Porsche refuses LSD repair under warranty
05-25-2011, 02:08 PM
#16
Pro
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NYC & CT
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because all LSD issues arguably track related (hard to argue contrary), unless pna opens warranty to include track-related abuse, big slippery slope for them. I suppose if they added another $15k to msrp, could cover margins from add'l warranty claims but them we'd all complain about that. It's business after all. In the end, can't lose sight that these are still street cars not intended for real track abuse.
I don't understand. There are at least four people in here with LSD issues which are being refused under warranty. I'm willing to bet there are probably another 200 cases of such scenarios. You guys own these cars, obviously have disposable income, pay the retainer of a soild lawfirm, sign their contingency agreement (usually 1/3rd in a case such as this) and proceed with a lawsuit. Porsche will settle in no time due to the horrible press of "world's "best" sports car cannot withstand spirited driving" and then will not cover warranty of broken parts.
If the BMW and Volvo communities can pull it off, how can this one not???
If the BMW and Volvo communities can pull it off, how can this one not???
05-25-2011, 02:15 PM
#17
I don't understand. There are at least four people in here with LSD issues which are being refused under warranty. I'm willing to bet there are probably another 200 cases of such scenarios. You guys own these cars, obviously have disposable income, pay the retainer of a soild lawfirm, sign their contingency agreement (usually 1/3rd in a case such as this) and proceed with a lawsuit. Porsche will settle in no time due to the horrible press of "world's "best" sports car cannot withstand spirited driving" and then will not cover warranty of broken parts.
If the BMW and Volvo communities can pull it off, how can this one not???
If the BMW and Volvo communities can pull it off, how can this one not???
Life's to short to hold large corporations accountable under the law.
Better to do what this guy did in China with a Lambo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7I8jvBqjFA
(and don't use a Porsche, use a Lambo, even if you're upset with Porsche ... don't shoot the car, shoot the company execs.)
05-25-2011, 02:16 PM
#18
Here's one for you - I sent my car in for a warranty extension and they refused it because I've got an (OEM!!!) RS wing instead of the normal .1 gt3 wing.
They said it stresses the diff.
No joke.
They said it stresses the diff.
No joke.
05-25-2011, 02:55 PM
#19
Rennlist Member
I agree but I am already into Porsche of Annapolis for the tear down of the unit to diagnose. I also have an event the first weekend in June in DE and Matt at Guard is out of the parts at the moment.
If I had suspected that Porsche would not stand behind their product as advertised, I would have just gone to my race shop in the area and had them handle it. It would have been cheaper and probably better cared for.
Next time it goes, and I'm sure it will, the Guard unit is going right in! Porsche should be ashamed of themselves for putting such a weak link in the car but you only need to look to the RMS issues for that answer.
Stu
If I had suspected that Porsche would not stand behind their product as advertised, I would have just gone to my race shop in the area and had them handle it. It would have been cheaper and probably better cared for.
Next time it goes, and I'm sure it will, the Guard unit is going right in! Porsche should be ashamed of themselves for putting such a weak link in the car but you only need to look to the RMS issues for that answer.
Stu
Do your research on OSgiken. They make a killer LSD for Porsche's and a good alternative to the Guards unit. I ran 1 on the GT2 and was very impressed with it's handling and ability to put the power down coming out of corners.
Not trying to start the OSgiken vs Guards debate again
just pointing out there are viable alternatives. 
Peter
05-25-2011, 03:01 PM
#20
05-25-2011, 03:39 PM
#21
I do have the report from Porsche refusing the warranty because of the wing, but the diff is not expressly stated. But I can always scan it for amusement purposes.
The poor service rep didn't know what to say - so he passed it on to the test driver. The idiot test driver tried to (aggressively) convince me that the .1RS wing "ruins" the handling of the car and that he felt it while driving. I politely asked him what was the maximum speed he reached during the test drive..... wait for it.....
120kph, or 70mph.
Then I wasn't so polite.
Called the Service Manager over. He tried to convince me that it would affect the diff and said there was a TSB to that effect. I asked him when was the last time he tested any of his diffs, and if he even knew how they worked. Credit to him he said "look, you are probably right, but Porsche is looking for any reason to deny warranty coverage for whatever reason"
The poor service rep didn't know what to say - so he passed it on to the test driver. The idiot test driver tried to (aggressively) convince me that the .1RS wing "ruins" the handling of the car and that he felt it while driving. I politely asked him what was the maximum speed he reached during the test drive..... wait for it.....
120kph, or 70mph.
Then I wasn't so polite.
Called the Service Manager over. He tried to convince me that it would affect the diff and said there was a TSB to that effect. I asked him when was the last time he tested any of his diffs, and if he even knew how they worked. Credit to him he said "look, you are probably right, but Porsche is looking for any reason to deny warranty coverage for whatever reason"
05-25-2011, 03:46 PM
#22
I do have the report from Porsche refusing the warranty because of the wing, but the diff is not expressly stated. But I can always scan it for amusement purposes.
The poor service rep didn't know what to say - so he passed it on to the test driver. The idiot test driver tried to (aggressively) convince me that the .1RS wing "ruins" the handling of the car and that he felt it while driving. I politely asked him what was the maximum speed he reached during the test drive..... wait for it.....
120kph, or 70mph.
Then I wasn't so polite.
Called the Service Manager over. He tried to convince me that it would affect the diff and said there was a TSB to that effect. I asked him when was the last time he tested any of his diffs, and if he even knew how they worked. Credit to him he said "look, you are probably right, but Porsche is looking for any reason to deny warranty coverage for whatever reason"
The poor service rep didn't know what to say - so he passed it on to the test driver. The idiot test driver tried to (aggressively) convince me that the .1RS wing "ruins" the handling of the car and that he felt it while driving. I politely asked him what was the maximum speed he reached during the test drive..... wait for it.....
120kph, or 70mph.
Then I wasn't so polite.
Called the Service Manager over. He tried to convince me that it would affect the diff and said there was a TSB to that effect. I asked him when was the last time he tested any of his diffs, and if he even knew how they worked. Credit to him he said "look, you are probably right, but Porsche is looking for any reason to deny warranty coverage for whatever reason"
05-25-2011, 03:53 PM
#23
Rennlist Member
bmardini, you didn't know when you replace the taco wing with the RS wing it multiplies the DF by x100 and stresses the LSD? That's why the LSD on RS wears quicker 
You should have put the small plastic piece on the RS front lip and say "Here! Now it's identical to the RS. Balance of the universe has been restored"
This is a new low for Porsche...
You should have put the small plastic piece on the RS front lip and say "Here! Now it's identical to the RS. Balance of the universe has been restored"
This is a new low for Porsche...
05-25-2011, 03:57 PM
#24
I just want someone to have that letter about wings blowing out diffs in hand and wait for Preuninger to have a mouth full of sauerkraut, then let him read it and get video of the cabbage coming out his nose as he chokes back the derisive laughter. Surely he's appalled by these *** clowns representing the engineering of the company to the customer.
05-25-2011, 04:20 PM
#25
I can only echo what others have said about the quality or lack thereof in the OE LSD and the need to upgrade the factory unit. Stemming from that, if a street driven car had a LSD wear out prematurely with no evidence of abuse, then it should be covered under warranty. I too would join the villagers with pitchfork and torch in each hand.
The disconnect for me occurs with the thinking that Porsche should warranty any LSD that failed in connection with Autocross or track duty. Perhaps Porsche should have considered a track friendly unit (new bullet on the option list?), but it is well documented that the factory unit is a weak link.
The reality of ownership is that the performance of the factory LSD will degrade with track use. Using a GT3 on track means the LSD becomes an accelerated wear item along with brakes/rotors, brake fluid, clutch, tires, oil etc. Cord a set of tires or use pads to the backing plate at the track and laughter would follow the words "warranty claim". I'm confused why the LSD would be viewed or treated any different.
