PCCB Arbitration Results
01-31-2004, 01:37 AM
#166
Advanced
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Malibu (LA), Hong Kong (China)
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macfly - '......a car that is publicly shown on the website at Leipzig, and has it ability at the ring trumpeted about is a car I expect to be able to take to the track.'
Don't confuse media advertising with real world though.
Otherwise we'd
- all be walking around with cigarettes hanging out our mouths and beautiful babes from our arms
- using the tummy trimmer daily and have washboard abs
- watching tv while plugged into an electro 'something or other' that would give us bodies like Arnie.
Still I agree, this whole warranty thing sucks, especially for you guys who have the funds to buy GT cars which you expect to buy for performance use. I hope its resolved in your favour.
Don't confuse media advertising with real world though.
Otherwise we'd
- all be walking around with cigarettes hanging out our mouths and beautiful babes from our arms
- using the tummy trimmer daily and have washboard abs
- watching tv while plugged into an electro 'something or other' that would give us bodies like Arnie.
Still I agree, this whole warranty thing sucks, especially for you guys who have the funds to buy GT cars which you expect to buy for performance use. I hope its resolved in your favour.
01-31-2004, 08:57 AM
#167
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On page 9 of the GT3 Owners Manual, Porsche is pretty clear about an aggressive driving style significantly reducing the life of PCCB discs and pads. The expressed service life is based upon normal conditions in traffic.
The design intent of this system was to dramatically reduce unsprung weight and stopping distance, not to prolong the service life of racing expendables. I think in this day and age Porsche should be commended for acknowledging that their cars are suitable for racing, as they do on page 8, but we should not be expecting them to cover the cost of the reduced life of wear parts brought on by aggressive driving.
Ya gotta pay to play.
The design intent of this system was to dramatically reduce unsprung weight and stopping distance, not to prolong the service life of racing expendables. I think in this day and age Porsche should be commended for acknowledging that their cars are suitable for racing, as they do on page 8, but we should not be expecting them to cover the cost of the reduced life of wear parts brought on by aggressive driving.
Ya gotta pay to play.
02-06-2004, 06:42 PM
#168
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: West Chester, Pennsylvania
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW
I haven't been checking this post for about a month or so - I was travelling.
Still a lot of activity going on here and I hope that people have learned from the experiences a few of us have had. I'm glad to see it.
The only update I have at this point is that I finally received the arbitration tapes from the better business bureau (took me what - four months?).
We'll see where it goes from here. I suspect this portion will take time as well.
Still a lot of activity going on here and I hope that people have learned from the experiences a few of us have had. I'm glad to see it.
The only update I have at this point is that I finally received the arbitration tapes from the better business bureau (took me what - four months?).
We'll see where it goes from here. I suspect this portion will take time as well.
02-16-2004, 08:52 PM
#169
Rennlist Member
Arbitration
I don't know if you'll get this as it seems to be an older thread, but...
This should not be pursued as a warranty question. The theory behind your case should be one of negligence and not warranty.
If you continue on the warranty path you will loose.
Your position should be that Porsche cannot shield itself behind the warranty due to their negligence of putting a defective product into the stream of commerce. Porsche (or anyone for that matter) can't waive or limit negligence through a warranty. Then what you look at is the product itself not necessarily the use.
In short, even if you look at the use of the product at a track day, it is completely forseeabforeseeable would be used in that environment. Porsche has a history of what their "lightweight" cars are used for by their customers and they know that they will be used by enthusiast at track days. I am sure Porsche has a few boxes full of documents to this effect as well as a 50 year history of it!
Also consider that the ceramic breaks ("product") has been extensively tested (and also to be noted developed through their racing programs). I would love to hear them speak to this issue of how they came to the conclusion that they were safe for road cars. They have unquestionably run tests far more severe than what you've done. From those test they had to have results that showed the product was safe to put on their car. Your parts did not hold up under much less stress and time. As such they must be defective and Porsche is negligent for putting defective parts on your car. It could be due to installation or QC or whatever, but they are obviously defective.
If they agree then it saves everyone a lot of problems here. They can recall the batch of
defective bits and cyo themselves. However, if they claim they are not defective, they are not only on notice now as to this problem, but are in essence at high risk of a huge punitive suit if one of these discs fails causing injury, whether it be on or off the track.
If they agree that it is the "product" and do recall and check they will limit their future liability. If not they are going forward at a terrible risk. I would think you might want to deal with this "open liability" point on an out of arbitration or court manner. I simply can't believe they would not agree.
I was actually looking at a GT3 and now I'm a bit soured to the whole deal.
Like all advice take from this what you can and move on. If this was a large number of cars on the street I'd consider a class action, there may still be a case of some magnitude here if they continue to be unreasonable.
Best of luck.
This should not be pursued as a warranty question. The theory behind your case should be one of negligence and not warranty.
If you continue on the warranty path you will loose.
Your position should be that Porsche cannot shield itself behind the warranty due to their negligence of putting a defective product into the stream of commerce. Porsche (or anyone for that matter) can't waive or limit negligence through a warranty. Then what you look at is the product itself not necessarily the use.
In short, even if you look at the use of the product at a track day, it is completely forseeabforeseeable would be used in that environment. Porsche has a history of what their "lightweight" cars are used for by their customers and they know that they will be used by enthusiast at track days. I am sure Porsche has a few boxes full of documents to this effect as well as a 50 year history of it!
Also consider that the ceramic breaks ("product") has been extensively tested (and also to be noted developed through their racing programs). I would love to hear them speak to this issue of how they came to the conclusion that they were safe for road cars. They have unquestionably run tests far more severe than what you've done. From those test they had to have results that showed the product was safe to put on their car. Your parts did not hold up under much less stress and time. As such they must be defective and Porsche is negligent for putting defective parts on your car. It could be due to installation or QC or whatever, but they are obviously defective.
If they agree then it saves everyone a lot of problems here. They can recall the batch of
defective bits and cyo themselves. However, if they claim they are not defective, they are not only on notice now as to this problem, but are in essence at high risk of a huge punitive suit if one of these discs fails causing injury, whether it be on or off the track.
If they agree that it is the "product" and do recall and check they will limit their future liability. If not they are going forward at a terrible risk. I would think you might want to deal with this "open liability" point on an out of arbitration or court manner. I simply can't believe they would not agree.
I was actually looking at a GT3 and now I'm a bit soured to the whole deal.
Like all advice take from this what you can and move on. If this was a large number of cars on the street I'd consider a class action, there may still be a case of some magnitude here if they continue to be unreasonable.
Best of luck.
02-17-2004, 02:48 PM
#171
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: PCCB Arbitration Results
Originally posted by FixedWing
This is just royal. Porsche sells a car by promoting its lap times at the Nürburgring, its 0-100 km/h and its 0-200 km/h times and then turns around and claims that the warranty is valid only if driven within the speed limit.
Congratulations Porsche on reaching new levels of hypocrisy.
Stephen
This is just royal. Porsche sells a car by promoting its lap times at the Nürburgring, its 0-100 km/h and its 0-200 km/h times and then turns around and claims that the warranty is valid only if driven within the speed limit.
Congratulations Porsche on reaching new levels of hypocrisy.
Stephen
Also the Nuerburgring is officially classified as a public road I believe (or so I have been told by Gome germans).
Mark why did you not just sue in court? Why arbitration?
I changed my order to iron discs in part based upon this whole fiasco.
02-17-2004, 04:32 PM
#172
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree completely with LA964's analysis. I know that Mark has retained a lawyer so presumably he is aware.
My Turbo now has cast iron brakes though all details of the matter are still not fully resolved.
Stephen
My Turbo now has cast iron brakes though all details of the matter are still not fully resolved.
Stephen
02-17-2004, 04:59 PM
#173
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little off topic, but FixedWing, that is a great tour of Europe you've done in your car! I especially liked the Faragus Mountains in Transylvania, sounds like a place you'd keep your windows rolled up!
02-18-2004, 09:10 AM
#174
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by macfly
A little off topic, but FixedWing, that is a great tour of Europe you've done in your car! I especially liked the Faragus Mountains in Transylvania, sounds like a place you'd keep your windows rolled up!
A little off topic, but FixedWing, that is a great tour of Europe you've done in your car! I especially liked the Faragus Mountains in Transylvania, sounds like a place you'd keep your windows rolled up!
Stephen
02-26-2004, 01:25 PM
#175
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2003
Location: FL Space Coast
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to resurrect this thread yet again but this seemed worth posting...
I was thumbing thru the February '04 issue of GT Purely Porsche today and there's a letter to the editor regarding PCCB wear and warranty issues should you take your car on the track. The response from GT Purely Porsche was that they'd contacted Porsche Cars Great Britain and were told taking your car on track would not void your warranty (I didn't buy the magazine so I can't transcribe the exact quote).
I was thumbing thru the February '04 issue of GT Purely Porsche today and there's a letter to the editor regarding PCCB wear and warranty issues should you take your car on the track. The response from GT Purely Porsche was that they'd contacted Porsche Cars Great Britain and were told taking your car on track would not void your warranty (I didn't buy the magazine so I can't transcribe the exact quote).
02-26-2004, 05:13 PM
#177
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2003
Location: FL Space Coast
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Z06: They had a rotor replaced under warranty after taking it on the track? That's the big trick. The dealer I'm buying my GT3 from has also replaced a PCCB rotor on a GT2 under warranty. It was for an apparent production flaw causing it to crack and the car had never seen the track (apparently it's the nanny's car - I want to see that nanny )
)
02-26-2004, 05:42 PM
#178
Three Wheelin'
From what i heard it was treated like a $500 beater, it has gone threw 4 sets of brake pads & 1 rotor, that one rotor was worth $8000, this car runs on slicks and it's apparently the quickest car out there, at the track, this came form a guy who i sold some of my left over Z06 parts.
I am off to see a GT3 for sale locally, it's Seal Grey with the PCCB.
I am off to see a GT3 for sale locally, it's Seal Grey with the PCCB.
02-26-2004, 08:16 PM
#179
Nordschleife Master
Originally posted by Karl S
I got into a situation in summer 2002 where every time I went to the track, I'd get a check engine light. The first time, the dealer attempted to fix under warranty. The second time I brought it back for the same problem, the charged me over $2K for the repair, which was attributed to a cracked oil separator. When I asked why, they claimed that my piggy-back chip caued the car to run rich and overheat exhaust which melted the oil separator. First I asked about the apparent inconsistency of an over-rich condition causing the exhaust to run hotter (generally a rich condition will run cooler). When I didn't get a reasonable answer to that, I asked them to measure the exhaust temps and then remove the piggy-back and remeasure, to prove that it was the piggy-back.
I got into a situation in summer 2002 where every time I went to the track, I'd get a check engine light. The first time, the dealer attempted to fix under warranty. The second time I brought it back for the same problem, the charged me over $2K for the repair, which was attributed to a cracked oil separator. When I asked why, they claimed that my piggy-back chip caued the car to run rich and overheat exhaust which melted the oil separator. First I asked about the apparent inconsistency of an over-rich condition causing the exhaust to run hotter (generally a rich condition will run cooler). When I didn't get a reasonable answer to that, I asked them to measure the exhaust temps and then remove the piggy-back and remeasure, to prove that it was the piggy-back.
I didn't read past page 1 and a half, so I dont know if someone else mentioned this.
I have to say that Porsche is going in the wrong direction if its true that they void warantee's for track driving. If you dont use a Porsche on a track, where else are you gonna really enjoy the car??
02-27-2004, 09:01 AM
#180
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: West Chester, Pennsylvania
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To LA964 and Brh986
LA964 - Thanks for the input. I'll pass that information on.
Brh986 - The reason I didn't pursue in court initially is that Pennsylvania requires that I go through the Better Business Bureau arbitration first - before going to court.
I'd like to thank everyone for the support and suggestions they've offered.
Mark
Brh986 - The reason I didn't pursue in court initially is that Pennsylvania requires that I go through the Better Business Bureau arbitration first - before going to court.
I'd like to thank everyone for the support and suggestions they've offered.
Mark