Macan EV Poll: Type and frequency of software-related issues you have had with your vehicle?

[CHP]

Tolerance to faults may vary. Asked a fellow Macan owner at Hockey if she is happy with her Turbo. No problems at all she said, very happy. She asked me why and I told her of some of mine. Then she started, oh well, a few times all her screens went black while driving.
In the UK a working speedometer is a legal requirement and driving without is an offence.

Sponsored

 

[tomthemac]

Picked up a 2024 CPO Macan 4 Ev last week. The only issues so far has been Apple Car Play connectivity. To solve for it, I’ve been using a thick data USB-C cable that has solved my issues….

My wife as a secondary user has been having Apple Car Play issues via Bluetooth.

re CarPlay issues - my supply dealer west ldn porsche 'advised' very heavily NOT to set up two users at the hand over - 'why?' we asked - 'well erm tends not to work well' was the reply. so me and missus just put up with the seat memory and use same infotainment - the odd disconnection since feb but that can be cured in devices with a reconnection (cant remember but theres a process that works and one that fails!)

 

[seabird]

all critical systems are governed by RTOS, meaning deterministic and real-time.

Very few systems that have user-facing software are critical or run on the RTOS, which is only deterministic in the sense of having to complete operations within a time-bound window, not the expanded definition you're using that requires consistency in behavior. Even though any algorithm should return the same results with the same inputs, in a system as complex as a car, "same inputs" are often virtually impossible to recreate. And that's just one type of bug. Plenty of software errors are a result of communication errors, data collisions, latency, memory faults.

Further, bugs with seat profiles, infotainment, CarPlay, sign recognition and most ADAS sensors, charging certificates, or configuration coding are not running any threads in the RTOS. That's the vast majority here--including things people consider serious that engineers don't, like overactive emergency braking or thinking the inability to disable creep mode is a serious safety bug.

Apart from a few drive system errors requiring towing to the shop, I don't think I have seen any complaints about bugs in critical systems. That would be recall-worthy.

Hard to tell it may be due to a loss of power or software bug.
EVs should be and in most cases are SDVs (software defined vehicles).
This means software is involved in some way in most aspects of the car and a bug can potentially affect almost everything.

Some EVs are "Software-defined vehicles". Very few actually are, and neither the Macan nor the Taycan are. In the way you're using it, all cars are software-defined. Virtually nothing in a modern car is purely mechanical short of physical damage. Loss of power on a gas engine is very often software-related as well.

I think that is also something that we should take into consideration when talking about this. This is, as you said correctly, a car that is defined by its software. That makes everything anyway so much more dangerous if the software is unreliable, or even worse, if there is hardware that is triggering the software without any knowledge of it.

Neither customers nor dealer service techs have a clear understanding of software vs. hardware problems in most modules of any modern car. The idea of a mechanic performing a repair on a complex computerized part is basically a fantasy. Most modules with ECUs are simply remove and replace, which is why so many customers are frustrated by "repairs" that don't actually fix the problem.

Loss of power error messages are usually doing exactly what they are supposed to do and err on the side of safety to protect the car and its occupants. Of course it's alarming to have to pull off to the side of the road, and disappointing to be told that it was just a software glitch, but there's a difference between an error-handling problem (which genuinely is a software error), a false positive for a major safety issue (which is the software behaving correctly even if the fault condition isn't real), and a car's limited overall ability to know when to ignore strange inputs (i.e., can the car itself decide the fault condition isn't real). Like anything mass-produced, some are physically defective as well.

It's not easy to explain any of that to a service tech or a customer, so it's easy to say "software" when there's no need to replace parts. It doesn't mean the software is unreliable.

Just like in a gas car with a bad O2 sensor data stream--but no one calls that a "software" issue even though it's essentially the same thing.

 

[FirstEV]

Very few systems that have user-facing software are critical or run on the RTOS, which is only deterministic in the sense of having to complete operations within a time-bound window, not the expanded definition you're using that requires consistency in behavior. Even though any algorithm should return the same results with the same inputs, in a system as complex as a car, "same inputs" are often virtually impossible to recreate. And that's just one type of bug. Plenty of software errors are a result of communication errors, data collisions, latency, memory faults.

Further, bugs with seat profiles, infotainment, CarPlay, sign recognition and most ADAS sensors, charging certificates, or configuration coding are not running any threads in the RTOS. That's the vast majority here--including things people consider serious that engineers don't, like overactive emergency braking or thinking the inability to disable creep mode is a serious safety bug.

Apart from a few drive system errors requiring towing to the shop, I don't think I have seen any complaints about bugs in critical systems. That would be recall-worthy.


Some EVs are "Software-defined vehicles". Very few actually are, and neither the Macan nor the Taycan are. In the way you're using it, all cars are software-defined. Virtually nothing in a modern car is purely mechanical short of physical damage. Loss of power on a gas engine is very often software-related as well.

Neither customers nor dealer service techs have a clear understanding of software vs. hardware problems in most modules of any modern car. The idea of a mechanic performing a repair on a complex computerized part is basically a fantasy. Most modules with ECUs are simply remove and replace, which is why so many customers are frustrated by "repairs" that don't actually fix the problem.

Loss of power error messages are usually doing exactly what they are supposed to do and err on the side of safety to protect the car and its occupants. Of course it's alarming to have to pull off to the side of the road, and disappointing to be told that it was just a software glitch, but there's a difference between an error-handling problem (which genuinely is a software error), a false positive for a major safety issue (which is the software behaving correctly even if the fault condition isn't real), and a car's limited overall ability to know when to ignore strange inputs (i.e., can the car itself decide the fault condition isn't real). Like anything mass-produced, some are physically defective as well.

It's not easy to explain any of that to a service tech or a customer, so it's easy to say "software" when there's no need to replace parts. It doesn't mean the software is unreliable.

Just like in a gas car with a bad O2 sensor data stream--but no one calls that a "software" issue even though it's essentially the same thing.

If the technicians — who rely entirely on Porsche AG for technical guidance — still can’t provide consistent answers or clear explanations, that suggests the problem lies within Porsche AG’s own communication and technical understanding, not with the customers. Claiming that “customers can’t understand complex issues” only reinforces that uncertainty persists. The issue isn’t that customers fail to understand; it’s that the manufacturer itself hasn’t been able to provide transparency or a definitive fix.

People aren’t stupid — you don’t need a software engineering degree to recognize when something is wrong. Even the head of service at my dealership admitted, “I wouldn’t drive the car either if I were you.” That speaks volumes about the reliability of the system and the confidence even Porsche’s own staff have in the software.

When it comes to loss of power, the exact cause becomes secondary once customer safety is at risk. If a vehicle can suddenly lose power — and this has occurred frequently enough that Porsche AG formally acknowledged the issue, stating it would be resolved in a future update — then the priority must shift from diagnostics to risk management.

The fact that Porsche refused to provide a written statement confirming the car was safe to drive after such an incident, despite verbally assuring me it was fine, says a lot. If the vehicle were truly safe, there would be no reason to withhold formal confirmation. That reluctance clearly indicates internal uncertainty — or even concern — about the vehicle’s condition following the so-called “red circle of death” high-voltage battery event, which I personally experienced.

 

[byebye]

I don't know if red circle of death + consequences on power/hold system/brakes/suspension/acc are serious or dangerous (make your choice) ; but I do know that the need to stop the car, switch off and on, is VERY annoying.

For sure the issues are a mix with software and hardware (including the mix of options in the car), because only a portion of the Macan fleet is affected.
But that doesn't enable anybody to say that the software nor the hardware are issue free: they can't handle all the different versions of the car without troubles.

In the end, I'm not very happy as a Macan owner...

 

[TomekGnomek]

I had my car serviced the other day and talked with a number of guys at the dealers.
Something has changed for sure, there was a very noticeable change in the attitude.
At first they treated my problems as a nuisance with a problematic car and customer.

Now it's different - they told me after they sold more Macans problems start compounding and they see something is off, it was not like that with 1st gen Taycans. Some Macans are back in service a couple of times in the first week, customers who purchased cars in H1 now started coming back with issues, they've had incidents with demo cars and overall, they started pressing Porsche for more support informing them in advance when problematic cars will be in service. I got a distinct feeling they realise something is seriously off and they are left with little support and growing numbers of angry customers.

 

[FirstEV]

I had my car serviced the other day and talked with a number of guys at the dealers.
Something has changed for sure, there was a very noticeable change in the attitude.
At first they treated my problems as a nuisance with a problematic car and customer.

Now it's different - they told me after they sold more Macans problems start compounding and they see something is off, it was not like that with 1st gen Taycans. Some Macans are back in service a couple of times in the first week, customers who purchased cars in H1 now started coming back with issues, they've had incidents with demo cars and overall, they started pressing Porsche for more support informing them in advance when problematic cars will be in service. I got a distinct feeling they realise something is seriously off and they are left with little support and growing numbers of angry customers.

Not surprising at all.

 

[seabird]

If the technicians — who rely entirely on Porsche AG for technical guidance — still can’t provide consistent answers or clear explanations, that suggests the problem lies within Porsche AG’s own communication and technical understanding, not with the customers.

Again, it's not either/or. Automotive service technicians are not qualified to address software issues, and customers are definitely not qualified to diagnose how the software is designed to behave.

If there isn't a definitive fix, it's even more clearly an issue beyond a technician's scope of responsibility to address. Software is how you interact with the vehicle, but whether the underlying code is working or not isn't something you can assess without knowing what it's supposed to do.

People aren’t stupid — you don’t need a software engineering degree to recognize when something is wrong.

No one is saying people are stupid. There's just a difference between "something is wrong" and "there's a serious software bug".

Even the head of service at my dealership admitted, “I wouldn’t drive the car either if I were you.” That speaks volumes about the reliability of the system and the confidence even Porsche’s own staff have in the software.

In the car. Again, the dealership staff obviously doesn't know what the problem is if they're working with Porsche engineers on the fix. I wouldn't expect any customer to drive a car that is having repeated loss of power incidents or to trust it until it's properly diagnosed and fixed.

If a vehicle can suddenly lose power

All vehicles are designed to cut the ignition or disconnect the HV battery system in certain fault conditions. The issue is improper detection of these fault conditions.

The fact that Porsche refused to provide a written statement confirming the car was safe to drive after such an incident, despite verbally assuring me it was fine, says a lot.

No one is ever going to provide such a written statement under any circumstances. The best you'll get is that the car passed diagnostics and had no observable issues upon inspection/test drive.

 

[Michael J]

I don't know if red circle of death + consequences on power/hold system/brakes/suspension/acc are serious or dangerous (make your choice) ; but I do know that the need to stop the car, switch off and on, is VERY annoying.

For sure the issues are a mix with software and hardware (including the mix of options in the car), because only a portion of the Macan fleet is affected.
But that doesn't enable anybody to say that the software nor the hardware are issue free: they can't handle all the different versions of the car without troubles.

In the end, I'm not very happy as a Macan owner...

Right, I agree, and I would suggest that this can go beyond annoying, here's why I think that: if the car frequently displays scary red warnings that turn out to be false warnings, eventually most users will start paying less attention to those warnings, and thus if a "real" warning pops up, the user is more likely to ignore it, which could then become a real safety issue. In this way annoying "false warnings" can contribute to a real safety issue if they happen frequently enough.

My Macan is generally great but in my opinion the software needs to be better.

 

[byebye]

(...) if a "real" warning pops up, the user is more likely to ignore it, which could then become a real safety issue. In this way annoying "false warnings" can contribute to a real safety issue if they happen frequently enough.
(...)

That's the 150k€ question: do I take a risk when I continue to drive the Macan Turbo "under" red circle attacks, waiting a proper place to shut down/power on the car to make them disappear...and retrieve the normal behavior.

 

[Petzi]

I've just left my PC. A 'very large' software update for the Macan 24/25 is due to be released within the next 2–4 weeks. This should eliminate all previous bugs and significantly improve Innodrive's capabilities. Apparently, there has been a "major rethink regarding Macan updates" in Stuttgart. More to follow shortly...

 

[FirstEV]

I've just left my PC. A 'very large' software update for the Macan 24/25 is due to be released within the next 2–4 weeks. This should eliminate all previous bugs and significantly improve Innodrive's capabilities. Apparently, there has been a "major rethink regarding Macan updates" in Stuttgart. More to follow shortly...

I’ve heard the same — my sales advisor mentioned week 44 as well. The 2–4 week estimate sounds a bit optimistic, but we’ll see. Did they specify what major rethink they are referring to?

 

[Petzi]

I’ve heard the same — my sales advisor mentioned week 44 as well. The 2–4 week estimate sounds a bit optimistic, but we’ll see. Did they specify what major rethink they are referring to?

they do not know, at least not officially. but they promissed big improvements for existing problems and enhancement of innodrive.

it seems that only hardware limitations like camera resolution prevent full upgrade to the expected 26 model year capabilities.

 

[CHP]

they do not know, at least not officially. but they promissed big improvements for existing problems and enhancement of innodrive.

it seems that only hardware limitations like camera resolution prevent full upgrade to the expected 26 model year capabilities.

There is also the new driver attention module at the steering wheel column for new 2++ level, its eyes vs hands on steering wheel.

 

[Petzi]

There is also the new driver attention module at the steering wheel column for new 2++ level, its eyes vs hands on steering wheel.

true. do not hink we will get it. i wouldn’t like it anyway.

Sponsored