8 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHDoor catch corrosion and warranty part 2
Leading reported evidence
Use independent dealer
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
So, how could I avoid using an independent dealer?
Leading evidence: 'Use independent dealer' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use independent dealer' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
8 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
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: 20261026T212127Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I now have the answer to whether corrosion around the door strikers is covered by the 10-year anti-corrosion warranty. It isn't! I have this from the highest level barring divine intervention! Clearly a ten-year warranty is not a ten-year warranty.
I have tried to have the problem sorted free of charge via my local OPC, via Customer Assistance at Porsche Cars GB and finally with a plea to the MD of Porsche Cars GB himself. My car is currently with a Porsche-approved body shop, and I am paying!
I am peeved. I am disillusioned. I am dissatisfied.
A number of interesting inconsistencies emerged during my discussions with Porsche Cars Customer Assistance Centre. These may be of interest to others with similar cars and/or similar problems:
1. I was told to consider the fact that my car was seven years old. Sure, but a ten-year warranty is a ten-year warranty.
2. I was informed that a further important factor was that my car was purchased from an independent dealer. Hmm! It has all the necessary and relevant stamps in the service record book, all from OPCs, with the last prior to my purchase only three months before I acquired the vehicle last year. Notably, all the annual stamps appear on the record of Long-Life Guarantee Condition Report.
Has anyone tried to buy a pre-owned Porsche more than 3-4 years old from an OPC? So, how could I avoid using an independent dealer? How can this invalidate a warranty?
3. Apparently the anti-corrosion warranty only applies in cases where corrosion is "˜from the inside out' rather than 'from the outside in' (exact words in a telephone conversation with someone at Customer Assistance). Surely corrosion resulting from a design flaw is very much an "˜inside out' problem.
On a happy bunny scale of zero to ten, I am obviously in negative territory, but feel better for shouting about it! Others, beware!
That's odd - I had the same corrosion on my car fixed FOC by Swindon OPC last year. Mine was also purchased from an independent, but also had full PSH. But they did say it was 'good will' - I did wonder why it wasn't the warranty but didn't quibble as they did pay for it.
I bought my car from an indy and a year later had the OPC inspection and took out the the Porsche Warranty (5 year old car). They didn't ask if it was bought at an OPC or baulk at taking my money!!!!
My sympathies, I went through the same pain and lost a few years back. My crime? Buying from an independent. My argument was that the OPC that took it in p/e (HR Owen ) sold it to the Indie! Show me a 4 yr old + car on an OPC forecourt. They also claimed the warranty only covered "perferations" caused by corrosion eg a hole. So Perhaps I should wait until it falls apart and then claim quadruple the amount.
The porsche approved body shop advised me it was usually done as 'goodwill' gesture when you have all the stamps and OPC history.
In my opinion, its Porsche GB that are rude and arrogant and treat second hand owners with disdain. I work for an OEM in a similar industry and I can tell you its well recognised that issues such as this are crucial to sustaining resale values which will drive retails of new cars.
I've had a number of dealings (on a professional basis) with Porsche AG and they strike me as very customer focussed. Its the Brits letting the side down.
Would I buy another one having been treated like this ........... ?
(probably but dont tell them that)
Regards
Neil
There was a design change early in the cars production - it consisted simply of fitting a small rubber gasket between the striker catch and the body.
This was because there was a possibility of the gasketless version causing corrosion.
This may be useful info to you...
Mine was repaired when the car was 4 years old, without any problems. OPC very helpful and the actual repainting was perfect. Perhaps luck of the draw with OPCs?
Presumably it was an official UK import (ie originally imported by PCGB and sold by an OPC)?
This probably isn't applicable to you, but some goodwill, warranty and 'sale of goods' issues are not well received by PCGB if they didn't import the car.
Assuming yours is a UK car, the AA or RAC legal department may be able to advise you of your rights.
Graham,
It looks like a 996 design fault - sorry the guys won't pay up. Hopefully, it won't cost too much to fix. Last year, my son helped rip the door off my 993 - but that's the cost of enjoying our cars I suppose....
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.