Another Porsche Boxster engine failure..
Discussion
I remember reading in my big "AA book of the road", which I bought in 1968 and still have, (which featured cars such as the Austin/Morris 1300 etc that the average "economical" lifespan of a new car was eight years....and of course cars then, were electronically well equiped if they had a push button radio........
Personally, I think the OP is being unreasonable.......I do genuinely feel sorry for him, but to me he has an "old" car....if it was three/four years old it would be a different matter......
Just my 2p........
Personally, I think the OP is being unreasonable.......I do genuinely feel sorry for him, but to me he has an "old" car....if it was three/four years old it would be a different matter......
Just my 2p........
Deva Link said:
bcnrml said:
Deva Link said:
bcnrml said:
Deva-Link said:
but if you went to court and whined that your 8 year old car (even a Porsche) broke, then you certainly would be laughed out of court.
You missed the point. This is an eight year old car with a promise of reliability. If you disagree, ask Porsche (UK, GB, AG, whichever you like) the following questions:
1. Are Porsches reliable or not?
2. For how long should a Porsche engine last without suffering a catastrophic failure (especially if it has been maintained by the OPC network)?
I welcome your posting their written responses on this forum (or audio record the conversation and upload it somewhere, providing us with a link to it).
Thank you.
If you change your mind, feel free to ask the questions. If you really want to get to the bottom of it, ask Porsche if they'll divulge, in support of your unsympathetic stance, their mean time between failure (MTBF) stats for their main engineering components (engine and gearbox as a minimum, choose other components as you wish). Then ask them to compare those with every other German engineered vehicle.
Wacky Racer said:
I remember reading in my big "AA book of the road", which I bought in 1968 and still have, (which featured cars such as the Austin/Morris 1300 etc that the average "economical" lifespan of a new car was eight years....and of course cars then, were electronically well equiped if they had a push button radio........
Personally, I think the OP is being unreasonable.......I do genuinely feel sorry for him, but to me he has an "old" car....if it was three/four years old it would be a different matter......
Just my 2p........
On that basis is an eight year old Boxster worth even half or a quarter of the current asking price? After all, we should expect said car to expire at 8 years, no? Personally, I think the OP is being unreasonable.......I do genuinely feel sorry for him, but to me he has an "old" car....if it was three/four years old it would be a different matter......
Just my 2p........
Be careful of what you ask for. Steeper depreciation curves await.....
bcnrml said:
Deva Link said:
bcnrml said:
Deva-Link said:
but if you went to court and whined that your 8 year old car (even a Porsche) broke, then you certainly would be laughed out of court.
You missed the point. This is an eight year old car with a promise of reliability. If you disagree, ask Porsche (UK, GB, AG, whichever you like) the following questions:
1. Are Porsche's reliable or not?
2. For how long should a Porsche engine last without suffering a catastrophic failure (especially if it has been maintained by the OPC network)?
I welcome your posting their written responses on this forum (or audio record the conversation and upload it somewhere, providing us with a link to it).
Thank you.
Edited by bcnrml on Monday 28th July 20:35
Please could you forward me full details of the "Porsche Promise".
I have a 18 year old 924 on my drive and I would like to discuss the loud knocking noise coming from the engine and the seized gearbox, I didn't get it inspected when I bought it as it was a Porsche!
"Porsche Promise" that is a classic!
bcnrml said:
Deva Link said:
bcnrml said:
Deva Link said:
bcnrml said:
Deva-Link said:
but if you went to court and whined that your 8 year old car (even a Porsche) broke, then you certainly would be laughed out of court.
You missed the point. This is an eight year old car with a promise of reliability. If you disagree, ask Porsche (UK, GB, AG, whichever you like) the following questions:
1. Are Porsches reliable or not?
2. For how long should a Porsche engine last without suffering a catastrophic failure (especially if it has been maintained by the OPC network)?
I welcome your posting their written responses on this forum (or audio record the conversation and upload it somewhere, providing us with a link to it).
