Front ceramic brake discs. Started process today
Discussion
I spoke to a couple of guys at the recent terminal velocity event in woodbridge suffolk about my front cermamics on my GT2 clubsport (april 2003). It appeared that people had had experinces of these discs causing MOT failure due to pitting of the surface. It was pointed out that mine looked like they were going that way and at £7k a pair....its not that funny.
I took the car in this morning and so far have an admission from their tech that the discs def aren't right. They've taken som photos and will send to Porsche GB and let me know. The reason for posting is that I'm sure it won't all be this easy and I remember that one person had been successfully thru the process by writing to porsche UK. Any help along the way would be greatly appreciated. I'll keep you posted on my progress.
I took the car in this morning and so far have an admission from their tech that the discs def aren't right. They've taken som photos and will send to Porsche GB and let me know. The reason for posting is that I'm sure it won't all be this easy and I remember that one person had been successfully thru the process by writing to porsche UK. Any help along the way would be greatly appreciated. I'll keep you posted on my progress.
Good luck on this. They originally advertised them as having 300k km life, but all the modern literature is extremely careful to say that their life is dependant on how the car is driven, and that track days radically shorten their life.
I've got ceramics on the GT3 RS I just bought. Not looking forward to the same problem.
I wish they'd just make the discs a sensible price. 5k a corner is a joke, and thats trading in the old one. Much easier than a warranty claim that will probably need to be backed up by a lawyer. If they are only 5k as an option, there is no justification for the disc price.
i only got the car in march this year....and I haven't yet tracked it...so I have this on my side.
also it is possible to get porsche to replace these, even if they have been used for "non public road use".
I'm been assured by someone that was successful that they don't give them to you under warrantee, but as a "gesture".
I'm hoping that having had to repeat this "gesture" on a increasingly frequent basis that porsche will be more accepting of my circumstance....knowing that eventually i will be successful.....
also it is possible to get porsche to replace these, even if they have been used for "non public road use".
I'm been assured by someone that was successful that they don't give them to you under warrantee, but as a "gesture".
I'm hoping that having had to repeat this "gesture" on a increasingly frequent basis that porsche will be more accepting of my circumstance....knowing that eventually i will be successful.....
Dan,
It was me you spoke to at Woodbridge (and Henry).
The key to your argument is that you have had the car only 4-5months and done only a limited mileage with no track use. During that time the discs could not have failed so must have been wrong when the car was sold to you.
Good luck.
Guy
Guy,
I've just had the slightly predictable news from my dealer ....that they can't help me. They have advised me that if I want to take it further then I'm on my own. I have a call out for the dealer principle...but am not holding out much hope. They are citing the fact that the car is sold as a used car and they didn't know the use before! Do you have a copy of the letter you could send me...so that I can start the process at HQ. btw although I haven't tracked it yet...I assume its not going to cause major issues to take on the track with pitted disks? also...whats your guess on the price of a set of pads?
cheers
dan
I've just had the slightly predictable news from my dealer ....that they can't help me. They have advised me that if I want to take it further then I'm on my own. I have a call out for the dealer principle...but am not holding out much hope. They are citing the fact that the car is sold as a used car and they didn't know the use before! Do you have a copy of the letter you could send me...so that I can start the process at HQ. btw although I haven't tracked it yet...I assume its not going to cause major issues to take on the track with pitted disks? also...whats your guess on the price of a set of pads?
cheers
dan
911Dan said:
They are citing the fact that the car is sold as a used car and they didn't know the use before!
Interesting approach for them to take. There actions would suggest that all customers should refuse to buy used cars fitted with cermaic disks as the garage are incapable of establishing if they are verging on needing replacement?
DAZ
dazren said:
They are citing the fact that the car is sold as a used car and they didn't know the use before!
Interesting approach for them to take. There actions would suggest that all customers should refuse to buy used cars fitted with cermaic disks as the garage are incapable of establishing if they are verging on needing replacement?
DAZ
Had this problem with my car. I asked if their should be a 10k spread on used car prices if fitted with ceramics (depending on wear), or would they offer me a guarantee as to how long I could expect them to last. Best I could secure was agreement they'd back me in a warranty claim if they fail early.
Its all very clever technology, but frankly they are having a laugh on the pricing front. Can't wait until some Boxster owners need some replacements and get told that a set of 4 will be half the value of the car. That'll go down well...
DanH said:
911Dan said:
They are citing the fact that the car is sold as a used car and they didn't know the use before!
Interesting approach for them to take. There actions would suggest that all customers should refuse to buy used cars fitted with cermaic disks as the garage are incapable of establishing if they are verging on needing replacement?
DAZ
Had this problem with my car. I asked if their should be a 10k spread on used car prices if fitted with ceramics (depending on wear), or would they offer me a guarantee as to how long I could expect them to last. Best I could secure was agreement they'd back me in a warranty claim if they fail early.
Its all very clever technology, but frankly they are having a laugh on the pricing front. Can't wait until some Boxster owners need some replacements and get told that a set of 4 will be half the value of the car. That'll go down well...
They'll just do the sensible thing and put a set of steel discs in. Maybe 2.5k for each axle, assuming replacement calipers as well. Quite a few 996 drivers have already gone down this route.
Full details on the latest Alcon steels for front and rear are here (I'm assuming a cross-post is ok?):
www.stuttgartnines.co.uk/upload/showthread.php?t=1743&page=1&pp=10&highlight=alcon
Cheapest option of GT3 steel discs is only circa £500-£600 per set for the front.
Re OPC, they have no sway really, write directly to the head of Porsche GB, stating period of ownership and use etc and how dis-appointed you are and how they were like that when sold to you etc. Good luck!
Guy
www.stuttgartnines.co.uk/upload/showthread.php?t=1743&page=1&pp=10&highlight=alcon
Cheapest option of GT3 steel discs is only circa £500-£600 per set for the front.
Re OPC, they have no sway really, write directly to the head of Porsche GB, stating period of ownership and use etc and how dis-appointed you are and how they were like that when sold to you etc. Good luck!
Guy
I think this whole ceramic deal is a joke.
I went to my local Porsche dealer to look at a GT3RS.
He was eager to tell me how good the ceramic brakes were.
Not as eager as I was in telling him they were no good for track days.
I also asked about the warranty that applies to the ceramic brakes. The warranty applies only if the car is not used on the track.
I then asked what the car was designed for.
"Track use" ha ha ha
The only words that sprung to mind, but thankfully not spoken - "Are you totally f***ing thick!?"
I think Porsche are going to come very unstuck with this situation.
Its a smple fact they are playing foul of the Sales of Goods Act.
The goods must be fit for the purpose intended.
Get your solicitor to write to them threatening to take action unless they address the problem.
I went to my local Porsche dealer to look at a GT3RS.
He was eager to tell me how good the ceramic brakes were.
Not as eager as I was in telling him they were no good for track days.
I also asked about the warranty that applies to the ceramic brakes. The warranty applies only if the car is not used on the track.
I then asked what the car was designed for.
"Track use" ha ha ha
The only words that sprung to mind, but thankfully not spoken - "Are you totally f***ing thick!?"
I think Porsche are going to come very unstuck with this situation.
Its a smple fact they are playing foul of the Sales of Goods Act.
The goods must be fit for the purpose intended.
Get your solicitor to write to them threatening to take action unless they address the problem.
I think the way that they look at it is that if the disks are knackered, you must have used it on the track, as they're fine on the road.
I was reading an article in 911&PW last night comparing the GT3 and Turbo. It mentioned the ceramic disks, saying that people only chose the option if they were intending using the car on track. I don't think that the writer had ever spoken to anybody who had ever actually done that though
I was reading an article in 911&PW last night comparing the GT3 and Turbo. It mentioned the ceramic disks, saying that people only chose the option if they were intending using the car on track. I don't think that the writer had ever spoken to anybody who had ever actually done that though
james said:
I think the way that they look at it is that if the disks are knackered, you must have used it on the track, as they're fine on the road.
I was reading an article in 911&PW last night comparing the GT3 and Turbo. It mentioned the ceramic disks, saying that people only chose the option if they were intending using the car on track. I don't think that the writer had ever spoken to anybody who had ever actually done that though
That article was fairly annoying.
ChrisW. said:
There are advantages to choosing the PCCB brakes exclusively for road use.
1. No disc rusting
2. Long long life
3. Reduced unsprung weight
4. Great looks
5. Arguably better performance
What advantages are there to trashing them on the track ?
I'd add:
6. The wheels don't get covered in brake dust and just wash off as easily as the rest of the car
A part of section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 may offer some light on the subject:
[(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.
(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods--
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability.
(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory--
(a) which is specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made,
(b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c) in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]
(3) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known--
(a) to the seller, or
(b) where the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments and the goods were previously sold by a credit-broker to the seller, to that credit-broker,
any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied [term] that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller or credit-broker.
(4) An implied [term] about quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.
I particularly look to subsection 2A and 2B for comfort in this matter.
The description and price element of 2A would seem to suggest that a 'reasonable person' may expect PCCB to last more than a few thousand miles before showing signs of premature wear. YOu would need to show the the signs of premature wear are indicators of poor perfamance, not just cosmetic 'wear'.
Subsection 2B(a) seems to cober the use of a GT3 or GT3RS on a track - I expect it would be interpreted that track use is one of "all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied.."
Subsection 2B(e) seems to be at the heart of th ecomplaint.
Good luck!
[(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.
(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods--
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability.
(2C) The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory--
(a) which is specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made,
(b) where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c) in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]
(3) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known--
(a) to the seller, or
(b) where the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments and the goods were previously sold by a credit-broker to the seller, to that credit-broker,
any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied [term] that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller or credit-broker.
(4) An implied [term] about quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed to a contract of sale by usage.
I particularly look to subsection 2A and 2B for comfort in this matter.
The description and price element of 2A would seem to suggest that a 'reasonable person' may expect PCCB to last more than a few thousand miles before showing signs of premature wear. YOu would need to show the the signs of premature wear are indicators of poor perfamance, not just cosmetic 'wear'.
Subsection 2B(a) seems to cober the use of a GT3 or GT3RS on a track - I expect it would be interpreted that track use is one of "all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied.."
Subsection 2B(e) seems to be at the heart of th ecomplaint.
Good luck!
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff