8 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996 with a CPO needs repair. Sound right?
Leading reported evidence
Use dealer
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 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.
Leading evidence: 'Use dealer' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use dealer' (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.
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.
8 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: 20261026T113718Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
My friend has recently purchased a 2003 996 Cab with 60500 miles. Car was purchased 55 days ago and he has put less than 1000 miles on it. It is a factory CPO'ed car purchased from a dealer. He has found that the clutch needs to be replaced and the dealer has given him a cold shoulder and a huge price tag to fix it. I realize that it is not covered but it seems to me that a dealer would want to take care of a customer. Thoughts?
Tell him to find a good independent and have it done there. It is unfortunate timing, but if a PPI was done, it probably would have turned up a clutch that was slipping. My guess is that one was not done since the car was CPO and he figured "what could go wrong?"
I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think people are paying about $1100 for the job these days. A far cry from what a clutch used to cost for the air cooled cars, I can assure you of that. No reason to use the dealer for a clutch.
This is the time that you really want to see RMS leak popup. I had an RMS leak a little over a year ago, and had the clutch done at the same time. I only had to pay for clutch parts, as the labor was already included in the RMS work done under CPO.
I'm not sure what you mean by that? Your version of 'take care of a customer' is unlikely to be the same as the dealers.
CPO or not CPO is largely irrelevant in this case I'm afraid as you have discovered.....
I believe that in order to certify the car the clutch has to pass inspection to certain spec or be replaced. Tell him to see how many miles on the clutch, read his certification inspection report, and read the service history printout including all work that was one to certify the car. If they skimped on this, you can possibly take it up with PCNA, but it will be an uphill battle, as unless they really screwed up on their documentation they will point the finger of blame at the driver for burning it.
