'99 C2 - RMS, IMS, Engine nightmare
03-13-2010, 09:49 PM
#76
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bismarck, North Dakota
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She got an amount that both parties agreed was fair. Yes, she was 100% honest about the condition of the car. In fact, I'm pretty sure the buyer was following this thread. I got several PM's from people here and I passed along her information to them.
03-27-2010, 09:53 PM
#79
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bismarck, North Dakota
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Susan, the owner of this car submitted a complaint to the BBB in regards to this situation. Here is the response she received from Autobahn Motorcar Group Ft. Worth Tx. General Manager Randy LaRoche. Thoughts?
_______________________________________________________________
Susan's Porsche 911 was brought to us at the end of June 2009 for a complaint of an oil leak. While diagnosing the oil leak, we discovered a small amount of oil in the coolant reservoir caused by a faulty head gaskets. We repaired the leaking head gaskets that were allowing a minor oil/coolant cross contamination, and to minimize the likelihood of any other oil/coolant contamination issues, we also replaced the oil cooler. The initial complaint of an oil leak was resolved by replacing the rear main seal. In process of replacing the rear main seal, the technician noted the clutch was worn to minimum specs, so the clutch was also replaced, all repairs totaled $6,101.59.
In January 2010, the vehicle returned with a large scale mixing of coolant and oil pervasive in the car's entire engine and cooling system. While both instances involved oil/coolant cross contamination, the only common element was oil and coolant were involved. Because of its large scale contamination, the second instance is indicative of a catastrophic internal engine failure (cracked block or cracked cylinder head), while the first instance is symptomatic of a more minor failure, such as a head gasket leak or oil cooler failure. Oil/coolant cross contamination can be caused by many different failures, any of which can be the result of age, defects in the original manufacture, engine abuse, and overheating. It's analogous to a check engine light - the symptom can be similar, but the symptom can be caused by many different failures.
It is entirely true that the 1999 Porsche 911 engines have a statistically higher failure rate than most Porsche models, but cross contamination between oil and coolant isn't a valid indicator of impending catastrophic engine failure, it's just one of many issues that crop of on cars of this age, regardless of the manufacturer. There's no reasonable way for us to determine which cars will or will not suffer engine failures, especially cars of this age, and we obviously cannot counsel all our clients with 1999 model 996's to dispose of their cars or advise them that their car is not worth repairing because they're not inherently flawed cars. Every car has its weak points, especially ones more than 10 years old, but a 1999 911 can be a great car - our own shop foreman owns one.
Susan's contention is that the first failure and second failure are the same, and if that's so, our initial repair of $6,101.59 did not correct the problem. Between the car's visits to Autobahn in July 2009 and January 2010, another very reputable, independent repair facility did a major 60k service on the vehicle in December 2009. The vehicle having a major service completed at a separate, non-affiliated repair facility is a certain indication that the failure corrected by Autobahn in July 2009 is not the same failure that occurred in January 2010. If the initial failure had been a terminal one, like a cracked block or cylinder head, there would have been a significant amount of oil/coolant contamination at the time of the major service in December 2009. Oil/coolant contamination is immediately recognizable, even by layman - when oil and coolant are mixed in an engine, it froths into the consistency and appearance of peanut butter. Anyone merely checking the oil level with a dipstick would be almost certain to immediately notice large scale oil/coolant mixing, and it's essentially impossible for anyone performing a major service on a Porsche to overlook oil/coolant contamination. If there was no coolant/oil contamination noted at the major service in December 2009, then the failure in January 2010 must have been a separate and unrelated failure to the one we corrected in July 2009. The kind of failure that would cause a large scale oil/coolant mix as in January 2010 is not the kind of failure that comes and goes or the kind of failure that would cause a bit of oil to show up in the coolant reservoir as occurred in June 2009.
While there's no causal relationship between our repair completed July 2009 and the failure of January 2010 or any reasonable way for us to have advised Susan to "cut and run" in July 2009, we extended an offer to Susan to repair her current problem at an enormous discount and at the cost of much more productive work for our facility in a good-faith effort to keep her as a happy client – she rejected our offer. We never like to see a client's car suffer a failure this expensive, but it is a reality and a risk of buying and owning a car of this age. Refunding the $6,100 of the repair from July isn't reasonable because we rectified a legitimate problem with the head gaskets, played it safe by also replacing the oil cooler, as well as made a more routine repair of a rear main seal and clutch replacement, which itself constituted a large portion of the $6,101.59 repair expense.
We understand why Susan wishes to minimize her loss on this vehicle and it's not even likely that the failure was caused by anything Susan did the short time the vehicle has been in her ownership, but it's not reasonable for Susan to ask Autobahn to participate in her financial loss because we made a valid repair to her car seven months before an unrelated catastrophic engine failure that happened to involve mixing of oil and coolant
_______________________________________________________________
Susan's Porsche 911 was brought to us at the end of June 2009 for a complaint of an oil leak. While diagnosing the oil leak, we discovered a small amount of oil in the coolant reservoir caused by a faulty head gaskets. We repaired the leaking head gaskets that were allowing a minor oil/coolant cross contamination, and to minimize the likelihood of any other oil/coolant contamination issues, we also replaced the oil cooler. The initial complaint of an oil leak was resolved by replacing the rear main seal. In process of replacing the rear main seal, the technician noted the clutch was worn to minimum specs, so the clutch was also replaced, all repairs totaled $6,101.59.
In January 2010, the vehicle returned with a large scale mixing of coolant and oil pervasive in the car's entire engine and cooling system. While both instances involved oil/coolant cross contamination, the only common element was oil and coolant were involved. Because of its large scale contamination, the second instance is indicative of a catastrophic internal engine failure (cracked block or cracked cylinder head), while the first instance is symptomatic of a more minor failure, such as a head gasket leak or oil cooler failure. Oil/coolant cross contamination can be caused by many different failures, any of which can be the result of age, defects in the original manufacture, engine abuse, and overheating. It's analogous to a check engine light - the symptom can be similar, but the symptom can be caused by many different failures.
It is entirely true that the 1999 Porsche 911 engines have a statistically higher failure rate than most Porsche models, but cross contamination between oil and coolant isn't a valid indicator of impending catastrophic engine failure, it's just one of many issues that crop of on cars of this age, regardless of the manufacturer. There's no reasonable way for us to determine which cars will or will not suffer engine failures, especially cars of this age, and we obviously cannot counsel all our clients with 1999 model 996's to dispose of their cars or advise them that their car is not worth repairing because they're not inherently flawed cars. Every car has its weak points, especially ones more than 10 years old, but a 1999 911 can be a great car - our own shop foreman owns one.
Susan's contention is that the first failure and second failure are the same, and if that's so, our initial repair of $6,101.59 did not correct the problem. Between the car's visits to Autobahn in July 2009 and January 2010, another very reputable, independent repair facility did a major 60k service on the vehicle in December 2009. The vehicle having a major service completed at a separate, non-affiliated repair facility is a certain indication that the failure corrected by Autobahn in July 2009 is not the same failure that occurred in January 2010. If the initial failure had been a terminal one, like a cracked block or cylinder head, there would have been a significant amount of oil/coolant contamination at the time of the major service in December 2009. Oil/coolant contamination is immediately recognizable, even by layman - when oil and coolant are mixed in an engine, it froths into the consistency and appearance of peanut butter. Anyone merely checking the oil level with a dipstick would be almost certain to immediately notice large scale oil/coolant mixing, and it's essentially impossible for anyone performing a major service on a Porsche to overlook oil/coolant contamination. If there was no coolant/oil contamination noted at the major service in December 2009, then the failure in January 2010 must have been a separate and unrelated failure to the one we corrected in July 2009. The kind of failure that would cause a large scale oil/coolant mix as in January 2010 is not the kind of failure that comes and goes or the kind of failure that would cause a bit of oil to show up in the coolant reservoir as occurred in June 2009.
While there's no causal relationship between our repair completed July 2009 and the failure of January 2010 or any reasonable way for us to have advised Susan to "cut and run" in July 2009, we extended an offer to Susan to repair her current problem at an enormous discount and at the cost of much more productive work for our facility in a good-faith effort to keep her as a happy client – she rejected our offer. We never like to see a client's car suffer a failure this expensive, but it is a reality and a risk of buying and owning a car of this age. Refunding the $6,100 of the repair from July isn't reasonable because we rectified a legitimate problem with the head gaskets, played it safe by also replacing the oil cooler, as well as made a more routine repair of a rear main seal and clutch replacement, which itself constituted a large portion of the $6,101.59 repair expense.
We understand why Susan wishes to minimize her loss on this vehicle and it's not even likely that the failure was caused by anything Susan did the short time the vehicle has been in her ownership, but it's not reasonable for Susan to ask Autobahn to participate in her financial loss because we made a valid repair to her car seven months before an unrelated catastrophic engine failure that happened to involve mixing of oil and coolant
03-30-2010, 01:39 AM
#81
Intermediate
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought a 2000 model 996 from these people in April of 2009. Over the phone the salesman described the car as being sold new from their lot, being serviced there ever since, and having all the appropriate documentation for that. Not one word of this was true. They are a Porsche dealer although the main emphasis seems to be on the BMW and VW side of the dealership. I was a little shocked that a dealer would be so eager to lie about facts so easy to prove false. The $$,$$$'s bring out the worst in some people.
03-30-2010, 10:42 AM
#82
Three Wheelin'
I bought a 2000 model 996 from these people in April of 2009. Over the phone the salesman described the car as being sold new from their lot, being serviced there ever since, and having all the appropriate documentation for that. Not one word of this was true. They are a Porsche dealer although the main emphasis seems to be on the BMW and VW side of the dealership. I was a little shocked that a dealer would be so eager to lie about facts so easy to prove false. The $$,$$$'s bring out the worst in some people.
03-30-2010, 07:03 PM
#83
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bismarck, North Dakota
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maurice - Car was purchased by a Rennlister. He has identified the problem from a visual inspection and from what I understand it was fairly obvious. I'm sure he will post something here at some point...should be interesting to say the least. Maybe Jim will sell the car back to Susan when the repairs are done? I know she would buy this 996 back in a heartbeat. To be cont...
