[North America] - this is getting embarrassing - Porsche nerfing/neutering the PMCC via OTA update?

[daveo4EV]

I'm curious about mixed reviews I'm seeing for this charger online, noting that the cables were not rated correctly, "It is sold as a 40 amp charger but the cable is only rated for 30 amps" , can you confirm?

there is no simple answer and I'd rather not rehash what we learned 2 years ago

https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/threads/nema-14-50-supply-cable-heat-data.1940/

the PMCC/PMC+ supply cables are 10 gauge wire which with proper insulation is rated for 40 amp loads - but it's a poor choice for a mobile EVSE which is expected to be handled by human hands in normal use - 40 amp over 10 gauge wire is electrically "safe" but misses expectations for reasonable peak operating temperatures…throw in some higher ambient temperatures and then enclose the unit in a big box with no ventilation and the temps (while still electrically safe) can become quite concerning.

no such problems are common with other EVSE products running at similar electrical loads…and costing in some cases 1/10th the price depending on how you value the PMCC…

porsche changing the default setting to 20 amps via the eMail, service process and OTA update is a tacit admission their engineering choices are less than ideal for this particular product.

competitive products that handle 40 amps tend to ship with 8 & 6 gauge wire and are not known to have any thermal irregularities - as to if this simple change would address the core issue is interesting question few if any forum members (including myself) are qualified to answer - and would require a thorough design review beyond the scope of casual internet conversations…it is at a minimum a place to start but maybe insufficient given all the factors.

at both Porsche's price point and engineering reputation this product can only be characterized as a disappointment - and like all products that gain a questionable reputation it then becomes a process of managing expectations for problems real or imagined

the North American PMCC product is not well suited/designed for it's use case and fails in a number of dimensions…it's a disappointment.

the OTA update, service program and eMail have done nothing to change/improve that perception in my opinion - rather Porsche continues to increase the doubt about this product's suitability for it's task and with the OTA update they have made it difficult to achieve/engage the unit's rated 9.6 kW charging capacity.

there are numerous alternative EVSE's for way less than $1120 that perform this task with zero drama and no thermal irregularities and do not receive vague eMail's noting a 50% reduction due to

High temperatures can occur in the plug socket when charging the vehicle using the Porsche Mobile Charger in conjunction with NEMA industrial plugs, due to the higher charging current. In certain situations, this can lead to heat damage to the electrical socket.

the quote above contains a misleading single word substitution that is disingenuous and simply false

the word "higher" is incorrect - we are not using the unit at a "higher" load - we are attempting to use the unit at exactly it's rated/advertised/specified load - one can not run the PMCC at a higher load - you can only run at a load that Porsche has rated it to run at and their software subsequently enforces.

what Porsche is saying - the unit can cause problem running at it's specified load - there is no other way to interpret that statement. there is no assertion that people are taking a 9.6 kW rated unit and running it at 10.8 kW - it's failing to perform it's task at a level that matches it's specifications.

I've rewritten the sentence to be more accurate below:

High temperatures can occur in the plug socket when charging the vehicle using the Porsche Mobile Charger in conjunction with NEMA industrial plugs, at the the fully published/rated/documented/specified 9.6 kW charging current. In certain situations, use of this unit at it's fully rated 9.6 kW's can lead to heat damage to the electrical socket.

regardless of how you feel about this issue - I think we can all agree the simple fact that they had to take this public step means this is not a good look for Porsche and it's EV effort - and it's a fairly visible fail in an area that previously no one would've considered even remotely difficult or challenging.

it's not like Porsche is failing to deliver OTA updates to PMC software which is a far more challenging problem for a legacy auto maker - oh wait...never mind.

Sponsored

 

[daveo4EV]

there is no simple answer and I'd rather not rehash what we learned 2 years ago

https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/threads/nema-14-50-supply-cable-heat-data.1940/

the PMCC/PMC+ supply cables are 10 gauge wire which with proper insulation is rated for 40 amp loads - but it's a poor choice for a mobile EVSE which is expected to be handled by human hands in normal use - 40 amp over 10 gauge wire is electrically "safe" but misses expectations for reasonable peak operating temperatures…throw in some higher ambient temperatures and then enclose the unit in a big box with no ventilation and the temps (while still electrically safe) can become quite concerning.

no such problems are common with other EVSE products running at similar electrical loads…and costing in some cases 1/10th the price depending on how you value the PMCC…

porsche changing the default setting to 20 amps via the eMail, service process and OTA update is a tacit admission their engineering choices are less than ideal for this particular product.

competitive products that handle 40 amps tend to ship with 8 & 6 gauge wire and are not known to have any thermal irregularities - as to if this simple change would address the core issue is interesting question few if any forum members (including myself) are qualified to answer - and would require a thorough design review beyond the scope of casual internet conversations…it is at a minimum a place to start but maybe insufficient given all the factors.

at both Porsche's price point and engineering reputation this product can only be characterized as a disappointment - and like all products that gain a questionable reputation it then becomes a process of managing expectations for problems real or imagined

the North American PMCC product is not well suited/designed for it's use case and fails in a number of dimensions…it's a disappointment.

the OTA update, service program and eMail have done nothing to change/improve that perception in my opinion - rather Porsche continues to increase the doubt about this product's suitability for it's task and with the OTA update they have made it difficult to achieve/engage the unit's rated 9.6 kW charging capacity.

there are numerous alternative EVSE's for way less than $1120 that perform this task with zero drama and no thermal irregularities and do not receive vague eMail's noting a 50% reduction due to



the quote above contains a misleading single word substitution that is disingenuous and simply false

the word "higher" is incorrect - we are not using the unit at a "higher" load - we are attempting to use the unit at exactly it's rated/advertised/specified load - one can not run the PMCC at a higher load - you can only run at a load that Porsche has rated it to run at and their software subsequently enforces.

what Porsche is saying - the unit can cause problem running at it's specified load - there is no other way to interpret that statement. there is no assertion that people are taking a 9.6 kW rated unit and running it at 10.8 kW - it's failing to perform it's task at a level that matches it's specifications.

I've rewritten the sentence to be more accurate below:



regardless of how you feel about this issue - I think we can all agree the simple fact that they had to take this public step means this is not a good look for Porsche and it's EV effort - and it's a fairly visible fail in an area that previously no one would've considered even remotely difficult or challenging.

unless of course Porsche is saying - we are not unique - that all mobile EVSE's running at 9.6 can thermally damage the plug sockets they are running from - hmmmmm…

why can other EVSE's run at a full 9.6 kW without damaging the exact same plug sockets

again this is either a systemic problem with NEMA plug sockets being used at that current level

or

this is a problem unique to Porsche's design - because other EVSE's have been running now for nearly decades with out similar problems…and it's not like NEMA 14-50/6-50 plugs are something new - lots and lots and lots of products run at 9.6 kW or even closer to the rated load of a full 12 kW with these plugs and do not "cause thermal damage to the plug" in normal operation.

 

[snstevens]

I continue to push my SA about the issue. Here is my latest email, and attach the latest email from Porsche about the PMCC issue.

[Name]:

I received this email from Porsche today, and clearly it doesn’t address the performance issues with the PMCC that I raised with you earlier this week.

The wording that the issue is due to “higher charging current” is factually incorrect. The PMCC is rated to run at 40A, and generate 9.6KW of power. The fact that it is being restricted to 20A and 4.8KW is due to a design flaw unique to the PMCC, and not present in other EVSEs.

For your information, I hired a professional electrician to install the wiring for this unit and he used 6 gauge wire (only 18 inches from the electrical panel), a 50A breaker, and a commercial NEMA 14-50 socket. There is no issue with the NEMA socket or wiring - the issue is that the PMCC overheats most likely due to incorrectly sized connecting wires (I’ve learned Porsche used 10 gauge wire, while the commercial EVSE alternatives use either 6 or 8 gauge wire - smaller numbers are larger wires that can handle higher currents).

Even though my background is electrical engineering, I won’t claim that the wire size used by Porsche is the only issue, but I think it is a contributing factor to the heat issue.

Did you forward my earlier email to the Service Manager at Porsche [Location]? If so, what response did you receive. For your information I’ve already forwarded that email to Porsche NA.

Thanks for any updates!
Sam

P.S. The ANA6 update was excellent. I’ve had no issues and I like the new interface. I’m also getting better mileage which is always a plus. The ANA6 update is a home run in my eyes.

 

[Kingske]

Sorry Dave, my brain was foggy last night after a long tiring day. My wrong.
I red the 1.310 kWh incorrectly. In Sweden there is a comma used instead of a point.

copied from an InsideHook article:

Throughout its history NASA has made some huge discoveries, leaps in technology, and inspired the human race to reach beyond the stars for answers to our origins and possible solutions for our current and future problems. These impressive strides haven’t always come easy for the space agency. Along the way, a handful of seemingly inconsequential mistakes- like a snagged cord or forgetting to use metric measurements, have cost NASA big. Here are a few of those minute mistakes that caused massive failures.

Mariner 1
When: 1962

The Mariner 1 was destroyed a few minutes after launch due to an issue with the guidance system. (NASA)

Less than five minutes after launch, NASA destroyed the Mariner 1 when incorrect guidance signals were given to the spacecraft. A hyphen, or overbar (they look alike) or possibly just a decimal point was omitted/incorrectly placed from the hand-scribed mathematical code. This caused a major malfunction the guidance system, making the craft veer off course. Luckily a backup Mariner 2 was waiting in the wings and launched successfully 5 weeks later.


The Mars Climate Orbiter
When: 1998

The Mars Climate Orbiter project involved calculations that had a mix of both metric and English measurements, which had disastrous consequences during the spacecraft’s descent to Mars. (NASA)

The team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) used the metric system in its calculations for the Mars Climate Orbier, However, the scientists at Lockheed Martin Astronautics instead used the English measurement system for the software that calculated thruster force. As a result, the spacecraft’s software misread the thruster information during its entry into Mars orbit and assumed the data was in the metric unit, not in pounds. As the thrusters engaged, the orbiter went too fast and veered off course and it was either destroyed as it entered Mars’ atmosphere or was flung outward into space no longer able to function.

 

[PNWTaycan4S]

I continue to push my SA about the issue. Here is my latest email, and attach the latest email from Porsche about the PMCC issue.

[Name]:

I received this email from Porsche today, and clearly it doesn’t address the performance issues with the PMCC that I raised with you earlier this week.

The wording that the issue is due to “higher charging current” is factually incorrect. The PMCC is rated to run at 40A, and generate 9.6KW of power. The fact that it is being restricted to 20A and 4.8KW is due to a design flaw unique to the PMCC, and not present in other EVSEs.

For your information, I hired a professional electrician to install the wiring for this unit and he used 6 gauge wire (only 18 inches from the electrical panel), a 50A breaker, and a commercial NEMA 14-50 socket. There is no issue with the NEMA socket or wiring - the issue is that the PMCC overheats most likely due to incorrectly sized connecting wires (I’ve learned Porsche used 10 gauge wire, while the commercial EVSE alternatives use either 6 or 8 gauge wire - smaller numbers are larger wires that can handle higher currents).

Even though my background is electrical engineering, I won’t claim that the wire size used by Porsche is the only issue, but I think it is a contributing factor to the heat issue.

Did you forward my earlier email to the Service Manager at Porsche [Location]? If so, what response did you receive. For your information I’ve already forwarded that email to Porsche NA.

Thanks for any updates!
Sam

P.S. The ANA6 update was excellent. I’ve had no issues and I like the new interface. I’m also getting better mileage which is always a plus. The ANA6 update is a home run in my eyes.

I got that email today too. Ridiculous to spend that for something Porsche specified, we paid for, and only get half of it. Just a bun and no hamburger?!

Sounds like a class action issue to me, in addition to something our WA Attorney General would be interested to learn about. I'm hoping Porsche follows up quickly with a replacement or hardware fix.

 

[TXAG]

I wonder if the technical folks recommended 8- or 6-gauge wire but were overruled by Porsche leadership?

(In my line of work, this is known as the 3 x 5 index card rule. A worker walks into the boss's office with a question. The boss goes to the desk, opens the pencil drawer, looks at an index card, and tell you what the answer needs to be.)

 

[daveo4EV]

I wonder if the technical folks recommended 8- or 6-gauge wire but were overruled by Porsche leadership?

(In my line of work, this is known as the 3 x 5 index card rule. A worker walks into the boss's office with a question. The boss goes to the desk, opens the pencil drawer, looks at an index card, and tell you what the answer needs to be.)

the cable in question was designed for the 918 Spyder which only had a 32 amp charger - Hybrids only have a 32 amp cahrger - the Taycan is a 48 amp charger but limited to 40 amps via North American building code for pluggable devices…

I doubt the committed recommended anything - if anything someone did a failure analysis and found 10 gauge wire can handle 9.6 kW - which is can and it can safely - but no one did the extra work to ask but does a wire that get to 162F in an ambient temperature of 68F make any sense? (data from my unit 2 years ago under normal use)…

it won't fail, but it can/has/will get uncomfortably hot…and clearly Porsche has decided not to remediate the situation.

 

[MotoMD1]

alright guys what EVSE should I buy, Porsche clearly isn't going to fix this anytime soon. Is the Tesla one the way to go with an adapter? thanks a lot!

 

[DerekS]

alright guys what EVSE should I buy, Porsche clearly isn't going to fix this anytime soon. Is the Tesla one the way to go with an adapter? thanks a lot!

I watched several charger reviews on the "State of Charge" YouTube channel before deciding on the Wallbox Pulsar Plus.

I've had zero problems with it, and it's a drop-in replacement for the Porsche EVSE (even uses the same plug orientation.)

It has a nice app and an API which lets my forthcoming Chargey app ingest home charge details automatically.

https://www.amazon.com/Pulsar-Level-Electric-Vehicle-Charger/dp/B08H2LYFHX

 

[daveo4EV]

alright guys what EVSE should I buy, Porsche clearly isn't going to fix this anytime soon. Is the Tesla one the way to go with an adapter? thanks a lot!

• Tesla Corded Mobile Charger - 40 amps $200
• Tesla Universal Mobile Charger Gen2 - 32 amps $225 (NEMA 14-50 optional? - check website)
• Tesla Wall Charger - 12-48 amps - Hardwired (not Mobile) - $400
  • all above units will Require a TeslaTap - so thats a bit of a Pain
• Tesla has announceda J-1772 EVSE - very very well reviews - so far MIA in terms of actually purchasing it - but this would be an excellent choice.
• Mustart Moble 40 amp EVSE
• Mustart Mobile 32 amp EVSE
• ChargePoint Homeflex (32, 40, 48 amp) EVSE
• WallBox Plusar Plus
• Any ClipperCreek EVSE
• JuiceBox

Wallbox, ClipperCreek, ChargePoint - get a NEMA 14-50 version so it's plug&play with your existing setup. If you are slightly more adventerous get one of the Tesla chargers

don't sweat a NEMA 6-50 version - a highquality effective and safe NEMA 14-50 to 6-50 adapter (pigtail - short cord) can be had from Amazon for $40 or less.

virtually any 40 amp EVSE with a NEMA 14-50/6-50 plug will do the job - get an EVSE that matches your current setup - or consider this an opportunity to "upgrade" to a full 48 amp EVSE to charge your Taycan at 11 kw - but you'll need a 60 amp breaker + upgraded wire and all 60/48 amp EVSE's are hardwired by definition (so not mobile).

don't worry about moiblility - you still have the PMCC - which for occassional use is ok as your "mobile" charger - so I'd consider this one a "fixed" unit that will just live in your garage.

 

[smohr33]

• Tesla Corded Mobile Charger - 40 amps $200
• Tesla Universal Mobile Charger Gen2 - 32 amps $225 (NEMA 14-50 optional? - check website)
• Tesla Wall Charger - 12-48 amps - Hardwired (not Mobile) - $400
  • all above units will Require a TeslaTap - so thats a bit of a Pain
• Tesla has announceda J-1772 EVSE - very very well reviews - so far MIA in terms of actually purchasing it - but this would be an excellent choice.
• Mustart Moble 40 amp EVSE
• Mustart Mobile 32 amp EVSE
• ChargePoint Homeflex (32, 40, 48 amp) EVSE
• WallBox Plusar Plus
• Any ClipperCreek EVSE
• JuiceBox

Wallbox, ClipperCreek, ChargePoint - get a NEMA 14-50 version so it's plug&play with your existing setup. If you are slightly more adventerous get one of the Tesla chargers

don't worry about moiblility - you still have the PMCC - which for occassional use is ok as your "mobile" charger - so I'd consider this one a "fixed" unit that will just live in your garage.

And keep in mind many utilities offer rebates for the purchase of a qualifying EVSE.

I can purchase Juicebox or Chargepoint through my utility and receive an instant $400 credit.

I have no faith Porsche will address this situation properly, so I think $349 for the Chargepoint is route I'm headed.

 

[TDinDC]

I've had zero problems with it, and it's a drop-in replacement for the Porsche EVSE (even uses the same plug orientation.)

Just to make sure I am understanding your post correctly, are you saying that this will fit into the enormously oversized plastic Porsche cabinet for which I significantly overpaid and installed on my wall so that Armageddon will happen before I remove it?

 

[daveo4EV]

Just to make sure I am understanding your post correctly, are you saying that this will fit into the enormously oversized plastic Porsche cabinet for which I significantly overpaid and installed on my wall so that Armageddon will happen before I remove it?

I don't think so - but remove the oversized cabinet and just hang any replacment unit where it used to be.

but it is plug&play with the NEMA plug socket that will be left behind once you remove the decorative cabinet.

 

[TDinDC]

I don't think so - but remove the oversized cabinet and just hang any replacment unit where it used to be.

but it is plug&play with the NEMA plug socket that will be left behind once you remove the decorative cabinet.

I paid so much money for this ugly-@ssed piece of plastic that I would sooner get an ice car than admit defeat through removal!

 

[DerekS]

Just to make sure I am understanding your post correctly, are you saying that this will fit into the enormously oversized plastic Porsche cabinet for which I significantly overpaid and installed on my wall so that Armageddon will happen before I remove it?

Nope, just that it matches the NEMA plug orientation of the Porsche unit. Here's my before/after, I planned to buy the decorative cabinet one day but I am glad I didn't!