Porsche halt sales of 19-23 used Taycans
Discussion
Is this a recall or some voluntary measure? Porsche is very good at getting out of or limiting their chocolate drivetrain responsibilities but if it is a recall then I believe they need to provide lifetime protection against this issue for free. Which, other than significant inconvenience for a period of time, means it’s not much to worry about. You just need to park it away from stuff you actually care about in case it goes on fire.
We’ve got a Taycan 4S. I drove a 5Litre V8 to work today though so I probably don’t qualify as an ‘Eco Warrier.’
I did get to drive my wife’s Taycan from Cheshire to Harrogate recently. It was pretty good on those back roads around Skipton. I didn’t need a charge as there would have been plenty of range, but I stopped for a quick breakfast at a McDonalds, where I had a flat white and a sausage/egg muffin for only 3 quid and there were 5/6 empty chargers so I could ‘fill up to nearly full’ again, both of which were surprisingly good experiences.
Not too shabby overall, but I do accept that for some people it could be a pain. If you’re doing 400 miles a day then I think an expensive car is probably not a good idea, unless mega rich, in which case a helicopter would be nice to reduce the commuting time. I’d probably get some sort of older diesel if I was doing those type of drives.
I did get to drive my wife’s Taycan from Cheshire to Harrogate recently. It was pretty good on those back roads around Skipton. I didn’t need a charge as there would have been plenty of range, but I stopped for a quick breakfast at a McDonalds, where I had a flat white and a sausage/egg muffin for only 3 quid and there were 5/6 empty chargers so I could ‘fill up to nearly full’ again, both of which were surprisingly good experiences.
Not too shabby overall, but I do accept that for some people it could be a pain. If you’re doing 400 miles a day then I think an expensive car is probably not a good idea, unless mega rich, in which case a helicopter would be nice to reduce the commuting time. I’d probably get some sort of older diesel if I was doing those type of drives.
Kippercheese said:
Just had my Taycan MOT'd at the main dealer. Whilst I was there. they performed the battery check and updated the battery management software and and also the remote update software. Good news - battery inspection came back as 'green'.
Bad news. When I got home I noticed the battery capacity has dropped nearly 30%, giving me a max range of just 175 miles. Turns out, Porsche have modified the code to reduce the battery capacity to ensure cars are safe. I am totally gobsmacked they have done this without telling me. When I called them to discuss this morning they eventually admitted this is what Porsche have done. Unbelievable. Not sure what to do now but 175miles of range is not very helpful. I did ask them to roll back the update but they refused.
Anybody else had the same?
Had another manufacturer done this, people would be soiling themselves in fury and setting the internet on fire. There would be outrage from the masses (most of whom wouldn’t own a Porsche at all, let alone a Taycan) this would be a headline article on PH and the matter would be discussed at PMQ’s. But because it’s Porsche, it’s just shrugged away. Bad news. When I got home I noticed the battery capacity has dropped nearly 30%, giving me a max range of just 175 miles. Turns out, Porsche have modified the code to reduce the battery capacity to ensure cars are safe. I am totally gobsmacked they have done this without telling me. When I called them to discuss this morning they eventually admitted this is what Porsche have done. Unbelievable. Not sure what to do now but 175miles of range is not very helpful. I did ask them to roll back the update but they refused.
Anybody else had the same?
MDL111 said:
nickpan said:
Reading this thread with interest, not because I own a Taycan, but because I'd love to own one for how they look and drive, but am once again reminded that with all of these new cars comes complexity, uncertaintly, unreliability and worst of all - a reliance (read dependency) on a main dealer, and I'm just not sure the juice is really worth the squeeze any more.
I drive old stuff now on the whole now which come from a simpler time that is tried and tested.
Sad really as you can't beat a modern day interior.
your last point is one of the many reasons I dislike pretty much all modern carsI drive old stuff now on the whole now which come from a simpler time that is tried and tested.
Sad really as you can't beat a modern day interior.
John Henry said:
Had another manufacturer done this, people would be soiling themselves in fury and setting the internet on fire. There would be outrage from the masses (most of whom wouldn t own a Porsche at all, let alone a Taycan) this would be a headline article on PH and the matter would be discussed at PMQ s. But because it s Porsche, it s just shrugged away.
Similar for Jaguar ipace, Traction battery fault common which limits to 72% charging - circa 160mile range.knk said:
Similar for Jaguar ipace, Traction battery fault common which limits to 72% charging - circa 160mile range.
