14 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHIMS Class Action
Leading reported evidence
Use car, i forget
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
Someone on here did go to the County Court successfully but they had bought their car either new or as a young approved used car, I forget which.
Leading evidence: 'Use car, i forget' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use car, i forget' (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.
14 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: 20261026T205155Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Thanks,
Did they heck lol.
This happened end of 2012 I think, but Different Laws for USA and Canada I'm afraid.
In reaction to this Porsche gave lists of engine numbers they believe affected which seemed pretty inaccurate but did kind of look like MK1's are slightly less prone to IMS failure in the world of magical mystery mathematical statistics.
Lots of people bemoan the US litigious culture BUT look; they get their IMS repairs paid or partly paid for by Porsche while we get zip unless you have a Porsche extended warranty.
Unless it falls into the realms of "Safety" i doubt anything would ever be done.
I see RPM are doing rebuilds for 5k now, As the value of a 996 becomes less everything else has to fall in-line.
Me too.
The problem is - who do you sue in the UK? I had bought my car privately from its second owner and had no contract with Porsche. Someone on here did go to the County Court successfully but they had bought their car either new or as a young approved used car, I forget which. Not a binding decision but I'm sure it would be persuasive.
The US ruling doesn't care where you purchased, Porsche have to contribute to cost no matter what excepting obviously abused engines, rev range report I guess.
It would be interesting to see how an American citizen claiming in Europe might fare.
