65 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHMan sues Porsche over blown engine
Reported or suspected cause
latent manufacturer's design defect," according
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.
Reported cause · Original poster
"Protosport informed Noble that they had previous experience with this same engine problem and that it was caused by a latent manufacturer's design defect," according to the suit, filed in U.S.
Leading evidence: 'latent manufacturer's design defect," according' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'latent manufacturer's design defect," according' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Inspect car and found antifreeze in the engine oil' (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.
Inspect car and found antifreeze in the engine oil
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 · Original poster
The suit says Noble's mechanic inspected the car and found antifreeze in the engine oil.
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
Porsche replaced a lot of engines for the faulty caasting and then more for the botched repair with the sleeves that come loose.
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
(Winnebago actually changed their handbooks on the back of this court case, just in case there are any other complete morons buying their vehicles.)
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
To Porsche's credit, they voluntarily replaced the whole car with a 2001 (net $5K out of my pocket since the 99 was low optioned and the 2001 was loaded).
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
Many engines had to be replaced due to a casting porosity problem which would cause cylinders to fill with coolant and actually put the engines into hydraulic lock.
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 · Original poster
The suit says a regional Porsche service manager told Noble that the company wouldn't pay to replace the engine because the four-year, 50,000-mile warranty issued when the car was new had expired.
Replace ton of engines, there would be quite a few
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
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
The best one is that if the engine problems were so big, and if Porsche did have to replace a ton of engines, there would be quite a few on the market right now with non-matching engine and frame serial numbers.
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
To Porsche's credit, they voluntarily replaced the whole car with a 2001 (net $5K out of my pocket since the 99 was low optioned and the 2001 was loaded).
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
latent manufacturer's design defect," according
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
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 · Original poster
"Protosport informed Noble that they had previous experience with this same engine problem and that it was caused by a latent manufacturer's design defect," according to the suit, filed in U.S.
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.
65 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: 20261027T000231Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
This article was in the Bergen Record's business section today.
A Northern NJ Paper
-He's got no shot...
Fairview man sues Porsche over blown engine
Monday, July 28, 2008
Last updated: Monday July 28, 2008, EDT 6:36 AMBY HUGH R. MORLEYSTAFF WRITERA Porsche 911 owner from Fairview has filed suit against the sports-car manufacturer's U.S. subsidiary, claiming a design defect destroyed the engine of his vehicle.
Gilbert Noble, in a July 22 suit filed against Georgia-based Porsche Cars North America Inc., said the water-cooled 1999 Carrera Coupe started emitting "large quantities of smoke" from the tailpipe in October 2006, just over a year after he bought the used roadster.
The suit says Noble's mechanic inspected the car and found antifreeze in the engine oil.
An inspection by a Pompton Plains Porsche specialist, Protosport, revealed that the antifreeze tainted the oil through a defective cylinder, the suit says.
"Protosport informed Noble that they had previous experience with this same engine problem and that it was caused by a latent manufacturer's design defect," according to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Newark.
Protosport said the engine was damaged beyond repair, and Noble would have to buy a used engine or a rebuilt engine from Porsche, the suit says. Noble's attorney, Roseland-based Bruce Nagel, said the cost of the repair would be about $8,000.
The Kelley Blue Book values the vehicle at about $26,000.
Porsche spokesman Gary Fong said the company has not yet seen the suit and couldn't comment.
"We don't even know what you are talking about at this point," he said.
Noble did not respond to a request for comment.
The suit, in which Nagel seeks class- action status, says Noble contacted Porsche multiple times about the problem, and that the company declined to pay.
"They turned a blind eye," the attorney said. "They simply say, 'We are not liable.' "
The suit says a regional Porsche service manager told Noble that the company wouldn't pay to replace the engine because the four-year, 50,000-mile warranty issued when the car was new had expired.
The suit accuses Porsche of product liability and breach of warranty and of failing to warn customers about the "dangerous" defect.
