WP0

Here's another interesting aspect of CPO and PCCB: while the front rotors failed with both wear limit and chips, the rear rotors are almost as worn, but pass by just a hair (see report below). My service person with my local dealer said that even though the rear PCCB rotors are almost worn to the wear limit, that they would pass the CPO. However, he did confirm that the front rotors should not have passed CPO. None of this is consistent with 50% of life of wearables left for a CPO vehicle!

MJG911

I can't believe they sold you a car with an airbag light on too! They need to make it right.

Akunob

This is unacceptable, the selling dealer should make you whole on the front PCCBs (at the minimum), ideally all four. Escalate to Porsche NA and involve an attorney if necessary.

CDinSing

I see you are in central Florida, so it is comforting to know it wasn’t a local dealer but if you would, who is the selling dealer? I would like to add them to my never purchase a car there list. PM is fine, no need to announce to the world.

minthral

That's some shady nonsense... part of CPO is to check pad/rotor wear.

WP0

Thanks for everyone's suggestions. If necessary, does anyone have a lawyer that they'd recommend in central Florida (Tampa/Orlando) for this type of work?

Here are two of the most recent email conversations that I've had with the sales manager:

#1:

I’ve discussed the brake disc issue with the technician, used car manager, the Service Representative at PCNA, and the Regional CPO Manager. I was looking for more information on PCCB discs and CPO specifications. Brake discs are described in detail in the CPO Policy, and they cannot be CPO’d due to cracking (they even give a visual to alleviate any confusion, which I have included), but there are no listed specifications regarding chips. That being said, we were under the same impression that the other dealer was under: that the rotors would need replaced for CPO specs if they were chipped, which we would have recommended if they were chipped at the time of inspection. It was not recommended, but under CPO, it didn’t need to be anyway.

As far as the wear limits, we inspect the brake discs using the same tool your dealer used. During a CPO inspection, the discs are pass or fail. Porsche does not ask for, or include an area in the CPO documentation to record the measurements and, again, we would have recommended replacement to the sales department had they failed inspection at that time.

I went around and around with our technician regarding your brakes. He is very intimate with that car as he is the only tech that works on it (save for an oil change that was performed while he was out for knee surgery), and the previous owner is a good client of ours. The brakes were inspected and passed at the time of CPO certification. It goes without saying that I am available if you have any further questions.

Then, after my reply of "Just to clarify, you are saying that the same tech who didn't include the front trunk items, and didn't reset the airbag warning light,and didn't align the headlights is telling you that he inspected the rotors, and now they fail, with less than 700 miles on them? Should I go head and contact Porsche NA?", his response is:

#2:

I know that wouldn’t be the news you wanted to hear, and I apologize for that. But I do trust my technician and his inspection process. I am unsure how the airbag warning light slipped through as the tech would have missed it, the salesman would have missed it, the detailer that cleaned the car for delivery and the transporter that inspected it must have all missed it, and I find that very difficult to believe. This is not saying that you are being untruthful, not at all, I just don’t see how not resetting the light could be the cause since we would have noticed it.

The CPO inspection was performed in September. I do believe that the parts were present at the time of inspection. It is possible that those tools were removed and put in another car for a sale. Honestly, I can’t say after 5 months, but I do know that the track cars are inspected very carefully. We take that seriously.

The headlights are inspected for normal operation and aftermarket components. Headlight adjustment is a pretty simple process for your dealer if they deem necessary, however, if it is a case of the left headlight being slightly lower than the right headlight, this is normal and should not be adjusted.

I am happy to try to get you assistance with the brake discs if you could provide me photos of the chips.

minthral

I have my CPO document. They check percent remaining on pads in each corner. The rotors would be pass or fail. How are the pads on the car?

They do however missing things. On mine they never checked lane change assist when though car has it and there was some suspension noise that turned out to be strut mount.

WP0

Pads are listed as 70% on the CPO, which looks about right.

The pass/fail on the CPO is questionable at this point, as it has listed pass on both 1. air bag system, 2. instrument panel, and 3. vehicle tool kit. As mentioned previously, the car arrived with 1. and 2. the air bag warning light on the instrument panel, and 3. only the tire compressor (no tool kit, center lock tools, etc).

My CPO report doesn't have a pass/fail box for rotors, but it does have one for "brake calipers/cylinders, air ducts, cover plates"

minthral

I don't think CPO is a legal stamp that you bought a car with wearable items above 50%. Brakes and tires aren't ever covered under warranty for wear, so seems CPO is useless for that. Say if they found the state of the rotors, they simply wouldn't have allowed CPO on the car. Then you'd be left with decision to buy or not knowing this...no one would replaced the rotors anyway.

Honestly it seems like you knew the car was tracked and that maybe rotors were worn yet bought the car. Don't think a layer will see a case here...basically you knowingly bought a used car that extensive wear and the dealer didn't make that clear enough for. Car salesmen do stuff like this all the time and solution is to get third party opinion BEFORE purchase. Now you signed the legal docs that likely except the seller from all liability.

Personally...I'd have hesitations to buy a car with heavy track usage...especially enough to eat the ceramic rotors in just 6k miles. Hopefully you got a nice discount...

Bxstr

I know on a steel brake car, there is no requirement that rotors are in a certain condition or pass a min spec. I know because I dealt with this on the car I bought, CPO car that had front rotors measure 32.01 when minimum spec was 32mm and they still wouldn't have had to replace, since there is nothing in the paperwork about it.

When people ask me why I would not want a PCCB car, this is why. Everything else about them is great, but the fact that the prior owner could have taken it to the track every weekend and you may not know unless you have the special tool, is difficult to want to purchase a car used with them. That and the fact that when you take it in, a dealer could chip one of the rotors taking the wheel off.

urban2k

Make sure they measure the rotors off the car. It makes a huge difference (on the rear at least):

https://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3-...l#post14780227

WP0

I'm not sure that you're correct, minthral. In fact, from what I hear you are wrong: the wearables, including brakes and tires must be over 50% in order to CPO, but it is possible that my sources are wrong. I'll let you know after I speak with Porsche NA.

WP0

Here is a copy of an image from another CPO report, which shows that a CPO requires at least tires and brake pads to be >50%:




The question to determine is whether this 50% life applies to rotors also (which are a wearable), or not. . . I will field the question to Porsche NA this week. . . .

WP0

So, I called Porsche NA, and it appears that I can only file an official complaint with Porsche NA, but they say that they have no power to make anything happen. They say that any further progress with this particular issue must be between the dealer and myself.

However, my concern is the larger issue: Porsche CPO has no pass/fail box for rotors on their 111 point checklist. In my opinion, this is sub-standard for the industry, as other manufacturer's, including Audi, do have a minimum requirement for rotor life listed on their CPO checklist. I spoke with some manager at Porsche NA and suggested that they modify their CPO to a 112 point checklist, to include rotor wear. I also mentioned that the current CPO checklist appears to be significantly sub-standard for the industry by ignoring such an important wearable as rotors.

I would think that this sub-standard industry practice could potentially make Porsche NA liable for any problems related to rotors in CPO vehicles. . . .

8202632

Did u ever get any resolution on this?