Aye, but only if the software detected a fault (which it didn't / hasn't in most). Plus, Jaguar were doing this 18 months ago why, given Porsche use the same batteries, are Taycans being recalled now?I’ve been told that 2022 cars are not allowed to be sold by OPCs until they have a resolution. OPCs I’ve spoken to believe it will be solved with a software update (potentially changing the pre conditioning and charge speeds) but they think it will be another 3months before the solution is available.
Ok, so one of these friend of a friend stories, but its genuine.
This guy has purchased quite a few cars from the same local dealer I bought my GTS cab from, and he bought his Taycan from there new 22months ago for £92k.
He was informed of this issue, told there was no foreseeable fix, and warned not to use the 3 pin charger due to potential fire risk.
He told them it wasn't fit for purpose and under CRA2015, he was wanting to return it.
It has 10k miles, booking now at £40.5k, and before this went mental, WBAC were offering £27k, which has now been removed.
The OPC has accepted taking it back for £82k, being fully refunded minus £1 per mile usage.
To say he is a happy chappie is an understatement.
My young lads friend who is a sales guy in that OPC says they have no idea on how or when this will be solved, but its going to be very costly to Porsche.
For anyone that is not in a position to return, they are going to be left with a Taycan with a fraction of its value, with next to no chance of trade in or selling.
What a mess.
The Audi saloons have the same issue.
Electric cars ehh?
This guy has purchased quite a few cars from the same local dealer I bought my GTS cab from, and he bought his Taycan from there new 22months ago for £92k.
He was informed of this issue, told there was no foreseeable fix, and warned not to use the 3 pin charger due to potential fire risk.
He told them it wasn't fit for purpose and under CRA2015, he was wanting to return it.
It has 10k miles, booking now at £40.5k, and before this went mental, WBAC were offering £27k, which has now been removed.
The OPC has accepted taking it back for £82k, being fully refunded minus £1 per mile usage.
To say he is a happy chappie is an understatement.
My young lads friend who is a sales guy in that OPC says they have no idea on how or when this will be solved, but its going to be very costly to Porsche.
For anyone that is not in a position to return, they are going to be left with a Taycan with a fraction of its value, with next to no chance of trade in or selling.
What a mess.
The Audi saloons have the same issue.
Electric cars ehh?
W12GT said:
I wonder why 3pin specifically? It s a slower charge rate so should pose less risk to the battery cells than a wall charger.
No mention of that in the official recall. And getting a full refund (less milage allowance) after nearly 2 years? That is odd too.I have learned to be wary of this second and third hand info.
Great for the person involved if true though. A hell of a deal.
Discombobulate said:
W12GT said:
I wonder why 3pin specifically? It s a slower charge rate so should pose less risk to the battery cells than a wall charger.
No mention of that in the official recall. And getting a full refund (less milage allowance) after nearly 2 years? That is odd too.I have learned to be wary of this second and third hand info.
Great for the person involved if true though. A hell of a deal.
I'm passing on what happened; when it was explained to him they currently have no fix, and when they do it shall be a decent period of time to supply the resolution to around 22k cars, it then fell into the not fit for purpose category.
The guy is a DP for another car brand, so I'm pretty sure he knows his way in this instance.
On rejecting a car, there is always a small monetary value that is deducted per mile useage; that is not 'odd'.
Personally, I wouldn't charge anything more than a plug in hybrid using a 3 pin plug; your asking for too much continous current through a 2.5 twin and earth for too long a time, so that bit on info seems a given as most full electric car owners have a dedicated instal back to the main board.
Wheelspinning said:
Do you really think in the official recall they would happily mention about checking your rights under CRA2015?
I'm passing on what happened; when it was explained to him they currently have no fix, and when they do it shall be a decent period of time to supply the resolution to around 22k cars, it then fell into the not fit for purpose category.
The guy is a DP for another car brand, so I'm pretty sure he knows his way in this instance.
On rejecting a car, there is always a small monetary value that is deducted per mile useage; that is not 'odd'.
Personally, I wouldn't charge anything more than a plug in hybrid using a 3 pin plug; your asking for too much continous current through a 2.5 twin and earth for too long a time, so that bit on info seems a given as most full electric car owners have a dedicated instal back to the main board.
You misunderstand. I'm passing on what happened; when it was explained to him they currently have no fix, and when they do it shall be a decent period of time to supply the resolution to around 22k cars, it then fell into the not fit for purpose category.
The guy is a DP for another car brand, so I'm pretty sure he knows his way in this instance.
On rejecting a car, there is always a small monetary value that is deducted per mile useage; that is not 'odd'.
Personally, I wouldn't charge anything more than a plug in hybrid using a 3 pin plug; your asking for too much continous current through a 2.5 twin and earth for too long a time, so that bit on info seems a given as most full electric car owners have a dedicated instal back to the main board.
I was talking about the 3 pin charger advice not being in the recall - I wasn't referring to CRA2015.
And the odd bit about rejecting the car isn't charging for the mileage covered (standard practice) but the fact that a) he managed to return the within a week or two of the recall / stop sell order. It normally takes much longer to go through the whole process. And b) that he could so after 22 months of use (possible but an uphill struggle) and c) they charged so little.
But if true, a dream result for your friends' friend.
Edited by Discombobulate on Wednesday 11th June 17:15
Discombobulate said:
You misunderstand.
I was talking about the 3 pin charger advice not being in the recall - I wasn't referring to CRA2015.
And the odd bit about rejecting the car isn't charging for the mileage covered (standard practice) but the fact that a) he managed to return the within a week or two of the recall / stop sell order. It normally takes much longer to go through the whole process. And b) that he could so after 22 months of use (possible but an uphill struggle) and c) they charged so little.
But if true, a dream result for your friends' friend.
It wasn't something that happened on the announcement of the recall; he has been back and forth with the issues that has now been highlighted with the recall since early into ownership; his rejection commenced and finished before the recall was announced.I was talking about the 3 pin charger advice not being in the recall - I wasn't referring to CRA2015.
And the odd bit about rejecting the car isn't charging for the mileage covered (standard practice) but the fact that a) he managed to return the within a week or two of the recall / stop sell order. It normally takes much longer to go through the whole process. And b) that he could so after 22 months of use (possible but an uphill struggle) and c) they charged so little.
But if true, a dream result for your friends' friend.
Edited by Discombobulate on Wednesday 11th June 17:15
You do realise that recalls like this are based on multiple similar failures over a period of time, don't you?
The fact the Porsche have instructed all OPCs to no longer sell the cars as detailed until they figure out a soloution and timescale of remedy makes it quite clear they have a product not fit for it's intended purpose, and would almost certainly fall into the rejection category.
As I posted earlier, that's a reasonable deduction that was outlined in CRA2015 when rejecting a car.
It's pretty clear by your repeated mention of being true that you feel as though I have popped up here with a fabrication.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I don't care one way or another.
I was giving a heads up of how someone has got out of this situation; if it prods someone into taking the similar action instead of hoping Porsche pulls out some miracle to sort their pig in a poke that's had originally been hit hard with depreciation now becoming unsaleable, then great.
Who is going to buy a car that's got an urgent recall, with no current solution that the main dealers have been told to stop selling?
The solution is to get them to take their product back.
Wheelspinning said:
It wasn't something that happened on the announcement of the recall; he has been back and forth with the issues that has now been highlighted with the recall since early into ownership; his rejection commenced and finished before the recall was announced.
You do realise that recalls like this are based on multiple similar failures over a period of time, don't you?
The fact the Porsche have instructed all OPCs to no longer sell the cars as detailed until they figure out a soloution and timescale of remedy makes it quite clear they have a product not fit for it's intended purpose, and would almost certainly fall into the rejection category.
As I posted earlier, that's a reasonable deduction that was outlined in CRA2015 when rejecting a car.
It's pretty clear by your repeated mention of being true that you feel as though I have popped up here with a fabrication.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I don't care one way or another.
I was giving a heads up of how someone has got out of this situation; if it prods someone into taking the similar action instead of hoping Porsche pulls out some miracle to sort their pig in a poke that's had originally been hit hard with depreciation now becoming unsaleable, then great.
Who is going to buy a car that's got an urgent recall, with no current solution that the main dealers have been told to stop selling?
The solution is to get them to take their product back.
That makes much more sense.You do realise that recalls like this are based on multiple similar failures over a period of time, don't you?
The fact the Porsche have instructed all OPCs to no longer sell the cars as detailed until they figure out a soloution and timescale of remedy makes it quite clear they have a product not fit for it's intended purpose, and would almost certainly fall into the rejection category.
As I posted earlier, that's a reasonable deduction that was outlined in CRA2015 when rejecting a car.
It's pretty clear by your repeated mention of being true that you feel as though I have popped up here with a fabrication.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I don't care one way or another.
I was giving a heads up of how someone has got out of this situation; if it prods someone into taking the similar action instead of hoping Porsche pulls out some miracle to sort their pig in a poke that's had originally been hit hard with depreciation now becoming unsaleable, then great.
Who is going to buy a car that's got an urgent recall, with no current solution that the main dealers have been told to stop selling?
The solution is to get them to take their product back.
Not looking for an argument. Just pointing out that the story - as you first told it - was odd. I quote:
"He was informed of this issue, told there was no foreseeable fix, and warned not to use the 3 pin charger due to potential fire risk. He told them it wasn't fit for purpose and under CRA2015, he was wanting to return it."
Which suggested that he rejected after the recall last week and had closed the deal in the days since.
I am not suggesting you are fabricating it at all, but I am wary of second and third party stories, because you often don't get the full, or an accurate, account.
Wheelspinning said:
Ok, so one of these friend of a friend stories, but its genuine.
This guy has purchased quite a few cars from the same local dealer I bought my GTS cab from, and he bought his Taycan from there new 22months ago for £92k.
He was informed of this issue, told there was no foreseeable fix, and warned not to use the 3 pin charger due to potential fire risk.
He told them it wasn't fit for purpose and under CRA2015, he was wanting to return it.
It has 10k miles, booking now at £40.5k, and before this went mental, WBAC were offering £27k, which has now been removed.
The OPC has accepted taking it back for £82k, being fully refunded minus £1 per mile usage.
To say he is a happy chappie is an understatement.
My young lads friend who is a sales guy in that OPC says they have no idea on how or when this will be solved, but its going to be very costly to Porsche.
For anyone that is not in a position to return, they are going to be left with a Taycan with a fraction of its value, with next to no chance of trade in or selling.
What a mess.
The Audi saloons have the same issue.
Electric cars ehh?
This is very interesting.This guy has purchased quite a few cars from the same local dealer I bought my GTS cab from, and he bought his Taycan from there new 22months ago for £92k.
He was informed of this issue, told there was no foreseeable fix, and warned not to use the 3 pin charger due to potential fire risk.
He told them it wasn't fit for purpose and under CRA2015, he was wanting to return it.
It has 10k miles, booking now at £40.5k, and before this went mental, WBAC were offering £27k, which has now been removed.
The OPC has accepted taking it back for £82k, being fully refunded minus £1 per mile usage.
To say he is a happy chappie is an understatement.
My young lads friend who is a sales guy in that OPC says they have no idea on how or when this will be solved, but its going to be very costly to Porsche.
For anyone that is not in a position to return, they are going to be left with a Taycan with a fraction of its value, with next to no chance of trade in or selling.
What a mess.
The Audi saloons have the same issue.
Electric cars ehh?
A key consideration of the CRA15 is the onus later down the line being on the consumer to prove the fault existed at the time of purchase.
Did Porsche just accept this to be the case and comply, or did your friend have to do some work towards that end goal?
Apparently, it’s 135 cars produced between 2019 and 2024 that are affected, so some of the headlines are rather misleading, hence the cars produced during those years showing for sale at OPCs at the moment.
I almost signed up for a used GTS Sport Turismo (MY24) for my wife, but now having massive second thoughts - they’re pretty amazing to drive, a real shame!
Car had the battery recall inspection on Monday, no issues reported with the batteries.
Same required again in 60days and so on until the software update is available later in the year, or supposedly keep under 80% charge if the inspection date goes beyond 60days. Admittedly, I just left it set to 85%, and 100% if I needed the bit extra range, before the inspection anyway.
Haven’t seen any drop in range since it’s been at the dealer for this recall as others have experienced, still shows 190miles at 85% charge.
Same required again in 60days and so on until the software update is available later in the year, or supposedly keep under 80% charge if the inspection date goes beyond 60days. Admittedly, I just left it set to 85%, and 100% if I needed the bit extra range, before the inspection anyway.
Haven’t seen any drop in range since it’s been at the dealer for this recall as others have experienced, still shows 190miles at 85% charge.
Car had the battery recall inspection on Monday, no issues reported with the batteries.
Same required again in 60days and so on until the software update is available later in the year, or supposedly keep under 80% charge if the inspection date goes beyond 60days. Admittedly, I just left it set to 85%, and 100% if I needed the bit extra range, before the inspection anyway.
Haven’t seen any drop in range since it’s been at the dealer for this recall as others have experienced, still shows 190miles at 85% charge.
Same required again in 60days and so on until the software update is available later in the year, or supposedly keep under 80% charge if the inspection date goes beyond 60days. Admittedly, I just left it set to 85%, and 100% if I needed the bit extra range, before the inspection anyway.
Haven’t seen any drop in range since it’s been at the dealer for this recall as others have experienced, still shows 190miles at 85% charge.
Gassing Station | Porsche EVs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff