Here is my take on the RMS bull s*&t
03-04-2005, 08:25 PM
#61
Originally Posted by wormdoggy
Guys...........this is heaven........... when are you ever EVER going to be able to get free legal advise from an attorney. Someone call the PRESS! 
Now, to my question:
TDin DC, hypothetically , what if an accident was caused by and engine light malfunction display. The driver was involved in an accident while glancing at his display console and suprised by the engine malfunction reading. The reading was in effect directly attributeable to RMS failure.
Can the automobile manufacturer or supplier be responsible for injuries caused by a defect in the automobile under the law of product liability.?
Cheers
Now, to my question:
TDin DC, hypothetically , what if an accident was caused by and engine light malfunction display. The driver was involved in an accident while glancing at his display console and suprised by the engine malfunction reading. The reading was in effect directly attributeable to RMS failure.
Can the automobile manufacturer or supplier be responsible for injuries caused by a defect in the automobile under the law of product liability.?
Cheers
The biggest problem would be to prove that illumination of the light would cause a reasonable man to have an accident (i.e., proximate cause). Otherwise, it was poor driving that caused the accident, not the illumination of the light (which, by the way, functioned as designed in your hypothetical). I think it would be impossible to prove that. Even if you could prove it, you could not have a class action unless you had multiple people who had accidents due to illumination of the light. No way Jose.
To take it back to the original topic. No, I do not think that the typical RMS failure is the end of the world. I think that they are extremely annoying, but they are easily fixed. I would not consider those who have had 3 or more failures on the same car to have a "typical RMS problem." As long as Porsche replaces under warranty, no big deal. I probably will not own a Porsche out of warranty, but I may not have done so even if there were no RMS problems. I owned a Boxster S that had an RMS failure, and I knowingly purchased an '02 Targa anyway.
03-04-2005, 09:16 PM
#62
Three Wheelin'
I just want to straighten out my story on my RMS problem for you guys that don;t know already.
The 1st RMS failed at 28,000 miles. The car was just out of warranty so Porsche chipped in with a good-will claim. I had to contribute £237 towards costs. Since then there have been 5 other replacement RMS's making a total of 7 RMS's fitted to the car including the one fitted at the factory when it was built. Apart from the 1st RMS, I have not paid a penny. Porsche have replaced them all FOC. However, when the last (7th) RMS was fitted, I was told by Porsche that they would not replace any more in future FOC. They have suggested that the only fix is to replace the engine. They have offered me a deal of 50% cost for this replacement engine. My cost will be £4,700. This is a rip since as dar as I am concerened they never fixed the problem in the first case. Anyway, to so to sum up, I didn't in the past have to pay $800 for each RMS replaced like some of you have inferred.
OK, so now that's cleared up.
The point you are all missing is "this is a manufacturing fault". I find it rather pointless reading things like "can an accident caused by looking at a led flashing due to some RMS related problem in the engine be grounds for class action". I could think of a zillion like this.......The RMS leaked on my driveway and my granny slipped on the oil sludge and broke her neck!.......The RMS leaked oil onto the church's freshly paved driveway....blah blah. You are all looking to suite Porsche for the wrong reason. If there is going to be a so called class action case then should it not be for a product that is sold that was never fit for its purpose. We are buying faulty goods (engines) sold as perfect with the fault seemingly for the most part, lying latent and inconveniently showing up after warranty expires....i.e., it was and has always been there just waiting to happen.
Finally, guys without meaning to offend you, can I remind you that this is not a forum just for US members. It's an International forum too. I see words like "law of the state" or "class action" for this and that. We don;t have "class actions" in the UK or Lemon laws so a lot of what you say is meaningless to me. Your comments are brilliant reading but some of us can't relate to them. Also, please remember that in the RoW we only get 2 years warranty NOT 4. Please try to think "global" in your comments. It would help greatly. Sorry if this sounds offensive but I read many posts from members who don't seem to be thinking out of the box. This RMS problem affects Porsches outside the US too you know......this is why I think a combined PCNA & PCGB forcefull approach is the best way....and any other Porsche Club that can come to the party of course. Sueing Porsche is one thing but embarrasing them to fix it is another. If every RMS afflicted owner would bother to write to their club expressing how dissatisfied and dissapointed you are in how Porsche are dealing with it, it would not be too long before they start putting presure on Porsche for a resolution.
The 1st RMS failed at 28,000 miles. The car was just out of warranty so Porsche chipped in with a good-will claim. I had to contribute £237 towards costs. Since then there have been 5 other replacement RMS's making a total of 7 RMS's fitted to the car including the one fitted at the factory when it was built. Apart from the 1st RMS, I have not paid a penny. Porsche have replaced them all FOC. However, when the last (7th) RMS was fitted, I was told by Porsche that they would not replace any more in future FOC. They have suggested that the only fix is to replace the engine. They have offered me a deal of 50% cost for this replacement engine. My cost will be £4,700. This is a rip since as dar as I am concerened they never fixed the problem in the first case. Anyway, to so to sum up, I didn't in the past have to pay $800 for each RMS replaced like some of you have inferred.
OK, so now that's cleared up.
The point you are all missing is "this is a manufacturing fault". I find it rather pointless reading things like "can an accident caused by looking at a led flashing due to some RMS related problem in the engine be grounds for class action". I could think of a zillion like this.......The RMS leaked on my driveway and my granny slipped on the oil sludge and broke her neck!.......The RMS leaked oil onto the church's freshly paved driveway....blah blah. You are all looking to suite Porsche for the wrong reason. If there is going to be a so called class action case then should it not be for a product that is sold that was never fit for its purpose. We are buying faulty goods (engines) sold as perfect with the fault seemingly for the most part, lying latent and inconveniently showing up after warranty expires....i.e., it was and has always been there just waiting to happen.
Finally, guys without meaning to offend you, can I remind you that this is not a forum just for US members. It's an International forum too. I see words like "law of the state" or "class action" for this and that. We don;t have "class actions" in the UK or Lemon laws so a lot of what you say is meaningless to me. Your comments are brilliant reading but some of us can't relate to them. Also, please remember that in the RoW we only get 2 years warranty NOT 4. Please try to think "global" in your comments. It would help greatly. Sorry if this sounds offensive but I read many posts from members who don't seem to be thinking out of the box. This RMS problem affects Porsches outside the US too you know......this is why I think a combined PCNA & PCGB forcefull approach is the best way....and any other Porsche Club that can come to the party of course. Sueing Porsche is one thing but embarrasing them to fix it is another. If every RMS afflicted owner would bother to write to their club expressing how dissatisfied and dissapointed you are in how Porsche are dealing with it, it would not be too long before they start putting presure on Porsche for a resolution.
03-04-2005, 09:48 PM
#63
Originally Posted by Scouser
I just want to straighten out my story on my RMS problem for you guys that don;t know already.
The 1st RMS failed at 28,000 miles. The car was just out of warranty so Porsche chipped in with a good-will claim. I had to contribute £237 towards costs. Since then there have been 5 other replacement RMS's making a total of 7 RMS's fitted to the car including the one fitted at the factory when it was built. Apart from the 1st RMS, I have not paid a penny. Porsche have replaced them all FOC. However, when the last (7th) RMS was fitted, I was told by Porsche that they would not replace any more in future FOC. They have suggested that the only fix is to replace the engine. They have offered me a deal of 50% cost for this replacement engine. My cost will be £4,700. This is a rip since as dar as I am concerened they never fixed the problem in the first case. Anyway, to so to sum up, I didn't in the past have to pay $800 for each RMS replaced like some of you have inferred.
OK, so now that's cleared up.
The point you are all missing is "this is a manufacturing fault". I find it rather pointless reading things like "can an accident caused by looking at a led flashing due to some RMS related problem in the engine be grounds for class action". I could think of a zillion like this.......The RMS leaked on my driveway and my granny slipped on the oil sludge and broke her neck!.......The RMS leaked oil onto the church's freshly paved driveway....blah blah. You are all looking to suite Porsche for the wrong reason. If there is going to be a so called class action case then should it not be for a product that is sold that was never fit for its purpose. We are buying faulty goods (engines) sold as perfect with the fault seemingly for the most part, lying latent and inconveniently showing up after warranty expires....i.e., it was and has always been there just waiting to happen.
Finally, guys without meaning to offend you, can I remind you that this is not a forum just for US members. It's an International forum too. I see words like "law of the state" or "class action" for this and that. We don;t have "class actions" in the UK or Lemon laws so a lot of what you say is meaningless to me. Your comments are brilliant reading but some of us can't relate to them. Also, please remember that in the RoW we only get 2 years warranty NOT 4. Please try to think "global" in your comments. It would help greatly. Sorry if this sounds offensive but I read many posts from members who don't seem to be thinking out of the box. This RMS problem affects Porsches outside the US too you know......this is why I think a combined PCNA & PCGB forcefull approach is the best way....and any other Porsche Club that can come to the party of course. Sueing Porsche is one thing but embarrasing them to fix it is another. If every RMS afflicted owner would bother to write to their club expressing how dissatisfied and dissapointed you are in how Porsche are dealing with it, it would not be too long before they start putting presure on Porsche for a resolution.
The 1st RMS failed at 28,000 miles. The car was just out of warranty so Porsche chipped in with a good-will claim. I had to contribute £237 towards costs. Since then there have been 5 other replacement RMS's making a total of 7 RMS's fitted to the car including the one fitted at the factory when it was built. Apart from the 1st RMS, I have not paid a penny. Porsche have replaced them all FOC. However, when the last (7th) RMS was fitted, I was told by Porsche that they would not replace any more in future FOC. They have suggested that the only fix is to replace the engine. They have offered me a deal of 50% cost for this replacement engine. My cost will be £4,700. This is a rip since as dar as I am concerened they never fixed the problem in the first case. Anyway, to so to sum up, I didn't in the past have to pay $800 for each RMS replaced like some of you have inferred.
OK, so now that's cleared up.
The point you are all missing is "this is a manufacturing fault". I find it rather pointless reading things like "can an accident caused by looking at a led flashing due to some RMS related problem in the engine be grounds for class action". I could think of a zillion like this.......The RMS leaked on my driveway and my granny slipped on the oil sludge and broke her neck!.......The RMS leaked oil onto the church's freshly paved driveway....blah blah. You are all looking to suite Porsche for the wrong reason. If there is going to be a so called class action case then should it not be for a product that is sold that was never fit for its purpose. We are buying faulty goods (engines) sold as perfect with the fault seemingly for the most part, lying latent and inconveniently showing up after warranty expires....i.e., it was and has always been there just waiting to happen.
Finally, guys without meaning to offend you, can I remind you that this is not a forum just for US members. It's an International forum too. I see words like "law of the state" or "class action" for this and that. We don;t have "class actions" in the UK or Lemon laws so a lot of what you say is meaningless to me. Your comments are brilliant reading but some of us can't relate to them. Also, please remember that in the RoW we only get 2 years warranty NOT 4. Please try to think "global" in your comments. It would help greatly. Sorry if this sounds offensive but I read many posts from members who don't seem to be thinking out of the box. This RMS problem affects Porsches outside the US too you know......this is why I think a combined PCNA & PCGB forcefull approach is the best way....and any other Porsche Club that can come to the party of course. Sueing Porsche is one thing but embarrasing them to fix it is another. If every RMS afflicted owner would bother to write to their club expressing how dissatisfied and dissapointed you are in how Porsche are dealing with it, it would not be too long before they start putting presure on Porsche for a resolution.
Also, sorry about your problems, but I have heard you say numerous times you think it is a manufacturing defect. You have said it enough times that I doubt anyone is "missing your point." Maybe it is a manufacturing defect, but that doesn't mean you will be able to force Porsche to do anything about it. Good luck (said sincerely).
I am sure you are a fine enough fellow and I don't blame you for being upset. Don't take it out on me. I don't work for Porsche, and I didn't screw up your RMS.
03-04-2005, 09:59 PM
#64
Three Wheelin'
TD in DC, sorry mate you read me wrong or I mislead you. Absolutely no way was this aimed at you. You made it very clear in your prev post that you didn;t know about Internation law.
I was referring to some of the other guys postings. Sorry again.
I was referring to some of the other guys postings. Sorry again.
03-05-2005, 12:42 AM
#65
Originally Posted by Scouser
TD in DC, sorry mate you read me wrong or I mislead you. Absolutely no way was this aimed at you. You made it very clear in your prev post that you didn;t know about Internation law.
I was referring to some of the other guys postings. Sorry again.
I was referring to some of the other guys postings. Sorry again.
03-05-2005, 03:05 AM
#66
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I posit a question? Has it been proved,categorically, that it is a design fault? I happen to believe it is from reading the many anecdotes recounted here.The causes of RMS failure suggested are numerous,i.e. (a) Failure of the seal itself (b) crankshaft out of specification (concentricity)(c) seals installed incorrectly (backwards) (d) seal not adequately lubricated (due to long periods parked) -there are others that have slipped my mind,but I remember them as not being too far fetched. Our learned fellow Porsche lover, TD in DC,has succinctly articulated the problem(s) with this,and that is we don't have proof,ie legal proof, that it is a design flaw and more to the point, to formulate a class action requires a large cohort of "victims" that have suffered the "same" problem that is proven to be a danger to life and limb.I remember a case, in your country, involving tires on SUV's. I think it centred on a problem of tires blowing out at inopportune times like cornering. There were many cases of rollovers resulting in fatalities. I not sure of the outcome, but I think the it was that the tires were not at fault, it was the design of the SUV-its low centre of gravity- I think? or was it a combination of the tires and LCOG? Anyway, my point is is that it involved many people being involved in the same incident-not a small cohort with varying characteristics.
Like someone has said before, Porsche would rather repair the seals as they come in. Recalling zillions of cars would have the number crunchers having a fit. I guess, without sounding defeatist,its something we have to live with.
Like someone has said before, Porsche would rather repair the seals as they come in. Recalling zillions of cars would have the number crunchers having a fit. I guess, without sounding defeatist,its something we have to live with.
Last edited by munro86; 03-05-2005 at 03:58 AM.
03-05-2005, 03:35 AM
#67
that's why there is discovery and depositions in a legal case... they will have to provide all relevant engine data, reports, and all porsche engineers and technichians will have to speak the 100% truth under oath about any and all rms, engine issues.. through that one will find the truth of the matter... because they sure as hell won't tell us unless required by law...
03-05-2005, 03:38 AM
#68
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
munro86 in the US, if a manufacturer is the cause of a life safety issue (like tires), a recall is announced by the federal government.
TD alluded to this in a comment. Enterprizing attorneys can usually create a "civil lawsuit-one that is for money claims" on the basis of the recall - and if the complaints made by many people, the attorney can create a "class action" suit to achieve higher damages (usually for the attorney). These lawsuits are filed in a state court (not federal court) and with a class action the atty can file in any state that one of the attys clients reside in. Each state has their own laws dealing with the damages of class action suits. Most of these suits are settled out of court.
TD weigh in on this, I'm not an attorney, but I've paid a lot of fees & learned expensive lessons
The rms issue is essentially a consumer complaint, not a threat to life. I have received money from class action lawsuits that I was a member (4 or 5), from financial misdealings of companies I invested in. None of the checks were for more than $13.00, I don't even apply anymore - when I get an application.
The ranks of rms problems are growing. The '99s are out of warranty and the population of the aggrieved is growing. Porsche may get caught in the Hydai syndrome and lose irretrievable sales momentum. It's a high risk adventure for them.
TD alluded to this in a comment. Enterprizing attorneys can usually create a "civil lawsuit-one that is for money claims" on the basis of the recall - and if the complaints made by many people, the attorney can create a "class action" suit to achieve higher damages (usually for the attorney). These lawsuits are filed in a state court (not federal court) and with a class action the atty can file in any state that one of the attys clients reside in. Each state has their own laws dealing with the damages of class action suits. Most of these suits are settled out of court.
TD weigh in on this, I'm not an attorney, but I've paid a lot of fees & learned expensive lessons
The rms issue is essentially a consumer complaint, not a threat to life. I have received money from class action lawsuits that I was a member (4 or 5), from financial misdealings of companies I invested in. None of the checks were for more than $13.00, I don't even apply anymore - when I get an application.
The ranks of rms problems are growing. The '99s are out of warranty and the population of the aggrieved is growing. Porsche may get caught in the Hydai syndrome and lose irretrievable sales momentum. It's a high risk adventure for them.
03-05-2005, 08:33 AM
#69
Originally Posted by kilrgt
...In rebuttal to Fast1...Tho you have a good point that 993 could sell faster then the 996, however i think thats because the 996 was the most built and sold Porsche ever. The depreciating 996 is just supply and demand.993 owners are of a different bread i think, they will pay more for less, and at the same time the 993 has it problems too.I know after having a RMS leak, it doesn't change the fact how i love this car,after 7 it would. I just know i wouldn't buy a 997 .
Excellent point. Upon reflection your analysis may be on target because implicit in my view is the assumption that all potential 996 buyers or at least most potential 996 buyers are aware of RMS. That's probably not the case.
Also I want to acknowledge that the 996 is an outstanding sports car. My only concern is the way that Porsche has failed to address the problem.
03-05-2005, 10:04 AM
#70
Originally Posted by TD in DC
What would be your cause of action? Is Porsche honoring its warranty? It appears from all signs that it is. Does anyone have a legal right to force the factory to pay for repairs that occur outside of the warranty? No, the warranty contains an explicit time/mileage limit. Has anyone been physically injured by an RMS failure (in other words, is the RMS defect an inherently dangerous flaw)? No, I doubt it. Does Porsche contain misleading advertising regarding the reliability of its RMS? No, it doesn't mention RMS in its ads. Sadly, the fact that the problem is fairly well known also reduces the likelihood of success. I just don't see any legally cognizable claim that is not frivolous. If I am missing something, please articulate your theor...
If a company knowingly produces an inherently unsafe product but fails to take corrective action, then a class action suit would be possible. Otherwise a company must merely honor its explicit warranty to remedy quality defects that don't impact safety. Therefore, the remedy available to consumers for a company producing inferior products is in the marketplace and not in the court room.
03-05-2005, 01:24 PM
#71
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fast1
Would a fair reading of your view be that a company has a legal obligation to produce safe products but not quality products, and that consumers can't legally compel a company to make a quality product unless it can be demonstrated that the product defect affects saftey?
If a company knowingly produces an inherently unsafe product but fails to take corrective action, then a class action suit would be possible. Otherwise a company must merely honor its explicit warranty to remedy quality defects that don't impact safety. Therefore, the remedy available to consumers for a company producing inferior products is in the marketplace and not in the court room.
If a company knowingly produces an inherently unsafe product but fails to take corrective action, then a class action suit would be possible. Otherwise a company must merely honor its explicit warranty to remedy quality defects that don't impact safety. Therefore, the remedy available to consumers for a company producing inferior products is in the marketplace and not in the court room.
03-05-2005, 01:49 PM
#72
TD,
What about in relation to my engine blowing up on the freeway, causing me to almost run into the car next to me while rushing over to the side of the road, in the thought that potentially my car might explode due to the fire i saw in my rear view mirror coming from my engine..... and all the cars behind me slamming on their breaks behind me as they watched flames come out of my exhaust and smoke come out of my engine while driving on the freeway.. wouldn't this be considered a safety hazard within the engine as reasonable cause for suit relating to potential defects in their engine? (this is what happened when a rod blew out the first engine i had.. second engine replacement was more pre-emptive.. (it was going to explode, they just didn't know when...) it may have had relation to RMS, i'm not sure, as this happened, a few hundred miles after I bought the car and wasn't familiar with RMS back then..) but regardless, it was an "engine" related issue, as is RMS and could potentially relate to RMS, since porsche replaces engines after 2 failed RMSes.. through discovery and deposition one could find out if this potential safety problem hazard has relation to RMS. There is a fire department report to back the validitiy of this up if need be.. (unfortunately the fire department put my engine out before it reached the rest of the car... sigh)
Wouldn't this be significant to start a claim and avoid it being thrown out as a frivilous lawsuit, and then pursue the case further into discovery, depositions, etc..
I'm sure suit on the base of a faulty engine causing a safety hazard could cause me to be the leader in a class action suit, and additional RMS issues could be addressed with other engine issue participants joining in.. what about that, any validity there?
What about in relation to my engine blowing up on the freeway, causing me to almost run into the car next to me while rushing over to the side of the road, in the thought that potentially my car might explode due to the fire i saw in my rear view mirror coming from my engine..... and all the cars behind me slamming on their breaks behind me as they watched flames come out of my exhaust and smoke come out of my engine while driving on the freeway.. wouldn't this be considered a safety hazard within the engine as reasonable cause for suit relating to potential defects in their engine? (this is what happened when a rod blew out the first engine i had.. second engine replacement was more pre-emptive.. (it was going to explode, they just didn't know when...) it may have had relation to RMS, i'm not sure, as this happened, a few hundred miles after I bought the car and wasn't familiar with RMS back then..) but regardless, it was an "engine" related issue, as is RMS and could potentially relate to RMS, since porsche replaces engines after 2 failed RMSes.. through discovery and deposition one could find out if this potential safety problem hazard has relation to RMS. There is a fire department report to back the validitiy of this up if need be.. (unfortunately the fire department put my engine out before it reached the rest of the car... sigh)
Wouldn't this be significant to start a claim and avoid it being thrown out as a frivilous lawsuit, and then pursue the case further into discovery, depositions, etc..
I'm sure suit on the base of a faulty engine causing a safety hazard could cause me to be the leader in a class action suit, and additional RMS issues could be addressed with other engine issue participants joining in.. what about that, any validity there?
Last edited by bobporsche996; 03-05-2005 at 02:07 PM.
03-05-2005, 01:52 PM
#73
Race Car
Originally Posted by bobporsche996
TD,
What about in relation to my engine blowing up on the freeway, causing me to almost run into the car next to me while rushing over to the side of the road, in the thought that potentially my car might explode due to the fire i saw in my rear view mirror coming from my engine..... and all the cars behind me slamming on their breaks behind me as they watched flames come out of my exhaust and smoke come out of my engine while driving on the freeway.. wouldn't this be considered a safety hazard within the engine as reasonable cause for suit relating to potential defects in their engine? (this is what happened when a rod blew out the first engine i had.. it may have had relation to RMS, i'm not sure, as this happened, a few hundred miles after I bought the car and wasn't familiar with RMS back then..) but regardless, it was an "engine" related issued, as is RMS. I'm sure suit on the base of a faulty engine causing a safety hazard could cause me to be the leader in a class action suit, and additional RMS issues and other engine issue participants could join in.. what about that, any validity there?
What about in relation to my engine blowing up on the freeway, causing me to almost run into the car next to me while rushing over to the side of the road, in the thought that potentially my car might explode due to the fire i saw in my rear view mirror coming from my engine..... and all the cars behind me slamming on their breaks behind me as they watched flames come out of my exhaust and smoke come out of my engine while driving on the freeway.. wouldn't this be considered a safety hazard within the engine as reasonable cause for suit relating to potential defects in their engine? (this is what happened when a rod blew out the first engine i had.. it may have had relation to RMS, i'm not sure, as this happened, a few hundred miles after I bought the car and wasn't familiar with RMS back then..) but regardless, it was an "engine" related issued, as is RMS. I'm sure suit on the base of a faulty engine causing a safety hazard could cause me to be the leader in a class action suit, and additional RMS issues and other engine issue participants could join in.. what about that, any validity there?
Hey Bob? Are you sure you had a PORSCHE engine in the car. Is it possible that the Ford delaler actually installed an old PINTO engine?
03-05-2005, 01:55 PM
#74
1999Porsche911,
good point.. well the porsche model numbers on the block of the engine kind of made me think that it was a porsche engine.. but i could be wrong of course... ford dealerships have been known for years to replace pinto engines into porsches for years now... as you know...
good point.. well the porsche model numbers on the block of the engine kind of made me think that it was a porsche engine.. but i could be wrong of course... ford dealerships have been known for years to replace pinto engines into porsches for years now... as you know...
03-05-2005, 04:24 PM
#75
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, is this an occurance in a lot of Porsches out there, or does it seem more blown out of proportion because we're on a webforum, and people with RMS leaks are complaining, while those without them are happily driving their cars? I'm confused.