Alan Smithee

All of the sudden a new driver? I've had a 1970 911T, 1974 911S, 1980 911SC, 1984 Carrera, and now the 997, at least one of which has been in my garage since age 19. I sold each for more than I purchased them for because of Porsche's legendary reputation for long term reliability. Boxster and 996 resale values are weak because they are not built like Porsches once were. I realize that in order to be profitable, Porsche had to change their manufacturing process. However, that is no excuse for building motors incapable of even 100,000 miles in this day and age...especially when the company brags constantly about being the most profitable manufacturer.

I agree that the 997 is a fantastic car, but without having addressed the RMS issue, it will suffer the same fate as the Boxster and 996. I am very glad our 997 is a lease.

RS man

I guess a lot of 997 will be on lease so in the end Porscche still come out on top because the attitude will be I will just move on (probably to a newer model Porsche) when the lease is up. Nice to have an image which doesn't get eroded away too easily.

Harry

Alan Smithee

Here's the problem with that theory, and why Porsche's big short-term profits could easily lead to long-term disaster:

If an leasee had multiple trips to the dealership and/or motor replacements, he/she will NOT lease another Porsche. Especially if a glance at the internet shows they have not fixed the issue.

If resale values for late model Porsches plummet because they may need new motors and are not covered by warranty, Porsche will be stuck with a lot of returned lease cars worth a lot less than the residual values in their books state.

The combination could be grim, and easily avoided if some of the profits are reinvested in the engineering department. Hopefully it isn't too late.

pcar964

Alan, you are spot on - right now, it's not too late, Porsche still at least KNOWS HOW to build a car like they once did. The question is, what will it take for Porsche to realize that it is in its OWN best interests to go back to their roots? Right now, Porsche is like a kid in a candy store, embarking on a wild orgy of profits while their image is getting tarred and feathered. It's very difficult to build a strong brand image... It's very EASY to dismantle one, even if it took 40 years to establish.

Chris Prack

I work for a dealer. I have replaced MANY main seals and int. shaft bearing covers. Everyone knows it's the primary fault with the engines in these cars. We all know that Porsche is aware of the issue and in turn they have updated the repair parts in an attempt to remedy the situation, albiet unsucessfully.

The fact that these cars have an issue in nothing new. It's not like the air cooled models were trouble free. Anyone remember the 964 cars have dual mass flywheels failing? Or the fact that in the first two and a half years of 964 production the engines were produced with no cylinder head gaskets and they leaked oil? Be glad your 996 or 986 doesn't have to have the engine torn down to the case and have the heads cut. Can you imagine Rennlist in 1991? How about 993's and the secondary air issue's? 968 ring and pinnion failure's? 928 oil control rings's? How about the early 996/986 engines pulling the sleeves in the motor causing catastrophic damage? They fixed that right?

Quite simply, it has probably been deceided that repairing RMS issues under warrently is a hell of a lot cheaper than reengineering the current engine design. It's a matter of cost. Without a doubt they are already working on something new that will end up in a 998,988 or a model we do not know exsists.

Fast40th

Chris: Good historic point on your second paragraph, I would even add the turmoil surrounding the Cayenne's screwed-up electronics -- But I tend to disagree with your 3rd paragraph -- A tarnished image on Porsche as a sports car manufacturer for not addressing the problems head-on, represents serious cost to them, in terms of future lost business from existing and potential discouraged enthusiasts (customers).

I for one dreamed of owning a Porsche for almost 30 years. The dream became reality last September. And after waiting for so long, I built-up the highest expectations from Porsche during all those years. When I did this, I knew there was a known risk involved, and I also knew there would be money associated with it in terms of upkeep (just like a "trophy" wife or girlfriend). These didn't detract me from pursuing my dream.

So far every second I've spent behind the wheel has been absolutely fantastic. And they have outweighted the 2 visits to the dealer thus far (with 2500 mi); one to fix a loose hose clamp at the water pump, and another (still on-going for over a week now) to take care of an oil leak at the oil separator while waiting for parts to arrive from Germany (my car has the X51 package and needed "special" parts - so I was told).

I do hope the dream continues in the form of many more P-cars in my future (as well as everyone else's)... So hopefully Alan's most elocuent observation (post #48) i.e. -"Porsche's big short-term profits could easily lead to long-term disaster"-, doesn't become a prophecy. The fact that Porsche had the opportunity to fix the well known RMS with the introduction of the 997, is only helping Alan's observation become prophecy.

I say, yes Porsche we know you're big time profitable, now try and be less arrogant, and do your part in guaranteeing your own future, by demonstrating you have enough "cojones" to take care of your hard-working customers, who believe in your cars, and need assistance with problems of your own creation.

Ok enough venting....

pcar964

Fast40th, well said. I think the constant press releases about their profitability, while impressive to shareholders, certainly comes off as arrogance to those of us who have experienced these issues, which they apparently don't think are worth fixing.

I hope for their sake they do change their attitude towards these sorts of problems, and once again give us that engineering brilliance (and attention to detail) that matches the driving experience.

Greg

Speeds2Much

To put this problem in perspective, I once owned an Infiniti G20 (recommended by Consumer Reports as one of the most reliable cars on the road..."bulletproof" was a term some used to describe the car). Almost every time I brought the car in for routine maintenance, the service department replaced leaky seals. Apparently, it was a problem inherent in the design. Either that or the service dept. was conditioning me for a later date when they'd hit me with constant maintenance expenses -- and I don't think that was the case.

Porsche needs to fix this problem, no doubt, but in many respects the car far exceeds others on the road. For example, the Corvette has a persistent and much-worse "steering wheel lock" problem, which apparently GM does not acknowledge, despite terrifying stories from drivers.

Chris Prack

Fast 40th, I agree completely with everything that you have said. But am pretty confident that I am correct with respect to warrenty cost vs. redesign.

I would be willing to bet that a majority of Porsche's customers trade up to a newer model before the warrenty ends. I know that I see it quite often in the area that I work (Washington DC). For these folks it's just a minor inconvience or no bother at all. People that I know and have known for years that have owned multiple Porsche's take it more in stride. They purchase the car for what it is and what it does. They take it to the track one weekend and polish the hell out of it the next. Everything is a give and take. There are folks on this board that have not only had the seal replaced multiple times under warrenty but they have also PAID CASH to have it done and STILL OWN THE CAR! We have a running joke in PCA, if it doesn't leak oil it's not a Porsche. Another is - Do you know why Porsche never made a microwave? They couldn't figure out how to make it leak oil......

Sometimes it seems to me that the issue is made bigger by public forums like this. Maybe our expectations are too high for a car manufacture. The dealer that I work for also sells Maybach and yes, at 300k, they have their problems too.

rss997

Chris, you are a very fresh voice of reason for all these idiots predicting doom for Porsche...You hit it on the head....

THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

infestation

Chris, as you point out, any car will have its problems, including Maybachs, Bentleys, Ferraris, Masserattis, and P-cars--despite idealism, nothing is perfect. And, I do think you and Robert are right in the sense that public forums exagerate issues. Some of us are here because we love our cars. Yet, any forum, by and large, does not represent every owner. It would be cool if it did but it doesn't.

Chris Prack

It's been my experience that MOST people are here because they love their car. I do. Both of them. But unfortunately some are only here for a shoulder to cry on................

Alan Smithee

Chris, the difference between the RMS issue and the others you bring up is that Porsche addressed the others; weak chain tensioners on otherwise reliable 911SC motors were replaced with oil fed units on the 1984 Carrera, the early 964's dual mass flywheel design was addressed (as were oil leaks and distributor cap venting issues on those early 964s), etc. And it's true that other manufacturers of relatively expensive and supposedly well engineered vehicles have design issues as well (BMW's early V8 Nikasil blocks and the M3's con-rod bearings, for instance).

The problem most of us have is that in eight model years and upwards of nine motor configurations Porsche continues to IGNORE the well known RMS issue, and at the expense of their customers...the same ones that contribute to those record breaking profits.

pcar964

Thanks for calling us idiots for being concerned enthusiasts. By the way, I notice you bought a 911 with a wet sump engine, and you're calling ME an idiot?

PTEC

Who are you to say that? Look at every car in your sig beside the 993, I suppose you're reformed now?