Aftermarket discs & pads - Page 4 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Need new discs and pads. Normally I’d go OEM via OPC for warranty reasons, but my car’s age means I can’t extend the warranty once it expires, so OEM isn’t a priority. What’s the best brand that matches OEM quality? I think the genuine parts are Textar - the non-Porsche Textar sets are around £260 cheaper. Are they really as good?

Hmmmmm. Ask yourself, “How much is a Porsche branded cardboard box worth?” If Textar are OE for your car, buy Textar. Same for Brembo. Unless you want them in a different box.

From memory I think the previous genuine discs I've bought had a Sebro label, and the pads had Textar on the back. I suppose there is always the risk that the material/compound is different to OEM, but I guess we'll never really know.

Apparently some of the non Porsche stuff can get a bit squeaky. I’ve not experienced it but may be of concern if you’re always used to OEM.

Last time I changed the brakes on my Cayman I bought OEM Texar discs for about a third of what porsche wanted. They have the Porsche part number on them... I bought the rear pads from Porsche as, after my OPC gave some discount, they were basically the same price as the non-Porsche branded items. The front pads were from Euro Car Parts and the same manufacturer as the Porsche ones. Braking performance has been the same as the original items. IIRC I did pads and discs all round for under £600 including the new caliper bolts from Porsche as they are meant to be single use items.

SkinnyPete said: From memory I think the previous genuine discs I've bought had a Sebro label, and the pads had Textar on the back. I suppose there is always the risk that the material/compound is different to OEM, but I guess we'll never really know. The Sebro discs and Textar pads are an excellent OE combination, they don't don't squeal and they work from cold, albeit they do produce a lot of black dust.

Rang Porsche to get prices as a baseline, the fronts alone have gone up £200 since I last replaced them in 2023. Sebro discs and Textar pads it is.

I've had 'Porsche', Sebro and Brembo discs with Textar pads, and all combos work equally AFAICT. I chose Brembo discs this time, as they have a better finish on the hats/edges, and by that I mean a proper anti-corrosive. If interested, choose the 'coated' range. Sebro at top, Brembo below.

Orangecurry said: I've had 'Porsche', Sebro and Brembo discs with Textar pads, and all combos work equally AFAICT. I chose Brembo discs this time, as they have a better finish on the hats/edges, and by that I mean a proper anti-corrosive. If interested, choose the 'coated' range. Sebro at top, Brembo below. That's great, thanks for sharing - the Sebro's are already in the post however!

Orangecurry said: I've had 'Porsche', Sebro and Brembo discs with Textar pads, and all combos work equally AFAICT. I chose Brembo discs this time, as they have a better finish on the hats/edges, and by that I mean a proper anti-corrosive. If interested, choose the 'coated' range. Sebro at top, Brembo below. I did exactly this for the same reasons. The Brembos have been absolutely fine and have resisted corrosion very well.

Its worth remembering that all pads that are sold have to meet ECE R90, which simplistically means that they cannot deviate frictionally +/- 15% from the OE equipment. In reality it means you wont notice the difference on the road between pad manufacturers. What you may notice is that other characteristics are different, i.e, dusting, noise, wear etc. Ive had several different pads manufacturers on my 987 over the years and the only time I was disappointed was when I fitted some Ferodo DS2500 for a trackday and ran them on the road afterwards, they simply didn't get hot enough during normal driving and became noisy and disintegrated over a winter! I fitted Brembo discs and pads all round about 3 years ago now and they are wearing well and most importantly the discs aren't rusting on the bell housing due to the coating!

Orangecurry said: I've had 'Porsche', Sebro and Brembo discs with Textar pads, and all combos work equally AFAICT. I chose Brembo discs this time, as they have a better finish on the hats/edges, and by that I mean a proper anti-corrosive. If interested, choose the 'coated' range. Sebro at top, Brembo below. Did you get the front Brembo discs which are a left and a right, or the ones they sell as suitable for either axle?

I have a 993, which only use LH RH fronts - the setup/options for other cars may vary. (As an aside, Brembos do occasionally appear on GSF at giveaway prices.)

SkinnyPete said: That's great, thanks for sharing - the Sebro's are already in the post however! Apologies for being too slow. You could always return them? What annoys me about the Sebros is that they quite obviously just spray the whole disc with a very thin layer of grey paint, and then sand the paint off the friction surfaces. Hats go rusty very quickly. Brembo apply some kind of coating on all exposted surfaces, including inside the vents/vanes.

Orangecurry said: I've had 'Porsche', Sebro and Brembo discs with Textar pads, and all combos work equally AFAICT. I chose Brembo discs this time, as they have a better finish on the hats/edges, and by that I mean a proper anti-corrosive. If interested, choose the 'coated' range. Sebro at top, Brembo below. The Brembos's look like a better casting

They both weighed 8.1kgs, if of any interest.

SkinnyPete said: From memory I think the previous genuine discs I've bought had a Sebro label, and the pads had Textar on the back. I suppose there is always the risk that the material/compound is different to OEM, but I guess we'll never really know. Correct Sebro discs Textar pads

When people talk about aftermarket Porsche brake parts, three names come up again and again: Brembo, Sebro, and Textar. What’s interesting is that these aren’t really “budget” alternatives at all — they’re often the same companies supplying the original equipment. Brembo discs are probably the most recognisable. The company manufactures braking systems for many high-performance cars and motorsport teams, and Porsche has long used Brembo calipers and components on models like the Porsche 911 and Porsche Cayman. Aftermarket Brembo discs are typically very close to OEM specification — high carbon cast iron, good heat stability, and designed to resist warping under repeated heavy braking. Sebro discs are less well known outside Porsche circles but are actually a major OEM supplier to Porsche. Many genuine Porsche-boxed brake discs are believed to be Sebro parts underneath the logo. They’re known for very consistent metallurgy and machining tolerances, which is why a lot of Porsche specialists recommend them as a near-identical replacement for factory discs but without the Porsche box price. Then there are Textar pads, produced by TMD Friction. Textar is another OEM supplier to Porsche, and their pads are often what you’ll find fitted from the factory. They tend to prioritise low noise, predictable bite, and relatively low disc wear, which is why they’re popular for road-focused cars even if track drivers sometimes switch to more aggressive compounds. A common setup Porsche specialists suggest is: • Sebro or Brembo discs • Textar pads • Fresh brake fluid It’s effectively OEM braking performance without paying the Porsche tax. The interesting thing is that in many cases the actual engineering hasn’t changed — just the box it arrives in.

SkinnyPete said: Need new discs and pads. Normally I d go OEM via OPC for warranty reasons <snip> You don't need to go OEM via OPC for warranty reasons. It's a legal obligation to honour a warranty with non-OEM parts if they can be shown to be of similar quality, and fitted by a proficient person. Obviously different if aftermarket parts have caused a failure by dint of non-original features or function. However if you're having good quality replacement parts fitted by someone that knows what they are doing you should have nothing to worry about. I feel Porsche sail pretty close to the wind to keep cars in the dealer network vs. consumer law, and in particular the current version specific to car servicing (MVBEO (2023)). I think they've mainly rowed back on their insistence on N-rated tyres to preserve warranty. Other consumable parts are similarly treated. Anything that unreasonably confines customers to the official dealer network, and to parts that are overpriced and required to be fitted exclusively, is quite simply not legal. The regulations were specifically written to prevent customers getting trapped in an overpriced monopoly. I have been fortunate enough so far to have my cars OPC serviced, and fitted with genuine Porsche parts, but I see that as a luxury I choose to afford. I don't have to, and they don't always get to change brake pads, discs and fluid for me. I'm just as happy to use an independent specialist that's more local. I also have a few non-standard suspension parts fitted to one of my cars that's still within warranty. In the unlikely event that ever becomes a warranty issue, I'll start by explaining the dealer's responsibilities under UK law. They'll probably see sense if I explain it properly.

LiamH66 said: It's a legal obligation to honour a warranty with non-OEM parts if they can be shown to be of similar quality, and fitted by a proficient person. Worth noting that's absolutely not the case for the extended 'warranty' which is really an insurance product and not a manufacturer warranty.

housemouse said: Worth noting that's absolutely not the case for the extended 'warranty' which is really an insurance product and not a manufacturer warranty. This ^ You can explain the dealer's responsibilities under UK law, until you're blue in the face, they'll probably show you the terms and conditions of the insurance policy you purchased off them and hope you're not so sanctimonious you can't see sense. If the warranty company state you must not modify the vehicle from standard in any way and that you should only use parts supplied by the car's manufacturer and have them fitted only by an authorised dealer within their approved dealer network, so be it. And t'was ever thus. Twenty years ago non-genuine batteries, wiper blades, non-N rated tyres, fitment of paint protection film, "garage door openers" non-standard stereos track biased brake pads, to name but a few, were all items that would and did invalidate extended Porsche warranties.

Early-bird said: When people talk about aftermarket Porsche brake parts, three names come up again and again: Brembo, Sebro, and Textar. What s interesting is that these aren t really budget alternatives at all they re often the same companies supplying the original equipment. Brembo discs are probably the most recognisable. The company manufactures braking systems for many high-performance cars and motorsport teams, and Porsche has long used Brembo calipers and components on models like the Porsche 911 and Porsche Cayman. Aftermarket Brembo discs are typically very close to OEM specification high carbon cast iron, good heat stability, and designed to resist warping under repeated heavy braking. Sebro discs are less well known outside Porsche circles but are actually a major OEM supplier to Porsche. Many genuine Porsche-boxed brake discs are believed to be Sebro parts underneath the logo. They re known for very consistent metallurgy and machining tolerances, which is why a lot of Porsche specialists recommend them as a near-identical replacement for factory discs but without the Porsche box price. Then there are Textar pads, produced by TMD Friction. Textar is another OEM supplier to Porsche, and their pads are often what you ll find fitted from the factory. They tend to prioritise low noise, predictable bite, and relatively low disc wear, which is why they re popular for road-focused cars even if track drivers sometimes switch to more aggressive compounds. A common setup Porsche specialists suggest is: Sebro or Brembo discs Textar pads Fresh brake fluid It s effectively OEM braking performance without paying the Porsche tax. The interesting thing is that in many cases the actual engineering hasn t changed just the box it arrives in. I don't think anyone has suggested they're "budget" parts, merely that like TRW, Lemforder, Bilstein etc, they're identical to the parts found in the Porsche box, often with the part number (ground off) in TRW's case, but without the Porsche/BMW logo on the box. As you've rightly said, there's a big reduction in price to be had by cutting out the middleman, Porsche, and their exorbitant "tax". The previous comments about the Brembo disc looking better quality than the Sebro are most likely down to the finishing process, and specifically the shot blasting process, Brembo may use a different medium which gives a smoother finish, Sebro may use a coarser, sharper medium because it removes the core material more efficiently. The quality of the material the disc is cast from will be carefully monitored, so aesthetics shouldn't be used as a yardstick to judge quality of the castings themselves. The Brembo and Sebro discs used to use exactly the same paint/primer, and thus used to look identical (I imagine because that was the minimum weather protection/ finish Porsche specified) and the discs were identical to the discs they supplied to Porsche. At some point a manufacturer most likely requested better corrosion protection, and Brembo upped their game, but then elected to put all their discs through the process, as it would cost little to nothing but be considered a good and USP.

Slippydiff said: This ^ You can explain the dealer's responsibilities under UK law, until you're blue in the face, they'll probably show you the terms and conditions of the insurance policy you purchased off them and hope you're not so sanctimonious you can't see sense. If the warranty company state you must not modify the vehicle from standard in any way and that you should only use parts supplied by the car's manufacturer and have them fitted only by an authorised dealer within their approved dealer network, so be it. And t'was ever thus. Twenty years ago non-genuine batteries, wiper blades, non-N rated tyres, fitment of paint protection film, "garage door openers" non-standard stereos track biased brake pads, to name but a few, were all items that would and did invalidate extended Porsche warranties. Can the warranty still be "invalidated", or will they just no longer cover that component/allow you to renew? I would hate for them to get out of a PDK gearbox claim just because I fitted non Porsche pads.

