992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject
Discussion
JerseyRoyal said:
You would bin off a car you clearly worked hard for because of a fault that could well be a faulty sealed electronic module bought in by Porsche?
If they couldn't fix it at the first attempt, absolutely. Because it could also be an electrical gremlin that takes weeks of investigation to find or pops up randomly 6 months from now.
I once sold a car after 6 months despite absolutely loving how it drove and it being faultless. During that time 2 different people drove into it and someone else tried to steal it. It spent more time in the garage than on my drive andcI fell out of love with it.
Each to their own but at this point OP doesn’t even know it’s the same fault.
Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me tbh.
It’s up to the op and obviously he’s in the right as far as consumer law goes but since he’s asking for opinions I’d be giving them another chance to fix it.
It’s not like he bought a Defender and LR have had it for 3 months because he drove through a deep puddle.
Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me tbh.
It’s up to the op and obviously he’s in the right as far as consumer law goes but since he’s asking for opinions I’d be giving them another chance to fix it.
It’s not like he bought a Defender and LR have had it for 3 months because he drove through a deep puddle.
JerseyRoyal said:
Each to their own but at this point OP doesn’t even know it’s the same fault.
Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me tbh.
It’s up to the op and obviously he’s in the right as far as consumer law goes but since he’s asking for opinions I’d be giving them another chance to fix it.
It’s not like he bought a Defender and LR have had it for 3 months because he drove through a deep puddle.
I don't see how a brand new car having two seperate faults requiring a dealership appointment in the first 6 months is any better than 1 recurring one?Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me tbh.
It’s up to the op and obviously he’s in the right as far as consumer law goes but since he’s asking for opinions I’d be giving them another chance to fix it.
It’s not like he bought a Defender and LR have had it for 3 months because he drove through a deep puddle.
I’m sure the margin on what it costs to make vs what you pay is big. The margin the company sets on their cost per unit will be tight.
This matters because all manufacturers work the same way and most of the sealed electronics come from the same suppliers.
It’s not a problem with Porsche. This is just how manufacturing is.
This matters because all manufacturers work the same way and most of the sealed electronics come from the same suppliers.
It’s not a problem with Porsche. This is just how manufacturing is.
elan362 said:
We are not an echo chamber, here to reinforce someone's view of right or wrong.
Our opinions, favourable or not, are nothing more than a straw poll.
If the OP only wants favourable responses to his opinion / approach, I respectfully suggest this is not the correct forum to have such a discussion.
I think the swingometer of opinion is at best, neutral, and more likely edging towards unreasonable at present. Though this may change if the problem cannot be resolved promptly
Agreed, not an echo chamber. The OP actually wanted to know what adjustment for usage was reasonable. He comes across as reasonable generally.Our opinions, favourable or not, are nothing more than a straw poll.
If the OP only wants favourable responses to his opinion / approach, I respectfully suggest this is not the correct forum to have such a discussion.
I think the swingometer of opinion is at best, neutral, and more likely edging towards unreasonable at present. Though this may change if the problem cannot be resolved promptly
I've already explained I've had similar issues with a new car and chose not to reject it.
What's really odd is defending companies for making a faulty premium product and expecting the consumer to avoid exercising his rights because the manufacturer of the product/reseller might lose some money (the implication being the OP should simply accept less use/enjoyment of the product to spare the manufacturer/dealer the cost).
Well, here's an idea. If more people exercised their rights instead of sucking it up, the manufacturers would have to work harder to produce a product worthy of the cost. If they fail because they can't achieve that- good!
Initially I thought the OP was just trying to get out of a massively depreciating asset, but having considered it since the day he first posted I can now totally see the logic. If I'd spent that amount of money and had what is possibly the exact same issue reoccur a second time while still within the timeframe allowed to reject then I would be doing the exact same thing.
Some years ago I bought a house off plan and it had numerous snags as well as faults that showed up later. The difference was the house appreciated with or without the issues from the day I laid out for it. Here the situation is completely the opposite and the longer it goes on, the worse it'll be. Also I could still rent the house whereas this car cannot even be driven.
My case would be to reject in favour of a replacement however, and I suspect if the OP gets his way (which he should as it's his right), the dealer will offer a replacement of same/better spec less an agreement for mileage on his. I think for goodwill I'd be countering with double HMRCs 45p or even £1/mile against whatever the dealer comes at me with.
Very interested to read the outcome, please keep this thread updated.
Some years ago I bought a house off plan and it had numerous snags as well as faults that showed up later. The difference was the house appreciated with or without the issues from the day I laid out for it. Here the situation is completely the opposite and the longer it goes on, the worse it'll be. Also I could still rent the house whereas this car cannot even be driven.
My case would be to reject in favour of a replacement however, and I suspect if the OP gets his way (which he should as it's his right), the dealer will offer a replacement of same/better spec less an agreement for mileage on his. I think for goodwill I'd be countering with double HMRCs 45p or even £1/mile against whatever the dealer comes at me with.
Very interested to read the outcome, please keep this thread updated.
I’m not defending Porsche, I’m saying that the expectation is too high.
Look at it this way. A consumer wants to pay the least possible for the thing they want. A supplier wants to get the most they can for it.
The ideal is meeting in the middle at a point both sides are comfortable with.
This dynamic doesn’t give leeway for every one of the thousands of electronic components to be 100% tested and reliable as that would drive the price of the cars up.
As I said above, op is in the right as far as his consumer rights go and if he’s not feeling the car anymore then he may as well get rid. It’s just not what I’d do.
Look at it this way. A consumer wants to pay the least possible for the thing they want. A supplier wants to get the most they can for it.
The ideal is meeting in the middle at a point both sides are comfortable with.
This dynamic doesn’t give leeway for every one of the thousands of electronic components to be 100% tested and reliable as that would drive the price of the cars up.
As I said above, op is in the right as far as his consumer rights go and if he’s not feeling the car anymore then he may as well get rid. It’s just not what I’d do.
I don't think the OP is particularly after positive or reinforcement opinions, he seems sensible.
As for the barometer of opinions it has to be massively skewed by the fact that few have had troubles with a new £200k car. It's super easy when it's not your money.
Also on the depreciation thing. It may well be a factor amongst several. It doesn't have to be the only or main one. For all we know the OP might be driving his car if it was fine rather than start a thread.
As for the barometer of opinions it has to be massively skewed by the fact that few have had troubles with a new £200k car. It's super easy when it's not your money.
Also on the depreciation thing. It may well be a factor amongst several. It doesn't have to be the only or main one. For all we know the OP might be driving his car if it was fine rather than start a thread.
I had a friend bought a very expensive tractor and the electronic gremlins started almost straight away! The dealer persuaded him to keep it and they would get it fixed. He wished he had rejected it as it caused headaches and meny lost days over the 5 years he had it and the ssues were never resolved! It might be an easy fix but then again it might be a nightmare car!
JerseyRoyal said:
I’m not defending Porsche, I’m saying that the expectation is too high.
Look at it this way. A consumer wants to pay the least possible for the thing they want. A supplier wants to get the most they can for it.
The ideal is meeting in the middle at a point both sides are comfortable with.
This dynamic doesn’t give leeway for every one of the thousands of electronic components to be 100% tested and reliable as that would drive the price of the cars up.
As I said above, op is in the right as far as his consumer rights go and if he’s not feeling the car anymore then he may as well get rid. It’s just not what I’d do.
Porsche have applied a 3 year warranty on this model. My company provide a 1yr/2000hr warranty on what we sell simply because we believe after that length of time things may start to require replacement. Our equipment requires servicing just like the car to uphold any claim against the warranty. If Porsche believe in their product to offer 3 years then they should stand by their belief in quality.Look at it this way. A consumer wants to pay the least possible for the thing they want. A supplier wants to get the most they can for it.
