Bob Rouleau

Folks I have been advised by the legal firm (details in post 3 above) not to contact them until the court has accepted the settlement. This is expected sometime in April.

Regards,

Audi Junkie

legal costs arent reimbursed in my state unless its mandated in the type of case, which auto claims are not.

Cefalu

Pulled directly from the suit:

"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.)"

Gooddog

I own a 2005 Boxster S (987 w/ an M-97 motor). SN: WP0CB298X5U732132. The IMS bearing has failed. Will the pending Class Action Settlement include my car as a "Class Vehicle"? Mine is possibly the worst configuration. Being an M-97, the case hole is too small for LN Engineering's retro-fit solution so the case needs to be split for a fix. If anybody has knowledge of how these 2005's w/ M-97's fall in this, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks.

Cefalu

I don't think you are included. This suit was intended to address single row M96 engines.

Is your VIN an included VIN?

mlambert890

In all honesty I don't think any of this will have the slightest impact on new Porsche buyers in a measurable way. This is really an issue for people buying used. And its almost entirely a 996 issue which even "porschephiles" (which most Porsche buyers are not honestly) will say "see! Told you the 996 was a POS". People need to be realistic and admit that owning a 10 year old Porsche of the lowest value variety doesn't mean you're remotely likely to ever be a new customer of a $130k car. I sure as heck admit this is true for me and Porsche knows it. Im not their real customer and their real customer either leases new every 3 or buys these cash like candy and forgot about the 996 8 years ago.

And at the end of the day the problem is still a sub 10% issue which is inline with an endless list of manufacturing defects and design flaws throughout automotive history yet people move on and still buy cars.

All this class action really does is formalize that the 996 is a pariah and annihilate its value formally and OF COURSE make trial lawyers super rich (er)

People continue to just love their class actions though. .. I guess the psychological benefits are what matter for many.

mikefocke

Gooddog, some early 2005s had the IMS that is the subject of the lawsuit. Are you sure by physical examination that yours is the third generation IMS bearing?

Mlambert, you might want to edit the model number of the 'lowest value variety' (the Boxster) as you are posting in the 986 forum. It's 986 and not 996.

Bxstr

So how do I go about getting the money for this.

How much would I get I had a 2003 Porsche Boxster where the ims bearing failed at 30,000 miles. I can give you my vin if you need more info.

Bxstr

Also why do the numbers and the websites come up as xxxxxxx

Bxstr

My vin is WP0CA29803U623419

Bob Rouleau

The lawyers have asked that you NOT contact them until the court accepts the settlement. Nothing can be done until that happens. This is expected in April this year. I will update the announcement as soon as they advise me that the settlement is accepted and claimants can file.

Best,

tangram

While this is an unfortunate incident and Porsche's unwillingness to publicly accept that they had a flawed design is not in keeping with the brand's reputation, the IMS issue has been known for quite some time now. Thus, if you purchased one of these cars used after the problem had been identifiied, then the price you paid for the car should be reflective of the defect. I can understand why only 25% of costs would be eligible for recoupment.

Gooddog

I did speak briefly with the para-legal involved in this case and understand that PCNA has agreed with the terms presented above as settlement to the pending suit and that it now awaits the residing judge to determined whether the suit/settlement is acceptable. This finding action is expected in April (this month).

Kschles

I cant figure out if my 911 was included in the ranges. My vin is #:WP0AA29925S715159.

Does that fall in? Thanks in advance

lilredpo

Has anyone received notification via US Mail?