Notices
Panamera 2010-Current
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Porsche San Diego

Major Frame Weld Defect in Panamera

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-31-2015, 01:29 AM
  #1  
PV=nRT
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
PV=nRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default Major Frame Weld Defect in Panamera

TIME FROM PURCHASE TO FAILURE (Engineering report attached)

The frame of my 2012 Porsche Panamera S hybrid came apart with the car breaking in two on October 11, 2012. Grossly defective welds were the cause. It was not wrecked. I had bought it a few months before.

Its was a flawless performance sedan the few months before it failed. I had incredible fun with it and the whole "Porsche experience", particularly with the PCA people and events. Then problems started and grew worse very fast.



Car in ditch after front broke off during attempted loading on wrecker. Car was being loaded to go Hennessy Porsche to evaluate handling problems.



About a month before the car's frame catastrophically failed, excessive tire wear was found and steering / handling problems began. Initially not too dramatic. Over the next 3 weeks or so, I fruitlessly sought answers to why my car was becoming undrivable. First I went to an independent Porsche shop for new tires and alignment and then to multiple Porsche dealers with nothing but a lighter wallet and throbbing ears from hearing 'honey, your car's just fine, it's perfectly safe" over and over. Though the car was under warranty, they did not see this as a warranty issue.

By my last visit to a Porsche dealer, Hennessey Porsche in Atlanta, I had a stack of alignment printouts that seemed to be screaming something was seriously wrong. Still nothing yet another alignment was done. Now I know during those three weeks, critical welds joining the car frame’s side rails and front cross member were progressively cracking. As the welds failed, the frame’s rigidity was being lost.

Performance car manufactures chase frame rigidity improvements in new models right along with improvements in horsepower and torque. It is vital to a car's steering, handling and in many of today's vehicles, the numerous electronic control and safety systems. All sorts of bad things can happen when those system’s sensors get bad data feedback because the basic structure is coming apart.

Toward its end, the car drove like an unmaintained, 50 year old Mack truck on ice. Constant, physically difficult steering corrections were needed to try and keep the car in its lane. But it still drifted and darted by its own whims and in response to the slightest variations in the road surface.

Following a near death experience of “self steering” on I-20 coming home from Hennessey Porsche, PCNA and Hennessey said I needed to drive it back to Atlanta for another check. I refused to drive the car back anywhere by that point though. After a week of me insisting they tow the vehicle, a flat bed wrecker finally arrived at my home several hours away to take it to Atlanta. While attempting to load the vehicle onto the wrecker’s bed, it ripped in two with the bulk of the car rocketing off the back, down a hill (nearly killing a mail carrier) and finally landing in a ditch. The wrecker operator had chased it and dove into the window just in time to divert it from splatting the mail lady.

LEMON LAW HEARING: ATLANTA, GA SEPT. 2ND 2015

Long story short, the Lemon Law hearing for the car is scheduled for Sept. 2nd, 2015. It will start with a vehicle inspection at 10:00 a. m. where the car is stored in Roswell, GA just north of Atlanta and then will move to the hearing site. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SEE THE CAR OR ATTEND THE HEARING IS WELCOMED- email me at lmoore@ersrail.net for the address. Unfortunately, the inspection and hearing won’t be held at Porsche’s new 100 million dollar North American headquarters and test track which was recently completed just south of Atlanta. Only new shiny and intact Porsches there I guess.

Discussions with personnel at the Georgia Office of Consumer Protection (GOCP), they administer GA’s Lemon Law, indicate the hearing will focus on disallowing the car to be covered by the Georgia Lemon Law. The law does state new cars and demonstrators are covered by it. My car was purchased from Jim Ellis Porsche as a demonstrator, it was never registered or titled prior to my purchase. They want to classify the car as used though. By focusing on if this previously untitled demonstrator is new or used, is covered by the law or not, it will allow Porsche Cars North America (PCNA) to stay in the background and avoid the questions of how such a severe defect can still happen in today’s cars and how did such a gross defect get through Porsche’s revered quality control process to allow the vehicle to be sold to a customer. More importantly: how many other Panameras have this same defect?

The first few year I was filing documents and speaking with the GOCP it seemed clear this car was covered by the Lemon Law. Now they say no, and they are also saying this is not the type defect the law was intended to cover. Really???? Isn’t a car breaking in two somewhat on par with exploding gas tanks and unintended acceleration? Are lemon cars limited to merely having annoying defects, not potentially deadly ones?

I expect to lose this hearing. When it was based on the actual defect, I was quite confident. In December 2012, I had hired automotive forensic engineers to evaluate the car and to determine the cause of the failure. Their report, which is attached, is clear: the original manufacturing welds were grossly defective and one of the original frame rails was bent but still used to build the vehicle.

