Water pumps - Porsche & General Motors - I'm missing something here
12-30-2004, 01:38 AM
#31
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles/Honolulu
Posts: 1,298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Germans learned a little something as time has passed. If you look at the front of an 2000-2002 Audi S4 engine it looks almost identical to a 32valve 928 engine. Timing belt/waterpump change intervals are double what they are in the 928.
12-30-2004, 01:39 AM
#32
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ft. Lauderdale FLORIDA
Posts: 5,248
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Now Worf has valid points-!
Here's a question: Does it cost much more to build a 400 hp V8 than a 135 hp I-4? The answer is yes. The reality is not as much as you might think-!
-my 928 was unique 20 years ago because it had 300+ horsepower at a time when a fast car had 160. Now you can by a corvette with 400 hp for $55k- about the same as a Boxster...but that car is nearly as fast as a 996 turbo!
So. How long will it be before Hyundai sells a $45,000 car with a 400 hp V8, since it only costs a little more to produce such an engine?
Porsche indeed has something to worry about. Hyundai in a few years could very well sell a car equivalent to either a corvette or a 911 for fractions of the costs of both. What is Porsche doing right now to compete with this future car? And also, when I drive my 928 to downtown Orlando on a Friday or Saturday night, I encounter all sorts of modded Honda's and Toyotas and Mustangs....but curiously, no Porsches. Why?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Porsche needs a new hero. Porsche needs a car like the WRX, something that kids want because it is cheap, light and FAST....not because of the gold plated shield on the hood.
N!
N
Here's a question: Does it cost much more to build a 400 hp V8 than a 135 hp I-4? The answer is yes. The reality is not as much as you might think-!
-my 928 was unique 20 years ago because it had 300+ horsepower at a time when a fast car had 160. Now you can by a corvette with 400 hp for $55k- about the same as a Boxster...but that car is nearly as fast as a 996 turbo!
So. How long will it be before Hyundai sells a $45,000 car with a 400 hp V8, since it only costs a little more to produce such an engine?
Porsche indeed has something to worry about. Hyundai in a few years could very well sell a car equivalent to either a corvette or a 911 for fractions of the costs of both. What is Porsche doing right now to compete with this future car? And also, when I drive my 928 to downtown Orlando on a Friday or Saturday night, I encounter all sorts of modded Honda's and Toyotas and Mustangs....but curiously, no Porsches. Why?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Porsche needs a new hero. Porsche needs a car like the WRX, something that kids want because it is cheap, light and FAST....not because of the gold plated shield on the hood.
N!
N
12-30-2004, 02:45 AM
#33
Race Car
Warf,
As to the #'s what I was trying to point out was that the car you buy today is not the car that was built 20 years ago. Take a "new" car and make payments for the next 5 years. The initial investment and the car that you would end up with would be much different. Quality is different, technology is different and so is the value of the $.
I would much rather take a $1000 car and make the most of it. I have read how some people have spent 6-8K on a used car and they end up spending 4-5K in maint in the first year. Well, if you look at it from where I am at, I am trying to say that 1K investment and 30K in you would have a car that could compete w/todays market.
You look at the SC 928's and what people are spending on new cars. DAMN!!! Save an early shark and do a SC kit to bring it up to pace, redo EVERYTHING including interior, brakes, wheels and body work, and I bet you could come clean around or under 30K and not have a single complaint. Now figure, throw in a warranty(monthly maintenence by the owner TO BE EXPECTED, not ASSUMED) ane you would have a car that would be more than able to match a lot of NEW cars on the market.
The $'s of yesterday are not the $'s of today but neither is the technology.
As to your comment about the increases in Porsche costs, well that is my mistake as I had not done those #'s I was just using 2 examples. Economics needs to be on OT toppic.
As to Normy's comments,
40 years ago my dads Olds had close to 400HP but it weighed a TON actually 3 or 4! Shoot, my moms Ford Capri would probubly have beaten it through an X-Cross but on a straight the Olds had it...
Ultimately I guess what I am saying is appreciate the car for what ie is/was regardless of cost. If you want a WRX then buy one. If you want a 928 to handle like a WRX expect to pay for it "in todays $'s." The car was built in some cases 20+ years ago with just a few changes unlike the 3 year revamp that auto makers are now doing.
Look for a 2008 fender to replace your 2004 fender on the WRX and don't be surprised. Yes ther were a LOT of changes between years on the 928 but I am choosing to focus on early 20+ vs bringing in the later GT's and GTS' At that point we are talking about different $'s and once again a different level of technology.
My .02
Technology in cars changes like it does in a lot of other fields. I am in the IT field and PC's are considered obsolete in less than 18mos today. Cars age a bit more gracefully.
As to the #'s what I was trying to point out was that the car you buy today is not the car that was built 20 years ago. Take a "new" car and make payments for the next 5 years. The initial investment and the car that you would end up with would be much different. Quality is different, technology is different and so is the value of the $.
I would much rather take a $1000 car and make the most of it. I have read how some people have spent 6-8K on a used car and they end up spending 4-5K in maint in the first year. Well, if you look at it from where I am at, I am trying to say that 1K investment and 30K in you would have a car that could compete w/todays market.
You look at the SC 928's and what people are spending on new cars. DAMN!!! Save an early shark and do a SC kit to bring it up to pace, redo EVERYTHING including interior, brakes, wheels and body work, and I bet you could come clean around or under 30K and not have a single complaint. Now figure, throw in a warranty(monthly maintenence by the owner TO BE EXPECTED, not ASSUMED) ane you would have a car that would be more than able to match a lot of NEW cars on the market.
The $'s of yesterday are not the $'s of today but neither is the technology.
As to your comment about the increases in Porsche costs, well that is my mistake as I had not done those #'s I was just using 2 examples. Economics needs to be on OT toppic.
As to Normy's comments,
40 years ago my dads Olds had close to 400HP but it weighed a TON actually 3 or 4! Shoot, my moms Ford Capri would probubly have beaten it through an X-Cross but on a straight the Olds had it...
Ultimately I guess what I am saying is appreciate the car for what ie is/was regardless of cost. If you want a WRX then buy one. If you want a 928 to handle like a WRX expect to pay for it "in todays $'s." The car was built in some cases 20+ years ago with just a few changes unlike the 3 year revamp that auto makers are now doing.
Look for a 2008 fender to replace your 2004 fender on the WRX and don't be surprised. Yes ther were a LOT of changes between years on the 928 but I am choosing to focus on early 20+ vs bringing in the later GT's and GTS' At that point we are talking about different $'s and once again a different level of technology.
My .02
Technology in cars changes like it does in a lot of other fields. I am in the IT field and PC's are considered obsolete in less than 18mos today. Cars age a bit more gracefully.
Last edited by michaelathome; 12-30-2004 at 03:00 AM. Reason: correction
12-30-2004, 03:06 AM
#34
Race Car
As to the water pump question of old. How many 80's US built cars have a crappy PPG paint job. Just looking for a single flaw as you were w/the original post. I would have to say that a paint job on an 80's GM built car was mostly crap. Any good metalic is a respray if not more... A repaint cost's a LOT more than a water pump... 
Last edited by michaelathome; 12-30-2004 at 03:31 AM. Reason: correction
12-30-2004, 04:31 AM
#35
Race Director
Do I think the waterpump design on the 928/944 is not ideal...YES....having the waterpump under timing belt tension will wear it out faster, so it must be replaced as a maintence item....which "might" have been Porsches intention from the begining? Who knows?
As for comparing a 928 to todays vehicles....for its day the 928 was far and away the best GT/Sports car in the world....Ferrari's might have performed slightly better, but break down & are not daily driver reliable...Corvettes are just Corvettes and weren't close in performance (in the 80's)...sure there are new cars of various makes that perform as good or better than a 928 (for alot more money in todays $$)....but here is my bottom line, when I drive down the road 928's have always turned my head since I was a little boy!
I always wanted one & now I have one!
As for comparing a 928 to todays vehicles....for its day the 928 was far and away the best GT/Sports car in the world....Ferrari's might have performed slightly better, but break down & are not daily driver reliable...Corvettes are just Corvettes and weren't close in performance (in the 80's)...sure there are new cars of various makes that perform as good or better than a 928 (for alot more money in todays $$)....but here is my bottom line, when I drive down the road 928's have always turned my head since I was a little boy!
