996 engine/transmission failures - action time
Discussion
I own a 1999 C2 996 Manual (3.4 engine) which was originally bought from an Official Porsche Centre in the UK and all services have been carried out by OPCs since.
It has had an engine and transmission replaced already due to internal component failures. It has had the usual leaking RMS problems.
Recently the car went in for its annual service. The car was fine when it left me and but after the service had been carried out and during the final road test I was told that it developed a major engine problem which has subsequently been diagnosed as a big end bearing failure which requires another engine replacement.
The car is now out of warranty and I have been informed by PCGB that because of this and the age and mileage of the car, they will not cover the costs. They have offered to make a contribution, but I’m still facing a very big bill.
There is plenty of information around on forums about the RMS oil leaks and engine failures due to liners cracking and bearings breaking up in 996s and Boxsters. Transmissions also seem to be a problem. Some owners have received 'goodwill' FOC replacements and others have been left to pick up the bill. Is this just a case of who shouts loudest or complains the most gets the goodwill and rest are left to find more money to pour into a car which has already depreciated more than any almost any other Porsche model in history?
I do not want to be a cause of further depreciation but isn’t it about time something was done about this situation? If the number of failures occurring is a small percentage then it would be in Porsche’s interest to simply replace them FOC and keep their customers happy. If it is such a big issue that they don’t want to spend the money doing this, we all should be made aware.
A few people in the past have tried to gather information, set up websites etc. to bring this out into the open but don’t seem to have got very far. I would like to do something not just to sort out my own situation but also to help all 996 and Boxster owners, past and present, receive fair treatment from Porsche.
To start with I'd like to hear your stories, good and bad. So if you've suffered an engine or transmission failure with your 996 or Boxster, please let me know the VIN/chassis number, year, model and mileage when it happened, description of fault/failure and what the result was (warranty replacement, goodwill replacement, contribution or no help given).
Please post here or e-mail me privately:
mrphish@dial.pipex.com
All personal information will be treated in the strictest confidence. No names or e-mail addresses will be released to anyone without the consent of the contributor.
Please feel free to copy or e-mail this post to anyone you know who has had engine or transmission failures and help get the truth out in the open.
It has had an engine and transmission replaced already due to internal component failures. It has had the usual leaking RMS problems.
Recently the car went in for its annual service. The car was fine when it left me and but after the service had been carried out and during the final road test I was told that it developed a major engine problem which has subsequently been diagnosed as a big end bearing failure which requires another engine replacement.
The car is now out of warranty and I have been informed by PCGB that because of this and the age and mileage of the car, they will not cover the costs. They have offered to make a contribution, but I’m still facing a very big bill.
There is plenty of information around on forums about the RMS oil leaks and engine failures due to liners cracking and bearings breaking up in 996s and Boxsters. Transmissions also seem to be a problem. Some owners have received 'goodwill' FOC replacements and others have been left to pick up the bill. Is this just a case of who shouts loudest or complains the most gets the goodwill and rest are left to find more money to pour into a car which has already depreciated more than any almost any other Porsche model in history?
I do not want to be a cause of further depreciation but isn’t it about time something was done about this situation? If the number of failures occurring is a small percentage then it would be in Porsche’s interest to simply replace them FOC and keep their customers happy. If it is such a big issue that they don’t want to spend the money doing this, we all should be made aware.
A few people in the past have tried to gather information, set up websites etc. to bring this out into the open but don’t seem to have got very far. I would like to do something not just to sort out my own situation but also to help all 996 and Boxster owners, past and present, receive fair treatment from Porsche.
To start with I'd like to hear your stories, good and bad. So if you've suffered an engine or transmission failure with your 996 or Boxster, please let me know the VIN/chassis number, year, model and mileage when it happened, description of fault/failure and what the result was (warranty replacement, goodwill replacement, contribution or no help given).
Please post here or e-mail me privately:
mrphish@dial.pipex.com
All personal information will be treated in the strictest confidence. No names or e-mail addresses will be released to anyone without the consent of the contributor.
Please feel free to copy or e-mail this post to anyone you know who has had engine or transmission failures and help get the truth out in the open.
At this stage I don't want to give too many specific details on my case. Suffice to say that the mileage is probably slightly above average for a 996, but not one that would warrant a 3rd engine in anyone's opinion.
The point is, if I had wanted a car that cost me a fortune to maintain, I wouldn't have bought a 911 in the first place. I did, because I was under the impression that a Porsche 911 is a quality product - well designed, well engineered and reliable. Now that may be the case for the majority of the cars they produce, but there has been enough reports now of early 996s and Boxsters suffering major engine and transmission failures that surely we must question the design and/or manufacturing integrity of these models.
If there are inherent design faults which means that an engine is more likely to fail prematurely in normal use then why should I as the customer be expected to pay for it whether covered by warranty or not?
It's a bad situation and Porsche should not put their reputation on the line by ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
The point is, if I had wanted a car that cost me a fortune to maintain, I wouldn't have bought a 911 in the first place. I did, because I was under the impression that a Porsche 911 is a quality product - well designed, well engineered and reliable. Now that may be the case for the majority of the cars they produce, but there has been enough reports now of early 996s and Boxsters suffering major engine and transmission failures that surely we must question the design and/or manufacturing integrity of these models.
If there are inherent design faults which means that an engine is more likely to fail prematurely in normal use then why should I as the customer be expected to pay for it whether covered by warranty or not?
It's a bad situation and Porsche should not put their reputation on the line by ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
Funny, there was a reply to my original post which seems to have disappeared. Can you delete a post on this forum?
Anyway, I'm interested to hear if Tim got a result.
The current state of play is that I have had numerous e-mails from 996 & Boxster owners here and in the States and I am now looking into forming an action group to bring these issues into the open. All I want is for Porsche to be truthful about the level of problems they have been experiencing with these engines and other major 996/Boxster components so that their current and future customers know what to expect from ownership.
If my experience is unusual then I can accept that but I would expect a manufacturer of any quality product which exibits premature failures to stand up, admit their errors and compensate me fully for them.
Want to know the facts?
The facts are that if you have a 996/997/Boxster with an engine that isn't based on the GT1 block (i.e. C2, C4, Boxster, Boxster S) then the chances of you experiencing a total engine failure through a cracked bore liner, intermediate shaft failure or main bearing failure are much higher than any other Porsche model.
If you are prepared to accept the risk that by owning or buying one of these cars out of warranty you may face a £9,000 bill for an engine replacement or a £5,000 bill for a gearbox some time soon then that's fine, but you should at least be told. And you'll be paying £800 for RMS replcements several times over if you're really unlucky.
Ultimately it boils down to Porsche cutting costs to increase profitability. They care more about the bottom line and volume sales than engineering excellence and customer satisfaction these days.
These are the facts and I challenge Porsche or anyone else to prove me wrong.
Anyway, I'm interested to hear if Tim got a result.
The current state of play is that I have had numerous e-mails from 996 & Boxster owners here and in the States and I am now looking into forming an action group to bring these issues into the open. All I want is for Porsche to be truthful about the level of problems they have been experiencing with these engines and other major 996/Boxster components so that their current and future customers know what to expect from ownership.
If my experience is unusual then I can accept that but I would expect a manufacturer of any quality product which exibits premature failures to stand up, admit their errors and compensate me fully for them.
Want to know the facts?
The facts are that if you have a 996/997/Boxster with an engine that isn't based on the GT1 block (i.e. C2, C4, Boxster, Boxster S) then the chances of you experiencing a total engine failure through a cracked bore liner, intermediate shaft failure or main bearing failure are much higher than any other Porsche model.
If you are prepared to accept the risk that by owning or buying one of these cars out of warranty you may face a £9,000 bill for an engine replacement or a £5,000 bill for a gearbox some time soon then that's fine, but you should at least be told. And you'll be paying £800 for RMS replcements several times over if you're really unlucky.
Ultimately it boils down to Porsche cutting costs to increase profitability. They care more about the bottom line and volume sales than engineering excellence and customer satisfaction these days.
These are the facts and I challenge Porsche or anyone else to prove me wrong.
fulham911club said:
Well failures may be higher than previous models but on the whole the number of such problems are still very small. Look how many 996 have been made and then look at number of failures / serious problems. I think then when you are actaully armed with the facts (rather than speculation) you will find the reliability is very good and way above average for standard cars nevermind performance cars.
So you know the number of failures/serious problems?
Please tell us.
In any case, you are missing my point. It doesn't really matter if there's been 20, 200 or 20000 failures. The point is that the vast majority of serious engine failures we have information about fall into a very few common categories. There is a trend here but rather than admit to design faults Porsche's response is always to deny it's happening and say "buy a new engine Mr Customer".
I'm sure you are tired of hearing about it. That's because the problems are not going away and will only get worse the more time goes on.
fulham911club said:
And if it was indeed 20,000 then I think perhaps the problem would have been fixed.
How do you know it isn't that number? You don't, I don't and Porsche aren't telling us. Why wouldn't they reveal the numbers if they are insignificant?
Also, I am quite aware that cars go wrong. If I had to pay for say an RMS replacement, I would be a bit disgruntled but would take it on the chin.
But to expect to have another engine let go 50,000 miles after the first one has been replaced is not reasonable.
Regarding warranties, yes it's a calculated risk if you don't take out an extended warranty. IF I had been warned that a second engine failure in my car was a distinct possibility then sure I would have taken out a warranty, no question.
But every time I have spoken to my dealer about the problems with my car I have been told that they have never seen a problem like that before and I must be unlucky.
They are telling lies and covering up.
Yes, the complacency of Porsche owners here and on other forums is disgusting.
300 Freelander owners managed to get themselves together to start a class action against MG Rover and that was over a head gasket!
The trouble with owning a Porsche is that everyone (including Porsche it seems) thinks that you must be rich and that you won't kick up a fuss if presented with a £10,000 bill after a service.
Oh, and that's for a car that's worth £25,000 now, if I'm lucky.
300 Freelander owners managed to get themselves together to start a class action against MG Rover and that was over a head gasket!
The trouble with owning a Porsche is that everyone (including Porsche it seems) thinks that you must be rich and that you won't kick up a fuss if presented with a £10,000 bill after a service.
Oh, and that's for a car that's worth £25,000 now, if I'm lucky.
Write to Andy Goss at PCGB pointing out that the car was in the dealer's possession at the time of the failure and that you do not accept it it was "co-incidental". Copy the letter to Porsche in Germany so they know what's going on in the UK. The main thing is don't give in. My case and a couple of others I am aware of are ongoing and the more support we can give each other, the stronger we will be.
For that amount of money you can take PCGB to the small claims court which would mean minimal financial risk on your part but would be very harmful to Porsche, especially when it got out to the press.
Soon, Porsche will get fed up with all the hassle and negative publicity and start treating their customers with some respect. Right now, they insult us with their arrogant, complacent behaviour. In time, it has to change or they're sales figures will be affected and that's all they actually care about.
For that amount of money you can take PCGB to the small claims court which would mean minimal financial risk on your part but would be very harmful to Porsche, especially when it got out to the press.
Soon, Porsche will get fed up with all the hassle and negative publicity and start treating their customers with some respect. Right now, they insult us with their arrogant, complacent behaviour. In time, it has to change or they're sales figures will be affected and that's all they actually care about.
butcherboy said:
I should mention that the dealer I purchased my vehicle from has been denying any liability for anything at all and generally not wanting to know anything about being responsible for the problem.
Nothing new there then!
Are you considering taking any action against them? Please get in contact with me if you are, as I may be able to help.
Thanks
MP
Apologies to everyone for keeping this thread alive, but while you've all been discussing the joys of Porsche ownership I've been forking out more money to the solicitor, writing more letters and driving around in an old clunker while this case drags on and on because the OPC doesn't want to admit responsibility for their actions.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though and when this sorry state of affairs reaches a conclusion, I reckon most people on here will be a surprised and even a little shocked when they hear the full story.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though and when this sorry state of affairs reaches a conclusion, I reckon most people on here will be a surprised and even a little shocked when they hear the full story.
magic torch said:
Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for the original poster, his issues are more with the way he's been treated.
Correct. What at first appeared to be a major issue only with the car has turned into a much bigger issue with the attitude and competence of the people in the OPC.
I'm not picking on Porsche as having a poor reliability record compared to other manufacturers. In fact I am well aware of the problems BMW and Mercedes (just to name a couple of others) owners experience these days. In general, the manufacturers are building cars to a price and not over engineering as they were in the good old days when they weren't making as much profit.
I can accept that things break. I always keep in mind that "The universe tends towards chaos", however, something is wrong when everyone in PCGB and the OPCs still deny that they have seen the same problem occur twice when we know they have.
Just to reiterate the 'common' failures (i.e. the ones that I have found to have occurred several times through my limited research):
Liner failures
Intermediate shaft bearing failures
Engine main bearing failures (usually No.6)
magic torch said:
If you'll allow me a sweeping generalisation here, if there was a design fault, some North American Lawyers would have profited from it.
Well, maybe they have and we haven't heard about it. Out of court settlements... Porsche N.America are more likely to sort out litigious claims before it gets anywhere near court because of this very reason. PCGB and the OPCs like to think they can use bullying tactics to force UK owners into submission. That's my experience and I have several real life cases I could quote to prove my point, but that's going to wait until my case is settled.
Edited by mr phish on Tuesday 14th November 09:33
For those of you who might be interested in where I am with this case, the sorry story is that the dispute with the OPC is still ongoing nearly 2.5 years since the engine failure.
Despite overwhelming evidence in my favour, the OPC have continued to deny any responsibility for their actions forcing me to go down the court route. Their attitude seems to be to bury their heads in the sand and hope I go away rather than admit their mistakes and compensate me for my loss.
Anyway, there is light at the end of the tunnel and I hope to be able to reveal the full story sometime in the new year.
Until then, Happy christmas everyone!
Despite overwhelming evidence in my favour, the OPC have continued to deny any responsibility for their actions forcing me to go down the court route. Their attitude seems to be to bury their heads in the sand and hope I go away rather than admit their mistakes and compensate me for my loss.
Anyway, there is light at the end of the tunnel and I hope to be able to reveal the full story sometime in the new year.
Until then, Happy christmas everyone!
Vesuvius 996 said:
Why has it taken two and half years FFS!
A combination of me trying to find a way to get a fair settlement without going to the court, them dragging their heels and avoiding our requests for information, time spent researching and compiling various expert reports and the general slow pace of the legal system. The amount of money involved here means we couldn't go to the small claims court or fast-track it and we have to be seen to make every effort to give them a fair chance to settle before it goes to court. I'm sure you know more about this sort of thing than I do anyway!Vesuvius 996 said:
Are you suing them or not?
Yes I am and I am all for dragging them through the courts and exposing them as the scoundrels they are, but I still suspect they will try and come up with an offer at the very last minute to avoid the negative publicity and probable higher costs involved.Baz
I think that's indeed the way these matters often play out - an individual with limited means has a justifiable grievance against a large corporate company but does not have the time, determination, money or patience to take it through our legal system.
I suppose that's why the small claims court procedure came into existence. However, where larger sums of money are involved we have no choice but to employ the services of a laywer and face the inevitable timescales and costs. Inevitably, the corporate will be better positioned than the individual to sit it out and find the money for the ongoing costs involved in defending themselves, then if it looks like they will lose in court, they will usually settle out of court at the very last moment.
My research has uncovered several cases of individuals who have had very good cases against Porsche or an OPC for product defects or plain negligence but in almost every case the owner has backed down and paid up or Porsche have made an offer just before the court date. The case you refer to is the only one I've heard of in recent years where it's gone to court, but maybe crucially they were an indy rather than an OPC.
In my case, I decided early on that I wasn't going to give in. I also employed the services of a very good law firm and some well respected experts to examine the evidence and report on their findings (I have also got insurance which effectively covers a large part of my costs if I don't win the case!) so I am in a very strong position and counsel agrees on this.
Despite all the evidence being stacked against them, the OPC has not made any attempt to settle the dispute fairly and so they will now face the consequences of their actions and the inevitable bad publicity they will get when they lose.
But I do realise that what I've done may not be an option for a lot of people. All I would say is that Porsche and the OPCs will always do their best to wriggle out of anything which is their fault but if more unhappy owners were prepared to dig their heels in and fight their case, it would eventually have a positive effect on the way they treat their customers.
For me, as I've probably stated before, it really doesn't matter as I am not interested in the Porsche brand any more. The cars are good when they work, but the company and dealer network need a good slap to knock the arrogance and complacency out of them.
I think that's indeed the way these matters often play out - an individual with limited means has a justifiable grievance against a large corporate company but does not have the time, determination, money or patience to take it through our legal system.
I suppose that's why the small claims court procedure came into existence. However, where larger sums of money are involved we have no choice but to employ the services of a laywer and face the inevitable timescales and costs. Inevitably, the corporate will be better positioned than the individual to sit it out and find the money for the ongoing costs involved in defending themselves, then if it looks like they will lose in court, they will usually settle out of court at the very last moment.
My research has uncovered several cases of individuals who have had very good cases against Porsche or an OPC for product defects or plain negligence but in almost every case the owner has backed down and paid up or Porsche have made an offer just before the court date. The case you refer to is the only one I've heard of in recent years where it's gone to court, but maybe crucially they were an indy rather than an OPC.
In my case, I decided early on that I wasn't going to give in. I also employed the services of a very good law firm and some well respected experts to examine the evidence and report on their findings (I have also got insurance which effectively covers a large part of my costs if I don't win the case!) so I am in a very strong position and counsel agrees on this.
Despite all the evidence being stacked against them, the OPC has not made any attempt to settle the dispute fairly and so they will now face the consequences of their actions and the inevitable bad publicity they will get when they lose.
But I do realise that what I've done may not be an option for a lot of people. All I would say is that Porsche and the OPCs will always do their best to wriggle out of anything which is their fault but if more unhappy owners were prepared to dig their heels in and fight their case, it would eventually have a positive effect on the way they treat their customers.
For me, as I've probably stated before, it really doesn't matter as I am not interested in the Porsche brand any more. The cars are good when they work, but the company and dealer network need a good slap to knock the arrogance and complacency out of them.
Vesuvius 996 said:
bcnrml said:
So, Vesuvius and Baz, should Mr Phish back down? Or should he have never even started anyway?
Wonder why Porsche behaves differently in the US and Germany compared to the UK (prices, warranties, extras, etc)?
Could it be because the US is litigious, the Germans demanding (rightly so), both markets having consumers that are determined to get what they paid for (and expressing it by fighting when they must, as the culture allows)?
Meanwhile we in the UK, culturally, think it is okay to back down and accept it, because "it isn't worth the hassle."
Sorry, guys, I'm with Mr Phish's position. If you are well prepared and the evidence backs you, you will win. Even some of Vesuvius' posts on here suggest as much.
If you lose, just remember the McDonalds three (or two or four - cannot recall the number). You think the McDonalds brand didn't suffer orders of magnitude greater than their "victory"?
I really, really wish we'd stop caving in when we have good grounds to fight.
If he can afford to lose, and pay his own costs and Porsche's at 400 an hour then yes he should fight it.Wonder why Porsche behaves differently in the US and Germany compared to the UK (prices, warranties, extras, etc)?
Could it be because the US is litigious, the Germans demanding (rightly so), both markets having consumers that are determined to get what they paid for (and expressing it by fighting when they must, as the culture allows)?
Meanwhile we in the UK, culturally, think it is okay to back down and accept it, because "it isn't worth the hassle."
Sorry, guys, I'm with Mr Phish's position. If you are well prepared and the evidence backs you, you will win. Even some of Vesuvius' posts on here suggest as much.
If you lose, just remember the McDonalds three (or two or four - cannot recall the number). You think the McDonalds brand didn't suffer orders of magnitude greater than their "victory"?
I really, really wish we'd stop caving in when we have good grounds to fight.
Litigation is a risky gamble. It always is. The only people who always win are my profession.
It's not a question of it "not being worth the hassle..." it's a question of it "not being worth the risk of the consequences of losing."
Hartech is right. Before contemplating litigation you need to make a judgement call on whether the risk is worth the potential reward. The McD's soapdodgers took no risk, as they were penniless dole scroungers. They had nothing to lose. If Mr Phish fights this all the way and loses, he's looking at maybe 50k in costs. Maybe he should consider chalking it down to experience.
Principles are great, but I've seen plenty of people bankrupt because of them.
I won't go into too much detail yet, as I want to make sure the money is safely in the bank which it should be in a few days time, but I did win and it was the OPC (or more accurately their insurers) who have had to pay me the compensation and cover the costs.
I had indisputable evidence that the OPC had been negligent, but they still chose to fight it all the way to the court steps, at which point they caved in (as predicted) and then continued to stall and delay the inevitable settlement for several months more.
They could have saved themselves a lot of money if they had simply admitted they were wrong in the first place but the usual OPC/Porsche arrogant attitude took over and they lost.
I might start another thread with a few more details if anyone here is interested.
