Charlie C

They should have more concern for the REAL "shareholders", us, the loyal buyers. I don't care how many stock holders they have, it won't mean much without enough of us.

All I can say is Thank God for JAKE!

rxjohn

Dharn,

Nice post. I agree that Porsche should fix all IMS failures as they happen which would have been less taxing for Porsche considering probably less than 10% of the engines see failure and it doesn't cost 10X to replace the engine vs. IMS upgrade. Yet, no pocket change either.

Now it's in VW's hands.. and there should be a balance between taking care of shareholders vs. customers.

I still believe P-car owners should be proactive and protect ourselves through warranty and/or LN Engineering upgrade.

DCP

Porsche wouldn't have to bring each car back and replace IMS bearings to be responsible. My wife just bought a used BMW 335i. That model has a chronic problem with its high pressure fuel pump. BMW extended the warranty to 10 years or 120,000 miles. Now in Porsche's case, it would mean replacing engines, not just replacing a bad part, but I doubt that doing so would bankrupt Porsche. Porsche had been doing a lot of that under warranty. And the problem cannot be that pervesive becasue otherwise, extended warranty companies would not be willing to sell insurance.

Heck, Porsche could even include some proration for the customer to pay. That would be better than what is happening now.

LVDell

rxjohn....are you suggesting "reactive" replacement or "proactive" replacement?

I have no problem with them working out a "deal" to proactively do something but NOT reactively after the warranty period ends. Reactive means total motor failure.

If you could warrant your car for 6yrs (4year warranty plus 2 yrs of CPO) don't you think THAT would be enough on the side of PCNA/PAG???

rxjohn

LVDell,

I discussed both Proactive and Reactive scenarios. Proactive meaning recall and Reactive meaning fix as they occur. The rough math shows reactive is more cost effective for Porsche. Do I think 6 years is enough on the side of PCNA? If it was a bad door handle, then yes. But not for a major design flaw of the engine which results in catastrophic engine failure irregardless of use pattern.

I've read your posts and I respect your stance on this issue. I've also read other posters who experienced IMS engine failure and my heart goes out to them. Each his own on this issue. I've not had an IMS failure on either my previous Boxster or my current 996 Cab. The Boxster was a CPO but the Cab is not. The decision I make to upgrade IMS is a business decision. Do I risk future $10,000+ for an engine replacement + IMS upgrade to a new engine or do I spend $2,000 now on an upgrade and prevent the failure?

If you had a 5 to 10% risk of major health issue yet if it can be prevented at a nominal cost, would you do it? It's your call to make... not mine.

rxjohn

I agree. Replacing blown engines (which they have under warranty) would be more cost effective for Porsche.

Now.. If there are IMS failures that results in driver and passenger fatalities, that's another story. How many fatal accidents do you think occured in P-cars due to IMS failure yet reported as driver error etc?

LVDell

The heart of the matter is what is the responsibility of PCNA/PAG regarding the M96 motor? Is it 4 years? Is it 6yrs? Is it indefinite?

Yes, my heart goes out to those that have ANY major problem that needs fixing on their car. But my sympathy stops when people believe that manufacturer owes them some sort of protection for an unrealistic amount of time. If the problem is as bad as SOME think it is and the M96 has been out for 12 years then WHY are people buying these cars???

And lastly, if PCNA/PAG should be responsible for this then what are the parameters? Only the original purchase at new? Surely you can't expect them to cover a car that has had multiple owners?

I love my car and maintain it religiously. Have had it for almost a decade and have almost 80K miles on it now. I can't imagine asking Porsche to pay for something that goes back at this stage in the game, can you?

LVDell

Zero.

rxjohn

Honda gave 7 years and 100,000 miles for their transmission regardless of how many owners it had.

We're not asking the manufacturer for protection. We are asking the manufacturer to right the wrong. IMS bearing a major design flaw.

Many people who buy these cars are not aware of IMS failure. Heck, I never knew about IMS failure when I had a Boxster.

What's multimple owners got to do with a simple design flaw that results in engine failures? We're not talking about 10 different owners abusing the clutch.

So you're more likely to not sue a physician who botched a major surgery on you due to a careless mistake because you tend to believe sh*t happens..

Good for you.

rxjohn

Neither you nor I know the truth. So don't be so sure.

Charlie C

You make a lot of good points and I agree with almost all of them. But something else to consider.

I've been driving various cars for over 40 years and the only engine failure I ever had was in my '04 Boxster S one year after the warranty expired with less than 30K miles. (IMS failed, new engine installed).

I've owned 4 Porsches including this one and this is the 2nd one I bought brand new. I've owned other performance cars including '79 Z28 and '99 BMW M Roadster.

My Boxster S is the first water cooled Porsche and is the only one that had an IMS failure. I had read about the IMS failures before but it doesn't mean much when it happens to someone else. It DID shake my faith in the brand especially since I know I've not abused the car and have had all maintenance done by the dealer even before it was required.

That being said, I'm still addicted to Porsche and will buy again. I just wish they would do some sort of recall and fix all the engines before they die. I'm sure this IMS threat had something to do with the softer prices of the water cooled P cars. Yes, I know about supply and demand but I think there's more to it than just supply and demand.

I myself will either buy a 2009 or newer (if these engines do in fact hold up) or have Jake's fix done to an older one if I buy one.

Long Live Porsche!

LVDell

rx.......There you go on an apples to oranges tangent that has zero correlation here. A doctor screwing up is NOT the same as a "perceived" design flaw. And I can speak from personal experience since I write a hefty malpractice insurance check EVERY year and take that very seriously.

So, if PCNA gives you 7/100 like HOnda would that make you happy? I'm trying to get the CLOSED end parameters that you seek.

By the way, multiple owners has PLENTY to do with it.

By the way, some would say the headlights on the 996 are a design flaw that has DEVALUED the car. Should they make that right?

LVDell

Then why even ask.

rxjohn

Again, if you read my posts carefully, despite my opinion of Porsche being accountable for their mistake, I also stress that P-car owners should be proactive in protecting ourselves through IMS upgrade or warranty.

It's not your call to belittle others who want a peace of mind through IMS upgrade. You're not in their shoes. And if your engine blows up tomorrow (I wish it doesn't), you'll have wished you did an IMS upgrade.

LVDell

If my engine goes I won't wish I did an IMS upgrade nor will I come here crying about it.

If it's NOT my call to state my opinion on a perceived upgrade then how is it your call to state that it is a problem?

Obviously this exchange started off well but you don't have the ability to keep it oranges to oranges.

Y'all know where I stand. Signing off........