Chris3963

One of the things that especially pisses me off is that it is not as if I am a one-time Porsche buyer. Over the last 18 months I have dropped close to $700K on the brand by buying 5 Pcars with another two planned in the next 12months. Collectively, that would be almost $1m spent on Porsche in a 28mth period.

Further during the same period, I have spent over $50K on PSDS events so overall they could not get much of better brand ambassador than me. You would think they would be falling over themselves to keep buyers/supporters like me happy.

If they don't come thru, then Porsche is dead as brand for me and anybody I speak to.

Macca

Chris. I agree with you - this is simply not acceptable. Myself (non USA) and many others (USA & Europe) have had replacement engines after CEL on track. We have the supplementary track warranty booklet that was provided with the car, which states the car is covered for track usage (some conditions apply). My car was supplied Ex Europe dealer (RHD market, not UK) and came with this said same track warranty booklet.

If the car is under the original factory warranty then I believe you should be covered (regardless of where the CEL was caused, it could easily have happened on the way back from the track - the fact it happened at a Porsche Masters driving experience (if I am recalling correctly) is an "insult to injury" as you were forced to rent a 991 RS for 1.5 days!).

I must say im very deeply dissapointed in Porsche in regards to the way they have handled your situation. That they did not once mention you were not covered until after the work was performed is grounds for legal action. If you were told this first (I still dont believe they have a right to refuse here) then you could have sought remedial actions (for example trialing a solution from Dundon or else just replacing the finger followers for $1500 USD etc). I cant recall if they did a bottom up rebuild for you but if not then 30K either way is more than faintly ludicrous for heads/cams/followers etc. For example you may not have needed the heads and all the sundry stuff they fitted if you were forced to just change the followers or cams and followers on your own coin). It would have been enough to get the car working normally again in order to sell it etc...

Please keep us informed of progress here. Its a very upsetting outcome for you and for us as a community and we will do what we can to support. I can only hope that PAG will see the light. If they are not supplying track warranty in your market then I understand, but Id be very surprised as I understand they are in most European countries. Lets hope this is a brain fart by someone at PAG and they will rescind this outrageous request. In the meantime I rescind my view on their future "goodwill" until be know further what grounds this decision has been made on. Certainly I agree, if someone gets a CEL its hardly inducive to them telling the truth that it happened on the track or a few days later on the road if these are the real grounds for denial. Evidence to date has suggested PAG have not faltered in all other known cases of replacing engines/top end rebuilds for cars having this issue on track (at least half of the reported cases failed while on a track day).

Its a small consolation, but you have this community behind you and the decision they make for you will collectively affect the goodwill towards their GT brand by a much larger audience than they care to recognize at this point. We are just the early adopters here with a few years on the 991 RS owners and we know for fact (see this thread) that the 991 RS is susceptible to the same design related CEL (miss fire) failure down the line (infact I believe its already starting a little). So this is not a 991.1 GT3 specific issue and the wider GT community should also be concerned at your treatment and supportive of a satisfactory outcome.

Best for now, hang in there, and keep some of your "powder dry" for the possible battle ahead....

M

RajDatta

Until another viable solution exists and has been thoroughly tested, not sure I would throw it out there as an option.
So far, all we know is that a vendor is working on a solution. What that solution is, how much it costs etc is still yet to be determined.
I am still suspect of a vendor beating Porsche to the punch on a viable solution. Hoping a solution is found soon for the ones affected, no matter where it comes from.

MileHigh911

Unbelievable response from PAG. If they hold the line against you, then I see a future social media ****-storm for them.

CALSE

30,000 euros for top end then probably 50,000+ euros for replacement?

Hope the resale value of the GT3/RS does not get beat way down. If all is true, I do not think buyers would be so inclined to jumping in even if still within the warranty period.:/

SWK6Cup

ipse dixit

I am still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that a Euro spec car is not warrantied for track use (like the U.S. cars are).

I was always under the impression that the ROW 991 GT3 had a track warranty.

Is that incorrect?

Is it possible that U.S. cars are unique in this respect? If so, that's really hard to believe.

dunlopnick

Why would the dealer start the work without getting approval from PAG or you first ??

I have just had my PCM changed out on my GT3 under warranty but the dealer had to perform a number of tasks to get the approval from Porsche first - fair enough and understandable ...

C6 ZED

Macca
Following this thread closely. I have a thin booklet titled "911 GT3 Driving on the Race Circuit" but I do not have the supplemental warranty booklet you reference. Would it be possible for you to post the cover so I can follow up with my dealer?
Thanks.

squid42

Still curious which country this incident is in and what work was done.

(prices in Europe include sales tax, so you can't translate to dollars without knowing the country.

fbirch

For this amount of money I certainly wouldn't take the service manager's word on it. I'd want to speak directly with a representative of Porsche as to whether track usage is excluded from warranty coverage. And if you strike out there and exhaust all your options, I'd certainly get them to reverse the unauthorized repairs and have another dealer perform a minimalist repair as Macca suggested.

ipse dixit

I think for everyone in the U.S. who is chiming in with suggestions -- all of which are helpful -- should keep in mind that laws, rules and regulations may (and probably are) very different across the pond.

robmypro

I believe it was Belgium.

meaker

If they had performed the work without asking me first, I would had left the car with them and tell them to put the damage parts back. I didn't agree to paying for the work to be done.

m42racer

I believe Porsche just showed their hand!!!

What is the difference in track use and street use in this circumstance? The number of engine revolutions in a given (shorter) amount of time. Take one half of those revolutions and that is how many times the camshafts revolved 360°.

What am i saying? I'm suggesting that whatever Porsche are doing to solve this problem, its all about kicking the can (problem) down the road and hopefully out of the warranty period. Track use means that the engine probably was used at higher RPM over a shorter amount of time, therefore the road got shorter.

In this situation, I would ask the dealer for a print out of the ECU logged data. It will show the max RPM, Temps etc, and the time the engine was used and at each RPM. If you stayed within the manufacturers limits on all parameters, then ask what is the difference. The problem exists regardless of use. The problem has nothing to do or is caused by track use "v" street use, temps or any other engine parameter. Its a fault in design and is created by engine revolutions. The only difference in high engine speed and low engine speed is the number of engine revolutions in the same given time. More RPM's the higher the wear rate in the same given time, accelerated wear, the higher the probability the problem with surface within the warranty period.

The problem is going to happen, track use just shortened the road Porsche wish to kick the can down.

This is why I believe Porsche just showed their intention.