992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject
Discussion
elan362 said:
BS.
there is an acceptable failure rate in all manufacturing. Nothing is 100% reliable.
This goes for each and every component
If something has 99% reliability, 1 in 100 fail. If something has a 99.99% reliability, 1in 10,000 fail. The cost to move to 99.999% or 99.9999% (1in 100.000 or 1in 1,000,000) reliability increace drastically, and ultimately that is a judgement call that has to be made on proportional to the cost benefit and seriousness of consequences.
There are usually anticipated return rates for all components. (However small that may be).
To a certain extent, this is why warranty is offered. It is more cost effective than over engineering
So what's your point - the OP should just suck up being the unlucky 1 in 1XXX and stick with a £200k potential lemon?there is an acceptable failure rate in all manufacturing. Nothing is 100% reliable.
This goes for each and every component
If something has 99% reliability, 1 in 100 fail. If something has a 99.99% reliability, 1in 10,000 fail. The cost to move to 99.999% or 99.9999% (1in 100.000 or 1in 1,000,000) reliability increace drastically, and ultimately that is a judgement call that has to be made on proportional to the cost benefit and seriousness of consequences.
There are usually anticipated return rates for all components. (However small that may be).
To a certain extent, this is why warranty is offered. It is more cost effective than over engineering
I'd suggest the billion dollar premium manufacturer who built housands of the thing should be taking that risk, not the customer.
elan362 said:
BS.
There are usually anticipated return rates for all components. (However small that may be).
To a certain extent, this is why warranty is offered. It is more cost effective than over engineering
Well then, they've presumably built into their calculations the cost of refunding the buyer when they can't fix the product that they designed and manufactured.There are usually anticipated return rates for all components. (However small that may be).
To a certain extent, this is why warranty is offered. It is more cost effective than over engineering
tty service than mechanical problems tbh.JerseyRoyal said:
I’d be amazed if a brand new car rolled off the line without some gremlins, it’s an incredibly complicated machine built to a very tight margin.
JerseyRoyal said:
What we’re disagreeing about is the expectation that this complex machine should be or even can be perfect when it leaves the factory.
It’s just not feasibly possible.
It's not feasible to expect every car to leave the production line and be perfectly reliable.It’s just not feasibly possible.
But it's also not viable to accept that every car will leave the factory with a fault.
As a manufacturer - your target will be 99.(xx)% success in terms of QC.
But as a consumer, you only buy one car so your expectation is that it's 100% perfect.
The difference between the two expectations is not borne by the consumer - it's borne by the manufacturer. You don't spend £200k on anything and just accept that it won't be right.
breadvan said:
It's an interesting subject.
Surely rejection isn't a reasonable outcome for ONE re-occurring fault. It may be the letter of the law but I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.
Imagine the carnage if everyone returned their cars in this scenario.
It doesn’t really matter what people feel is reasonable if the law allows a rejection.Surely rejection isn't a reasonable outcome for ONE re-occurring fault. It may be the letter of the law but I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.
Imagine the carnage if everyone returned their cars in this scenario.
It’s also a good way to get Porsche to ensure that their cars aren’t sent out with faults. Putting the cost back in them is a great incentive to have them do better.
As an aside, if you want to know why faults which emerge in the first 30 to 60 days of use are considered to be there from.the factory, you need to Google Bathtub reliability curve.
This is why aerospace electronics are functionally cycled and vibrated and subjected to extremes of temperature, whilst in the factory. And why planes don't usually fall out of the sky. (Unless the software is faulty).
This is why aerospace electronics are functionally cycled and vibrated and subjected to extremes of temperature, whilst in the factory. And why planes don't usually fall out of the sky. (Unless the software is faulty).
I think bringing price in as a factor shows a bit of a lack of principles. Ones persons £200k is anothers £20k is anothers £2k. If somebody buys a new car their right to reliability isn't a function of how much they paid, it should just be fundamentally reliable.
But car's go wrong, and they will continue to go wrong, its a normal fact of life, that's why they come with warranties straight out of the factory.
I respect the OPs right to enforce his/her consumer rights. For me, personally, this is MONUMENTAL overreaction. It's had 2 warning lights FFS!! I mean, seriously?!
Each to their own, and again, and if the OP is within his/her rights then fair enough (even if I don't agree with it!)
But car's go wrong, and they will continue to go wrong, its a normal fact of life, that's why they come with warranties straight out of the factory.
I respect the OPs right to enforce his/her consumer rights. For me, personally, this is MONUMENTAL overreaction. It's had 2 warning lights FFS!! I mean, seriously?!
Each to their own, and again, and if the OP is within his/her rights then fair enough (even if I don't agree with it!)
Forester1965 said:
JerseyRoyal said:
I struggled with the wording on that second one, it wasn’t my intent to say that every car will have faults. Just that it would be impossible for no cars to have faults.
Don't think anyone would disagree with you on that.I’m in agreement with those on here who say that every product or service is susceptible to some issue, regardless of price, and a degree of tolerance may be necessary.
This car doesn’t fit my understanding of the term ‘lemon’, which normally refers to a product that has suffered multiple different faults over a short period of time.
This car doesn’t fit my understanding of the term ‘lemon’, which normally refers to a product that has suffered multiple different faults over a short period of time.
Little did I realise, when I started this thread, that there would be nearly 200 posts and I thank you all for your input.
I note over the last couple of pages some differing opinion, some supportive, others not. That's completely fine. I made it clear in the original post, that I have broad shoulders and am happy to hear from people who disagree with my decision.
For those of you who haven't read through all the posts (and that's understandable!), I thought I could quickly summarise again.
I have had many cars over the years and in the main, I've experienced no issues. amongst others and over the last ten years, 2 Boxsters, 3 MINI Cooper S'(my wife's), Aston Martin DB11 and my current other car, AUDI RS3. These were/are all fault free during ownership, which is usually 2-3 years from new. As advised before, I also had a McLaren 570GT bought new and the problems started from about month 7 onwards, in that it wouldn't start, seats wouldn't move back and forward, navigation problems, to name a few. In the end, I rejected it even though the initial 6 month period had passed and got back what I paid for it, less £20k for 5k miles and one year old by then, so they applied a £4 per mile allowance.
The chassis system fault both times also says adapted driving permitted, but the manual just says, refer to dealer. The service docket received on the first fault states: C125193-Roll stabilisation: system FAILURE and C104400-Basic setting active faults stored, calibration required and a cost of £285, so I'm guessing a sensor? There are no parts listed, so have they replaced anything? Or just a software reset, hence it's returned?
I am not having buyer's remorse. It's a wonderful car to drive, I've wanted one for ages, but I had to make a decision, keep or reject? You may not agree with my decision and that's fine, we all would look at this differently.
I did email the DP again yesterday, stating that the car has not been used since 2 April, is not available to me and your service dept can't look at it for a month and I also sent a picture of the mileage 2497. His response was, I'll pass your email to the team looking into your case!
He also promised to come back today with an update, which so far, I haven't received, but he has 3 hours yet, TBF.
I note over the last couple of pages some differing opinion, some supportive, others not. That's completely fine. I made it clear in the original post, that I have broad shoulders and am happy to hear from people who disagree with my decision.
For those of you who haven't read through all the posts (and that's understandable!), I thought I could quickly summarise again.
I have had many cars over the years and in the main, I've experienced no issues. amongst others and over the last ten years, 2 Boxsters, 3 MINI Cooper S'(my wife's), Aston Martin DB11 and my current other car, AUDI RS3. These were/are all fault free during ownership, which is usually 2-3 years from new. As advised before, I also had a McLaren 570GT bought new and the problems started from about month 7 onwards, in that it wouldn't start, seats wouldn't move back and forward, navigation problems, to name a few. In the end, I rejected it even though the initial 6 month period had passed and got back what I paid for it, less £20k for 5k miles and one year old by then, so they applied a £4 per mile allowance.
The chassis system fault both times also says adapted driving permitted, but the manual just says, refer to dealer. The service docket received on the first fault states: C125193-Roll stabilisation: system FAILURE and C104400-Basic setting active faults stored, calibration required and a cost of £285, so I'm guessing a sensor? There are no parts listed, so have they replaced anything? Or just a software reset, hence it's returned?
I am not having buyer's remorse. It's a wonderful car to drive, I've wanted one for ages, but I had to make a decision, keep or reject? You may not agree with my decision and that's fine, we all would look at this differently.
I did email the DP again yesterday, stating that the car has not been used since 2 April, is not available to me and your service dept can't look at it for a month and I also sent a picture of the mileage 2497. His response was, I'll pass your email to the team looking into your case!
He also promised to come back today with an update, which so far, I haven't received, but he has 3 hours yet, TBF.
OPOGTS said:
I think bringing price in as a factor shows a bit of a lack of principles. Ones persons £200k is anothers £20k is anothers £2k. If somebody buys a new car their right to reliability isn't a function of how much they paid, it should just be fundamentally reliable.
But car's go wrong, and they will continue to go wrong, its a normal fact of life, that's why they come with warranties straight out of the factory.
I respect the OPs right to enforce his/her consumer rights. For me, personally, this is MONUMENTAL overreaction. It's had 2 warning lights FFS!! I mean, seriously?!
Each to their own, and again, and if the OP is within his/her rights then fair enough (even if I don't agree with it!)
He's actually got me on the side of the OPC.But car's go wrong, and they will continue to go wrong, its a normal fact of life, that's why they come with warranties straight out of the factory.
I respect the OPs right to enforce his/her consumer rights. For me, personally, this is MONUMENTAL overreaction. It's had 2 warning lights FFS!! I mean, seriously?!
Each to their own, and again, and if the OP is within his/her rights then fair enough (even if I don't agree with it!)
Which is an incredible achievement given my hatred of dealers in general.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff