Dock

What position are you talking about??

I pass along information from PCNA that is available to anyone out there, and somehow it's "my" position? You guys need to get off this "Dock is the problem" thing...because it's not my warranty program.

If you have problems with the dealer, take it up with the Regional Rep. If you have problems with him, take it up with PCNA. If you have problems with them, get a lawyer.

This isn't rocket science...

0396

Mike,
The days where Porsche steps up to cover any ‘spirited’ driving related warranty coverage is OVER.
This is a new company bent on making $ via clever advertisement based on their OLD racing heritage.

I still have my 03 Porsche, but will never buy another new one.
In fact, I’m their worst walking advertisement. – When ‘any’ asks how my Porsches are doing.. I tell them NOT to buy, if they intend on going over 55 mph ,which will void any warranty concerns they might have.

My 02 cents

faterikcartman

If you can waste the time and stomach it, barring someone editing your post, read the WHOLE thread and you'll see a comment that Porsche treats the GT3 the same as its other 911's and builds it for road use not track use, but, um, doesn't object if you track it, they just void your warranty.

I think Alex again put a fine point on it, most people who can afford this kind of car don't think it is worth their time to pursue legally. Whether it has legal merit has not been decided.

If you think the fact that Porsche has been doing this for a while unscathed is proof there is no legal merit, you really must not follow class action law suits. You shouldn't be expected to, of course, but you would be making an erroneous assumption.

Bob Rouleau

Dock - looking this whole thing over, it made me wonder. I presume that PCNA technical staff know what sort of 'abuse' can make an X50 transmission fail. Since we are told that there are photos showing the results of said abuse used to diagnose a failed unit there must be a body of knowledge already accumulated. I'm speculating that the photos are the result of many failures and a factory analysis of same.

Would you ask your contact what it takes, based on the evidence they have to wreck the transmission and post the results here? Knowing what not to do might help us avoid similar problems.

Rgds,

mike_la_jolla

After reading this thread, I have decided to take DOCK’s advice and push my claim further up the management chain at Porsche. I’m not sure how to do this. Ian Ritchie, the Southern California Regional Representative, is not good at returning his calls. His office, for obvious reasons, doesn’t give out phone numbers. I can't figure out what to do. Help please.

How do I escalate my claim?
What is the process?
Who do I call or email?

faterikcartman

I thought this morning that I would add a little something for those who are tuning in to this bloated thread late. There is a philosophical argument going on somewhat separate from the issues specific to Mike in La Jolla's difficulties.

In a nutshell, I think all "some" of us believe Porsche needs to do is to change the way it markets its cars, not necessarily change the warranty policy. For example, now they claim in their marketing that at least some cars are made for tracking and that the cars come with a four year 50,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty.

What you find out AFTER you buy the car, unless you do special research beyond Porsche's ads, your test drives and what the dealer tells you, is that if you track the car your warranty is void.

So as to not mislead consumers, Porsche needs to make an open public disclaimer wherever it brags about the car being designed for track use that using it like that voids your warranty.

"Some" others here, believe the warranty details are available if you do you due dillegence before you buy the car and that it is the buyer's responsibility to look beyond what Porsche puts forth in its catalogues, ads, and sales presentations, and get the details of the warranty if you are concerned about it. If you don't find out about the policy to void the warranty if you track the car until after you buy it and they finally give you a copy of the owner's manual containing the warranty (remember there is no "cooling off" period for California car purchases) too bad for you, you should have insisted they show you the warranty before hand instead of just believing the printed catalogues claiming a bumper to bumper warranty. And, if you don't like the policy, don't buy a Porsche.

The first faction thinks that way of doing things is playing hide the ball and a consumer should able to reasonably expect that if the ads say the car is built for tracking, the catalogue says it is built for tracking, the dealer tells you it is made for tracking, and they all say it has a bumper to bumper warranty, then the warranty should still apply if you track the car.

Dock

How is Mike's case different than the description you present in your post?

Words are important. Check post #171 again.

There's no "believe" about it.

Bob Rouleau

faterikcartman - One correction. I would say that if you track your car the warranty "may" be void. Otherwise I agree with your summary and I'm in the "the warranty should apply faction" unless there is abuse or competition use.

Rgds,

Dock

faterikcartman - Here's what 30 seconds of due diligence produced. From PCNA's web site...

"Note: Components and/or parts that fail during racing or driving events
(including Porsche sponsored events) will not be covered by the
manufacturer new car limited warranty."

"These express warranties are provided by Porsche Cars North America, Inc., and are in lieu of all other express warranties of Porsche Cars N.A., Inc., the manufacturer, and selling dealer."

Bob Rouleau

Dock - I've bought a lot of cars. I have never, ever had to perform due diligence on the warranty before purchase. The dealeer says - 4 years x thousand miles and that's it.

Fact is, the warranty statement and advertising/marketing claims seem contradictory to me. I am not a lawyer so I won't even attempt to say whether that's a naughty thing in the eyes of the judicial system.

By the way, if PCNA is reading this, I suggest that you reconsider. PCA driver's ed events are one of the best sales and marketing tools of the brand. The ability of a Porsche to perform on a track is one of the distinguishing marks that puts Porsche ahead of Mercedes, Jaguar and other so called "sports" cars. Note too that Ferrari warrants their cars even if used on the track in non competitive events.

Regards,

Dock

No different than GM's approach with the Vette. And no different than Ford dealers having pictures of their cars on the NASCAR track.

Dock

While no one will force you to do due diligence, I personally think it's a good idea to ask questions, and check out the warranty on a car before buying it.

Bob Rouleau

Dock I called a friend at GM who tells me the warranty excludes competition. Drivers Ed or open track days are ok as far as he is concerned. Apparently the GM warranty does not refer to track use the way PCNA words it. Still I don;t much care what GM does, I love Porsches.

Dock

Bob - My point was that all three manufacturers (GM, Ford, and Porsche) advertise their cars in "race"/"track"/"competition" terms, while their warranties don't provide coverage for all of those activities.

Bob Rouleau

Dock here's something else that will get PCNA's attention. Ugly thing and I hope they (PAG) win. Lookhere