11-28-2008, 07:25 AM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern New jersey
Posts: 1,054
|
Wow, a 20% failure rate! If that's even close to being accurate, I won't be buying a Boxster. I'm even hesitant assuming a 1-2% failure rate, ( not due to negligence).
|
|
|
11-28-2008, 02:28 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 1,209
|
Quote;
"Imagine Donald Trump trying to sue the manufacturer of his private jet because the engines took a dump after the warranty expired. Would you let "The Donald" collect from the maker of his Gulfstream? That's kind of how the guy in the Accord will view all the "rich" guys whining about their Porsche's..."
That is a terrible correlation to our situation. Again, known manufacturing defects in a product should be addressed by the manufacturer. If they're not, the judicial system should be called upon to protect consumers. I don't remember reading "WARNING: Because of know manufacturing deficiency's, IMS failure in this automobile could happen at any time and will result in a total loss of the engine" on my window sticker.
If it did would any of you bought your cars? BTW, I love my little red devil
P.S. In the event an aircraft engine failure does occur, the engine is torn down to find the failure, determined why the failure occurred and initiation of a fix is instituted. Depending on the severity, a world wide grounding of all aircraft will happen. Gee, Porsche should follow their lead.
__________________
Sadly on the outside looking in.
"Drive it like the Doctor ordered"
Last edited by Jaxonalden; 11-28-2008 at 04:21 PM.
|
|
|
11-28-2008, 03:50 PM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Du Monde
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stephen wilson
Wow, a 20% failure rate! If that's even close to being accurate, I won't be buying a Boxster. I'm even hesitant assuming a 1-2% failure rate, ( not due to negligence).
|
I need to ammend this. The 20% seems the likely number for RMS failure not IMS failure (which is indeed usually more serious).
IMS failure rate is much lower, but still higher than one would expect for a 'normal' reject rate for a manufactured engine.
There can be catastrophic RMS failures which kill the motor, but these are pretty rare. RMS usually develops as a slow drip which increases. The big issue with RMS is the extent and expense of fixing it (with no guarantee the fix will work).
IMS on the other hand almost always takes the engine with it.
|
|
|
11-28-2008, 04:13 PM
|
#4
|
|
There Is No Substitute.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Coast
Posts: 3,253
|
From what I've heard/read, RMS does not normally cause an engine failure, because you can catch it if you notice the oil leak under the engine and have the seal replaced for around $800. I think 20% is a fair number for the people that have an RMS leak, but I think the % of people that have to replace their engine is much lower.
IMS normally occurs without warning and suddenly but IMS only affects Boxster's built from 2001 and on, because they have the "better" redesigned IMS.
The pre-2001 Boxster's very, very rarely have IMS failures. The only major worry about pre-2001's is a slipped sleeve issue from a 10/98-03/99.
This what I now about what can cause an engine failure, I'll let everyone else try and figure out what the percentages are.
__________________
1999 Ocean Blue Metallic Boxster - blueboxster.com
Last edited by rick3000; 11-28-2008 at 04:16 PM.
|
|
|
11-28-2008, 08:15 PM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 617
|
I'm a court reporter, not a lawyer, but I've taken depositions in the process of trying to get a class certified. Just my lay opinion, but I can't imagine that getting certified as a class.
|
|
|
11-30-2008, 12:39 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 64
|
its not easy
I am a commercial litigation lawyer, but not a class action lawyer. Based on my limited knowledge of the 'class action' issues, I think that LoveBunny is most likely correct - the essence of qualifying for a class action is that the nature of the claims and defenses are all so similar, that the court could fairly (to both sides) adjudicate all of the issues in one forum, as the proof to be offered by both sides would be nearly identical in every case. I think that would be tough to establish where the Defendant (Porsche) would want to be able to introduce evidence of how an individual motor had been used / abused / not cared for properly by the various owners, service history, etc.
However, now that you have me thinking about it, I guess it would not be all that different from the medical device class actions, where doctors or device makers would want to show how each patient had different problems, health history, risk factors, etc., so perhaps it would just be a matter of finding a good lawyer / firm to do it ...
__________________
2003 Boxster S - Speed Yellow
|
|
|
11-30-2008, 06:11 PM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 617
|
^^^
although, people are usually sympathetic towards those with medical problems, people who have lost their house in a flood, lived in a stinky FEMA trailer, etc. But how many will feel bad for some "poor guy" whose Porsche blew an engine?
Interesting though about class actions, the silicone breast implant class action went forward and they were taken off the market. After 15 years of testing, they are back, and from what I understand, there is not one single piece of conclusive evidence that silicone actually caused the ailments the women complained of. Sure, a bunch of women with the implants might have had certain issues, but so have a bunch of other women without the implants. This is just my limited knowledge though. I'm definitely no expert.
Sometimes the whole legal system is just a big game it seems like.
|
|
|
11-30-2008, 07:09 PM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Browns Summit, NC
Posts: 271
|
"Sometimes the whole legal system is just a big game it seems like."
True dat. I'm a consulting engineer and took some continuing ed a few years back on expert witness testimony for engineers. Best continuing ed I've ever taken. The sad thing is that it is a big game and it's not about justice or who's right and who's wrong-it's about who can discredit the other side's experts in front of a jury. It completely changed the way I write my reports. Now everything I write or say is framed under the premise "how would I defend that under cross examination?"
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:29 AM.
| |