The ideal is meeting in the middle at a point both sides are comfortable with.
This dynamic doesn’t give leeway for every one of the thousands of electronic components to be 100% tested and reliable as that would drive the price of the cars up.
As I said above, op is in the right as far as his consumer rights go and if he’s not feeling the car anymore then he may as well get rid. It’s just not what I’d do.
This car has gone wrong twice within 6 months, potentially with the same fault reoccurring. If it was my money I'd be wondering what fix could be attempted this time that isn't going to result in the same issue further down the line.
If this had reoccurred 7 months after new then the situation would be completely different, so I (and clearly the OP) would be using what is stated in law and going in heavy while within the time to do so.
As I said before, the only difference is I'd want a replacement rather than a full get out.
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 !
Agreed!I've literally read the first page and the last page, so I could be repeating myself here so apologies.
When you say chassis fault, do we know what this means? i.e. is it one of the engine mounts, suspension, what?
I know the engine/gearbox mounts fail across most Porsche's and randomly, look up PADM failure on here and you'll find a lengthy thread on the issue. I believe the Cayman has 2 (gearbox mounts) and the 911 has 4 (engine mounts). I've had one fail on my GT4 and from the information I've read suggests if one fails the other one will shortly afterwards (touch wood so far).
Now if this is what is throwing the chassis fault, I'm going to guess the OPC has replaced the defective mount and unfortunately another has since failed. I know Porsche will only replace the defective mount only as per my experience and I had only owned the car for just over a month at this point and waited nearly 3 months for the part to come in which shows the extent of the issue.
Assuming this is the issue, the likelihood is that they would replace the next one, you could reject and let's say get another Turbo S but you've got just the same chance it would happen again anyway.
When you say chassis fault, do we know what this means? i.e. is it one of the engine mounts, suspension, what?
I know the engine/gearbox mounts fail across most Porsche's and randomly, look up PADM failure on here and you'll find a lengthy thread on the issue. I believe the Cayman has 2 (gearbox mounts) and the 911 has 4 (engine mounts). I've had one fail on my GT4 and from the information I've read suggests if one fails the other one will shortly afterwards (touch wood so far).
Now if this is what is throwing the chassis fault, I'm going to guess the OPC has replaced the defective mount and unfortunately another has since failed. I know Porsche will only replace the defective mount only as per my experience and I had only owned the car for just over a month at this point and waited nearly 3 months for the part to come in which shows the extent of the issue.
Assuming this is the issue, the likelihood is that they would replace the next one, you could reject and let's say get another Turbo S but you've got just the same chance it would happen again anyway.
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 !
No different to a Ford customer who buys a Mustang instead of a Puma. Just because someone's bought a slightly more expensive than average Porsche doesn't mean they care anymore.
BandOfBrothers said:
I'm amazed at some of the responses on here. If I'd spent £200k on a car renowned for its engineering and reliability and it had a fault in the first month that wasn't fixed at the first attempt, I'd be looking to return it to.
I'd also expect the dealership to be bending over backwards to keep me happy.
Talk about taking the glow off of what should be a very special purchase.
I'm nowhere near spending that kind of money at my local Porsche dealership, so have put up with their s
tty service and chalked it up to being an unimportant customer, but it seems like it runs right through the customer base.
Seems the famed "customer loyalty" only works one way with them.
Completely agree with this. We're not talking about some temperamental piece of vintage exotica. Porsche saved themselves money by not testing properly and getting it right in the first place. I'd also expect the dealership to be bending over backwards to keep me happy.
Talk about taking the glow off of what should be a very special purchase.
I'm nowhere near spending that kind of money at my local Porsche dealership, so have put up with their s
tty service and chalked it up to being an unimportant customer, but it seems like it runs right through the customer base.Seems the famed "customer loyalty" only works one way with them.
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
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
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.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff