Bob Rouleau

Madcap

You have hit the nail on the head. Over here in the colonies it was as you stated. Porsche Cars North America seems to have had a change of heart. For years I have been happy knowing that my car was warranted even though I drove it on the track . Since my dealer does the mandatory pre-track inspections, I could hardly hide the fact!

Best,

Cupcar

This warrantee issue in a GT2, which may have had as much as a 100% profit for the manufacturer.....

macfly

I already told my dealer I plan to track my GT3, infact the very reason I bought a GT3 was as a track star I could use as an every day car. Is this an official Porsche policy that is stated or implied in print anywhere. I just read thru all my purchase documents and there is nothing stated about this that I could see.

If Porsche NA is really saying this, and is it is factory backed fact, it really puts Porsche firmly in the shadow of their Italian rival who stand by their cars as being both sporting and well made enough to take to the race track.

If I have really spent $110K on a poser's special that isn't meant to be taken off the high street, and never exceed 70mph then I have to say that I'm pi55ed. I bought a Porsche because I thought it was a true sports car, not a cute little boulevardier. How can we believe in a car when it's maker and importer doesn't believe in it? This seems like a very, very serious situation, and I have to say if I had read this two weeks ago I would not have bought my GT3.

Les Quam

Well, it seems to me that if a careful meticulus driving instructor like Bob Rouleau needs to litigate to get Porsche to stand behind their ceramics, we have garage queens or sunday drivers. Because I have not found anyone as qualified or knowledgeable as Bob on this issue. I thought my brake problems were do to my abuse and failure to read the manual(yes, Bob some GT 2 owners are too stupid to read the manual) I honestly thought if the brakes were good for 180,000 miles on the street, they were pretty much indestructible. So doe's this mean the 446K boxster I have on order must be babied around the track? Should I get a scarf and Pipe when I drive the CGT? As a reminder at the Bragg Smith driving school outside Vegas their Vettes even in 100 degree summers never have these kind of brake problems. My thoughts are that if Bob's brakes are defective, the design is somewhat flawed in regard to heat issue's.

mds

Look at page 8 and 9 in the GT3 Warranty and Customer Information booklet. Quote:

This Warranty Does Not Cover:
...
- Abuse, accident, acts of God, competition, racing or track use or other events beyond the control of Porsche Cars N.A.
...

AW

By the way, the Stradale rotors are *way larger* than the GT2 despite the fact the car itself is lighter. I suspect larger rotors will dissipate heat better.

Ferrari claims it is not the same technology as PCCB. But it looks exactly the same.

AW

macfly

Abuse, accident, acts of God, competition, racing or track use or other events beyond the control of Porsche Cars NA.

I honestly feel this is beyond a bad joke, I wonder if Porsche AG are aware of this clause in the contract that is being made with their customers. It is almost fraud to sell a GT3 as a only pretty commuter and flashy shopping cart, but that is what Porsche NA are doing.

Porsche NA is in effect saying; 'Regardless of what the Porsche, whose cars we import, think of their work on the GT3, we think it is weak and substandard, and certainly not up to the quality required to sustain the use that the factory say it can. As a result we shall ignore the racing heritage past and present of Porsche AG. The fact that we show the car being thrown around Leipzig and other European circuits our website is merely done to fool you suckers into giving us your money. Now buzz off, and leave us to enjoy the profits of our misrepresentations. Oh, and forget suing us, we have more money than you do, so we'll destroy you in court."

If I was at Porsche AG I would very seriously start looking for a new importer who believed in our product, and didn't just want to sell fancy commuters. No wait, read that disclaimer again, Porsche NA might well say that commuting is taking the car into territories that are events beyond the control of Porsche Cars NA.

We have been cheated, and I think that a group action against PNA is something we should all consider. United we stand in our respect for Porsche AG, and our disgust with PNA.

JMcD

How does Porsche view PCA DE events? Will they deny warranty coverage, since speeds will be above the legal limit?

Marco Polo

By the strict letter of the language, PCA DE events would almost certainly be excluded from coverage. But how strictly can that language be enforced? Contract language, where ambiguous, will be construed against the party that provided the phraseology. One point of ambiguity is whether "events beyond the control of PCNA" includes events such as driving off the lot after taking delivery. (In this gray area, a slightly darker shade would be a group drive on public roads. Darker still would be an autocross.) What is an "event"? "Control"? It seems obvious that PCNA wanted to expand beyond events on a track, but the expansion is so open-ended as to render the specificity of the "track use" term ambiguous. That is, if the language of the later phrase in the sentence is so patently vague, doesn't it raise, as a matter of presumed consistency, questions about previous terms, if they are not terms of art or otherwise expressly defined? What is a "track" and what is "use"? If ambiguity is found, a plausible interpretation in favor of the non-drafting party is validated.

Further, employment of the product for its intended purposes, surely, could not be considered within the excluded term "use." It is nonsensical to offer a product for sale with a warranty that is entirely avoided by the nature of the product's intended utilization. Thus, however clear the language might seem at first blush, it must be either ambiguous or absurd.

In point of fact, if you read the literature that accompanies almost any consumer product sold in the USA, you will find that the item is virtually unusable as a practical matter under the warranty strictures stated: no metal utensils (or utensils not provided with the unit) in a toaster oven, space heaters no closer than 4 feet to a wall or furnishings, bicycles not to be used on public streets, and so on. For the most part, these restrictions are resorted to as a limit on liability for personal injury and property damage, not to limit warranty claim exposure. In the case of a complex machine of considerable expense and requiring regular and extensive maintenace, the purpose seems to be much more a matter of limiting warranty claim exposure. It makes a sham of offering longer warranty terms, to say the least: "Your warranty is unenforcable, but now it is unenforcable for four years instead of just two!"

It really puts bitter icing on the cake to see ads and website features from PCNA glorifying, indeed trading on, their vehicles' suitablity for track use at Leipzig and racing around other tracks. Performance that we are cautioned was undertaken on closed courses. As fas as I'm concerned, a "track" is a place used for competition, whereas a "closed course" is a place used for demonstration or education or other non-competitive undertakings. Either might be located at the same venue; the geographical place and the nature of its improvements are not the dispositive elements.

(P.S. Just playin' wichu, macfly.)

macfly

Marco, you make a good point, but I am still in a state of shock that PNA shows us the GT3 tearing around Leipzig, and racing around the other other tracks in EU on it's site, and then says it is only warrantied for looking at in your living room!

billatlanta

As stated earlier in the thread this has been a nightmare of mine as well. For example not a far stretch but certainly reaching in this case "Does the fact that a say employee of the dealership see you at a track event present problems". I agree with Mark. If I am not using the vehicle in competiton, I would expect there should be no issues with regard to warrenty claims just becuase I took the car and participated in a DE event (again taking responsibility for user error).

How would PCNA reply if I were to solicit a response from them in writing prior to my particiaption? It would be nice to have some clarity of their position prior to the execution of the event to clairfy their position. Even if there response was negative at least it would be clear where they stood on this issue. At that point I can make an informed decision as to what I choose to do.

By the way when is the next DE registration?

Steve in FL

I understand at least one dealer here in FL was "encouraged" to close down their "motorsports" department since it could be seen as encouraging customers to violate the terms of the PCNA warranty. Does anybody else think we're in danger of seeing "This isn't your father's Porsche" as the new ad slogan? Or at least the more accurate ad slogan.

Mr. RS

Saw this in the Feb issue of GT Purely Porsche as a response to a letter sent in regarding the PCCB issue and tracking GT3's so equipped

"... Porsche also assures us that your warrenty will not be rendered invalid through track use, so if something untoward does happen you will be covered regardless"

If this turns out to be true maybe the issue is with PCNA rather than with Porsche cars itself.

P.

Marco Polo

Bill, I'm afraid it would be similar to getting a Letter Ruling from the IRS: If it is to be universally applicable, it will certainly be very narrowly drawn, i.e. prohibition. If it is for one client only, it will still very likely amount to prohibition, but at considerable time and expense to obtain. On the other hand, if you simply include the "deduction" in a reasonable manner on a routine return, it may well pass without comment. This is what I referred to some weeks ago as taking care not to mess things up by demanding formal declarations.

Still, this "keep your nose clean" attitude amounts to running scared before the corporate indifference to unreasonable restrictions on warranty coverage. What tiny percent of Porsche owners in the Wiedekin age give a hoot about DEs anyway? However small, it is the core of the Porsche tradition, perhaps today more than even PAG. We are not without influence, but it is certainly a Goliath that we are facing.

By the way, we should bear in mind that we are strategizing well within Goliath's hearing.

billatlanta

Mark - understood, and as always very well put. By the way your analogy of a Private Letter Ruling is spot on.

Bill