New Battery monitoring software update?

[Vim Schrotnock]

My guess is that LG Chem, or any EV battery manufacturer will warrant and replace the defective units of their battery, but will not be liable for any costs related to the failure of the entire system (car in this case) due to battery failure. Battery suppliers for critical products will either require a 'hold harmless' clause, and/or will charge 10x or more their normal cost to incorporate a battery into a product whose battery failure could cause physical injury or death (pacemakers, infusion pumps...). I think this is all on Porsche.

One additional data point on Porsche's ability to diagnose battery failure. When my battery failed in August of 2023, Porsche flew in one of three certified battery technicians in the country, and he spent several days testing the battery and every individual module. I was invited in to speak with him, and he was very knowledgeable and we had an excellent discussion. I was able to observe the reassembly of the battery including the incredibly complex and precise laying of the 1 in diameter glue bead around the battery sealing channel. He said they had identified one bad cell, and replaced that plus another 'out of an abundance of caution'. I asked how confident he was that the remaining cells would be good, and he stated that my car would be 'as good as new, maybe better'. My repaired battery failed 10 months later, and the battery was replaced.

If Porsche can't properly diagnose a battery that has been disassembled with every cell and module tested using their best equipment, how are they going to develop a piece of software that can do better? I am not optimistic.

Sponsored

 

[Jasper4S]

I did not hear anything from Porsche. Only reason I know about this issue is because I’m visiting this forum. Same as a friend of mine in NL. I am not aware of any letters sent out on this issue in NL.

@Jasper4S did you?

No letter and no open recalls known at RDW for the Taycan. Not an issue here (yet?)

I did get a letter about the brake hose recall from last summer. So I know PON does send letters when they feel the need.

 

[D00notD00d]

I’ve posted this elsewhere already, I’m repeating it for anyone who has jumped in part way through this thread, who may not understand how the impact differs by country and even within a country.

One purpose of the ARB6 & 7 recall communications is Porsche seeking to transfer liability for any thermal events (fires) caused by their suppliers defect and their design omission (the absence of monitoring and alerting and fire prevention mechanisms) to owners.

The 80% charge limit (of residual usable capacity) and workshop visits every 60 days are inconveniences, but they’re not fatal - they do not prevent continued use of the product, they just constrain its use.

The ARB6 letter issued to me by Porsche GB relays a UK DVSA requirement “all Battery Electric Vehicle users affected by a safety recall (affecting a high voltage battery) to not charge the vehicle under cover and /or to ensure the vehicle is not parked adjacent to or under buildings whilst charging”. (Others in the UK have received an ARB6 letter without this constraint).
That makes the car unusable. If there’s no safe place to charge it I also can’t get it to the dealer every 60 Days.

Porsche GB & the DVSA are reviewing all of the above and some other ambiguities in the recall letter.

 

[chun]

If Porsche can't properly diagnose a battery that has been disassembled with every cell and module tested using their best equipment, how are they going to develop a piece of software that can do better? I am not optimistic.

As someone else mentioned, and is stated in the recall technical notes actually, the main purpose of the software is to be a shut down/disconnect switch when a cell/module inevitably fails, and diagnosis and logs transmission is a secondary purpose - proven by the fact that OTA logs transmission doesn't even work for people without the paid Porsche subscription, as @GTSS found out - which makes the whole diagnosis purpose pointless, when you have to pay to let porsche access your logs OTA (obviously, this could change, it is just software after all)

 

[chun]

I’ve posted this elsewhere already, I’m repeating it for anyone who has jumped in part way through this thread, who may not understand how the impact differs by country and even within a country.

One purpose of the ARB6 & 7 recall communications is Porsche seeking to transfer liability for any thermal events (fires) caused by their suppliers defect and their design omission (the absence of monitoring and alerting and fire prevention mechanisms) to owners.

The 80% charge limit (of residual usable capacity) and workshop visits every 60 days are inconveniences, but they’re not fatal - they do not prevent continued use of the product, they just constrain its use.

The ARB6 letter issued to me by Porsche GB relays a UK DVSA requirement “all Battery Electric Vehicle users affected by a safety recall (affecting a high voltage battery) to not charge the vehicle under cover and /or to ensure the vehicle is not parked adjacent to or under buildings whilst charging”. (Others in the UK have received an ARB6 letter without this constraint).
That makes the car unusable. If there’s no safe place to charge it I also can’t get it to the dealer every 60 Days.

Porsche GB & the DVSA are reviewing all of the above and some other ambiguities in the recall letter.

I can add some more info on this. My first ARB6 letters come with the same restrictions to not charge indoors and such. The 2nd ARB6 letter, which also says the software is delayed to Q2, came without those restrictions. I still have both letters.

I find it odd, as both were sent directly by Porsche Switzerland. Even more odd, I know other taycan owners which received either both with restrictions or both without restrictions. And I also know owners that didn't receive letters at all, despite having the recall ?

So there is definitely some dumb dumb stuff going on with these letters

Anyway, both useless letters, as my local dealer has refused to service my car every 60 days anyway...

 

[W1NGE]

damn, so they can’t get logs from a car OTA if you don’t pay for the subscription?

Now that is proper ridiculous.

How will the new software transmit data back to porsche OTA for people without the subscription?

I guess porsche will have to have another recall for that ? or maybe they intend to keep the 60 days check-ups at dealer for the whole life of the car. Good stuff

I can see the headlines: “Porsches asks you to subscribe to find out when your car will catch on fire before it does” or “Porsches subscription required to not burn alive”

Here, free AD idea for porsche: “Would you like to be blamed for burning your neighbours house? Buy the porsche subscription to avoid an uncomfortable situation”

I'm not convinced that's correct and that Porsche always has connectivity required for their own purposes to any and all cars not in privacy mode.

 

[GTSS]

Being under ARB6, there is a possibility to change it to ARB7. This is the letter I received od 28.02.2025. from local Porsche dealer (translated):

According to the latest information from the manufacturer, it is possible to activate online monitoring of the battery modules, i.e. online transmission of vehicle analysis logs.


Once the online transmission of vehicle analysis logs is enabled, the 80% charging limit will be removed, as the vehicle will be under constant monitoring.


To enable online transmission of vehicle analysis logs (VALs), the following conditions must be met:


Connect Store:
Porsche Connect & Connect Care must be activated


My Porsche:
A Porsche ID is required
Online updates must be enabled
The vehicle must not be in guest mode
The vehicle must not be in private mode
Product improvements must be enabled in the privacy settings (if applicable)


Additionally, the vehicle must be connected to the internet at least once every 30 days, and the connection must last at least 45 minutes in order to allow the logs to be transmitted to PAG systems.


If you need assistance with the My Porsche app and the activation of the online transmission of vehicle analysis logs, we will be happy to contact you by phone.

As my Porsche Connect subscritpion has expired, I believe ARB7 is not possible. I am calling Porsche right now to make sure if it can be activated without renewing Porsche Connect subscription, but reaching them takes time (always busy).

 

[Sly_North]

however there was that ship (Felicity Ace) that caught fire (2022) off the Azores laden with EVs (and ICE) - 4000 vehicles - Porsche, Bentley, VW, Lambo, etc. There was a lawsuit that led to Porsche - no idea of provenance or outcome.

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicity_Ace

Contrary to speculations in the media, it is unknown whether an electric car caused the initial fire.

The cause of the fire is unknown. No one can affirm it was caused by an electric car.
The EVs were then burnt by the fire, making the matter worse. But they're not known to have caught fire on their own.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/burnt-car-carrier-felicity-ace-sinks-494679
2 insurance companies are trying to get their money back from VW/Porsche, but they'll have a really hard time proving their claim...

 

[Troc]

No letter and no open recalls known at RDW for the Taycan. Not an issue here (yet?)

I did get a letter about the brake hose recall from last summer. So I know PON does send letters when they feel the need.

Same here, Porsche NL (and my local dealer in Rotterdam) are very silent on the issue. Maybe it's because our cars are below sea level and the system thinks they are permanently water-cooled.

 

[tophamn]

One purpose of the ARB6 & 7 recall communications is Porsche seeking to transfer liability for any thermal events (fires) caused by their suppliers defect and their design omission (the absence of monitoring and alerting and fire prevention mechanisms) to owners.

Maybe I'm trying to see the bright side but I don't believe that's true. What Porsche will want (need?) to do is limit their financial exposure if things go wrong, however unlikely.

The 80% charge limit (of residual usable capacity) and workshop visits every 60 days are inconveniences, but they’re not fatal - they do not prevent continued use of the product, they just constrain its use.

The ARB6 letter issued to me by Porsche GB relays a UK DVSA requirement “all Battery Electric Vehicle users affected by a safety recall (affecting a high voltage battery) to not charge the vehicle under cover and /or to ensure the vehicle is not parked adjacent to or under buildings whilst charging”. (Others in the UK have received an ARB6 letter without this constraint).
That makes the car unusable. If there’s no safe place to charge it I also can’t get it to the dealer every 60 Days.

I don't believe either Porsche or DVSA would enforce these conditions (I read them as recommendations) - as you say they make the car unusable for most people. If asking users to limit their charge to 80% (which is good for battery life in any case) reduces the chances of catastrophic events then we all benefit; anyone who needs to charge to 100% should continue to do so in order to use their car in the way intended but if the majority of owners don't charge beyond 80% the exposure to Porsche is limited.

 

[n3ophyte]

As my Porsche Connect subscritpion has expired, I believe ARB7 is not possible. I am calling Porsche right now to make sure if it can be activated without renewing Porsche Connect subscription …

This is really helpful thank you

Like many I assumed my 2020 Taycan would continue to upload its vehicle analysis logs (VALs) to Porsche without needing the annual Porsche Connect subscription (my Porsche Connect Care contract is still valid and the vehicle is not in privacy mode). However, as soon as my Porsche Connect subscription expired I got the restrictive ARB6 letter

 

[W1NGE]

Being under ARB6, there is a possibility to change it to ARB7. This is the letter I received od 28.02.2025. from local Porsche dealer (translated):



As my Porsche Connect subscritpion has expired, I believe ARB7 is not possible. I am calling Porsche right now to make sure if it can be activated without renewing Porsche Connect subscription, but reaching them takes time (always busy).

Ask your dealer! Speak to the Gold Technician.

 

[GTSS]

My Porsche dealer has just confirmed - Porsche Connect must be active for ARB7.

 

[chun]

Great design when you can’t collect critical logs on critical systems of a car without the customer paying for the privilege ?

The engineer who developed this should get double pats on the back ?

I guess however they segregated their OTA architecture, the standard OTA communication can’t handle the format or the size of the logs ? which is pathetic that they even shipped a product without checking, and they shipped it for close to 5 years. Wouldn’t be shocked if j 1.2 has the same limitation

I guess this whole OTA thing really was an afterthought designed last minute by some intern/onboarding employee

Probably another thing that is going to be fixed in that 2026 PCM and part of why they offer 10 years connectivity as standard

 

[n3ophyte]

My Porsche dealer has just confirmed - Porsche Connect must be active for ARB7.

Thanks for the effort in confirming this @GTSS

Am I alone in thinking Porsche should re-enable Porsche Connect for everyone for logging purposes until this safety issue is resolved? Obviously anyone currently paying for a subscription should be credited accordingly.

Sponsored