Notices
Boxster & Boxster S (986) Forum
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

IMS Class Action Suit 2001 through 2005 owners win Update Mar 12

 
Old 07-25-2013, 10:59 AM
  #31  
ep3_lol
User
 
ep3_lol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 353
Default

I received one earlier this week. Interesting, as I thought my VIN was out of the range that this lawsuit applies to. I could've been mistaken.
ep3_lol is offline  
Old 07-25-2013, 11:51 AM
  #32  
AP997S
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
AP997S's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 601
Default

Originally Posted by lilredpo View Post
Has anyone received notification via US Mail?
I received 2 notices. One for my 2001 986S and another for my 2005 997S. Both cars are gone but I guess the new owners never notified PCNA of 'Change of Ownership'.
AP997S is offline  
Old 07-25-2013, 02:01 PM
  #33  
ep3_lol
User
 
ep3_lol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 353
Default

I never notified them and have moved since buying my car, yet they still found me. I guess they could get cooperation from DMVs in some states but not others?
ep3_lol is offline  
Old 07-27-2013, 12:09 AM
  #34  
Mr Michael B

Lifetime Rennlist
Member

 
Mr Michael B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Central US of A
Posts: 2,308
Default

Received three letters / all with different VIN numbers obviously. Only had one IMS failure so I gathered all the information from that event (from 2007) and made my pile. Had vehicle data, proof of ownership, a receipt stamped paid (it was a cash sale), and even the order-form from the repair facility for when they ordered the replacement engine (they still had it on file with matching VIN right on the order-form).

I stuck it all in an envelope & sent it off yesterday.

Expecting 25% of $12,900 I guess. We will see how it pans out.
Mr Michael B is offline  
Old 07-29-2013, 09:13 AM
  #35  
gfl
User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 273
Default

Has anyone confirmed whether or not an pre-emptive IMS replacement (e.g.: LN), for an in-range, in-miles vehicle is covered? I would have assumed no, but have read two comments on other forums that indicate "yes", but without substantiation.

Grant
gfl is offline  
Old 07-30-2013, 05:55 PM
  #36  
Han Solo
User
 
Han Solo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 218
Default

We got our notice for my GF's '02 Boxster several days ago. It was purchased through a Porsche dealership so I assume that's why we were included. Unfortunately it can't be included for future claims because of date in service. I understand the judge's logic but don't agree with it

We didn't get one for my co-owned '99 Boxster track car. It's out of the date range, had an IMS upgrade and I drive it like I stole it! Well, for $6500, I guess we did almost steal it
Han Solo is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 02:00 PM
  #37  
sennaisbest
New User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Default

I mailed in my forms regarding the IMS failure on my 03 C4S, and consider whatever recovery I collect worth the effort. The failure occurred 3 months after the end of the 6 year warrenty and I wrote both Porsche in Stuttgart and in Atlanta and was given a terse "Sorry, no payment" because they alleged I did not use a certified Porsche dealer. They said if I did, they may have offered me some compensation, but stated no amount. The person who made the repairs (now over 6,000 miles and the car is running great) repairs engines for the dealership I purchased the car from, and he did it for approx. $7,000 cheaper than a quotation from a dealership. Since I know Porsche would not give me $7,000, I figure I made the best deal possible. Besides, if the dealership could not offer to help on a car which a dealership sold, and the parent company also refused, what choice did I have? Hopefully, the settlement will provide some compensation for the damages.
sennaisbest is offline  
Old 08-01-2013, 10:46 AM
  #38  
Plyman438
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 133
Default

Originally Posted by tangram View Post
While this is an unfortunate incident and Porsche's unwillingness to publicly accept that they had a flawed design is not in keeping with the brand's reputation, the IMS issue has been known for quite some time now. Thus, if you purchased one of these cars used after the problem had been identifiied, then the price you paid for the car should be reflective of the defect. I can understand why only 25% of costs would be eligible for recoupment.
Yes, I was fully aware of the IMS controversy when I bought my used Boxster 2.5 years ago, and benefited price wise from it. So far so good as no problems after driving it last couple years. If it weren't for this IMS problem and resulting lowering of residual value, I probably wouldn't own a Boxster today, especially one in almost like new shape with lower miles. I figured chance of IMS failure was less than 5% and was willing to take the chance, and losing $15,000 wouldn't bankrupt me. Looks like failure rate is a bit higher, but not by much. Still love the car and so far worth the risk.
Plyman438 is offline  
Old 08-01-2013, 11:02 AM
  #39  
Plyman438
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 133
Default

I as of yet have received no notice on my 2001 standard Boxster bought used 2.5 years ago with dealership limited warranty. My VIN doesn't seem to be in the range on class action document. So I'm assuming it has dual row bearing that has lower failure rate. Vehicle has 58,000 miles and engine and bearing are original.
________________________________

2001 Orient Red Metallic Boxster
Plyman438 is offline  
Old 08-03-2013, 12:27 AM
  #40  
streaydog
User
 
streaydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Plano Texas
Posts: 61
Default

So is it only the cars that are affected gets a notice? Or is it possible that I was skipped because not affected?
streaydog is offline  
Old 09-10-2013, 03:56 PM
  #41  
longislander1
New User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2
Default

I'm a little late to the game here and only heard about the class action settlement recently. I have not (yet) had any IMS damage with my 2005 Boxster S and it appears mine is among the VINs excluded since it was built in June '05.

Does anyone interpret that as 1) Porsche saying cars built after February 2005 should not have problems, or 2) Porsche stingily trying to cover as few cars as possible? Knowing Porsche, I'm guessing it's the latter, since there have been engine failure reports beyond the '05 model year.

I hope some victims end up getting some additional money out of this, but the settlement to me appears to solidify Porsche's reputation as a company that will do as little for the customer as possible, admit as little guilt as possible and offer the very least it can in terms of restitution. Would you buy another car from a company with this attitude? I wouldn't. Too many other good brands out there.
longislander1 is offline  
Old 09-11-2013, 07:59 PM
  #42  
mikefocke
User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanford NC
Posts: 782
Default

Long Islander, welcome to the world of class action settlements.

The 97 thru 99 and 05 thru 08s are excluded because they have a different IMS bearing than those in the class, because those bearings are thought to be better and because including them would have clouded the issue the lawyers for those suing Porsche had to handle.

Porsche of course wanted to spend as little as possible and admit nothing as anything they admitted could later be used in court.

The lawyers wanted to get paid.
mikefocke is offline  
Old 09-11-2013, 08:54 PM
  #43  
996tnz
User
 
996tnz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,802
Unhappy Lucky your IMS is in the US

A 25pc payout sucks but it is still 25pc more than what most owners will be getting outside the US.

I test drove a 996 Carrera some 3 years ago. It had an obvious power problem so the dealer and I stopped at an OPC and got it scanned. Nothing dramatic but it got me researching the engine pre-purchase and that led me to buy a 996 Turbo instead (Mezger 'GT1' block, IMS fine and cylinders stay round - but these still blow glued in coolant fittings out sometimes.).

I think Porsche just got a bit too cheap with their cars for a while (reporting the world's highest profit per unit sold a decade or so ago) . Hope that's improving now, but time will tell.

Good luck guys. Maybe Subaru should be chipping in too as I understand they had a hand in developing the 3.4L.
996tnz is offline  
Old 10-18-2013, 11:45 AM
  #44  
beechbum
New User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3
Default

What a mess. On October 7, 2013 my 2002 C2 lost power on the highway & sputtered to a stop after I managed to exit. I had it carried to Porsche of Plano where they misdiagnosed it. After more than a week they said it was an IMS failure & submitted it to PCNA for assistance. They weren't clear but said it was denied. I discovered because it is 11 years old (past the 10 year mark) it is excluded form the settlement. The lady handling claims at PCNA coldly said they would not assist & their decision was final. This is my fourth Porsche. I've bought them since 1980. This one was purchased from Park Place Porsche in 2003 when it was one year old. It is a CPO with 63,000 miles & a history of dealership service. It has been driven regularly, never seen the track & not been abused. Dealer says the engine is $22,000 & install is $2800. Looks like I'm screwed. I had enjoyed a love affair with these cars most of my life. I feel cheated because they hid this issue & now won't do anything. Sure, it's only business. Unless something changes I'll be selling this one & my track 911 SC. Also everyone I meet will hear my story for whatever good that does. A very sad day. Any one know of other avenues to pursue? Thanks ~
beechbum is offline  
Old 10-18-2013, 11:46 AM
  #45  
beechbum
New User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 3
Default

What a mess. On October 7, 2013 my 2002 C2 lost power on the highway & sputtered to a stop after I managed to exit. I had it carried to Porsche of Plano where they misdiagnosed it. After more than a week they said it was an IMS failure & submitted it to PCNA for assistance. They weren't clear but said it was denied. I discovered because it is 11 years old (past the 10 year mark) it is excluded form the settlement. The lady handling claims at PCNA coldly said they would not assist & their decision was final. This is my fourth Porsche. I've bought them since 1980. This one was purchased from Park Place Porsche in 2003 when it was one year old. It is a CPO with 63,000 miles & a history of dealership service. It has been driven regularly, never seen the track & not been abused. Dealer says the engine is $22,000 & install is $2800. Looks like I'm screwed. I had enjoyed a love affair with these cars most of my life. I feel cheated because they hid this issue & now won't do anything. Sure, it's only business. Unless something changes I'll be selling this one & my track 911 SC. Also everyone I meet will hear my story for whatever good that does. A very sad day. Does anyone know of other avenues to pursue? Thanks ~
beechbum is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: IMS Class Action Suit 2001 through 2005 owners win Update Mar 12


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: