seafeye

So my car still has original ones. 88,000 miles
They will give me $750 towards repairs at a Porsche dealership. Most likely $2000 bill.
Or buy the pipes from suncoast for $550 and do the work myself and forfeit the claim?
Hmmmm

JFR-

I was initially okay with the concept of a reimbursement ratio based on mileage due to the simple fact of mileage being a measure of usage, wear and tear, and I don't expect things to last forever. However, is this really a "wear and tear" part? Not if it was metal in the first place.

Now I'm disappointed with both the CPO and mileage considerations. But I guess I'm still happy to be getting something back.

The bigger disappointment I'll never get over is settling for an S and living with Turbo envy.

westy66

[QUOTE=JThe bigger disappointment I'll never get over is settling for an S and living with Turbo envy.[/QUOTE]

garrett376

If one buys a used car "as-is" with "no warranty", why is there the sentiment of entitlement when something goes wrong, that repairs should be covered by the manufacturer? Didn't the purchaser of the non-warranted car consent to the purchase with no warranty?

seafeye

Maybe people shouldn't be entitled. But, Companies should be held responsible for their products. If these things were to continue the accountants would be running the company and all decisions would be made by bean counters. Now if we hold companies financially responsible for cutting corners they may just think twice before doing it again.

Dennis C

I just mailed in my completed forms and supporting documentation. It looks like I'll get $450 if my claim is approved. It's far short of the $1,863.69 that I spent at my Porsche dealer to have the pipes replaced, but it's better than nothing!

garrett376

Shouldn't the buyer be responsible for buying a car out of warranty with a known problem? If a company makes a problematic product, nobody should buy it; that's how it "used to be". If you don't want to assume the risk, don't buy a Cayenne, right? Or a 2.7 911, or 911 SC, or 964, or 996, or GT3, or Carrera GT?

hahnmgh63

Well, when I bought my Turbo S seven years ago it wasn't a known problem. I'm sure there were already failures around but they weren't all over the internet and forums like they have been in the last few years. And of course, my didn't fail until the warranty was out and the dealer/Porsche were not about to replace a known problem until it failed, at least not on warranty when they would have to pay for it.

Dennis C

My car was still under factory warranty when I bought it at my local Porsche dealer. It was not under warranty by the time my coolant pipes were replaced.

I understand the logic of the sliding scale for reimbursement based on mileage. If you drive a car for 100,000 miles without an issue, then I understand that the OEM coolant pipes did their job for quite some time.

I don't agree with the distinction between used ACPO cars and used cars without the ACPO warranty. Obviously I have the option to exclude myself from the class action and pursue legal action against PCNA independently, but the $450 settlement is much easier. I suspect that's what most people will do.

philg3

It's wonderful that the pipes did their job for "quite some time", but obviously there was a design flaw, and Porsche took a risk in using plastics for this function. Some of us didn't encounter a failure, and replaced on our dime, as we did not feel comfortable risking a failure at an inopportune time. Several Porsche Service Advisors recommended this proactive action, because as they warned, they all fail eventually -- most by about 100Kmi. And they continued, when they do fail, you not only have the issues of the pipes being replace, you have the potential of a damaged starter, and / or transmission seals. Good grief -- this kind of failure is not normally expected; hence, we have a Warranty of Fitness situation here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased to get the $900, but that's less than 50% of my cost for the repair. And, no doubt, no Cayenne with the plastic pipes can be resold / or traded in without a $2K+ price concession.

If you look closely at the settlement, Porsche avoided the Courts, and agreed to the reimbursement scheme. Wise decision on their part to avoid further litigation costs, and a potential / likely judgment that would have required full repair reimbursement.

Dennis C

I certainly would rather have my repair cost reimbursed at 100%!

seafeye

Car manufactures have to abide by state laws in order to sell cars in the USA.
Even after the warranty expires they still have to provide certain protections to the consumers both financially and physically. If Porsche continued to make the coolant pipes out of plastic they may have avoided the law suit. But because they made the replacement better and out of aluminum is almost a admission that they produced a defective product. When a company sells a car, phone, or screwdriver they are selling it "free from defects". The drive shafts on the cayenne maybe considered consumables so it wouldn't likely win a class action law suit. Remember the Pinto? Ford sold the car knowing that it used inferior parts in the fuel tank. (To save money). Owners suffered very poor resale value and worse the cars could blow up on impact. The USA came out with a law that we hope will protect consumers from manufactures that put money ahead of safety.
If you can find it online Ralph Naders book "Unsafe at any speed", would be a good read.

Dennis C

I read a book in college in a business ethics class called: "How Moral Men Make Immoral Decisions". The author did an analysis on the Ford Pinto case. It was interesting.

I think the difficult thing for automobile manufacturers is that they make a mechanical product that will break down. Time and mileage will eventually win. So if a car breaks after 100,000 miles, then is the manufacturer liable for the cost of the repairs? How about 150,000 miles? Obviously the manufacturer will say that they aren't liable if there isn't a defect. Determining whether a car has a defect or not is subjective in many cases. As a 996 owner, I hear discussions like this on a regular basis. Some owners have had a catastrophic engine failure due to the intermediate shaft bearing failing. Some owners have driven hundreds of thousands of miles on the original bearing with no issues at all. So how do you define this? Defect or not? If it is determined to be a defect, then how do you fairly compensate people who have had to pay for repairs? It's not an easy thing.

seafeye

I'll have to dig up some regs but I think at the 100,000mls range is where the auto manufactures are limited. The pinto case was a classic example of why we need the ability for a class action law suit. Same with the corvair, mini etc...

pcst

Looks like it won't benefit for those of us who are still running the original plastic pipes, unless they fail between 12/12/2013 - 12/12/2014.

Kindda stupid if you ask me, this should be mandated recall or compensation, why would someone wait 'til the system failure knowing that it will fail as this issue has been already recognized by the US court obviously? That's called 'negligent' in my book. I already bought the replacement kit to have it replaced before the disaster happens.
I guess the safety concern wasn't addressed at the court, think of the case where we could be driving on the highway traveling 60mph and all of a sudden you lose control of the vehicle with the white smog coming out of the hood affecting the front view, that's dangerous enough to me, but might not so from US justice systems point of view.

Anyways, I never expected this class-action to benefit me from get-go, glad it worked out for those of you who got greatly impacted by the unexpected downtime and financially.

$.02