robmypro

Here's the problem, Jimmy. More than a few members have an RS, and they are also voicing concerns. In fact...I just got a new member 3 minutes ago with an RS.

Jimmy-D

They will be covered under whatever the GT3 Group accomplishes -that is the great part

robmypro

I think this is a fair concern. If we can get RS owners included without actually naming them, I think this is reasonable.

Jimmy-D

robmypro

No worries guys. We are trying to help, not hurt people. I can see exactly how including RS in this discussion could backfire. OP has the latest. RS scrubbed. New email too.

zedcat

This is along the lines I was thinking in my earlier post. Just some logistics thoughts- letter is addressed to PAG but the meeting requested is at PCNA HQ. Is the group mostly US based? Perhaps copy PCNA since they would be hosting. Also presume you sign the letter on behalf of the group?

If it is successful in getting a meeting suggest some thought on attendees. Obviously best to keep it to a small number. I can't recall how the prior group handled that but think it was just a few that attended.

robmypro

Good question. If the meeting is going to be in Atlanta, they will be included. This was just one of the three that are going to get this letter. Yeah, I will sign.

Attendees...another good point. Probably 5. Just off the top of my head...

At least 2-3 members that have experienced this failure.
Someone with engine experience. Might have to draft Jamie.
Would love to have Macca/Mark, as he was the guy who started tracking this. This is really his baby.
Last name that comes to mind is...ATXGT3?

LOL

robmypro

Thread title also changed. Thanks Mark!

qbix

Don't leave ROW stranded!

fxz

del

robmypro

Won't do that, buddy. The global nature of the group will be heavily underscored. Whatever comes from this, we are working for everyone, regardless of location.

homesauce

This thread is really interesting with a lot of points and counterpoints to this approach for concerned owners. To understand how PAG will respond, we need to consider what they actually care about and value. They care about maintaining their reputation (which is why they have swept this under the rug as much as they have. Notice how all of Preuninger's comments about changes to the .2GT3 top end have been carefully crafted as to not mention the .1GT3 issues. In reality, I imagine that Preuninger's actual decision making ability is limited and a letter like this would likely put him in hot water to the execs that are really pulling the strings for decisions that can cost the company millions of dollars. I bet he got a slap in the hand for the .1GT3 engine problems. Imagine if roughly every engine from the .1GT3's sold (~5000) needed rebuilds that cost PAG 30k = $150M. I just can't imagine they would be wanting to take on this liability without very clear beneficial reason to do so. Pissing off ~200 .1GT3 owners would certainly not convince me to take on a potential $150M liability if I were an exec, especially given the cost that Dieselgate costed VW group. Note that they probably do not care about your resale value, so bringing that up would detract from what they actually care about.

Ultimately, PAG and any other auto manufacturer are required to warranty their vehicle for their advertised warranty period, and they have obviously performed the statistics on how much the current failure rate is, coupled with the average number of miles people are putting on their .1GT3's to determine that it'd be MUCH cheaper to address this issue per vehicle, rather than a large scale warranty claim which would cost $150M. If you wanted something done, you would need to convince someone on their end that a potential ~$150M liability is worth addressing, which would probably need some lawsuit or serious media slander.

In reality, even if they pissed off everyone on the GT3 forums today, there would still be enough of a market of people lining out the door to buy future GT cars (myself being one of them). Sadly, as valiant as this group is, we don't have nearly enough leverage on PAG unless we get orders of magnitude more people behind us. They were even able to weather the bad publicity when the .1GT3 first came out.

I personally feel like it would be some serious good will for them to warranty a car out of the warranty period that costed this much. There's just so much liability there, and in reality the amount of engines that are actually failing from this are probably a small number relative to the engines that are out there operating without concerns. The forums can certainly make things seem worse than reality. Also, even if future revisions didn't completely solve the problem by addressing the oiling and hardness coating, they probably significantly reduced the risk of the failure occurring.

I think that sending this letter out now would be premature and do more harm than good. Firstly, the cars are still in warranty so they would come back with that right away since they have stood behind their warranty. After warranty expires and if a significant amount of cars start having issues, then a class action lawsuit would probably have more weight behind it. I just see very little chance of them hearing 200 owner concerns and saying, "You're right, we want to extend the warranty for this issue another 10 years" when the car is still under warranty and the problem hasn't escalated yet, but am curious to hear other people's opinion.

robmypro

I think people are looking at this as an "all or nothing" proposition. This is a process, and this is just the beginning of that process. I have no idea where this is going.

Step 1, let's get Porsche to have a metting, and hear our concerns. And, we can hear their side of it. This thing can go many directions from there.

Keep in mind that I am getting PM'd and emailed multiple times each hour. This group could be 1,000 members within a month. Why would Porsche ignore so many valued customers?

A meeting with Porsche on this topic would be a very positive FIRST step in the process. We'll see what happens.

fxz

Pretending a global recall to retrofit .1GT3 with .2GT3 head engine
is incompetent and ridicoulus because impossible

what when 992 GT3 will be annunced? Will ppl pretend a retrofit again???

Anyone having any problem in 4 years is more than assisted as well proved by Porsche

Is this concern due to .2GT3 jurnos voicing "omg such a greeeeat car" ?

Guys forget the jurnos marketing, if you compare their .1GT3 reviews with .2GT3 ones you will
find exactly the same hypes

i can barely imagine when jurnos will review 992 GT3 the ppl not able to buy 1
crying 'dough why i didn t wait instead of buying this or that"

does somebody able to at least understand the difference between a GT3 air filter and his nose kleenex (talking to you Rob...)
seriously think you can put 100k miles on a high (same) revving .2GT3 WITHOUT changing any mech wearing part?????

You don t need a lawyer but a phd mech engineer
and a psicologist of course to explain you how to read jurnos marketing and that
used cars are not investment assets

.2GT3 afterall is a .2 version not a new panacea era

mcsmcs1

Sober up and then come back here and try that again okay?