News
Porsche Whistleblower: “60% of all delivered Taycan have battery issues that caused replacements, damages and fires”
“Six out of ten Porsche Taycan” ever delivered have a problem with battery management that affects and damages battery cells, requires replacement of cells and batteries, and is causing vehicle fires, according to a source working at Porsche’s headquarters in Zuffenhausen, Germany. Porsche is reportedly hiding the problem from customers and authorities and quietly replacing damaged battery cell modules without informing customers to cover up the problem. Tesla offered to help Porsche with battery management through Audi contacts years ago, but Porsche management at the time rejected any external help, saying it could handle everything internally, the source noted.
“The problem affects six of ten delivered vehicles,” the source, who could be described as a whistleblower, said.
A Risky Business
The Porsche whistleblower explained that the Taycan’s 800V high-voltage onboard charger used today does not control the charging process well enough and can overcharge some battery cells, causing them to overheat. For safety reasons, overheated battery cells are disabled and isolated from the battery pack, reducing battery capacity and thus the vehicle’s range. The problem occurs when the batteries are charged at a low AC speed of up to 7.5 KW, a common use case for all charging, such as at home or on low-speed chargers, the source said.
The 800V architecture of the Taycan, a vehicle the German automaker is proud of, has many advantages, but the strong current requires a very well-controlled charging process to avoid charging some cells faster than others. The battery cells in a BEV are always charged in parallel to shorten the charging time, but this carries the risk that some cells will be charged faster than others. If one of the many cells in a BEV is charged faster than the rest, overcharging and overheating can occur, which can lead to vehicle fires, if, for instance, an additional air leak happens.
About 1% of the 60% of vehicles affected, or about 360 Taycans out of 36,000 vehicles delivered, had a preventable vehicle, cable, or smoldering fire attributable to the problem, the whistleblower said. These are figures from Porsche’s internal statistics, which the company updates on an ongoing basis to keep track of safety issues. The reason the whistleblower, who works for Porsche in Zuffenhausen, is talking about the problem at all, risking his job and more, is that the company has decided lately not to replace the Taycan’s onboard charger, but to continue shipping vehicles and all future new Taycan models with the problematic system, which may pose a notable safety risk.
Porsche uses an inexpensive onboard charger that does not control the process well, the whistleblower explained to me in detail. Fires have occurred in the Taycan battery, the source explained, due to the problem described. Porsche is reportedly aware of the problem and is working on it, but the automaker has not solved it or informed customers or authorities so far.
Instead, the company is reportedly hiding the problem for cost and reputational reasons, the source stated. This is because if acknowledged, all Taycans would require a recall and the replacement of their onboard charger, and all batteries would have to be inspected and tested and, if affected, replaced. The cost, the source said, would be in the hundreds of millions of euros and the damage to the company’s image could be even greater.
A Remarkably Short Warranty
An apparent hint of Porsche’s challenges with the Taycan’s battery could be seen in the warranty for the all-electric sports car, which happens to be one of the lowest on the market with just 60,000 km or three years if following conditions (Porsche Warranty Requirements) are not met:
Vehicles standing longer than two weeks supposed to be connected to a charger
- Customers must assure that the Taycan’s state of charge remains between 20% – 50%
- Customers must make sure that their Taycan is not exposed to continuous sunlight
Vehicles standing longer than two weeks not connected to a charger
- Customers must charge the Taycan’s battery before to 50%
- Customers must check every three months and assure SoC remains at or above 20%
- Customers must assure that their vehicle’s temperature is between 0C – 20C
While 160,000 km is an average battery warranty in the industry, Porsche confirmed to me the 100,000 km lower, 60,000 km warranty and its restrictions.
It is a well-known risk in the industry that when charging BEVs, an imbalance in the battery cells can lead to a sealed, encapsulated, and deactivated cell that can then overheat and cause battery damage and even fires if, for example, there is an additional leak in the battery box through which air can enter. Porsche’s 800V high-voltage architecture is more vulnerable in this regard than a low-voltage architecture such as Tesla’s 400V, or what other manufacturers use. Most of the BEV battery fire-related problems recorded in the past typically occurred in low-cost BEVs that lack sophisticated battery management systems or onboard chargers. Porsche has cut costs for its premium Taycan BEV, which poses a risk to customers, according to the whistleblower.
Costs and Savings
The cell damage can be repaired at great expense, but in most cases, Porsche chooses not to, the whistleblower said. To compensate for the vehicle’s reduced range due to encapsulated and deactivated battery cells, Porsche in many cases reportedly unlocks unused, reserved battery capacity, effectively tricking customers into thinking everything has been fixed, even though the affected cells are no longer in use and remain a potential risk, the source said. Customers who don’t know that a cell in their battery has a problem may not even recognize the reduced range in their Taycans because Porsche releases unused battery capacity and therefore the problem is not detected at all from them. This could explain why the number of the reported battery problems on the Taycan shared by the media is much lower than 60%.
For all vehicles Porsche informs needing a repair, the customer is charged 600 euros/cells module, although the internal labor cost is just 26 euros, the whistleblower said. Porsche charges customers even though no repair has taken place at all but just a battery module cell exchange, the source added. A Taycan has 33 battery modules with 12 cells each adding it up to a total of 396 total cells. Issues that happen and should be covered by warranty are, with regards to labor cost, paid by the customer, creating high service and maintenance profits for Porsche.
Considering the battery degradation that all BEVs experience sooner or later, the 60% Taycan customers who have the battery problem described by the whistleblower will have a lower total battery capacity than paid for after the so-called “repair” and will experience an earlier reduction in range and thus a reduction in vehicle value. If the problem of overcharging the onboard charging cell occurs more frequently, the damage can accumulate to the point where a complete battery replacement is required, according to the whistleblower. If what the source reported is correct over time, all 40% Taycans not yet affected by the issue may one day experience the same problem, depending on the charging behavior of their owners.
To pretend to have done a repair that never happened and accept a lower battery capacity caused by a cheap Porsche onboard charger without informing the customer would be misleading, to say the least. Worse, the replaced battery cells and modules are susceptible to the same problem, and owners accustomed to charging at home with AC power up to 7.5 KW may soon be faced with the same problem again after their battery packs have been “repaired.” Disregarding the cost and depreciation is bad, but the safety issue is the most serious problem of all and should be, based on the information my source shared, investigated by authorities in all countries where the Taycan is shipped.
An Invisible Fix
A different, more sophisticated charger for an extra 70 euros from the same supplier with a good reputation would solve the problem, but Porsche has so far decided against the hardware change, according to my sources. What sounds like a small additional cost is not small in the automotive industry, where target costs are a critical measure of team success and on which bonuses depend. The recent decision of Porsche not to use a better more sophisticated charger that would solve the problem for the foreseeable future made the source a whistleblower who rightly saw this as an unacceptable risk to customers.
The Taycan vehicles experiencing the charging problems are divided into three groups by Porsche and dealers, the whistleblower stated. Dealerships are under strict NDA and face losing their Porsche certification if they talk about the practice that the automaker is executing for years.
Affected Taycans are categorized as:
(a) Green – repair
b) Yellow – review with Porsche internal technical department
c) Red – replacement
All vehicles that fall into the “Red” category receive a new battery module or entire battery with spare parts that are available within 24 hours. Not all customers with “Red” designations are informed that the cell module had been replaced on their Taycan, the whistleblower said. The newly installed battery is reportedly “read out” and the data is displayed to the customers who are informed, claiming that it is data from the old battery after the “repair.” This, according to the source, effectively gives false proof that everything has been “fixed”. The new battery is then assigned to the old serial number, and this is how Porsche erases all traces that indicate fraud, the whistleblower said. That’s why it’s hard to prove that Porsche is cheating customers and misleading the public, the source explained to me. While vehicles designated as “Green” had been “fixed,” cars designated as “Yellow” are still undecided and need to be investigated.
If the authorities demand a Taycan recall and replacement of all onboard chargers and batteries, the associated costs will be in the hundreds of millions of euros the source stated. Provided that the whistleblower’s information is accurate, about 60,000 Taycans delivered so far would have to be recalled worldwide, with costly repairs, testing and hardware modifications. The reputational damage would be high and, like the VW Group cheating scandal, a major negative for the iconic automaker that claims safety comes first.
In the past, some Taycan battery fires, such as the one in a garage in the US state of Florida in early 2020 that occurred during nighttime charging, were never fully resolved after investigations began. My source said that Taycan fires were directly attributable to the problem with the charger and could have been prevented if Porsche had used a more expensive, higher-quality charger, as one would expect from a premium automaker. A small deviation during the charging process of only 0.1% can easily cause a vehicle fire when overcharged by 1%, my source said. The supplier has a reputable name, but a cheap charger was chosen to keep costs down.
Teslarati reached out to Porsche to comment on the whistleblower’s claims and received following feedback on November 23:
“I checked with our R+D department in Weissach and all of the issues addressed lack any basis. Based on this information we can´t confirm any of the issues,” a spokesperson from Porsche said.
The source was confronted with the feedback from Porsche and stated in another phone call that only a very small team is involved in the matter, and it is no surprise for him that many within the automaker do not know about the described issues. Many more details were revealed, but they are not included in this article to protect the source. The source explained that in previous cases, Porsche made sure that employees who leaked information never got a job in the industry again.
Other sources informed me years ago that during the development of the Taycan, meeting target costs was a large challenge and that this may have led to the unwise decision to choose a cheap charger. Currently, the VW Group’s BEVs are lower-margin compared to the company’s ICE models and not all are positive, creating strong pressure from management to reduce costs. Given the Taycan’s high price and good sales figures, it is reasonable to assume that it is profitable, but it may not generate as high margins as the company’s iconic ICE models.
The whistleblower also said that years ago, Tesla offered to help Porsche with its battery management system, but the German automaker declined the offer. Around three years ago, Porsche asked Tesla through Audi contacts if they could help then, but at the time, Tesla declined. My source said it was pure arrogance on Porsche’s part that led to today’s problems, as Tesla had been willing to help them.
Previous problems with Taycan batteries led to a preliminary investigation by the US NHTSA in early 2021 into the sudden discharge of the 12V battery, which could result in the vehicle coming to a sudden stop. The NHTSA noted nine official complaints from Taycan owners, and Porsche recalled 43,000 Taycans to repair shops at that time. Taycan forum members report a variety of different battery problems as well as the media (e.g. a Taycan burned down in Florida), that may or may not be related to what my source reported. Overall, if we add all together, it appears that battery problems with the Taycan are not uncommon and with more age of batteries and vehicles, more issues may be reported. From what the whistleblower explained, the strategy from Porsche seems to be to solve or isolate technical issues without public notice.
The good news for the Audi e-tron GT that is produced on the same VW PPE BEV platform as the Taycan and shares many parts with it, is that Audi opted for a different and better onboard charger. The described problem is not existent with the e-tron GT, the source told me, but it’s unclear why Porsche isn’t learning from the Audi team in that respect.
A Note from the Author
As a writer, I do my best to thoroughly qualify every source, and I choose not to publish a story if there is any doubt about the credibility of the information or the source. I have direct contact with the person that provided the information in this article, know his identity and profession, had several calls and exchanges with him and know people who have met him in person.
My intent is not to disseminate misleading or sensational information, and this is a guiding principle for all my work. Since my source has passed my credibility check through multiple channels and has repeatedly provided many in-depth technical details on the issue, I feel it is my duty to inform the public with this article while I don’t have hard evidence and therefore can’t confirm the information to be right. According to the information provided by the whistleblower, Porsche has decided to take a big risk on the health of its customers for cost, profit and reputation reasons.
As a German who is proud of the heritage of the automotive industry in my home country, and as a former Porsche customer, I am truly shocked by what the whistleblower has told me. The cheating scandal has changed the culture in the German automotive industry many have told me for years, but it looks like the same structural problems remain and lead the industry right into the next big scandal.
Disclaimer
The Author, Alex Voigt does not own or had ever any Porsche or VW Group stock, derivates or other direct or indirect investments in the company. There has been never any business relationship between the author, Porsche, and the VW Group. The original and first clues to this exclusive and disturbing story came from Christoph Krachten, who came across it while researching his German best-selling book about Tesla.
Alex Voigt Patreon Page: https://www.patreon.com/AlexVoigt
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.