Porsche: Not made for the track
#151
i do not disagree - Porsche could have done more. I blame new corporate strategy they have for all this. They think too much of quaterly reports these days and much less of their customer base. Now with most new sales coming from China etc markets it will probably get even worse as that market will eat anything and produce mor profits than sooo picky north american market.
#152
Nordschleife Master
On the other issue in this thread, it's my understanding that BMW will not deny a claim for warranty simply because it happened at a HPDE event. As long as the engine wasn't over-rev'd and proper maintenance and lubricants are used, they will pretty much honor warranty claims during the warranty period and often provide non-warranty assistance whenever "unusual" breakdowns occur if there is evidence that maintenance was up-to-date.
#153
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Elmhurst, IL
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If these cars aren't designed for track use off of the showroom floor, why do we know the Nurburgring lap time of the 991 C2S already? Especially that it is the same or faster than the 997 GT3...
#154
I think that we should keep in mind is that track time is really rough on these, or any, cars. Not just brakes and tires but the suspension, trans, engine and body. Serious race cars are heavily modified and are expected to be re-built often. Prototype cars are designed to perform at extreme levels but need extreme maintenence and repairs. The warranty we get with out cars is for street use. If these cars ( including the GT models) were truly optimized by the factory for track or race use, you could not drive them legally on public roads and much more likely not be able to afford to buy tem. Plus..... no warranty
So, yeah, they are not meant to be tracked or raced. ( OK, maybe a little)
So, yeah, they are not meant to be tracked or raced. ( OK, maybe a little)
#155
Rennlist Member
no, it is just manufacturer who decided to apply 'conditions' to warrantied items.
there is an ECU and DME to record overrevs, if engine was operated within its limits it must be warrantied no matter why failure occured. end of story. all those 'tracked' excuses are an ultimate BS. same BS as with insurance companies having 'clauses' for damage on a track.
same of my freaking homeowners insurance that will not pay for a leaky sewer connector pipe. all same crap - they want to take your money and give as little as posible in return. same as with all 'act of god' clauses. if they only could it would be no warranty at all...
there is an ECU and DME to record overrevs, if engine was operated within its limits it must be warrantied no matter why failure occured. end of story. all those 'tracked' excuses are an ultimate BS. same BS as with insurance companies having 'clauses' for damage on a track.
same of my freaking homeowners insurance that will not pay for a leaky sewer connector pipe. all same crap - they want to take your money and give as little as posible in return. same as with all 'act of god' clauses. if they only could it would be no warranty at all...
#156
All manufacturers have exclusions in their warranty contract. They have to do that to legal protect themselves if a customer really abuses the car and then sues for warranty coverage. But very few have been as nit-picky about applying the exclusions when they were obviously not the problem as Porsche has.
When someone has an IMS failure or oil-starvation issue or scored cylinder or whatever in an M97/96 engine, it's never the customer's fault. It's an inherent flaw in the engine. Even if they have some over-revs on their DME that shouldn't be an excuse to deny it, because Porsche knows perfectly well that those problems are due to their engineering.
It would be nice if the M97 didn't have these problems. But that's not really the big deal - a lot of engines have issues - it's how Porsche has handled the problem that is really distressing.
When someone has an IMS failure or oil-starvation issue or scored cylinder or whatever in an M97/96 engine, it's never the customer's fault. It's an inherent flaw in the engine. Even if they have some over-revs on their DME that shouldn't be an excuse to deny it, because Porsche knows perfectly well that those problems are due to their engineering.
It would be nice if the M97 didn't have these problems. But that's not really the big deal - a lot of engines have issues - it's how Porsche has handled the problem that is really distressing.
#157
Drifting
The whole point of the 'may not be covered by warranty' is that its telling you you don't get a blanket warranty protection if tracking the car.. that they will look more closely into WHY the item failed.
A warranty is there to cover for manufacturing defects, not to provide for the owner to get fixed anything that manages to break for whatever reason. If something breaks at a track day and Porsche knows from data its an issue that happens with some general subset of its cars, so they know its not you having done something that specifically caused your car to fail that you should have known to avoid, then I would think they cover the failure.
If you blow the engine at the track and its traced to a failure that has only ever occurred on your car and they can find no defect in the engine parts, they probably won't cover it.
A warranty is there to cover for manufacturing defects, not to provide for the owner to get fixed anything that manages to break for whatever reason. If something breaks at a track day and Porsche knows from data its an issue that happens with some general subset of its cars, so they know its not you having done something that specifically caused your car to fail that you should have known to avoid, then I would think they cover the failure.
If you blow the engine at the track and its traced to a failure that has only ever occurred on your car and they can find no defect in the engine parts, they probably won't cover it.