SkinnyPete said: Can the warranty still be "invalidated", or will they just no longer cover that component/allow you to renew? I would hate for them to get out of a PDK gearbox claim just because I fitted non Porsche pads. The extended warranty isn't covered by the legislation mentioned above that applies to new car warranties from manufacturers. In theory, Porsche can set whatever terms it wants. What the policy actually says is that if any non-Porsche part fitted outside of the OPC network is deemed to have caused a fault / issue / whatever that would otherwise have been covered by the policy, your cover will be void. It's unlikely that Porsche would deem brake pads as a cause of PDK failure. The problem in any given scenario if that if Porsche says, sorry, non Porsche part fitted, policy void, whatever reasoning they give, you are then faced with a legal dispute with a a far larger and wealthier entity than you (well, I assume!). Do you fancy that, even if Porsche's reasoning seems ridiculous? Brake pads and PDK failure you're probably safe. But if you're running the extended warranty, it makes sense to be very careful about fitting non-Porsche parts. It would be a bit silly to volunteer to pay for the warranty and then not play mostly by the rules. On the other hand, so long as any parts are Porsche and fitted correctly, there's no real reason to pay the OPC labour tax. So, that's where some sensible money can be saved.

housemouse said: SkinnyPete said: Can the warranty still be "invalidated", or will they just no longer cover that component/allow you to renew? I would hate for them to get out of a PDK gearbox claim just because I fitted non Porsche pads. The extended warranty isn't covered by the legislation mentioned above that applies to new car warranties from manufacturers. In theory, Porsche can set whatever terms it wants. What the policy actually says is that if any non-Porsche part fitted outside of the OPC network is deemed to have caused a fault / issue / whatever that would otherwise have been covered by the policy, your cover will be void. It's unlikely that Porsche would deem brake pads as a cause of PDK failure. The problem in any given scenario if that if Porsche says, sorry, non Porsche part fitted, policy void, whatever reasoning they give, you are then faced with a legal dispute with a a far larger and wealthier entity than you (well, I assume!). Do you fancy that, even if Porsche's reasoning seems ridiculous? Brake pads and PDK failure you're probably safe. But if you're running the extended warranty, it makes sense to be very careful about fitting non-Porsche parts. It would be a bit silly to volunteer to pay for the warranty and then not play mostly by the rules. On the other hand, so long as any parts are Porsche and fitted correctly, there's no real reason to pay the OPC labour tax. So, that's where some sensible money can be saved. What about Zunsports? Or do they still get tetchy about those? Personally I'd rather avoid holes in the condensers as that kind of thing gets pricey...

housemouse said: The extended warranty isn't covered by the legislation mentioned above that applies to new car warranties from manufacturers. In theory, Porsche can set whatever terms it wants. What the policy actually says is that if any non-Porsche part fitted outside of the OPC network is deemed to have caused a fault / issue / whatever that would otherwise have been covered by the policy, your cover will be void. It's unlikely that Porsche would deem brake pads as a cause of PDK failure. The problem in any given scenario if that if Porsche says, sorry, non Porsche part fitted, policy void, whatever reasoning they give, you are then faced with a legal dispute with a a far larger and wealthier entity than you (well, I assume!). Do you fancy that, even if Porsche's reasoning seems ridiculous? Brake pads and PDK failure you're probably safe. But if you're running the extended warranty, it makes sense to be very careful about fitting non-Porsche parts. It would be a bit silly to volunteer to pay for the warranty and then not play mostly by the rules. On the other hand, so long as any parts are Porsche and fitted correctly, there's no real reason to pay the OPC labour tax. So, that's where some sensible money can be saved. Probably best to keep the old rusty discs and pads in the shed, so they can be refitted if the car ever goes into OPC for anything major

Early-bird said: What about Zunsports? Or do they still get tetchy about those? Personally I'd rather avoid holes in the condensers as that kind of thing gets pricey... I've read numerous posts over the years were OPC have refused to extend warranty due to the grills. Having said that, you can renew over the phone these days.

housemouse said: Worth noting that's absolutely not the case for the extended 'warranty' which is really an insurance product and not a manufacturer warranty. It absolutely is the case for extended warranties, and for exactly the same reasons. The CMA guidance on MVBEO is very specific about this, and warns that extended warranties that don't explicitly state that alternative parts and services of equivalent quality may be used will likely fall foul of competition law. Doesn't matter whose product the warranty is. If it unreasonably restricts consumer choice, and therefore competitive pricing, it's prohibited. Paragraphs 5.39 and 5.40 of the CMA guidance state this really clearly: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/647...

Mine has just been in for a service and some warranty work and nothing was said. I even asked my service guy if I should take the Zunsport grilles off and he said nope, leave them on. I think it depends on the relationship you have with your OPC. BTW I have the Porsche extended warranty.

scrounger73 said: Mine has just been in for a service and some warranty work and nothing was said. I even asked my service guy if I should take the Zunsport grilles off and he said nope, leave them on. I think it depends on the relationship you have with your OPC. BTW I have the Porsche extended warranty. Thinking about it now, I did have the service manager clock my modified backbox a few years ago and he said it wasn t a problem (though the car wasn’t in for warranty work). Edited by SkinnyPete on Thursday 2nd April 17:04

