There have been several potential class-action law suits discussed on the Cayenne boards over the years. The first was for ignition coils. The original coils on the V8 engines had a bad design and they failed prematurely at a relatively high rate. There was lots of talk about a law suit, and eventually Porsche agreed to replace them with a newer design at no charge to the customer, or to reimburse customers who had previously replaced their coils at a Porsche dealership. I fell into the latter category, and I was happy to be reimbursed.

The second one was around replacement map discs for PCM 2.0. Porsche decided to stop supporting this system in 2008. A law suit was threatened, and Porsche eventually provided updated the discs and made them available for purchase. Again, I was a happy customer.

The third one is for the well-known coolant pipe issue on V8 Cayennes. The OE plastic pipes fail at a high rate. If you wait until they burst, they can cause a host of other problems, including starter damage, transmission damage and even engine failure. I had mine replaced proactively at roughly $1,650 out of my pocket. There's a metal replacement pipe set available from Porsche. This one is still undecided. I'd like to see Porsche step up and reimburse me for my replacement costs like they did with the coils. I think it's possible, but I'm certainly not expecting it. I believe these pipes fail at a much higher rate than the 996 intermediate shaft bearing. I don't have data to support that, it's just my feeling from involvement on this and other boards and discussion with my mechanic.

If I compare these issues to the 996 issue, I think they are different on many levels. First of all, I believe the numbers are very low for IMS failure. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the vast majority of 996 and early 997 cars don't have the issue. Secondly, there's not a remedy for the situation that has been validated. Porsche doesn't offer an IMS retrofit kit. There are kits available from companies like LN Engineering that offer a ceramic bearing, but those aren't accepted by Porsche as a fix for this issue. Additionally, these bearings aren't infallible. They fail also. Finally, how do you calculate the damages that are due to the owners of these cars in a fair and equitable manner? Do you give everybody who owns a 996 some cash to compensate them for lost value and/or repairs? Do you reimburse original owners only? Do you pay for the upgrade to the LN Engineering bearing? What if that fails? I'm not the original owner of my 996, and I haven't had an issue. Should I be "compensated" for the IMS issue?

I think there are too many questions here. There's not a problem, according to Porsche. Therefore, there's not a validated "fix" for the issue. The newest 996 is now 7 years old. The numbers of cars affected are low. From Porsche's perspective, the majority of these issues occurred early and were handled by the original warranty or CPO warranty. The rest of them will be handled on an individual basis.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not trying to defend Porsche, I'm just trying to present my opinion on why I think a class-action suit on this issue will never happen. Even if it does, it won't produce a satisfactory outcome for 996 owners.

 

Like Doctors?

Lawyers are there to support people in matters of law... at least thats how it works here. Yes they get paid, thats their job...

 

Personally, I have no issue with the lawyers making money in a law suit. They are providing a service for which they should be paid. I will say that the amount of the judgement that they often take in large suits is out of proportion, and that should be adjusted. In this particular case, I don't see any way that all the affected 996 owners can be satisfied.

 

I would have thought market forces would bring rates into line with whats reasonable? Surely the whole law community have not colluded for high rates?

 

Thanks for your opinion...

So I guess you will just head off to another forum from now on.

 

Unfortunately the market hasn't brought these changes about. In the case of a class-action suit, greed is ultimately what drives people to get involved. Most of the people who are part of the suit have not suffered any significant damages. There are some people in the group who have suffered significantly, but the average person in the suit has not. These average people are willing to sign up for it because they figure they've got nothing to lose. Even if they only get a small settlement, their feeling is that they haven't really suffered and even a small payment would be upside.

If you look at the 996 IMS issue, it's the same way. I'm sure many people will sign up for it who haven't had IMS failure. They haven't really suffered any damages. When the case is settled, they get a small check and they feel like they have done alright. For those that have suffered a catastrophic engine failure on a ~$90K sports car that they bought new at a dealership, the settlement won't even come close to the amount of damages they have suffered.

It's the legal system that's flawed in the US, not the market.

 

I would subpina jake rabes client list from flat 6 innovations and maby L and E engineering if i was that lawyer.

 

I have many lawyer friends and something one said to me once, when i used to think like this guy. "you think us lawyers are bad, you should meet our clients. We only do what we are hired to do"

 

So i say we sue everyone that has promoted the ims failure. Im on board with this.

 

This reminds me of when i was trying to go lemon law on chrysler. The lawyer was all excited for the case till i asked him to sign an agreement his fees could not exceed my take of the portion of the settlement. He then would no longer take my call.

 

Not sure if I "get" the aforementioned. The forum just got through suggesting that cars that have had the IMS replacement done aren't worth more for having done so. If this is true, how can cars that have NOT had the mod done, be worth less, espcially when this issues is not well known, if at all, by prospective buyers??

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my statement but you're addressing a separate issue relating to breach of contract which goes to a different (but not incorrect) issue.

My point was that whether or not someone's 996 has experienced an IMS failure they should still have the ability to be a part of the class (assuming they satisfy basic civil procedure and other requirements). I was jumping through that assumption to the next step.

As others have pointed out, while catastrophic in more ways than one to the small fraction of owners whose cars have experienced it, the vast majority of 996 owners have not. That doesn't mean, however, that someone who bought their 996 from a Porsche dealer (cars with warranties from Porsche) might not someday experience a failure. I would hope/expect they would naturally include that group of owners as members in the class.

-Eric

 

I think the theory is that the 996's are worth less than 993's partly because of the IMS problem. This may be true but I think the water/air change, ugly headlights, etc... is more the reason.

However, for those that think the lower value of 996's makes them part of the class I would think the only ones damaged would be original owners. Any secondary owner bought on the "cheap" so has gotten the benefit of the IMS decline in value. I thus think the decline in value argument would only help original owners.

 

993 are worth what they because they are the LAST of the air-cooled, only made for 3 years and damn good cards.

996's are worth what they are because they built so damn many of them!

 

Sorry folks but there will be no class action suit. This train has left the station. I can picture it now ...
"Your honor on behalf of the tens, or perhaps even hundreds of Porsche 996 owners who failed to reach 200 thousand miles on their over 10 year old high-performance engines ... your honor? Your honor? Why are you laughing so hard?"