ADias

I strongly disagree w/ the PC posts of late, with at least one being outright nonsense drivel. Guys, the engine was broken under the dealer's watch. The dealer must support the customer, period. This is a customer who has supported this dealer during this car's ownership. This sounds like what one would expect from an econo-box dealer who doesn't give a s**t and cares less for their customers. Do we expect this behavior from our P-car dealer?

PAG is known to take care of their customers when the dealer supports the customer.It is very Very unfortunate that this, as yet-unnamed, dealer decided to drop the customer and jeopardized PAG's support.

Let's not delude ourselves, this dealer behavior is bad, especially in this economy, and this is not the treatment we want for ourselves.

stubenhocker

I see lots of people put "principles" before economic sense. It's your nickle, but I normally don't see people who live in the Bay Area's most affluent neighborhood, spend much time agonizing over such small amounts. If you want to prove a point, call your attorney and show them how serious you feel about this issue.
My point is that the law of diminishing returns will get you the longer you agonize about your perceived injustice. You either lawyer up or fix your car and go forward.

stubenhocker

[QUOTE=brendorenn;6489286]^ this gets my vote for ignorant post of the week

It means a great deal to me to receive your vote, particularly when you consider your obvious expertise in the subject.

Quadcammer

I've never been a big fan of your abrasive nature, and this is another post that proves once again just how right you think you are...on everything.

A DME review shows no evidence of abuse during the test drive. They did not work on the scavenge pump or really crack the engine open for the repair work. There also does not appear to be any evidence of foreign objects in the pump that could have resulted from shoddy repair work. Therefore, it seems this was not the dealer's fault what so ever.

Lets go through some hypothetical scenarios:

1. You take your 997 to the track, and after a few hot laps, notice your oil pressure is in the basement, and you hear some tapping from a hosed rod bearing. You go home, pour some fresh oil in there, tell the dealer it made a funny noise, and tell them to do a test drive. They go out, the bearing spins, and now it failed on their watch. You would expect them to pay for the damage?

2. Your friend borrows your car, and the aforementioned scavenge pump failure occurs through no fault of your friend. Are you making him pay as well?


The dealer MUST do absolutely nothing above their legal responsibilities, and I'd be SHOCKED if they don't have a clause that goes something like this, "XYZ Porsche dealer is not responsible for any damage not related to work performed by XYZ Porsche dealer or conclusively attributable to the actions of XYZ Porsche dealer (i.e. accidents)".

You think the dealer really cares about one guy with a 997? I really REALLY doubt that they are going to swallow $10k for him. They may be willing to cut him a break on price, but anything further, guess again.


You may not expect this behavior from your dealer, but NEWSFLASH, it occurs all the time in every state. Its difficult to find a truly great dealer.

You can WANT whatever type of treatment you like. Finding it is another story.

And again, PAG does not care about this customer anymore than it should care about a person who owns an out of warranty car that breaks.

In fact, where can we draw the line. The a/c compressor shouldn't fail at 70k, so PAG should probably cover that as well, right?

The engine shouldn't have failed, but it did. If the dealer gives him the engine at cost and cuts him a break on labor, I think he should be satisfied with their service.

997, esq

Dude, Quadcammer, chill. Your whole post depends on the assumption that the dealer didn't cause the problem. Could it be a big coincidence? Sure. But, I don't get why you are so sure about that. The odds of the part just happening to fail in the dealer's hands (out of all the 70K miles the car has been driven) seem pretty slim to me, and -- bc of that -- suggest the opposite conclusion is more likely. Regardless of the coincidence issue, it still doesn't explain why a knowledgeable mechanic would keep driving a malfunctioning engine at high speed.

Likemystoppie?

Yikes, this is going downhill fast......

Hockeyman11385

I have this to say...

+10000000 on the OP driving his car. 70K is awesome and I applaud you for that.

Just had to get that in before this thread gets locked.

boolala

Is the burden of proof on the dealer to show he was not responsible for the failure (how does one do that exactly?) Or is the burden of proof on the owner to show that he did (more reasonable).

Hopefully PAG and the dealer will give him a break on the parts and labor respectively but to expect a 70,000 mi car to still be covered under the original factory warantee is just unreasonable. If you want to immunize yourself against these types of risk there are always Porsche (or aftermarket) extended warrantees available.

This is one reason why I'm always worried about keeping a German car beyond its warantee period (as I am currently).

997, esq

Agree. 70K is awesome. C2 / C2S 's will depreciate anyway; there is little point in not driving them. Apparently, a few folks are over 100k miles on 997s

Quadcammer

dude, esq, I'm chilled.

Prove that the dealer caused the problem...99.9% not gonna happen.

Unless you can prove some sort of negligence (the driving after engine noise might be your only shot), or abuse of the car (doubtful), there just isn't much you can do.

I don't particularly care for the insinuations that Porsche owes this guy anything.

If my climate control broke at 50,500 miles and it cost $3k to fix, Porsche could go tell me to fly a kite, and there would be nothing I could say about it.

stuff breaks, fix it, and move on.

997, esq

No one expects it to be covered under a warranty, I don't think. The issue is one of goodwill (i.e., manufacturer voluntarily fixing something that it is not legally obliged to fix in order to make a customer happy) and/or the dealer's potentially negligent work (which has nothing to do with a warranty). Burden typically would be on the party seeking recovery, but that doesn't mean a customer would have to necessarily prove the exact way the engine failed. And, in any case, you would only have to prove it is more likely than not that the dealer's negligence led to the damage. It's not like the criminal std. Note: this is not legal advice upon which anyone should rely, and I am not saying the dealer is in fact liable for anything.

BTW, hypothetically, if I was the issuer of an extended warranty and this happened, I would consider denying coverage for it and saying it is the dealers' fault. So, extended warranty mightn't protect in these circumstances.

997, esq

See what I said above. I agree about your hypothetical climate control issue. PCNA has no obligation to fix it past the warranty. They could, if they want to help out a potential repeat customer. But they don't have to. And, if they don't, you are SOL. This would be a non-issue if the car didn't drop dead in the dealers' hands (or shortly thereafter).

I think you are thinking the burden on the customer is higher than it is. Juries and judges in civil cases don't require 'metaphysical certitude.' Just proof that something is more likely than not. You may think that it is more likely than not that this is just a part failing through no fault of the dealer, but I'm not so sure avg. man on the street or judge would see it that way. I could be wrong, however, and the dealership might be able to make a compelling case that this is just a part failing, and that they did nothing wrong. Dealer could even point to the shoddy design of the scavenger pump, and the fact that they have failed many times. Might make things a bit awkward with PCNA, but they could...

cello

Sorry, but you, my friend, are living in fantasy land.

Your Dealer does not care about you unless you are 'fleet'; and buy, or preferably lease, X number of cars per year from them. The Dealer does not own the brand (or the goodwill the marque conveys), and in fact pays handsomely for the 'privilege' of selling the marque. So your dealer expects the marque to take care of anything that remotely smells of a manufacturing or design defect. Which, of course, would encompass an engine grenading

In a situation like this the Dealer will not go out of pocket voluntarily to hold onto customers as it does not care about goodwill - that is the responsibility of the manufacturer (for which the dealer has already paid). Hell, from the Dealer's perspective, it could fix your car only to lose the next deal for $500 to the guys across the street.

No, expectations from the Dealer here is a fool's errand.

fxhomie

I agree. Best recourse is from the manufacturer. Would be hard to prove by the preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) in a civil case that the dealer was negligent. Even if the dealer drove the car after the noise started, they didn't CAUSE the noise. Don't look to the dealership for any relief.

linklaw

I have read this entire thread and don't understand why the dealer is not responsible. Say for example that the car was in the shop for brake work and the tech had it out for a test drive after completing the work. While on the test drive, an uninsured driver runs a red light and the customer's car is demolished. Does the dealer give the customer the car back, demolished, and say "sorry, but its your problem"? Even in the absence of any negligence on the part of the dealer, wouldn't the dealer be responsible for having the car fixed? Don't dealers have insurance to cover damage to customer's cars while in their care?