LiamH66 said: It absolutely is the case for extended warranties, and for exactly the same reasons. The CMA guidance on MVBEO is very specific about this, and warns that extended warranties that don't explicitly state that alternative parts and services of equivalent quality may be used will likely fall foul of competition law. Doesn't matter whose product the warranty is. If it unreasonably restricts consumer choice, and therefore competitive pricing, it's prohibited. Paragraphs 5.39 and 5.40 of the CMA guidance state this really clearly: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/647... How you can read para 5.39 as supporting your case is a mystery. It does precisely the opposite: "Another relevant consideration is whether an extended warranty is being sold years after the purchase of the vehicle. This is because years after the vehicle purchase, authorised dealers do not enjoy the same degree of privileged access to customers as they do in the period shortly after the purchase. As a consequence, alternative providers of extended warranties, such as chains of independent repairers and insurance firms are less likely to face significant barriers preventing them from offering their products to vehicle owners. In such circumstances, it seems less likely that independent repairers could face a significant foreclosure effect even if car warranties issued by suppliers of motor vehicles or their Authorised Networks contained servicing or parts restrictions." What para 5.39 makes clear is that for the Extended warranty sold years after a car is manufactured, concerns around competition in the market and independent service providers suffering from the impact of main dealer monopolies on parts and service ("service and parts restrictions") do not apply. Where the guidance would apply is for extended warranties beyond the standard manufacturer warranty that are applied "at the moment of the sale of the motor vehicle (or shortly thereafter)" [Footenote 52, as you like the references!]. In other words, if they sell you an extended warranty when you buy a new car, then the same rules apply to that as the new car manufacturer warranty. There may be a bit of a grey area with cars just outside the original warranty (but I actually doubt that given it would be years after the car was originally bought). But for anything several years old, like a 981, forget it. The CMA guidance very clearly doesn't apply. Edited by housemouse on Thursday 2nd April 18:21

SkinnyPete said: Slippydiff said: This ^ You can explain the dealer's responsibilities under UK law, until you're blue in the face, they'll probably show you the terms and conditions of the insurance policy you purchased off them and hope you're not so sanctimonious you can't see sense. If the warranty company state you must not modify the vehicle from standard in any way and that you should only use parts supplied by the car's manufacturer and have them fitted only by an authorised dealer within their approved dealer network, so be it. And t'was ever thus. Twenty years ago non-genuine batteries, wiper blades, non-N rated tyres, fitment of paint protection film, "garage door openers" non-standard stereos track biased brake pads, to name but a few, were all items that would and did invalidate extended Porsche warranties. Can the warranty still be "invalidated", or will they just no longer cover that component/allow you to renew? I would hate for them to get out of a PDK gearbox claim just because I fitted non Porsche pads. From memory, the car had to be inspected prior to the extended warranty being issued, and, if my memory serves me correctly, that warranty being extended too, ANY non-standard or non-genuine parts fitted, would mean the warranty was invalidated or could not be extended. As highlighted, this was the official Porsche sanctioned extended warranty (basically an insurance policy) NOT the manufacturers warranty which would normally be issued when buying an approved used car through an OPC.

Slippydiff said: Twenty years ago non-genuine batteries, wiper blades, non-N rated tyres, fitment of paint protection film, "garage door openers" non-standard stereos track biased brake pads, to name but a few, were all items that would and did invalidate extended Porsche warranties. Unitl 13 years ago to be more precise. The rules changed in 2013, stopping non-OEM consumable parts being a reason for warranty voiding or exclusion. This carried over from EU to UK regulations in 2023, which is when the CMA guidance I have referenced above was published. Don't explain until you are blue in the face. Politely put forward your rights, and the dealer's and manufacturer's obligations, assuming you know and understand them. If they fail to acknowledge or understand, you can either suck it up, walk to another brand or dealer, or engage a legal team. If enough people do the last of those, the intention of the regulations is more likely to bear fruit. If none do so, there will always be a marked difference between OEM and aftermarket pricing. Zunsport grills are an obvious warranty exclusion. They change the nature of the cooling system. No manufacturer in their right mind would see this as other than a modification that could contribute to a mechanical failure. Liam Edited by LiamH66 on Friday 3rd April 23:33

So you're saying that clauses 2b/c/d/e in the "What is not covered" section, aren't enforceable despite being made explicit in the warranty T&C's ? Screen shot taken from link in this conveniently timed post in this thread : https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... For the record, I've no axe to grind, it's 14 years since I last bought a used car off an OPC (997.1 GT3) and 9 years since I took a car to an OPC for servicing/repairs. The only reason I darken my local OPC's doors these days, is to buy parts that are not available elsewhere. And in those circumstances, I'd rather buy used parts than swell Sytner's coffers.

Your car doesn't need to be inspected before purchasing the extended warranty as long as the car is currently under warranty. If you want to buy an extended warranty and the car isn't in warranty then you'll have to have a 111 point check. I extended my warranty over the phone and by email.

