Hartech Lifetime maintenance Plan

Hartech are an independant Porsche specialist based in Bolton Are any of our forum members involved with this scheme ? If so do you feel its value for money ? How good are Hartech when it comes to service and repairs ?

some more info here http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=48732 Hartech have a very solid reputation

Hartech Coincidently I met with the guys from there today to discuss putting a car onto their scheme. Firstly it looks like a proper setup and there's enough cars there to give you a high level of comfort that they know their stuff. Secondly they are really nice, friendly, approachable guys which I think is really important The plan looks like good VFM to me, the gold service that's required in order to be accepted onto the plan costs quite a bit more than a standard major service but you can understand their reason for insisting upon it but once you've got past that it seems like a no briainer to me. Hoep this helps

it's a good plan and they are an excellent bunch of guys, getting in to the scheme is the big issue, the gold service is pricey however two days to do the service is a big ask. If you're local its no prob, however Bolton is not just round the corner, for me its a good 500 mile round trip, so its either take a hol in the lake dist or drive 1000 miles (drop off and pick up). Think will stick to my local indy, and if the unfortunate happens to the engine, Baz will be receiving a call.

A fellow 993'er on here brings his car over from Ireland to have it serviced by Hartech - if that give you any confidence :thumb: Just used Pro-Porsche in West Yorks and must say very impressed with their level of knowledge, set-up and friendly approach. You always have the option of setting the money aside each month in case you get a big bill or pay into the scheme and then never get the full benefit from it. IIRC you still pay for the parts under the scheme? Your call?

I have been on the scheme for almost a year now. The peace of mind it gives me is important, but its always a tough call. The thorough first service allows them to identify anything which they feel is not quite right and they then exclude that from the scheme - for example I knew my clutch was on the way out so they didnt cover that. I have had the clutch done with them since which was around £700-800 and seemed fine. I travel a 400 mile round trip to get there but if its 1/2 trips per year then its not really a massive deal. I usually try to make a long weekend out of it. I also took out decent RAC cover which allows you to select a destination within the UK, hence I can get it towed there if the worst was to happen. Its still early days for me but I am happy thus far...I also hope a car covered by the scheme would be worth more in the right circles...

It's a close call though, if you need a service, you can get a full Indy service for around £379-£399 so you can start your fund with the £200+VAT you save not having the gold service then £55+VAT per month so at the end of a year you have £1010 in the 'maintenance fund'. You're then faced with a £50 MOT plus a minor service @ £350 so you're fund towards any labour for repairs is £610. This all sounds OK unless something goes wrong within the first few months or you get a major engine problem in which case the scheme starts to sound very attractive again as £610 doesn't go very far I think it comes down to peace of mind, the guys know there stuff and are in business so they will have worked out exactly what their exposure before starting the scheme. They will not be losing money doing this but will have taken into account some cars they win on and some they lose, but overall it's worthwhile business for them. Owners though only have one car so it's much more of a gamble, it comes down to how safe you want to play it. When I spoke to them they said it gives owners who wouldn't normally be confident enough to consider buying and running a Porsche the opportunity to buy one knowing they can limit the potential costs. So it comes down to how much risk each individual wants to take, it's just like Pet Insurance I suppose :wink:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is this scheme labour only? (customer pays parts and consumables) Now getting the labour on an RMS job is probably 95% of the cost (and you can change the clutch while your're in there) On a rad change (assuming two rads), the ratio drops to 50/50 I guess. On a full engine swap (yes I know they do rebuilds, but 996 do full pyrotechnics aswell!) crated from Porsche, the labour is probably 20% (of almost 10k) A recon or breakers salvage is probably cheaper, but who's going to warranty it? These are extremes for illustration, and I appreciate that most "claims" are RMS/Rads/brake related etc. All I am saying (and Hartech clearly state), that this is not a warranty. If the worst happens, you still need deep pockets. Sorry, no "cheap" 911 ownership short-cuts.

You're right, it is just a risk based assessment, and it's not really a warranty. However, it does still provide peace of mind should the worst happen. Regarding engine issues. If you needed an engine repair/rebuild from Hartech then you should expect to pay around the £6000 IIRC, but with the scheme that price falls closer to £2000 (again IIRC). Whilst it's still a sizeable chunk, it's considerably less painful than the higher figure. What's also worth remembering is that whilst it doesn't cover parts, it does cover all labour. So even labour on wear & tear items is covered - and if you're owning your 911 for any reasonable period of time then you're going to need this. Your breakdown above looks about right - so if you think of it as £600ish a year for cover against all labour you're on the right track - but bear in mind that over a few years of ownership you're going to need work other than the bear minimum (service & MOT) doing (suck as breaks, clutches etc) then that £600 figure drops quite a bit. I honestly believe that if you're keeping your 911 for at least 3 years then (with the need to replace wear and tear items in mind) that £600 figure is probably more likely to be a £300/year premium for cover against the 'unexpected'.

Agreed, but replace cheap with managable or affordale and you have exactly what the plan is trying to achieve. IIRC the guy said to me with an engine they wil reubuild it rather than just get an exchange unit which costs them as the labour in doing a strip and rebuild is a lot more than fitting a new engine but the customer saves a raft of money Again agree, I was trying to illustrate the best position not the most likely :thumb: I haven't reached a decision yet whether to go onto the plan or not I seem to sway on daily basis as to whether to 'self insure' or go onto the plan. Either way Hartech seem like the type of Indy I'd want to use having visited a couple of others. Has anyone used them and decided to go elsewhere, if so why and where to?

Can I just add that our scheme is not exactly like an insurance scheme either. It is unbeatable value for money and has other hidden benefits. Part of the monthly fee pays the full cost (labour materials and consumables) of all the future service and Mot requirements. If you never needed anything else doing you would never pay us any more than that monthly fee - which is similar anyaway to the cost some organisations will charge for those annual services (including the mileage and age related checks etc) - so compared to them the rest is almost free. Another part of the monthly fee is a small payment in advance for the labour to repair and fit wear and tear items that every car will need in time - like brakes, clutch, water pump, window winder mechanism - you only pay for parts. Yet another small part of the monthly fee is indeed an insurance against the huge cost of major mechanical failure. It is true that this part is like insurance, except that whereas with house fire insurance the insurers don't come round checking that the house is unlikely to catch fire but we do (during our annual services) try and anticipate or detect potential future failures and do something about it then to minimise the greater consequences for both us and the customer if things are left to deteriorate. This is classic preventative maintenance with an added incentive for us to avoid any unneccssary free labour in the future - by fixing problems we can nip in the bud. If your car never had any faults and nothing wore out - you would pay us a liitle more than if you just had it serviced by us (but then most owners would trade that cost for a trouble free car that never wore out anyway and may well pay just as much else where - just for the services and checks etc). If your car had average faults and wear items then you would pay about the same as if we repaired it at full price as and when they occured - but instead of large sudden bills when faults occured you would get used to the monthly payments and not notice the parts costs so much when they hit. If you had a major mechanical problem you would of course be quids in - and we even offer to replace other vulnerable parts during say an engine rebuild at the parts cost only (even though they were not the cause of the fault) to result in a reconditioned engine for a very small cost indeed and with all our other modifications that improve reliability and adress weak areas. We do not impose and age or mileage limit (as Porsche do) nor a claim limit (either frequency or cost). If you experience a major problem early on - you have only paid in a small amount and are quids in even though you may pay for some parts. If it occurs later on you have already saved more than the cost of the parts compared to the cost of the Porsche scheme. You do not have to front up an annual fee nor lose the remainder of the cover period if you sell the car before the year end - you simply stop the standing order. As an example - I have just today - had a customer in who has had his 944 S2 (bought from us 10 years ago) who has been on the scheme all that time but who finally (aged over 70) has decided he must hang up his Porsche boots at last. We also looked after that car for 3 years before he bought it. His average cost/year on top of his monthly fee - over 9 years - has been £116.44/year. His monthly payments in todays terms were £50 + Vat. His total costs for 9 years motoring under the scheme (the plan payments - services, Mot's and repairs) has been £6448 or £716/annum and he has had a superb - trouble free Porsche ownership experience and no suuden large bills to pay. He was obviously delighted and the car has had belts etc during that time - but considering that throughout that period he was also covered for the labour cost of a potential major fault - it reinforces my argument that our system is indeed unbeatable. Many people are then suspicious that there must be a catch but look at it this way - without any advertisisnmg costs, we received regualr payments from a customer amounting to £6448 over 9 years and because we were so thorough looking after his car - we all benefitted and no other Porsche specialist benefitted from his period of ownership - giving us the confidence to invest in our future that our competitors missed out on with him. His experience is by no means unusual but rather the norm and we have a huge number of similarly happy owners on the scheme - from all over the UK - all contributing to our monthly costs while we take similar excellent care of their cars while trying to find the least expensive way for both of us to manage the highest level of maintenance possible. In future years - I believe that - all businesses will have to operate similar schemes to survive - but we were the first and it has worked out well for us and our customers. One final point to seperate us from those recently copying the scheme - we also provide lots of engine, gearbox and suspension reconditioned and repaired parts and technology and our own in house engineering workshop - so the cost for us and our customers of many of the parts they may have to pay for is indeed also less often than those other scheme providers can match. For example where they may need a new set of 996 crankcases - we can reliner a cracked bore at a fraction of the cost (and avoid a repetition by strengthening the other bores as well). Where a new suspension arm may be needed we have reconditioned ones just as good as new for a lot less cost etc. We also stock a lot of good used spares to minimise parts costs where appropriate. Baz

Baz It's a very persuasive argument, well articulated, and I congratulate you on such a creative business model. I suspect you are right that others will follow your lead. In the mean time if you could just relocate somewhere south of Birmingham... H :wink:

Nah! Just give your car a good, long blast once a year. Mine goes up from Suffolk every Easter Am interested in what RAC cover you have rb5 as I keep meaning to do the same. Any info. would be appreciated.

Baz You certainly make a persuasive case for the plan It all makes sense if you are going to keep a car for a number of years and I think it's a sensible investment, almost a no-brainer. I would certainly use Hartech for servicing regardless of whether I was using the scheme or not as I got a really good vibe from them. The only issue for me is I'm not sure if I'll have the car for more than a year so does the plan still make sense? The analogy about house insurance is a good one and to turn that around you could say that house insurance companies don't charge you an additional fee to inspect your house only to then use this to exclude things from your policy. I do however understand why you need to do this to limit your exposure to serious problems and misuse of the scheme As I said initially I think it's a brilliant concept, if you could go onto the scheme just by having a standard full service I'd be in, it's just in my circumstances I may end up selling the car before I have the opportunity to get the first free service or MOT. The only other thing I think you could add is to allow the plan to be transfered with the car when it's sold assuming the new owner wants to keep up the monthly payments. I would suggest any owners give this plan serious consideration a big :thumbs: for Hartech

I agree the analogy is not perfect but houses do not deteriorate to become more likely to catch fire whereas cars always need new parts and eventually go wrong and need fixing. Furthermore I bet that house fire insurance does not pay out on any fire – but only after satisfying themselves about the circumstances. Anyway – the good news is that in most cases we do allow for a transfer of our scheme – but we will not make it an automatic right or condition of the scheme. Let me explain why – for very sensible and good reasons that I hope you can follow and agree with. If a customer was on the scheme and we recommended a repair before a problem became worse and would then cost more to fix – if that customer refused to authorise that repair we do (under our terms and conditions and not in my view unreasonably) refuse to repair the greater damage that will occur later when the problem magnifies and eventually fails and requires a repair – because we warned the owner about it in plenty of time and when it would be better and cheaper for us to fix.. Now we make an assumption (again not unreasonably) that an owner is more likely to refuse to authorise such a repair if they intend to sell the car shortly afterwards and it is still running OK. We also make it a condition (again not unreasonably) that the owner takes reasonable care of the car and doesn't (for example) drive it around without coolant or oil in it and if it was clear that they had – we may not cover the resulting damage. Once again someone who did this may try and sell the car before bringing it to us for us to find the problem. Furthermore - some faults that we pick up in the first service inspection are never fixed but we allow them to be excluded from the scheme instead (and they are recorded to avoid future claims on them). Someone selling could claim they will be covered in the future for the next owner only to find out later they are not (as we may not have had any communication with him until he has bought the car). In any of the above scenarios - if the owner then sold the car 'with the transferrable warranty" the next owner may expect these types of faults to be repaired under our warranty – which we may perfectly reasonably refuse – but he would be well fed up and it would create the sort of problem and suspicion about our integrity that we don't want associated with the scheme. Furthermore we will not have had an opportunity to explain what the scheme entailed and the seller may exaggerate the benefits and 'miss-sell the car" and Plan – but we would pick up the complaint and dissatisfaction. When we worked out the costs for the scheme we assumed the average owner would sell after about three years and the car would go through the same procedure putting faults right before the next owner could go on the scheme – so the costs could be kept the same as the car ages and the miles increase to a level when serious repairs and replacements are needed – by which time the next owner would pay for them to go back on the scheme – and this allowed us to fix a lower monthly charge than if we simply allowed it to be transferred and picked up the costs of those repairs under the scheme. However even cars that have been on the scheme for 10 years are still reasonably reliable – so we have – up to now – generally allowed them to be transferred. However we still feel we must reserve the right to insists on the full 24K Gold service in circumstances where the age, mileage and general condition need a proper investigation and check before we accept them on the scheme. Obviously the older the car and the higher the mileage the more likely this would become – which I think is fair enough bearing in mind we are covering cars with no age or mileage limit (unlike anyone else) In practice – I cannot remember refusing to take over a Plan but we do need to check the car over to be sure that there has been nothing untoward associated with the sale and the car is still OK as we last saw it - and there is also some admin work to pay for – so we usually make a charge of £100 to transfer the Plan over to a new owner – which I think is very fair. Finally – although this has never happened – there may well be a particular customer or one with some commercial connections contrary to our interests – that we do not want to take on our scheme because we think it will not work out well for either of us and become counterproductive or even unfairly litigious and because we are just a small business trying to offer fair and excellent service to our customers – taking a large risk to protect them from serious costs if something we were not responsible for- failed – and paying for the privilege out of our own financial resources – we need that final veto to protect not only our interests but also all our other customers interests as well. To summarise – in practice we are very likely to allow the Lifetime Maintenance Plan to be transferred at our discretion but do not guarantee it as a condition or right of being on the scheme and may or may not make a charge up to and including the full 24K service cost – in the circumstances that we find necessary. Baz