New Boxster/997 Update Straight From The Harm's Mouth
11-21-2003, 07:05 PM
#16
Burning Brakes
I think Porsche's official position is, so far, indifference.
I'd be curious to know if this is an issue that could be forced
however, due to the fact that the problem is emissions related.
I know that most manufacturers warranty key emissions related parts
for eight to ten years (over and above their standard warranty). I'm not
sure if that's a clean air legal requirement (probably..) but from what I
understand, the secondary air injection system is entirely emissions related.
Does anybody know what Porsche's emissions warranty consists of?
FWIW my 96 has 82,000 miles on it and (touch wood) the CEL hasn't come on
yet...and there's none of the telltale signs of valve wear, so I don't think this
problem affects all 993s equally. Which is probably Porsche's trump card in this
whole issue.
I'd be curious to know if this is an issue that could be forced
however, due to the fact that the problem is emissions related.
I know that most manufacturers warranty key emissions related parts
for eight to ten years (over and above their standard warranty). I'm not
sure if that's a clean air legal requirement (probably..) but from what I
understand, the secondary air injection system is entirely emissions related.
Does anybody know what Porsche's emissions warranty consists of?
FWIW my 96 has 82,000 miles on it and (touch wood) the CEL hasn't come on
yet...and there's none of the telltale signs of valve wear, so I don't think this
problem affects all 993s equally. Which is probably Porsche's trump card in this
whole issue.
11-22-2003, 01:30 PM
#17
I had a '94 964 RS America. With some simple mods, it was light and quite powerful. It served as DE toy and daily driver. The handling was tremendous fun and I like the body style (although I'm not a fan of whale tails) and it was always a delight to drive. I regret selling. As a rule, I never buy the same car twice, so that's a chapter in my book.
I have a 993. The 993 is "better" but it's also more subdued and controlled, especially in the sophistication of the rear suspension. I prefer the 993 body. I doubt Porsche will ever make a car to take me away from the 993.
I still look forward to getting a '72 or '73. I hope that Mr Porsche will bring us a 997 to address the "shortcomings" of the 996. I think it's fair to say the 996 has gone through the usual incremental improvements over its model life, it's a far better car today than in the first year.
If Porsche has a weakness today, it's not the engineering or design, it's resale value depreciation.
(ps. thanks for the info on the 997, but I think the verbatim re-typing steps over the line of copyright.)
I have a 993. The 993 is "better" but it's also more subdued and controlled, especially in the sophistication of the rear suspension. I prefer the 993 body. I doubt Porsche will ever make a car to take me away from the 993.
I still look forward to getting a '72 or '73. I hope that Mr Porsche will bring us a 997 to address the "shortcomings" of the 996. I think it's fair to say the 996 has gone through the usual incremental improvements over its model life, it's a far better car today than in the first year.
If Porsche has a weakness today, it's not the engineering or design, it's resale value depreciation.
(ps. thanks for the info on the 997, but I think the verbatim re-typing steps over the line of copyright.)
11-22-2003, 02:45 PM
#18
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
good point about retyping the article word for word. I'd seen other posts with scanned articles posted (which is obviously word for word), right from the publication.
If the poster quotes the dialogue and specifically refers to the publication is that still a copyright violation? How is that different from scanning and posting the actual article so I know for next time
Thanks,
If the poster quotes the dialogue and specifically refers to the publication is that still a copyright violation? How is that different from scanning and posting the actual article so I know for next time
Thanks,
11-22-2003, 10:32 PM
#19
I have no idea of where the line in the sand might be for copyright. But read any copyright boilerplate, it uses terms like reproduce, republish and redistribution. Retyping an article and posting it to a public forum hits all those rights.
I haven't checked the magazine or their Web site. Their "Terms of Use" might allow for some pieces to be freely redistributed etc.
I've seen situations where an article could be photocopied and redistributed and the claim came down to not the content or the value of the piece but the protection of the images (copyright photographs) and the trade symbols and graphics (charts, graphs) were at issue.
Who knows? Who cares? I just know that the people at Rennlist have been (responsibly) trying to prevent and discourage copyright issues to protect themselves. And fair enough.
I haven't checked the magazine or their Web site. Their "Terms of Use" might allow for some pieces to be freely redistributed etc.
I've seen situations where an article could be photocopied and redistributed and the claim came down to not the content or the value of the piece but the protection of the images (copyright photographs) and the trade symbols and graphics (charts, graphs) were at issue.
Who knows? Who cares? I just know that the people at Rennlist have been (responsibly) trying to prevent and discourage copyright issues to protect themselves. And fair enough.
