Horror Story
06-14-2008, 12:07 PM
#1
AutoX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horror Story
The following is my horror story. I am posting this under a different ID and I have removed names because of pending litigation. I grew up in a family of Porsches and have owned several in the past. This car was going to be my keeper for the next 15 years. Now it is a terrible mess that has brought an unbelievable amount of grief to my life. Please understand if I can not answer certain questions that will undoubtedly arise.
Purchase
In May, 2007 I purchased 2004 Porsche 996 a from a local used car dealer that specializes in Porsche. The car had 22,548 miles on the odometer and I purchased it for $45,000 plus sales tax. The car was still under factory warranty until July 17, 2007. The sales man showed me a clean Autocheck report. As with all the cars on their lot it vehicle had two dealer applied decals in the front window, one that said “Passed Smog Check” and a second that said “Passed Safety Check”. I inquired if the car had ever been in an accident as was told it hadn’t. The salesman further stated that all their cars are inspected and that is why there is the “Passed Safety Check” decal in the window. With this I believed that the car was free of any previous damage.
June 2007
Within the first month of owning the car I noticed several problems.
1. The car pulled or drifted to the right at both highway and city speeds.
2. The steering wheel was tilted to the right when traveling in a straight line
3. The car became very unstable over rough surfaces. It felt as if the back of the car wanted to travel in a different direction than the front. This was noticeable in both a straight line as well and when cornering.
4. There were “clunking” noises that came from the front suspension when maneuvering at low speeds such as while parking.
5. There were many rattles over even small bumps.
The pulling and instability issues caused me to bring the vehicle to a local Tire Shop with a state of the art Hunter DSP 600 Laser wheel alignment machine. The alignment equipment showed that the front suspension was out of factory specification in Caster, Cross Caster, and Toe. The rear was out of specification in Camber and Toe. The mechanic was unable to improve upon the existing settings.
July 2007
The factory warranty was expiring on July 17, 2007 so I wanted to have the local Porsche dealer fix a few things while it was still under factory warrantee. The service advisor later called to inform me that the car had been badly wrecked as sometime in the past. They noted that the “car has had rear cross member replaced, most of the arms and bearing carrier replaced on the left and body work on right rear fender and roof and right door, right rear toe arm also has been replace.” As a result of this extensive crash damage they refused to perform the repairs under warranty.
After finding out about the damage from the dealer I called the salesman at the dealer who sold me the car. I voiced my concerns about the damage, the fact that it couldn’t be aligned correctly, and the fact that the Porsche dealer would not honor the factory warranty because the damage was so extensive. They assured me that there was no way it had crash damage and that their mechanic would correctly align the car.
On July 30, 2007 I dropped the car off at the Selling Dealer. They took it across the street to a shop that specializes in Porsches. The shop owner used a Hunter DSP600 Laser Wheel Alignment Machine to align the car. At the end of the day I picked up the car from the Selling Dealer and was told that it was now correctly aligned. I asked for the print out and was told that they had misplaced it but they would mail it to me. The cars handling was slightly improved but it still suffered from the same issues as before. The alignment printout arrived by mail on August 8, 2007. It showed that the car still could not be aligned within factory specification.
August 2007
I was completely consumed by selling my existing home and trying to get escrow closed on my new home.
September, October, November
Every waking moment was spent on rebuilding our new home so my family could move out of our temporary quarters.
December 2007
Over the previous months the car’s handling had become very unpredictable. On December 14, 2007 I took the car to a Tire Shop and again had the alignment checked. They put in on a Hunter DSP600 Laser Wheel Alignment Machine and I found that the alignment had slipped from its previous settings. The wheel alignment was well outside of manufacturer specifications. The mechanic was unable to bring the car within specification. Further more the mechanic noted on the printout that “Adjustments are maxed out on left rear and right rear and both front wheels”.
With this information I took it back to the dealer’s mechanic. They again put the car on their Hunter alignment machine and confirmed that the alignment was out of spec. At this time he felt that the car might have a bent strut and suggested the use of new suspension components that would allow for more adjustment. He explained that all components would be supplied by Porsche or Porsche’s OEM suppliers. I went ahead and had them order the parts the week after Christmas.
January 2008
Early January the parts arrived at the dealer’s mechanic and the work was completed on January 10, 2007. I drove the car home and found the handling even worse than before. On January 11th I took it back to the Tire Shop to find out what the alignment was set at. To my surprise the alignment was even worse than before. This prompted a call to the dealer’s mechanic and a return visit to their alignment machine. They made more adjustments including removing a 2mm shim on the divers side lower front control arm (GT3 lower arm). This “fixed” the cross camber problem buy making the control arms different lengths on each side of the car but now created an asymmetrical front track problem.
March 2008
Handling had again become unpredictable and I feared that the alignment had again slipped into a dangerous area. This time I did some research on frame measurement techniques. I found that the state of the art Chief Laser Frame Measurement equipment can very accurately determine the alignment of the a cars unibody (frame). On March 6th I took the car to a Body Shop that had the Chief Laser Frame Measurement equipment to determine the condition of the unibody. In order to mount the car on the frame machine the rocker panel covers (factory aero covers) had to be removed. This exposed un-repaired damage in the passenger side rocker panel. The car was found have been badly hit and in the rear. The rear was bent to the right and up. In addition the front of the car was bent up. On March 11th they informed me that they were able to pull the rear unibody to within manufacturer’s specification but there was no possible way to bring the front of the car within spec.
I then called the Selling Dealer and informed them of the problem. They asked me to fax over the information. I said that I would bring it with me and show it to the owner of the dealership. The owner refused to meet with me.
Now that the rear of the car was relatively straight the alignment was way off. Again I returned to the Dealers Mechanic and had them try and align it again. The frame straightening did correct the Front Caster but now the cross camber was even worse. They removed 3mm of shims from the divers side front lower control arm and put them on the passenger side. This again corrected the cross camber issue but now the track on the drives side is 5mm narrower then on the passenger side. During this visit I found out that the owner of The Dealer’s Mechanic Shop had previously been business partners with the owner of Selling Dealer. I now began to believe that The Dealer’s Mechanic was covering up the issue with the car to protect The Selling Dealer.
April 2008
After interviewing several lawyer I settled on one with past auto fraud experience. We send a demand letter that went un-answered until June 7th.
June 2008
On June 2nd, having not received a response from the Selling Dealer I signed a litigation agreement with my lawyer. Several days later the Selling Dealers response arrived. In it he claimed no knowledge of the unibody damage and suggested that I had crashed the car or simply become bored with it and now wanted out of my obligation. Sure is hard not to take attacks at my character personally.
Purchase
In May, 2007 I purchased 2004 Porsche 996 a from a local used car dealer that specializes in Porsche. The car had 22,548 miles on the odometer and I purchased it for $45,000 plus sales tax. The car was still under factory warranty until July 17, 2007. The sales man showed me a clean Autocheck report. As with all the cars on their lot it vehicle had two dealer applied decals in the front window, one that said “Passed Smog Check” and a second that said “Passed Safety Check”. I inquired if the car had ever been in an accident as was told it hadn’t. The salesman further stated that all their cars are inspected and that is why there is the “Passed Safety Check” decal in the window. With this I believed that the car was free of any previous damage.
June 2007
Within the first month of owning the car I noticed several problems.
1. The car pulled or drifted to the right at both highway and city speeds.
2. The steering wheel was tilted to the right when traveling in a straight line
3. The car became very unstable over rough surfaces. It felt as if the back of the car wanted to travel in a different direction than the front. This was noticeable in both a straight line as well and when cornering.
4. There were “clunking” noises that came from the front suspension when maneuvering at low speeds such as while parking.
5. There were many rattles over even small bumps.
The pulling and instability issues caused me to bring the vehicle to a local Tire Shop with a state of the art Hunter DSP 600 Laser wheel alignment machine. The alignment equipment showed that the front suspension was out of factory specification in Caster, Cross Caster, and Toe. The rear was out of specification in Camber and Toe. The mechanic was unable to improve upon the existing settings.
July 2007
The factory warranty was expiring on July 17, 2007 so I wanted to have the local Porsche dealer fix a few things while it was still under factory warrantee. The service advisor later called to inform me that the car had been badly wrecked as sometime in the past. They noted that the “car has had rear cross member replaced, most of the arms and bearing carrier replaced on the left and body work on right rear fender and roof and right door, right rear toe arm also has been replace.” As a result of this extensive crash damage they refused to perform the repairs under warranty.
After finding out about the damage from the dealer I called the salesman at the dealer who sold me the car. I voiced my concerns about the damage, the fact that it couldn’t be aligned correctly, and the fact that the Porsche dealer would not honor the factory warranty because the damage was so extensive. They assured me that there was no way it had crash damage and that their mechanic would correctly align the car.
On July 30, 2007 I dropped the car off at the Selling Dealer. They took it across the street to a shop that specializes in Porsches. The shop owner used a Hunter DSP600 Laser Wheel Alignment Machine to align the car. At the end of the day I picked up the car from the Selling Dealer and was told that it was now correctly aligned. I asked for the print out and was told that they had misplaced it but they would mail it to me. The cars handling was slightly improved but it still suffered from the same issues as before. The alignment printout arrived by mail on August 8, 2007. It showed that the car still could not be aligned within factory specification.
August 2007
I was completely consumed by selling my existing home and trying to get escrow closed on my new home.
September, October, November
Every waking moment was spent on rebuilding our new home so my family could move out of our temporary quarters.
December 2007
Over the previous months the car’s handling had become very unpredictable. On December 14, 2007 I took the car to a Tire Shop and again had the alignment checked. They put in on a Hunter DSP600 Laser Wheel Alignment Machine and I found that the alignment had slipped from its previous settings. The wheel alignment was well outside of manufacturer specifications. The mechanic was unable to bring the car within specification. Further more the mechanic noted on the printout that “Adjustments are maxed out on left rear and right rear and both front wheels”.
With this information I took it back to the dealer’s mechanic. They again put the car on their Hunter alignment machine and confirmed that the alignment was out of spec. At this time he felt that the car might have a bent strut and suggested the use of new suspension components that would allow for more adjustment. He explained that all components would be supplied by Porsche or Porsche’s OEM suppliers. I went ahead and had them order the parts the week after Christmas.
January 2008
Early January the parts arrived at the dealer’s mechanic and the work was completed on January 10, 2007. I drove the car home and found the handling even worse than before. On January 11th I took it back to the Tire Shop to find out what the alignment was set at. To my surprise the alignment was even worse than before. This prompted a call to the dealer’s mechanic and a return visit to their alignment machine. They made more adjustments including removing a 2mm shim on the divers side lower front control arm (GT3 lower arm). This “fixed” the cross camber problem buy making the control arms different lengths on each side of the car but now created an asymmetrical front track problem.
March 2008
Handling had again become unpredictable and I feared that the alignment had again slipped into a dangerous area. This time I did some research on frame measurement techniques. I found that the state of the art Chief Laser Frame Measurement equipment can very accurately determine the alignment of the a cars unibody (frame). On March 6th I took the car to a Body Shop that had the Chief Laser Frame Measurement equipment to determine the condition of the unibody. In order to mount the car on the frame machine the rocker panel covers (factory aero covers) had to be removed. This exposed un-repaired damage in the passenger side rocker panel. The car was found have been badly hit and in the rear. The rear was bent to the right and up. In addition the front of the car was bent up. On March 11th they informed me that they were able to pull the rear unibody to within manufacturer’s specification but there was no possible way to bring the front of the car within spec.
I then called the Selling Dealer and informed them of the problem. They asked me to fax over the information. I said that I would bring it with me and show it to the owner of the dealership. The owner refused to meet with me.
Now that the rear of the car was relatively straight the alignment was way off. Again I returned to the Dealers Mechanic and had them try and align it again. The frame straightening did correct the Front Caster but now the cross camber was even worse. They removed 3mm of shims from the divers side front lower control arm and put them on the passenger side. This again corrected the cross camber issue but now the track on the drives side is 5mm narrower then on the passenger side. During this visit I found out that the owner of The Dealer’s Mechanic Shop had previously been business partners with the owner of Selling Dealer. I now began to believe that The Dealer’s Mechanic was covering up the issue with the car to protect The Selling Dealer.
April 2008
After interviewing several lawyer I settled on one with past auto fraud experience. We send a demand letter that went un-answered until June 7th.
June 2008
On June 2nd, having not received a response from the Selling Dealer I signed a litigation agreement with my lawyer. Several days later the Selling Dealers response arrived. In it he claimed no knowledge of the unibody damage and suggested that I had crashed the car or simply become bored with it and now wanted out of my obligation. Sure is hard not to take attacks at my character personally.
Last edited by Bent996; 06-15-2008 at 04:07 PM.
06-14-2008, 12:21 PM
#2
Nordschleife Master
Wow! There really are some scummy dealers out there. Good luck and I hope that this gets sorted out in your favor. it sucks to buy a car with a concealed past like that. Did you get a Carfax or PPI done before the purchase? I bad accident with frame damage should have shown up on Carfax.
Good luck!
Good luck!
06-14-2008, 12:23 PM
#3
Nordschleife Master
BTW, if you didn't get a carfax, then please do so - if it is clearly shown on the carfax that there was an accident then you might expect a counterclaim that the information was available and you didn't do due diligence before purchasing.
06-14-2008, 12:30 PM
#4
I'm with Wellardmac. It sounds as though you didn't have a PPI done or get a Carfax report, which are both absolute requirements when buying any used car. Not to let the dealer off the hook but it's always caveat emptor.
06-14-2008, 12:30 PM
#5
AutoX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had both a CarFax and Autocheck. Neither showed any issues. The only thing I noticed is that the 2nd owner had it for a very short period of time. Perhaps it should have been a clue but I figured he most likely bought a car he couldn't afford. He had purchased it from a Porsche dealer complete with a CPO warranty. Now it clear that he purchased the car, wrecked it, fixed it but wasn't happy with the repair so he sold it.
One thing that I have learned from the various lawyers that work in this field is that Carfax/Autocheck are basically worthless. Most of their cases have clean reports.
One thing that I have learned from the various lawyers that work in this field is that Carfax/Autocheck are basically worthless. Most of their cases have clean reports.
06-14-2008, 12:34 PM
#6
AutoX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "passed safety" sticker and autocheck report combined with and the dealers assurance that they thoughly inspect all their cars and their lot full of 100's of 911s satisfied my need for due diligence.
Trending Topics
06-14-2008, 12:44 PM
#8
Nordschleife Master
A dealer never trusts a buyer and a buyer should never trust a dealer. At worst, trust but verify, otherwise you can end up in the position that you're in.
06-14-2008, 12:47 PM
#9
AutoX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the state that I live in it is illegal for a dealer to sell a car with unrepaired frame/unibody damage even if they disclose it. They can of course sell a car that has been repaired.
06-14-2008, 12:53 PM
#11
Nordschleife Master
I bought a car last year - a CPO Acura. I was "fed a line" by both of the dealers that I went to. The first dealer outright lied about the history of the car, even though the correct information was available on the carfax report. He then pulled a scam routine with one of his colleagues on the push to get my trade-in at a steal of a price.
The second dealer (who I did buy from) said to me that "he had seen the complete history of my car and that he could tell from the service records that I had looked after my car". I didn't call him on it, but I did raise an eyebrow considering that he was claiming he could see all of this information in a central database... not bad considering that I was trading a Ford for an Acura and such a database doesn't exist.
06-14-2008, 12:54 PM
#12
Nordschleife Master
Without a PPI all sorts of hidden history can go hidden until after you buy the car.... that is unless you have a very knowledgeable friend accompany you on the inspection.
06-14-2008, 01:02 PM
#13
I don't have any experience in this area but it would seem to me that the plaintiff did as much due dilligence as the reasonable member of the buying public would do. Remember that the reasonable (average) person is not some Porsche fanatic that posts on a Porsche message board and demands the see under the car before buying it and whatnot. The general public takes a look at carfax reports and, along with assurances from the selling dealer, assumes that the car has not been in an accident.
06-14-2008, 01:07 PM
#14
Nordschleife Master
I don't have any experience in this area but it would seem to me that the plaintiff did as much due dilligence as the reasonable member of the buying public would do. Remember that the reasonable (average) person is not some Porsche fanatic that posts on a Porsche message board and demands the see under the car before buying it and whatnot. The general public takes a look at carfax reports and, along with assurances from the selling dealer, assumes that the car has not been in an accident.
06-14-2008, 02:32 PM
#15
Rennlist Member
Sounds to me like you've kept an excellent history of events and have a nice paper trail to demonstrate you did everything possible to allow them to correct this situation. A lawyer at this point is the right decisoin IMHO and you should expect retribution or a refund. Not many would have persevered to the extent you have - I'd be pissed. 