In California and Illinois the test is only a review of readiness and faults stored in the car's computer. No sniffing.

 

Jimwood - I hope it is that simple. Check for being conned and we get to keep the car, no modifications. Realistically, we may get a check but it may require modification of the car or giving the car up altogether. If the car is not up to the environmental standards, I anticipate the cars will need to be modified to maintain registry with the state. I hope I am wrong!

 

Paragraphs 15 and 16 are nonsense. What sports car buyer is concerned with efficiency? Oh, if only this car could get 1 more mpg and produce 5 fewer carbon dioxide. Woe is me. It's just not efficient enough for my taste. I would have never paid $120k for such an inefficient car!

 

I am not familiar with buybacks - but what sort of pricing would you expect the dealer to buy the car back at?

I don’t think sports car buyers are too concerned with efficiency. But I do think it’s a slippery slope and bad practice to intentionally mislead consumers.

 

Here is a nice summary of what was done for Dieselgate car owners: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1...sions-scandal/

If I refused the "neutering" of the car (which I would), I would expect fair market value for the car. Then Porsche can neuter it and sell it. For anything less than fair market value, many 991.1 owners would take a huge financial hit for owning a car that was sold to us with fraudulent marketing. For instance, 991.1 GTSs have been selling for anywhere from $80-100,000+ on the pre-owned market. If my car is "worth," say, $80,000 and they offer me $40,000 for the car, that puts me in a $40,000 financial hole due to their fraudulence and malpractice. I know, all hypothetical at this point but I am sure there will be many a PO'd 991.1 owner if we are forced to give our car up for a huge financial loss (refusing the alternative, accepting a lesser than advertised, neutered car).

 

The obvious difference, of course, is that people bought diesel cars specifically for the gas efficiency. This is NOT why people buy a GTS. Further, used cars are selling at a premium right now. I’d suggest that they’ve depreciated less than normal.

While I agree that car companies shouldn’t deceive the purchaser, I see this more as California forcing carmakers into a corner, and then beating them up when they couldn’t comply without hurting performance.

which car pollutes more? The car that has 3X emissions that is driven 1/3Y miles, or the baseline car that Has X emissions that’s driven Y miles? Maybe the real solution is to tax the heck out of gas. Oh no, says the politician.

 

My question is, what would the FMV for these cars be with this "issue" hanging over the affected the heads of models?

It's likely safe to assume that these cars are worth less now. Simply reimbursing us for the car at its newer, now newly diminished value is clearly unfair to the current owners. Not that I would expect a premium, but my hope anyway (likely falsely so) is that we be made whole in some form or fashion. Said more simply, I bought this car for X, is now worth a fraction of X (the fraction can be debated) and that isn't the fault of the consumer.

 

I’m in the market for a 991.1 now, and a couple of the cars I’m looking at do have the sport chrono package. Any thoughts / opinions in the community here on if this would stop you from purchasing until more information is available or potential value impairment in a price negotiation?

 

Posters here seem to be hell bent in blaming California. Dieselgate started with an independent organization that was actually advocating the use of diesel. It was only when their testing showed VW products emitted more pollutants that they requested CA to double check.

In this case, it has nothing to do with CA but some greedy lawyers who are in CA. Any lawyer in any state would have initiated this class action lawsuit

 

Would absolutely use it for negotiation/leverage. The dealer would too! I would insist on SC for a PDK car and not care on a manual car.

 

This has nothing to do with California. Porsche is being investigated by their equivalent of the EPA/DOT, the KBA for more emissions fraud as stated in numerous press articles.

 

California has been a major driver at putting the thumbscrews to car manufacturers, for better or worse (and there is some of both). And yes, this lawsuit could have originated from anywhere, but it did originate with some lawyers in California.

 

Seems to me you'd have to show damage in terms of depreciation. And since new and used Porsches have been selling at a premium, it would seem an inopportune time to execute such a lawsuit.

 

Since I bought my car a month ago, I am documenting my concerns to my selling dealer as well as Porsche NA. I will not accept a change to my car that takes the performance down....the sticky part is that I have spent over $3000 on it already by way of add ons, that I may never see back!

 

So a manual non-SC car now becomes the rarest of all rare beasts?

The only true Porsche....I knew it