The bottom line is that Porsche and many of their dealers are getting a terrible reputation for the way they treat customers. Despite what I and others say on these forums, the product isn't half bad but the way we are treated if something goes wrong is disgusting and needs to change.
If you are considering action against Porsche or an OPC for negligence, I would heed Vesuvius' advice as unless it's a small enough claim to be handled by the SCC, you will inevitably be in for a long fight and escalating costs. BUT, if you get a good engineer, a good lawyer and you are sure of your position then go for it. There are ways and means your exposure to the costs can be minimised.
If you believe in justice then stand up for your principles and fight!
Ballcock said:
Mikeoupe said:
Mr Phish said:
I might start another thread with a few more details if anyone here is interested.
More details would be goodYours wasn't the car that was featured in a 911 mag recently .. The one the OPC ran without oil after 'servicing' it?
I know the article was a bit one sided , but I was still shocked at how the car was treated while it lay idle in the possession of that dealership.
The thing is, car ownership is a lot more than just the driving part (to me, at least).
Driving that particular car was often a lot of fun, so I suppose I can say I miss that part, but there are other cars I have driven before and since which equal or surpass it in terms of enjoyment.
What I don't miss one little bit is the "Porsche Experience". I have never spent so much time in a dealer's service reception, on the phone to a dealer, writing letters/emails/faxes to a dealer/manufacturer or with a 'relief car' on my drive than I did during the few years I owned that 996. And I dealt with more than one OPC during that time.
Maybe I had a 'Friday car'. Maybe I was just unlucky. Either way, I didn't feel I was valued as a customer, either by PCGB or the OPCs. Never mind, I won't be troubling them with my business ever again.
So, overall, I don't miss it at all. For me, owning a 911 was mainly a painful experience.
Driving that particular car was often a lot of fun, so I suppose I can say I miss that part, but there are other cars I have driven before and since which equal or surpass it in terms of enjoyment.
What I don't miss one little bit is the "Porsche Experience". I have never spent so much time in a dealer's service reception, on the phone to a dealer, writing letters/emails/faxes to a dealer/manufacturer or with a 'relief car' on my drive than I did during the few years I owned that 996. And I dealt with more than one OPC during that time.
Maybe I had a 'Friday car'. Maybe I was just unlucky. Either way, I didn't feel I was valued as a customer, either by PCGB or the OPCs. Never mind, I won't be troubling them with my business ever again.
So, overall, I don't miss it at all. For me, owning a 911 was mainly a painful experience.
That website is interesting but I think he would be better off trying to raise support to start a class action as that has a higher chance of success than either trying to get rebates or successfully sue a company like Porsche on your own.
Nevyn, you have made a valid point but I don't think the design flaws are now the central issue.
My attitude has changed since I started my recent battle with the OPC.
Having already had the experience of one engine failure and also a transmission failure during the first 30k miles of ownership, I was already well aware of the design flaws and the 'modular replacement' policy Porsche have (OPCs can't usually repair engines and boxes so even a small internal failure means a whole new unit is required).
As you say, engine failures are not exclusive to Porsche. Engines will sometimes break and that will never change, however well designed and built they are. Yes, it is annoying that Porsche won't admit to the design flaws which account for the vast majority of reported failures, but that is also not a major issue to me.
What is the issue in my mind is the way they handle the problems and complaints. That is what is wrong with this brand now. I can accept design flaws and failures as long as the manufacturer accepts they have a duty to their customers to sort out issues in a mature, timely and responsible manner but this is where it all falls down.
Nevyn, you have made a valid point but I don't think the design flaws are now the central issue.
My attitude has changed since I started my recent battle with the OPC.
Having already had the experience of one engine failure and also a transmission failure during the first 30k miles of ownership, I was already well aware of the design flaws and the 'modular replacement' policy Porsche have (OPCs can't usually repair engines and boxes so even a small internal failure means a whole new unit is required).
As you say, engine failures are not exclusive to Porsche. Engines will sometimes break and that will never change, however well designed and built they are. Yes, it is annoying that Porsche won't admit to the design flaws which account for the vast majority of reported failures, but that is also not a major issue to me.
What is the issue in my mind is the way they handle the problems and complaints. That is what is wrong with this brand now. I can accept design flaws and failures as long as the manufacturer accepts they have a duty to their customers to sort out issues in a mature, timely and responsible manner but this is where it all falls down.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff