ChicagoM4

I read this out of curiosity even though I do not have a 991.1 GT car. Here are some (hopefully) beneficial comments...

- one option could be for Porsche to replace the engine that will permanently fix the top end issues at no cost. The extended warranty is a good alternative but owners will soon face a similar situation as early as 2023 with a 10 year warranty extension.

- effectively, you are accusing PAG of selling cars with a known defect (which in itself is an issue). Otherwise, PAG could just say we fixed the issue ever since the initial recall in 2014. Providing some data/ examples of engine failures post-recall could be beneficial in conjunction with the expert statements you mentioned.

- has anyone tried filing a 'Lemon Law' lawsuit for these GT models? What was the outcome of that? It might help to add.

- Would it be beneficial to try to get national Porsche clubs to back this somehow? just a thought

Also, out of curiosity, is this intended to just be a letter to PAG or an actual legal class action of some sort?

Below is a similar example of a CAL filed against Hyundai for some engines having 'catastrophic failure'.

http://www.girardgibbs.com/hyundai-s...ngine-failure/

Fast Doc

Hi Rob,

I am happy to join the group. But as I live in Australia I have the option of extending the warranty annually.

robmypro

Thank you for helping. This is great info. This will potentially be a multi-step process, but the group's desire is not to turn this into a CAL. The purpose of the initial letter is to inform Porsche of our desire to handle this situation out of court, and give them an opportunity to do the right thing. At this point that is all we are thinking about.

The contents of our proposal have not been finalized. There is still a considerable amount of debate/discussion regarding warranty vs. fix.

Again, thanks for helping. Most people seem to prefer PM so feel free to reach out to me.

ChicagoM4

Happy to help. It's about time someone actually takes action.

ATXGT3

Writing a letter is not 'action' to Porsche. Get a lawyer. Sue. Lose. And life goes on.

Anything short of that is not in the Porsche business model to care about.

And honestly they shouldn't.

robmypro

Update: v6 is up. Incorporated some of your ideas. OP attachment also updated.

ATXGT3

You REALLY need to have professional (attorney) draft this--no offense but this is written very poorly. It just doesn't have any impact to it whatsoever IMHO. Sounds like a weak threat letter vs something that will catch their attention of a global corporation legal department (which are the only people that will have a say in such a matter ultimately).

Please, please, please--get someone professional (lawyer) to at least give this a run through before sending. If for no other reason, to at least 'represent' your 140 in a quasi-credible manner.

disden

Its too bad that those of us in the good ol USA cant buy the yearly extended warranty as offered everywhere else. Probably due to our love of being overly litigious for anything/everything. As an RS owner who plans on keeping it for the long haul, I would without a doubt take advantage of this extended warranty option. Good luck with this, I will be eagerly following along.

robmypro

Agree 100%. This issue would have a lot less traction if everyone could extend their warranties for 10 years. I doubt anyone would argue about the $1700 cost per year. Thanks for your support!

Jamie@dundonmotorsports

Rob, reach out to Waxer, he was pursuing something similar...

robmypro

Updated to v7.

robmypro

Will do Jamie. Thanks for the heads up!

fxz

Asking PAG to give the same warranty extendibility for a small amount as in EU is something reasonable

asking PAG to say the did an engine design mistake is getting nothing

consider on this engine part like the head that
since petrol engine history IS subject to wearing
there s nothing magic but head rebuild
(just ask any '60 '70 '80 etc. 911 or any car owner)

Any mechanical part under stress(movenent in your case) is subject to wearing
Any manufacter is obliged to cover early wearing before warranty expires

Pretending a free 10 year warranty extension because after 4! years a mechanical part could be hit by wearing is crazy
full stop

robmypro

This is what was won from the IMS situation...

The Porsche settlement will resolve a 2011 class action lawsuit (Eisen, et al. v. Porsche Cars North America Inc.) that claims the Intermediate Shaft (IMS) in the engine of these vehicles is defective. An IMS failure can cause catastrophic engine failure, which may result in repair bills costing thousands of dollars.

The Porsche IMS class action lawsuit claims that the Porsche vehicles have experienced or may in the future experience IMS related engine damage before or after their original Limited Warranty or Approved Certified Pre-Owned Limited Warranty has expired, and that certain repairs were required or may be required in the future due to such damage. These repairs can be very expensive. The class action lawsuit was filed to help current and former Porsche owners and lessees obtain reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs spent on repairs caused by the defective IMS.

Porsche denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to provide reimbursements for out-of-pocket repair costs as part of a class action settlement. Porsche will also pay Class Members up to $200 toward documented towing and/or rental car fees related to IMS failure.

The class action settlement will also cover future IMS related engine damage. If your Class Vehicle experiences IMS engine damage after July 17, 2013, you will be eligible to receive a reimbursement for money you spent replacing or repairing the engine up to 10 years after the vehicle was placed in-service or up to 130,000 total miles on the vehicle, whichever comes first. You must promptly notify Porsche by calling 1-800-486-9809 to recover your damages.

Tom Tweed

In California, the Lemon Law requires that the manufacturer be unable to fix the car after a reasonable number of repair attempts. The cases that exist have had repairs done successfully so far, and I don't know of any multiple failures yet on the same vehicle that would satisfy this requirement. Until then, the only basis for a Lemon Law suit might be that the time out of service for the repair was "unreasonable." Some owners, including most of the 2014 buyers who experienced long wait times, were compensated for just this loss/delay of expected usage.

TT