Gofishracing

Coolant lines- It's been alot of work. Here is the NHTSA request for disclosure to PNA

997gt3north

wow - great job

may I suggest you now re-focus, should you have any energy remaining, and apply it against the ABS ice mode / Bosche / Porsche we would rather you be able to steer than stop industry


again, great job - obviously it was a lot of work

Coochas

I just saw two such coolant losses on GT3 cars at a recent event. Both happened a few seconds ahead of me. I had a decent slide through one of them but not enough to lose control.
I applaud your efforts and others who have brought this to the attention of the regulatory bodies.

Gofishracing

File complaints. Yes I heard about them. I waiting for details from Dave, CI

Nizer

About time. Well done.

ltc

As the owner of a 2001 996 Turbo (with 6000 miles), I would be surprised if they offered to correct the defect.
The longer this goes on, the fewer the number of affected vehicles that PCNA might be required to update.
As of now, too much time has expired for me, ad IIRC, it is a 10 year window.

996TWINS

+1.

Gofishracing

k guys- here is my update. First of all-The flame I put to this entire investigation was selfish motivated. I could not with a clear conscience go back on track knowing of the coolant line fitting that could endanger myself & others. After I did the repair I was worried about wrecking from a negligent owners on-track that knew about the problem but pretended it would not happen to them. I thought I might force PCA to take a position and have PNA step up and fix their cheap -out glued fitting situation. I'm sure we are costing them a fortune in bad publicity and legal , administrative costs. However. That does not mean they are going to fix anything. Now a legal firm has jumped in - hoping to let NHTSA & PNA do the fight and then start some suit. The biggest problem is the statute of limitations. Depending on the state, claims of this nature have to be brought within four to six years I am told by my legal source. Usually from the date of the transaction. As a result these claims are going to be barred. The other option is to bring claims based on the failure but it does not help people who have these cars which may need to be repaired, ie pinned or welded, but have not failed yet.
In the IMS case- if someone did the repair in anticipation of a failure that claim would not be covered- same here.
Also the IMS case involved 56,000 cars with less than a 20% failure rate. I'm told even if the failure rate is higher on the fittings only 10,000 cars were effected. Some under warranty have been re glued.- Not a great legal case . Perhaps if all the PCA regions had united it would have been enough pressure to effect change but I did only what I could. And in the IMS settlement there were different level of reimbursement. ( original owner, CPO, extended warranty, second owner etc.) My hopes for reimbursement have been deflated by my legal source. I think I just do like Mooty and give them the finger. We'll see.