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 urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
News
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck driver gets pickup seized for ‘legitimate concerns’ in UK
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.