Noble seeks damages and legal fees and wants the court to force Porsche to recall the vehicles and replace all defective engines.
Porsche Cars North America is a division of Porsche Automobil Holding SE, based in Stuttgart, Germany.
E-mail:
[email removed]
http://www.northjersey.com/business/...purs_suit.html
Well, I base my comment that he has "no shot" on my personal opinion, take that for what it is worth. Nothing. Any other questions I can answer for you?
He should start soliciting people from sites such as this one from those who have experienced blown engines. Although many have signed a nondisclosure agreement, this can be muted by simply taking a deposition on what happened and what the solution was.
Could turn into quite an embarrassment for Porsche with substantial costs. My bet is that he gets a new engine, complements of Porsche.
Class action suit means a settlement will give the attorney's lot's of $$'s and owners of affected cars a certificate good for $1,000 off the purchase of a new Porsche.
As a guy who had to come out of pocket for a new engine, I say it is about time. I would gladly join his class-action suit and forgo the "Settlement" Porsche gave me and talk. I wanted to do it myself, but not being a lawyer and having a newborn procluded me at the time.
I am a products liability lawyer and I think he has a good shot. I have always wondered what the "warranty for a particular purpose" would mean in this circumstance. Engines don't just break on their own accord unless their is a manufacturing defect. However, I think his toughest proof will be overcoming the assertion that he did it to his car by over-revving, etc and that the engine problem is not a manufacturing defect. Of course this suit opens up Porsche to extensive discovery of all of the engine repairs that they have been unwilling to make public. Porsche would never let it go that far. I too think he will get his new engine.
No, that's all.
Thanks for posting the story.
I mean I guess the case could just get thrown out, ... or a jury might find a big corporation flush with huge profits that ignored a pattern of product failures?
It will never get to court, Unless this guy has some real blood lust for Porsche I bet they settle and shut him up. (Just MY opinion, I have no legal precedent nor training to base my assertion on)
The downside of class actions is that even if the case is won, Porsche owners will probably get a keychain or free floor mats on their next purchase . . .
Just by chance I was in a class action against a real estate company which supposedly pressured customers (I did not notice) into using their title company. The suit was settled after millions in legal fees. My coupon was good for about $350 but only if I purchased another house from this realtor within 2 years.
My guess is that it will not even go as far as class certification. While not a class action lawyer, I believe this process requires substantiation that all these engines failed for identical or similar reasons. Not sure you can do this now, as all the engines are back at Porsche.
However, once the class is certified, settlement of the case is not as easy as simply making the initial plaintiff happy - you must get court approval. This is why agree with earlier statements that this guy is likely to get his motor.
Stefan
Totally agree as well. The problem for porsche is that the discovery process would be so expensive and so unreliable that they probably will settle. However that will set a precedent and open the door to lots of future litigation.
I'd be Porsche's CFO, I would start putting up a substantial reserve in my books :-)
honestly, I don't know if this guy gets a hit on the motor, but I would sign onto a class for the coolant expansion tank in a minute.
I'm under CPO and it isn't covered? OK, tough luck for me, no big deal.
Oh, but the kid at the service desk remarks, "I can't believe these aren't covered, I've had like 10 guys in here this week with cracked tanks, and when I called the rep, and told him, 'hey this isn't a consumable, why isn't this covered?' all I got was dead silence."
That is a design flaw that should and could be covered, really annoys me due to how common it is. And he's right, it's not a consumable, it Shouldn't wear. It's a flawed design that results in failure of the part and potentially catastrophic subsequent damage to the motor. I want my MTV
Thats the problem in buying a used Porsche or any other car. You dont know if the previous owner abusively red lined the engine or worse down shifted in a wrong gear(money shift)[I know they could read this from the car's computer... stage II red line??) or repeatedly dropped the clutch in show off lauches that very possibly cause these problems.
I'm an attorney as well. There will be a settlement (if PNA is smart), it's that simple. The fact that the case got some publicity is key here....without the public scrutiny, the case could indeed have taken the back seat. This is NOT a bad faith cause of action and has some merit. If I had their stock, would I dump it? No.
J
This is a well documented problem with 1999 engines. I first heard about this in the book "The Used 911 Story" by Peter Zimmermann
Many engines had to be replaced due to a casting porosity problem which would cause cylinders to fill with coolant and actually put the engines into hydraulic lock. When Porsche identified this problem, they sent replacement engines verse just replacement parts.
I am not sure why Porsche won't settle but the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Yes, many times
In fact - I've seen PCNA provide a replacement engine to an out of warranty car, with salvage title!
He still got a Free Of Charge motor, when he pointed out his depth of knowledge on the 'issues' inherent in the M96... And an NDA to sign as well.
Of course all this must be pure hearsay, as I'm told by reliable fellows on this forum that the problems don't exist, and it's all just hype.
From the report cited:" a latent(hidden) manufacturer's design defect".
Mmmm, I wonder what Messrs Dell and Well'Mardac would say?
Predictably-"bs,naive,worthless substance,crap,buy another one or sell it if your so worried,your(fill in your nationality here)what have they ever done?,your a troll,get a life,etc etc.
This shouldn't happen(oil getting into coolant,cylinders cracking/slipping) not only on low mileage motors-any Porsche motor!
That's right just give the poor fellow a new motor to shut him up.
Sorry people- I'm just a stupid Aussie- I've got no idea what I'm talking about.
If you can sue a company for purchasing their product (hot coffee), then pour it all over yourself causing a mild burn, and win tens of thousands of dollars. Based on that, I'd say he's got a shot.
If a buglar can break into your home, injure themselves, sue you and win. Again, he's got a shot.
I am not fan of abusive law suits, but the listing of the coffee suit as a bastion of lawsuit abuse is ridiculous. Read the case on that one sometime, and you likely will not mention that again. FYI- the lady sued for medical expenses because she had 3rd degree burns on her hoohaw from the coffee. Again all she asked for was medical. McD's had already been warned numerous times by restaurant inspectors that their coffee was too hot and burned peoples skin, mouths, etc. They were doing it on purpose in order to keep the coffee out longer and not have to replace it as often. They were issued directives to reduce the temp of the coffee. The JURY awarded the lady more cash because they were trying to teach McD's a lesson about their business practices, and health of their customers. The lady won because she had a legit case, and McD's was grossly negligent. Again we are not talking about 95 degree coffee here we are talking intentionally hot enough to blister skin. You cannot do that.
Yup, that's the American justice system for you. Keep suing and you may hit the jackpot. Even if you don't think you have a case, sue anyway. And you'll find some ambulance chaser to do it for you. It'll cost at least $60K to defend a case, even a nonsense one. So, settle it off the bat. I'm not making any statements whether this particular case is nonsense or not, but $60K will pay for a new motor, plus put money in the ambulance chaser's pocket.
Well I hope he does get somewhere with this lawsuit. It can only benefit every 1999 996 owner like myself, that wonders what day and time my original stock 30k mile motor will detonate....
Heck even my dealer admits the 1999 996 motor is flawed.....hmmm
Sue the hell out em.....
My September 1998 build 1999 996 detonated at 23K miles. To Porsche's credit, they voluntarily replaced the whole car with a 2001 (net $5K out of my pocket since the 99 was low optioned and the 2001 was loaded). But then again, my car was fully within the warranty period also.
I lost count of how many motors we replaced at shop.
I am just curious, and have a few questions. This is a 1999 Carrera, 2nd (?) owner.
1. I wonder how many miles?
2. This is a 9 year old car. Not just any car, but a car that is supposed to be "driven like you stole it". I wonder how many 9 year old cars, driven aggressively, over X number of miles, will leak oil/coolant?
3. Is the assertion that since it is a Porsche, it should NEVER leak, regardless of age, driving history, and miles?
BTW, talk about design flaws. The 911 has the engine in the back, for crying out loud. That has to be one glaring design flaw, a cause of accidents and car breakdowns, something we can all make money from.
Okay, McD's made hot coffee, apparently TOO hot.
How about these:
Sued after getting stuck on the house he was robbing
In October 1998, A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re- enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. This upset Mr. Dickson, so he sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change.
In January 2000, Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000.00 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son.
In May 2000, a Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500.00 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.
In December 1997, Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000.00 and dental expenses.
In November 2000 Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnie. (Winnebago actually changed their handbooks on the back of this court case, just in case there are any other complete morons buying their vehicles.)
In June 1998, a 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000.00 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal.
Sued the phone company after having complications with the doctor
Michelle Knepper of Vancouver, Wash. Knepper picked a doctor out of the phone book to do her liposuction, and went ahead with the procedure even though the doctor was only a dermatologist, not a plastic surgeon. After having complications, she complained she never would have chosen that doctor had she known he wasn't Board Certified in the procedure. (She relied on the phonebook listing over asking the doctor, or looking for a certificate on his wall?!) So she sued ...the phone company! She won $1.2 million plus $375,000 for her husband for "loss of spousal services and companionship."
Yep I read that same article a while back... ever since then, I correct every mention I hear of the McD's coffee suit, and how people use it to illustrate frivolous lawsuits... when it is not really...
lol... you're another victim of Email Forwards... Hope you didn't forward it as well as post here...
They are all FALSE:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
Yup, those are urban legends.
I beleieve Mcdonalds still makes HOT coffee too hot, but now warns people not to stick it in their crotch.
I know that there is an organization that collects the funny but neccessary warning labels on products for the stupid people and their smart lawyers working our jackpot lotto justice system, with pictures to prove it. I'll look for it. In the meantime, here is one: A baby stroller has a bag in the back to help carry diapers and what not. A big label says "DO NOT PUT BABY IN BAG". DUHHH.
Again I am not defending idiotic lawsuits. My wife is a defense attorney (corporate) so I am certainly not one to defend idiotic, frivilous lawsuits, and there are countless ones out there. The McD's one is not one of them, but somehow is always the one people reference when trying to make the point of frivilous lawsuits. There is no basis in that. Now if you want to mention the 95 year old man who was suing a well known corporation for asbestos exposure claiming shortness of breath despite the fact that he admitted in deposition he had been smoking since age 5 (yes that is correct. he was a 90 year smoker) and the fact that his neighbor won enough money suing said corporation for asbestos exposure to get a new truck so he thought he would do the same....well I'd probably agree this is "frivilous".
No, I'm sorry you're all wrong. Everything on the internet is true. This just in...the Batboy will drive for Porshce in the next Le Mans series race.
http://www.comictreadmill.com/CTMBlo...es/Batboy.html
If you want to read about silly lawsuits, check out
www.atra.org
the American Tort Reform Association.
In the mean time I'll be interested to see how the guy with the faulty engine makes out. Porsche replaced a lot of engines for the faulty caasting and then more for the botched repair with the sleeves that come loose. I personally think they should give him a rebuilt engine, even off warranty.
Sorry, I've read the details from the "other" side and I'm not persuaded. Sure, McDonald's had received past complaints and past injuries (about 800) over coffee temps. Those facts figures were used to inflate jury anger (so were pictures of Stella Liebeck's injuries I'm sure), as were facts about McD's intentionally keeping the coffee hot to keep it out longer. However, you left out the part where they also made it hotter to enhance flavor and customer satisfaction for those consumers that "carry out" the coffee and still want it "hot" when they reach their destinations.
Still, 800 injuries is a massive amount and McDonald's revenue is over $20 Billion!! This evil corporation should pay.
However one should consider that MickyD's has well over 30,000 restaurants. (All of the sudden 800 reported injuries seems a little smaller.)
Then you consider McDonald's serves over 500,000,000 cups of coffee each year and 800 injuries seem downright puny. Even if one assumes all 800 injuries occurred in one calendar year. That's a problem rate of .00016 percent (Too bad Porsche can't make RMS's that reliable
).
Some foolish doubters might ask, how can 499,999,200 people successfully handle this toxically hot substance without injury? Surely, these fools don't realize how close they all came to the edge of an abyss with this toxic brew??
But McDonald's was obviously making obscene amount of $$ on its coffee after all how much profit is there in the Starbuckesque $5.00 cup of coffee. Those scumbags should pay. (Opps, wait McDonalds served their coffee for about $0.49 cents)......
Finally, one might consider that this lady decided to store this hot coffee in her crotch while piloting a moving vehicle. Does she bear any responsibility here?? (According to this wonderful jury her responsibility came to a mere 20%) (Hmmm, too bad she wasn't driving a Boxster, mine doesn't even have a cup holded and Porsche has obviously received numerous complaints about this dangerous ommission, the lawyers could have thrown Porsche into the party......as they also have obscene profits)
Even the judge realized that the $2.86 million dollar jury award was obscene!!! (The judge reduced it to $640,000 and it eventually settled for less than that).
Little surprise that this result comes from a country that contains 70% of the worlds lawyers (imagine the litigious fun they would have if the Nurburgring was located in the US of A!!)
What's that joke about 500 lawyers at the bottom of ocean again??...
My Law Professor had the break down of the McDonald's suit. The lady did not receive very much at all. I don't think you could of bought a new 911 for what she received.
The settlement was secret so I'm not sure how your law professor would know. However, the reduced award (prior to settlement) was $640,000.
Even after the sharks took their cut I'd bet she could easily buy a 911.
It's not leaking - it had an intermix failure due to a cracked cylinder
If the crack is in the 'usual place' - then I'm sure that's what they are basing their case on - it's happening in the same way to many cars, with many different owners, different milages etc etc
The common factor would be the form of failure - in this case.
no offense meant to our seniors, but if i remember correctly the plaintiff was 80 years old and couldn't open a cup of coffee without spilling it, probably not looking to the911 end of the Porsche product line!
This is dredging up an old thread......my 1999 996 which I purchased in 2005 with 55,000 miles on it now has 101,000 miles & is running as strong as ever.
Just thought I would throw that out there, lol......
Although there have been some catastrophic engine failures in 996s for sure (and I don't mean to minimize the pain and expense that some forum members have had), there are reasons to be suspicious that this is more than a rare occurrence. There is a great article in the Flat 6 magazine (from France) about the alleged engine problems in the 3.4L models - and it raises a few good points. The best one is that if the engine problems were so big, and if Porsche did have to replace a ton of engines, there would be quite a few on the market right now with non-matching engine and frame serial numbers. As someone who was just in the market for one for 4 months over the summer until I found one, I did not encounter this problem once. Calgary's top independent Porsche mechanic has said that he has NEVER seen the IMS issue with a 996 engine (although he has had it once on a 997).
All of that being said, the one thing that has raised questions for me about the engine issues is the LACK of any meaningful legal action in the U.S. I mean, you guys sue for everything and anything. Toyota was deluged with lawsuits (many of which it paid out huge sums to settle) over an issue that everyone now says never existed. So, if this issue was so widespread, why were there not more lawsuits? And don't give me that line about Porsche corporation being so big and powerful that they can suppress these with hush funds - if Toyota couldn't do that, then Porsche wouldn't have been able to either. I have yet to be able to find even one semi-serious class action about this.
Anyway, this thread is an interesting read.
Question for Jake: What is your experiance concerning location of these issues. I mean are you seeing more from hot states amd less from colder area's or does external temp's not seem to play a roll?
Well, now that you mention it, the car has not been used since my last post....I never left my house over the Holidays & it was raining today so I drove my truck to work.....supposed to be raining tomorrow as well.
Guess I will find out Wednesday!
- Cam
