992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject
Discussion
FMOB said:
Considering just how complicated the car is electronically and this error seems to have been around since the 992 arrived, Porsche don't appear to have a good handle on a proper resolution 4 years later.
I would be wondering if these sort of gremlins will be viewed as the electronic equivalent of rust going forward but harder to fix.
You could be right.I would be wondering if these sort of gremlins will be viewed as the electronic equivalent of rust going forward but harder to fix.
From what I understand, the ‘facelift’ 992.2 will incorporate even more complex technology, digital software and regulatory systems.
Koln-RS said:
FMOB said:
Considering just how complicated the car is electronically and this error seems to have been around since the 992 arrived, Porsche don't appear to have a good handle on a proper resolution 4 years later.
I would be wondering if these sort of gremlins will be viewed as the electronic equivalent of rust going forward but harder to fix.
You could be right.I would be wondering if these sort of gremlins will be viewed as the electronic equivalent of rust going forward but harder to fix.
From what I understand, the ‘facelift’ 992.2 will incorporate even more complex technology, digital software and regulatory systems.
FMOB said:
breadvan said:
Cheib said:
People are entitled to their opinions but I think it is incredibly poor that the OPC hasn’t made space in their schedule (which they do have) to get a nearly new £200k in to the workshop to get it fixed. I’d be pissed off if I was the OP !
I'm with Cheib.This is more about the OPC than the car.
£200k cannot guarantee a perfect car, it's impossible, but it should guarantee perfect customer service.
I'd want the car in the workshop immediately with a suitable response from the OPC. Where's the empathy to the OP?
We've all got war wounds from OPC treatment, if an OPC's complacency has contributed here, I've got zero sympathy.
If the response had been materially different, maybe the OP wouldn't be attempting the last resort first.
Edited by breadvan on Friday 19th April 15:01
As for the chassis error, judging by a quick Google of the internet it seems to be regular problem whether down to a dodgy battery or voltage sensing, poor build quality of the wiring or something is actually broken.
Considering just how complicated the car is electronically and this error seems to have been around since the 992 arrived, Porsche don't appear to have a good handle on a proper resolution 4 years later.
I would be wondering if these sort of gremlins will be viewed as the electronic equivalent of rust going forward but harder to fix.
Not sure is want to own it.
Sadly, all to common across all manufacturers now. Keeping adding stuff, without really testing its durability.
Freakuk said:
Cars go wrong, like I posted I had an issue a month into owning the car. Worth noting I bought from one dealer but took for warranty at another closer to where I live.
I'd never stepped foot into the repairing dealer up until that point, it took 2 weeks to get in for a diagnostic to confirm the failure and a further 2 months waiting for the part, now luckily the car is driveable so didn't stop me enjoying it.
But the repairing dealer got me in as soon as they could and provided a courtesy car also.
I recall years before, similar thing I had a 987.2 Boxster S which had a catastrophic electrical failure which required low loading to the dealer, again bought from one being repaired by another (warranty), they provided a brand new 981 Boxster for around 10 days as the car required quite a lot of work.
Surely the dealer in question here should be providing similar now given it's the 2nd issue in nearly 6 months?
I'm amused by your use of catastrophic. I'd never stepped foot into the repairing dealer up until that point, it took 2 weeks to get in for a diagnostic to confirm the failure and a further 2 months waiting for the part, now luckily the car is driveable so didn't stop me enjoying it.
But the repairing dealer got me in as soon as they could and provided a courtesy car also.
I recall years before, similar thing I had a 987.2 Boxster S which had a catastrophic electrical failure which required low loading to the dealer, again bought from one being repaired by another (warranty), they provided a brand new 981 Boxster for around 10 days as the car required quite a lot of work.
Surely the dealer in question here should be providing similar now given it's the 2nd issue in nearly 6 months?
Was once pulling some training on reliability and technical risk assessment, on a contract I had with Rolls Royce civil jet engines.
On one of the slides, I used the word catastrophic.
One of the chief design engineers explained to me that in aerospace the word is only used to describe a really really really really bad thing. Like the whole plane exploding into 50000 pieces mid air.
What you had, was an event. In military terms you were unable to finish your mission. However, If your electrical system caused the car to go on fire, And trapped you in it, and you burned to death, then that would have been catastrophic.
