"02996ttx50

i'm not sure of a couple of things.
(a) if you are correctly understanding my view that this problem may NOT be as prevalent as either an nhtsb inquiry ( or for that matter this and other mostly? recent threads ) would tend to suggest, then i think we agree ?? NOT common, yet a formal inquiry has been undertaken.

i can't imagine you surmised i think it ( sudden coolant loss/fitting failure(s) ) are common. i do not...and then

(b) i'm also not at all sure why you mentioned the all too common expansion tank that we all know cracks/leaks with age, as a related issue. since it isn't, and i KNOW you know that. so that further obfuscates the issue and conversation.

the only thing i'm pretty sure(?) i disagree with what you've said, is that tracking your turbo is NOT a possible and certainly possible causal if not at the very least a contributant to the catastrophic failure of the coolant lines, as outlined in the complaints in the nhtsb investigation. although it may have happened to your friend who drives like an old lady.. but that doesn't have any lessening affect on the number of incidences in which sudden coolant line failure's have occurred and that may in fact be a factor on cars that have either been tracked or consistently driven near the limits of their performance. that tends to put more stresses on parts, again, as you know.

i do think you're right though, the stuff they used might have been better or possibly formulated to last longer, but even then again.. these are ten year old cars that get driven very fast and hard and s*ht breaks! is that the fault of the the manufacturer, some years later? i suppose that will be a judgement made down the road a piece.

for example..if my fuel pump goes out. did it FAIL?! or simply expire, and require replacement as a used car part might. are people trying to claim product liability and a defect in products/workmanship in this inquiry? sure. that alone doesn't make them right.. or porsche culpable for resultant claims and/or loss. but again, just a guess...

and lastly.. i'm at 104k miles and this car has the faded red calipers of many track days... what, me worry?! lol. nah.

PS... enrique.. if it DOES ever happen to you? i think it's the guys behind you! that need to be concerned, esp if psm is OFF lol

"02996ttx50

given that sample, i wouldn't want to be the guy to try and make the case their might any contributory negligence on porsche's part, or their behalf.

F1CrazyDriver

We can see this 10 different point of views. One I believe we ALL share in common or at least I believe we do is, this has nothing to do with age ( as newer cars wit the gt1 block were having this issue) or that this part has a "life cycle" like a moving part does. If their is one, please show me where it states in the manual after X miles/ hours please replace on X service interval.


This is a flawed design, that certainly has a higher risk coming lose then clamp hoses. Let me stress this again. HIGHER RISK then clamp hoses. Every part carries a risk, it is the job of the person whom design X part to minimize X risk for safety. Everything has a pro and a con. Most parts ( even with ebwerks as you know i make 996t parts) we typically make sure "safety" is typically well covered. This glued coolant hoses, IMO does NOT have safety covered. The only way "safety" is covered here is if we get rid of the coolant and just use distilled water. Then I would agree that Porsche has no risk, because "technically" one should always use DOT tires on a STREET CAR.

jcb-memphis

Um....tell that to the other cars on the road....that is where NHTSA needs to go ..Porsche has NO COVER there imho. They'd be smarter to just fix it.....


Note, introducing a new 200k car is not a way to make the US Govt feel your pain.



JB

Carlo_Carrera

You don't seem to understand that an issue does not need to be widespread for a mandated recall to be issued.

Do a google search on "Jeep Cherokee and Commander transmission recall"

You will find the recall was issued with only a hand full of reports filed on the problem.

F1CrazyDriver

I agree. Its just a cluster f*** waiting to happen. Lower your margin of risk as little as possible. This has glued part has a high margin risk as bad our 2007 stock market crash.

Not only does it affect the person driving the poorly design car, but also people whom have to drive over the spilled coolant on the road. Driving on coolant on ANY road in ANY condition is scary and it is a hazard to ANYONE on the road.

"02996ttx50

enrique, i'm sorry.. and i wasn't looking to make any particular point.. but your logic is flawed. there has been no ( as far as i'm aware ) documentation of actual NEGLIGENCE on the manufacturers fault. and if i'm not mistaken(??) not only does their need to be some documentation as well as some sort of verifiable "proof" that there was in fact a defective part/process or component, AND that they knew it.. for their to be any culpability and attendent financial responsibility for porsche vis a vis the costs associated with coolant pipe repairs on 996 turbos. i ( really ) hate to sound like dock here.. but no one ( again, as far as i know ) has proven there is ANY let alone even SOME! contributory negligence on porsche's part. again, your ( or anyone ) simply saying coolant lines come unglued, isn't enough. even if it's shi**y glue from dead horses. all that has been established so far? is that it's "enough" for the nthsb ( whatever theyre called? ) to look into it. that's all you/we/they've... got. for now, at least. you do NOT.. nor can you know.. that it is a design flaw. any more than you can say a failed radiator or a fuel pump is "flawed" when they fail, as a matter of course. so, suggesting that because coolant line "re-glues" LOL aren't part of factory maintenance recommendations at selected intervals, ( any more than coolant tank replacement/radiators/wheel bearings, whatever etc etc. are ) is specious and without merit, and even weak,.. as arguments go....imo.

horsepowerfarm

There is no requirement for negligence for a NHTSA recall. A defect that presents a hazardous condition in the eyes of the NHTSA is the requirement.

I would like to make it clear that I do not expect anyone to pay for the repairs on my car. I drive it daily and expect to have some maintenance and repair cost, whatever they might be.

I presented the video of my car spilling its guts purely to show that it does in fact occur and it is rather dramatic. I filed my complaint with the NHTSA because I think it poses a risk that, 1) involves a component that would not be commonly inspected 2) is difficult to inspect 3) it is not a mechanical component that would have anticipated wear 4) occurs with no warning
5) dumps coolant all over the left rear tire.

"02996ttx50

that all seems perfectly reasonable, and if that is true, and if that is the deciding factor; i.e. all that needs be proven is a defect by any reasonable measure, then they should be made to burden the cost of any repair through the established recall process. my point ( if ever there was one? ) is that all that has yet to be established.

however, i would like it known that i am in no way an apologist for porsche. i am one who has individually battled pcna once ( successfully ) and a second time, i think they knew me. so no protracted battle on another separate issue, with a completely different car was necessary, this though they disputed a claim/issue i was having in a new car. though for someone else it would very possibly have been another "fight".

if the problem you experienced along with the others who have filed, are found to have occurred owing to faulty components, design or workmanship, then i will be very happy to hear of that finding, and still hope it never affects me directly. or anyone following me closely from behind.

F1CrazyDriver

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/negligence

All you are stating here is no proof of negligence from Porsche. If Porsche dealerships have repaired these under warranty at a 'larger the normal' rate, and always have been approved by Porsche dealerships, it will be difficult for Porsche to say they were " unaware " of the issue. I would like to think, and I'm sure, Porsche collects date on cars repaired under warranty to see if its a part prone to failure, so they can supersede the part and repair the "part prone to failure/ premature failure' . It would be stupid if they did NOT collect this sort of data, to improve their cars. Lets say they do collect the data. Lets say, their is a "larger " then normal of these incidents. It would be difficult to claim negligence at that point. ( that they were not aware of the failure). What data mining would show is, 1) the car is a Metzger motor 2 ) glued coolant hoses unglue them self's 3) mileage 4) Year make of the car etc...

If you have scatted data of cars that brand new to older, and it happens at random mileage, and it has an associated fix to Metzger motor, then Porsche would know what a fix source is. They can then do correlations vs other vehicle models that have a similar design to see if they also have this failure. What do you know Turbo/ Gt2/ Gt3's .... even more data, Cayenne's also have a similar design and they also leak. Now it is no longer " we are not aware of a flawed" design and claim negligence. Lets use Suncoast, an authorize Porsche dealership. They offer this to their Cayenne clients because it is "common" that the plastic parts break. An authorize Porsche dealership is aware of this problem. How many Porsche dealerships are aare of the Metzger glued hose ?

I do not have time to do a search, but I bet you if 1 authorize Porsche dealership has done the welding process, that is enough to start the stepping stones for knowingly knowing of a faulty design. I can "claim" I do not know of any faulty designs of the products I sell. But If theirs is data mining, or emails are read that I have been "acklodge " of a trend of faulty parts that revolve around the same issue, then I'm on the hook.

Their is over 20,000 Metzger motors state side. I'm sure some pretty nice data that Porsche can see and do correlations. All this will be seeing if they do a proper investigation. It only takes a small sample size to see a faulty design.

http://www.renntech.org/forums/topic...ne-fix-inside/

http://www.suncoastparts.com/product...y_Code=955main


In the cayenne case, Porsche gave the owner a "$1000" certificate to cover most of the repair. That is a sneaky way of saying hey we know of this issue, let me help you out.


I will give you a better example. I personally know of a CGT owner, whoms transmission failed at 6k miles. I wont state what level in the corp ladder or names. They personally called him and stated to him and i'm paraphrasing of what he told me. " this is a known issue with some production models " .... we are willing to work with you. We are going to deny the claim as we would not like this to become a recall, you will pay 95,000 for the transmission and labor charge. We will then send you a certificate for being a good customer for the total charge of $95,000. Therefore we do not warranty the work and it DOES NOT becomes a liability for other CGT's for us.

My friend agreed, and had to sign a disclosure, not to state anything publicly etc. He paid 95,000's + a day later he got a "certificate" from PNA, as a 95,000 certificate.

Porsche wiped their hands clean.

"02996ttx50

that calls for speculation, counselor. you can't establish that! at least not in the here and now.

F1CrazyDriver

We wont know until a full investigation is done. I'm sure they will bring "experts" on the glue they used, the engineering behind the design they used etc. to give their input.

"02996ttx50

i'm sure they will, as they should.

i didn't even begin to address the cgt example you provided as i felt it was very far afield. but, at the end of the day. we are all with the same cars, and same concerns. i just am a bit more cautious than other perhaps when it come to laying "blame" for this "issue" and at the risk of repeating myself, am dubious as to the real world frequency of occurrence, ( *notwithstanding horsepowerfarms firsthand account*! which i would not attempt to diminish in terms of its seriousness.. ) along with questions as to causality of the failure(s).. nothing more,.. nothing less.

"02996ttx50

ps.. anyone want a dock hat? i'm almost done with it.

F1CrazyDriver

My point with the CGT, is not to compare apples to apples. It was just an eye opener to me then ( on how dirty Porsche can be), and I wanted to illustrate, how far Porsche is willing to go to cover their dirt.

That friend, with that CGT transmission prone problem was a very active member here on rennlist 4+ years ago. He never said anything publicly, on the forums of his transmission failure or the cover up from Porsche. How could he, he signed a NDA .

P.S Porsche is well aware of this forum too from what he told me.