Mk 1 - EVCC update to allow Tesla Charging

[JuziWomble]

Anyone had the EVCC Module updated / replaced to allow to charge at open Tesla charge points in their Mk 1 ZS's

I'm waiting on my dealership to take ours back in to 'remedy' a few warranty issues & to address our charging concerns - Dealership is being helpful so fingers crossed ... Just wanted to hear from any other mk1 ZS owners who Can and do use Tesla open chargers and if so what mods where done for their Mk1 to charge..

 

[DB Go Rex]

The specific versions of the control system firmware are essentially irrelevant to you.

Ultimately, you just need to ask them to fix it under warranty.

 

[catweazle48]

Just got mine back from dealer who quoted me circa £1000 to replace module. 3hrs labour plus module. Now to tackle MG.

 

[fred12345]

Just got mine back from dealer who quoted me circa £1000 to replace module. 3hrs labour plus module. Now to tackle MG.

if they say they need to replace the module, I would say that's warranty issue and if they say not, to explain why not.
for £1,000 not worth it.

 

[P6cat]

Local dealer ,threeways Abergele quoted me £120 to update to the latest version.
According to MG it’s not covered under warranty.
Was going to buy an MG4 ,no way now!

 

[DB Go Rex]

Local dealer ,threeways Abergele quoted me £120 to update to the latest version
According to MG it’s not covered under warranty.
Was going to buy an MG4 ,now way now!

I'm not sure I'd be so keen to buy another given they've just refused to fix something under warranty on the current car ?

 

[shpub]

Argument goes like this. It is a bit long but describes the background behind the whole events. Useful when banging the warranty drum!!!

My key conclusions are:

The pragmatic approach is to simply work out how much value the fix is? If you don't use CCS charging much then it may simply not worth it. If you do, then the cost savings can quickly recoup the cost. Nothing to stop anyone making a fuss and seeing what happens. Equally not having the fix will not change how the car currently operates or CCS charges.

The dealer will only do what MG will authorise. Some are more accommodating than others and will do the software fix for free during a service for example. Banging the drum is best done with the Customer Service as it may get better results.

---

Background

MG designed the cars etc when Tesla was a closed proprietary system. Massive chip shortage at the time so many of the components were based on what is available rather than what MG would have liked to fit. Affected all manufacturers. No need to support Tesla at that time, so ignored.
Tesla starts opening up their network because they support CCS. MGs work. Tesla starts updating their chargers and MGs stop working. MG take position that: the cars were never designed to work with the closed Tesla network. Well they open up Hyundai and Kia started having problems with Tesla network not working a la MG and with charging rates. The Tesla opening up was not as clean as it appears.

Customers claim that CCS is a standard therefore it is an MG warranty issue. Problem is there are no real certification or approval standards. The industry relies on market forces to weed out the unreliable charger manufacturers etc. MG state that they have worked out a fix and depending on when the car was built, it is either a free fix, one hours labour or in extreme cases a software and hardware fix because the EVCC unit that was fitted (EVCC-01) is not compatible with the software fix. Remember the chip shortage? I believe this has meant that the EVCC units are radically different i.e. different processor, amounts of memory etc etc. For whatever reason the software fix cannot be applied. (It would be interesting to know if it has been attempted and the result).

MG then makes things worse by changing the rules and instructions particularly for the MG5 versions. Especially when they state that MG5 LR owners had to pay for a EVCC when they didn't! Customer service have not done themselves any favours!

Customers claim that it is broken because Tesla are CCS compatible. MG claim that it is tesla changing their implementation that is causing the problem as the cars work with other CCS solutions. So MG claim that this is not a fault that is covered under warrenty. MG generate a solution for the MG4 and later cars and find it can be retrofitted to others. They then class this as an upgrade because it allows the use of a "non-standard" CCS Tesla implementation. Customers claim that as Tesla supports CCS then that means the MG is at fault. CCS is a standard. The problem is while it is a standard there is no verification that it will work or compatible. There is no "CCS verification" branding at all.

At this point there are a lot of technical issues involved and the reality is Tesla have gone from a situation where they could upgrade their cars and chargers and Tesla never had the situation where they had to consider what it takes to support an open standard with multiple manufacturers. Tesla refuse to do anything about the problem and blame MG and others. As a result, the car manufacturers have been forced to address this issue.

Make a fuss and see if that gets anywhere. The situation is not like a recall fault where a finger can be pointed directly at the manufacturer. The reality is similar to a PC that runs some software that stops working with Microsoft update/upgrade the operating system and the software stops working. The simple choice is reverse the software upgrade and go back to the one that works, or upgrade the software. Recent buyers will probably get the upgrade free. Older versions will be able to get the new version for a reduced price. Very old users may have to pay the full price. Sound familiar?

Who is right over this? This is not clear and it is very polarising. It is not surprising that MG claim it is an upgrade as it something that allows access to a Tesla network - something that did not exist when their cars were designed. The parts that need replacing were built some 2 years before the Tesla network opening. Customers claim it is an MG fault because Tesla support CCS which is a "standard". Therefore it is a warranty issue. The challenge there is proving it. The argument that it works with other cars therefore it must be MG can be applied the other way round as well. MG work with other CCS chargers so it must be Tesla.

Owner pressure has improved the situation and addressed the "All MG5s need hardware" and the cost of the replacement part has dropped from £1000 to around £250.

 

[fred12345]

Argument goes like this. It is a bit long but describes the background behind the whole events.

Thank you for taking time to type all this. I agree, Tesla must also be playing part in all this mess ... a car cannot possibly charge at all other CCS chargers and only Tesla is problematic - logical explanation is that Tesla is doing something different to other chargers ...

Read somewhere recently how much mess Tesla made in the US with their "open" network where only a handful of models can use it ...

p.s. it would be helpful if people would start their Tesla posts with their exact MG model and year, there are so many posts that you don't even know whether it's Mk1 or Mk2, MG5 or ZS ...

 

[shpub]

Thank you for taking time to type all this. I agree, Tesla must also be playing part in all this mess ... a car cannot possibly charge at all other CCS chargers and only Tesla is problematic - logical explanation is that Tesla is doing something different to other chargers ...

Thanks for that. Much appreciated.

Read somewhere recently how much mess Tesla made in the US with their "open" network where only a handful of models can use it ...

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/06/gm-access-to-tesla-supercharger-network-delayed/ reported June 20th '24.

GM promised their customers access for June 2023, then Spring 2024 and it is still not there. GM has CCS charging but it doesn't work with Tesla. Not clear if GM will fix it for their CCS cars or go straight to implementing NACs. It is not clear even if the hardware is capable of supporting NACS! Not sure how that will leave their CCS customers. Ford has some vehicles that can use Tesla but not all. Add to that the introduction of NACS - essentially a Tesla enhanced version of CCS using a Tesla proprietary plug - and it is not clear what will happen. Or how much it will cost?

p.s. it would be helpful if people would start their Tesla posts with their exact MG model and year, there are so many posts that you don't even know whether it's Mk1 or Mk2, MG5 or ZS ...

Yep Good idea.

 

[Rutsy]

Argument goes like this. It is a bit long but describes the background behind the whole events. Useful when banging the warranty drum!!!

My key conclusions are:

The pragmatic approach is to simply work out how much value the fix is? If you don't use CCS charging much then it may simply not worth it. If you do, then the cost savings can quickly recoup the cost. Nothing to stop anyone making a fuss and seeing what happens. Equally not having the fix will not change how the car currently operates or CCS charges.

The dealer will only do what MG will authorise. Some are more accommodating than others and will do the software fix for free during a service for example. Banging the drum is best done with the Customer Service as it may get better results.

---

Background

MG designed the cars etc when Tesla was a closed proprietary system. Massive chip shortage at the time so many of the components were based on what is available rather than what MG would have liked to fit. Affected all manufacturers. No need to support Tesla at that time, so ignored.
Tesla starts opening up their network because they support CCS. MGs work. Tesla starts updating their chargers and MGs stop working. MG take position that: the cars were never designed to work with the closed Tesla network. Well they open up Hyundai and Kia started having problems with Tesla network not working a la MG and with charging rates. The Tesla opening up was not as clean as it appears.

Customers claim that CCS is a standard therefore it is an MG warranty issue. Problem is there are no real certification or approval standards. The industry relies on market forces to weed out the unreliable charger manufacturers etc. MG state that they have worked out a fix and depending on when the car was built, it is either a free fix, one hours labour or in extreme cases a software and hardware fix because the EVCC unit that was fitted (EVCC-01) is not compatible with the software fix. Remember the chip shortage? I believe this has meant that the EVCC units are radically different i.e. different processor, amounts of memory etc etc. For whatever reason the software fix cannot be applied. (It would be interesting to know if it has been attempted and the result).

MG then makes things worse by changing the rules and instructions particularly for the MG5 versions. Especially when they state that MG5 LR owners had to pay for a EVCC when they didn't! Customer service have not done themselves any favours!

Customers claim that it is broken because Tesla are CCS compatible. MG claim that it is tesla changing their implementation that is causing the problem as the cars work with other CCS solutions. So MG claim that this is not a fault that is covered under warrenty. MG generate a solution for the MG4 and later cars and find it can be retrofitted to others. They then class this as an upgrade because it allows the use of a "non-standard" CCS Tesla implementation. Customers claim that as Tesla supports CCS then that means the MG is at fault. CCS is a standard. The problem is while it is a standard there is no verification that it will work or compatible. There is no "CCS verification" branding at all.

At this point there are a lot of technical issues involved and the reality is Tesla have gone from a situation where they could upgrade their cars and chargers and Tesla never had the situation where they had to consider what it takes to support an open standard with multiple manufacturers. Tesla refuse to do anything about the problem and blame MG and others. As a result, the car manufacturers have been forced to address this issue.

Make a fuss and see if that gets anywhere. The situation is not like a recall fault where a finger can be pointed directly at the manufacturer. The reality is similar to a PC that runs some software that stops working with Microsoft update/upgrade the operating system and the software stops working. The simple choice is reverse the software upgrade and go back to the one that works, or upgrade the software. Recent buyers will probably get the upgrade free. Older versions will be able to get the new version for a reduced price. Very old users may have to pay the full price. Sound familiar?

Who is right over this? This is not clear and it is very polarising. It is not surprising that MG claim it is an upgrade as it something that allows access to a Tesla network - something that did not exist when their cars were designed. The parts that need replacing were built some 2 years before the Tesla network opening. Customers claim it is an MG fault because Tesla support CCS which is a "standard". Therefore it is a warranty issue. The challenge there is proving it. The argument that it works with other cars therefore it must be MG can be applied the other way round as well. MG work with other CCS chargers so it must be Tesla.

Owner pressure has improved the situation and addressed the "All MG5s need hardware" and the cost of the replacement part has dropped from £1000 to around £250.

It not sure this is factually correct and I'd also questions your assumptions.

- your 'pragmatic approach' ignores the inconvenience of being unable charge at all chargers. It is not purely a financial trade off.

- I had understood that the EVCC hardware issue applied to Mk 1 cars only.

- I would argue that when MG designed the car is irrelevant to your rights as a consumer. It was sold as compatible with CCS chargers (not a subset of those chargers). Tesla chargers became open in May 2022. It follows that cars supplied after that date were defective.

I'd agree that you might be lucky and find a friendly dealer, but that's not really the point

 

[shpub]

It not sure this is factually correct and I'd also questions your assumptions.

What assumptions are those then? The Tesla problems and "changes to the standard" are well documented. The Chip shortage was well documented and caused problems - I was designing a BMS and was faced with 2 year delivery times! People were buying boards and removing the chips to reuse such was the lack of parts. Processors that cost a few $ went to hundreds almost overnight. Can transceivers were another nightmare as well.

- your 'pragmatic approach' ignores the inconvenience of being unable charge at all chargers. It is not purely a financial trade off.

Yes true but then again without the fix the existing ability to charge is not changed. In the end of the day, whether the fix is applied depends on how much worth it is to an individual. Pragmatically it is a financial decision. Is the cost worth it. Yes it need to include the convenience factor.

- I had understood that the EVCC hardware issue applied to Mk 1 cars only.

As was found out with the MG5, it is the type of EVCC unit that was fitted to the car that is the key point. Yes it looks like the early cars had the wrong EVCC but it is not a 100% guarantee. Looking at the EVCC label for the type, build date and number is more accurate.

- I would argue that when MG designed the car is irrelevant to your rights as a consumer. It was sold as compatible with CCS chargers (not a subset of those chargers). Tesla chargers became open in May 2022. It follows that cars supplied after that date were defective.

You have highlighted one of the problems. Yes Tesla superchargers started to open in May 2022 but my June 22 registered car has parts from feb 22 which given lead times were designed at least 6 months before then. That was before the Tesla decision was announced. How could MG have known that Tesla would open up? Is my car defective? Let's not argue about it. I say no you say yes. Its build date was 3 months before Tesla opened up.

The legal advice I got was I would have a hell of a job proving it was a warranty fix as MG can't predict the future and the fact that my MG5 used other chargers successfully. The next question was the principle worth the time and costs involved? For me, no. For someone else, maybe yes.

I spent a lot of time talking with trading standards re the MG5 situation where MG insisted on replacement EVCC when they were not needed. That was interesting to them as it was on the face of it fraud. The clarification for the MG5 that came out addressed that issue. The issue of what to do re Tesla operation was very gray and basically their advice was I could take legal action but at my own risk and my own decision, confirming what I had been told earlier. Other people may get different advice especially with a later car - but those facelift MG5s have been upgraded FOC (usually). Again pragmatism is applicable. How much is it worth to fight?

Yes I could have paid and then gone through the small claims court but that be against the dealer not MG who I doubt would get any refund from MG. Others have done that - not for the Tesla upgrade though. Again no guarantee that I would win either. I didn't want the dealer punished for an MG problem. Others may decide differently though.

I with the help of many others in the MG5 forum collated a lot of data concerning which cars, build date, model, software references which enabled us to correct MG and get some sort of resolution over which cars can be updated purely by software and which ones that need a new EVCC. AS part of that a couple of us searched ebay and the only ZS EVCCs we could find were the old EVCC-01 which don't work with the software fix. So it is not clear if the Mk1s all had EVCC-01 units or when the change to EVCC-02 actually happened.

I think the way forward is to quantify the problem. I.e. build up the knowledge that the OP requested. Car Model, build date, EVCC data and the EVCC info from the eZS android app is the basic stuff. Add to that if the car has been upgraded and does it work with a Tesla charger. If the MG5 experience is typical, there is a lot of confusion within MG over the whole issue and the conflicting information does not help. Start collating, build up the information and then maybe MG will respond better than they have.

I'd agree that you might be lucky and find a friendly dealer, but that's not really the point

And it seems that more MG5 owners have been getting lucky since the great EVCC replacement fiasco so we owners do have some influence it seems.

 

[DB Go Rex]

Argument goes like this. It is a bit long but describes the background behind the whole events. Useful when banging the warranty drum!!!

My key conclusions are:

The pragmatic approach is to simply work out how much value the fix is? If you don't use CCS charging much then it may simply not worth it. If you do, then the cost savings can quickly recoup the cost. Nothing to stop anyone making a fuss and seeing what happens. Equally not having the fix will not change how the car currently operates or CCS charges.

The dealer will only do what MG will authorise. Some are more accommodating than others and will do the software fix for free during a service for example. Banging the drum is best done with the Customer Service as it may get better results.

---

Background

MG designed the cars etc when Tesla was a closed proprietary system. Massive chip shortage at the time so many of the components were based on what is available rather than what MG would have liked to fit. Affected all manufacturers. No need to support Tesla at that time, so ignored.
Tesla starts opening up their network because they support CCS. MGs work. Tesla starts updating their chargers and MGs stop working. MG take position that: the cars were never designed to work with the closed Tesla network. Well they open up Hyundai and Kia started having problems with Tesla network not working a la MG and with charging rates. The Tesla opening up was not as clean as it appears.

Customers claim that CCS is a standard therefore it is an MG warranty issue. Problem is there are no real certification or approval standards. The industry relies on market forces to weed out the unreliable charger manufacturers etc. MG state that they have worked out a fix and depending on when the car was built, it is either a free fix, one hours labour or in extreme cases a software and hardware fix because the EVCC unit that was fitted (EVCC-01) is not compatible with the software fix. Remember the chip shortage? I believe this has meant that the EVCC units are radically different i.e. different processor, amounts of memory etc etc. For whatever reason the software fix cannot be applied. (It would be interesting to know if it has been attempted and the result).

MG then makes things worse by changing the rules and instructions particularly for the MG5 versions. Especially when they state that MG5 LR owners had to pay for a EVCC when they didn't! Customer service have not done themselves any favours!

Customers claim that it is broken because Tesla are CCS compatible. MG claim that it is tesla changing their implementation that is causing the problem as the cars work with other CCS solutions. So MG claim that this is not a fault that is covered under warrenty. MG generate a solution for the MG4 and later cars and find it can be retrofitted to others. They then class this as an upgrade because it allows the use of a "non-standard" CCS Tesla implementation. Customers claim that as Tesla supports CCS then that means the MG is at fault. CCS is a standard. The problem is while it is a standard there is no verification that it will work or compatible. There is no "CCS verification" branding at all.

At this point there are a lot of technical issues involved and the reality is Tesla have gone from a situation where they could upgrade their cars and chargers and Tesla never had the situation where they had to consider what it takes to support an open standard with multiple manufacturers. Tesla refuse to do anything about the problem and blame MG and others. As a result, the car manufacturers have been forced to address this issue.

Make a fuss and see if that gets anywhere. The situation is not like a recall fault where a finger can be pointed directly at the manufacturer. The reality is similar to a PC that runs some software that stops working with Microsoft update/upgrade the operating system and the software stops working. The simple choice is reverse the software upgrade and go back to the one that works, or upgrade the software. Recent buyers will probably get the upgrade free. Older versions will be able to get the new version for a reduced price. Very old users may have to pay the full price. Sound familiar?

Who is right over this? This is not clear and it is very polarising. It is not surprising that MG claim it is an upgrade as it something that allows access to a Tesla network - something that did not exist when their cars were designed. The parts that need replacing were built some 2 years before the Tesla network opening. Customers claim it is an MG fault because Tesla support CCS which is a "standard". Therefore it is a warranty issue. The challenge there is proving it. The argument that it works with other cars therefore it must be MG can be applied the other way round as well. MG work with other CCS chargers so it must be Tesla.

Owner pressure has improved the situation and addressed the "All MG5s need hardware" and the cost of the replacement part has dropped from £1000 to around £250.

A bit TLDR for me, you lost me when you said Tesla's network was designed on a closed system - not really true it was CCS2 standard in Europe, the only difference was they software locked out other cars. Once removing that all other cars could use them.

Except MG of course ?

 

[shpub]

A bit TLDR for me, you lost me when you said Tesla's network was designed on a closed system - not really true it was CCS2 standard in Europe, the only difference was they software locked out other cars. Once removing that all other cars could use them.

OK my bad! let me try again!

It was closed in several senses:
1. Tesla controlled both the software in the chargers and in the cars. They could change stuff in one and update the other to ensure it would work with it. They did not have to consider any other manufacturer. They could do what they like. And they did.

2. Yes the connectors were certainly CCS and CCS equipped Teslas could charge at other CCS stations. There were two quite substantial differences though. Tesla incorporated a "proprietary additional message feature" into their implementation before any standardisation was agreed on how it should work. Not a problem when you plug in a Tesla Car because that can be updated to cope with it. A potential problem with other CCS cars because they would not know how it works and would not be expecting it. Nor could Tesla update them.

It appears that Tesla were using a proprietary protocol to the CCS to establish what the car was that was plugged in. It is not the same protocol that was added to CCS. CCS can provide an ID (MAC address) but that can identify a unique car, it does not tell you what the car make is, build date etc.It is like a fingerprint can identify you but can't tell someone your sex, hair colour and so on.

Tesla Cars also communicated direct with Tesla servers so all that needed to be sorted out as there would be no car connection to be used. The payment backend was done through that link. In other words it was not a simple switch that allowed non-Tesla cars to use CCS superchargers. If the Tesla implementation was pure CCS like with Ionity, Fastned etc then it would be easy as you say. The software had some fairly fundamental changes because communication channels that Tesla used on top of the CCS stuff were not there.

One of the reasons that Tesla gave for blocking MGs was that MGs did not give all the "additional" safety information they needed. This is extremely well covered in the CCS standards so the question was "what additional information and why?". And how did they identify an MG was attempting to charge or any other car for that matter - which they then blocked - when CCS only sends a unique ID? Possibly through the app but that would not work for contactless.

This is something I have struggled to find out. I would love to know.

 

[Rutsy]

What assumptions are those then? The Tesla problems and "changes to the standard" are well documented. The Chip shortage was well documented and caused problems - I was designing a BMS and was faced with 2 year delivery times! People were buying boards and removing the chips to reuse such was the lack of parts. Processors that cost a few $ went to hundreds almost overnight. Can transceivers were another nightmare as well.

Yes true but then again without the fix the existing ability to charge is not changed. In the end of the day, whether the fix is applied depends on how much worth it is to an individual. Pragmatically it is a financial decision. Is the cost worth it. Yes it need to include the convenience factor.

As was found out with the MG5, it is the type of EVCC unit that was fitted to the car that is the key point. Yes it looks like the early cars had the wrong EVCC but it is not a 100% guarantee. Looking at the EVCC label for the type, build date and number is more accurate.

You have highlighted one of the problems. Yes Tesla superchargers started to open in May 2022 but my June 22 registered car has parts from feb 22 which given lead times were designed at least 6 months before then. That was before the Tesla decision was announced. How could MG have known that Tesla would open up? Is my car defective? Let's not argue about it. I say no you say yes. Its build date was 3 months before Tesla opened up.

The legal advice I got was I would have a hell of a job proving it was a warranty fix as MG can't predict the future and the fact that my MG5 used other chargers successfully. The next question was the principle worth the time and costs involved? For me, no. For someone else, maybe yes.

I spent a lot of time talking with trading standards re the MG5 situation where MG insisted on replacement EVCC when they were not needed. That was interesting to them as it was on the face of it fraud. The clarification for the MG5 that came out addressed that issue. The issue of what to do re Tesla operation was very gray and basically their advice was I could take legal action but at my own risk and my own decision, confirming what I had been told earlier. Other people may get different advice especially with a later car - but those facelift MG5s have been upgraded FOC (usually). Again pragmatism is applicable. How much is it worth to fight?

Yes I could have paid and then gone through the small claims court but that be against the dealer not MG who I doubt would get any refund from MG. Others have done that - not for the Tesla upgrade though. Again no guarantee that I would win either. I didn't want the dealer punished for an MG problem. Others may decide differently though.

I with the help of many others in the MG5 forum collated a lot of data concerning which cars, build date, model, software references which enabled us to correct MG and get some sort of resolution over which cars can be updated purely by software and which ones that need a new EVCC. AS part of that a couple of us searched ebay and the only ZS EVCCs we could find were the old EVCC-01 which don't work with the software fix. So it is not clear if the Mk1s all had EVCC-01 units or when the change to EVCC-02 actually happened.

I think the way forward is to quantify the problem. I.e. build up the knowledge that the OP requested. Car Model, build date, EVCC data and the EVCC info from the eZS android app is the basic stuff. Add to that if the car has been upgraded and does it work with a Tesla charger. If the MG5 experience is typical, there is a lot of confusion within MG over the whole issue and the conflicting information does not help. Start collating, build up the information and then maybe MG will respond better than they have.

And it seems that more MG5 owners have been getting lucky since the great EVCC replacement fiasco so we owners do have some influence it seems.

In terms of the substantive point between us let's just leave it that you don't regard a car as defective (and therefore to be fixed at MGs expense) which when supplied to you was unable to use all CCS chargers, whereas I do. Im in the process of pursuing this point with the vehicle ombudsman.

 

[shpub]

Good luck with ombudsman. I did think of going that route but the MG5 situation addressed itself so all I need is a software upgrade. We shall see if I get charged or not. Let us know how you get on.

 

[fred12345]

Good luck with ombudsman. I did think of going that route but the MG5 situation addressed itself so all I need is a software upgrade. We shall see if I get charged or not. Let us know how you get on.

call or even better email a few garages and ask if all software updates are included in service and then go to the one that is free or the cheapest.

 

[shpub]

I did that and called some 5 dealers and got 6 different answers !

 

[DB Go Rex]

OK my bad! let me try again!

It was closed in several senses:
1. Tesla controlled both the software in the chargers and in the cars. They could change stuff in one and update the other to ensure it would work with it. They did not have to consider any other manufacturer. They could do what they like. And they did.

2. Yes the connectors were certainly CCS and CCS equipped Teslas could charge at other CCS stations. There were two quite substantial differences though. Tesla incorporated a "proprietary additional message feature" into their implementation before any standardisation was agreed on how it should work. Not a problem when you plug in a Tesla Car because that can be updated to cope with it. A potential problem with other CCS cars because they would not know how it works and would not be expecting it. Nor could Tesla update them.

It appears that Tesla were using a proprietary protocol to the CCS to establish what the car was that was plugged in. It is not the same protocol that was added to CCS. CCS can provide an ID (MAC address) but that can identify a unique car, it does not tell you what the car make is, build date etc.It is like a fingerprint can identify you but can't tell someone your sex, hair colour and so on.

Tesla Cars also communicated direct with Tesla servers so all that needed to be sorted out as there would be no car connection to be used. The payment backend was done through that link. In other words it was not a simple switch that allowed non-Tesla cars to use CCS superchargers. If the Tesla implementation was pure CCS like with Ionity, Fastned etc then it would be easy as you say. The software had some fairly fundamental changes because communication channels that Tesla used on top of the CCS stuff were not there.

One of the reasons that Tesla gave for blocking MGs was that MGs did not give all the "additional" safety information they needed. This is extremely well covered in the CCS standards so the question was "what additional information and why?". And how did they identify an MG was attempting to charge or any other car for that matter - which they then blocked - when CCS only sends a unique ID? Possibly through the app but that would not work for contactless.

This is something I have struggled to find out. I would love to know.

I would be interested to see sources for your claims in point 2.

CCS2 is not only a hardware/connector standard but also a handshake/software and electrical standard. If it's CCS2 complaint, it's compliant.

If your claim about them doing something proprietary is correct, then why were all other manufacturers in on at as well? Including MG as it was only the 5 and ZS that didn't work out the box...

Your final point about MG not providing specific data on the handshake sounds more plausible - but, again, given that all other manufacturers seemed to not have that issue, that again points back to MG doing something deficient on the CCS2 handshake (that other charging providers are less fussy about) not that Tesla were targeting them, or that they had special new features that were only known after the fact of opening the superchargers up.

 

[Roldorf]

CCS2 is not only a hardware/connector standard but also a handshake/software and electrical standard. If it's CCS2 complaint, it's compliant.

This is obviously false as regards Teslas charging equipment. If it was 'true' then all Tesla charging stations would work on CCS2 equipped vehicles and we know that is not the case, ergo there is more going on in Tesla CCS communications than just standard CCS.
I have had my car for almost 2 years, have never charged at home, all my charging has been done at many different providers charging stations. The only one I have been unable to charge at are the Tesla 'almost open to all' charging stations.

 

[DB Go Rex]

This is obviously false as regards Teslas charging equipment. If it was 'true' then all Tesla charging stations would work on CCS2 equipped vehicles and we know that is not the case, ergo there is more going on in Tesla CCS communications than just standard CCS.
I have had my car for almost 2 years, have never charged at home, all my charging has been done at many different providers charging stations. The only one I have been unable to charge at are the Tesla 'almost open to all' charging stations.

If they weren't CCS2 complaint, other cars wouldn't work on the ones they have enabled.

Being complaint with the standard, whilst also have the ability to software lock out certain cars with a config change that can be done remotely is what's going on here.

"Almost open to all" is your reading of it. They are open...and it's MG's bad they failed to either fix your car so it can work, or produce in the first instance (like all other manufacturers did) so that it could.