Perhaps I'm alone in my thinking, but when you take any car to the track, you "beef up" the weak points and accept the outcome of any mechanical failure (you break, you pay). I'm not trying to start a flame war, I simply struggle with a discussion that assumes Porsche should be held accountable for a car that sees any form of track duty. Holding Porsche's feet to fire or herding jackpot justice lawyers does nothing but accelerate the extinction of elements that make a car like the GT3 great.
The disconnect for me occurs with the thinking that Porsche should warranty any LSD that failed in connection with Autocross or track duty. Perhaps Porsche should have considered a track friendly unit (new bullet on the option list?), but it is well documented that the factory unit is a weak link.
The reality of ownership is that the performance of the factory LSD will degrade with track use. Using a GT3 on track means the LSD becomes an accelerated wear item along with brakes/rotors, brake fluid, clutch, tires, oil etc. Cord a set of tires or use pads to the backing plate at the track and laughter would follow the words "warranty claim". I'm confused why the LSD would be viewed or treated any different.
Perhaps I'm alone in my thinking, but when you take any car to the track, you "beef up" the weak points and accept the outcome of any mechanical failure (you break, you pay). I'm not trying to start a flame war, I simply struggle with a discussion that assumes Porsche should be held accountable for a car that sees any form of track duty. Holding Porsche's feet to fire or herding jackpot justice lawyers does nothing but accelerate the extinction of elements that make a car like the GT3 great.
05-25-2011, 04:24 PM
#26
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
GT3 RMS leaks: caused by any aftermarket part.
GT3 worn out LSD: caused by any aftermarket part.
Coolant pipes separating from engine: caused by any aftermarket part.
Solution: Buy Fiat, Don't Buy GT3. No RMS leaks, a real diff that seems to last forever, and the coolant pipes are bolted and clamped from the factory not glued.
GT3 worn out LSD: caused by any aftermarket part.
Coolant pipes separating from engine: caused by any aftermarket part.
Solution: Buy Fiat, Don't Buy GT3. No RMS leaks, a real diff that seems to last forever, and the coolant pipes are bolted and clamped from the factory not glued.
05-25-2011, 04:33 PM
#27
Rennlist Member
Stu,
Sorry to hear of your warranty woes. IMHO, it does suk that a manufacturer would make something with such purported prowess and pedigree, only to deny warranty coverage when the car is only driven as intended. Otherwise, why bother making a GT3 relative to their other models.
The only other thing that comes to mind are stories I've heard where PCNA plays favorite to original purchasers, versus used buyers. Not sure if any of that is in play here, but wouldn't surprise me.
Have you talked to Charlie M. about this LSD issue?
Sorry to hear of your warranty woes. IMHO, it does suk that a manufacturer would make something with such purported prowess and pedigree, only to deny warranty coverage when the car is only driven as intended. Otherwise, why bother making a GT3 relative to their other models.
The only other thing that comes to mind are stories I've heard where PCNA plays favorite to original purchasers, versus used buyers. Not sure if any of that is in play here, but wouldn't surprise me.
Have you talked to Charlie M. about this LSD issue?
05-25-2011, 04:37 PM
#28
I can only echo what others have said about the quality or lack thereof in the OE LSD and the need to upgrade the factory unit. Stemming from that, if a street driven car had a LSD wear out prematurely with no evidence of abuse, then it should be covered under warranty. I too would join the villagers with pitchfork and torch in each hand.
The disconnect for me occurs with the thinking that Porsche should warranty any LSD that failed in connection with Autocross or track duty. Perhaps Porsche should have considered a track friendly unit (new bullet on the option list?), but it is well documented that the factory unit is a weak link.
The reality of ownership is that the performance of the factory LSD will degrade with track use. Using a GT3 on track means the LSD becomes an accelerated wear item along with brakes/rotors, brake fluid, clutch, tires, oil etc. Cord a set of tires or use pads to the backing plate at the track and laughter would follow the words "warranty claim". I'm confused why the LSD would be viewed or treated any different.
Perhaps I'm alone in my thinking, but when you take any car to the track, you "beef up" the weak points and accept the outcome of any mechanical failure (you break, you pay). I'm not trying to start a flame war, I simply struggle with a discussion that assumes Porsche should be held accountable for a car that sees any form of track duty. Holding Porsche's feet to fire or herding jackpot justice lawyers does nothing but accelerate the extinction of elements that make a car like the GT3 great.
The disconnect for me occurs with the thinking that Porsche should warranty any LSD that failed in connection with Autocross or track duty. Perhaps Porsche should have considered a track friendly unit (new bullet on the option list?), but it is well documented that the factory unit is a weak link.
The reality of ownership is that the performance of the factory LSD will degrade with track use. Using a GT3 on track means the LSD becomes an accelerated wear item along with brakes/rotors, brake fluid, clutch, tires, oil etc. Cord a set of tires or use pads to the backing plate at the track and laughter would follow the words "warranty claim". I'm confused why the LSD would be viewed or treated any different.
Perhaps I'm alone in my thinking, but when you take any car to the track, you "beef up" the weak points and accept the outcome of any mechanical failure (you break, you pay). I'm not trying to start a flame war, I simply struggle with a discussion that assumes Porsche should be held accountable for a car that sees any form of track duty. Holding Porsche's feet to fire or herding jackpot justice lawyers does nothing but accelerate the extinction of elements that make a car like the GT3 great.
But...
Porsche advertises their cars with videos on race tracks. They post Nurburgring lap times. They brag about the homologation for certain races. They use the "track ready" as a pedigree to sell their cars. For reference, Ferrari does NOT do it, neither does Lambo, and so on. At least not to the extent that Porsche does.
So its a bit of the left hand not agreeing with the right. Porsche engineers are great, and I am sure they aren't thrilled with whats happening. We had a group from Stuttgart over here and they brought a bunch of their historic cars from the museum - the 917, 962, rally car, etc and the new Cup cars. Even the original 356 - and then the museum curator manager dude proceeded to take people for laps around the track in it!!!! Lots of the cars were turned on, revved. Really fantastic event. But the techies were fairly forthcoming with their concerns that the new breed of managers filling the offices in Germany are a bunch of 30-40 year old MBAs who have not risen through the engineering ranks and have no particular interest in the racing pedigree apart from "marketing" reasons. One oddly named gal was brooding that the "classic car" department was under pressure to shut down (service). And so on.
Still great cars. The company? Not as great.
05-25-2011, 04:44 PM
#29
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington, DC, West Palm Beach
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 40 Likes
on
22 Posts
@Peter- I will certainly look at both diffs when the time comes. I am trying to make the Delaware Tour next weekend and am under the gun time wise. Next, something better is going back in.
@Tony- I touched base with Charlie at Intersport and since I assumed (incorrectly) that it would be a warranty item, I decided to go to the dealerships first. GH works at the Annapolis dealership and was my main reason for going there.
Stu
@Tony- I touched base with Charlie at Intersport and since I assumed (incorrectly) that it would be a warranty item, I decided to go to the dealerships first. GH works at the Annapolis dealership and was my main reason for going there.
Stu
05-25-2011, 04:47 PM
#30
Admin
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
And as a reminder of what Porsche considers normal..!
After assembling, measure the basic locking torque with a stationary and a driven shaft bevel gear. To do this, clamp one flange in the vice with two screws and position differential. Insert second flange with shop-made connecting piece -A- and turn differential with a torque wrench. A basic locking torque of 5 Nm (3.5 ftlb.)+10 Nm (+7.5 ftlb.) must be reached.
shop made connecting piece:
After assembling, measure the basic locking torque with a stationary and a driven shaft bevel gear. To do this, clamp one flange in the vice with two screws and position differential. Insert second flange with shop-made connecting piece -A- and turn differential with a torque wrench. A basic locking torque of 5 Nm (3.5 ftlb.)+10 Nm (+7.5 ftlb.) must be reached.
shop made connecting piece: