10 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHExcessive front bumper chipping...
Reported or suspected cause
day or
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
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 suspect 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.
Suspected cause
I suspect sample QC checks are done on each batch at the Factory (each batch probably a day or so's production - but here I
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
One issue with painting plastic body parts is that if the mould release agent is not properly cleaned off, it acts as a very effective paint release agent.
Leading evidence: 'day or' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'day or' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Clean off' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that suspect 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.
Suspected cause
I suspect sample QC checks are done on each batch at the Factory (each batch probably a day or so's production - but here I
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
One issue with painting plastic body parts is that if the mould release agent is not properly cleaned off, it acts as a very effective paint release agent.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Clean off
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
One issue with painting plastic body parts is that if the mould release agent is not properly cleaned off, it acts as a very effective paint release agent.
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.
10 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Porsche Club GB: 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: 20261026T174436Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I'm suffering from excessive chipping of the paint of the front bumper skin...it's awful!
I've only had my car for two months, and the paint is chipping off the front bumper at an alarming rate.
It's easy to say it's donw to me driving too close behind other cars - but it's not!
The lower lip of the Aerokit is perfect, the bonnet perfect, the wings perfect, the lights perfect...just the bumper skin.
At 600 miles it needed re-painting to keep me happy...now at 1500 it looks awful - a complete embarassmemt.
My previous car (an Audi) never had a single stone chip of this size, at nearly 4 years old.
Needless to say...I'm less than impressed.
The issue is currently in the hands of my local OPC (Aberdeen), Porsche approved body centre, and PCGB...but still no resolution, despite one of the sales staff commenting that it's not the first C4S to do this..
Anyone else got the same problem?
what's the colour. I understand that some colours are prone to this mostly the dark blue. I was told by my OPC it was due to being a water based paint??
It's Speed Yellow...
The bodyshop agree that water based paints are less hard wearing...but thay also agree that paint shouldn't chip off quite so easily!
What makes it worse, is the fact that the bumper skin is moulded in black...so each and every chip is VERY obvious....as it's right through to the plastic.
Hmmm,
was this a used car ???
I had one off these stone chip companies do some work on the front
bumper of my C4S when i had it, looked OK for a week, then after a couple of weeks, the front
looked like it had be shot at with a 12 bore.
They only did one side of the bumper, and it was this side that went bad, the other side with the
original paint, did not change at all.
If your car was 2nd user, then i would say that they had the bumper resprayed by a paint shop, and
they haven't done a very good job.
G.
The car was delivered in December...new, from Aberdeen OPC.
I personally watched it come off the transporter, and collected it the next day...so no paintwork has been done - other than the factory paint finish.
Needless to say, with 600 miles on the clock, I had the 12 bore look to the bumper skin, all around the intake / grille holes...
Now at 1500+ miles, I have the full bumper skin coming out in sympathy...
Yet, the lower lip remains perfect...not a single stone chip...
Sad thing is, after giving the car a good clean today...the rear bumper shows signs of heading the same way...there is more paint missing on the leading edge of the rear bumper, than is still attached.
So, unless PCGB and my OPC come through with a satisfactory warranty claim, I'm looking at re-painting the front bumper, and re-touching the rear bumper, at 1500 miles and just over 2 months old....the rest of the car is absolutely immaculate (as you'd expect)
Not the situation I expected to find myself in, at all.
One issue with painting plastic body parts is that if the mould release agent is not properly cleaned off, it acts as a very effective paint release agent. Sounds like the person who did your bumpers (painted with the car) had a bad day. Definite warrantly claim and I would say don't just over spray it because the paint underneath is what is letting go. You need new bumpers, properly painted.
Really surprised at how susceptible my silver C4S is to paint damage. I never had a problem with a Guards Red 964 C4 in the early 90s (my previous Porsche). Sad to say, coming back to Porsche after a gap of 9 years has been a bit of a let down. Roll on my AM V8 Vantage!
Actually, the bumpers come in to the factory pre-painted from the supplier. They are not painted with the car.
This explains some of the ridiculous cost of "special" colour options.
Nugget of info picked up on a factory tour (when we saw racks of bumpers all pre-painted, and I then asked the question...)
I stand corrected! The supplier must have been having a bad day, doesn't say much for Porsche QC which I assume is done in house, or do they subcon that out as well?
The components have a tolerance of colour shade that is allowed.
I suspect sample QC checks are done on each batch at the Factory (each batch probably a day or so's production - but here I
am
theorising with a background as an engineer!).
Main QC would be done beforehand at the supplier.
Porsche operate a "just in time" system, so the supplier HAS to get it right and have stringent QC in place (or they pay for holding the line up!). Small amounts of error will always be allowed. However without "destructive testing" of each part I don't see how this particular paint problem would have been detected. (And you can't destructive test each part[
])