27 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHEpilogue to the battery problem.
Reported or suspected cause
be
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
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 report identifying a cause
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: 'be' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'be' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). 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 report identifying a cause
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.
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 report identifying a cause
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.
Reported cause
Good that the problem was discovered and rectified so easily.
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.
27 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.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Just in case it's helpful to anyone in the future... I've had a problem with my battery going flat. The car's previous owners put six batteries in it over the years. Everyone just shrugged and said that it's one of those stupid Porsche things.
So I let my indy loose on it, since being paid by the hour he's got an incentive to actually solve the problem. The answer? Years ago, someone put a Boomerang in the car (like Lojack), a first gen unit, and it was never removed. It was drawing 80 amps when the car was parked, day in and day out. With the device removed, the car is drawing so little power from the battery you could probably let it sit for months, now.
FWIW...
It was the brand in Canada. Lojack didn't do business here for a long time, but now Boomerang is a Lojack company. The technology was and is the same, and the current version of Lojack apparently doesn't have this huge power draw that the older one did.
There is always the chance that I'm misquoting the tech. Electrics aren't my thing. He'd said that 80% of the draw was coming from this one device, and I'd have sworn he said the total was 100, but I also had not finished my first cup of coffee yet.
Point is, the thing was a total hog.
No way it was 80 amps...maybe milliamps. Just had a similar problem in my wife's Lexus...the old unit was drawing 400 mamps...new one less than 40 mamps
To be absolutely fair, I personally didn't ask them. But the service records show that the previous owners did, to the tune of six batteries. I hate to say it, because I like my local dealers just fine, but the business model of a service department is such that they really avoid open-ended diagnostic work if they can. The profit, both for the mechanic and the operation, lies in the difference between how long the book says a job should take and how fast the tech can do it. A search and destroy mission against an electrical gremlin is going to tie a guy up for hours at shop rates, absolutely making both of them less money. A new battery is so much easier, much faster to do than the book says, and you get the parts markup on top of it.
My indy charges by the hour. Sometimes I get a bargain, and sometimes I pay through the nose. But at least I can trust that we both have an interest in getting the job done right, and it always, always is.
Thanks Bruce, for dashing my belief in humanity. What an idealistic fool, I am. I fully understand what you're saying; guess I just expect those who are paid to be problem-solvers actually do solve the problem -- or at the very least, make every effort to do so. Masking problems in the name of profit is an inherent aspect of capitalism, I suppose. Evidently, maintaining integrity in a business transaction is too much to ask for. The dealership service model really bites.
I'm a paid business/IT consultant whose primary purpose is project work. Of course there's added incentive for me to come in under budget, but if I employ such an approach to solving the client's problems for my added personal gain, I couldn't very well live with myself.
Rant over. Glad you got your problem solved.
You'll never believe this.
My indy just called again. As background, my car has had two previous owners. Well, it seems that both of them got sold Boomerangs by the dealership, and both units are still in the car, powered. They just yanked out the second one and got the wiring back up to spec (ie got rid of the electrical taped junctions for pete's sake). Car is now, to quote, "Happy as a pig in sh*t."
Geez.
Sorry for the disillusionment, Ucube.
I'm actually not a rabid anti-dealership guy, but the way they make money makes them best suited to routine work, for me, anyway.
Engineered Automotive in Concord. Billy is a long-time Porsche guy, raced turbo cup cars, crew-chiefed for Heimrath back in the day, loves them (although it's not exclusively a Porsche practice. They're also the Dinan distributor for Canada so work on BMW and Mini as well as Ferrari, Land Rover, like that). He seems to have all the Porsche diagnostic tools, and a good relationship with whoever he gets his parts from. And they're super-fussy, which suits me perfectly. PM me if you have more specific questions, but I've been super happy with them for a number of years.
Gotta love redundancies!
The second boomerang is for the Carjacker A, just in case Carjacker B steals the car. Carjacker A will have a way of getting it back.