Thank you.
bcnrml said:
Interesting. It is good to know that you'd be willing to post unsympathetically with respect to the OP...
i can't help feeling the OP's abuse on page 2 of those who previously answered him has lead to a less sympathetic hearing than he might have had otherwise. "your not clever" [sic] 
i'd imagine asking the question, "what on earth am i going to do now?", would have elicited more useful advice than a half arsed scheme to get himself sued 'revealing' such shocking information as one can dig up in 30 seconds with google.
Edited by fbrs on Monday 28th July 22:53
fbrs said:
bcnrml said:
Interesting. It is good to know that you'd be willing to post unsympathetically with respect to the OP...
i can't help feeling the OP's abuse on page 2 of those who previously answered him has lead to a less sympathetic hearing than he might have had otherwise. "your not clever" [sic] i'd imagine asking the question, "what on earth am i going to do now?", would have elicited more useful advice than a half arsed scheme to get yourself sued 'revealing' such shocking information one can dig up in 30 seconds with google.
What I always find surprising is the consistent chat that a car that cost more than the average UK annual salary when new should be considered scrap value after eight years. A German car too. And this is an entry level model!
Deva Link: May I just point out that a brand offers promises that it is expected to deliver on. Where there is a mismatch between promises and delivery, the brand owner can expect trouble to come. Trouble will come to those who expect robust residuals based on a promise of Porsche reliability that looks unlikely to be delivered. Even at eight years. Let's scrap the cars and accept that a Porsche is no good beyond eight years shall we? Is that okay for the brand? That would really be saying something, wouldn't it? If the MTBF for the M96 engine is below the standard for other comparably priced cars (give or take 20% new, 30% used), what does that do for the Porsche brand?
Edited by bcnrml on Monday 28th July 23:05
1 said:
bcnrml said:
Deva Link said:
bcnrml said:
Deva-Link said:
but if you went to court and whined that your 8 year old car (even a Porsche) broke, then you certainly would be laughed out of court.
You missed the point. This is an eight year old car with a promise of reliability. If you disagree, ask Porsche (UK, GB, AG, whichever you like) the following questions:
1. Are Porsche's reliable or not?
2. For how long should a Porsche engine last without suffering a catastrophic failure (especially if it has been maintained by the OPC network)?
I welcome your posting their written responses on this forum (or audio record the conversation and upload it somewhere, providing us with a link to it).
Thank you.
Edited by bcnrml on Monday 28th July 20:35
Please could you forward me full details of the "Porsche Promise".
I have a 18 year old 924 on my drive and I would like to discuss the loud knocking noise coming from the engine and the seized gearbox, I didn't get it inspected when I bought it as it was a Porsche!
"Porsche Promise" that is a classic!
"Porsche Promise. Clue : Brand Values....."
I'll have to remember that next time I am drafting pleadings for a multi million pound claim against a bank for a corporate customer..........
LAW LORD : "So, Mr Vesuvius, could you please explain to the Court what the basis of your client's claim is."
Ves : "They broke their solemn promise to my client."
LAW LORD : "You're going to to have to be more specific than that Mr Vesuvius"
- music*
You nugget. Brand values my freshly waxed nutsack. Worth absolutely jack in the real world where real people live. No one at Porsche has EVER claimed their products are infallible, it's just beardies who look back on the past and say "oh they don't build them like they used to" and that "these cars shiould last forever and that's what they promise because they have nice adverts." Tell that to the guy I saw a year or so back with his 993 on fire at the side of the road with the wiring loom problem which is well documented. Tell the bloke at work here who had his R8 snap its crankshaft last week that he should go and claim from Audi on the basis of the well known legal doctrine of "Vorsprung Durch Technik."
What cobblers.
I am sorry, the unfortunate OP bought an older car with (undisclosed still) presumably high mileage, from outside the Porsche network, and elected not to buy the warranty that's offered by Porsche up to 125,000 miles or ten years!! Now he's understandably sore because he bought a pup he presumably can't afford to fix, and which is nothing more than a very expensive 1:1 scale model. There are plenty of people who bought M3s which lunched their engines - he's no different to them is he?
By that rationale I'd like to formally complain about the pair of Timberland boots which I bought 15 years ago in the States, which have now, completely without justification, got a slight tear in them after being worn every weekend since. Their nice adverts implied that they'd last so long I could be buried in them, and so I want a new pair, for free.
Just because a Porsche might have a low sticker price doesn't mean that it's (a) infalliable and (b) cheap to run. If you're going to play in the rain, make sure you wear wellies. End of story.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Tuesday 29th July 09:39
Wacky Racer said:
I remember reading in my big "AA book of the road", which I bought in 1968 and still have, (which featured cars such as the Austin/Morris 1300 etc that the average "economical" lifespan of a new car was eight years....and of course cars then, were electronically well equiped if they had a push button radio........
That was indeed the case in 1968 (my parents have a similar book published on behalf of the 'Dutch AA" in the mid-Seventies which says something similar) - cars used to rust back then...Edited by 900T-R on Tuesday 29th July 10:02
Vesuvius 996 said:
Just because a Porsche might have a low sticker price doesn't mean that it's (a) infalliable and (b) cheap to run. If you're going to play in the rain, make sure you wear wellies.
Which puts Porsche buyers on a level playing ground with those that run erm, other marques that are historically featured here. Known engineering problems leading to expensive failures, manufacturer don't want to know (unless you have bought a 'warranty' which is baiscally an insurrance policy). Nowt new there, but it's always been (a certain subset of) the Porsche owners who saw fit to belittle folks who happen to prefer a different flavour of performance cars - probably to make themselves feel better about the premium they paid up front at their local friendly OPC. 
Maybe we (motoring enthusiasts) all need to start pulling on one string for a change instead of regurgitating the old 'should have bought XYZ' lines. But that as an aside.Thing is, we do have a conformity clause in European law, which states a product should conform to 'reasonable expectations' - now what jurisprudency (sp?) sees as 'reasonable expectations' may lag some way behind what's actually considered 'reasonable expectations' - I'm sure the leasing company that runs our cars on a 4 year/100,000 miles basis doesn't expect me to return a car with a worn out engine et the end of term - but is it unreasonable to expect it to shift along with the car market and general expectations that say an engine should last for 150,000 miles in general use given adequate servicing as per manufacturer's recommendations, and not 50,000?
Of course, if a manufacturer states 'this vehicle has a very specialised high performance engine designed for ultimate track performance yadda yadda which will normally need rebuilds at xx,xxx miles intervals' (say, Caterham K-series R500) then fair enough - but as we're talking a Porsche Boxster which is indeed being sold as an everyday car, we can eliminate that from the start.
Which to me all brings it down to 'what's the actual mileage of the car' and 'what recent jurisprudency about reasonable expectations of a road car engine's lifespan (in the sense of the EU conformity clause) has there been?' Simple really.
Edited by 900T-R on Tuesday 29th July 10:01
I am the last person to defend Porsche for the weaknesses in the quality of their Boxster and 996 engines and their aftercare policy - so please don't misunderstand what comes next (which I have previously stated in other threads).
Porsche are in the business of selling new product - not spares and not second hand cars. Their franchised main agents may well sell up to say 5 to 7 years old or so but Porsche are in it to sell new cars.
I somehow doubt that the type of people who can afford a new Porsche are likely to investigate the Internet to check on the reliability after several years and miles - nor would be put off if they discovered the weaknesses in a small number statistically that fail. If the reliability in the first few years is OK (and the Porsche warranty/guarantee covers everything initially and is available thereafter) there seems little to put off new buyers.
A new Porsche is rarely bought because of long term reliability or long term re-sale values - it is bought as a symbol of what the buyer is all about, can afford, wants to be seen driving, what is fashionable to own etc and for that market, the kind of problems described on here are almost irrelevant.
Porsche used to make very little profit from a new car sales and thereafter the aftermarket supliers of tyres, petrol, oil, servicing, repairs, road tax, insurance and most of all car sales outlets - made many multiples of thousands from that one original car sale for 20 or 30 years. Porsche's hard work providing a desireable sports car made lots of others wealthy but not themselves.
That has all changed and now they make money as well and this enables them to change the product, modernise it and present it to the market in a format that is irresistable to the segment they are aiming at.
As long as their activities enable them to continue to sell new cars - I doubt they are too concerned about what happens some years down the line - in fact they probably prefer their cars not to last quite so long - as this should promote more new car sales eventually. Even the reducing reliability as the cars age could generate an ideoligy that a newer one is better to buy.
As a result of the design changes - Porsche have managed to save themselves from extinction and keep making the cars we love. Now they can afford to re-design the product and remove those weakspots and should return to a better reputation for quality eventually - but they may not have got to this point if they hadn't put profit from sales ahead of their previous policy to make quality the first priority - even if they went bust doing so.
As a result of this - all the posturing about the problems of older cars and the issues about Porsche's reputation - I don't see really bothering them too much and they are making so much money now they can afford to reinvent the product to be more and more desireable to encourage the public to get the latest model and discard the earlier one - which is exactly what a manufacturer should be doing and indeed fits in with our increasingly fashion conscious throw away society.
Although I feel imensley sorry for anyone caught up with a serious engine problem (and with all due modesty have probably dome more than anyone else to find cost effective ways to help them) - for my money it is still more important for people with problems or cars of this age - to focus on ways to protect themselves against potential problems (with warranties etc) - ways to fix the problems and get going again (if it happens) than broader discussions about how crap the cars are, how to pressure or force Porsche to help people more (or how to force them with litigation - that takes years and thousands to succeed if ever) or how to generally discredit the marque (which is shooting yourself in the foot for resale values) - as I don't think directing anger and frustration at Porsche will help solve the problem for those whose engine has actually failed.
I am sorry if this pragmatic view falls of deaf ears or is unpopular - but for those with the problem - fixing it at the lowest cost must be the first priority and for those who havn't yet got the problem - avoiding (or minimising) the consequences - if it does happen - should be their first priority! not wasting their energy on issues that will ultimately make no difference and not bother those responsible - at all!
Baz
Porsche are in the business of selling new product - not spares and not second hand cars. Their franchised main agents may well sell up to say 5 to 7 years old or so but Porsche are in it to sell new cars.
I somehow doubt that the type of people who can afford a new Porsche are likely to investigate the Internet to check on the reliability after several years and miles - nor would be put off if they discovered the weaknesses in a small number statistically that fail. If the reliability in the first few years is OK (and the Porsche warranty/guarantee covers everything initially and is available thereafter) there seems little to put off new buyers.
A new Porsche is rarely bought because of long term reliability or long term re-sale values - it is bought as a symbol of what the buyer is all about, can afford, wants to be seen driving, what is fashionable to own etc and for that market, the kind of problems described on here are almost irrelevant.
Porsche used to make very little profit from a new car sales and thereafter the aftermarket supliers of tyres, petrol, oil, servicing, repairs, road tax, insurance and most of all car sales outlets - made many multiples of thousands from that one original car sale for 20 or 30 years. Porsche's hard work providing a desireable sports car made lots of others wealthy but not themselves.
That has all changed and now they make money as well and this enables them to change the product, modernise it and present it to the market in a format that is irresistable to the segment they are aiming at.
As long as their activities enable them to continue to sell new cars - I doubt they are too concerned about what happens some years down the line - in fact they probably prefer their cars not to last quite so long - as this should promote more new car sales eventually. Even the reducing reliability as the cars age could generate an ideoligy that a newer one is better to buy.
As a result of the design changes - Porsche have managed to save themselves from extinction and keep making the cars we love. Now they can afford to re-design the product and remove those weakspots and should return to a better reputation for quality eventually - but they may not have got to this point if they hadn't put profit from sales ahead of their previous policy to make quality the first priority - even if they went bust doing so.
As a result of this - all the posturing about the problems of older cars and the issues about Porsche's reputation - I don't see really bothering them too much and they are making so much money now they can afford to reinvent the product to be more and more desireable to encourage the public to get the latest model and discard the earlier one - which is exactly what a manufacturer should be doing and indeed fits in with our increasingly fashion conscious throw away society.
Although I feel imensley sorry for anyone caught up with a serious engine problem (and with all due modesty have probably dome more than anyone else to find cost effective ways to help them) - for my money it is still more important for people with problems or cars of this age - to focus on ways to protect themselves against potential problems (with warranties etc) - ways to fix the problems and get going again (if it happens) than broader discussions about how crap the cars are, how to pressure or force Porsche to help people more (or how to force them with litigation - that takes years and thousands to succeed if ever) or how to generally discredit the marque (which is shooting yourself in the foot for resale values) - as I don't think directing anger and frustration at Porsche will help solve the problem for those whose engine has actually failed.
I am sorry if this pragmatic view falls of deaf ears or is unpopular - but for those with the problem - fixing it at the lowest cost must be the first priority and for those who havn't yet got the problem - avoiding (or minimising) the consequences - if it does happen - should be their first priority! not wasting their energy on issues that will ultimately make no difference and not bother those responsible - at all!
Baz
900T-R said:
Vesuvius 996 said:
Just because a Porsche might have a low sticker price doesn't mean that it's (a) infalliable and (b) cheap to run. If you're going to play in the rain, make sure you wear wellies.
Which puts Porsche buyers on a level playing ground with those that run erm, other marques that are historically featured here. Known engineering problems leading to expensive failures, manufacturer don't want to know (unless you have bought a 'warranty' which is baiscally an insurrance policy). Nowt new there, but it's always been (a certain subset of) the Porsche owners who saw fit to belittle folks who happen to prefer a different flavour of performance cars - probably to make themselves feel better about the premium they paid up front at their local friendly OPC. Maybe we (motoring enthusiasts) all need to start pulling on one string for a change instead of regurgitating the old 'should have bought XYZ' lines. But that as an aside.Thing is, we do have a conformity clause in European law, which states a product should conform to 'reasonable expectations' - now what jurisprudency (sp?) sees as 'reasonable expectations' may lag some way behind what's actually considered 'reasonable expectations' - I'm sure the leasing company that runs our cars on a 4 year/100,000 miles basis doesn't expect me to return a car with a worn out engine et the end of term - but is it unreasonable to expect it to shift along with the car market and general expectations that say an engine should last for 150,000 miles in general use given adequate servicing as per manufacturer's recommendations, and not 50,000?
Of course, if a manufacturer states 'this vehicle has a very specialised high performance engine designed for ultimate track performance yadda yadda which will normally need rebuilds at xx,xxx miles intervals' (say, Caterham K-series R500) then fair enough - but as we're talking a Porsche Boxster which is indeed being sold as an everyday car, we can eliminate that from the start.
Which to me all brings it down to 'what's the actual mileage of the car' and 'what recent jurisprudency about reasonable expectations of a road car engine's lifespan (in the sense of the EU conformity clause) has there been?' Simple really.
Edited by 900T-R on Tuesday 29th July 10:01
Like the Space Shuttle, which generally flies OK, but which you can reasonably expect will suffer a catashtrophic failure every now and then due to it's complex nature and the stresses it suffers in use.
I still say that Porsche never built cars which were infallible. Never. No such things as an infallible machine.
And why is Porsche different? It's not. It's just a car. Made of metal. Put together in a factory. Just because it has a badgoe on the nose doesn't make it an infallible deity.
So much for leaving this thread.....
Vesuvius, I may later provide a more considered response to your posts, but I would like to remind you at this point that you may wish to be much more circumspect about the position you are encouraging.
May I point out the following:
1. You came on here in November to January repeatedly spouting economic doom and gloom, forgetting that you had a 996 with an M96 engine and a history of dealer visits on your OPC warranty. You also wanted to sell said car. By your own accounts, you have not succeeded in selling it, and you will soon be out of OPC warranty. I suggest that your doom-mongering has devalued your car, as has the history of OPC warranty visits.
Why is this relevant? Because of the second point below.
2. Your argument on this thread, broadly speaking, suggests that the lifetime of the car is between seven and ten years. Ergo there is no economic or tradeable value on your current car. Or at best, it is marginal. Are you happy with that?
Thus, in eight months, you may have promoted and justified a series of arguments that mean your M96 engined 996, for which you initially sought 25k, is now worth at best half that (me being kind to you) and possibly nothing.
That's a super state to be in is it? Running an older version of a premium branded car, equivalents of which today cost 70k, should mean little in terms of brand values?
