Gofishracing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good job everyone. Spread the word about the coolant line issue. So many drivers unaware of the danger. File the complaints if you made a repair. You can search by year- 2001-2007
Porsche asked for an extension on disclosure.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchVehicles

Larry Cable

oh right this is where the part fails and is ingested into the engine ... BANG!

NaroEscape

We have a 2004 GT3 with now 59k miles on it. Bought it with 16k miles a couple years ago. The previous 2 owners did some track driving, but not a ton. We only use it for street driving.

So far, no leaks, no issues...but I'm concerned - we take really long trips in it and my wife drives it most days to work....would hate to end up on the side of the road or worse - in a guardrail. Do I REALLY have to drop $3-4k before I can file a complaint?

FFaust

Got it, thanks. Was out of town, sorry.

sithot

Here's a twist on the 996 M96 engines. This is in the latest Panorama which this month went to a large format. (8.5 x 11)

gman3280

If I read this correctly you had to have made a repair to be eligible. Is that right?

sithot

There would be no way to reimburse you for something that hasn't occurred. I have friends with replaced engines out of pocket. I'm sure they are biting at the bit to get reimbursed especially since under warranty the engines were about $9,000. Once all the cars were out of warrant they doubled the price. Nice, eh?

Carrera GT

The IMS finding might be a "Ford Pinto" scenario for Porsche -- cheaper to let a few customers blow up engines with coolant bursts and when some ambulance chaser finally gets a class action in favor of the consumer, the net net as seen by Porsche could be the best possible outcome. It might also have been all the complaints here and on other forums sites had the unintended consequence of Porsche discontinuing the Mezger for consumer applications.

sithot

Consider, for example, the calculations of Ford Motor Company officials in the 1970s with respect to the likelihood that gas tanks in Ford Pinto automobiles would explode when struck from behind by objects moving faster than twenty miles an hour. Internal company documents concluded that the additional cost of making the gas tank safer at higher speeds would be greater than the cost resulting from the estimated 180 deaths and 180 serious burn injuries per year which might be avoided by making a safer gas tank. More precisely, Ford calculated the benefits from a safer tank as the avoidance of costs of $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle. Based on the estimated number of deaths,
Injuries, and damaged cars and trucks, the beets came to $49.5 million per year. The costs, however, were $11 per vehicle. With estimated sales of 12.5 million vehicles, these came to a total of $137 million. As a result, Ford officials concluded that redesigning the gas tank was not economically justified, based on concern that higher prices would reduce sales.
As it happened, Ford was in compliance with federal safety standards at the time, not least because it had lobbied hard to prevent higher standards from being enacted. Even if Ford had been in violation of federal law, how- ever, that would have been irrelevant from a law and economics perspective. As long as the cost of obeying the law was greater than the cost of compliance, Ford was justified in con- tinuing to sell Pintos without any design changes.
The law and economics approach to tort law thus reveals two assumptions that are basic to an instrumental account of law. First, law has no intrinsic moral force, but is simply a cost that parties must take into account in deciding how to behave. We use law as an instrument for imposing costs in order to affect these decisions. Second, persons are instrumentally rational, weighing the costs and benefits associated with pursuing alternative goals. Law and economics seeks to make the law a more scientific instrument by relying on rational choice theory to predict how different legal rules will affect behavior.

Gofishracing

File a complaint Only if you pay for a coolant line fix. Interesting sithot because Porsche knew that had adhesive issues from internal documents. May be the same thing in another form.

tgavem

I filed my complain today, ref No 10532876. Did the fix before it failed.

ChrisF

Wasn't Porsche supposed to respond to the NHTSA by now?

Gofishracing

yes- they got an extention.

Nugget

There's definitely still activity. I got a followup question this morning from the investigator asking for additional details regarding my incident report (#10492870).

AudiOn19s

as did I. asking if mine failed in a turn or going straight.