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

[whitex]

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.

I think we are in agreement on the above. The difference may be in our approaches. If I get screwed by a product manufacturer, I will use the consumer protection laws to the maximum extent (e.g. if Porsche tries to stick me with an 11kW replacement for my 22kW OBC), but after that I just don't buy their products anymore and that's that. For things like "they've stopped making the part" there may not be laws protecting me, but that would definitely be a strong factor when considering my next car. It also, to me, opens the ethical door to "open season for hacking, repairing, or cloning Porsche parts in order to repair cars Porsche abandoned", even if that means I'm enabling the same for currently supported models. Until such time however, I feel ethically bound to not release hacks that allow people to for example enable features they chose not to pay for, and to report to Porsche first any security vulnerabilities I find in their parts. I recognize I am not their typical customer though, how many people buy a bunch of ECU's to put together a "car on a bench", then do full fledged penetration testing on (some of) the ECU's, which includes physical disassembly of the ECU including desoldering chips to get to things like the binary images stored on flash storage.

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.

Whether or not my next car (and my wife's) is going to be a Cayenne EV will truly depend on how Porsche treats my Taycan and how the Cayenne EV owners receive their cars. I used to be more ideological, wanting to change the world. Then I realized the world is dominated by irrational people voting in democracies, so I became more of a realist, I no longer try to change the world, I just continually adjust to how the world changed and make decisions that are best for me and my family. For example, I used to get upset by some stupid government incentives given away from my taxes, but then realized it's a futile exercise to convince the masses who voted for it that it's a bad idea, so instead my position is "how do I hook up to that gravy train?". When politicians in my state were trying to pass a special $0.25 per mile tax for all EVs (on top of today's EV specific registration taxes replacing gas tax assuming 12K miles per year, which I definitely don't do on each of my cars, and yet another tax for public charging infrastructure), I didn't rage about it, instead I researched what ICE car with comparable power I would buy if that happens. Who am I to question the will of the people? If they'd rather it be cheaper for me to drive a 1000hp V12 exhausting gasoline fumes than a 1000hp EV, so be it. I bow to the will of the people.

I think I might have gone off on a tangent here, so I'll end this post.

Sponsored

 

[carlos vilarinho]

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.


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?


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.


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%)?


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.

Thank you for the respectful, point-by-point reply. I appreciate the tone, and I think we actually agree on more than it appears. Let me clarify where I think the gap remains.
On "early adopter" status
I don't dispute that new technologies require early adopters. My point is about framing and price. When Robinson Helicopter builds its first rocket, it markets it as experimental and prices it accordingly (or finds government/NASA funding). When Porsche markets the Taycan as "the future of Porsche," prices it at €130k/€230k, and sells it through the same luxury channels as the 911, it is not framing it as an early adopter product. It is framing it as a finished premium product.
The "early adopter" label only appears after the defects become public. That is not transparency — it is retrospective rebranding. And the defects here are not minor quirks (software lag, range anxiety). They are systematic hardware failures (OBC, electric fan, 12V battery) that Porsche itself acknowledged by issuing recalls and warranty extensions. A manufacturer does not extend warranties on core components unless those components failed to meet design thresholds. That is not "early adopter." That is "product not ready for market."
On the dealer system
You are absolutely right that dealers of all brands attempt to fleece customers. I have experienced this with other brands too. But I would distinguish between:
A dealer trying to upsell unnecessary services (common, annoying, but manageable)
A dealer lying about warranty coverage to avoid a factory-mandated repair, and directing the owner to another country to file claims
The first is bad business. The second is a breakdown of the manufacturer-dealer-customer trust chain. When I had to contact Porsche Portugal to confirm warranties that a Porsche dealer in Poland denied, the problem is not "dealers being dealers." The problem is that Porsche's own service infrastructure is already treating the Taycan as a liability rather than an asset. That is a red flag for any owner, early adopter or not.
On discontinuation
We agree that unprofitable models should not be kept on life support indefinitely. But there is a difference between:
Discontinuing a model with a successor (Cayman - 718, Panamera , new Panamera)
Discontinuing a model and leaving its platform orphaned (Taycan - nothing)
The works council agreement to end Taycan production by 2030 includes no announced successor on the same platform. The J1 architecture appears to be dying with the Taycan. That means owners are not just losing a model — they are losing the ecosystem (parts, software updates, engineering focus) that supports it. When Porsche killed the Carrera GT, owners knew the 911 lineage continued. Taycan owners have no such reassurance.
On depreciation vs. parts availability
You are correct that I am linking depreciation to parts/support confidence. But I do so deliberately, because in the Taycan's case they are inseparable. A 2001 911 Carrera 4 depreciated, but it did so within a supported, continuously produced lineage with guaranteed parts availability. The Taycan is depreciating while its manufacturer signals withdrawal, while its dealers deny warranty coverage, and while its core components show systematic failure patterns.
The UK "near-worthless" trade-in report is not normal depreciation. It is the market pricing in the risk that a €150k car may become unserviceable within 5–7 years. That is qualitatively different from a Panamera losing 50% in 4 years while remaining fully supported.
Final thought
I don't expect Porsche to keep building Taycans until 2040. But I do expect them to:
Be transparent about the 2030 wind-down (not hide behind "no short-term plans")
Guarantee parts availability for a defined period post-production
Instruct dealers to honor warranties without forcing owners to fact-check them across borders
• Compensate owners who are being downgraded from 22 kW to 11 kW chargers due to factory defects, not present it as a favor
If Porsche did these four things, I would have no complaint. The car is brilliant to drive — we agree on that. But "brilliant to drive" is not enough when the infrastructure around it is crumbling. That is not hyperbole. That is what the works council agreement, the sales collapse, and the dealer behavior all point to.
Respectfully.

