lexpro

This is a good idea. Sudden loss of power to the wheels would certainly seem to be a safety issue. And the Feds have a much better chance of getting through to Porsche. It takes a long time...but so does a law suit.

Alexander Stemer: your arguments are of the "that's not fair" nature. You say, "Certainly, the disparity between the policies of different dealers is also a discriminatory factor. If some get it covered by PCNA, so should all." Remember, except in circumstances defined in a statute or in case law, there is little chance of being successful because a manufacturer is not "fair." As I said before, I don't think there would be much chance of overturning the written warranty to have it apply to damage/failures caused under circumstances the warranty excludes; I don't think the California comsumer protection statute would do you much good. I don't think Porsche advertising of the performance potential of their cars would be considered to be deceptive or misleading for purposes of the statute. Also, the fact that Porsche might provide a warranty for cars that are tracked by the factory probably would not mean much. The inclusion of a warranty is simply an element of the price that reflects the market's view of the value of the car. The fact Porsche might offer a warranty on a particular car means nothing in terms of their obligation to offer a warranty on a different car any more than they have to sell all cars at the same price or give you the best price they have sold to anyone else. (Note: If Porsche sold tracked cars as new without disclosing the fact they were tracked, Porsche would have a serious legal problem, and I seriously doubt this happens. Similar shenanigans by manufacturers have been dealt with harshly by states. Remember when GM was putting rebadged Chevy (I think it was) engines into Oldsmobiles (again, I think...the brands may have been different). Not allowed; a material misrepresentation.) I understand you and faterikcartman don't share these views...and that's what makes horse races. Now, on the other hand, if you were talking about a defect in the engineering or construction of the transmission that causes the transmission to pop out of gear in cars that are not tracked...in other words, the transmissions are defective from the get-go, that is a different story. Then, your suggestion that discovery could flush out embarassing information about the incidence of this defect and Porsche's warranty coverage would have a much better chance of success. But even there, tracked cars that exhibit the defect will almost certaily not count.

My cost-benefit analysis bottom line: follow Jason Andeas's suggestion and file a complaint with NHTSA.

BC

Being from SoCal, my perception may be different then yours, but I would say in the 500 mile arc from this beach I am right now, about 30% or more.

Bob Rouleau

This thread is interesting reading. Since we've drifted towards legal issues, I'd like to make my point without resorting to litigation.

In the not so distant past, Porsche owners were encouraged to track their cars, Porsche supports Driver's Ed and the PCA after all. This was a good way to teach people how to handle their high performance cars and perhaps avoid litigation like that of the 930 Turbo back in the 70's.

From my 12 year experience, failures of unmodified cars at DE was (and still is) virtually nil, and when something did break, the dealer repaired it under warranty with no questions asked. It was known and understood by all that Porsches did not break down even if driven on a race track. This was a matter of pride and justified by the (relatively) high price of a Porsche.

What has changed? Are the newer cars more failure prone than the older ones - to be specific are the 996/Boxster/997 less robust than the 993? I haven't seen any rash of failures but that doesn't mean there are none. If there are a few, why isn't Porsche standing by their cars as they once did?

To be clear on what I mean about standing behind the cars, I have no issue with PAG/PCNA denying coverage to elements that have been modified. If a chipped turbo blows - tough luck. The same goes for abuse, miss a shift and blow the clutch or even the engine? Tough luck.

I guess where I am going is that DE (as opposed to racing) does not constitute abuse of a car designed for the purpose. My 993 now in the hands of a new owner who tracks it enthusiastically, has aboout 50,000 miles of which at least 30,000 is track. No failures and no issues after ten years of "abuse".

Sooo, is the more rigorous application of warranty exclusions due to:

- a desire to make even more profit?
- a reflection on the durability of the new designs?
- a change in management - perhaps someone who does not know the history of the brand and the DE loyalists?

I'd love to see the internal memos that circulated around the office on Hammond Avenue covering what appears to be a change in the application of the warranty policy.

Dock

According to PCNA, nothing has changed.

Bob Rouleau

Dock - do you speak for PCNA? If not, who states that things are as they were before?

Rgds,

Dock

Since I don't work for PCNA, I can't "officially" speak for them. I'm just passing along information from them.

mike_la_jolla

Names and contact info Dock. Send me a PM with names and contact information and I will verify directly with your source at PCNA. I will post the response. Who at PCNA is saying this? Where are you getting this information? Are you just making it up? My information comes from the Southern California Porsche representative, a person by the name of Ian Ritchie. Who is your source? When? Where? What have they said?

Until I get this information from you, I will state again, that my experience over the last three weeks indicates that Porsche’s attitude has changed completely. In my case, Porsche looked for any and all excuses, no matter how inconsequential, to deny warranty coverage on a KNOWN mechanical transmission problem.

How am I misinterpreting this? My information is completely different that yours and my information comes directly from a Porsche manager. I didn’t ‘abuse’ my X50, as Porsche claims, and the X50 transmission have know manufacturing/mechanical issues. Until proven otherwise, I must assume they are denying me warranty coverage on a known problem to make the company spreadsheets look better.

dbf73

Does anyone know when the language about track use found its way into the warranty? I suspect (and this is only a guess) that the racing exclusion has been there longer and that the track exclusion is more recent corresponding with the popularity of DE.

Dock

Mike -

If you need more information concerning your case I suggest you call PCNA.

Have you ever heard news reporters say "According to White House sources..."? They say this because they are protecting their source(s).

mike_la_jolla

Why do you need to 'protect your source'?

Dock

Because he has requested it since day one.

mike_la_jolla

I understand. You might tell him his information is outdated.

Dock

I don't think his information is outdated.

faterikcartman

If your source needs protecting he or she:

1. Is not authorized to make such statements because they are not qualified by PCNA to make such statements so that they are speaking of their opinion not of PCNA policy and since you say they are speaking for PCNA policy we can disregard their opinion.

2. Are wrong and state opinion that contradicts PCNA policy and revealing their opinion publicly could jeopardize their job, so again we may disregard their opinion.

3. PCNA wants to hide their policy and publicly stateing PCNA policy may jeopardize their job, so that we were right to question PCNA's position.

OR ???

Under what plausible circumstances, that are on the up and up and not suspect, does your source need to be "protected"?

JasonAndreas

The copyright on my 964RSA warranty book says 1992 so at least since the early nineties.