991.1 GT3 COG: Our Meeting with PCNA/PAG plus Porsche's Official Announcement
08-08-2017, 04:24 AM
#152
The COG request was an official claim for them in parallel of their internal case study. Their proposed resolution is great and will make customers happy. happy customer, more business.
08-08-2017, 04:56 AM
#155
Rennlist Member
So Dundon was making an effort to figure this out. Why diss them? Who else was other than Porsche and they weren't talking until ....
Porsche probably had ZERO interest in offering an extended warranty until an action group (COG) was formed and made them act.
The documented Macca and Dundon homework played a big part in helping publicize the issue. Have to give credit where it's due.
Porsche probably had ZERO interest in offering an extended warranty until an action group (COG) was formed and made them act.
The documented Macca and Dundon homework played a big part in helping publicize the issue. Have to give credit where it's due.
08-08-2017, 06:05 AM
#156
4th Gear
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to add my thanks to Macca and the COG team Rob, Dave, Ed, Sean, and Carmen. And to Porsche for stepping up.
I'm an original GT3 owner with my UK 3-year warranty about to expire and my extra 1-year engine warranty about to start. I'm a lifelong Porsche fan and have been getting very worried that I may need to get rid of the car I love or watch the value melt away due to lack of confidence in the engine.
Looking forward to many more years of happy driving in my 991.1 GT3. Thanks guys and thanks Porsche.
As a final note, I only heard about this initiative in the last couple of days despite being a supporter of the members group for the original engine issue. I read Pistonheads daily but not Rennlist - I'm surprised it wasn't publicised more on Pistonheads. Anyway, I've learned my lesson now and will read Rennlist daily as well...
I'm an original GT3 owner with my UK 3-year warranty about to expire and my extra 1-year engine warranty about to start. I'm a lifelong Porsche fan and have been getting very worried that I may need to get rid of the car I love or watch the value melt away due to lack of confidence in the engine.
Looking forward to many more years of happy driving in my 991.1 GT3. Thanks guys and thanks Porsche.
As a final note, I only heard about this initiative in the last couple of days despite being a supporter of the members group for the original engine issue. I read Pistonheads daily but not Rennlist - I'm surprised it wasn't publicised more on Pistonheads. Anyway, I've learned my lesson now and will read Rennlist daily as well...
08-08-2017, 07:19 AM
#158
At Smokies GT this past April Dundon made a presentation in which they insisted the finger follower premature wear issue was certain to affect all 991.1 GT3/RS/R engines, which appears to have been based on a premature assumption that was incorrect. Dundon didn't do the research like Porsche did to truly understand the root cause, which has to do with specific metalurgy problems on some of the finger followers combined with the hydraulic lifter/oiling design issue and a certain mix of environmental/use cases.
Sure, Dundon had a solution--an expensive one they would sell us--to their gain. Not that there's anything wrong with capitalism, but ultimately Dundon's claims we're based on, at the very least, incomplete and unjustified conclusions that were convenient to their marketing plan.
oh yeah, and I very much recall the air of superiority attitude of the Dundon rep who continuously suggested during his presentation that Porsche didn't really understand what was happening and Dundon (and he personally) did. Little did he know that Porsche had already figured it out and solved the issue before the 911 R even shipped much earlier.
How many R and RS owners would have shelled out thousands (or tens of thousands) to Dundon to solve (or at least monitor for) a problem that didn't exist but that Dundon claimed they knew did exist based on convenient but flawed conclusions?
If we are to fault Porsche for anything it's not coming forward earlier with what they had learned in their research and proposing this solution sooner. Having said that I am happy with the outcome and I think we should all rejoice.
Sure, Dundon had a solution--an expensive one they would sell us--to their gain. Not that there's anything wrong with capitalism, but ultimately Dundon's claims we're based on, at the very least, incomplete and unjustified conclusions that were convenient to their marketing plan.
oh yeah, and I very much recall the air of superiority attitude of the Dundon rep who continuously suggested during his presentation that Porsche didn't really understand what was happening and Dundon (and he personally) did. Little did he know that Porsche had already figured it out and solved the issue before the 911 R even shipped much earlier.
How many R and RS owners would have shelled out thousands (or tens of thousands) to Dundon to solve (or at least monitor for) a problem that didn't exist but that Dundon claimed they knew did exist based on convenient but flawed conclusions?
If we are to fault Porsche for anything it's not coming forward earlier with what they had learned in their research and proposing this solution sooner. Having said that I am happy with the outcome and I think we should all rejoice.
08-08-2017, 07:36 AM
#159
Job Very Well done guys ... Am so proud to be part of this forum... 991.2 gt3 being my first Porsche... Am glad am surrounded by you guys 
08-08-2017, 08:32 AM
#161
Three Wheelin'
Well done to everyone who was involved in preparing for this meeting. That includes Dundon and mecca. And big thanks for Rob for getting the ball rolling on putting this meeting together.
08-08-2017, 08:33 AM
#162
Three Wheelin'
Rather than choosing a battle with Dundon, I think one should applaud them for even looking for a solution. And, of course Porsche was going to stick behind their original engine design.......and find the apparent problem. It is a combination of the inclusions in the metallurgy and the lack of oil film and the heat and the spring rates, etc of that particular lifter design. But when Porsche changes to a solid lash lifter design, like what DMS has discovered as the best solution---that tells you something. The moment we all want to bash innovation is the moment innovation stops.
08-08-2017, 08:49 AM
#165
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,344
Received 4,529 Likes
on
2,577 Posts
There's no need to demonize Dundon, but being a business, they obviously wouldn't have gotten involved in developing a fix for this issue unless it was in their financial interest. For that reason, they can't be viewed as unbiased.
Moreover, they have nowhere near the resources that Porsche does for investigating this and developing a fix, so I trust Porsche before Dundon on the technical issues. In that regard, they still seem to disagree with Porsche, and here's my take on that:
https://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3-...l#post14381873
Moreover, they have nowhere near the resources that Porsche does for investigating this and developing a fix, so I trust Porsche before Dundon on the technical issues. In that regard, they still seem to disagree with Porsche, and here's my take on that:
https://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3-...l#post14381873
