purrybonker

Interesting (refreshing, I suppose) to see a bunch 'a republicans whining about the need for consumer justice. I'm being a bit polemical here, but isn't it called caveat emptor? Geez it's a used car - it's not like someone misled the buyer about the condition of the title for crap sake.

It's a used SPORTS car - someone used it for SPORTING purposes and someone else is offended? Someone bought such a car without doing (what they, in retrospect felt) was due diligence?

Geez... gimmee a break here.

Besides, Porsches are strong and are built to be driven.

In my mind the ONLY issue you have to is take PCNA to task should they revoke or minimize the scope of your CPO warranty based on over-revs that took place prior to your purchase of the car. PCNA is in bed with you on the condition of the car at the date of purchase, beyond that you have no basis to claim foul IMHO. I note that in the OP, the buyer does not state whether the car was CPO or not. Not CPO? Buyer's remorse can be a sad thing.

997, esq

Think the problem is that he says he was lied to about the condition of the car, it's repair history, overrevs etc. Without the lies, your point would be more valid, imo.

JimG

It was a CPO car.

purrybonker

CPO car - he has warranty. "no significant over-revs" - you define significant. Guys on this forum tell you they redline their cars everyday - for the good of the car!

The over-rev details were his to demand at point of purchase. He chose to accept the salesman's interpretation of the data. He chose to not query the repair history and demand printouts before cutting the check.

No doubt the salesman is a schmuck and should see no further business, but sometimes you just have to suck it up and cut your losses.

brendo

i disagree with purry. it's fraudulent - i'd only be asking them what colors they have available...

Minok

I don't see fraudulent from the evidence seen here in this thread so far. The salesman is free to define 'significant' in his own mind, which can be different from what you define it to be. That's not fraud.

This is an example of 'going with your gut'... if you feel you want to know for sure... then make sure they tell you. Get the full car printout before you hand over any money. Yeah, the horse is out of the barn. But if its a CPO car, PCNA cannot restrict that warranty because of what the previous owner did.

This is really a hard case to judge without the full evidence of who provided what data when.

That said, do any of you request a printout for a brand new car (custom order) delivered?

Soulteacher

Some of you are somewhat missing the point here. It's not just the overrevs... it's the problems that Jim had... broken shift cable... cracked exhaust... trim coming loose... grinding gearbox... new transmission... new clutch... passenger window not working... wiring problem... melted oil sending unit... broken door handle... four (!) batteries... etc. That car was almost more often in the shop than on the road.

I can't see how anyone would seriously defend all this as "normal used sports car issues". All of us would probably get a little irritated over it. If that had happened to me, I would have blown up the dealership by now.

Personally, I would also not care whether it fits the legal definition of "fraudulent" or not, because with that much money involved, I expect the opposite end of the scale: "complete openness and honesty"; no matter how you look at it, that it was not.

When I put down 60 or 80 or a 100+ grand at a Porsche dealership, I should not have to ask if there are potential issues with the product. And if I ask, as Jim did, then I should get an honest answer.

Minok

I guess the message is pretty clear: a used car salesman is still a used car salesman. They may have nicer chairs and clothes, but never trust any salesman further than you can throw them. (this counts for Radio Shack, Bob's No-Credit Circus of Cars, and Porsche)

However, yes that laundry list of problems is way excessive for any normal car and is an issue, no doubt.

997, esq

I agree with Soulteacher.

Also, just fyi -- you can't generally hide behind adjectives ("significant"), if you set out to mislead someone.

Regardless of the legal merits, there is a customer service issue in that Jim believes he was not told the truth about the car. To a company that cares about treating people fairly, this is a problem. If they find Jim credible, I wouldn't be surprised to see Porsche step up and do the right thing.

stubenhocker

[QUOTE=purrybonker;5862939]Interesting (refreshing, I suppose) to see a bunch 'a republicans whining about the need for consumer justice. I'm being a bit polemical here, but isn't it called caveat emptor? Geez it's a used car - it's not like someone misled the buyer about the condition of the title for crap sake.

I think it's ironic to see a Democrat owning a Pcar! Wait till your friends lower the speed limit to 55 and change your speedo! BTW did you inherit the money to buy the Pcar or did you win a lawsuit?

Likemystoppie?

It's called Reputation. One can spend 20 minutes via various outlets and find out a dealerships 'real' reputation.

C'mon- the auto bizz wasn't created YESTERDAY. Be a proactive consumer- not a victim.

The car sounds like a POS. Like it was treated badly. When ever I have a client with one HINT of a question of a car I tell them to go ask my tech's what they think of the car. My tech's are very reputable. They'll tell you it's a turd or not.

It's a mess; and some of you have given some really good and reallly **** poor opinions on what to do.

Be Proactive and get PCNA involved NOW. now. now. now. now.

Stop driving the car. And get a clue.

purrybonker

[QUOTE=stubenhocker;5871239]Ha! I earned it the old-fashioned way and now I'm losing it in the markets in the new-fashioned way. But why in the world would you assume me to be a Democrat? (not that there's anything wrong with that). Porsche owner=conservative, no?

Don't rock the boat... don't tip the boat over... don't rock the boat...

Heck, I'm Canadian - my politics are of no possible interest to an American.

JimG

Talked to the GM a few days ago and am not happy. His attitude torqued me off to say the least. Some things I was not aware of:
1. A cars repair history is not normally disclosed so as to protect the privacy of the previous owner. (dealer/owner confidentiality)
2. Abuse of a car does not have to be disclosed as long as the warranty will cover it. (Just disregard the contrary note on the repair order documenting that further overrevs will void future claims)
3. There is a statute of limitations when you do discover the dealer mislead you. (1 week)
4. Porsches are complicated cars and it is not uncommon to have the car break as often as mine did. (I am sure they would be glad to sell me another one)
5. General managers do not know what the overrev codes mean. (He did not seem happy that I knew)

I actually listened to this guy spew this drivel and even let him interrupt me several times. He seemed agitated that we took up 10 minutes of his time. He did say that he would be glad to take it in on a trade (and dump it on another schmuck) and offered me a decent price (the same deal anyone else just off the street could get). Tomorrow I am contacting PCNA once I figure out who to deal with. I will trade it for a Miata before this guy makes another nickel off me.

plz

I know this is too late for you on this car Jim but...any dealer that has nothing to hide would gladly give a printout of the repair history after concealing the name of any preiovus owners. Standard operating procedure. If they are unwilling to offer this they are hiding something. Sorry to hear this is turning for the worse, hope PCNA gives more satisfaction.

BTW, which dealer?

JimG

I would rather not disclose the dealer name at this time.