PogueMoHone

I can't represent to be what I'm not..a mechanic or engineer, wasn't born with the right type of brain or patience.

However, as I understand it doesn't occur on just one specific shift. It may be more apparent on the 2-3 shift (or 3-2) because of the dog leg path versus 3-4, straight line. Further, there is a greater frequency of shifts from 2-3 (3-2) on the the track than any other given speed limitations. Example, how often do you go from 4-5?. this greater frequency of shifts may make characteristic more noticeable (damned statistics again)

Now it's time for the "techies" to rescue me or hang me!

Bob Rouleau

Colm, good point. In my case the 2-3 shift takes place 3 times per lap. 3-4, 3 times and 4-5 never. The problem is only on the 2-3 shift and then only in two locations. I suspect torque has something to do with it because 3-4 shifts are usually done in a straighter line and the drive train is less wound up. Like you I am not a mechanical engineer so myh theory may be utterly wrong.

BC

During acceleration on some 3 series BMWs the upshift would actually be affected by transmission TWIST, meaning that the whole car was misaligning the pattern, so that instead of a 3-4 shift it became a 3-2 shift at redline. ;(

Dock

Good luck in court proving the "advertisement"/"warranty" connection.

Bob Rouleau

Hey Dock and faterickcartman, please, let's avoid the legal posturing. This isn't a courtroom and while legal aspects may be interesting taking a macho stance really provide much insight.

Dock

Concerning PCNA's warranty coverage, from a Boxster to the Carrera GT, all the cars are treated the same.

If you don't track your car and have a mechanical problem then the dealer will look for "abuse". If no abuse is found you stand a pretty good chance of a warranty repair. If you track your car, PCNA legally doesn't *have* to look for "abuse"; however, the dealer *can* still check for abuse and if none is found there is a window of opportunity for warranty repair.

Dock

I appreciate your comments, but between faterickcartman and myself there's only one lawyer. I have consistently said I don't believe there is any legal case here. But for someone who is hard over that there *is* a legal case, my only suggestion is to run with it and find out...or stop arguing that angle on this thread.

BC

The GT is a thinly veiled race car. Its SUPPOSED to be on the track.

Dock

I'm just providing information.

lexpro

If you're not the lawyer, Dock, I don't think there are any lawyers between you and faterik. And, frankly, I don't understand the "logic" behind browbeating you to justify PCNA's position. I can understand that some members of this community may be unhappy because their warranty does not cover damages occurring during tracking or similar events. But even if their "logical" arguments were successful in changing your mind, what difference would it make toward getting warranty coverage where it was not available before? (though I get the feeling you enjoy the back-and-forth). I also understand the perceived injustice of Porsche refusing to cover damages they apparently covered previously for a car advertised as having racing potential. It seems Porsche changed their policy in that regard which, I think, they are entitled to do. I really think this is a commercial/marketing dispute, not a legal one...I don't think the law is going to force Porsche to maintain warranties for cars used for other than normal consumer use as provided in its warranty. Here's a question: does any car company offer a warranty for cars sold as racing cars? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no." If I'm right, is it any different that racing/tracking/DE use for cars sold in to consumer channels is not subject to warranty coverage?

Dock

Thanks for the comments.

And no, I'm not a lawyer.

faterikcartman

Can't you let it go? You said volumes and continue to state volumes about how there is no legal case there. Then you admit you are not a lawyer. I am a lawyer who specializes in consumer fraud class actions in California and am telling you there may be a case there. That's it. I am not looking for more work, however. I am looking at buying a 997tt when they come out. Thus, I am keenly interested in Porsche's policy regarding repairs.

My dealer tells me certain Porsche's are made for the track and here I read that may void my warranty. As a general consumer--forget about the lawyer angle--that sounds pretty low down to me. You may think it sounds great (it appears you do).

I wasn't even the one who started talking about class action lawsuits in this thread but I'm pretty sure you were the one who started giving legal opinions about how they would fail. Maybe you could spare us your legal opinion in the future and we could get back to debating the reasonableness of Porsche's position from the viewpoint of current and future customers.

JasonAndreas

The only Porsches "made for the track" are cupcars and its variations sold by Porsche Motorsports. Everything else was designed for the street, including every model sold by PCNA in the USA.

faterikcartman

RIGHT! Now do you see how some people are feeling like Porsche should just come out and say this openly. Sure you know, but how about Joe Blow just checking out Porsche's ads and coming to the showroom?

Dock

Here's how I see it. These are quotes from your posts here...

Post #30 - "What does it cost to go to small claims--$80 and some time? I would sue in small claims and when they say the owners manual says no track time..."

Post #39 - "I wonder if there is a law in California that prohibits dropping the warranty if the car is used in a way the manual prohibits unless the damage is directly related to the violation. I would think the burden would be on Porsche to prove that. Plus, I think their advertising is misleading."

My first post was #40, and it didn't even have anything to do with the "law". So it looks like you were the first to bring up the "legal" side of the issue.

After reading your continued complaints here, and after you brought up the "legal" issue, I suggested this (in post #58) -

"If you think there is an implied warranty covering track usage just because Porsche advertises it's racing heritage, then knock yourself out trying to win that in court."

I made no mention of a "class action lawsuit".

We differ in our legal opinions, and discussing it here is the equivalent of "bench racing" - it's the courts that would decide the issue.

I think I'll post my legal opinion anytime I want.