Notices
991 GT3 GT3RS and 911R
Sponsored by:

Has anyone driven in the 'no drive' period?

 
Old 03-03-2014, 12:06 PM
  #16  
Nick
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 3,443
Default

Driving the car when told not too by the manufacturer is plain stupid! If the car catches on fire and is totally destroyed why should Porsche pay for the car? They told and warned not to drive it because of cars catching fire.

I would not have a problem defending Porsche if they took the stance. Of course, Porsche should compensate owners for the downtime.
Nick is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 12:39 PM
  #17  
niche
Super User
 
niche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,339
Default

It's taken porsche a long time to solve this. I hope it isn't a big deal.
niche is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 01:20 PM
  #18  
Petevb
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Petevb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,581
Default

Originally Posted by Macca View Post
I know it will be frowned upon here but I have no intention of putting my car into hibernation when it arrives on the boat late next week from Europe where I have already put 3500 high speed fault free miles in a month of driving back in Dec 2013. As far as Im concerned there is nothing wrong with my car or it would be toast already. That being said I do expect an announcement will be made before that time that will shed further light on the issues....
I'd strongly prefer it if you didn't drive it. The last thing anyone needs is another serious issue- more fodder for Top Gear, a big mess for yourself, complications throughout. Consider for example if compensation is in order- are you going to drive the car an get compensated as well?

Yes the chances of an issue are relatively low, probably less than 5%. However that's still uncomfortably high given the consequences, and if something happened I wouldn't want to be that guy (though you might get yourself on Top Gear, it wouldn't be in a good way). My real concern is that I believe they are chasing down more than one serious issue, tough to say what they are, so the chances of a failure are perhaps higher than they might seem.

As tempting as it may be I'd park it for a brief bit, let it play out, and then see how things are handled afterwards. Maybe everyone can angle for a warranty extension or free part upgrades, something that would make everyone happy (RS lithium battery, or...?).
Petevb is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 03:02 PM
  #19  
TomTom77
User
 
TomTom77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 269
Default

Originally Posted by rosenbergendo View Post
It'd be no stress for me . I'd turn the car back in and get on the list for RS. No offense but the car pretty much seems to be a lemon (no offense meant). I highly doubt the issue is purely a small quick fix. If you recall my sources years ago about the 991 GT3 (where I essentially predicted everything such as PDK, HP, souped up 9A1 block never meant for racing, and time frame), I haven't been given the feeling that this is some little bolt that needs retrofitting. If you recall there were some major issues with press cars as well.
Out of curiosity, how or why would the RS not suffer from the issues that you predicted? PDK, HP, even more souped up 9A1 block, time frame, etc.?
TomTom77 is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 03:35 PM
  #20  
rosenbergendo
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
rosenbergendo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,955
Default

It might not suffer from the same issues or it might. Certainly will give the engineers a little extra time to come up with a more reliable solution like the 997.2 motor/gearbox.
rosenbergendo is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 04:07 PM
  #21  
TRAKCAR
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
TRAKCAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 27,000
Default

Originally Posted by niche View Post
It's taken porsche a long time to solve this. I hope it isn't a big deal.
It's a big deal.

Originally Posted by Petevb View Post
I'd strongly prefer it if you didn't drive it. The last thing anyone needs is another serious issue- more fodder for Top Gear, a big mess for yourself, complications throughout. Consider for example if compensation is in order- are you going to drive the car an get compensated as well?

Yes the chances of an issue are relatively low, probably less than 5%. However that's still uncomfortably high given the consequences, and if something happened I wouldn't want to be that guy (though you might get yourself on Top Gear, it wouldn't be in a good way). My real concern is that I believe they are chasing down more than one serious issue, tough to say what they are, so the chances of a failure are perhaps higher than they might seem.

As tempting as it may be I'd park it for a brief bit, let it play out, and then see how things are handled afterwards. Maybe everyone can angle for a warranty extension or free part upgrades, something that would make everyone happy (RS lithium battery, or...?).
LOL, the lithium batteries failed left and right, mine did, Champion stopped selling them due to fires and failures (Mine had been on fire, just not enough to lit up the car). Lets stick to the free fire suppression systems.
I'd love to be on Top gear I'd be even more famous.

Originally Posted by rosenbergendo View Post
It might not suffer from the same issues or it might. Certainly will give the engineers a little extra time to come up with a more reliable solution like the 997.2 motor/gearbox.
You have been right a lot, lets hope you're right again.
TRAKCAR is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 04:11 PM
  #22  
LateBrake911
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
LateBrake911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Born in SoCal=Not Chicago
Posts: 636
Default

Originally Posted by Nick View Post
Driving the car when told not too by the manufacturer is plain stupid! If the car catches on fire and is totally destroyed why should Porsche pay for the car? They told and warned not to drive it because of cars catching fire.

I would not have a problem defending Porsche if they took the stance. Of course, Porsche should compensate owners for the downtime.
Not as easy as it sounds after you've driving the car 1000 miles.. Ha Ha.. But yes it can be done. .It will be much easier when I ask for and get a 911 s loaner.. We need to support each other and tell others not to drive it. --- it will be over soon.. -- try and get a 911s to get it off you mind if your tempted, or have the dealer tow it to avoid all temptations..-- Will something happen? The frequency is very low, but the severity very high..
LateBrake911 is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 04:34 PM
  #23  
Mike in CA
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Mike in CA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: North Bay Area, CA
Posts: 11,865
Default

Originally Posted by Petevb View Post
I'd strongly prefer it if you didn't drive it. The last thing anyone needs is another serious issue- more fodder for Top Gear, a big mess for yourself, complications throughout. Consider for example if compensation is in order- are you going to drive the car an get compensated as well?

Yes the chances of an issue are relatively low, probably less than 5%. However that's still uncomfortably high given the consequences, and if something happened I wouldn't want to be that guy (though you might get yourself on Top Gear, it wouldn't be in a good way). My real concern is that I believe they are chasing down more than one serious issue, tough to say what they are, so the chances of a failure are perhaps higher than they might seem.

As tempting as it may be I'd park it for a brief bit, let it play out, and then see how things are handled afterwards. Maybe everyone can angle for a warranty extension or free part upgrades, something that would make everyone happy (RS lithium battery, or...?).
This is pretty much where I'm coming from. Not only that, what if some other unrelated-to-the-fire warranty issue pops up while you're driving the car? How do you explain that the problem occurred during this time when it's supposed to be parked? I don't want to borrow trouble or do anything that might weaken my position with regard to possible compensation. Besides, I waited 2 years for the damn car in the first place, I guess I can wait another month while it all gets sorted.
Mike in CA is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 05:19 PM
  #24  
frayed
Super User
 
frayed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,972
Default

I probably wouldn't drive it. Unless I had such a high and unrelentless money stream that a 150k just doesn't matter. But that's not me.

What concerns me is not so much safety, but goodwill lost with my local dealer for being 'that guy' should I have an issue with the car during the 'no drive' period, even if unrelated to the current engine issues. Also, hassles on not just this warranty claim, but also later claims that are items that are discretionary (e.g., a track related failure, which sometimes are still covered based on circumstances, or when looking for a post warranty goodwill fix).

I also think those hoping that it will be a minor issue are hoping against the obvious facts: PAG engineers are some of the best in the world, the continuing delay (every day points to a bigger/more complex problem), the stop sale and stop drive directives (defcon level 2), and the wording of the press release itself.
frayed is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 05:51 PM
  #25  
Macca
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Macca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,140
Default

Whilst I agree with all the above reasoning I cant help but think perhaps there is more than one issue in play. The official line I am getting (or should say was getting until mid last week when I last checked) was that the issue was not related to the engine per se (i.e. internals) but to some ancillary hardware fixtures. I was also told there would be an announcement Friday European time and there was not. As time drags on Im less inclined to believe my contacts have all the information. I must confess its unsettling, however as my vehicle is "in transit" for another 10 days - the down time has not yet made me hysterical. When I lay all emotion to the side, re watch 3-4 hours of footage of me blasting around European back roads on the throttle and through tunnels at 9000 rpm, I then really find it hard to accept that the issues (at least for my car) could be a failed internal component (design, manufacture or implementation/installation). Im sure Sam, Mike and others whom have flogged this machine within inches of its life feel the same glimmer of hope and logic. All that being said once my car arrives and is complied I am on a 2 week track tour vacation (now in my track prepared 993!) and have no ability to drive the car until early April. My belief is PAG will have to make an announcement in the next 48 hours or their spin doctors will suffer death via rotational forces come Geneva Press Opening in that same time frame. whether this is more than a vague "holding statement" is hard to know, however I expect to be aware of the full issue and proposed solution within 7-10 days when I will be forced to drive the car at least from RORO to compliance and then to storage (the car has to be drivable to be complied for road usage in my country). I am still in the 'happy" camp believing this is an issue that affects only a batch of late production vehicles. Of course I have the benefit of living with the car and driving it daily for a month in all conditions without fault, which may just of course be false confidence. However if this were a hard failure situation as has been described for the two cars that combusted, it doesnt make alot of sense to me as the other 500 odd customer cars have collectively clocked over 1 million km since early Nov 2013 without a hitch.

All that being said I will not have the opportunity to even defy the "stop drive" orders (excluding moving the car off the ship and around town for 50-100km) until early April. By that time I should think things are crystal clear. If the car should be off the road longer I definitely will be expecting some financial compensation for every week the car has been inactive. Im not interested in exclusive stuff or additional options given in gratuity (there isn't a single thing I would have added to my clubsport spec car!). Something in the order of 2-2.5K a month in "hurt money" however would be "satisfactory"....
Macca is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 06:21 PM
  #26  
Bacura
User
 
Bacura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,710
Default

Anyone stupid enough to drive theirs should check with their insurance company. You might not be covered. If it was me, I would absolutely NOT take delivery of a 2014. Wait for a 2015. From a resale point of view the 2014's are tainted. Think about it. How many of you would buy a used 2014 unless there was a big discount?
Bacura is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 07:03 PM
  #27  
JB991
User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 121
Default

Originally Posted by Bacura View Post
Anyone stupid enough to drive theirs should check with their insurance company. You might not be covered. If it was me, I would absolutely NOT take delivery of a 2014. Wait for a 2015. From a resale point of view the 2014's are tainted. Think about it. How many of you would buy a used 2014 unless there was a big discount?

Depends on the fix. If they're replacing half the engine, I can see your point. If it's a bolt, or some minor part, I think you're way off. edit: regarding resale and not taking delivery

First run 991 911's had issues, don't see it being talked about. Pick another manufacturer, Honda, Toyota, Chevrolet, any manufacturer really. None of them have been majorly hurt by recalls. Remember but two years ago the crap Toyota got for the recall they had about stuck pedals..... don't think they took a hit.

Granted, the GT3 is no Sienna, but it's still a car that is just as valuable to it's audience as is the GT3 to its own. (if that makes sense)
JB991 is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 07:08 PM
  #28  
991 3Turbo
User
 
991 3Turbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: West Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 363
Default

I totally agree with Bacura. If Porsche formally issued a recall and you ignored it willingly, you stand on very very soft ground with any potential claim towards Porsche or your insurance company. Simply not a good idea. The better angle would just be getting together a class action suit and getting your money back or a future car replacement at full value. Just stupid to drive it IMHO.
991 3Turbo is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 08:09 PM
  #29  
rosenbergendo
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
rosenbergendo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,955
Default

Totally agree with Bacura. Most of us aren't buying the car worrying about depreciation....BUT anyone believing that their 2014 won't have a massive depreciation is way off base. I wouldn't touch a 2014 and neither will ANY informed customer looking to purchase one of these "lemons" in the future!
rosenbergendo is offline  
Old 03-03-2014, 08:18 PM
  #30  
Mike in CA
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Mike in CA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: North Bay Area, CA
Posts: 11,865
Default

As for long term devaluation, it depends entirely on whether all cars are affected, what the fix is, and how it's ultimately handled. The no drive part I agree with completely.
Mike in CA is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Has anyone driven in the 'no drive' period?


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: