Views on this itemised bill for 996 rebuild.
Discussion
I've recently bought a 996 C4S about a month ago knowing it had a major engine rebuild from a renowned Bolton based specialist approximately 6,000 miles ago. The bill seemed comprehensive followed by a couple of running in services from the same outfit.
I spoke to the previous owner as well to what caused the rebuild and he advised that the car started blowing white smoke out of the exhaust one hot afternoon and after having it looked at, the bores had become ovalised and that is when he had it looked at by the guys in Bolton.
I'm happy that the car has had a rebuild as it means I don't need to worry about the IMS, RMS or other 996 specific problems. However, I have read a recent thread here where Baz from Hartech has said that there are two kinds of rebuild; one where the owner just wants it back on the road and done on the cheap and the other one where the owner wants the rebuild done on a cost no object basis with improved internals.
Hopefully, this excerpt from the invoice I've got coupled with the chat with the previous owner confirms my rebuild to be the latter. It includes an uprated IMS, uprated pistons, low temp thermostat, the previous owner also confirms that the uprated top hat cylinder liners were also used. So does Baz from Hartech or anyone else have any views on this breakdown??
I spoke to the previous owner as well to what caused the rebuild and he advised that the car started blowing white smoke out of the exhaust one hot afternoon and after having it looked at, the bores had become ovalised and that is when he had it looked at by the guys in Bolton.
I'm happy that the car has had a rebuild as it means I don't need to worry about the IMS, RMS or other 996 specific problems. However, I have read a recent thread here where Baz from Hartech has said that there are two kinds of rebuild; one where the owner just wants it back on the road and done on the cheap and the other one where the owner wants the rebuild done on a cost no object basis with improved internals.
Hopefully, this excerpt from the invoice I've got coupled with the chat with the previous owner confirms my rebuild to be the latter. It includes an uprated IMS, uprated pistons, low temp thermostat, the previous owner also confirms that the uprated top hat cylinder liners were also used. So does Baz from Hartech or anyone else have any views on this breakdown??
KungFuPanda said:
Data protection. They won't discuss what's been done to the car whilst it was under different ownership even though I have all of the previous invoices.
you csn get around thedata protection problem by contacting the previous owner and asking him/her to ring/email Hartech confirming that they can talk to you. I did this with a car I was buying that had had a rebuild similar to this....my bill,although paid for by the previous owner was £8400.How an anonymised invoice about an engine rebuild can be construed as "personal data" is beyond me and this Act is often badly quoted by those who don't understand it......... Many people hide behind the DPA unnecessarily ........
Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified –
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,
and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.
Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified –
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,
and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.
Why would the DP Act be relevant here? Isn't it just that the garage is disinclined to provide further information because they're either not of a mind to spend the time doing so and/or they anticipate there's a risk that their disclosure will put them at some future disadvantage or inconvenience?
Hi, that invoice looks like it has not had new liners fitted, just 3 pistons and then support collars around the top of the liners.
Unsure why it has had 3 pistons... It may of had an intermediate shaft bearing failure and that was why it was repaired.
It's all good though, at least it has been re-sealed and had some major parts replaced and let's face it none of that work is cheap! So a plus for the new owner..?
Mike
Unsure why it has had 3 pistons... It may of had an intermediate shaft bearing failure and that was why it was repaired.
It's all good though, at least it has been re-sealed and had some major parts replaced and let's face it none of that work is cheap! So a plus for the new owner..?
Mike
As above, I did wonder why only 3 pistons had been replaced and with "after market" versions according to the invoice. However, I'm certainly no expert when it comes to Porsche engines, but to my mind if you are replacing the pistons, you'd want all 6 doing (or is that just my mild OCD kicking in perhaps 
)
)SunDiver said:
Why would the DP Act be relevant here? Isn't it just that the garage is disinclined to provide further information because they're either not of a mind to spend the time doing so and/or they anticipate there's a risk that their disclosure will put them at some future disadvantage or inconvenience?
+1 DPA - utter rubbish, its a car not a person.KungFuPanda said:
it had a major engine rebuild from a renowned Bolton based specialist approximately 6,000 miles ago.
According to Hartech's website, their rebuilds are guaranteed for at least 12,000 miles (labour and new parts guaranteed for 24,000 miles).My experience of Hartech is that they are a decent bunch of blokes with real engineering expertise who operate extremely fairly.
I suggest you give them a call and have a chat with Grant or Tobias.
This was my reply to a similar point raised on another Internet Site.
The work done under the instruction of an owner to their own car is personal information about them and what they instructed a garage to do, what it cost etc. Like all such information (say in an HP snatch back) it remains the property of the owner at the time. We have been informed that we must not release it without that owner's permission. However with the owners permission we will and are happy to do so - what on earth is the problem with that?
I agree it is nonsense but it is the law and if (for example) we revealed those details against the previous owners permission - we have been told they could take action against us. If he didn't want that information disclosed and say it lost him a sale - however fair or unfair that is - we do not want to run the risk of paying fines.
Frankly - if a previous owner refused permission there must be some grounds for concern. I mean we may accept an order to rebuild an engine that has a scored bore say - but when we get it apart we find the pistons and crankshaft shells - while probably capable of lasting say another 5 or 10K - are in poor condition and advise their replacement. Most will but if the owner refuses - we cannot afford to pay for them ourselves and anyway we are legally only obliged to complete the job we originally accepted which was for the obvious or likely fault and not for other items that we may find slightly worn that would be inexpensive and sensible to change during the rebuild. If the owner refuses the engine may well be rebuilt with those older parts. On completion those older parts would mean that the engine would have only th e same amount of wear in those parts as any other engine with the same mileage - so it is not a detriment to the average expectations of a new buyer - especially since it also would have all new gaskets and seals, a full check over and rebuild and some new parts in vulnerable areas. We would refuse to do so with parts that rendered it unable to run reliably straight away but there is a limit to what we can force a customer to add to their rebuild -- it is their car after all.
Similarly owners that cut corners probably don't get the oil changed promptly or drive with due caution during running in - so the outcome is by no means predictable.
We also do not know what may have happened to the car after the rebuild - say a failed coolant pump or holed radiator results in further damage - revealing the exact details of the rebuild may well result in giving false confidence to the prospective buyer. There are then implications for our responsibilities under our engine rebuild guarantee.
If the previous owner gives permission to reveal the details of their rebuild there is no problem but always I would advise independent checks to assess the current condition and to be wary of a previous owner refusing permission to divulge the information.
In view of the fact that we can only describe the condition when the car left here I think that our stance actually helps protect the interests of a potential future customer by imposing a cautionary influence when previous owners don't want to divulge the details (they will have an invoice after all detailing what was done and when) and subtly informing the enquirer to dig a little deeper - making sure they know exactly what was done then and since.
Many prospective owners think we should be free to discuss what we recommended but was not done - but you know even this is a dangerous situation because while we can justify spending a lot of time discussing the intimate detail of condition with the customer who is spending circa £4 to say 8K on one job - we are simply too busy fixing the engines to spend that sort of time explaining the details of what was not done and why to all the people who are simply interested in a sale car and may never become a customer of ours anyway - and in shortening the explanation it may well come across as less of a well thought out rebuild than it actually was. The range of alternatives we offer during a rebuild is far higher than any of our competitors and during the process of discussing the rebuild with the individual customer - they gradually learn a lot about engines and rebuilds while trying to decide how far to go with it. We just do not have time to reproduce all that to several prospective new owners all phoning up for details, asking technical questions etc when at most only one is likely to buy the car - or none of them may do.
We also like to foster a long term relationship with all our customers (that and the Lifetime Maintenance Plan enable us to considerably reduce advertising costs compared to our competitors and keep overheads low and enable the R & D to continue with these engine faults) and as it is quite likely someone selling a Porsche is buying another one - if we discussed all the details of their refusals with anyone on the phone it would also feel like a disregard of their confidences that may result in them not returning with their new car.
I feel there is nothing basically wrong in only divulging information on the approval of the owner at the time and that his reaction to the request should be sufficient to make up the mind of anyone considering a purchase - and it is best all round to leave us out of the equation.
If you decide to buy a car that a previous owner had the engine rebuilt but refuses permission for the rebuilder to reveal the details - who would buy it anyway and why should we have to spend our valuable time providing information that the owner did not want revealing?
I know it is quite a sport for some contributors to find fault with anyone but themselves but in all honesty and common sense I cannot see the problem and we did not construct the act in the first place!
Baz
The work done under the instruction of an owner to their own car is personal information about them and what they instructed a garage to do, what it cost etc. Like all such information (say in an HP snatch back) it remains the property of the owner at the time. We have been informed that we must not release it without that owner's permission. However with the owners permission we will and are happy to do so - what on earth is the problem with that?
I agree it is nonsense but it is the law and if (for example) we revealed those details against the previous owners permission - we have been told they could take action against us. If he didn't want that information disclosed and say it lost him a sale - however fair or unfair that is - we do not want to run the risk of paying fines.
Frankly - if a previous owner refused permission there must be some grounds for concern. I mean we may accept an order to rebuild an engine that has a scored bore say - but when we get it apart we find the pistons and crankshaft shells - while probably capable of lasting say another 5 or 10K - are in poor condition and advise their replacement. Most will but if the owner refuses - we cannot afford to pay for them ourselves and anyway we are legally only obliged to complete the job we originally accepted which was for the obvious or likely fault and not for other items that we may find slightly worn that would be inexpensive and sensible to change during the rebuild. If the owner refuses the engine may well be rebuilt with those older parts. On completion those older parts would mean that the engine would have only th e same amount of wear in those parts as any other engine with the same mileage - so it is not a detriment to the average expectations of a new buyer - especially since it also would have all new gaskets and seals, a full check over and rebuild and some new parts in vulnerable areas. We would refuse to do so with parts that rendered it unable to run reliably straight away but there is a limit to what we can force a customer to add to their rebuild -- it is their car after all.
Similarly owners that cut corners probably don't get the oil changed promptly or drive with due caution during running in - so the outcome is by no means predictable.
We also do not know what may have happened to the car after the rebuild - say a failed coolant pump or holed radiator results in further damage - revealing the exact details of the rebuild may well result in giving false confidence to the prospective buyer. There are then implications for our responsibilities under our engine rebuild guarantee.
If the previous owner gives permission to reveal the details of their rebuild there is no problem but always I would advise independent checks to assess the current condition and to be wary of a previous owner refusing permission to divulge the information.
In view of the fact that we can only describe the condition when the car left here I think that our stance actually helps protect the interests of a potential future customer by imposing a cautionary influence when previous owners don't want to divulge the details (they will have an invoice after all detailing what was done and when) and subtly informing the enquirer to dig a little deeper - making sure they know exactly what was done then and since.
Many prospective owners think we should be free to discuss what we recommended but was not done - but you know even this is a dangerous situation because while we can justify spending a lot of time discussing the intimate detail of condition with the customer who is spending circa £4 to say 8K on one job - we are simply too busy fixing the engines to spend that sort of time explaining the details of what was not done and why to all the people who are simply interested in a sale car and may never become a customer of ours anyway - and in shortening the explanation it may well come across as less of a well thought out rebuild than it actually was. The range of alternatives we offer during a rebuild is far higher than any of our competitors and during the process of discussing the rebuild with the individual customer - they gradually learn a lot about engines and rebuilds while trying to decide how far to go with it. We just do not have time to reproduce all that to several prospective new owners all phoning up for details, asking technical questions etc when at most only one is likely to buy the car - or none of them may do.
We also like to foster a long term relationship with all our customers (that and the Lifetime Maintenance Plan enable us to considerably reduce advertising costs compared to our competitors and keep overheads low and enable the R & D to continue with these engine faults) and as it is quite likely someone selling a Porsche is buying another one - if we discussed all the details of their refusals with anyone on the phone it would also feel like a disregard of their confidences that may result in them not returning with their new car.
I feel there is nothing basically wrong in only divulging information on the approval of the owner at the time and that his reaction to the request should be sufficient to make up the mind of anyone considering a purchase - and it is best all round to leave us out of the equation.
If you decide to buy a car that a previous owner had the engine rebuilt but refuses permission for the rebuilder to reveal the details - who would buy it anyway and why should we have to spend our valuable time providing information that the owner did not want revealing?
I know it is quite a sport for some contributors to find fault with anyone but themselves but in all honesty and common sense I cannot see the problem and we did not construct the act in the first place!
Baz
SunDiver said:
Why would the DP Act be relevant here? Isn't it just that the garage is disinclined to provide further information because they're either not of a mind to spend the time doing so and/or they anticipate there's a risk that their disclosure will put them at some future disadvantage or inconvenience?
My current car is fully stamped up albeit has very few receipts (yes I know 
); when I contacted the garage that had done most of the work they wouldn't send me copies because of the DP Act! Fuming to say the least 
TX.
If you buy a car without FSH you all know the consequences and the price usually reflects it. If the previous owners give permission you can then apply for the documents but don't expect a business that has nothing to do with you any more to spend time they need to earn a living sending you details you didn't bother to get with the car.
In your position - if it means so much to you now to get the history you didn't bother with before - I would first get permission and then generously offer to compensate the garages for their time buy making a small payment and then they might very well help you out. Garages generally struggle to make a decent living these days and costs have risen far higher than the increases they can charge for their work - so if your history raises the value of your car (as I assume it would) I don't think it is unreasonable to show willing to send them something for their trouble!
Baz
In your position - if it means so much to you now to get the history you didn't bother with before - I would first get permission and then generously offer to compensate the garages for their time buy making a small payment and then they might very well help you out. Garages generally struggle to make a decent living these days and costs have risen far higher than the increases they can charge for their work - so if your history raises the value of your car (as I assume it would) I don't think it is unreasonable to show willing to send them something for their trouble!
Baz
In all honesty, it is extremely difficult to say hand-on-heart this rebuild is the latter (i.e. the bells and whistle as though the owner was going to keep it).
A full rebuild involves changing liners, possibly re-machining the water ways to provide better cooling (i.e. address some of the contributory features) that quite simply replacing the old engine with a new one will not achieve.
The price of a bells n whistle total rebuild I would say is more in the £10k figure.
Baz makes a good point - in effect he is saying there's rebuilds and there's rebuilds. They advise on what's needed, what would be good to change and do at the same time as the engine is out. BUT it is down to the owner what he/she wants to do. That in turn is based on what the outcomes they are seeking - do they want to hold the car for years or just a patch-up repair and get it sold quickly.
The fact that the vehicle was on sale at a dealership known to trade cars on SOR on behalf of private punters questions why anybody would spend on a bells n whistle rebuild to sell straight away.
So my contribution is that a rebuild is good, how much advisory stuff that was ignored is anybody's guess. That questions how long the rebuild will last.
Secondly, asking thge seller's permission after the sale is a waste of time. Caveat emptor! Now the car is owned by the purchaser, he has to live with the decision - and keep that slush fund handy in case it is needed!
Personally, I wouldn't spend a fortune on a NA car's rebuild and then sell it.
But I may spend just enough to have it patched up with the bare minimum (essentials?)and then sell it on quick.
A full rebuild involves changing liners, possibly re-machining the water ways to provide better cooling (i.e. address some of the contributory features) that quite simply replacing the old engine with a new one will not achieve.
The price of a bells n whistle total rebuild I would say is more in the £10k figure.
Baz makes a good point - in effect he is saying there's rebuilds and there's rebuilds. They advise on what's needed, what would be good to change and do at the same time as the engine is out. BUT it is down to the owner what he/she wants to do. That in turn is based on what the outcomes they are seeking - do they want to hold the car for years or just a patch-up repair and get it sold quickly.
The fact that the vehicle was on sale at a dealership known to trade cars on SOR on behalf of private punters questions why anybody would spend on a bells n whistle rebuild to sell straight away.
So my contribution is that a rebuild is good, how much advisory stuff that was ignored is anybody's guess. That questions how long the rebuild will last.
Secondly, asking thge seller's permission after the sale is a waste of time. Caveat emptor! Now the car is owned by the purchaser, he has to live with the decision - and keep that slush fund handy in case it is needed!
Personally, I wouldn't spend a fortune on a NA car's rebuild and then sell it.
But I may spend just enough to have it patched up with the bare minimum (essentials?)and then sell it on quick.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff