street rod

Alpine, my engine is original to the car. I am out of town right now but I will see if I can get a picture later this week. I gotta tell you guys that I am very skeptical of this theory about the cars on the VIN list being the ones that Porsche knows has the defective or lower quality bearings. Also we all know a portion of the 99 and 2000 cars had IMS failures so whatever bearing was in them should make no difference and should be part of this action. There must be some other reason we don't know about. Perhaps they just consider them too old and decided to cut it off at 2001? Hopefully their reasons will come out later after we get to see the actual wording of the action. Its very interesting in any case and I for one was very surprised to see it happen. Break out the popcorn.

Cefalu

The actual wording has been posted already, and the cause of action was specifically identified as defective single row bearings. The dual row bearings had failures as well, but the single row failures were much higher. At any rate, why is it so hard to believe that half a bearing would have more failures? It seems perfectly plausible to me.

If you want more information, you will have to review the discovery documents held by the class action attorneys.

DreamCarrera

I personally blame the American education system. Reading comprehension is apparently a lost art...




The answers to your questions have already been posted. They were quite clearly described in the discovery documents that have been posted here about this case. Now, whether or not you believe these statistics is another matter.

I don't mean to be blunt but damn...the document clearly states that the failure rate of the double row bearing is significantly LESS THAN 1%. THAT is why the cutoff was set at model year 2001!!!

majariwr

I haven't done the math, but I wonder why Porsche just doesn't perform a recall on the remaining Class vehicles. It must only be 10% (or less) of the cost to replace the defective part than to do a total engine rebuild or replacement. And yes, Porsche is counting on some percentage of engines never failing or not failing within the proscribed mileage and time limits, but according to some on this board, it is a matter of when, not if. I'm sure the actuaries at PCNA have already done the math and they are playing the percentages. As a buyer of my car on the open market (and therefore only entitled to 25% if and when the failure occurs), I am wondering whether opting out and keeping my powder dry is a better alternative. Although Porsche will reimburse 25% of THEIR replacement costs (I assume under the settlement that the work must be done by a Porsche dealer), I'm betting that I could get the whole job done at a reputable Porsche shop for 25% less than Porsche's cost. So its unclear whether opting in is advantageous. At a 4-8% or even 10% failure rate (wonder what thats based on and whether the specifically numbered VINs in the settlement document have a higher expected failure rate?), I would have thought that this was at the threshold for a recall. Any evidence of NHTSA weighing in?

alpine003

NHTSA would only weigh in if there was safety at risk but this is clearly a case where there are more dollars at risk.

Now if our cars caught on fire like certain Ferrari models, it might catch their eyes.

Cefalu

Porsche has already reluctantly spent $20,000,000.00 fixing failed IMSB's without the suit. Stepping up to the plate without being forced would be how much more?

Think of the devastating effect this cash drain to the Germans this would have on Italian Spanish and Portuguese tourist beaches !

alpine003

^^^^ so then it could turn into "PIGGS" ?

Cefalu

But a search of lawsuits with Porsche as a party does not turn up all that much.

On the M96 there was an intermix suit back east.

The Cayenne owners have a bunch lawsuits over plastic coolant pipes failing, and back in the 90's Porsche made an airplane engine for Moody. Porsche ceased support after the program flopped. The lawsuit alleged that Porsche then advised repair shops to make adjustments to the engines which caused them to overheat and fail so they could cease support.

rpm's S2

So doing a bit of math... Porsche is out at least $35,950,000 due to the IMS debacle.

$20,000,000 - to date warranty repairs
$15,000,000 - maximum pay out from class action suit
$950,000 - lawyers fees

Cefalu

Most of the suits I read were very aggressively defended by Porsche with primary effort to dismiss on technical legal grounds, without being heard by a jury.

A common strategy was to require dismissal on the basis that the repairs occurred outside the express warranty period. The courts seemed to rule in Porsches favor pretty consistently.

This current lawsuit was similarly dismissed, but the court granted the Porsche owners class members 20 days to revise and resubmit their suit, which they did.

zeeeeeee

Just and FYI. My 1999 996 had a IMS failure at about 65k miles.

zeeeeeee

That means I am in the "1%". Makes me feel special.

Mike J

Did Porsche provide any financial or other assistance, or where you on your own?

zeeeeeee

They provided nothing. In fact, I even called Porsche of North America and they basically said, "Tough luck. You're on your own buddy."

zeeeeeee

Knowing that I am not a part of the lawsuit, I am tempted to file my own suit.