High Voltage Battery Recall EXPANDED - ARB6 & ARB7

[ejcintr]

Although Porsche certainly could have structured that message more clearly, the 80% recommendation (which is definitely *NOT* a "limit") is only for those who have neither enabled remote monitoring:

"Until the health check can be carried out by a Porsche Center, to help prevent potential damage to cell modules, Porsche recommends you set the charge settings so that the battery is charged only to a maximum of 80% until the full remedy is available."​

That paragraph is under a section heading of:
" PORSCHE CENTER OPTION"
... which is clearly an alternative to remote monitoring (as it starts off with "If you prefer not to have your battery monitored remotely [...]").

Agree - though I am sure that if someone does charge their car to 100% and they do experience a short causing a fire - they will point to this language - Its probably worded that way to mitigate a lawsuit but the underlying message is to not charge your car to 100%. Since the software has been delayed another three months I surmise
that Porsche is having a very difficult
time coming up with an algorithm that sufficiently tests/monitors the battery with enough confidence that they can state your battery is ok to use to its full potential or is defective.

Sponsored

 

[chun]

. Since the software has been delayed another three months I surmise

More than 3; it's scheduled for second half of the year now, that could be december.

 

[Jonathan S.]

Agree - though I am sure that if someone does charge their car to 100% and they do experience a short causing a fire - they will point to this language - Its probably worded that way to mitigate a lawsuit but the underlying message is to not charge your car to 100%. Since the software has been delayed another three months I surmise
that Porsche is having a very difficult
time coming up with an algorithm that sufficiently tests/monitors the battery with enough confidence that they can state your battery is ok to use to its full potential or is defective.

How is that the underlying message?
The recommendation to charge only to 80% is definitely only for a Taycan owner who has not enabled remote monitoring *and* has not had the battery inspected at the dealership.
Pointing to that letter/email would do nothing to absolve Porsche of responsibility.
And even for a Taycan whose battery condition is unknown (via either remote monitoring or on-site inspection), the wording is explicitly only a recommendation.
If anything, this wording would hurt Porsche from a liability perspective.
(Think about it from a jury perspective: did Porsche warn the Taycan owner not to charge to 100? No, just a mere recommendation.)

 

[ejcintr]

How is that the underlying message?
The recommendation to charge only to 80% is definitely only for a Taycan owner who has not enabled remote monitoring *and* has not had the battery inspected at the dealership.
Pointing to that letter/email would do nothing to absolve Porsche of responsibility.
And even for a Taycan whose battery condition is unknown (via either remote monitoring or on-site inspection), the wording is explicitly only a recommendation.
If anything, this wording would hurt Porsche from a liability perspective.
(Think about it from a jury perspective: did Porsche warn the Taycan owner not to charge to 100? No, just a mere recommendation.)

Sorry just disagree with you.. there is no remote monitoring as there is no software that does this...so yes to me this means the underlying message is dont charge to 100%.. unless I want bring my car in every 3 months to a dealer or whatever their 'recommendation is".. I do agree it probably won't hold up to a jury.

 

[whitex]

Agree - though I am sure that if someone does charge their car to 100% and they do experience a short causing a fire - they will point to this language - Its probably worded that way to mitigate a lawsuit but the underlying message is to not charge your car to 100%.

The language of the email, while lacking in simplicity, is clearly stating the recommendation (not a limit) of 80% is for cars which are not monitored remotely until they get inspected manually. Not even Elon's lawyers would be able to stretch the interpretation that if you charge above 80% after inspection, or if having the car remotely monitored, that it would not be Porsche's fault that your car burns down your house. Below is the email. As the user, you have two options, REMOTE OPTION or PORSCHE CENTER OPTION. Note there is nothing about charge limits in the REMOTE OPTION (highlighted in green).

Since the software has been delayed another three months I surmise that Porsche is having a very difficult time coming up with an algorithm that sufficiently tests/monitors the battery with enough confidence that they can state your battery is ok to use to its full potential or is defective.

I suspect it's worse - they came up with an algorithm and it doesn't work. I suspect they realized they lack the direct sensing of what is needed (likely cut out of the design for cost cutting, like battery isolation sensing), and now they are trying to infer the required information from other sensors (sometimes referred to as "virtual sensors") but the first, perhaps even second attempt failed miserably, so they are trying again. This is purely my speculation, but how else do you go from "3 month out" to "12 months out"? Ok, maybe their entire battery team quit, or maybe they all got fired, or there was a giant sink hole that swallowed the battery division building while they were having a all-hands meeting.

 

[GTSS]

It's incredible how normalized it's become — and how little pushback there is — when even a prestigious brand like Porsche breaks its promise on a software release. In the end, the software isn’t a real solution anyway — just a way for Porsche to avoid or postpone battery replacements.

 

[snstevens]

The language of the email, while lacking in simplicity, is clearly stating the recommendation (not a limit) of 80% is for cars which are not monitored remotely until they get inspected manually. Not even Elon's lawyers would be able to stretch the interpretation that if you charge above 80% after inspection, or if having the car remotely monitored, that it would not be Porsche's fault that your car burns down your house. Below is the email. As the user, you have two options, REMOTE OPTION or PORSCHE CENTER OPTION. Note there is nothing about charge limits in the REMOTE OPTION (highlighted in green).

I suspect it's worse - they came up with an algorithm and it doesn't work. I suspect they realized they lack the direct sensing of what is needed (likely cut out of the design for cost cutting, like battery isolation sensing), and now they are trying to infer the required information from other sensors (sometimes referred to as "virtual sensors") but the first, perhaps even second attempt failed miserably, so they are trying again. This is purely my speculation, but how else do you go from "3 month out" to "12 months out"? Ok, maybe their entire battery team quit, or maybe they all got fired, or there was a giant sink hole that swallowed the battery division building while they were having a all-hands meeting.

@whitex - I followed the steps in REMOTE OPTION and the process worked as advertised in the email. Here is the confirmation from my dealer.

 

[snstevens]

I’d like to also say that I see a lot of fear of a catastrophic Taycan fire on this thread. Honestly the data (number of actual & suspected fires caused by battery failure) indicates that you have an extremely low probability of that occurring.

Of course there is uncertainty, and I understand that some folks on this forum wish that the uncertainty would be resolved. I am with you on this, but for the record not worried.

There is also discussion of class action lawsuits. I personally see these going nowhere. There needs to be either provable fraud on the part of the manufacturer, or evidence of harm, and there is neither in this case. There are lots of automobile recalls every year, and you can’t just sue a manufacturer for a recall, no matter how uncomfortable you are feeling.

 

[chun]

@whitex - I followed the steps in REMOTE OPTION and the process worked as advertised in the email. Here is the confirmation from my dealer.

That's great that they actually provided proof. Your dealership seems to be better managed than mine )

I wonder how often these VALs are done and under what circumstances they are triggered - do you need to be driving, does it need to be parked with signal, does it need to play eminem music, etc, but great news that it actually works now once WRV1 was done.

I would assume that the final software coming in 2nd half of 2025 will try to take some action based on data from these VALs, along the lines of disabling specific modules or entire battery.

 

[Spyerx]

So this is weird, and my dealer cannot explain it:

1. Originally my car had ARB7. And I received a letter as such.

2. A few months ago I checked online and the dealer confirmed my car had BOTH ARB6 and ARB7 attached to it

3. I had the car at the dealer for a charger replacement about 4 weeks ago, they did all campaigns, including checking the battery (because it has ARB7), confirmed I have remote monitoring enabled and it is functioning, and installed that remote monitoring patch

4. I get an email same one as above, ensure you have it turned on (I do)

5. I check porsche recall site this AM, and now my car only has ARB7 now

WHAT THE FUCK PORSCHE!?

 

[whitex]

WHAT THE FUCK PORSCHE!?

Traditional automotive company, left hand doesn't know what right hand is doing, siloed departments, lack of vertical integration, no empowered dictator with a clear vision - only design by committee, which also means everyone is equally responsible, leading to attitudes like "we all made the decisions collectively, if they are bad, they can't fire us all, right?". This happens to most corporations as they grow and age.

 

[snstevens]

@whitex - I followed the steps in REMOTE OPTION and the process worked as advertised in the email. Here is the confirmation from my dealer.

Thought I'd share an update.

• Battery monitoring continues and hasn't shown any issues.
• Still have ARB6 recall on the car.
• Don't have a precise number, but overall SOH for the HV Battery appears to be 92%
• Started charging to 85% again (in the garage of course).
• Sometimes charging to 90% at EA.
• Would love to get the software update that improves battery monitoring and fault detection, but not holding my breath.
• Just bought an Extended Warranty on the Taycan - plan to hold onto it for another couple of years at least - best car I've ever owned.

And just for the record - not dead yet ?

 

[AutoX]

Is there a Vin Cutoff for this recall? I have a 2024, but have no active recall when I checked the database.

 

[Tooney]

Is there a Vin Cutoff for this recall? I have a 2024, but have no active recall when I checked the database.

See production dates on Porsche report to NHTSA dated Oct. 2024: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCLRPT-24V732-8320.PDF

 

[AutoX]

See production dates on Porsche report to NHTSA dated Oct. 2024: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RCLRPT-24V732-8320.PDF

Hmmm. My Vin and production date falls within the recall, but There's nothing when I checked Porsche's site or NHTSA recall page.

Sponsored