Bruce In Philly

I agree........ you pay a ton but get less than you expect. This is about expectations... not liability. But what I think some folks are thinking here is that Porsche has some sort of obligation to fix this stuff or at least acknowledge a problem and then help with repair or remediation. I don't agree with this. I am not saying I like it or approve of it, but they just don't have a legal responsibility, as I understand it, to produce a higher quality product. Their product is just over priced for the quality produced.... per our opinion... that sucks. But oh well.... In the free market, you move on... your choice.

Regarding price, expectations, and quality..... my dad purchased Cadlilacs in the '70 and on... I witnessed the drop in quality.... and the drop... and the drop. Unbelievable... but there was no legal obligation for Cadillac to produce quality or meet a price-quality standard. Not that I am aware of.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

996.2

PV997 I get it! One of my passengers said PV coast was most beautiful part of ride. July 4th at a PV park group I was with flew hundreds of passengers.

Palos Verdes July 4th, I wasn't flying that day was collecting tickets and taking pictures.

996.2

I've never seen a bad looking 911. And history will show one model didn't have plain headlights, but masterpiece design ones! Signed 996.2.

HenryPcar

Here is the FOR SALE listing :
https://rennlist.com/forums/market/1175310

Not too sure on the price though. Appreciate any comments whether it is a fair price.

sandwedge

Sorry for the hijack but as a former airline pilot I'm just too curious not to ask: Would you defend Boeing today if asked?

Doug H

Is there a defective design? Is the claims past the SOL? If yes to both, is there anything that could toll SOL such as Porsche's statement about oil consumption designed to keep people from digging deeper to discover the cause of the excessive oil consumption? Would have to come up with concealment angle. Any idea when Porsche declared the current "normal" range for oil consumption in the 997.1? My 997.2 have never consumed any oil between oil changes.

Sandwedge:

Sounds like they have serious issues, but I don't know enough to comment. Strange as it sound with my family all pilots who typically about flying 90% of the time. Brother did F18s and now MD-11 at Fed Ex. Father was second 727 school for Eastern, 1011 and retired on Fed Ex DC-10.

What did you fly?

bazhart

Doug H I am no legal expert but I do think it is a different issue because the cars keep running with bore scoring and it could be put down to wear and tear. There are also still a huge number without scoring still running after what - 15 years? Many engines are being repaired because they have scoring but are still running (unlike with IMS bearing failure) so it prolongs the scope for representing different arguments about what responsibility manufacturers have after such a long time and relatively few failures proportionally. To put it simply the numbers of engines stopping working would be almost zero and far fewer than supported the case for IMS bearing failures.

There are also a lot of contributory factors that could be used to explain why some failed and some don't that would implicate owners or service centres.

Also in UK law there is precedent for the price being related to the expectations of long life and quality and these cars were much cheaper than the more expensive versions that had better quality engines (featuring Nikasil plated cylinders).

I also think it would be easy to relate several other manufacturers with similar issues after this age and mileage and also that warnings about the prospects have been generally available for over a decade (and that prices since reflect the risk), so I think it would prove too expensive and take too long to complete a case and not at all similar to the IMS issues.

Our advice about what to do about bore scoring has to my knowledge never varied. We have always made the same overall points but we did find out the exact cause quite late on. We have never related it to some of the other causes we find regularly posted for years.

Baz

Ericson38

The one SOL argument might be the statement by Porsche that what should be excessive oil consumption was deemed acceptable or perfectly normal by Porsche thereby leading many to believe that these engines drinking oil at insane rates were perfectly fine and the engines were not on the slow boat to destruction. Fraud concealment type of argument that kept people from pursing the underlying issues.

I agree with the outlandishness of the oil consumption "acceptability range specification" from Porsche. I don't think Jake's or Bazz's engines fall into this specification. But on the other hand, what are the expected oil consumption rates for m9x engines from Jake's or Bazz's shops ?

HenryPcar

SOLD......wasn't expecting such a quick sale.
https://rennlist.com/forums/market/1175310
The 997.2 (MT) are in high demand I might kick myself down the road for selling it. Well at least now my garage have room for a GT4.
For those that are tormented by the bore-scoring problem, get a 997.2.

Own Goal

DougH, since you are sharing your professional resume I have to ask since you brought up medical devices. You don't happen to be on the Johnson & Johnson hip replacement implant legal team?

aabueg2005

This is the reason why I sold my 997.1 C2 for a 997.1 tt. It has its own issues but nothing real catastrophic as this.

TopKatz

Or it could be the reason you used to upgrade to a tt.

the hysteria of all this is a little much to be honest.

aabueg2005

I would say both, but knowing the repair for bore scoring is about 25k on a rebuild, that plus 35k for the cost of my car is roughly the cost of a TT. No major downtime to boot if the coolant lines and slave cylinder goes, unlike a 1 year wait on a M97 rebuild from FSI. Pic for attn