I always wanted one & now I have one!
12-30-2004, 07:22 AM
#36
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caution: 
ahead
Although some might not want to hear them, worf928 makes some valid points. A friend of my dad's had bought one of the first 928's brought into the country. He sold it within a couple of months and never looked back. For what they're selling for today, I think that the 928 is one of the best automotive values around. With some of the issues and what they sold for when new, or for what the inflation adjusted price in todays dollars that an absolutely like new 928 would cost now, I might have a very different opinion on that.
I also agree with worf928 and also Normy in that Porsche has a problem. I think that part of it is a political and economic problem that other manufacturers and countries have gone through, and will continue to go through, but Porsche was in kind of a unique position to maybe be more affected by it than other auto manufacturers. In my opinion, at least a good part of it is Porsche's fault too though.
There sure seem to be quality problems. The very first Cayenne I ever saw was one that was in for some warranty repairs before they were even officially available to the public. I've heard of problems with the ceramic brakes that were at least initially a $10K option above the cost of the regular brakes. I've seen replacement parts that I bought for my 928 that were pretty obviously not of the same quality as the original part that came off the car. Some parts have been manufactured in places with cheaper labor, which may have something to do with the quality. When you're charging Porsche prices for stuff that may have been made in the same Malasian factory as a Hyundai part, and the part may be no better and possibly worse quality wise than the comparable Hyundai part, you have a problem whether you realize it yet or not.
In the past people may have been more likely to put up with things like that because part of what they were buying was the Porsche mystique. There was the image of precision German craftsmen hand making parts, innovative, high performance cars, and racing success. Some people still use the dominance of the 917 as an example of Porsche's philosophy and superiority. The 917 was a long time ago though, and more and more people have no idea of what a 917 even is. Porsche let everyone else catch up in many ways. What other auto manufacturer was still making air-cooled engines when Porsche was still doing it? Yes, I know that there are the 911 people who still feel that anything with a radiator is inferior and always will be. There are people that feel that way about carburetors too. Porsche had a small market with exclusive, expensive, innovative, sucessful performance cars. How long can you keep that up if you're still using a design that basically goes back to Volkswagons built before World War II? You either have to build something better, and not care much about what the die hards want, and prove it's superiority, or you can continue to go in the direction of what that very, very, small market of die-hards wants, even though it's fading into obsolescence. Porsche is lucky that other auto manufacturers dragged their feet as much as they did.
With that kind of market that they had, you're never going to be a big auto manufacturer. They'd need to stay small, with cutting edge performance, very exclusive, and sucessful performance cars. Porsche didn't stay on top of that like they should have, and they ran into financial trouble. The solution they chose was to outsource manufacturing at a reduced cost, and go for a bigger market with the models of cars that they were building. There's nothing wrong with that approach, but then you've got to compete with the more mainstream and much larger auto manufacturers. One of the results is an expensive, 450hp SUV. Another is the Boxster. I don't know enough about them to say that there's anything inhearntly wrong with the Boxster, but does anyone really consider a new one to be an exclusive, high performance car, especially when compared to other lower priced new cars that are available? Porsche's image was that of a manufacturer of high performance, race winning, sports cars. Do you think that an auto enthusiast looking for a car like that today is going to buy a new Boxster, or a new Corvette, which has much better performance but yet costs less?
This new type of market that Porsche is apparently trying to go towards is much more competitive. You can't keep on selling cars based on the philosophy that you represented decades ago, and produce cars like what they currently are. They did build the Carrera GT, but with some of what they're doing it just clouds their market even further. I can just picture some guy who's trying to impress someone by telling them that he just bought a Carrera GT, and getting a response like "Oh, that's a Porsche right? My cousin, the secretary, she just leased a Boxster."
Some of the changes Porsche has made have increased their financial stability, at least in the short term and on paper. That looks good for shareholders. It wouldn't surprise me if Porsche either went to being just another auto manufacturer, producing cookie-cutter cars to be competitive, or that the company is sold because it's now profitable. At this point, I'm kind of thinking the latter is more likely.
ahead
Originally Posted by worf928
Bingo! and in summary: the 928 did not live up to the expectations of its original owners. During the 928 era Initial Quality was not Job One at Porsche and unlike Porsche's die-hard air-head customers, 928 buyers were not willing to put up with the 'eccentricities' of a hand-built sports car.
I conclude from my experiences that Porsche had below-industry-average build quality and did a very poor job of quality control with its suppliers. But, once the 'infant mortality' issues were worked out the basic engineering was very well-done.
I conclude from my experiences that Porsche had below-industry-average build quality and did a very poor job of quality control with its suppliers. But, once the 'infant mortality' issues were worked out the basic engineering was very well-done.
Originally Posted by worf928
Porsche has a problem. Has anyone sauntered over to the 996, 997 and Cayenne forums? Software problems. RMS problems. Vibration problems. One really, really pissed-off 997 owner. (Skip in Boulder.)
There sure seem to be quality problems. The very first Cayenne I ever saw was one that was in for some warranty repairs before they were even officially available to the public. I've heard of problems with the ceramic brakes that were at least initially a $10K option above the cost of the regular brakes. I've seen replacement parts that I bought for my 928 that were pretty obviously not of the same quality as the original part that came off the car. Some parts have been manufactured in places with cheaper labor, which may have something to do with the quality. When you're charging Porsche prices for stuff that may have been made in the same Malasian factory as a Hyundai part, and the part may be no better and possibly worse quality wise than the comparable Hyundai part, you have a problem whether you realize it yet or not.
In the past people may have been more likely to put up with things like that because part of what they were buying was the Porsche mystique. There was the image of precision German craftsmen hand making parts, innovative, high performance cars, and racing success. Some people still use the dominance of the 917 as an example of Porsche's philosophy and superiority. The 917 was a long time ago though, and more and more people have no idea of what a 917 even is. Porsche let everyone else catch up in many ways. What other auto manufacturer was still making air-cooled engines when Porsche was still doing it? Yes, I know that there are the 911 people who still feel that anything with a radiator is inferior and always will be. There are people that feel that way about carburetors too. Porsche had a small market with exclusive, expensive, innovative, sucessful performance cars. How long can you keep that up if you're still using a design that basically goes back to Volkswagons built before World War II? You either have to build something better, and not care much about what the die hards want, and prove it's superiority, or you can continue to go in the direction of what that very, very, small market of die-hards wants, even though it's fading into obsolescence. Porsche is lucky that other auto manufacturers dragged their feet as much as they did.
With that kind of market that they had, you're never going to be a big auto manufacturer. They'd need to stay small, with cutting edge performance, very exclusive, and sucessful performance cars. Porsche didn't stay on top of that like they should have, and they ran into financial trouble. The solution they chose was to outsource manufacturing at a reduced cost, and go for a bigger market with the models of cars that they were building. There's nothing wrong with that approach, but then you've got to compete with the more mainstream and much larger auto manufacturers. One of the results is an expensive, 450hp SUV. Another is the Boxster. I don't know enough about them to say that there's anything inhearntly wrong with the Boxster, but does anyone really consider a new one to be an exclusive, high performance car, especially when compared to other lower priced new cars that are available? Porsche's image was that of a manufacturer of high performance, race winning, sports cars. Do you think that an auto enthusiast looking for a car like that today is going to buy a new Boxster, or a new Corvette, which has much better performance but yet costs less?
This new type of market that Porsche is apparently trying to go towards is much more competitive. You can't keep on selling cars based on the philosophy that you represented decades ago, and produce cars like what they currently are. They did build the Carrera GT, but with some of what they're doing it just clouds their market even further. I can just picture some guy who's trying to impress someone by telling them that he just bought a Carrera GT, and getting a response like "Oh, that's a Porsche right? My cousin, the secretary, she just leased a Boxster."
Some of the changes Porsche has made have increased their financial stability, at least in the short term and on paper. That looks good for shareholders. It wouldn't surprise me if Porsche either went to being just another auto manufacturer, producing cookie-cutter cars to be competitive, or that the company is sold because it's now profitable. At this point, I'm kind of thinking the latter is more likely.
12-30-2004, 10:27 AM
#38
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by worf928
Porsche has a problem. Has anyone sauntered over to the 996, 997 and Cayenne forums? Software problems. RMS problems. Vibration problems. One really, really pissed-off 997 owner. (Skip in Boulder.)
As for the GM thing - you folks probably aren't going to take it too well - the C5 Corvette, especially in Z06 form, is a very serious automobile. CarChick's 2002 Z06 has 14,000 miles on it. 3500 of those are track miles. She has had ZERO problems. Two years ago at Bragg-Smith we tracked end-of-year Z06s. All of them had 12,000+ miles of track time. None of them had issues. No squeaks. No rattles. Just new brake pads and tires every-so-often.
Now.... if GM will just fix the seats. Which they may have in the C6.
Now.... if GM will just fix the seats. Which they may have in the C6.
And the C6 ZO6 is going to be a BEAST. 7 liter dry sump motor with 500 hp. 6-piston brakes. 3100 pounds. For less than a 997.
Someone asked earlier why Corvette essentially uses 'low-tech' suspension, etc. Well, it's for the same reason they choose to stick with 2v cylinder heads: there's no need to go 'high tech' since the highly refined existing technology is more than good enough. And good enough in fact to beat Ferrari and everyone else 3 out of the last 4 years at the 24 Hours Le Mans which is quite an accomplishment for ANY manufacturer.
Sure Corvette could have slapped on some 'sexy' 4v cylinder heads and wowed the crowds, but the added complexity and weight of such a design is simply not worth the small performance gain over 2v heads. And by the way, the redline of this 'archaic' 2v pushrod engine is 7000 RPM!
An interesting car to follow is BMW's new M5 which has 500 hp. It got there by using 10 cylinders, 4v heads with vario-cams, and a host of other go-fast goodies. Lots of complexity there which means more things to potentially go wrong later. All in all, I'll take the 'simpler', lighter Corvette C6 Z06 any day over the M5.
As we all know, 'KISS' means, Keep It Simple, Stupid!
And Corvette is saying to BMW: kiss my *** with all your gadgets!
Don't get me wrong - I prefer driving the 928 to the Z06. The extra sixty-thousand 2003 dollars are all geared toward what Carl wrote: "balance, stability, handling, feel, engineering, driver experience."
12-30-2004, 01:19 PM
#39
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dana Point, CA
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure Lag,
And look at a 15 year old corvette - everyone and their dog has one, their looks age prematurely and they are plentiful on the resale market.
A vette is still a vette and no matter what the performance is like, it will never have the allure of a Porsche. Plastic fantastic.
And BTW - here in south orange county, I can see a handful of Z06s every day, and enough C5s to choke a horse. Hardly an exclusive club.
And look at a 15 year old corvette - everyone and their dog has one, their looks age prematurely and they are plentiful on the resale market.
A vette is still a vette and no matter what the performance is like, it will never have the allure of a Porsche. Plastic fantastic.
And BTW - here in south orange county, I can see a handful of Z06s every day, and enough C5s to choke a horse. Hardly an exclusive club.
Last edited by Adam C; 12-30-2004 at 01:21 PM. Reason: crappy spelling
12-30-2004, 01:41 PM
#42
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,329
Received 1,543 Likes
on
1,007 Posts
Originally Posted by heinrich
Initial build quality on Porsche 928's was far far superior to American cars. Come on guys, we're talking '80's!!!
Porsche was known for - and later admitted to - poor build quality through the 964. Every car coming off the Zuffenhausen line went to post-production where defects were fixed. Porsche executives admitted that "Porsches are not built. They are rebuilt" after having the teams from Japan fly over to get Porsche's $h+t straightened out. Porsche's inventory management was terrible. Their supply-chain management was non-existent. Quality control was poor.
Don't get me wrong. Initial quality was certainly a problem for American cars in the 80s. But, Porsche wasn't 'far, far superior.'
12-30-2004, 01:50 PM
#43
928 Collector
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Dave I know you're a truthful guy ... but please post the source of that quote. That is news to me and I make it my business to read everything I can on 911's and Porsche factory history.
12-30-2004, 02:00 PM
#44
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Jim 944S
Eric... You are questioning the very core of our belief system. 
This is a very disturbing situation and suggests a visit from the PCA "re-programming" team.
This is a very disturbing situation and suggests a visit from the PCA "re-programming" team.I'm not afraid to share any frustrations with my 928 - this was more humorous than anything, felt like sharing.
Originally Posted by Adam C
And look at a 15 year old corvette - everyone and their dog has one, their looks age prematurely and they are plentiful on the resale market.
A vette is still a vette and no matter what the performance is like, it will never have the allure of a Porsche. Plastic fantastic.
And BTW - here in south orange county, I can see a handful of Z06s every day, and enough C5s to choke a horse. Hardly an exclusive club.
A vette is still a vette and no matter what the performance is like, it will never have the allure of a Porsche. Plastic fantastic.
And BTW - here in south orange county, I can see a handful of Z06s every day, and enough C5s to choke a horse. Hardly an exclusive club.
A Corvette comes down the street everyone and their brother knows what it is, knows it's America's only true sports car, it's an icon.
Porsche's marketing team totally f*cked up the 928 from day one, there is no changing that.
One reason why I love 928's is the mystery around them - people have no idea what it is. I'm asked on a very regular basis what size 4-banger is under the hood, when I tell them it's a V8, it's assumed a Chevy swap.
I've been running with the local Corvette club since the early 80's (never had one, but my father co-founded the club back in the 60's) Try to buy a pre-1969 Corvette that is 100% original for the price of a perfect S4 or even a GT then tell me how rare Corvette's are. Most original pre-67 Corvette's will outsell a 928 GTS all day long. Throw a big block in there your beyond the price of a new 911TT.
Corvette's are a classic, always will be. 928's will always be the black sheep of the Porsche family - that's why I love'em.
When Mark A and friends blow away new sports cars - it's fun to hear people say "What is that thing?"
12-30-2004, 02:13 PM
#45
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,329
Received 1,543 Likes
on
1,007 Posts
Originally Posted by Lagavulin
No official word from GM yet since it won't be out until Summer 2005, but word on the street says it will cost mid to low $70's k. That price includes a hand-built engine using titanium connecting rods amongst other goodies, including carbon-fiber body panels and a magnesium engine cradle.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=975025
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=975921
An interesting car to follow is BMW's new M5 which has 500 hp. It got there by using 10 cylinders, 4v heads with vario-cams, and a host of other go-fast goodies. Lots of complexity there
I'm the opposite on this one; of all my cars, I enjoy driving the Z06 the most since it's much faster(..NA!), and has the better suspension for the type of driving I prefer to do. Regardless, I feel the 928 is still an awesome car, just different.
- but the thing I don't like about it is the suspension. The leaf springs allow a lot of body movement during the onset of weight transfer - an initial transient effect that takes some getting used to on road or on track. Once past this initial transient the chassis gets nice and stiff. On the track the suspension works very well. Last year at Mosport I was able to keep up - in the turns - with a 996 C4 on R-compound shoes. And I was NOT using the extra 100 hp to reel him in on the straights. (And the driver was pushing hard - so hard that he did some landscaping at turn 5 - and this wasn't in Green group.) At one point the rumor of a Chevy playing with the Porsches got around and a few C5s pulled up on the rise over the front straight to watch.However, on the road - these Roads in Yankee Land - the suspension does not inspire confidence. Drop down to 2nd or 3rd on the highway, punch it, and get ready for a handful. The transient squat in that situation unweights the front, the tires grab the ruts, and it's like being strapped to the nose-cone of a poorly controlled rocket. The motor in that car is too much for the chassis.
And don't even get me started on the seats... every time I launched out of turn 5 at Mosport onto the back straight I had to with one had pull on the wheel to get my weight off the seat back and with the other hand reach down and lift on the back-angle adjuster to get the seat back even again. As I went through the course, one side of the seat back would wiggle out of the ratchet and allow the back to be at an uneven angle. If I didn't do the 'back straight adjustment' after a few laps the seat back would have ratcheted back to "cool" mode with my helmeted-head in the trunk. And once or twice the seat back just let go and I found myself in a supine position at 110 mph. Scary f-in sheit.
CarChick loves the seats. But she weighs 'round a buck so she has no issues with'em.