faterikcartman

Quote from Lexpro:

"If I can step on Dock's toes here, regarding the quote from the Porsche brochure in faterik's post, "Drawing on pure racing origins, we have created a road-going car that is equally well suited to everyday driving and genuine competition use," I understand this to be a description of the ultra high performance characteristics of the car: the qualities a racing car, the pinnicle of performance, but, unusual for such a car, civilized enought to be driven on the street. So I do not see this as a representation that Porsche is offering a retail consumer warranty for failures on a car purchased for racing and track events."

I'm not comfortable calling Porsche a religion, so I'll call it a cult. The standard here, of course, should be what a reasonable consumer would think, not what a Kool-Aid drinking cult member would think.

Here are some more quotes from Porsche:

"As you would expect on a race-ready Porsche, the new 911 GT3 offers a range of suspension set-up options. These can be used to adapt the car to the specific characteristics of each circuit."

"All components in the engine cooling system are directly sourced from the Porsche Motorsport division. Each of these parts is, of course, designed for the unique challenges of endurance racing."

"Vehicle safety is a fundamental requirement for optimum road and track performance."

"PCCB provides shorter braking distances in even the toughest road and race conditions."

"Unusually for a car with genuine race credentials, it is also ideal for everyday road driving." [emphasis added]

"For serious competition or trackday use, the Clubsport package offers the ultimate in occupant protection."

"Drawing on pure racing origins, we have created a road-racing car that is equally well suited to everyday driving and genuine competition use." [emphasis added]

Dock has said above their cars are just made for the road not for the track. Dock has secret contacts at PCNA who make sure he gets the inside scoop.

Porsche marketing has other ideas. Porsche is not held accountable, however, to what Dock's secret contacts say, it is held accountable to what it says officially through Porsche marketing. Dock, either Porsche lies in its ads or you and your secret contact are full of $h!t.

Dock

I don't believe I've ever said Porsche sports cars were made just for the road. I did say that Porsche doesn't care at all if an owner tracks his car.

And my contact does speak officially for PCNA.

I have another suggestion for you. If you don't like PCNA's warranty coverage, if you don't like PCNA's advertising, if you don't like the way dealers talk about these two topics, then sell any Porsche you own that's under warranty (is your Porsche under warranty?) and/or don't ever buy another Porsche.

boxrbus

Sounds like faterikcartman has a problem differentiating an advertisement from a warranty.

Red rooster

Looking for something else and found a " Sport Chrono Package Plus "option that enables lap times to be measured ?? or is this something else ??

Geoff

SciFrog

I don't think you can apply quotes from the new GT3 to this turbo X50. The GT3 is built for the track.

Did you buy the car new?

lexpro

Faterik: Thank you for the further support for the point I was trying to make in post #207. You did it much better than I.

Bob Rouleau

Dock - yes my Chubb policy does cover me on the track. Lexpro and Faterikcartman, if i was on the jury, I think the brochure would put me on the side of the plaintiff. Since the brochure is pre-sale and the warrantry exclusion is post sale .. yeah I'd side for the guy who complains about his warranty being invalid because participated in PCA driver's ed.

Rgds,

Dock

Did you research the policy concerning it's track coverage prior to buying it?

mike_la_jolla

Yes I did. State Farm covers DE's. We are talking about DE's here, not races or racing. DE's have instructors, controlled passing -- quite tame. Lap timing is forbidden.
Porsche is claiming that the DE’s is ‘abusive driving’ and using that as one of the excuses to invalidate warranty coverage.

Bob Rouleau

Dock - no. I asked them after. I see the point you're trying to make though.

Dock

See post #171

mike_la_jolla

And the 911TT X50 Turbo is not? Huh? Educate me on the 'differences' please.
What feature(s) other than a roll cage does the GT3 have that differentiates it from an X50?

The GT3 is a stripped down 996. The GT2 is a stripped down Turbo. Is this wrong?

Dock

Porsche treats the Boxster to the CGT the same in terms of warranty coverage.

SciFrog

Different suspension with stiffer setup, torque curve more adequate for track, higher rpm limit, less weight, less electronics (no PSM), dry sump pump...

I think Porsche was wrong to diss you, don't get me wrong, and their attitude unbeleivable.

But you can't use GT3 quotes from Porsche to justify the trackability of the turbo.

1AS

I just looked at 171 again. Isn't the warranty thru PCNA? Isn't the gripe with PCNA and not with an individual dealer?
Does the dealer pay for warranty repair or is it paid by PCNA? Shouldn't all Porche buyers expect a uniform policy?
It seems that if you bought your car from dealer A (whom we might presume to be "track friendly") but then moved 500 miles and sought service at dealer B, it seems inconsistent and unreasonable to have to worry about 2 different tracking policies. Since the warranty is the responsibility of the manufacturer, it also seems nuts to not have a consistent policy.

The interesting thing about Dock's position is that it is immovable. The arguements might or might not win in a leagal arens, but are clearly valid points. Ads tout track use, factory spokespeople say the cars are made for tracking, track packages are offered for lap timing, salesmen invite you to track events, the company has historically sponsored track events with factory support, until very recently all tracked cars were completely covered, the change in policy is only revealed after purchase, the cars can be used as designed only on a track, some dealers mailtain warranty for track-used cars, and track use is not the same as "abuse".

Is there any conclusion except PCNA is shielding their profits by denying coverage, knowing that the amounts in question don't merit legal redress by the customer. Personally, if I were on a jury, I think my vote would be pretty clear. It's a deceptive business practice.

And Dock, if my life insurance policy came with a brochure showing a customer tracking, I'd make the same arguement.

My initial intention of tracking my car was known to my dealer at the time of purchase. Absolutely nothing was said to indicate that was a problem.
So Dock, can you acknowledge that any of these points are valid?
Somehow, this thread is reminding me of discussions with my ex-wife. AS