|
Consumer Reports' "Best and Worst" issue on the newstand included ratings of the 1999, 2000, 2001 etc. cars (they don't have ratings pre-1999). Similar ratings are included in the 2008 and 2009 Buying Guides. The two Guides don't go as far back as 1999, but the ratings on the Boxster that they DO contain are not the same as those in the "Best and Worst" issue. This could indicate a mistake, or it seems more likely that the "Best and Worst" issue is a compilation based on an average of all the annual reports (?) over a period of years. For example, the 2001 Boxster is rated "Better than Average" for Engine Major in the "Best and Worst" issue, but "Much Worse than Average" in the 2008 Buyer's Guide. Either the "Best and Worst" issue is outright wrong or it is based on a compilation of several years of better than average surveys. The latter seems more likely. If so, it's also statistically more significant than a one-year sample.
Don't misunderstand me -- I do think ANY engine failure more than a tiny, tiny fraction (i.e. a lot less than my speculative failure rate of 1%) is unacceptable and I completely support efforts to make Porsche take care of the problem. Just two weeks ago, I bought a 1999 with under 15K miles, then I read these forums and scared myself silly. I was ready to resell the car and get an S2000, but since then I have calmed myself down. The odds seem to favor me and so I'm learning to live with that 1% risk. However, I'm already planning for the worst: Raising heck with Porsche and trying to save for the 350 HP Raby engine if and when my engine does blow. "Well, honey, I have to replace the engine and this was all they have available." Hehehe
|
Threaded Mode
