MM3.9GT3

Great advice about taking "risk off the table". You can always buy another GT3 down the road.

As for the 4.0, I was offered an allocation, and turned it down. My logic? I already have a 3.9 Manthey, so why the heck would I need a marginally faster 4.0? I'd like a "do over" on that decision.

Streetking

I understand everyone's frustration, but it is what it is. For me, I have several other cars to drive but only one other track car. I bought this car to track and after the new motor, I'm going to drive the hell out of it. I plan on getting a RS also but going to keep this one to and probably make it my daily driver. I do love the way it drives...

Mike in CA

Chris, I was told that this defect did not show itself in all of the extensive testing done on these cars until the two specific failures occurred.

Even if one doesn't believe that, there is another fact for which I have yet to hear an adequate explanation from anyone. There are hundreds of these cars in the hands of owners, many already with substantial mileage, others driven hard on track. With the exception of the two cars that were almost literally right off the showroom floor, none have experienced this failure. Perhaps you or someone else could come up with a theory on why hundreds of cars with an obvious design problem could be so trouble free in thousands of miles of driving, and two others could exhibit failure right out of the box.

We've all been slamming the letter for it's lack of specifics in several areas. Personally, I suspect there is more information surrounding the cause and solution than was outlined in the e-mail.

sunnyr

According to the letter the problem is the "piston rod screw connection" not necessarily the screw/bolt itself. And they are testing an "optimized screw connection". That sounds like the fix is really a redesigned connecting rod.

kaamacat

I do not have a horse in this game, but, agree. We are talking simple old connecting rod, cap, bearing bolt/nut stuff here... how much is there to really invent? The communication referred to loose, but nothing exactly specific on anything breaking...or that a connecting rod hold sheered...etc. I thought that this part of the engine assembly was done with human intervention. Is it not possible that it could be as-simple-as human error on assembly?

mqandil

Mike I only can speak from our own experience. As I mentioned in the past we are a mobile emergency pumping systems manufacturer but we also manufacture other equipments such as heat machines, off road trucks, and hydraulic turbines for energy recovery. 35% of our units are sold to rental companies such as Hertz, or the US army. As rental units or even army equipment they get abused, and of course they still expect warranty after all the abuse. So there is big emphasis on our designs to be "Abused-Proof". However from time to time, and especially with a new product something breaks or become loose and we will have to pull the equipment from the filed and bring it back to our facility for evaluation and possible redesign. What typically we do, is develop a timeline showing when the equipment will be returned back to the end user. This timeline is developed with engineering & production as engineering is in the best position to estimate the design & testing cycle, and production is in the best position to estimate the schedule to manufacture or source the new components. Marketing then constructs an overall timeline showing the entire process and estimated completion date. We update this schedule showing our progress against our initial estimate, and send this update weekly to the affected customers. The customers are usually very happy with this approach as they can determine the end point and allow them to plan for other arrangements, until this end point is achieved (equipment returned).

The weekly progress report also shows them how the factory is doing against their proposed timeline, and if they are working hard enough to fix the problem. It also places pressure internally on the manufacturer to hustle and make the proposed schedule.

The lack of information from Porsche and also leaving the issue open ended opens people to speculation and does not allow the end user to plan or find other solutions. They need to treat this as a project and assign it a project manager who develops a time line for this project and provide us with weekly updates about the factory progress and the chances of meeting the proposed deadline. If Porsche ends up beating the proposed deadline they will come out as a hero, otherwise they will be !!!!! (leave it to your imagination).

I too believe Porsche will end up giving us a great car with a reliable fix but I have no idea when. I would feel much better if I know what is going and not rely on wild speculations from this forum or others. Of course they would also have to compensate us fairly for all of this and perhaps give us some solutions of how to handle upcoming track events without our GT3. They owe us at least this much. Mark

Mike in CA

Peter, I appreciate the advice, but I simply don't feel that my investment is at risk. Porsche will figure out how to fix a con rod bolt, FCOL, and the engine will be good as new; certainly as good as those in any future GT3, RS, or Cayman GT. Unless, of course, you believe that Porsche has just packed it in with regard to ever producing a reliable car ever again.

The car is paid for, there are no payments. I'm willing to see how this plays out. If the fix isn't satisfactory it will give me more ammunition to deal with them in the future. My daughter is quite a good lawyer.....another investment that paid off.

djcxxx

I personally believe that the engineers were astonished that their technologic marvel could have been undone by normal parts quality variation in a critical area where perhaps the computers cut the performance safety envelope a little too close. These types of failures have a "swiss cheese" component where two or more factors must align to result in failure whereas one alone would not. That alone should provide current owners with confidence that the new engine will be a winner since a repeat failure is extremely unlikely. I owned a 95 530i BMW that had the nikasil cylinder liners that crapped out w/ the high sulfur gasoline. The extended warranty meant nothing, the value of the car tanked and nobody cared anyway. I mention this because a GT3 is not a BMW or any other car for that matter. Owners and non owner car enthusiasts care about the GT3, something that is not true about most cars. I'd sit tight if I owned one and let Porsche work to make it right. I believe Porsche has big plans for this engine and is not about to let it die on the vine. I'm looking forward to round 2 which is why I leased my C4S.

MarcusG

Link to video of 5-6 GT3's lapping Leipzig as hard as they can relentlessly please!!!

neanicu

Mike,you know how much I respect your opinions,but this is Porsche marketing BS at its best!!!



This is the video I've been looking for a long time. I can't stand and watch this BS any longer! No way the engine problems wouldn't develop in this ^^^kind of testing! I'd say the chances of no rod bolts failures during the testing,had they've been using same parts(and it makes no sense whatsoever why they wouldn't) are less than 10% IMHO!

GTGTGT

I had an April delivery date, so I can relate. I've been looking at this in positive ways - like maybe we will get the RS motor - or something more advances and powerful - especially if they are going to replace all motors as part of correction that must include a redesign. I remember when I had a slight concern about my '01 C4S motor, and they sent an entire new one in a crate from Deutschland.

Mike in CA

Mark, it sounds as if your company is a good one to do business with.

Maybe it has something to do with the culture of a smaller (not to be presumptive re: the size of your company) versus a very large business. I did engineering for a giant telecommunications firm. We frequently did work which directly impacted consumers. In 30 years I can't think of a single instance where we provided detailed information to customers regarding our planning, engineering, and construction schedules. I don't mean to say that's the best way to do business, but it's not unusual.

I'd love to have daily or weekly updates on the progress of this thing. I'm just not sure how much impact a few web forum members are going to have on a German multi-national corporation. It's possible I'm being defeatist, but I suspect I'm being realistic.

snabbgt3

.. is there anyone on the thread that can shed light on this matter, with diagrams of crank, connecting rod, etc., as to precisely what connector and screw(s) are loosening?

rosenbergendo

Depreciation most definitely on those 2014's will be absolutely huge. I can see an easy instant 30-50k hit on the 14's. Easy. Not so sure what my "contact" meant that this was a supplier issue?? How did this not show up in their testing for 2 years and 100's of thousands of miles and then when it hit production all of a sudden it was an issue? As this is still playing out I would be ok with a car 1 year from now or an RS...... but its pretty risky taking one these with an relatively untested "supplier" parts.

0Q991

Historically, how much worse was the depreciation on 997s with various issues?