love is how badly Porsche has fumbled its long-term commitment to the technology. The fact that the Taycan is reportedly headed for the end of its production run in 2030 is a downright shame.

Even more frustrating is watching Porsche management dither, vacillate, and ultimately retreat from aggressively developing and expanding its EV lineup. Are they going to release a 718 EV or not? What’s their commitment to the Macan EV or the Cayenne EV? Who knows? It doesn’t seem like Porsche has a clue as its messaging has been decidedly mixed.

That strategic indecision hasn’t just undermined confidence in Porsche’s electric future—it has helped devastate the resale value of our Taycans and left some of the brand’s most forward-looking customers paying the price and abandoning the brand.

I think this post by @Tooney does a good job of addressing the concerns you have about the future of Porsche EV‘s

 

[Torv]

I think this post by @Tooney does a good job of addressing the concerns you have about the future of Porsche EV‘s

Thanks for the link.

I think I’ve figured out Volkswagen‘s EV strategy — Porsche will be a niche EV player at best because VW is going to transition Audi as its primary EV performance platform. A couple of weeks ago I test drove the Audi S6 E-tron and was thoroughly impressed. It’s about $95K maxed out and handled like a dream. I was tempted to trade my Taycan in on one.

 

[carlos vilarinho]

First, it's not yet confirmed. Second, when did Porsche ever commit to you to manufacture Taycan for decades? Give me an example of a manufacturer which introduced a new model with some sort of guarantee that if they discontinue the model before 20, 30 , 50 years, they will give you some sort of compensation?


Welcome to 21st century cars. Want a car that stays unchanged, I suggest the Ford Model T. The reality is all new cars are like this. Sure, Porsche could have handled things better, but at least they are doing the recalls. I have plenty of complaints about my Taycan, stupid things like AC not there until I restart the car, or car unable to shift into PARK until I restart it. Then again, I drove 4 Tesla Model S'es for a decade, so I know issues do arise. Given, Tesla handled them better than Porsche, but I still don't think Porsche lied to me, perhaps just created a lesser product than I envisioned.

I call bullshit on this argument. I've owned many, many cars since I was a teenager - all but my very first one were brand new. I could do marvelous trading Honda Civic's, even Acura Integra after two years, but once I got into sig digit prices cars. >50% over 4 years was the norm across all manufacturers. As a matter of fact, the highest depreciation car I ever owned was a 2001 Porsche 911 Carrera 4, fully loaded with every tech and functional option. I sold it after 2 years, it lost more than 50% in value (I sold it because I started a family and needed bigger car (plus one for my wife), so I bought two VW Passats, negotiated a good price by buying 2 (W8 and V6), then borrowed >100% MSRP on both at some promotional rate of 0.9% APR in order to finance my upside down position in the 911). 911 GT3 RS type cars are not representative of the market for a 4 door sedan prices >$100K. Heck, my 2000 Toyota 4Runner had a 54% residual after 4 years, while same model year Jeep Grand Cherokee had 36% 4 year residual.

Yea, I've been a car guy since I was 16 and bought my first car, so I owned many, many cars. 60% depreciation in 5 years is not unusual, especially in options heavy cars like the Taycan - all options above the trim level depreciate essentially to zero after 5-6 years, so yes, a fully loaded Porsche Turbo S with every single option is worth about as much as base Porsche Turbo S of the same model year. Sure, there are exceptions, if you ordered PTS+ in pink with green specs and green leather seats, if someone out there really really wants that spec they might pay you more, but that is not the norm.


I don't think we are owed any "loyalty gesture". Honestly. Will I buy another Porsche EV (I basically decided that outside of buying a dedicated track car, I will stick to BEV drive train), that will depend on how my Taycan lasts and the experience of others with cars like Cayenne EV (currently the front runner to replace my Taycan and my wife's e-Tron). Would some loyalty incentive push me towards it? Sure! But I don't think I'm owed one.

Bottom line, Porsche did not lie to me. The only exception might me if they try to stick me with 11kW OBC when my 22kW OBC dies again. There I'm willing to hold their feet to the fire, pursue a buyback if necessary, but also open to creative resolutions (which others may not even consider). When I switched from a decade of driving 4 Tesla Model S'es (would have been longer had they not forced the stupid stalkless yoke on performance model buyers) to Taycan, I was hoping I was getting a finished product. I got another early adopter car with worse support than Tesla, but such is life. Whether I end up buying two Cayenne EV's or some other car in the next few years will depends on how well Porsche does with their new offerings. I always preach "voting with your money is the most true type of democracy", since money is what you get for your work/efforts.

I appreciate your perspective, and I genuinely respect your experience as a long-time car enthusiast. You raise some fair points, but I would like to respectfully offer a different framing on a few issues, because I believe they affect all of us as Taycan owners.

On "early adopter" status and product maturity

You describe the Taycan as an "early adopter car" with "worse support than Tesla." I think this is a crucial admission that deserves more weight than it is being given. When a manufacturer prices a vehicle at €130,000–€230,000 and positions it as the flagship of its electric future, buyers are not signing up to be beta testers. They are purchasing a finished product from a luxury brand whose reputation is built on engineering excellence and customer care.
The fact that Porsche itself has issued multiple warranty extensions — for the high-voltage charger, the 12V battery (campaign WS6), and other components — is not merely generous customer service. It is tacit acknowledgment that certain systems were not sufficiently robust at launch. A manufacturer does not extend warranties on core components unless it recognizes a pattern of failure that exceeds acceptable thresholds.

On the discontinuation timeline and communication
The reports from WirtschaftsWoche, Reuters, and AFP are not speculative blog posts. WirtschaftsWoche specifically reported that Porsche's works council — a statutory body with co-determination rights over production decisions — has reached an in-principle agreement with management to phase out Taycan production by 2030. This is not a rumor; it is a negotiated institutional commitment.
What concerns me is the gap between this internal reality and the public messaging. When the CEO states there are "no short-term plans to discontinue," and the works council has already agreed to a 2030 wind-down, the language is technically accurate but strategically misleading. "Short term" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. For owners who purchased in 2024 or 2025, a 2030 end-of-life is very much within their ownership horizon.

On depreciation and market confidence
You correctly note that luxury sedans historically depreciate. However, the Taycan's trajectory appears to be an outlier even within that context. The collapse from approximately 40,000 units at peak to under 13,000 in three years represents one of the steepest volume declines in the premium EV segment. When a model's production volume collapses and its manufacturer signals withdrawal, the used market does not merely discount — it loses confidence in long-term parts availability, software support, and residual service infrastructure.
The UK trade-in report describing values as "near-worthless" is not normal depreciation. It is a market pricing in abandonment risk. That is qualitatively different from a 911 Carrera 4 losing value in 2001 while remaining in a supported, continuously produced lineage.

On dealer conduct and warranty administration
While I respect that your experience has been positive, I would gently suggest that individual experiences vary, and there are documented cases where authorized dealers have provided incorrect information regarding warranty coverage, directed owners to incorrect jurisdictions for claims, or proposed downgrades (such as 22 kW to 11 kW OBC replacements) without clear written commitments for future restoration.
These are not isolated customer service lapses. They are systemic symptoms of a model that is becoming a cost center rather than a priority. When a dealer incorrectly states that replacement parts installed under warranty carry no warranty, that contradicts EU consumer protection law and Porsche's own service standards. The fact that owners must independently verify warranty status through regional Porsche centers suggests a breakdown in the very support infrastructure you rightly expect from a luxury brand.

On loyalty and accountability
You state that you do not feel "owed" a loyalty gesture, and I respect that position. However, I would frame the issue differently. This is not about entitlement. It is about accountability for a product lifecycle.
When a manufacturer sells a vehicle with known factory defects, acknowledges those defects through warranty extensions, and then internally plans to discontinue the model while publicly downplaying that plan, there is a legitimate question of commercial ethics. Owners are not asking for charity. They are asking for:

Transparent timelines for parts availability post-production

Written commitments that warranty obligations will be honored without regional obfuscation

Clarity on whether "temporary" component downgrades will indeed be reversed
These are minimum standards for any premium automotive transaction. If Porsche meets them, no "loyalty gesture" is necessary. The concern is that the current trajectory suggests these standards are already slipping.

On the broader EV transition
You mention that your next purchase may be a Cayenne EV. I genuinely hope Porsche delivers an excellent product and supports it properly. But I would note that the Taycan is not merely a failed model — it is Porsche's first EV, the proof of concept for its entire electric strategy. If the company's response to its struggles is to wind down production and shift focus to SUVs without explicit commitments to existing owners, that sets a precedent. It suggests that first-generation Porsche EV buyers bear the risk of the manufacturer's learning curve, while the manufacturer reaps the revenue and moves on.
That is not how premium brands traditionally build long-term customer relationships.
In summary
I do not believe Porsche "lied" in the sense of a deliberate, malicious conspiracy. But I do believe there is a significant gap between the product that was marketed, the support that was promised, and the reality that many owners are now navigating. The works council agreement, the sales collapse, the documented component issues, and the emerging dealer-level behavior all point in one direction: the Taycan is being managed as a legacy product before its time.
I think we can love the car — it is genuinely brilliant to drive — while still holding the manufacturer to the standards its price point and brand promise demand. These two things are not contradictory.

Respectfully.

 

[carlos vilarinho]

Thanks for the link.

I think I’ve figured out Volkswagen‘s EV strategy — Porsche will be a niche EV player at best because VW is going to transition Audi as its primary EV performance platform. A couple of weeks ago I test drove the Audi S6 E-tron and was thoroughly impressed. It’s about $95K maxed out and handled like a dream. I was tempted to trade my Taycan in on one.

Your observation about VW's EV strategy is spot-on, and it actually validates the core concern here. If VW is positioning Audi as the primary EV performance platform and Porsche as 'niche at best,' that explains why the Taycan is being wound down rather than evolved. The Taycan wasn't just a Porsche project, it was the group's PPE platform testbed. Now that the test is complete (and the sales didn't justify the investment), the engineering lessons go to Audi, and Taycan owners are left holding the depreciating asset. Your instinct to look at the S6 E-tron is exactly what VW wants — they migrated the EV performance customer from Porsche to Audi without having to compensate the Porsche early adopters who financed the R&D. That is not 'natural progression.
That is strategic asset transfer at the owners' expense

 

[carlos vilarinho]

Is that on Porsche for selling it to you? Or is it on you for buying it??
Don't act like you're a victim. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to buy it.
I have no regrets about paying full price for my car and would do it all over again given the chance.

I appreciate that you have no regrets. That is your prerogative. But "no one held a gun to your head" is not a business ethics framework.
When Porsche markets a vehicle as its electric flagship, prices it at €130,000–€230,000, extends factory warranties for known defects (thereby acknowledging those defects exist), and then internally negotiates the model's extinction while publicly downplaying it — that is not a "buyer beware" scenario. That is a manufacturer failing its product lifecycle obligations.

The fact that you would pay full price again does not invalidate other owners' right to demand transparency, parts support, and honest dealer conduct. We are not claiming to be "victims." We are claiming to be customers who paid for a premium product and expect premium accountability.
If your standard for a luxury purchase is "I bought it, whatever happens is on me," that is your choice. Some of us hold Porsche to a higher standard than that.

 

[carlos vilarinho]

Is that on Porsche for selling it to you? Or is it on you for buying it??
Don't act like you're a victim. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to buy it.
I have no regrets about paying full price for my car and would do it all over again given the chance.

When a manufacturer markets a vehicle as its electric flagship, prices it at a premium level, extends factory warranties for known defects (thereby acknowledging those defects exist), and then internally negotiates the model's extinction while publicly downplaying it — that is not a "buyer beware" scenario. That is a manufacturer failing its product lifecycle obligations.
The "no one forced you" argument ignores a few things:
- Porsche promised a premium product with premium support
- Porsche extended warranties because it knew about systematic failures
- Porsche sold the Taycan as "the future of the brand," not as a disposable experiment
• Dealers are already providing incorrect information about warranty coverage to avoid repair costs

If you buy an apartment and the building is condemned five years later because the developer used defective materials, would you accept "no one forced you to buy it" as a valid response? No. The developer is held accountable.

I am not claiming to be a victim. I am claiming to be a customer who paid for a premium product and expects premium accountability. If your standard is "I bought it, whatever happens is on me," that is your prerogative. Some of us hold Porsche to a higher standard than that.

 

[carlos vilarinho]

44 posts but not a single one from the OP?
Another thing that annoys me is that he doesn't even know how to spell Porsche AND Taycan...

What useless topic has this become?
The irony is that most people are very happy driving their Taycan so thanks for bringing up this topic.

The facts don't care about spelling. The works council agreement, the 40k→13k sales collapse, and the documented OBC failures remain unchanged regardless of how I spell Porsche. If grammar is all you have, the argument is already won.

 

[carlos vilarinho]

Thanks, I ran out os space, I have another McLaren, a 996 Turbo, and another Taycan GT…

I love my Taycans…. When they run. First one I made a month long diary showing its software isseus added 30 minutes to my daily routine. My second one is 18 months old and has been 9 months in the shop.

Its a great car when it works.

Two Taycan GTs, a McLaren, and a 996 Turbo. If anyone knows what a "great car" should feel like, it's you.

"9 months in the shop out of 18" is not a minor inconvenience. It's a 50% downtime rate on a six-figure EV. And you still say you love them when they run — which says everything about the car's potential, and everything about Porsche's execution.

This is exactly why "works council agreement to end production by 2030" hits differently when you own the actual product. It's not abstract. It's 9 months without your car while Porsche figures out software and chargers.
Your collection proves you're not anti-Porsche. You're pro-accountability. And that distinction matters.

 

[Hirschaj]

Two Taycan GTs, a McLaren, and a 996 Turbo. If anyone knows what a "great car" should feel like, it's you.

"9 months in the shop out of 18" is not a minor inconvenience. It's a 50% downtime rate on a six-figure EV. And you still say you love them when they run — which says everything about the car's potential, and everything about Porsche's execution.

This is exactly why "works council agreement to end production by 2030" hits differently when you own the actual product. It's not abstract. It's 9 months without your car while Porsche figures out software and chargers.
Your collection proves you're not anti-Porsche. You're pro-accountability. And that distinction matters.

Holy AI responses Batman. When you know the patterns, it's obvious.

 

[freinando]

The amount of AI slop in this thread..

 

[snstevens]

The facts don't care about spelling. The works council agreement, the 40k→13k sales collapse, and the documented OBC failures remain unchanged regardless of how I spell Porsche. If grammar is all you have, the argument is already won.

Ok, so now I'm getting the sense that you aren't reading the room (i.e., reading thoughtfully Posts 2-50 above). Many others have pointed out the flaws in your statements so I won't repeat those.

Automobiles are depreciating assets that lose on average 50% of their value the moment you drive them off the lot. Also, the Taycan is not the only EV that has become unprofitable to build at low volumes - the Ford F150 Lightning is another and it was cancelled too, just faster than the Taycan (production stopped 1 month after announcement). This is the world we live in. Fortunately, both Ford and Porsche have committed to supporting their cancelled vehicles for a long time (just imagine how a 2029 Taycan needs to have supportive maintenance at least 1-2 decades and you get the idea).

Finally, please read @Tooney's post at this link if you actually want to understand the business rationale behind the Taycan 2030 end of production decision. This is the best explanation I've read, and makes good business sense of the decision.

So I'm supportive intellectually of Porsche's decision, even though the "I love driving this car!" part of me wishes it were not so...

 

[whitex]

I appreciate your perspective, and I genuinely respect your experience as a long-time car enthusiast. You raise some fair points, but I would like to respectfully offer a different framing on a few issues, because I believe they affect all of us as Taycan owners.

Thank you for your candid, unemotional reply. While we may not all agree, I think people should be able to discuss and debate various points of view, even if in the end they may just agree to disagree. People with different view points is what makes the world more interesting. I personally always welcome contrasting points of view, and sometimes change my mind after hearing them.

On "early adopter" status and product maturity

You describe the Taycan as an "early adopter car" with "worse support than Tesla." I think this is a crucial admission that deserves more weight than it is being given. When a manufacturer prices a vehicle at €130,000–€230,000 and positions it as the flagship of its electric future, buyers are not signing up to be beta testers. They are purchasing a finished product from a luxury brand whose reputation is built on engineering excellence and customer care.
The fact that Porsche itself has issued multiple warranty extensions — for the high-voltage charger, the 12V battery (campaign WS6), and other components — is not merely generous customer service. It is tacit acknowledgment that certain systems were not sufficiently robust at launch. A manufacturer does not extend warranties on core components unless it recognizes a pattern of failure that exceeds acceptable thresholds.

If I understand your point correctly, you believe that at €130,000+ the product should always be a mature product in a well established technological space. I personally disagree, primarily because new technologies will always require "early adopter" type products. BEV cars are still not mature. If every car manufacturer waited until EV's are where ICE cars are, decades of perfecting the craft, I think it would be too late. I don't think the price point matters. If Robinson Helicopter Company, known for good quality small helicopters, would decide to enter the space of reusable satellite launch rockets, I would absolutely expect their first models to be early adopter models, despite the price tag likely being in tens of millions. (Falcon 9 platform is estimated to cost $50M, with $75M per launch cost). If Apple, known for quality consumer devices, decided to sell personal autonomous cars for $150K, I would absolutely expect the first model to be an early adopter type product.

So I think the gap between us is expectations. Porsche products have always been in the mid-upper echelon of cars, so I expect all their products to cost this much. You seem to think any product that costs above some threshold cannot be an early adopter product. Out of curiosity, what price point do you think Porsche should have designed their first EV car, knowing full well it's going to be an early adopter product?

On the discontinuation timeline and communication
The reports from WirtschaftsWoche, Reuters, and AFP are not speculative blog posts. WirtschaftsWoche specifically reported that Porsche's works council — a statutory body with co-determination rights over production decisions — has reached an in-principle agreement with management to phase out Taycan production by 2030. This is not a rumor; it is a negotiated institutional commitment.
What concerns me is the gap between this internal reality and the public messaging. When the CEO states there are "no short-term plans to discontinue," and the works council has already agreed to a 2030 wind-down, the language is technically accurate but strategically misleading. "Short term" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. For owners who purchased in 2024 or 2025, a 2030 end-of-life is very much within their ownership horizon.

I think you are conflating two separate issues, namely model continuation and continuing availability of spare parts. Imagine if Porsche announced Taycan will continue selling well beyond 2030, but all Taycans 2028 and later have zero shared parts with prior model years. Would your position be "all is well, because there is a new Taycan I can buy instead of repairing mine"?

IMHO manufactures should discontinue models which are not selling. Continuing to produce cars which sit on dealer lots is bad business. On the other hand, continuing to supply spare parts, or perhaps making their designs available to third parties to clone, is a smart move to keep customers loyal to the brand. The only way customers would go for "disposable cars" (i.e. no spare parts available) if they were inexpensive enough so that when they break down after warranty, it's ok to just buy a new one. Of course if they break down during warranty, a new replacement car is provided free of charge, with only remaining warranty, or 90 days, whichever is greater.

On depreciation and market confidence
You correctly note that luxury sedans historically depreciate. However, the Taycan's trajectory appears to be an outlier even within that context. The collapse from approximately 40,000 units at peak to under 13,000 in three years represents one of the steepest volume declines in the premium EV segment. When a model's production volume collapses and its manufacturer signals withdrawal, the used market does not merely discount — it loses confidence in long-term parts availability, software support, and residual service infrastructure.
The UK trade-in report describing values as "near-worthless" is not normal depreciation. It is a market pricing in abandonment risk. That is qualitatively different from a 911 Carrera 4 losing value in 2001 while remaining in a supported, continuously produced lineage.

I think again you are conflating depreciation with availability of spare parts. On the depreciation alone, I am not sure what is happening in UK. From what I read, tax incentives definitely played a role in Taycan depreciation there (any tax incentive on only new cars is instant depreciation). A report stating something like "near-worthless" is, well, "near-worthless", as it doesn't provide any numbers. I presume people in UK don't think 1,000 euro has no worth, so can I find a fully working Taycan for under 1,000 euros? If so, I'd like to buy a bunch and export them. To me, 50-60% depreciation on a $100K+ 4-door sedan is on par with other cars in this category. What six digit prices 4-door sedan today can you get a 6 year lease on with residual value being >50% MSRP (so estimated depreciation <50%)?

On dealer conduct and warranty administration
While I respect that your experience has been positive, I would gently suggest that individual experiences vary, and there are documented cases where authorized dealers have provided incorrect information regarding warranty coverage, directed owners to incorrect jurisdictions for claims, or proposed downgrades (such as 22 kW to 11 kW OBC replacements) without clear written commitments for future restoration.
These are not isolated customer service lapses. They are systemic symptoms of a model that is becoming a cost center rather than a priority. When a dealer incorrectly states that replacement parts installed under warranty carry no warranty, that contradicts EU consumer protection law and Porsche's own service standards. The fact that owners must independently verify warranty status through regional Porsche centers suggests a breakdown in the very support infrastructure you rightly expect from a luxury brand.

What you are describing is a problem with the dealer system. I've experienced this with all brands - your service is only as good as the dealer you go to. I've caught dealers of all brands attempting to fleece me, and that's on cars fully under warranty as I used to swap cars every 2 years at most. I'll give you an example from long, long ago. I take in my under 2 year old Honda Civic Si to the dealer due to break shutter. They quote me a few hundred dollars for rotor resurfacing. I refuse, arguing that warped rotors should be covered under warranty for a car this young, they quote me new rotors which surprisingly were significantly cheaper to install than resurfacing the old ones, I stick to my guns, end up with a free warranty replacement rotors. At the end of the conversation the service manager looks at me, winks at me while shrugging his shoulders and says "hey, I gotta try to make money, eh?" (yes, it was in Canada ).

The problem with the dealer system is the variability of customer experience. This is why Tesla chose to skip the dealers, though in the US the dealers have fought this tooth and nail - to this day there are states where Tesla is not allowed to sell their cars because they have to be sold through dealers. VWAG is fighting the same fight with Scout. Blame the powerful dealer lobbies for paying off the politicians to protect their car sale and service monopolies. That is not to say the dealer system does have its advantages, such as ability to go to a different dealer to get different service and different price (no the case with Tesla for example, same price to repair it no matter which service center you take it to, with some minor variation in service quality). There is also disadvantages of direct service, such as fixed pricing, or conflict of interest (warranty repairs make dealer money, they lose the manufacturer money, so if manufacturer owns service department, it's a conflict of interest) Having experienced decades of dealer service, and over a decade of direct Tesla service, I am personally still on the fence, at this time I think both should be allowed, let the market decide, as long as dealer have access to the same spare parts and service manuals as the factory owned service centers.

Sponsored