 

[carlos vilarinho]

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

If recognizing patterns means identifying documented factory defects, extended warranties, and internal production wind-downs, then yes, the pattern is obvious. The source of the text doesn't change the facts. But since we're playing this game:
can you point to a single factual error in what I wrote? I'll wait

 

[carlos vilarinho]

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...

I read every post. The difference is that I distinguish between "opinions" and "facts." The works council agreement, the sales collapse, and the OBC failures are not "flaws in my statements" — they are documented reality. If you have facts that contradict them, present them. If not, "many others have pointed out" is just an appeal to the crowd.

 

[snstevens]

I read every post. The difference is that I distinguish between "opinions" and "facts." The works council agreement, the sales collapse, and the OBC failures are not "flaws in my statements" — they are documented reality. If you have facts that contradict them, present them. If not, "many others have pointed out" is just an appeal to the crowd.

My problem with your original post is that you use the word "fact" as if that post contains them. Here is an anaysis of your initial post point-by-point. "Yes", I used AI for the analysis, but I did ask it to add information from the Works Council reporting since it missed that on the first pass. There may still be some "facts" in your statements, but it is hard for me to see what they are.

---------------------------------------------------------
Revised analysis of the owner letter
The strongest factual version of the letter should distinguish three evidence levels:

Evidence level	Appropriate wording
Reported internal decision	“WirtschaftsWoche reports that Porsche management and the Works Council have agreed in principle to phase out Taycan production by 2030.”
Publicly confirmed company position	“Porsche has not confirmed the reported 2030 plan and has stated only that it does not intend to discontinue the Taycan in the short term.”
Owner concern or demand	“Owners seek written commitments on parts availability, software maintenance, high-voltage-battery service, warranty coverage, and any transition support.”

Accordingly, the following assertions still remain speculation or advocacy rather than facts:

• “We were lied to.”
• “We were sold prototypes.”
• Porsche warranty decisions are “admitting guilt.”
• Porsche is “abandoning” all owners.
• Porsche has “destroyed” reliability, respect, and residual values.
• Service advisers routinely lie or deny legal rights.
• Porsche is legally or morally obligated to provide compensation or a free extended warranty.

 

[chun]

My problem with your original post is that you use the word "fact" as if that post contains them. Here is an anaysis of your initial post point-by-point. "Yes", I used AI for the analysis, but I did ask it to add information from the Works Council reporting since it missed that on the first pass. There may still be some "facts" in your statements, but it is hard for me to see what they are.