HOW MANY OTHER PANAMERAS ARE OUT THERE WITH FRAME WELD DEFECTS?

Anyone that has a Panamera with suspect handling issues, has had an unexplained wreck or if you know of a Panamera that has come apart, please contact me.





Close up of one of the defective welds. Paint covers large parts of intended weld surface. Numerous types of weld issues are visible.
Attached Files
Old 08-31-2015, 01:47 AM
  #2  
PV=nRT
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
PV=nRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default Forensic Engineering Report (pdf format)

The forensic automotive engineer report on my 2012 Porsche Panamera is attached below. The docx version in the prior post does not appear to retain its formatting. The pdf version should be easier to download and view.
Attached Images
Old 08-31-2015, 03:04 PM
  #3  
robhamster
Instructor
 
robhamster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morrison, CO
Posts: 160
Received 18 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

WOW. Good luck with all that. I have had my own issues with my Panamera, a 2012 4S. Suspension ok so far, but my engine went. Porsche needs to retrain the robots in the factory.
Old 09-03-2015, 12:41 AM
  #4  
onedah
Track Day
 
onedah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

How did the hearing go?
Old 09-03-2015, 02:25 AM
  #5  
PV=nRT
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
PV=nRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by onedah
How did the hearing go?


Very interesting day. The ruling will be issued in a week. There will also be a transcript produced which I will make available, I don't know how long that takes to be prepared though.

I'll post details tomorrow but I will say now that the hearing concluded with questions spreading to the potential impact of this defect on crash worthiness of affected Panameras, it's potential effect on air bag deployment timing, extent that crash energy will penetrate the passenger cell, etc..

How many Panameras are affected by this defect? Who knows? It is possible, in some galaxy somewhere, that mine is the only car that was manufactured with incredibly, unbelievably bad welds; and mine was the only one that a quality control process designed to catch such things should they happen, got through that process undetected- or ignored - again who knows? Maybe Porsche does but their not sayin. (Maybe it shouldn't be there choice to not say any longer? They can not deny knowledge of the defect in my car for 3 years now yet NO action on their part that I know of).

National Geographic has a great video showing Panamera manufacture. It includes footage of the mass production, automated assembly line with ROBOTIC welding machines doing the welds in question. So my car being unique- I have my doubts (in my humble opinion). I'll post the videos link and time stamp tomorrow.

I think (in my humble personal opinion) it's time people, or survivors of people, that have been in wrecks with these cars investigate if their car was affected by the defect, if so did that contribute to handling problems that lead to the wreck, and/ or did it result in injuries being more severe than would have been the case if the critical impact zones did not have faulty welds.

I've got to say for a thread that kind of says my car was made of pretzels not high strength components and yours maybe as well- it's been really, really quiet........
Old 09-04-2015, 02:44 AM
  #6  
PV=nRT
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
PV=nRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

The proceedings yesterday began with the hearing administrator inspecting my car at its storage location and a brief presentation by the expert I retained at my own expense to evaluate the weld defects 3 years ago.

We then traveled to downtown Atlanta, the hearing reconvened and continued for several hours. I allowed Porsche to begin opening statements.

Although I was told in May and June that the hearing would focus on eligibility issues and other matters unrelated to the actual defect, Porsche did not bring up issues beyond repurchase in they're opening. However this matter, since its beginning in 2012, has involved more than simple repurchasing my car.

This is not about a car that is in and out of the shop with annoying or exasperating problems. This is about a car produced on a mass production line with a very serious safety flaw that brings the fundamentals of its production method and its quality control process into question.

Since 2012 I have asked Porsche for only the following:
1) Replacement (originally) and now repurchase of my car at the amount paid along with my out of pocket expenses directly related to this matter.

2) That no confidentiality agreement be required and most importantly,

3) That a thorough investigation of the cause of the defect and the scope of the defect in all Panameras (Bentleys or other vehicles sharing the same chassis design/ production) be done immediately with the results being provided, and finally,

4) That Porsche act to notify other owners that may be at risk as soon as possible.

Porsche has refused all these request. My focus in posting on this forum is not to pressure Porsche to buy my car back with a valid contract. That is a minor issue in the big picture now. My focus is to do what Porsche has failed for at least 3 years to do:
1) notify others that own Panameras their cars may have a very serious safety defect,

2) let owners know that if they have wrecked it may, and I stress may, be in whole or part due to this defect if their car in fact has the defect, and

3) encourage a government agency to begin an independent investigation into this issue- Porsche has not demonstrated the will to take care of it without oversight.
This is not just a matter that your car may break in two- even if a car has a lesser level of frame weld defect it can reduce gas mileage, increase the rate of tire wear, cause difficult and erratic handling, difficulty aligning the car or far more serious effects.

The hearing concluded yesterday with questions spreading to the potential impact of this defect on crash worthiness of affected Panameras, it's potential effect on: air bag deployment timing (a split second to early or late and the bag is not at peak inflation when the peak level of protection is needed, right?), greater allowance of crash energy penetration into the passenger cell, etc.. That last one translates to the possibility of the frame not absorbing sufficient crash energy- so a lesser rear end collision causes the gas tank to explode when it otherwise would not, a front end collision unnecessarily crushes someone legs, etc, etc.....

FACTS TESTIFIED TO AT THE HEARING INCLUDE:

[1] Porsche has known of this defect since at least October 2012.

[2] Porsche does not dispute these are the original manufacturing welds.

[3] Porsche has elected to wait to resolve the issue with me before they act on this defect. To my knowledge and per testimony yesterday, NO technical service bulletin has been issued, no campaign has been done, no notification to owners of Panameras has been made to even bring their cars in for inspection. Have other owners been needlessly injured or killed since Porsche Cars North America inspected my car welds shortly after the October 11th 2012 incident?

[4] Porsche refused to report the incident with my car to NHTSA. I met with them at the Atlanta headquarters in Nov. 2012 to plead with them to do so. I also submitted request in writing to their in-house General Counsel.

[5] I filed a complaint with NHTSA in Dec. 2012 independent of Porsche to try and notify the government of the potential risk to other Panamera owners and to try to notify other owners in a manner that did not put me at risk to retribution by Porsche.

[6] In 2012 I offered in writing to have Porsche perform any testing needed, within the U. S., of my car to evaluate the weld defects of my vehicle immediately regardless of the status of Porsche resolving the dispute with me.

[7] Porsche has refused to ever provide me with a written, complete repurchase contract.

[8] They HAVE required that I sign a statement saying I accept all terms and conditions of repurchase- it does not include terms though- accompanying letters however state I will be provided the complete terms and conditions AFTER I sign the statement.

[9] They have required that I sign a confidentiality statement. I have refused to do so.
Old 09-11-2015, 04:41 AM
  #7  
Skidmarkz
Intermediate
 
Skidmarkz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thank you for posting all of this!
Old 09-11-2015, 10:08 PM
  #8  
robhamster
Instructor
 
robhamster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morrison, CO
Posts: 160
Received 18 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Thank you for posting this and I feel for you and your struggle. Porsche of 20 years ago would be all over this and make it right. I have had my own struggles with them over issues in my newer Porsches. My 1984 911 shows all the build quality that makes us all feel good. I hope they treat you right and let all of us Panamera owners about any potential issue related to this.
Old 09-11-2015, 10:24 PM
  #9  
F1CrazyDriver
Drifting
 
F1CrazyDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,029
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Jaw dropping. Wow. Speechless.
Old 09-30-2015, 05:58 PM
  #10  
PV=nRT
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
PV=nRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default DECISION: DEFECT LIFE THREATENING

Sorry its taken awhile to get time to post the decision. Life has been a bit turbulent. The following are excerpts from the decision.


PAGE 1 excerpt of Decision (Moore v Porsche Cars North America, Inc.)



PAGE 3 excerpt of Decision (Moore v Porsche Cars North America, Inc.)


PAGE 5 & 6 excerpt of Decision (Moore v Porsche Cars North America, Inc.)


While I'm appreciative of a favorable decision. I'm a bit confused why only a portion of my considerable expenses were ordered repaid. If the buy back goes through, I'll still be out of pocket thousands.

It took me 2 years and 11 months- over 1,000 hours of my time- to achieve this ruling. I was not able to get an attorney in Georgia to take the case. I was forced to either drop the case or do all the research, legal paperwork, process navigation and presentation of the case at the hearing myself.

I was astounded no attorney would take what appeared to be an easy case. After all I had already hired and paid the experts and was also willing to pay the attorney hourly and not require an contingency arrangement. Still no takers. I also paid attorneys in AL to try and find a Georgia attorney for me- strike out again- though they did keep the money I paid them to locate GA counsel.

I was told recently that Porsche Cars North America effectively blocks consumers in Georgia from obtaining legal representation by spreading legal work around to the product liability and lemon law lawyers in their home state. This "conflicts" the attorneys out from working for a plaintiff. I don't know if that is a hard truth or speculation by the party telling me. The person making the statement works in a capacity giving them direct knowledge of such matters so I found them credible for what its worth. Georgia, per Porsche's testimony in the hearing, is the only state where Porsche does not have a Certified Informal Dispute Settlement Program. Apparently they need one in the 49 other states but have solved the issue "otherwise" in GA, their headquarter's state.

Unfortunately, the reality of having a car with a serious defect- or any issue that could cost the manufacturer a lot of money- is that the auto industry has protected itself very well against such issues causing them unpleasant consequences. It takes a lot to get these things noticed. Even the current wee bit of scandal VW has brought upon itself developed fairly slowly. The report that revealed the "defeat" software was given to EPA some time ago but only recently got momentum, headlines and class action interest (see http://motherboard.vice.com/read/thi...swagen-scandal.

Also unfortunately, even though the hearing on my car was held by a division of the Georgia Attorney General's Office, it was made very clear to me in a phone call this week with the staff from the hearing that they will not be "walking down the hall" to others in the Attorney General's office to advise them of this defect or to encourage an investigation into the defect be opened. Developing the momentum to get Porsche to act on this issue or to get an independent investigation started is still very much in the hands of us the owners of Panameras and it is still very much an uphill battle.

So what happens now in my case? That is the big question. Porsche has three options:
1. appeal within 30 days of the decision being issued,

2. buy the car back as ordered (without requiring unreasonable terms), or

3. go through the motions of executing the buy back but include terms that they know I will not be able to agree to such as confidentiality, execution of a general release of liability, etc..
Stay tuned........
Old 09-30-2015, 07:17 PM
  #11  
Gus_Smedstad
Burning Brakes
 
Gus_Smedstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 802
Received 58 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

I'm kind of surprised that they didn't order any punitive damages, given how much effort it required to get here, and how reluctant Porsche was to do the correct thing.

That said, I understand why they're not ordering a general investigation of the model. So far as they know, this is a one-off defect that only happened to your car, rather than an issue with all Panameras built by Porsche. The main evidence for that is that no one else's car has had the front fall off in such a dramatic fashion.

The VW group's cheating on emissions is an entirely different animal, since that's an intentional design defect that affects all of VW's diesel engines.
Old 10-05-2015, 02:53 AM
  #12  
gt3_4_me
Rennlist Member
 
gt3_4_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a one-off defect when it's done on an assembly line by a machine. The rate may be low but I would suspect there are other Panamera frames like this out there.
Old 10-05-2015, 01:37 PM
  #13  
Gus_Smedstad
Burning Brakes
 
Gus_Smedstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 802
Received 58 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gt3_4_me
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a one-off defect when it's done on an assembly line by a machine.
Sure there is. There are lots of ways for machines to make an error that is only going to happen once; a power interruption is only the most obvious. You'd really have to talk to someone who has real expertise in the area of robotic assembly line welding to know for sure how likely it is.
Old 12-09-2015, 04:05 PM
  #14  
PV=nRT
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
PV=nRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default VIDEO IS POSTED ON YOUTUBE

It took awhile, but a video is now posted to Youtube that tells the story of my Porsche and the 3+ year (ongoing) battle for repurchase with Porsche Cars North America. It includes about 25 mins of Porsche's testimony at the Consumer Protection hearing held Sept. 2nd 2015.

The video's title is Moore v PCNA: The Defect in Porsche

The link to the video is
.


It should help answer the question "Are there other Panameras with this same defect?". Remember its not only the question of the problem in the manufacturing process that produced my car, but why Porsche's quality control passed the car and allowed it to be sold.

Acting on one bad car is an easy decision for a QA/QC manager, but not so easy when faced with many bad cars having questionable welds. Welding aluminum is challenging and requires rigorous attention to detail. The specific problems that the experts concluded caused the bad welds and other related defects are included in the video.

Porsche has been given every opportunity to take the lead on this problem. They have refused to not only take the lead but to do anything whatsoever since 2012. I tried every way possible to handle this issue with Porsche in a cooperative spirit, with no legal proceedings and no public disclosure that I initiated. It just didn't work, they do not want to deal with this issue or even to deal with my car alone.

Though ordered to repurchase my car within 40 days of the decision being filed, Porsche has failed to do so. They again are dodging what their supposed to do and playing games with paperwork to delay the problem as long as possible.
Old 12-16-2015, 11:51 AM
  #15  
mdrums
Race Director
 
mdrums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 15,358
Received 180 Likes on 127 Posts
Default

Wow....and another reason why I've lost faith in Porsche. My wife drives a 2014 Panamera S....makes me very concerned!


Quick Reply: Major Frame Weld Defect in Panamera



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:58 PM.