If the whole car burned to dust but you were able to get out, that still wouldn't be catastrophic.
But as you are still here it was less catastrophic and more customer very pissed off because it could have happened somewhere dangerous, in a live lane of a dark motorway.
This is not to suggest in any way, that you didn't have the right to be both scared and angry, which a good dealer could temper by exceptional service, and a s
t dealer make worse by treating you like dog dirt on his brown shoes. 
I did email the DP again on Thursday, 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 has previously promised in writing to come back yesterday with an update, which, so far I haven't received. I'll see what happens on Monday.
I've been doing more research on the CRA 2015 and came across a Department fro Business, Innovation and Skills document entitled CRA Goods-Guidance for Business.
The section under final right to reject-Making a deduction for use (pages 50-53) is interesting and relating to motor vehicles, clearly states- Note that the deduction must be calculated based on the use the consumer had from the goods, ie mileage and NOT the second-hand value of the goods. They also have to justify the deduction they offer, which I don't have to accept. That would appear to remove the dealer's opportunity to build in depreciation.
He has previously promised in writing to come back yesterday with an update, which, so far I haven't received. I'll see what happens on Monday.
I've been doing more research on the CRA 2015 and came across a Department fro Business, Innovation and Skills document entitled CRA Goods-Guidance for Business.
The section under final right to reject-Making a deduction for use (pages 50-53) is interesting and relating to motor vehicles, clearly states- Note that the deduction must be calculated based on the use the consumer had from the goods, ie mileage and NOT the second-hand value of the goods. They also have to justify the deduction they offer, which I don't have to accept. That would appear to remove the dealer's opportunity to build in depreciation.
funboxster said:
I did email the DP again on Thursday, 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 has previously promised in writing to come back yesterday with an update, which, so far I haven't received. I'll see what happens on Monday.
I've been doing more research on the CRA 2015 and came across a Department fro Business, Innovation and Skills document entitled CRA Goods-Guidance for Business.
The section under final right to reject-Making a deduction for use (pages 50-53) is interesting and relating to motor vehicles, clearly states- Note that the deduction must be calculated based on the use the consumer had from the goods, ie mileage and NOT the second-hand value of the goods. They also have to justify the deduction they offer, which I don't have to accept. That would appear to remove the dealer's opportunity to build in depreciation.
It may be that if the OPC were to make you an offer based on usage which you could not agree, were this to be taken to court to be settled and the compensation judged to be less generous than the offer originally made by the OPC and refused by yourself, then you could be liable for their costs.He has previously promised in writing to come back yesterday with an update, which, so far I haven't received. I'll see what happens on Monday.
I've been doing more research on the CRA 2015 and came across a Department fro Business, Innovation and Skills document entitled CRA Goods-Guidance for Business.
The section under final right to reject-Making a deduction for use (pages 50-53) is interesting and relating to motor vehicles, clearly states- Note that the deduction must be calculated based on the use the consumer had from the goods, ie mileage and NOT the second-hand value of the goods. They also have to justify the deduction they offer, which I don't have to accept. That would appear to remove the dealer's opportunity to build in depreciation.
As in the recent Hugh Grant / Mirror ? phone hacking case .... where Grant accepted an offer because he couldn't afford the potential costs, even though he wanted judgement in his favour ??
ChrisW. said:
It may be that if the OPC were to make you an offer based on usage which you could not agree, were this to be taken to court to be settled and the compensation judged to be less generous than the offer originally made by the OPC and refused by yourself, then you could be liable for their costs.
As in the recent Hugh Grant / Mirror ? phone hacking case .... where Grant accepted an offer because he couldn't afford the potential costs, even though he wanted judgement in his favour ??
Yes, I accept that, so let the bartering begin. The sales manager at the OPC has left a message to ring him this morning, so I'm guessing they want me to come in for a meeting. As in the recent Hugh Grant / Mirror ? phone hacking case .... where Grant accepted an offer because he couldn't afford the potential costs, even though he wanted judgement in his favour ??
nickfrog said:
That's where Porsche GB or GmbH should in an ideal world support and help absorb some of the losses out of the original gross margin at their level or at factory level.
Porsche AG are the one's that have to authorise repair work/methods in a case where there are continuous/repeated faults. OPC Tech's send report to them and they advise course of action. I assume from that they have some liability too.Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff