52 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHIMS Class Action Suit is HERE, maybe
Leading reported evidence
Replace proactively at roughly $1,650 out of my pocket
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I had mine replaced proactively at roughly $1,650 out of my pocket.
Leading evidence: 'Replace proactively at roughly $1,650 out of my pocket' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Repair (like our tax system)' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
There was lots of talk about a law suit, and eventually Porsche agreed to replace them with a newer design at no charge to the customer, or to reimburse customers who had previously replaced their coils at a Porsche dealership.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Second I think that our legal system is so far beyond repair (like our tax system) that we just need to start over.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Unfortunately the market hasn't brought these changes about.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Where does that leave all the owners who replaced the IMSB as a precautionary move to avoid a catastrophic engine failure?
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
There was lots of talk about a law suit, and eventually Porsche agreed to replace them with a newer design at no charge to the customer, or to reimburse customers who had previously replaced their coils at a Porsche dealership.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
52 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T225432Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Just saw this in a banner add at the top of a RL page. This could be the law suit many have been waiting for and asking about. Check it out.
http://www.newjerseyclassactionlawye...FaYaQgodvXpzXw
sorry if this is an enzo. first I've heard of it.
Looks like a typical ambulance-chasing law firm.
Let me predict the future now:
$100 million settlement with Porsche, "victims" of the "IMS defect" get $150 each and the law firm gets the remaining $90 million.
Amurica, **** yeah.
Yes, I am a lawyer so defensive about comments like this, but what percentage of presumably non-ambulance chasers sign the lawsuits? Yes the lawyer comes up with the great idea, markets it, and takes way too much money in most class actions BUT behind EVERY SINGLE lawsuit a CLIENT signs on the dotted line to get MONEY!
On the other hand, my dad successfully pursued several class action lawsuits that resulted in banks changing how they calculate mortgage interest among other things that has now helped people for generations. So not all class action lawsuits only benefit the attorney.
Oh ya, and this attorney will be signing up for this lawsuit if it comes together!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lasting result of such a suit, if it goes in favour of the claimants...is that anyone who suffers a future IMS failure would be able to have Porsche fix it, no?
Also, bottom line...is all the actual facts would come out in such a case and we would all learn, once and for all, how wide spread this issue really is. No more internet-based deductions and conjecture. Tell me that wouldn't be nice?!
What won't be nice is that all of our cars will be devalued. This is not a widely known issue outside of our little community and, contrary to what some think, IMS failure is still a rare event (sorry SacTown). The publicity would damage the reputation of Porsche 911's in general, and the 996 in particular.
Yep, America, because of its legal system, with "ambulance chasers" does have a remedy for P-car owners with the IMSB defect.
Lets take a look at these ambulance chasers. The law firm will take the case on a contingency basis, that means that they don't get a penny unless there is a settlement or a jury verdict. The law firm will easily gamble hundreds of thousands of dollars UP FRONT to pay for the costs, experts, investigation, depositions, travel etc. Then they will invest tens of thousands of hours of attorney time to litigate the case, all with no guarantee of recovery, and all at no cost to the client.
And even if Porsche only agrees to a minimal, per person settlement, the class action will cost them much more than if they had just dealt with the problem in the beginning. The class action will be a huge deterent to Porsche in the future to put defective products on the market.
So yeah, these ambulance chasers make it better for all of us.
If you don't like class actions, get a lawyer, pay him up front and have him sue Porsche. Tel us how that works out.
I was just thinking about this and had a terrible thought.
Can Porsche settle with the law firm out of court to get them to drop the IMS suit? Say they offer the firm $1 mil and have them sign an agreement to never bring suit against Porsche again.
Is that what's really happening here?
It would defeat the purpose of the process wouldnt it? Else you would have a bunch of law firms just running around looking for issues to get rich off and not help the people in need?
Unless Im missing something about your legal system?
First and foremost I think that you need to share pics of your stable.
Second I think that our legal system is so far beyond repair (like our tax system) that we just need to start over.
Only those who are party to the class action lawsuit are held to the results, AFAIK. If you opt out, you can still sue separately. But if you opt out and there's a big settlement, you're SOL.
Ridiculous. Suing because a fraction of some cars upwards of 13 years old have engine failures is absurd. The only ones who will make out on that deal is the lawyers, with Porsche and Porsche owners footing the bill. Don't get sucked-in.
And when there is a settlement, which almost always happens in these cases, the law firm takes their 33% off the top, then charges for every photocopy, every minute on the phone, every time anyone on staff was "thinking" about the case while on the toilet, etc... The net-net is that the lawyers will take the bulk of the money and anyone who is party to the suit will get pennies. Porsche's reputation will be sullied, 996 values will be diminished, and owners who have actually suffered from the problems will have only a few dollars, if any, to their credit.
It appears that only owners of vehicles that suffered an IMS failure would be eligible. Where does that leave all the owners who replaced the IMSB as a precautionary move to avoid a catastrophic engine failure?
Years ago I had a Kodak Instant camera that I paid $100 for. Polaroid sued them for patent infringement and won. Kodak had to stop selling film for the camera, rendering it useless. There was a class action suit which was successful. Each person who was party to the suit received a coupon for $1.00 off the purchase of a Polaroid camera. The lawyers made tens of millions.
BMW stepped up when the spun bearing issues came up in the m3 engines as well as when there were issues to the subframes.. Owners who weren't affected were able to get their subframes checked and they did preventative stuff for the owners of the bearing who didn't lose their engines..
Who ever said that lawyer are actually around to help people??
Come on, they are in business like everyone else to make money for themselves.....they are not there for the good of the people, but rather to help themselves, same as everyone else.
Marc
This is so correct. Only half of the lawyers are dishonest. There is another 50%
that are trying to help people. Most Judges are/were lawyers so at least half of them are honest also. It is a good thing Porsche makes engines better than America makes lawyers.
Oh, you yanks with your attorneys!
The idea of an IMS lawsuit totally made me think of that quote from the Office Space movie:
Tom Smykowski: [Smykowski is in a full-body cast] Just remember, if you hang in there long enough, good things can happen in this world. I mean, look at me.
I don't know why any current 996 owners or former 996 owners who had to replace their IMSBs wouldn't be part of the class. Clearly, they need to build on evidence from 996 owners whose cars experienced catastrophic engine failure as a result of an IMSB failure to establish a case but, as others have noted, the class of owners potentially impacted by the failure is much, much larger.
-Eric
Again, doesn't work that way (as someone pointed out before) due to something called "privity". This means that only those people that have a direct contractual relationship with Porsche (i.e. they bought one new directly from Porsche) have any real claim, and then only if they suffered damages. Most of those people will likely have gotten new engines under warranty.
All that this lawsuit will do is lessen the value of the 996 line, by highlighting that some had gimpy engines - great, so we will become the "Pinto" of the Porsche line. No thanks.
However, the odds that this suit will get any media attention at all is pretty scant. I read somewhere that there are close to a thousand "your junk food made me fat" class actions in place, one against almost every maker of U.S. junk food or candy. I really don't feel this is a good use of the legal system...
Maybe one of our attorneys can answer this.
If people sign up for a class action suit and then ultimately there is no reward judgement, can the law firm bill it's expenses to those who have signed up for said class action?
How many here are the original owners of their Porsche? Probably less than 5%. It's going to be hard to find to many original owners that still own. I suppose previous owners who've experienced a failure can sign up?
There have been several potential class-action law suits discussed on the Cayenne boards over the years. The first was for ignition coils. The original coils on the V8 engines had a bad design and they failed prematurely at a relatively high rate. There was lots of talk about a law suit, and eventually Porsche agreed to replace them with a newer design at no charge to the customer, or to reimburse customers who had previously replaced their coils at a Porsche dealership. I fell into the latter category, and I was happy to be reimbursed.
The second one was around replacement map discs for PCM 2.0. Porsche decided to stop supporting this system in 2008. A law suit was threatened, and Porsche eventually provided updated the discs and made them available for purchase. Again, I was a happy customer.
The third one is for the well-known coolant pipe issue on V8 Cayennes. The OE plastic pipes fail at a high rate. If you wait until they burst, they can cause a host of other problems, including starter damage, transmission damage and even engine failure. I had mine replaced proactively at roughly $1,650 out of my pocket. There's a metal replacement pipe set available from Porsche. This one is still undecided. I'd like to see Porsche step up and reimburse me for my replacement costs like they did with the coils. I think it's possible, but I'm certainly not expecting it. I believe these pipes fail at a much higher rate than the 996 intermediate shaft bearing. I don't have data to support that, it's just my feeling from involvement on this and other boards and discussion with my mechanic.
If I compare these issues to the 996 issue, I think they are different on many levels. First of all, I believe the numbers are very low for IMS failure. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the vast majority of 996 and early 997 cars don't have the issue. Secondly, there's not a remedy for the situation that has been validated. Porsche doesn't offer an IMS retrofit kit. There are kits available from companies like LN Engineering that offer a ceramic bearing, but those aren't accepted by Porsche as a fix for this issue. Additionally, these bearings aren't infallible. They fail also. Finally, how do you calculate the damages that are due to the owners of these cars in a fair and equitable manner? Do you give everybody who owns a 996 some cash to compensate them for lost value and/or repairs? Do you reimburse original owners only? Do you pay for the upgrade to the LN Engineering bearing? What if that fails? I'm not the original owner of my 996, and I haven't had an issue. Should I be "compensated" for the IMS issue?
I think there are too many questions here. There's not a problem, according to Porsche. Therefore, there's not a validated "fix" for the issue. The newest 996 is now 7 years old. The numbers of cars affected are low. From Porsche's perspective, the majority of these issues occurred early and were handled by the original warranty or CPO warranty. The rest of them will be handled on an individual basis.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not trying to defend Porsche, I'm just trying to present my opinion on why I think a class-action suit on this issue will never happen. Even if it does, it won't produce a satisfactory outcome for 996 owners.
Personally, I have no issue with the lawyers making money in a law suit. They are providing a service for which they should be paid. I will say that the amount of the judgement that they often take in large suits is out of proportion, and that should be adjusted. In this particular case, I don't see any way that all the affected 996 owners can be satisfied.
Unfortunately the market hasn't brought these changes about. In the case of a class-action suit, greed is ultimately what drives people to get involved. Most of the people who are part of the suit have not suffered any significant damages. There are some people in the group who have suffered significantly, but the average person in the suit has not. These average people are willing to sign up for it because they figure they've got nothing to lose. Even if they only get a small settlement, their feeling is that they haven't really suffered and even a small payment would be upside.
If you look at the 996 IMS issue, it's the same way. I'm sure many people will sign up for it who haven't had IMS failure. They haven't really suffered any damages. When the case is settled, they get a small check and they feel like they have done alright. For those that have suffered a catastrophic engine failure on a ~$90K sports car that they bought new at a dealership, the settlement won't even come close to the amount of damages they have suffered.
It's the legal system that's flawed in the US, not the market.
I have many lawyer friends and something one said to me once, when i used to think like this guy. "you think us lawyers are bad, you should meet our clients. We only do what we are hired to do"
This reminds me of when i was trying to go lemon law on chrysler. The lawyer was all excited for the case till i asked him to sign an agreement his fees could not exceed my take of the portion of the settlement. He then would no longer take my call.
Not sure if I "get" the aforementioned. The forum just got through suggesting that cars that have had the IMS replacement done aren't worth more for having done so. If this is true, how can cars that have NOT had the mod done, be worth less, espcially when this issues is not well known, if at all, by prospective buyers??
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my statement but you're addressing a separate issue relating to breach of contract which goes to a different (but not incorrect) issue.
My point was that whether or not someone's 996 has experienced an IMS failure they should still have the ability to be a part of the class (assuming they satisfy basic civil procedure and other requirements). I was jumping through that assumption to the next step.
As others have pointed out, while catastrophic in more ways than one to the small fraction of owners whose cars have experienced it, the vast majority of 996 owners have not. That doesn't mean, however, that someone who bought their 996 from a Porsche dealer (cars with warranties from Porsche) might not someday experience a failure. I would hope/expect they would naturally include that group of owners as members in the class.
-Eric
I think the theory is that the 996's are worth less than 993's partly because of the IMS problem. This may be true but I think the water/air change, ugly headlights, etc... is more the reason.
However, for those that think the lower value of 996's makes them part of the class I would think the only ones damaged would be original owners. Any secondary owner bought on the "cheap" so has gotten the benefit of the IMS decline in value. I thus think the decline in value argument would only help original owners.
993 are worth what they because they are the LAST of the air-cooled, only made for 3 years and damn good cards.
996's are worth what they are because they built so damn many of them!
Sorry folks but there will be no class action suit. This train has left the station. I can picture it now ...
"Your honor on behalf of the tens, or perhaps even hundreds of Porsche 996 owners who failed to reach 200 thousand miles on their over 10 year old high-performance engines ... your honor? Your honor? Why are you laughing so hard?"
You don't think the attorneys thought of this before they started spending time and money on the case!? Think what you want of attorneys but most of us are decent at calculating the obvious into our risk calculations.
You're mischaracterizing the issue. It's not that 10 yr old engines don't reach 200K miles. It's that 7-8 yr old engines aren't even reaching 40K miles.
-Eric
