Question please: Scope of IMS bearing class action settlement?
07-23-2013, 09:06 AM
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Question please: Scope of IMS bearing class action settlement?
I've been reading with interest here the details of the settlement recently reached regarding total engine failure due to faulty
IMS bearings. As he owner of a 996, 986, and now a 997.1, I was surprised to see that he scope of he settlement was limited to 2001-2005 MY models.
It's my understanding that the IMS issue spans in fact 1997-2008 MY cars.
If true, tTherefore, can anyone shed light on why the scope of he settlement covers only 2001-2005 cars? Curious
IMS bearings. As he owner of a 996, 986, and now a 997.1, I was surprised to see that he scope of he settlement was limited to 2001-2005 MY models.
It's my understanding that the IMS issue spans in fact 1997-2008 MY cars.
If true, tTherefore, can anyone shed light on why the scope of he settlement covers only 2001-2005 cars? Curious
07-23-2013, 09:42 PM
#3
Rennlist Member
IMS was upgraded from mid-2005 build, so 2006+ are safe and some late 2005 models are also safe.
07-23-2013, 11:16 PM
#4
This was posted in the other thread about the IMS settlement.
According to the discovery/investigation, the other IMSBs used in '97-00 & late '05-08 engines have had far less than 1% failures.
I found this in the class action declaration: It sounds like what we all believed.
Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)
Discovery in this matter has shown that approximately 57,929 Class Vehicles were sold in the United States, and approximately 30% of the Class Vehicles were sold in California.
Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1% of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)
Discovery in this matter has shown that approximately 57,929 Class Vehicles were sold in the United States, and approximately 30% of the Class Vehicles were sold in California.
07-24-2013, 08:20 AM
#6
Advanced
Thread Starter
Thank you all for your analysis, insightful!
These data seem to run contrary to the straw poll here which indicate ~7% failure rate for all 997s.
I thnk what's most offensive is that it took Porsche 12 years to,re-engineer the engine eliminating the IMS and its bearing, and this during years of record profits. Floating in cash Porsche put the reliability of its engines as a secondary priority. I think these decisions from leadership damaged the brand
These data seem to run contrary to the straw poll here which indicate ~7% failure rate for all 997s.
I thnk what's most offensive is that it took Porsche 12 years to,re-engineer the engine eliminating the IMS and its bearing, and this during years of record profits. Floating in cash Porsche put the reliability of its engines as a secondary priority. I think these decisions from leadership damaged the brand
07-24-2013, 05:22 PM
#7
Thank you all for your analysis, insightful!
These data seem to run contrary to the straw poll here which indicate ~7% failure rate for all 997s.I thnk what's most offensive is that it took Porsche 12 years to,re-engineer the engine eliminating the IMS and its bearing, and this during years of record profits. Floating in cash Porsche put the reliability of its engines as a secondary priority. I think these decisions from leadership damaged the brand
These data seem to run contrary to the straw poll here which indicate ~7% failure rate for all 997s.I thnk what's most offensive is that it took Porsche 12 years to,re-engineer the engine eliminating the IMS and its bearing, and this during years of record profits. Floating in cash Porsche put the reliability of its engines as a secondary priority. I think these decisions from leadership damaged the brand
IMHO, the 4%-8% number given by the discovery investigation for '01-'05 engines with the smaller single row IMSB, is in line with our findings on Rennlist. If one actually tries to search for documented '06-'08 failures (as I have done) in the poll or elsewhere on Rennlist, it's a very smaill number. So the less than 1% figure given by the investigation is in line with that as well.