You scoff at brand values and brand promises, taking the narrow legal line that is your trade. I suggest you do some research on the world's most valuable brands and work out why they are so. Thereafter, maybe you might soften your stance and change your expectations of the Porsche used car experience (as I hope you have changed your perceptions of doom and gloom in light of the incontrovertible evidence of the past eight months that proves you were - and still are - wrong).
I am considering starting a thread on the depreciation curves to be expected for Porsche cars (M96 and otherwise) from new to ten years old. I trust that you'll contribute to that if/when it happens.
Edited to correct a typo or two..
Vesuvius, I may later provide a more considered response to your posts, but I would like to remind you at this point that you may wish to be much more circumspect about the position you are encouraging.
May I point out the following:
1. You came on here in November to January repeatedly spouting economic doom and gloom, forgetting that you had a 996 with an M96 engine and a history of dealer visits on your OPC warranty. You also wanted to sell said car. By your own accounts, you have not succeeded in selling it, and you will soon be out of OPC warranty. I suggest that your doom-mongering has devalued your car, as has the history of OPC warranty visits.
Why is this relevant? Because of the second point below.
2. Your argument on this thread, broadly speaking, suggests that the lifetime of the car is between seven and ten years. Ergo there is no economic or tradeable value on your current car. Or at best, it is marginal. Are you happy with that?
Thus, in eight months, you may have promoted and justified a series of arguments that mean your M96 engined 996, for which you initially sought 25k, is now worth at best half that (me being kind to you) and possibly nothing.
That's a super state to be in is it? Running an older version of a premium branded car, equivalents of which today cost 70k, should mean little in terms of brand values?
You scoff at brand values and brand promises, taking the narrow legal line that is your trade. I suggest you do some research on the world's most valuable brands and work out why they are so. Thereafter, maybe you might soften your stance and change your expectations of the Porsche used car experience (as I hope you have changed your perceptions of doom and gloom in light of the incontrovertible evidence of the past eight months that proves you were - and still are - wrong).
I am considering starting a thread on the depreciation curves to be expected for Porsche cars (M96 and otherwise) from new to ten years old. I trust that you'll contribute to that if/when it happens.
Edited to correct a typo or two..
Edited by bcnrml on Tuesday 29th July 10:41
Has anyone else noticed the conceptually apt ironies in this thread that allow parallels between sub-prime and M96-engined Porsches?
CDOs: "Assets" with serious weaknesses that mean their true cost and value cannot be easily ascertained, thus depressing all debt related securities previously considered low-risk and safe. Write downs continue, with some more exposed than others, with official ratings of asset security still less than clear.
M96-engined Porsches: "Assets" with .........(you can fill in the rest).
Meanwhile, look at this example below - does this qualify as a case of moral hazard?
So, Vesuvius, we now know that your perfect customer is one who doesn't know of M96 engine issues. Pass the toxic parcel, sub-prime style. Nice.
Oh, and very well done for an enlightening series of posts!
CDOs: "Assets" with serious weaknesses that mean their true cost and value cannot be easily ascertained, thus depressing all debt related securities previously considered low-risk and safe. Write downs continue, with some more exposed than others, with official ratings of asset security still less than clear.
M96-engined Porsches: "Assets" with .........(you can fill in the rest).
Meanwhile, look at this example below - does this qualify as a case of moral hazard?
Vesuvius 996 said:
ITP said:
What would everyone do if Porsche decided to increase the (fair) £895 warranty cost to £2000, say for cars over 60000 miles? At the moment it seems like a 'no brainer' but at what point does that change? Would this make people who are happy paying £895 get very itchy feet and want to get rid as they are only happy owning the car with the OPC safety net?
At that point I'd sell to someone who didn't know about the issues.Oh, and very well done for an enlightening series of posts!
Edited by bcnrml on Tuesday 29th July 11:03
Deva Link said:
bcnrml said:
So much for leaving this thread.....
I guess that's just impossible for you when you hold your own opinions in such high regard.Anything wrong with that?
I still can't believe anyone who has the chance to have the warranty decides not to. This is just my opinion of course. I wouldn't buy an extended warranty on a fridge or a washing machine because its pointless, but a car that was new between 40-80k with the associated potential costs? Really, if you can't afford the warranty you can't afford the car and if you CAN afford the warranty but decide not to have it and take your chances with well documented potential issues then thats your choice too. You just have to take it on the chin when it goes t*ts up, don't try and blame someone else, seems lots of people don't want to take responsibility for their descisions these days.
It's still very poor however that Porsche can't/wont design out the problem though..
It's still very poor however that Porsche can't/wont design out the problem though..
bcnrml said:
So much for leaving this thread.....
Vesuvius, I may later provide a more considered response to your posts, but I would like to remind you at this point that you may wish to be much more circumspect about the position you are encouraging.
May I point out the following:
1. You came on here in November to January repeatedly spouting economic doom and gloom, forgetting that you had a 996 with an M96 engine and a history of dealer visits on your OPC warranty. You also wanted to sell said car. By your own accounts, you have not succeeded in selling it, and you will soon be out of OPC warranty. I suggest that your doom-mongering has devalued your car, as has the history of OPC warranty visits.
Why is this relevant? Because of the second point below.
2. Your argument on this thread, broadly speaking, suggests that the lifetime of the car is between seven and ten years. Ergo there is no economic or tradeable value on your current car. Or at best, it is marginal. Are you happy with that?
Thus, in eight months, you may have promoted and justified a series of arguments that mean your M96 engined 996, for which you initially sought 25k, is now worth at best half that (me being kind to you) and possibly nothing.
That's a super state to be in is it? Running an older version of a premium branded car, equivalents of which today cost 70k, should mean little in terms of brand values?
You scoff at brand values and brand promises, taking the narrow legal line that is your trade. I suggest you do some research on the world's most valuable brands and work out why they are so. Thereafter, maybe you might soften your stance and change your expectations of the Porsche used car experience (as I hope you have changed your perceptions of doom and gloom in light of the incontrovertible evidence of the past eight months that proves you were - and still are - wrong).
I am considering starting a thread on the depreciation curves to be expected for Porsche cars (M96 and otherwise) from new to ten years old. I trust that you'll contribute to that if/when it happens.
Edited to correct a typo or two..
Fair point re my car - no one wanted it, it seems, for a price for which I want to sell it at least for quite a while. I could have sold it, of course, for a lower price, but I'm tight.Vesuvius, I may later provide a more considered response to your posts, but I would like to remind you at this point that you may wish to be much more circumspect about the position you are encouraging.
May I point out the following:
1. You came on here in November to January repeatedly spouting economic doom and gloom, forgetting that you had a 996 with an M96 engine and a history of dealer visits on your OPC warranty. You also wanted to sell said car. By your own accounts, you have not succeeded in selling it, and you will soon be out of OPC warranty. I suggest that your doom-mongering has devalued your car, as has the history of OPC warranty visits.
Why is this relevant? Because of the second point below.
2. Your argument on this thread, broadly speaking, suggests that the lifetime of the car is between seven and ten years. Ergo there is no economic or tradeable value on your current car. Or at best, it is marginal. Are you happy with that?
Thus, in eight months, you may have promoted and justified a series of arguments that mean your M96 engined 996, for which you initially sought 25k, is now worth at best half that (me being kind to you) and possibly nothing.
That's a super state to be in is it? Running an older version of a premium branded car, equivalents of which today cost 70k, should mean little in terms of brand values?
You scoff at brand values and brand promises, taking the narrow legal line that is your trade. I suggest you do some research on the world's most valuable brands and work out why they are so. Thereafter, maybe you might soften your stance and change your expectations of the Porsche used car experience (as I hope you have changed your perceptions of doom and gloom in light of the incontrovertible evidence of the past eight months that proves you were - and still are - wrong).
I am considering starting a thread on the depreciation curves to be expected for Porsche cars (M96 and otherwise) from new to ten years old. I trust that you'll contribute to that if/when it happens.
Edited to correct a typo or two..
Edited by bcnrml on Tuesday 29th July 10:41
In relation to your other observations.
bcnrml said:
1. You came on here in November to January repeatedly spouting economic doom and gloom,
Yes, and I was right, wasn't I? The ecomony is in the toilet, oil prices are through the roof, unemployment is rising and the House Price Fairy is in hospital with AIDS.bcnrml said:
forgetting that you had a 996 with an M96 engine and a history of dealer visits on your OPC warranty.
And the relavance of this is what? I've had the car and it's cost me nothing in repairs - why should I care two hoots! There's a whole population out there who know nothing of these issues, the OP being a good example.bcnrml said:
You also wanted to sell said car. By your own accounts, you have not succeeded in selling it,
Well kind of, had several offers, but turned them down. Trading it this week, as it goes.bcnrml said:
and you will soon be out of OPC warranty.
Well, in a year and a half....... bcnrml said:
I suggest that your doom-mongering has devalued your car, as has the history of OPC warranty visits.
Maybe. Certainly I was right that the econony is utterly fooked wasn't I. But then I have been shorting the FTSE and been long on oil so I've actually made a fortune out of the downturn, cheers very much. Thus why I'm trading up. And no, I'm not buying a Porsche!bcnrml said:
Why is this relevant? Because of the second point below.
2. Your argument on this thread, broadly speaking, suggests that the lifetime of the car is between seven and ten years.
Not at all. I never said that. Show me where I said that. I am saying that cars have a finite life. I fully expect my 996 will still be around when it's 20 years old, in some form. It might have had a rebuild, maybe. Perhaps Baz will have worked his magic!2. Your argument on this thread, broadly speaking, suggests that the lifetime of the car is between seven and ten years.
bcnrml said:
Ergo there is no economic or tradeable value on your current car. Or at best, it is marginal. Are you happy with that?
A nonsense statement! The car is worth what people are prepared to pay. A certain well know specialist has offered me £17k this week, so start with that. I've also had a decent bid against the new car.bcnrml said:
Thus, in eight months, you may have promoted and justified a series of arguments that mean your M96 engined 996, for which you initially sought 25k, is now worth at best half that (me being kind to you) and possibly nothing.
See above. £25k was a bit cheeky, wasn't it? Mind you there's always some schmuck.... I reckon it's worth £20k now privately, and as I said, £17k bid in the trade this week. So hardly chicken feed.Look, I've always been risk averse where money is concerned. When there's a risk, I hedge it. So I'll continue to run cars with proper warranties.
To be honest, the residuals on my 996 have been a disappointment, but that's life.
In relation to the OP, he's been very unlucky and I'd hate to be him. I hope Baz can maybe sort him out for a reasonable cost. Maybe Baz will find out it's a minor issue and we can all go back to our day jobs knowing that we gave ourselves an ulcer over nothing.
In conclusion, I still think that people are DREAMING if they think they can buy an old Porsche and run it without any problems. Machines break, sometimes. End of story.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Tuesday 29th July 11:11
Deva Link said:
Dr S said:
Deva Link said:
The warranty is peace of mind, but Porsche won't be losing money on it, so, on average, customers *must* lose out.
As insurance companies tend to make profits you should never take out an insurance on anything following your logic. There are different perspecives for individuals and owners of a portfolio...I did also say, in the bit of my post that you snipped, that taking out a warranty "also depends on your level of trauma to writing out £4500 cheques."
So of course it's an individual decision.
- stabilise your cash (-out) flow (premium payments instead of one-offs)
- avoid a big financial hit if the insured risks happen to materialise (portfolio instead of individual risk)
The OP neglected the risk ("Porsche is a quality and premium brand so nothing serious should break on an eight year old car") and is now angry that he has to take the big financial hit. If that's what worried him he should have taken out an insurance. Simple as that.
Vesuvius 996 said:
See above, just been bid £17k.
May I suggest you take that 17k and run. You may not get better in two-three months' time.Vesuvius 996 said:
To be honest, the residuals on my 996 have been a disappointment, but that's life.
That probably sums up the current Porsche brand experience. As for the economy, I gently but firmly affirm that you were wrong and I suggest you review Henry-F's recent threads on doom and gloom, or go ask the IMF who are more qualified than any on here.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff