9 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHToday's CPO vs. the older ones
Leading reported evidence
Replace under cpo
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.
Leading evidence: 'Replace under cpo' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace under cpo' (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
I recall someone not being able to get an RMS replaced under the old CPO.
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
So they do state the new one is supposed to be an extension of the new car warranty, and they use exclusionary language.
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.
9 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: 20261026T205155Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
As I understand it, the new CPO came into effect on 8/1/08.
It differs from the "old" CPO in that the "new" CPO mirrors the original factory warranty.
I recall someone not being able to get an RMS replaced under the old CPO.
I recently had my RMS replaced under CPO. My cars warranty started in Feb 09.
True. The old, which you most likely can't get any more (and I have), covers moving parts. For example, the cap on my coolant tank was bad - not covered - although I said you had to move it to get it off, but that didn't fly!.
it did cover rms and ims...had mine done
actually they are not hugely different. the old one was a little more "open to interpretation" whereas the new is just straight factory warranty equivalent.
However, as long as you had a good relationship with your service advisor - as i do - they can write issues up any which way they please to ensure coverage.......
http://www.porsche.com/filestore.asp...letype=default
"The Porsche Approved Certified
Pre-Owned limited warranty is just like
our new car limited warranty.
All you’re responsible for are normal
wear and tear components, such as
brake pads or wiper blades and
scheduled maintenance. What’s more,
you receive 2 years or 50,000 miles
of coverage (whichever comes
first) following the remainder of the
new car limited warranty. Plus, our
around-the-clock Porsche Roadside
Assistance in the unlikely event you
have trouble on the road.
All in all, you can rest easy knowing
that you’re covered. "
So they do state the new one is supposed to be an extension of the new car warranty, and they use exclusionary language. The old one has been fine for me ( and it covers plenty of parts that don't move as well as those which do, but it's basically inclusionary coverage, meaning there's a list of things that ARE covered and anything else you're SOL), but who wouldn't want better coverage!
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
