New transmission needed on 2003 X50: Porsche refusing to cover under warranty
02-05-2006, 12:22 PM
#106
Rennlist Member
But, they do warranty the street cars THEY WANT TO SELL that have been tracked. They just don't warranty the street car YOU BOUGHT that has been tracked.
When Pillsbury shows you the contest-winning concoction using their flour, I think it's reasonable to expect you could cook that thing and eat it, if you used their flour. That isn't to say that a cook-off is racing. It does parallel the belief that ads of the product reflect the attainable use of the product, without disclaimer.
When ads feature street cars doing cool things on a track, the disclaimer is generally worded "professional driver on closed course". If Porsche wanted their policy to be known, they could easily post it the same way.
Instead, they are happy gaining the sale, and forcing the buyer to investigate what he reasonably doesn't anticipate- that advertised usage comes wth forfeiture of a purchased benefit (warranty costs are built into purchase price)
It's easy to argue, "Buyer Beware", but unreasonable to expect such concern when the sales promotion expresses the opposite. If you bought a new roof after looking at literature showing the water-tight nature of the rubber membrane, you wouldn't expect warranty denial because your roof was never supposed to get wet.
Buying a new car isn't considered to be as risky as buying a used one. Therefore, Tom took a calculated risk with his X50, and is living with the consequences of the liklihood of the previous owner's abuse.
If you can legitamately say the car was always used in a fashion congruent with its design and intent, then common sense, logic, and experience say you should have the benefits of that new car warranty. I think the ads suggest the design/intended use of Porsches include track use, (My dealer was very specific about intending to invite me to a track day) leading to the current dissatisfaction.
Dock seems to disagree. Unfortunately, the scoreboard now reads "PCNA 1, Customers who track 0)
AS
When Pillsbury shows you the contest-winning concoction using their flour, I think it's reasonable to expect you could cook that thing and eat it, if you used their flour. That isn't to say that a cook-off is racing. It does parallel the belief that ads of the product reflect the attainable use of the product, without disclaimer.
When ads feature street cars doing cool things on a track, the disclaimer is generally worded "professional driver on closed course". If Porsche wanted their policy to be known, they could easily post it the same way.
Instead, they are happy gaining the sale, and forcing the buyer to investigate what he reasonably doesn't anticipate- that advertised usage comes wth forfeiture of a purchased benefit (warranty costs are built into purchase price)
It's easy to argue, "Buyer Beware", but unreasonable to expect such concern when the sales promotion expresses the opposite. If you bought a new roof after looking at literature showing the water-tight nature of the rubber membrane, you wouldn't expect warranty denial because your roof was never supposed to get wet.
Buying a new car isn't considered to be as risky as buying a used one. Therefore, Tom took a calculated risk with his X50, and is living with the consequences of the liklihood of the previous owner's abuse.
If you can legitamately say the car was always used in a fashion congruent with its design and intent, then common sense, logic, and experience say you should have the benefits of that new car warranty. I think the ads suggest the design/intended use of Porsches include track use, (My dealer was very specific about intending to invite me to a track day) leading to the current dissatisfaction.
Dock seems to disagree. Unfortunately, the scoreboard now reads "PCNA 1, Customers who track 0)
AS
02-05-2006, 01:27 PM
#107
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
not to mention that it's all *my* fault!
02-05-2006, 02:43 PM
#108
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Salespunk
Actually it is explictly stated in the Z06 manual that they will cover the vehicle under track conditions.
" "Misuse of the vehicle such as driving over curbs, overloading, racing, or other competition". "
The Vette guys tell me that the term "racing" is considered by GM to be any track event, including a DE.
02-05-2006, 03:31 PM
#109
Advanced
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not equate taking my car to a track and running it at high speeds -- tracking the car -- to be equivilent to using the car to "race", for "racing" or for "competition." The definition of "compete" is inherent in understanding what those words mean. Compete means: To strive against another or others to attain a goal, such as an advantage or a victory.
What GM considers "racing" is not relevant. If they want the terms to have a special meaning, or to be considered "terms of art" they need to explicitly define them as such. If not, courts will likely attribute the meaning ascribed to them by a dictionary, common usage, and/or the understanding of a reasonable person.
What GM considers "racing" is not relevant. If they want the terms to have a special meaning, or to be considered "terms of art" they need to explicitly define them as such. If not, courts will likely attribute the meaning ascribed to them by a dictionary, common usage, and/or the understanding of a reasonable person.
02-05-2006, 03:38 PM
#110
Advanced
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lexpro
The Porsche warranty is available on the web: http://www.porsche.com/filestore.asp...letype=default
Note page 9 of the warranty, specifically excluding component or part failures during Porsche sponsored track events. Federal law requires that a warrantor who offers a written warranty must provide a copy of that warranty to the buyer before the purchase. Here is a link to the Federal Trade Commission's "businessperson's guide" to the Magnuson Moss Consumer Product Warranty Act: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/...#Magnuson-Moss. I would be surprised if Porsche dealers refused to provide a copy of the warranty in compliance with the law.