housemouse said: How you can read para 5.39 as supporting your case is a mystery. It does precisely the opposite: Apologies for the length of this response. You can read it and understand a different take from the mainstream view, or just ignore it and move on. I'm really not interested in getting into an argument about any of it. I hope some might find it useful, as it seems few consumers understand their rights, and the responsibilities of people they buy from. @housemouse, with respect, I'm not putting forward any sort of "case". You stated that the responsibility to honour a warranty where "pattern" parts may have been fitted does not necessarily apply to extended warranties. This is factually incorrect, and may lead people to think they have to stay inside an original dealer network for parts and service to maintain a warranty long term. (See paragraph 5.38 of the CMA guidance). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/647... Manufacturers and their service networks love people to believe they have the power to make sure customers have to stay in their network and use only OEM parts to preserve a warranty. They have far less control than they often intimate, but of course it's not much in their interest to publicise this. To clarify context, the CMA guidance is for businesses offering warranties, not for consumers. Paragraph 5.39 tells them that the CMA don't expect there to be many issues with extended warranties on older vehicles, as most of them will have fallen outside the manufacturer's main dealer network. I.E. Warranty, parts and service will all be independent of the vehicle manufacturer already, so likely not falling foul of Chapter I prohibitions in the Consumer Act 1998. It doesn't say the prohibitions do not apply, it says such foreclosure events are less likely. Paragraph 5.40 goes on to tell them that any other restrictions they place on independent service in a warranty will likely also be prohibited under Chapter I. Paragraph 5.41 tells them their best bet is to let consumers know they have the right to get their vehicle serviced independently without losing the benefit of a warranty, and that way they can't be accused of operating under anything prohibited in Chapter I. If you are unfamiliar with the Consumer Act 1998 (CA98), it's worth understanding what Chapter I is all about. It prohibits anti-competitive business practices, like forcing consumers to buy overpriced OEM parts and main dealer services to maintain a warranty, thereby foreclosing the opportunity for independent businesses to trade and make for a competitive market. There have been a shedload of specifics added to the guidance for all this for the motor trade over the years, as anti-competitive practices are very common, and seldom in the consumer's best interest. If a manufacturer or dealer network is found guilty of practices prohibited under Chapter I, it's really serious. First of all, any agreements they have made that are found to infringe are void and unenforceable. They can also be subject to fines of up to 10% of their worldwide turnover. Paragraph 5.40 of the CMA guidance is therefore really important. It's telling the manufacturers and their dealer networks that if they place unfair restrictions on the use of aftermarket parts (paragraphs 5.36-5.37 of the CMA guidance), even if it's through a 3rd party warranty (paragraph 5.38), they might find themselves absolutely and monumentally screwed. The part where there might be a good argument is when it comes to taking out an extended warranty. I've never looked into extended warranty conditions very hard. Almost perversely, given what I've just explained, I'm a fairly hard-core user of OEM service parts for most vehicles I own. I use a very good indie specialist for some work outside regular service intervals, but generally insist on Porsche branded parts. I also really like the OPC I've been using for the last 10 years, so make a point of putting as much work their way as I reasonably can. I guess a condition of extending a warranty could be that the vehicle has to only have ever been fitted with OEM parts, and has been serviced within the main dealer network at the suggested service intervals. This would be slightly perverse of course, as the moment the warranty has been signed, the customer can go anywhere they like (within reason, and paragraph 5.37 of the guidance). I'd hazard a wild guess that the policing of N-rated tyres for extended warranties is not actually a Chapter I infringement, as the tyres are generally available in multiple brands, and with aftermarket discounts. However, were I ever told I had voided my warranty because tyres of the same specification and quality, but not N-rated had been fitted, I'd certainly seek legal advice. It does seem that this has become less of a focus. Short version: 1. It is not legally allowed to void a warranty on the basis that "pattern" parts have been used on a vehicle. 2. This is true of extended warranties too, whether from a manufacturer, or from a 3rd party insurance company. 3. It is legally allowed to refuse a warranty claim on the basis that non-OEM parts or service quality have caused or contributed to the claim. 4. Extended warranty conditions at the point of sale can probably be anything the seller reasonably wants, but that does not mean the conditions are all enforceable. Liam Declaration: I'm not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice. However I'm more familiar with consumer law and rights than the average layman, as I've had to step into the area on behalf of consumer goods manufacturers many times in the last 15 years. I have engaged legal services from local Solicitors, all the way up to KC over this time. It can get very expensive defending yourself in all this, and consumer protection and rights are much stronger than most consumers understand. Sensible corporate CEOs live in absolute fear of infringing CA98, especially anything that could be construed anti-competitive by taking a monopoly or forming a cartel to fix prices. Edited by LiamH66 on Friday 3rd April 23:31 Edited by LiamH66 on Saturday 4th April 18:14

Slippydiff said: So you're saying that clauses 2b/c/d/e in the "What is not covered" section, aren't enforceable despite being made explicit in the warranty T&C's ? No, I'm definitely not saying that. I've gone back and numbered the main points in the "short version" of my post. 2. b/c/d/e are the warranty's assertion of their rights under my point 3 above. If you buy off brand and it causes problems, you're on your own. However this only to the extent of defects caused by the work or parts that were sourced outside the dealer network and OEM parts. It cannot invalidate your warranty entirely.

My indy put "identical to Porsche" discs on my 981C. Squealed to hell and back. 2nd set of pads the same. Swapped out for genuine Porsche discs and problem solved.

Discs and pads fitted. Not sure how you would be able to tell the pads are aftermarket went in situ as there are no markings visible, and to my eyes and they look identical to OEM. Discs are a little different as there are some identification marks on the ridge.

DJMC said: My indy put "identical to Porsche" discs on my 981C. Squealed to hell and back. 2nd set of pads the same. Swapped out for genuine Porsche discs and problem solved. Yes I have heard this hence paid the extra. Interested to hear how SP gets on.

LiamH66 said: Stuff. I can't agree. The whole point of para 5.39 is to explain why there are not the same concerns around extended warranties bought years after the original vehicle purchase as there are around manufacturer warranties for new cars or warranties bought at or near the original point of purchase. It absolutely and explicitly contradicts your position that extended warranty insurance policies fall under the same guidance. Para 5.39 makes it clear that the reason why is because OEM extended warranties that make stipulations about parts and service are not a threat to the independent service industry. The "such foreclosure" point you make is ultimately specious. In the end, any such dispute would or would not result in a "foreclosure" according to a court judgement and that judgement would be taken with direct reference to the CMA guidance and para 5.39. Which is why, as pointed out above by someone else, there are passages in the Porsche policy document that flatly contradict the guidelines and why Porsche can insist that a car that currently isn't under extended warranty must have had its most recent service of the correct type in the schedule done by an OPC, otherwise the car must have a major service before qualifying for the warranty. Likewise, if a car within the extended warranty is serviced outside the network, the warranty cannot be renewed until the car is once again serviced at an OPC. That is Porsche's policy and it would clearly contradict CMA guidance (at least it certainly was the last time I was in direct contact with the OPC network in circa 2021/2022) were you correct about how it applies to extended warranty insurance policies. But I contend you're not and that Porsche understands how the guidance does and does not apply. TL;DR The whole Block Exemption thing is not about extended warranties bought years after the original sale of a vehicle. Edited by housemouse on Sunday 5th April 20:42

housemouse said: LiamH66 said: Stuff. I can't agree. The whole point of para 5.39 is to explain why there are not the same concerns around extended warranties bought years after the original vehicle purchase as there are around manufacturer warranties for new cars or warranties bought at or near the original point of purchase. It absolutely and explicitly contradicts your position that extended warranty insurance policies fall under the same guidance. Para 5.39 makes it clear that the reason why is because OEM extended warranties that make stipulations about parts and service are not a threat to the independent service industry. The "such foreclosure" point you make is ultimately specious. In the end, any such dispute would or would not result in a "foreclosure" according to a court judgement and that judgement would be taken with direct reference to the CMA guidance and para 5.39. Which is why, as pointed out above by someone else, there are passages in the Porsche policy document that flatly contradict the guidelines and why Porsche can insist that a car that currently isn't under extended warranty must have had its most recent service of the correct type in the schedule done by an OPC, otherwise the car must have a major service before qualifying for the warranty. Likewise, if a car within the extended warranty is serviced outside the network, the warranty cannot be renewed until the car is once again serviced at an OPC. That is Porsche's policy and it would clearly contradict CMA guidance (at least it certainly was the last time I was in direct contact with the OPC network in circa 2021/2022) were you correct about how it applies to extended warranty insurance policies. But I contend you're not and that Porsche understands how the guidance does and does not apply. TL;DR The whole Block Exemption thing is not about extended warranties bought years after the original sale of a vehicle. Edited by housemouse on Sunday 5th April 20:42 This question seems to come up quite a lot whenever people start looking at the Porsche extended warranty, particularly if the car has previously been maintained by a good independent. The basic issue is whether Porsche can require servicing and parts to be done within the Porsche network, and how that fits with the UK Competition and Markets Authority guidance on motor vehicle agreements. I had a look through the CMA document that’s been circulating (the one published by the UK government) and it’s actually quite interesting. The guidance essentially continues the same principles that existed under the EU block exemption rules. The key point is that manufacturers generally cannot make a warranty conditional on routine servicing or maintenance being carried out only within the authorised dealer network. The intention is to prevent manufacturers from shutting independent specialists out of the servicing market. In other words, simply servicing a car outside the dealer network shouldn’t automatically invalidate a warranty. The important caveat is that the manufacturer can still refuse a claim if the failure was caused by the independent repairer or by non-approved parts. So the focus becomes causation. If the service was done correctly and the parts used were equivalent quality, then the warranty itself shouldn’t disappear purely because it wasn’t done at a main dealer. Where this gets slightly more complicated is with Porsche’s own warranty terms. Looking at the documentation from Porsche, the conditions generally require that the car is serviced according to the correct schedule and maintained to Porsche standards. They also state that claims can be refused where improper servicing, repairs, or unsuitable parts have caused the issue. So the wording doesn’t explicitly say the car must always be serviced at a Porsche Centre, but it does give Porsche the ability to reject claims if they believe non-approved work contributed to the fault. The extended warranty itself is where things get even more interesting. Porsche tends to treat the extended warranty as a fairly tightly controlled product. Usually the car needs to pass a Porsche inspection before the warranty can be issued or renewed, and any faults identified during that inspection normally have to be fixed within the Porsche network. Cars with modifications or non-standard parts often have to be returned to factory spec first as well. Once the warranty is active, most owners continue servicing within Porsche anyway simply because it removes any possible arguments if a claim arises later. If you have a major engine or gearbox issue you probably don’t want to be debating service records and parts sourcing. From a purely legal perspective though, the CMA guidance suggests that manufacturers shouldn’t be able to impose blanket requirements forcing all routine servicing to be carried out by authorised dealers. Independent specialists should still be able to service the car without automatically voiding warranty coverage. In reality there’s a bit of a grey area because extended warranties can be structured more like insurance products rather than the original manufacturer warranty. That sometimes allows providers to impose stricter entry conditions or inspection requirements. My suspicion is that while the legal framework allows servicing outside the network, most owners keep everything within Porsche during the warranty period simply because it keeps the process straightforward if something expensive goes wrong. It would be interesting to hear if anyone here is actually running a Porsche extended warranty on something like a Porsche 981 Cayman or Porsche 718 Boxster while using an independent specialist for servicing, and whether any warranty claims have been accepted without pushback. That would probably tell us more about how this works in the real world than the legal guidance alone.

And if you want to add to the muddiness of the waters, how about Porsche Partner Network use.... https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Early-bird said: It would be interesting to hear if anyone here is actually running a Porsche extended warranty on something like a Porsche 981 Cayman or Porsche 718 Boxster while using an independent specialist for servicing, and whether any warranty claims have been accepted without pushback. That would probably tell us more about how this works in the real world than the legal guidance alone. My dad had a Porsche extended warranty on his 981 GTS, always serviced outside the OPC network (JZM and GT One). Also has Girodiscs fitted all round, in place of the standard PCCB discs. Had £3k+ of extended warranty work relating to the exhaust, air con and rear spoiler motor with no issues.

housemouse said: I can't agree. The whole point of para 5.39 is to explain why there are not the same concerns around extended warranties bought years after the original vehicle purchase as there are around manufacturer warranties for new cars or warranties bought at or near the original point of purchase. It absolutely and explicitly contradicts your position that extended warranty insurance policies fall under the same guidance. Para 5.39 makes it clear that the reason why is because OEM extended warranties that make stipulations about parts and service are not a threat to the independent service industry. The "such foreclosure" point you make is ultimately specious. In the end, any such dispute would or would not result in a "foreclosure" according to a court judgement and that judgement would be taken with direct reference to the CMA guidance and para 5.39. Which is why, as pointed out above by someone else, there are passages in the Porsche policy document that flatly contradict the guidelines and why Porsche can insist that a car that currently isn't under extended warranty must have had its most recent service of the correct type in the schedule done by an OPC, otherwise the car must have a major service before qualifying for the warranty. Likewise, if a car within the extended warranty is serviced outside the network, the warranty cannot be renewed until the car is once again serviced at an OPC. That is Porsche's policy and it would clearly contradict CMA guidance (at least it certainly was the last time I was in direct contact with the OPC network in circa 2021/2022) were you correct about how it applies to extended warranty insurance policies. But I contend you're not and that Porsche understands how the guidance does and does not apply. TL;DR The whole Block Exemption thing is not about extended warranties bought years after the original sale of a vehicle. Edited by housemouse on Sunday 5th April 20:42 We reach different conclusions from reading the same document. Doesn't really matter, as it's for the CMA's legal team to clarify arguments, and for the courts to reach decisions on what the legislation means, and whether Porsche's policies are in line with it. Your views are clear, so are mine. No point arguing. Liam

And of course OPCs are paid to do warranty work making it in their interest to do it unless they are so over run with other more profitable work that they lack capacity. Not a problem my local OPC is having if their emails looking for me to come in for reduced price air con servicing, alignment and so on are anything to go by.

PaulD86 said: And of course OPCs are paid to do warranty work making it in their interest to do it unless they are so over run with other more profitable work that they lack capacity. Not a problem my local OPC is having if their emails looking for me to come in for reduced price air con servicing, alignment and so on are anything to go by. Twelve months ago my local OPC were overwhelmed with warranty work, the vast majority of it Taycan HVAC kettles and failed batteries. The waiting time for servicing was many, many weeks accordingly.

Slippydiff said: PaulD86 said: And of course OPCs are paid to do warranty work making it in their interest to do it unless they are so over run with other more profitable work that they lack capacity. Not a problem my local OPC is having if their emails looking for me to come in for reduced price air con servicing, alignment and so on are anything to go by. Twelve months ago my local OPC were overwhelmed with warranty work, the vast majority of it Taycan HVAC kettles and failed batteries. The waiting time for servicing was many, many weeks accordingly. Interesting. I don't know if things have changed with my local OPC but throughout Dec, Jan and Feb I was getting emails from them practically begging me to come in for something. And last month the sales team offered me a 3 course lunch to come and look at the 992.2. Given I haven't spent any money with them beyond buying parts for 5 years now, it did suggest business might be a bit slow.

SkinnyPete said: Early-bird said: What about Zunsports? Or do they still get tetchy about those? Personally I'd rather avoid holes in the condensers as that kind of thing gets pricey... I've read numerous posts over the years were OPC have refused to extend warranty due to the grills. Having said that, you can renew over the phone these days. I spoke to OPC Perth before fitting to my Macan GTS and was told no issue with warranty. That's new car warranty/2 year with purchase, not extended warranty . didn't ask that specific question......

On the subject of aftermarket brakes, to my disappointment Surface Transforms ceased trading on the 12th March. I hope this isn't repeat of earlier posts ... I had a death in the family on the 11th so have been somewhat preoccupied !!

Early-bird said: DJMC said: My indy put "identical to Porsche" discs on my 981C. Squealed to hell and back. 2nd set of pads the same. Swapped out for genuine Porsche discs and problem solved. Yes I have heard this hence paid the extra. Interested to hear how SP gets on. I regret to post that the brakes squeal like hell. Glad I kept the OEM ones as they still have 50% life left in them. I’m going to blast these aftermarket ones on a track day and switch back.

Early-bird said: Apparently some of the non Porsche stuff can get a bit squeaky. I ve not experienced it but may be of concern if you re always used to OEM. I had genuine Porsche front discs and pads which were really squeaky and the car was bought from an OPC as used approved. Now got aftermarket and no squeaking.

SkinnyPete said: I regret to post that the brakes squeal like hell. Glad I kept the OEM ones as they still have 50% life left in them. Sebro discs and textar pads? [flamesuit-on] did you bed them in properly? [flamesuit-off]

Define properly? In my experience, only track day pads squeal. Never driven or owned a Porsche with squealing brakes...and this is my 5th if not 6th set of pads on my current Cayman.

SkinnyPete said: Define properly? This is PH - everyone will have a different answer but rather than typing myself this is the first one I found - I always do some/all of this on any new pads/discs on any car. Seems to lead to good braking and no problems. theinternet said: Step 1: Find a Safe Location Choose a safe, open area with a long stretch of road. Make sure the area allows you to accelerate and brake multiple times without interruption. Step 2: Initial Braking Accelerate to 35-40 mph. Apply the brakes gently, bringing the car down to about 5-10 mph (don’t come to a full stop). Repeat this 5 times to gradually warm up the brakes. Note: Apply the brakes smoothly, without aggressive or hard stops, to prevent overheating the pads and rotors. Step 3: Medium Braking Accelerate to about 45-50 mph. Apply moderate pressure to the brakes and bring the car down to 5-10 mph again, without coming to a complete stop. Repeat this step 3-4 times. This stage helps build up the heat needed to transfer the pad material onto the rotor without creating too much stress on the system. Step 4: Hard Braking Accelerate to 55-60 mph. Apply firm pressure to the brakes (but not a full-force emergency stop) and reduce speed quickly to 5-10 mph. Repeat this step 3-4 times. At this stage, you should start to feel the brakes responding more strongly and consistently. This means the transfer layer is forming properly. Step 5: Cool Down After completing the hard braking, drive at a steady pace (around 40-50 mph) for about 5-10 minutes without using the brakes. This allows the pads and rotors to cool down slowly, preventing uneven material deposits or warping. Avoid coming to a complete stop during the cool-down process, as keeping the pads pressed against the hot rotors can leave uneven pad material deposits.

Every time I’ve gone non OEM on pads they end up squeaking. YMMV of course…

Orangecurry said: SkinnyPete said: Define properly? This is PH - everyone will have a different answer but rather than typing myself this is the first one I found - I always do some/all of this on any new pads/discs on any car. Seems to lead to good braking and no problems. theinternet said: Step 1: Find a Safe Location Choose a safe, open area with a long stretch of road. Make sure the area allows you to accelerate and brake multiple times without interruption. Step 2: Initial Braking Accelerate to 35-40 mph. Apply the brakes gently, bringing the car down to about 5-10 mph (don t come to a full stop). Repeat this 5 times to gradually warm up the brakes. Note: Apply the brakes smoothly, without aggressive or hard stops, to prevent overheating the pads and rotors. Step 3: Medium Braking Accelerate to about 45-50 mph. Apply moderate pressure to the brakes and bring the car down to 5-10 mph again, without coming to a complete stop. Repeat this step 3-4 times. This stage helps build up the heat needed to transfer the pad material onto the rotor without creating too much stress on the system. Step 4: Hard Braking Accelerate to 55-60 mph. Apply firm pressure to the brakes (but not a full-force emergency stop) and reduce speed quickly to 5-10 mph. Repeat this step 3-4 times. At this stage, you should start to feel the brakes responding more strongly and consistently. This means the transfer layer is forming properly. Step 5: Cool Down After completing the hard braking, drive at a steady pace (around 40-50 mph) for about 5-10 minutes without using the brakes. This allows the pads and rotors to cool down slowly, preventing uneven material deposits or warping. Avoid coming to a complete stop during the cool-down process, as keeping the pads pressed against the hot rotors can leave uneven pad material deposits. Well if they weren't bedded in, they are now.

^ M25?

I'm thinking Whitehall.

Orangecurry said: SkinnyPete said: Define properly? This is PH - everyone will have a different answer but rather than typing myself this is the first one I found - I always do some/all of this on any new pads/discs on any car. Seems to lead to good braking and no problems. theinternet said: Step 1: Find a Safe Location Choose a safe, open area with a long stretch of road. Make sure the area allows you to accelerate and brake multiple times without interruption. Step 2: Initial Braking Accelerate to 35-40 mph. Apply the brakes gently, bringing the car down to about 5-10 mph (don t come to a full stop). Repeat this 5 times to gradually warm up the brakes. Note: Apply the brakes smoothly, without aggressive or hard stops, to prevent overheating the pads and rotors. Step 3: Medium Braking Accelerate to about 45-50 mph. Apply moderate pressure to the brakes and bring the car down to 5-10 mph again, without coming to a complete stop. Repeat this step 3-4 times. This stage helps build up the heat needed to transfer the pad material onto the rotor without creating too much stress on the system. Step 4: Hard Braking Accelerate to 55-60 mph. Apply firm pressure to the brakes (but not a full-force emergency stop) and reduce speed quickly to 5-10 mph. Repeat this step 3-4 times. At this stage, you should start to feel the brakes responding more strongly and consistently. This means the transfer layer is forming properly. Step 5: Cool Down After completing the hard braking, drive at a steady pace (around 40-50 mph) for about 5-10 minutes without using the brakes. This allows the pads and rotors to cool down slowly, preventing uneven material deposits or warping. Avoid coming to a complete stop during the cool-down process, as keeping the pads pressed against the hot rotors can leave uneven pad material deposits. BMW used to provide a super little cardboard "coat hanger" that was hooked over the rear view mirror after your pads or pads and discs had been replaced. It basically said for the first 250 miles : Drivers should avoid heavy braking and braking from high speeds. It's what I've always done, and it allows the pads to bed into the face of the discs without creating hot spots as a result of high spots, and as you build up stopping speeds and brake pressure, you gradually heat up the resins in the pad material and cure them. Normal road pads deposit a transfer layer and their resins cure at far lower temperatures than pads for use on track/race cars. So there's no need to resort to getting the levels heat generated by the method you've quoted.

Slippydiff said: BMW used to provide a super little cardboard "coat hanger" that was hooked over the rear view mirror after your pads or pads and discs had been replaced. It basically said for the first 250 miles : Drivers should avoid heavy braking and braking from high speeds. It's what I've always done, and it allows the pads to bed into the face of the discs without creating hot spots as a result of high spots, and as you build up stopping speeds and brake pressure, you gradually heat up the resins in the pad material and cure them. Normal road pads deposit a transfer layer and their resins cure at far lower temperatures than pads for use on track/race cars. So there's no need to resort to getting the levels heat generated by the method you've quoted. Ford used to do the same. And having owned 5 of them I've always taken the approach of being gentle for the first few hundred miles. My Cayman has aftermarket pads which are silent. Unlike the ones fitted by my OPC which loved to squeal, especially when hot.

PaulD86 said: My Cayman has aftermarket pads which are silent. Unlike the ones fitted by my OPC which loved to squeal, especially when hot. ...which is the opposite of the OP's experience. I wonder what your/his variables are?

Orangecurry said: PaulD86 said: My Cayman has aftermarket pads which are silent. Unlike the ones fitted by my OPC which loved to squeal, especially when hot. ...which is the opposite of the OP's experience. I wonder what your/his variables are? I'm curious if the anti-vibration dampers were fitted to the OPs. I fitted the aftermarket pads on mine myself and fitted the anti-vibration dampers. When fittingI gave everything a good clean. The rear pads in my car are Porsche but the fronts are aftermarket. It was the fronts which squealed when Porsche fitted them. When I fitted new pads I also changed the discs. Not sure if this helped or not. I do wonder if how the pads are run in is a factor though.

Disc brakes love to squeal, especially aftermarket parts. OEM brake suppliers put a lot of engineering expertise into producing a brake system for the manufacturer which doesn't squeal. It's not just "pads" that squeal, it's the disc/pad interaction on the particular vehicle. OEM pads could easily squeal on a non-OEM disc. Both materials are critical. Squeal with a full set of OEM equipment is vanishingly rare. If you get glazed pads due to overheating, it could cause squeal. That's typically after repeated, heavy braking. OEM brakes shouldn't need any fancy bedding in or anything like that. You buy a brand new car and it works. Sure, if you have a "pads only" change then it might take a short distance of driving for the disc and pad to establish a perfect fit and during that period brake efficiency may be reduced.

Car went to OPC recently for something unrelated, nothing flagged on the health check about aftermarket brakes. Still, received really s tty service and a total waste of time. Are people really playing £280 an hour for this s te? Edited by SkinnyPete on Sunday 19th April 08:52

SkinnyPete said: Car went to OPC recently for something unrelated, nothing flagged on the health check about aftermarket brakes. Still, received really s tty service and a total waste of time. Are people really playing £280 an hour for this s te? Edited by SkinnyPete on Sunday 19th April 08:52 What happened? Like most locked into the extended warranty, OPC servicing is non negotiable but OPCs do seem to differ greatly in quality of service. That also changes over time as management changes, and I’ve used a fair few. Always use them for MOTs because it just about covers the cost of the free breakfast…

Unclear communication, slow response times, and a request for a £560 diagnostic fee with very little explanation of what they are going to do. Also, is it now considered acceptable for staff at a high-end retailer to be chewing gum while speaking with customers?

"Chewing gum" - whatever next?