Cayman S engine failure and how Porsche will deal with you.
Discussion
You take insurance to cover risks and spending a fortune on a premium brand car then looking after it should be insurance enough.
I don't have a warranty on my 100k peugeot thrashed to absolute hell since the day it left the showroom because I expect the correct servicing and empathy when cold will let it run and run, so far so good.
Basically it's shameful the way Porsche are treating these engine failures. I for one would consider very carefully staying with them if and when I change from my last of the GT1 block cars.
Many of the special things that make Porsche to me have gone.
SM
I don't have a warranty on my 100k peugeot thrashed to absolute hell since the day it left the showroom because I expect the correct servicing and empathy when cold will let it run and run, so far so good.
Basically it's shameful the way Porsche are treating these engine failures. I for one would consider very carefully staying with them if and when I change from my last of the GT1 block cars.
Many of the special things that make Porsche to me have gone.
SM
Durzel said:
mollytherocker said:
I believe it would take a legal challenge to make them pay 100%, but the ramifactions to Porsche (Financial & reputation) if they were to lose, would mean that they would fight it to the death.
This.If Porsche were to admit this problem now it would not only undermine confidence in the affected models but also the brand as a whole on a scale beyond the scope of the initial claim. The best anyone in this situation can hope for I think is a settlement that doesn't involve them admitting that there is a fault, only that they are making a goodwill gesture.
If Porsche were to acknowledge a design fault with their engines, the repercussions for the brand would be biblical. Law suits from people who've had new engines, sometimes at their own expense, a massive drop in public opinion, 996/997s would probably cost the same as a bottle of water and would most likely tarnish the brand for many, many years.
I suspect this is why they've quietly made changes (new DFI unit has no IMS bearing, right?)
To echo other people's take on the no-warranty issue, I expect things to go wrong, but a total engine failure in a modern car of this value with many pieces of evidence pointing towards design fault, I find that absolutely unacceptable!
I suspect this is why they've quietly made changes (new DFI unit has no IMS bearing, right?)
To echo other people's take on the no-warranty issue, I expect things to go wrong, but a total engine failure in a modern car of this value with many pieces of evidence pointing towards design fault, I find that absolutely unacceptable!
How many people would take out a warranty if it were not for the engines exploding prematurely ?
I don't think it'd be many as most owners are imo are buying insurance against the big occasion of requiring a new engine.
Replacing / renewing / fixing the other sundries that go wrong is only to be expected of virtually any car and I'd certainly not be buying a warranty for such items.
But the big one , then yes, I'd not run a 3.4 / 3.6 or 3.8 without some kind of backup ( DFI excepted as they appear to be doing what they should , ie, not exploding )
I don't think it'd be many as most owners are imo are buying insurance against the big occasion of requiring a new engine.
Replacing / renewing / fixing the other sundries that go wrong is only to be expected of virtually any car and I'd certainly not be buying a warranty for such items.
But the big one , then yes, I'd not run a 3.4 / 3.6 or 3.8 without some kind of backup ( DFI excepted as they appear to be doing what they should , ie, not exploding )
Waitforme said:
How many people would take out a warranty if it were not for the engines exploding prematurely ?
I don't think it'd be many as most owners are imo are buying insurance against the big occasion of requiring a new engine.
Replacing / renewing / fixing the other sundries that go wrong is only to be expected of virtually any car and I'd certainly not be buying a warranty for such items.
But the big one , then yes, I'd not run a 3.4 / 3.6 or 3.8 without some kind of backup ( DFI excepted as they appear to be doing what they should , ie, not exploding )
Do you think this is Porsche's plan to sell more extended warranties? make the engines crap so that people will buy them?I don't think it'd be many as most owners are imo are buying insurance against the big occasion of requiring a new engine.
Replacing / renewing / fixing the other sundries that go wrong is only to be expected of virtually any car and I'd certainly not be buying a warranty for such items.
But the big one , then yes, I'd not run a 3.4 / 3.6 or 3.8 without some kind of backup ( DFI excepted as they appear to be doing what they should , ie, not exploding )
mollytherocker said:
the ramifactions to Porsche (Financial & reputation) if they were to lose, would mean that they would fight it to the death.
I disagree. When the engine went pop on my 996, I had to take it on the chin. No goodwill was offered by Porsche (despite FPSH and 42000 miles) purportedly because the car had never benefited from the extended warranty.I had no legal remedy, I had purchased the car privately 18 months earlier. I had no contract with Porsche and no contract with any motor trader.
As the orginal purchaser of the vehicle, I think the OP is in a very different position to the one I was in. I think he would be very unlucky to find a District Judge in the County Court who thought that an engine failure at that age/mileage was acceptable (assuming satisfactory evidence of servicing / lack of abuse etc.). Porsche wouldn't fight it to the death, it would not be a binding decision.
Whilst I would be happy to stand corrected, I do believe there was a chap on the 996 forum at PCGB within the last 12 months who was successful in this regard for similar reasons.
Carl_Docklands said:
masergs said:
Why on a car five years old , three years out of warranty would you expect Porsche to pay for the repairs.Either pay your money and get a warranty or pay your money when it all goes wrong.
This.Topic should read "...and how Porsche will deal with you if you do not have a warranty on a 5 year old car"
If you add up the cost you would have paid for the years of missed warranty, is the delta really that bad? Sounds like a decent deal to me.
Why is a car any different to any other consumable device which is 5 years old? Nothing this complex or highly strung is engineered perfectly.
As for the posters singing the virtues of the older cars well, we all know they were all designed perfectly and cost buttons to run, especially the 964 with its near bulletproof engine and perfect design which, runs for 2 years at a time without maintenance.
Found the thread.
http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=604613&...
"I had an official Porsche exchange engine at 117,000 miles in February 2007 due to manufacturing defects that were found in the crank cradle of the original engine. There is quite en extensive and detailed thread on that. I had to go to County Court to get compensation using the Sale of Goods Act and I'm pleased to say that I was successful. The Judge ruled that the life expectancy of the original engine should have been 200,000 miles. The gearbox was replaced at 124,121 miles and 134,701 miles, both times under Porsche's extended warranty.
Other than that it's been the usual maintenance and wear & tear items. The original suspension lasted until 197,592 miles. I can get 100,000 miles out of a set of brake discs and the petrol pump was replaced last week at 229,000 miles. "
http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=604613&...
"I had an official Porsche exchange engine at 117,000 miles in February 2007 due to manufacturing defects that were found in the crank cradle of the original engine. There is quite en extensive and detailed thread on that. I had to go to County Court to get compensation using the Sale of Goods Act and I'm pleased to say that I was successful. The Judge ruled that the life expectancy of the original engine should have been 200,000 miles. The gearbox was replaced at 124,121 miles and 134,701 miles, both times under Porsche's extended warranty.
Other than that it's been the usual maintenance and wear & tear items. The original suspension lasted until 197,592 miles. I can get 100,000 miles out of a set of brake discs and the petrol pump was replaced last week at 229,000 miles. "
rob.kellock said:
mollytherocker said:
the ramifactions to Porsche (Financial & reputation) if they were to lose, would mean that they would fight it to the death.
I disagree. When the engine went pop on my 996, I had to take it on the chin. No goodwill was offered by Porsche (despite FPSH and 42000 miles) purportedly because the car had never benefited from the extended warranty.I had no legal remedy, I had purchased the car privately 18 months earlier. I had no contract with Porsche and no contract with any motor trader.
As the orginal purchaser of the vehicle, I think the OP is in a very different position to the one I was in. I think he would be very unlucky to find a District Judge in the County Court who thought that an engine failure at that age/mileage was acceptable (assuming satisfactory evidence of servicing / lack of abuse etc.). Porsche wouldn't fight it to the death, it would not be a binding decision.
Whilst I would be happy to stand corrected, I do believe there was a chap on the 996 forum at PCGB within the last 12 months who was successful in this regard for similar reasons.
MTR
RudeDog said:
Waitforme said:
How many people would take out a warranty if it were not for the engines exploding prematurely ?
I don't think it'd be many as most owners are imo are buying insurance against the big occasion of requiring a new engine.
Replacing / renewing / fixing the other sundries that go wrong is only to be expected of virtually any car and I'd certainly not be buying a warranty for such items.
But the big one , then yes, I'd not run a 3.4 / 3.6 or 3.8 without some kind of backup ( DFI excepted as they appear to be doing what they should , ie, not exploding )
Do you think this is Porsche's plan to sell more extended warranties? make the engines crap so that people will buy them?I don't think it'd be many as most owners are imo are buying insurance against the big occasion of requiring a new engine.
Replacing / renewing / fixing the other sundries that go wrong is only to be expected of virtually any car and I'd certainly not be buying a warranty for such items.
But the big one , then yes, I'd not run a 3.4 / 3.6 or 3.8 without some kind of backup ( DFI excepted as they appear to be doing what they should , ie, not exploding )
mollytherocker said:
rob.kellock said:
Beat you to it!
You need to be a member of the PCGB forum (it's free) to view the link though.
Thats a shame as I am not a member. It would be interesting to see the details.You need to be a member of the PCGB forum (it's free) to view the link though.
MTR
FWIW, my experience with barristers who specialise in technical matters is that if a fault is inherent in the design or manufacture - if it can be proven that the fault(s) is (are) common - then there is a considerable chance of legal success.
BliarOut said:
Carl_Docklands said:
masergs said:
Why on a car five years old , three years out of warranty would you expect Porsche to pay for the repairs.Either pay your money and get a warranty or pay your money when it all goes wrong.
This.Topic should read "...and how Porsche will deal with you if you do not have a warranty on a 5 year old car"
If you add up the cost you would have paid for the years of missed warranty, is the delta really that bad? Sounds like a decent deal to me.
Why is a car any different to any other consumable device which is 5 years old? Nothing this complex or highly strung is engineered perfectly.
As for the posters singing the virtues of the older cars well, we all know they were all designed perfectly and cost buttons to run, especially the 964 with its near bulletproof engine and perfect design which, runs for 2 years at a time without maintenance.
If you want near perfect drive-a-bility go buy a Porsche.
Don't expect both of them at the same time.
Here is the original 2006 thread that led to the successful court case 
http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=242384
MTR- you don't need to be a member to read it just register!
http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=242384
MTR- you don't need to be a member to read it just register!
I have just sold a FIAT Barchetta and bought a 4-year old 25,000 mile Boxster, so this post has alarmed me. It seems that these two cars shared a similar problem. With the Barchetta a piece of kit called a Variator, manufactured by Yamaha, and which controlled the VVT failed after relatively short mileage. Like Porsche, FIAT prevaricated and treated their customers very badly. The cost of the repair was inexpensive compared to an OPC engine rebuild.
Unlike PCGB, the Barchetta Owners Club were more concerned about the interests of their members than the manufacturer and started a group action. When things started to “hit the fan” the general press and then BBC’s Watchdog got hold of the story. FIAT quickly relented and paid the cost of repairs on cars that had been serviced properly and were low mileage and gave a significant contribution to other cars that had higher mileage. See current status http://www.fiatbarchetta.com/club/uk/web/variator....
Porsche wrote the book on boxer engines, so any sign of persistent failures should have been remedied long ago. The fact that the OPC rebuilds the engine seems odd as I believe that most other car companies would simply swap the bottom end for a new short engine.
The very large profits made by Porsche in Germany, Porsche concessionaires GB and the OPCs seems to suggest that they are colluding and treating each of these significant engine failures, across a range of cars, as isolated cases. As the OPC stated, only a broad understanding of this issue by potential customers will galvanise Porsche into a permanent and equitable solution for current owners.
So the only logical remedy for owners must be for someone to create a www.myporscheengineisbust.com website so that everyone affected can raise the profile of this very serious issue. My guess is that there are other similarly affected people in France, Germany, USA, Sweden etc., so if everyone joined and put up say £50, an effective group action could be started.
Also publically raising the profile of the issue through something like Watchdog could make a big difference. Do not expect car magazines to get involved as they need Porsche’s significant advertising, nor programmes like 5th and Top Gear as they need to get their hands on Porsche press cars etc. Everyone depends on someone else’s goodwill.
On the issue of buying extended warranties, I would say that I have a 21 year old BMW convertible that I bought new and look after the same way that the OP has looked after his Cayman. To celebrate clocking up its 100,000 miles this winter I drove it from NW England to Marbella and back with quite a lot of miles in the 4 months that I was away and not for one moment did I think of taking out international breakdown cover. It is a quality car that behaves in a quality manner.
I can understand why an OPC would want to sell an extended warranty, just like Curry’s try to flog you some cover for your PC, or TV that you buy; but recent adverse publicity tends to suggest that it was only the unsuspecting / naive that were persuaded to by them. The sale of goods act requires that items are durable and so should be sufficiently robust to withstand normal wear and tear. Not using a car very much just means that it has been subjected to less than normal wear and tear.
Unlike PCGB, the Barchetta Owners Club were more concerned about the interests of their members than the manufacturer and started a group action. When things started to “hit the fan” the general press and then BBC’s Watchdog got hold of the story. FIAT quickly relented and paid the cost of repairs on cars that had been serviced properly and were low mileage and gave a significant contribution to other cars that had higher mileage. See current status http://www.fiatbarchetta.com/club/uk/web/variator....
Porsche wrote the book on boxer engines, so any sign of persistent failures should have been remedied long ago. The fact that the OPC rebuilds the engine seems odd as I believe that most other car companies would simply swap the bottom end for a new short engine.
The very large profits made by Porsche in Germany, Porsche concessionaires GB and the OPCs seems to suggest that they are colluding and treating each of these significant engine failures, across a range of cars, as isolated cases. As the OPC stated, only a broad understanding of this issue by potential customers will galvanise Porsche into a permanent and equitable solution for current owners.
So the only logical remedy for owners must be for someone to create a www.myporscheengineisbust.com website so that everyone affected can raise the profile of this very serious issue. My guess is that there are other similarly affected people in France, Germany, USA, Sweden etc., so if everyone joined and put up say £50, an effective group action could be started.
Also publically raising the profile of the issue through something like Watchdog could make a big difference. Do not expect car magazines to get involved as they need Porsche’s significant advertising, nor programmes like 5th and Top Gear as they need to get their hands on Porsche press cars etc. Everyone depends on someone else’s goodwill.
On the issue of buying extended warranties, I would say that I have a 21 year old BMW convertible that I bought new and look after the same way that the OP has looked after his Cayman. To celebrate clocking up its 100,000 miles this winter I drove it from NW England to Marbella and back with quite a lot of miles in the 4 months that I was away and not for one moment did I think of taking out international breakdown cover. It is a quality car that behaves in a quality manner.
I can understand why an OPC would want to sell an extended warranty, just like Curry’s try to flog you some cover for your PC, or TV that you buy; but recent adverse publicity tends to suggest that it was only the unsuspecting / naive that were persuaded to by them. The sale of goods act requires that items are durable and so should be sufficiently robust to withstand normal wear and tear. Not using a car very much just means that it has been subjected to less than normal wear and tear.
"That said, Porsche is a mass market brand, albeit a premium one. I would guess most buyers of new Porsche are not full on enthusiasts and I for one do not blame them for assuming that the engine in their £40k / £70k Porsche is as well engineered / reliable as a commodity spec hatchback."
+1
+1
cragswinter said:
Here is the original 2006 thread that led to the successful court case
http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=242384
MTR- you don't need to be a member to read it just register!
JUST. READ. THIS. THREAD.http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=242384
MTR- you don't need to be a member to read it just register!
that is all
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff