RE: Flaming GT3s - owners bite back
Discussion
Patrick Bateman said:
tjlees said:
Love the bmers to bits and have had three. However back Springs broke, Main bearings and some smg bits went on the M3. M6 had some smg gearbox work and the rear trim fell off the back of drivers seat iirc. Luckly most was covered under BMW warranty.
So not convinced that any other supercar is significantly more reliable than a porsche.
This is more about how the stealer treats you when you have a problem that they should fix promptly, politely and at little or no inconvenience.
If you are worried about lunched engines, buy it with a warranty then you are covered, however over the last 25 years I have spent a lot on warranties on very fast cars, and never got my money back even though I have successfully claimed a few times.
tjlees said:
If you are worried about lunched engines, buy it with a warranty then you are covered, however over the last 25 years I have spent a lot on warranties on very fast cars, and never got my money back even though I have successfully claimed a few times.
Which is kind of the case with all warranties, the warranty company has to make a profit.agent biscuit said:
whether this is accurate or not its anyones guess but i just cancelled a deposit on a a 991 gt3 because i couldnt get a build slot after 6mths waiting but the salesman stated that if i waited another 4-5 months porshe were intending to re-launch another run of gt3 in aug-oct 2014 to assist with the current costs incurred due to compensation losses. Maybe he was bulls
tting me i really dont know... but if this is accurate then likely this will aggravate current owners and reduce resale values….??? but again i could have misheard what he said but that was the general theme!
im gutted i couldnt wait but the thought of leaving 10k with a dealer for nearly a year made me uncomfortable ! it is the only car that i find desirable at the moment so prob will just have to wait until the frenzy cools down!
just spoke to another large uk group that supplies GT3 and the salesman didnt deny the above comments! he that that it was a possible scenario?
Surely though you would have checked more thoroughly before cancelling your order?tting me i really dont know... but if this is accurate then likely this will aggravate current owners and reduce resale values….??? but again i could have misheard what he said but that was the general theme!im gutted i couldnt wait but the thought of leaving 10k with a dealer for nearly a year made me uncomfortable ! it is the only car that i find desirable at the moment so prob will just have to wait until the frenzy cools down!
just spoke to another large uk group that supplies GT3 and the salesman didnt deny the above comments! he that that it was a possible scenario?
Edited by agent biscuit on Saturday 3rd May 16:59
agent biscuit said:
whether this is accurate or not its anyones guess but i just cancelled a deposit on a a 991 gt3 because i couldnt get a build slot after 6mths waiting but the salesman stated that if i waited another 4-5 months porshe were intending to re-launch another run of gt3 in aug-oct 2014 to assist with the current costs incurred due to compensation losses. Maybe he was bullstting me i really dont know... but if this is accurate then likely this will aggravate current owners and reduce resale values….??? but again i could have misheard what he said but that was the general theme!
im gutted i couldnt wait but the thought of leaving 10k with a dealer for nearly a year made me uncomfortable ! it is the only car that i find desirable at the moment so prob will just have to wait until the frenzy cools down!
just spoke to another large uk group that supplies GT3 and the salesman didnt deny the above comments! he that that it was a possible scenario?
Whilst it may be true that Porsche plans to release more GT3s it won't be because they need to in order to cover the current problems. Their pockets are deeper than that. I would also guess that unless Porsche manufactured the faulty part themselves (which I doubt) they are currently in the process of screwing the supplier or its insurers for the loss.tting me i really dont know... but if this is accurate then likely this will aggravate current owners and reduce resale values….??? but again i could have misheard what he said but that was the general theme!im gutted i couldnt wait but the thought of leaving 10k with a dealer for nearly a year made me uncomfortable ! it is the only car that i find desirable at the moment so prob will just have to wait until the frenzy cools down!
just spoke to another large uk group that supplies GT3 and the salesman didnt deny the above comments! he that that it was a possible scenario?
Edited by agent biscuit on Saturday 3rd May 16:59
I'd can also say quite confidently I think that a Porsche salesman is unlikely to have the faintest knowledge about what Porsche intends to do or why. Even Porsche UK doesn't know a lot of the time.
Eleven said:
. . . . . . I would also guess that unless Porsche manufactured the faulty part themselves (which I doubt) they are currently in the process of screwing the supplier or its insurers for the loss . . . . . .
I very much doubt that a parts supplier would have contracted to Porsche with unlimited liability - the maximum liability is likely to be limited to the value of the contract. Porsche can probably source elsewhere but I suspect can then only charge the original supplier the cost of going elsewhere if the original supplier cannot rectify things and meet the specification. Consequential damages on the supplier are unlikely.Garvin said:
Eleven said:
. . . . . . I would also guess that unless Porsche manufactured the faulty part themselves (which I doubt) they are currently in the process of screwing the supplier or its insurers for the loss . . . . . .
I very much doubt that a parts supplier would have contracted to Porsche with unlimited liability - the maximum liability is likely to be limited to the value of the contract. Porsche can probably source elsewhere but I suspect can then only charge the original supplier the cost of going elsewhere if the original supplier cannot rectify things and meet the specification. Consequential damages on the supplier are unlikely.I feel sorry for current owners.
I was in my local Porsche dealer on a Saturday witnessing the bedlam of people ordering Macans. The thing is, Porsche has everyone in the palms of their hands. They don't need to do anything, because there is always someone waiting to take your place in the queue.
What this does in the long term for Porsche remains to be seen, but for now i imagine the Porsche boardroom still very much looks like this.
I was in my local Porsche dealer on a Saturday witnessing the bedlam of people ordering Macans. The thing is, Porsche has everyone in the palms of their hands. They don't need to do anything, because there is always someone waiting to take your place in the queue.
What this does in the long term for Porsche remains to be seen, but for now i imagine the Porsche boardroom still very much looks like this.
hondansx said:
What this does in the long term for Porsche remains to be seen, but for now i imagine the Porsche boardroom still very much looks like this.
And here you have succinctly summed up the problem with Porsche today. Porsche is trading on a reputation earned years ago to sell cars to the masses today. There will come a point at which this trick ceases to work.Eleven said:
I have no direct experience of the sort of relationship Porsche has with its suppliers, but common sense tells me that Porsche will have some sort of mechanism in place to ensure that suppliers don't sell them dodgy components that cause significant damage and, consequently, losses.
Large companies generally want a mechanism to claw back losses caused by small component failures. However very few suppliers of small components will accept unlimited consequential losses in any purchase contract or they will not stay in business very long.I would be amazed if a component supplier agreed to potential losses in the many 10's of thousands for components sold for 10's of pounds, no matter what Porsche might like.
crosseyedlion said:
tjlees said:
If you are worried about lunched engines, buy it with a warranty then you are covered, however over the last 25 years I have spent a lot on warranties on very fast cars, and never got my money back even though I have successfully claimed a few times.
Which is kind of the case with all warranties, the warranty company has to make a profit.The price of the warranty gives and indication of reliability and parts cost, which is one of the reasons I chose the bmer and porker. Warrantywise at time were quoting around £2k for them for a 3 year warranty all other things equal. Aston Martin v12v, masser gt and Ferrari 612 were £6k. Ouch.
ant leigh said:
Eleven said:
I have no direct experience of the sort of relationship Porsche has with its suppliers, but common sense tells me that Porsche will have some sort of mechanism in place to ensure that suppliers don't sell them dodgy components that cause significant damage and, consequently, losses.
Large companies generally want a mechanism to claw back losses caused by small component failures. However very few suppliers of small components will accept unlimited consequential losses in any purchase contract or they will not stay in business very long.I would be amazed if a component supplier agreed to potential losses in the many 10's of thousands for components sold for 10's of pounds, no matter what Porsche might like.
Eleven said:
ant leigh said:
Eleven said:
I have no direct experience of the sort of relationship Porsche has with its suppliers, but common sense tells me that Porsche will have some sort of mechanism in place to ensure that suppliers don't sell them dodgy components that cause significant damage and, consequently, losses.
Large companies generally want a mechanism to claw back losses caused by small component failures. However very few suppliers of small components will accept unlimited consequential losses in any purchase contract or they will not stay in business very long.I would be amazed if a component supplier agreed to potential losses in the many 10's of thousands for components sold for 10's of pounds, no matter what Porsche might like.
However accepting any additional financial consequences to an unlimited degree for a component failure is not normal in B2B relationships.
As a rule the maximum liability in purchase contracts is limited to the value of the contract (assuming you are acting in good faith and are not wilfully negligent in which case the customer may have a case legally to overturn the agreed T&C's). One of my work responsibilities is negotiating T&C's, often with companies larger than Porsche. Under no circumstances will I accept consequential liabilities over the value of the contract.
Interestingly the thread is actually about Porsche not accepting it's customers consequential losses due to their failure to deliver functional cars.
Perception is all. The truth of the matter is that Porsche are no longer primarily a sports car manufacturer - a few years ago they were financially struggling in their 'niche'. They were saved by the Cayenne which makes far more money for them than 911s and which is why the Macan has come along. In truth, Porsche is actually an up market SUV manufacturer which leans heavily on its heritage, reputation and perception of being a sports car company.
Of course, it has to keep this reputation and perception intact otherwise its days as being perceived as primarily an SUV manufacturer would be limited. In other words the 911 & Cayman etc are important to it but in a more indirect way than most appreciate. As I said, perception is all.
Of course, it has to keep this reputation and perception intact otherwise its days as being perceived as primarily an SUV manufacturer would be limited. In other words the 911 & Cayman etc are important to it but in a more indirect way than most appreciate. As I said, perception is all.
Garvin said:
Perception is all. The truth of the matter is that Porsche are no longer primarily a sports car manufacturer - a few years ago they were financially struggling in their 'niche'. They were saved by the Cayenne which makes far more money for them than 911s and which is why the Macan has come along. In truth, Porsche is actually an up market SUV manufacturer which leans heavily on its heritage, reputation and perception of being a sports car company.
Of course, it has to keep this reputation and perception intact otherwise its days as being perceived as primarily an SUV manufacturer would be limited. In other words the 911 & Cayman etc are important to it but in a more indirect way than most appreciate. As I said, perception is all.
This presupposes that people buy the Cayenne and Macan because they are buying into the image of porsche as a sports car maker. I don't accept that - at least, without proof. Of course, it has to keep this reputation and perception intact otherwise its days as being perceived as primarily an SUV manufacturer would be limited. In other words the 911 & Cayman etc are important to it but in a more indirect way than most appreciate. As I said, perception is all.
The thing is, if Porsche got out of sportscars and designer goods and concentrated only on SUVs, I recon they'd still be profitable because they make some of the best examples of that type of car - the Cayenne Turbo S doesn't have many peers (Range Rover Sport, perhaps the X5 M and some insane MB AMG 4x4s) - the peers that do exist go about things in a different way, or are not as "premium" in execution. In a growing market all of them can do well, and the Porsche SUVs aren't exactly crap to start with.
The cayenne can even offroad to an extent, which is surprising given its road bias. Compare it with the BMW X5 and it's a veritable offroad monster, while also being better to drive on-road than the more road-biased X5.
By the way, Porsche were the most profitable car company on the planet until Wendelein Wiedeking (CEO of porsche at the time) tried to buy VW using interesting "we own all the options, now sweat suckers" financial manipulation. It's the only example I can think of where a non-finance exec ran rings around the sharks of the investment banking community and genuinely outmanoevered them.
You could argue the ins and outs of it all until the cows come home, but fundamentally and finally, the thing that saved Porsche wasn't the Cayenne, it was the family connections between the Piech and Porsche families (Ferdinand Piech, Chairman of VW Group - is Ferdinand Porsche's grandson, and personally owned 10% of Porsche while it was separate).
While the control (and plenty of ownership) of the VW group and Porsche group are based on such historic family ties, Porsche was always going to be protected from ruin. The only reason Piech wasn't in charge of Porsche in the first place is that they have had a rule for about 40 or 50 years that no family member should be there; that's why Piech ended up in VW group in the first place.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Slightly over simplified. Adoption of Japanese production methods, allowed porsche to make a cheap sports car, the boxster, and make more money on the 996. The issue was how the cars were being produced and their production cost v the competition. Making excellent quality cars like the boxster and 996 of course helped but at competitive prices with large margins. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff