Stop Sale Campaign on 911 with Sport Chrono?
#601
Originally Posted by Porschejam
Not sure I’m following the logic of private owners suing Porsche to remove an option from their own car, and then demanding payment for the loss of value related to the feature. If using the feature doesn’t give you the mileage you want, then don’t use the feature.
”Doc, it hurts when I do this!”
”Then stop doing that.”
”Doc, it hurts when I do this!”
”Then stop doing that.”
I was commenting about a hypothetical and mandatory repair, as a possible outcome of the class action.
#602
Not sure I’m following the logic of private owners suing Porsche to remove an option from their own car, and then demanding payment for the loss of value related to the feature. If using the feature doesn’t give you the mileage you want, then don’t use the feature.
”Doc, it hurts when I do this!”
”Then stop doing that.”
”Doc, it hurts when I do this!”
”Then stop doing that.”
The following users liked this post:
Porschejam (12-17-2020)
#603
In the event that it is, in fact, the Sport Plus mode that does not meet emissions regulations, I suppose one (neutering) solution would be to disable Sport Plus in the affected 991.1 vehicles. A poll on how many 991.1 owners actually use Sport Plus may be in order. I use it once in a blue moon while in manual mode but I do not need it. It would not be the end of the world (for me) if that mode were disabled, although I would expect some sort of compensation from Porsche for the loss of some of the car's functionality.
And would eliminate my auto blipping feature from consideration, on days I want to slide the rear and have Porsche blip for me.
#604
That and the Heat shield (see the thread below). These were service bulletins - not recall.
https://rennlist.com/forums/991/1192...ld-recall.html
https://rennlist.com/forums/991/1192...ld-recall.html
And yes I had my heat shield done too.
#605
The following users liked this post:
Al.Fresco (12-17-2020)
#606
I'm with you, and am pretty much just joking around, but there is some truth to the observations. Without much in terms of actual background, most of us are just guessing about what the implications/hypotheticals are. Seems odd to sign onto a lawsuit over diminished value when our cars are worth more than they were a year ago. So the lawyers are asking folks to assume there will be diminished value because of the lawsuit they're asking folks to join.
Everybody has their own motivations, but I'm not really thinking the private lawyers have our best interests in mind. Suing the manufacturer of a product are passionate about over gas mileage seems like madness to me. You can get better mileage by driving with a lighter foot, and nobody I know would buy a Porsche primarily for the gas mileage. Anyone using Sports Chrono isn't doing it for the gas efficiency. (Don't get me wrong, they should not LIE about the gas mileage)
#608
And, while technically correct - points for you - still irrelevant to the thread @shammerman .
The point was the service campaign, aka "recall" in the vernacular, spurred this gentleman to somehow trigger Porsche to reveal that the cars we're driving (well, I am) we certified with one set of software and perhaps hardware, then released to market somehow in altered form.
I think it's fascinating that their issue of diagnostic software/hardware on the emissions system monitoring led to this. Can't wait to hear the full story as it emerges!
The point was the service campaign, aka "recall" in the vernacular, spurred this gentleman to somehow trigger Porsche to reveal that the cars we're driving (well, I am) we certified with one set of software and perhaps hardware, then released to market somehow in altered form.
I think it's fascinating that their issue of diagnostic software/hardware on the emissions system monitoring led to this. Can't wait to hear the full story as it emerges!
#609
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2...missions.shtml
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2...stigated.shtml
I hadn't seen these. Every time I had searched to find more info it always led back to this thread on RL. coming from a Hellcat, my C4S gets great gas mileage
https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2...stigated.shtml
I hadn't seen these. Every time I had searched to find more info it always led back to this thread on RL. coming from a Hellcat, my C4S gets great gas mileage
#610
And, while technically correct - points for you - still irrelevant to the thread @shammerman .
The point was the service campaign, aka "recall" in the vernacular, spurred this gentleman to somehow trigger Porsche to reveal that the cars we're driving (well, I am) we certified with one set of software and perhaps hardware, then released to market somehow in altered form.
I think it's fascinating that their issue of diagnostic software/hardware on the emissions system monitoring led to this. Can't wait to hear the full story as it emerges!
The point was the service campaign, aka "recall" in the vernacular, spurred this gentleman to somehow trigger Porsche to reveal that the cars we're driving (well, I am) we certified with one set of software and perhaps hardware, then released to market somehow in altered form.
I think it's fascinating that their issue of diagnostic software/hardware on the emissions system monitoring led to this. Can't wait to hear the full story as it emerges!
#611
From the lawsuit:
"Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(b), Plaintiffs and the Class seek an additional award against VW and Porsche of up to $5,000 for each Class member who qualifies as a “senior citizen” or “disabled person” under the CLRA. VW knew or should have known that their conduct was directed to one or more Class members who are senior citizens or disabled persons".
Who ever accused lawyers of not being kind and considerate?
"Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(b), Plaintiffs and the Class seek an additional award against VW and Porsche of up to $5,000 for each Class member who qualifies as a “senior citizen” or “disabled person” under the CLRA. VW knew or should have known that their conduct was directed to one or more Class members who are senior citizens or disabled persons".
Who ever accused lawyers of not being kind and considerate?
#612
The following 2 users liked this post by worf928:
edirtaynine (12-18-2020),
SFZ GT3 (12-19-2020)
#613
From the lawsuit:
"Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(b), Plaintiffs and the Class seek an additional award against VW and Porsche of up to $5,000 for each Class member who qualifies as a “senior citizen” or “disabled person” under the CLRA. VW knew or should have known that their conduct was directed to one or more Class members who are senior citizens or disabled persons".
Who ever accused lawyers of not being kind and considerate?
"Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(b), Plaintiffs and the Class seek an additional award against VW and Porsche of up to $5,000 for each Class member who qualifies as a “senior citizen” or “disabled person” under the CLRA. VW knew or should have known that their conduct was directed to one or more Class members who are senior citizens or disabled persons".
Who ever accused lawyers of not being kind and considerate?
#614
Originally Posted by Porschejam
I'm with you, and am pretty much just joking around, but there is some truth to the observations. Without much in terms of actual background, most of us are just guessing about what the implications/hypotheticals are. Seems odd to sign onto a lawsuit over diminished value when our cars are worth more than they were a year ago. So the lawyers are asking folks to assume there will be diminished value because of the lawsuit they're asking folks to join.
Everybody has their own motivations, but I'm not really thinking the private lawyers have our best interests in mind. Suing the manufacturer of a product are passionate about over gas mileage seems like madness to me. You can get better mileage by driving with a lighter foot, and nobody I know would buy a Porsche primarily for the gas mileage. Anyone using Sports Chrono isn't doing it for the gas efficiency. (Don't get me wrong, they should not LIE about the gas mileage)
Everybody has their own motivations, but I'm not really thinking the private lawyers have our best interests in mind. Suing the manufacturer of a product are passionate about over gas mileage seems like madness to me. You can get better mileage by driving with a lighter foot, and nobody I know would buy a Porsche primarily for the gas mileage. Anyone using Sports Chrono isn't doing it for the gas efficiency. (Don't get me wrong, they should not LIE about the gas mileage)
If the agreed upon remedy is of any neutering variety, I'll take my chances with PCNA...
It could turn into a "GT" upgrade opportunity while avoiding a divorce.
Diminished Value scares me not, divorcing the wife does!
The following 5 users liked this post by Bemo:
991.1GTS (12-28-2020),
borivojc (01-01-2021),
edirtaynine (12-18-2020),
Porsche911GTS'16 (12-18-2020),
SFZ GT3 (12-19-2020)
#615
I believe the stop sale and class action lawsuit are unrelated, correct? Then why are we focusing so much on the lawsuit? Porsche itself admitted to emissions manipulation and told German and U.S. regulators this summer, and this is likely the cause of the stop sale.
Porsche Investigated for Gasoline Engine Manipulation (wardsauto.com)
Porsche Investigated for Gasoline Engine Manipulation (wardsauto.com)