---------------------------------------------------------
Revised analysis of the owner letter
The strongest factual version of the letter should distinguish three evidence levels:

Evidence levelAppropriate wordingReported internal decision“WirtschaftsWoche reports that Porsche management and the Works Council have agreed in principle to phase out Taycan production by 2030.”Publicly confirmed company position“Porsche has not confirmed the reported 2030 plan and has stated only that it does not intend to discontinue the Taycan in the short term.”Owner concern or demand“Owners seek written commitments on parts availability, software maintenance, high-voltage-battery service, warranty coverage, and any transition support.”

Accordingly, the following assertions still remain speculation or advocacy rather than facts:

• “We were lied to.”
• “We were sold prototypes.”
• Porsche warranty decisions are “admitting guilt.”
• Porsche is “abandoning” all owners.
• Porsche has “destroyed” reliability, respect, and residual values.
• Service advisers routinely lie or deny legal rights.
• Porsche is legally or morally obligated to provide compensation or a free extended warranty.

Porsche's new CEO said: no immediate plans to cancel taycan. There are plans to reduce models in different markets, like they just have in USA.

22kw charger is not out of stock. The supplier went bankrupt due to amount of failures they had to cover at their own expense. Porsche has designed a new 22kw charger, for the Cayenne EV, and chose to not make it backwards compatible

The fan failure is a known defect, because they redesigned the part, and the Service Bulletin for replacing the part states it is a known defect, and that replacement should be done under warranty, warranty which was extended for that specific part.

You're also addressing all these points from a "legal" point of view. From a customer centric point of view, things stand differently: parts breaking, cars being in service for months, taycan customers being treated like tourists by porsche, waiting for 11 months for maps to be fixed in europe, recalls being done in service despite "OTA" being avertised, poor knowledge from service advisors, etc... all SCREAM that porsche is in fact NOT Premium.

Meanwhile budget chinese brands offer 100% leather interior, OTA, premium service treatment, knowledgable techs, techs coming to you to fix your car on the spot, and more... all for budget friendly cars

You can see how some customers would get frustrated. And how Porsche will lose customers because of it. This thread is just one just customer voicing his opinion And that is indeed a fact, and a fact that many more consumers will see the issue the same way.

Early adopters of a premium brand receive extra premium treatment. Early adopters of Porsche receive extra poor service.

As for "we were lied to". They advertised OTA updates. Please post a picture of your car updating to PCM 4360 OTA. Thanks.

Or are there asterisks? In the ads there were no asterisks. Never heard of ferrari selling a v8 with an asterisks - V8* ( *but only 1.2l with 2 cilinders, and actually generates electrcity for the electric motor).

Lets stop blaming customers for feeling disenfranchised

 

[snstevens]

Porsche's new CEO said: no immediate plans to cancel taycan. There are plans to reduce models in different markets, like they just have in USA.

22kw charger is not out of stock. The supplier went bankrupt due to amount of failures they had to cover at their own expense. Porsche has designed a new 22kw charger, for the Cayenne EV, and chose to not make it backwards compatible

The fan failure is a known defect, because they redesigned the part, and the Service Bulletin for replacing the part states it is a known defect, and that replacement should be done under warranty, warranty which was extended for that specific part.

I agree with the facts above.

You're also addressing all these points from a "legal" point of view. From a customer centric point of view, things stand differently: parts breaking, cars being in service for months, taycan customers being treated like tourists by porsche, waiting for 11 months for maps to be fixed in europe, recalls being done in service despite "OTA" being avertised, poor knowledge from service advisors, etc... all SCREAM that porsche is in fact NOT Premium.

Every customer's experience is different, and this has not been my experience. Yes, I've been in shop at various points (measured 1 day at a time) for various recalls, but overall this is the best, and most satisfying to drive, car I've ever owned

Meanwhile budget chinese brands offer 100% leather interior, OTA, premium service treatment, knowledgable techs, techs coming to you to fix your car on the spot, and more... all for budget friendly cars

While I don't intend to buy a Chinese car, I believe that competition is vital to improve Western automobile manufacturing. This happened in the 70's with Japanese models, and it is certainly a good time for Porsche and other EV manufacturers to up their game.

 

[chun]

Every customer's experience is different, and this has not been my experience.

Every person's experience is different, and I was not bombed by Israeli, raped by their soliders and had my infants shot in the road. Therefore Palestians never go through this either.

See the problem? Sadly, we have checked via sateliates, you are in fact not the center of the world. Your own experience doesn't suddenly magically come on top of his

Plenty of reports of unhappy customers on most platforms and news. Clearly, it's not just 1 person reporting on these things; and anything higher than 0 should be inadmisable from a Premium brand charging Premium prices.

 

[Dee]

If grammar is all you have, the argument is already won.

No, I have a Taycan that runs like it should and gives me exactly what I expect from it: driving pleasure.
So, who wins the argument now?
Are you aware that there are thousands of Taycans that run perfectly well?
Maybe you missed the FACT that my 'prototype' is more than 6 years old.

If you are not able to write the brand or the model correctly you are some special kind of stupid ignorant.
There, I said it.

 

[snstevens]

Every person's experience is different, and I was not bombed by Israeli, raped by their soliders and had my infants shot in the road. Therefore Palestians never go through this either.

See the problem? Sadly, we have checked via sateliates, you are in fact not the center of the world. Your own experience doesn't suddenly magically come on top of his

Plenty of reports of unhappy customers on most platforms and news. Clearly, it's not just 1 person reporting on these things; and anything higher than 0 should be inadmisable from a Premium brand charging Premium prices.

@chun - You know I blocked you 1 year ago because of this sort of weird comment (Palestinian issues on a Taycan thread??? "anything higher than 0 should be inadmisable(sp)"???), so Ciao

 

[Dee]

@chun - You know I blocked you 1 year ago because of this sort of weird comment (Palestinian issues on a Taycan thread??? "anything higher than 0 should be inadmisable(sp)"???), so Ciao

I have the same problem, I can't see his posts anymore and can't unblock him.
I see his posts only when I'm not logged in.
I contacted admin for this issue but he plays ignorant.
No reply whatsoever.

 

[snstevens]

I have the same problem, I can't see his posts anymore and can't unblock him.
I see his posts only when I'm not logged in.
I contacted admin for this issue but he plays ignorant.
No reply whatsoever.

Did you try clicking on your Account Name at the top? There is a dropdown item called "Ignoring" that lists the folks you are ignoring. There is an option to "Unignore". Use it wisely

 

[chun]

@chun - You know I blocked you 1 year ago because of this sort of weird comment (Palestinian issues on a Taycan thread??? "anything higher than 0 should be inadmisable(sp)"???), so Ciao

I dunno, i have no involvment in that region, neither does my country. No reason for me to be so overly sensible over such examples. I guess you have reasons to be so sensible about it?

Maybe address the points behind the examples Or stop replying useless things like: "not my experience, therefore your experience is invalid, because clearly my experience is more important, and what you consider facts is clearly not facts, because my experience is more important"

People don't poy premium prices to not be treated in a premium way or for non-premium experiences.

I've yet to hear about a fuel tank on a ferrari under warranty being replaced with a fuel tank half it's size because ferrari couldn't be bothered to spend money on R&D to develop a backwards compatible solution.

 

[carlos vilarinho]

My problem with your original post is that you use the word "fact" as if that post contains them. Here is an anaysis of your initial post point-by-point. "Yes", I used AI for the analysis, but I did ask it to add information from the Works Council reporting since it missed that on the first pass. There may still be some "facts" in your statements, but it is hard for me to see what they are.

---------------------------------------------------------
Revised analysis of the owner letter
The strongest factual version of the letter should distinguish three evidence levels:

Evidence level	Appropriate wording
Reported internal decision	“WirtschaftsWoche reports that Porsche management and the Works Council have agreed in principle to phase out Taycan production by 2030.”
Publicly confirmed company position	“Porsche has not confirmed the reported 2030 plan and has stated only that it does not intend to discontinue the Taycan in the short term.”
Owner concern or demand	“Owners seek written commitments on parts availability, software maintenance, high-voltage-battery service, warranty coverage, and any transition support.”

Accordingly, the following assertions still remain speculation or advocacy rather than facts:

• “We were lied to.”
• “We were sold prototypes.”
• Porsche warranty decisions are “admitting guilt.”
• Porsche is “abandoning” all owners.
• Porsche has “destroyed” reliability, respect, and residual values.
• Service advisers routinely lie or deny legal rights.
• Porsche is legally or morally obligated to provide compensation or a free extended warranty.

I appreciate the effort you put into this AI-generated table. Let me save you some time: you are correct on three details, and I will own them:
1. The 911 depreciation figure I cited (15%) was wrong — the iSeeCars data shows ~19.5%. Fair correction.
2. Porsche has not officially announced the Taycan discontinuation — the 2030 plan is reported, not confirmed.
3. Porsche still sells other EVs (Macan, Cayenne), so "the only full-electric Porsche erased" was imprecise.
Now, here is what your table gets wrong — not by mistake, but by design:
You confuse "not legally proven" with "not true."
When you label "Taycans were prototypes disguised as finished products" as "opinion," you ignore that Porsche recalled ~43,000 vehicles, redesigned the electric fan, issued a Service Bulletin for it, reprogrammed the 12V battery (Campaign WS6), discontinued the 22kW OBC without backward compatibility, and silently extended warranties for known defects. You call that "opinion." I call it a pattern. A €130,000+ car requiring this level of post-launch correction is, by any reasonable standard, an immature product.
You demand evidence that only Porsche possesses.
You classify "systematic failures" as an "unproven generalization" because I don't have the full VIN database. But I don't need Porsche's internal QA files to know that when dozens of independent owners report identical OBC, fan, and 12V failures across multiple markets, and Porsche responds with recalls and bulletins, the failures are systematic. Demanding population-level data that only the manufacturer controls is a classic corporate deflection tactic.
You pretend that silent warranty extensions are customer goodwill.
You say the inference that Porsche "admitted guilt" by extending warranties is "speculation." Every industry insider knows that silent warranty extensions for specific defective components are precisely how manufacturers avoid legal admission of fault while fixing their mistakes. I didn't say it was a court confession. I said it was an admission of guilt — and it is.
You nitpick numbers to avoid the conclusion.
You corrected my 60% depreciation to 55% (sedan) and 47% (wagon). Congratulations — you proved it's only 55%. For a Porsche, losing 55% of its value in five years is still catastrophic. The iSeeCars data you cite places the Taycan above the all-vehicle average loss of 41.5%. So yes, it depreciates worse than many mass-market cars. Your own source proves my point.
You dismiss documented customer experience as "unsupported allegation."
You classify "service advisers lie" as unsupported. Meanwhile, owners across this forum and others report being sent away, denied warranty coverage, and given contradictory information. One owner's documented case is an anecdote. Hundreds are a pattern. You chose to call it unsupported because no one filed a court case yet.
Here is the bottom line: Your analysis is technically impressive and legally pedantic. But it answers the wrong question. The question is not "Can Carlos prove every word in a court of law?"
The question is: Did Porsche sell early adopters a flawed first-generation EV, plan to kill the line by 2030, and offer no meaningful compensation or long-term support commitment?
On that question, your own table admits the answer is yes — you just wrapped it in enough qualifiers to pretend otherwise.
"If grammar is all you have, the argument is already won."

 

[Dee]

I've yet to hear about a fuel tank on a ferrari under warranty being replaced with a fuel tank half it's size because ferrari couldn't be bothered to spend money on R&D to develop a backwards compatible solution.

Actually, the (rubber) fuel tank of an F40 should be replaced after 7-10 years cuz it starts to leak.
That a $20.000-30.000 job (original rubber tank)
Or $8000-12.000 for an aluminum after market one (but you'll loose the originality label of the Classic Ferrari Association).
Yup, no warranty.
Good example man.

Sponsored