I understand that Porsche has changed its view of warranty service for failures arising in track events. Obviously, that is a business decision they made for whatever their reasons were. Just as obviously, as consumers, we can complain about that and ultimately not buy their product if we don't like it. The law provides car buyers the ability to do due diligence before making the purchase. Due diligence is the buyer's obligation. Many products are advertised glorifying their successes under other-than-consumer circumstances, and those circumstances are commonly excluded from warranty coverage. Given that fact and the fact that the warranty is available pre-purchase, notwithstanding faterikcartman's insistance to the contrary, I would be surprised if a court would find a violation of the California statute cited by him based on Porsche advertising. If he's right, I'm sure he would be happy to take a class action contingency case to its ultimate success on behalf of Porsche owners who have been damaged by Porsche's actions.
Note page 9 of the warranty, specifically excluding component or part failures during Porsche sponsored track events. Federal law requires that a warrantor who offers a written warranty must provide a copy of that warranty to the buyer before the purchase. Here is a link to the Federal Trade Commission's "businessperson's guide" to the Magnuson Moss Consumer Product Warranty Act: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/...#Magnuson-Moss. I would be surprised if Porsche dealers refused to provide a copy of the warranty in compliance with the law.
I understand that Porsche has changed its view of warranty service for failures arising in track events. Obviously, that is a business decision they made for whatever their reasons were. Just as obviously, as consumers, we can complain about that and ultimately not buy their product if we don't like it. The law provides car buyers the ability to do due diligence before making the purchase. Due diligence is the buyer's obligation. Many products are advertised glorifying their successes under other-than-consumer circumstances, and those circumstances are commonly excluded from warranty coverage. Given that fact and the fact that the warranty is available pre-purchase, notwithstanding faterikcartman's insistance to the contrary, I would be surprised if a court would find a violation of the California statute cited by him based on Porsche advertising. If he's right, I'm sure he would be happy to take a class action contingency case to its ultimate success on behalf of Porsche owners who have been damaged by Porsche's actions.
I was told by a Porsche salesman yesterday that he "guarantees" I will never wear out PCCB brakes. He says they are guaranteed to last 168,000 miles. I asked what about if you took it on a track. He said it wouldn't matter, I could never wear them out. I asked how much do rotors cost if I do wear them out. He wouldn't give me the price, he said that would never happen.
02-05-2006, 07:15 PM
#112
Rennlist Member
So,
Can we all agree this is all Bob's fault?
Bob, from this point forward, don't you think it appropriate to simply ask you to cover failures in cars that have been tracked? That would solve the whole problem, restore harmony to the board, and reaffirm our confidence in the good of man. AS
Can we all agree this is all Bob's fault?
Bob, from this point forward, don't you think it appropriate to simply ask you to cover failures in cars that have been tracked? That would solve the whole problem, restore harmony to the board, and reaffirm our confidence in the good of man. AS
02-05-2006, 08:59 PM
#113
GT3 player par excellence
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
it really depends on YOUR relationship with the service advisor and dealership. THEY will goto bat for you. i have bought countless number of p cars from same place and they make sure i get what i want warrantied.
also, i think the service rep in so cal is full of ****. he cannot prove you misshfited in the sense of not having the cluch in at the right time. THAT will chew up your gear box. if he can prove then, then sure. the bill is on you. but simple type 2 over rev is nothing. i mean if i money shifted from 5th to 2nd, the engine will blow up. i dont see how the gear box is gonig to have a prob.
btw, i personally know of 4 TT of different vintages with the popping out of gear prob. and all warrantied. porsche knows this. and my dealer told me if they can produce it ONCE (gear popping out) they will replace the gear box.
my car is tracked, hell it's got the beefiest roll bar you will ever seen and i leave it in the car all the time. so my service guys know i drive the car hard. that's what the damn car is made for. if i wnated to shift at 2k rpm all day, i would just drive a civic which is much more reliable and more precisely engineered then any porsche, they just dont go as fast. shifting at red line is not abusing the car. prosche can always put a rev limiter at 3k rpm. if they put it at 7k rpm that mean i will shift at 6999 rpm.
also, i think the service rep in so cal is full of ****. he cannot prove you misshfited in the sense of not having the cluch in at the right time. THAT will chew up your gear box. if he can prove then, then sure. the bill is on you. but simple type 2 over rev is nothing. i mean if i money shifted from 5th to 2nd, the engine will blow up. i dont see how the gear box is gonig to have a prob.
btw, i personally know of 4 TT of different vintages with the popping out of gear prob. and all warrantied. porsche knows this. and my dealer told me if they can produce it ONCE (gear popping out) they will replace the gear box.
my car is tracked, hell it's got the beefiest roll bar you will ever seen and i leave it in the car all the time. so my service guys know i drive the car hard. that's what the damn car is made for. if i wnated to shift at 2k rpm all day, i would just drive a civic which is much more reliable and more precisely engineered then any porsche, they just dont go as fast. shifting at red line is not abusing the car. prosche can always put a rev limiter at 3k rpm. if they put it at 7k rpm that mean i will shift at 6999 rpm.
02-05-2006, 09:29 PM
#114
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by faterikcartman
You can't intentionally mislead...
Let us know how it turns out.
02-05-2006, 10:30 PM
#115
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Dear Alex, thank you for volunteering me. I seem to be out of goodwill this week. Perhaps next week. Besides, I gave at the office.
Mooty - I already posted my experience with failures at the track. I don't see it happening on anything except 944T's that have been boosted beyond what Porsche ever intended. These cars are tough and that's why I buy them. I can't fathom why PCNA is taking such a hard stand. As Alex pointed out, it appears that the cars that PCNA "abuses" (term used to placate Dock) it seems the warranty applies. Interesting. Let's blame the whole thing on Hurley Heywood and Doc Bundy.
Mooty - I already posted my experience with failures at the track. I don't see it happening on anything except 944T's that have been boosted beyond what Porsche ever intended. These cars are tough and that's why I buy them. I can't fathom why PCNA is taking such a hard stand. As Alex pointed out, it appears that the cars that PCNA "abuses" (term used to placate Dock) it seems the warranty applies. Interesting. Let's blame the whole thing on Hurley Heywood and Doc Bundy.
02-05-2006, 10:43 PM
#116
Advanced
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dock
This is real easy. If you think Porsche is intentionally misleading customers, prove it in court. When you're finished with Porsche, do the same with GM. There are deep pockets at both companies, and since the case is in your opinion very strong, your cut of the award should prove to be a huge incentive to take this to court.
Let us know how it turns out.
Let us know how it turns out.
02-05-2006, 11:39 PM
#117
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by faterikcartman
PM with your potential client referrals and I'll look into it. .
02-05-2006, 11:53 PM
#118
Rennlist Member
Darn,
If Bob had jumped in, I was going to share half the obligation.
In reality, if 2 or 3 people wanted to chip in about 10K, you could probably initiate a class action and force PCNA to give you the list of all trans failures. I think in that circumstance, they are obligated to provide it. The data could probably fuel discussion for quite a while.
Certainly, the disparity between the policies of different dealers is also a discriminatory factor. If some get it covered by PCNA, so should all. The experience of board members would be a factor.
I do think that a suit with a few well-documented cases of false advertising, inconsistent behavior, and the warranties they isue on their own track cars would make the corporate attorneys think hard.
When the DSG comes out and you can't get type 1 or type 2 overrevs, how will they document track abuse? (I want to assuage Dock too). At that point, all they could tell would be the rpm history of the car, so the whole issue should die. I think if they got to the point of warranty disqualification because of hard use, the entire enthusiast base would dissolve.
As a final random question, does the DME tell when in the car history the overrev's occurred? Either recent or late? You really never know what happened to your car in the 40 miles or so that are on the odometer when you get it, nor do you know how it's driven at the shop. Seems like there are a few more arguements on behalf of the owner.
AS
If Bob had jumped in, I was going to share half the obligation.
In reality, if 2 or 3 people wanted to chip in about 10K, you could probably initiate a class action and force PCNA to give you the list of all trans failures. I think in that circumstance, they are obligated to provide it. The data could probably fuel discussion for quite a while.
Certainly, the disparity between the policies of different dealers is also a discriminatory factor. If some get it covered by PCNA, so should all. The experience of board members would be a factor.
I do think that a suit with a few well-documented cases of false advertising, inconsistent behavior, and the warranties they isue on their own track cars would make the corporate attorneys think hard.
When the DSG comes out and you can't get type 1 or type 2 overrevs, how will they document track abuse? (I want to assuage Dock too). At that point, all they could tell would be the rpm history of the car, so the whole issue should die. I think if they got to the point of warranty disqualification because of hard use, the entire enthusiast base would dissolve.
As a final random question, does the DME tell when in the car history the overrev's occurred? Either recent or late? You really never know what happened to your car in the 40 miles or so that are on the odometer when you get it, nor do you know how it's driven at the shop. Seems like there are a few more arguements on behalf of the owner.
AS
02-06-2006, 12:16 AM
#119
Originally Posted by Alexander Stemer
...When the DSG comes out and you can't get type 1 or type 2 overrevs, how will they document track abuse? (I want to assuage Dock too). At that point, all they could tell would be the rpm history of the car, so the whole issue should die...
AS
AS
I would be surprised if Porsche acted any differently when the cars have PDK.
Greg A
02-06-2006, 03:38 AM
#120
Technical Guru
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The NHTSA has received exactly ONE complaint about this problem. I would consider the transmission popping out of gear a safety issue, more owners should file a complaint.