GT4 strut top failure

GT4 strut top failure

Author
Discussion

Slippydiff

10,332 posts

164 months

Thursday 2nd May
quotequote all
TDT said:
Porsche has clearly determined this as an acceptable risk vs the reward in performance benefits they have been able to make wrt profit margins, weight saving, dynamics. If we think about the total number of 9x1 architecture cars that have been produced vs the number of reported failures - this is still negligible and Porsche won't say anything about it, unless there is a major case - and maybe not even in that case dependant on the circumstances. Ideally you'd want Porsche to just underwrite these items and the repair in the case of a failure or provide a strengthening kit as has been mentioned above.

I mean, are we really saying that all 9x1 cars are now untenable as a ownership proposition because of this? Absurd really.
It wouldn’t stop me buying one, but then I make conscious decision to avoid dropping ANY of my cars into large potholes, or indeed driving over kerbs (be they on the road or on a race track)
If the repair bill for the Vehicle Villain’s GT4 was £10k, I think Porsche should have made a contribution of some sort.
Cars really shouldn’t fail in this manner, I’ve never seen a steel shelled car fail thus (and I clattered a Nova SR straight up a 5” kerb at 40-50 mph as a lad. It trashed the steel wheel, the strut, the driveshaft, the wishbone (bent like a banana) but NOT the turret).
It’s a flaw in the design that shouldn’t have got past the R&D stage.

boxsey

3,358 posts

151 months

Thursday 2nd May
quotequote all
Slippydiff said:
It wouldn’t stop me buying one, but then I make conscious decision to avoid dropping ANY of my cars into large potholes, or indeed driving over kerbs (be they on the road or on a race track)
If the repair bill for the Vehicle Villain’s GT4 was £10k, I think Porsche should have made a contribution of some sort.
Cars really shouldn’t fail in this manner, I’ve never seen a steel shelled car fail thus (and I clattered a Nova SR straight up a 5” kerb at 40-50 mph as a lad. It trashed the steel wheel, the strut, the driveshaft, the wishbone (bent like a banana) but NOT the turret).
It’s a flaw in the design that shouldn’t have got past the R&D stage.
Whilst I agree that the few failures are of concern and ideally it should not happen, I can't help thinking we don't know the full story of when the VV GT4 suffered the failure. The first time they bring it up is in the video where they take it to the OPC. They don't say when and where it happened. Surely if it had happened at the knockhill trackday, it would have formed part of that video. Yet GT4s (and 991 GT3s) have now done thousands of track miles and they're clearly not dropping like flies. There were six of us on a 2 day Spa trip at the start of this month. No failures. More of us at the RS day. No failures. Lots of trackdays last year and no failures. Plenty of track kerbs were hopped on those days. This makes me believe that the failures occur in exceptional circumstances rather than normal road and track use. So I can see why Porsche is taking the stand point that it's user abuse rather than normal use.

ttdan

946 posts

134 months

Thursday 2nd May
quotequote all
It’s a nonesense Porsche not picking up the tab for this. For the relatively small cost (ie their actual cost) they could have a happy advocate in the owner and a whole heap of current and potential owners thinking warm fuzzy thoughts about them.

Instead of that we have this and many other bad smell threads spread out all across the globe.

Well done Porsche, how short sighted can you possibly be..

You can argue the toss all day long about how and why. Personally I think it’s so obviously unfit for purpose or a clear manufacturing defect for a car marketed as a track toy that to blame the owner, just because you can, is incredibly disingenuous. But, this is how these folks operate, for reasons known only to themselves.

Slippydiff

10,332 posts

164 months

Thursday 2nd May
quotequote all
ttdan said:
It’s a nonesense Porsche not picking up the tab for this. For the relatively small cost (ie their actual cost) they could have a happy advocate in the owner and a whole heap of current and potential owners thinking warm fuzzy thoughts about them.

Instead of that we have this and many other bad smell threads spread out all across the globe.

Well done Porsche, how short sighted can you possibly be..

You can argue the toss all day long about how and why. Personally I think it’s so obviously unfit for purpose or a clear manufacturing defect for a car marketed as a track toy that to blame the owner, just because you can, is incredibly disingenuous. But, this is how these folks operate, for reasons known only to themselves.
This ^
It just shouldn’t happen Steve. Period.
The forging, stamping, casting or whatever it is, should NOT fail. Personally, and from a layman’s (ish) perspective, aluminium isn’t the right material for the job, or it needs reinforcing to ensure it doesn’t fail. Though one wonders if you strengthen the turret top, whether something in the chassis leg then fails.
Maybe the turret top is “sacrificial”, but if it is, the whole chassis leg/glitch/turret is a poor design.

That should read flitch, but glitch probably isn’t too far off the truth ...

Let’s flip this on it’s head. If the front or rear subframes “occasionally” failed after a “heavy” impact/abuse, would that be in any way more acceptable ? Personally I’d say categorically not, both are critical components that should not fail under all but the heaviest impact (think huuuge accident).



Edited by Slippydiff on Thursday 2nd May 20:53

ChrisW.

3,067 posts

196 months

Thursday 2nd May
quotequote all
Well it certainly won't stop me using my GT4 as intended.
If this system is good enough for the highest performance GT cars --- it must be good enough for the GT4.
Regarding failure rates, the cost of engineering zero failures in all circumstances would create a product that nobody could afford to buy .... over-engineering put Porsche into very deep water in the 3.2 to 964 era ...
What is the inflation linked cost of a 964 in 1990 with the current cost of a 718 ?
Then compare what they can each do ... performance / accommodation / economy / toys /
Advertisement

Slippydiff

10,332 posts

164 months

Thursday 2nd May
quotequote all
ChrisW. said:
Well it certainly won't stop me using my GT4 as intended.
If this system is good enough for the highest performance GT cars --- it must be good enough for the GT4.
Regarding failure rates, the cost of engineering zero failures in all circumstances would create a product that nobody could afford to buy .... over-engineering put Porsche into very deep water in the 3.2 to 964 era ...
What is the inflation linked cost of a 964 in 1990 with the current cost of a 718 ?
Then compare what they can each do ... performance / accommodation / economy / toys /
I’m not suggesting every component in every car they build should be engineered to be zero failure Chris, but body shells (and specifically a turret top) should not fail in this manner. Period.
You’ll most likely be aware of BMW’s floor/rear subframe mount cracking issues ? Mine cracked on my CSL some 8-9 years and 60k miles into the car’s life.
The car had a full BMW service history and a BMW AUC warranty. BMW sent their representative out to inspect the car at my local dealership. Having done so they sanctioned the replacement of the boot floor/rear subframe mounting points.
This means the removal of the fuel tank and all the rear suspension and the interior trim in the rear of the car. The finished job was indistinguishable from original.
That is the way manufacturers should address issues such as failed turrets. Neither you or I have owned a 996/997 variant with a chocolate engine, had you suffered engine failure such as many have, perhaps your views of Porsche would be less rose-tinted ?? smile

jimPH

756 posts

21 months

Thursday 2nd May
quotequote all
You only need to do a quick Google to find plenty of pictures. Even GT4 cup cars are cracking, as well as 991 GT3's. Porsche have since upgraded the tower on the 992, so what does that tell you.

jimPH

756 posts

21 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
Name that Porsche:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.









Edited by jimPH on Friday 3rd May 10:47

chrisABP

885 posts

89 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
WOW! Can't think anyone can argue with that collection of images.

We will never know what the circumstances were of each of these failures but the simple fact is that it is obviously an integral weakness in the bodyshell and if Porsche aren't accepting any responsibility as seems the case then I would be looking at preventative measures to remove (or reduce) the risk. I believe there are now options of chassis braces available which owners should be considering.
Then the issue arises of OPC failing the car on a pre-warranty 111 point check as its modified......

Mad Scientist

89 posts

20 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
Personally I’ll keep using mine as intended.

If the worse happens I’ll take all of these pictures to my solicitor.

jimPH

756 posts

21 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
chrisABP said:
WOW! Can't think anyone can argue with that collection of images.

We will never know what the circumstances were of each of these failures but the simple fact is that it is obviously an integral weakness in the bodyshell and if Porsche aren't accepting any responsibility as seems the case then I would be looking at preventative measures to remove (or reduce) the risk. I believe there are now options of chassis braces available which owners should be considering.
Then the issue arises of OPC failing the car on a pre-warranty 111 point check as its modified......
You mean the chassis brace in pic 1? Which is also on a clubsport race car...

I think a dye pen inspection of the strut towers should be part of the buying process.

RevsPerMinute

1,621 posts

162 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
To be fair, it looks like a lot of those images are from the same vehicles.

In reference to the yellow GT4, whilst I do think it is a design fault and Porsche need to hold their hands up, I can understand Porsche not paying out or even contributing to the 10k bill. If they did, this would be an admission of fault and open the flood gates, even a contribution would blur the lines of responsibility and surely cause confusion with regards to insurance payouts.

jimPH

756 posts

21 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
RevsPerMinute said:
To be fair, it looks like a lot of those images are from the same vehicles.

In reference to the yellow GT4, whilst I do think it is a design fault and Porsche need to hold their hands up, I can understand Porsche not paying out or even contributing to the 10k bill. If they did, this would be an admission of fault and open the flood gates, even a contribution would blur the lines of responsibility and surely cause confusion with regards to insurance payouts.
I've deleted 10 and 14, two duplicates. Ask the rest are seperate cars. I only searched for a few minutes, this isn't all of them. I'm sure you can find plenty more.

Krikkit

15,020 posts

122 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
If the strut top part used is also used in the 911 GT and RSR models, why aren't there failures there too? Is it part of the production process?

chrisABP

885 posts

89 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
jimPH said:
chrisABP said:
WOW! Can't think anyone can argue with that collection of images.

We will never know what the circumstances were of each of these failures but the simple fact is that it is obviously an integral weakness in the bodyshell and if Porsche aren't accepting any responsibility as seems the case then I would be looking at preventative measures to remove (or reduce) the risk. I believe there are now options of chassis braces available which owners should be considering.
Then the issue arises of OPC failing the car on a pre-warranty 111 point check as its modified......
You mean the chassis brace in pic 1? Which is also on a clubsport race car...

I think a dye pen inspection of the strut towers should be part of the buying process.
https://www.spmsracing.com/shop/strut-tower-support-bracket-for-gt4


jimPH

756 posts

21 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
chrisABP said:
jimPH said:
chrisABP said:
WOW! Can't think anyone can argue with that collection of images.

We will never know what the circumstances were of each of these failures but the simple fact is that it is obviously an integral weakness in the bodyshell and if Porsche aren't accepting any responsibility as seems the case then I would be looking at preventative measures to remove (or reduce) the risk. I believe there are now options of chassis braces available which owners should be considering.
Then the issue arises of OPC failing the car on a pre-warranty 111 point check as its modified......
You mean the chassis brace in pic 1? Which is also on a clubsport race car...

I think a dye pen inspection of the strut towers should be part of the buying process.
https://www.spmsracing.com/shop/strut-tower-support-bracket-for-gt4
Yes it is then. Unfortunately it doesn't stop it breaking as you can see in pic 1.

JayK12

1,655 posts

143 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
TDT said:
Porsche has clearly determined this as an acceptable risk vs the reward in performance benefits they have been able to make wrt profit margins, weight saving, dynamics. If we think about the total number of 9x1 architecture cars that have been produced vs the number of reported failures - this is still negligible and Porsche won't say anything about it, unless there is a major case - and maybe not even in that case dependant on the circumstances. Ideally you'd want Porsche to just underwrite these items and the repair in the case of a failure or provide a strengthening kit as has been mentioned above.

I mean, are we really saying that all 9x1 cars are now untenable as a ownership proposition because of this? Absurd really.
Yes......stop playing around and buy a Radical smile

TDT

1,366 posts

60 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
chrisABP said:
All this part does really is limit how much of the impact is transferred into bonnet damage?
It braces against another part of the chassis - we then don't know want load is transferred elsewhere at that point.
Something crucial to note....for these multi-material chassis - Porsche tolerance for chassis measurements is 2mm. So if there is an impact that transfers load to the chassis, and when they measure the chassis, if it is more that 2MM out then a new chassis is required.
Big problem being that 981 chassis are not longer available.... so it's a write-off.

https://youtu.be/yvnVSTTPvkY

Translated German from the description: This video shows a modification of a Porsche Cayman GT4 body shell.
The GT4 got a new body shell because he had a small accident on the racetrack. The body has warped by more than 2 mm, which exceeds the tolerance range of the manufacturer (2mm). Since the body is a multi material mix, the bodywork must not be straightened. So we had to build a new one.

For the rear of the GT4, looks like Porsche actually added reinforcement cups/hats



not sure why they don't just have a similar solution for the front.. if that is stamped steel

Edited by TDT on Friday 3rd May 12:54

TDT

1,366 posts

60 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
JayK12 said:
Yes......stop playing around and buy a Radical smile
Lol - leave me alone!!

ChrisW.

3,067 posts

196 months

Friday 3rd May
quotequote all
Point now taken Slippy !

I'd like to believe that my KW 3 way Clubsport dampers offer better handling in extremis because they do a better job of absorbing track undulations and kerbs.

I also hope that there is so little weight on the inside wheel when I'm running a kerb that the impact is modest ...

However. if chassis are no longer available I would be concerned about the cost of a significant track-day off ... this does make a very good case for always having track-day insurance ...

As far as the mount supports are concerned, spreading the load should minimise the chance of failure and help to avoid significant collateral damage ...

I must find out more ...

Cx.

P.S. I got involved in a McLaren gearbox failure where a leaking oil seal resulted in an £18k replacement gearbox on a 4000 mile 40 month old MP4-12C ... (that had been McLaren serviced three times) ... contrast that to the current GT4 gearbox replacements. Maybe P haven't had enough failures ? Or maybe they will propose a reinforcement (which I guess I will have to pay for due to my mods !)


Edited by ChrisW. on Friday 3rd May 15:48