Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-18-2012, 04:26 PM   #1
Registered User
 
landrovered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Madison, Georgia
Posts: 1,012
Garage
If the German Porsche engineers thought that the IMS was a major defect they would have changed the design in a millisecond and not kept it though the transition from 986/996 to 987/997.

Why are the Europeans not all up in arms about this? They have higher expectations than us and are right there to raise hell. Nope no noise, just the Americans BMC-ing on the internet.
__________________
2001 Boxster S 3.6L, Zeintop
"Calling upon my years of experience, I froze at the controls." - Stirling Moss

Last edited by landrovered; 06-18-2012 at 04:28 PM. Reason: spelling
landrovered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2012, 05:11 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by landrovered View Post
If the German Porsche engineers thought that the IMS was a major defect they would have changed the design in a millisecond and not kept it though the transition from 986/996 to 987/997.

Why are the Europeans not all up in arms about this? They have higher expectations than us and are right there to raise hell. Nope no noise, just the Americans BMC-ing on the internet.
There are plenty of europeans complaining about IMS. But this particular forum is US centric. So it goes.

That said, I'm not clear on what Porsche buyers in the Fatherland think about the whole thing.

I also disagree re your point about the engineers. They can't just change anything they fancy. The need funding. If they're not given the money to re-engineer, it's not happening. My guess is that there will have been engineers who thought the situation was pretty rum but could do nothing about it.
__________________
Manual '00 3.2 S Arctic Silver
pothole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2012, 02:18 AM   #3
Ex Esso kid
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by pothole View Post
There are plenty of europeans complaining about IMS. But this particular forum is US centric. So it goes.

That said, I'm not clear on what Porsche buyers in the Fatherland think about the whole thing.

I also disagree re your point about the engineers. They can't just change anything they fancy. The need funding. If they're not given the money to re-engineer, it's not happening. My guess is that there will have been engineers who thought the situation was pretty rum but could do nothing about it.


Everything Pothole says in this post is true, I would not be surprised to find that Porsche engineers knew it was potentially a problem before the first car shipped. Ask NASA engineers if they told the idiots to put a hold on the Challenger launch based on temperature and gasket failure, this stuff happens every day.

Last edited by Ghostrider 310; 06-19-2012 at 02:21 AM.
Ghostrider 310 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2012, 03:18 AM   #4
Ex Esso kid
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 1,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by landrovered View Post
If the German Porsche engineers thought that the IMS was a major defect they would have changed the design in a millisecond and not kept it though the transition from 986/996 to 987/997.

Why are the Europeans not all up in arms about this? They have higher expectations than us and are right there to raise hell. Nope no noise, just the Americans BMC-ing on the internet.


Not necessarily, the bean counters have a lot to do with these decisions, I saw plenty of "let it ride" fortune 100 behavior, in a business line with lives at risk. The game is to always raise profits if that pursuit has a nexus with doing what's best for customers it's likely serendipity. When a company does not even return written correspondence on a car dead at less than 30K they simply don't care about it and their actions echo that fact loudly.

Last edited by Ghostrider 310; 06-19-2012 at 03:21 AM.
Ghostrider 310 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2012, 03:21 AM   #5
Registered User
 
landrovered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Madison, Georgia
Posts: 1,012
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider 310 View Post
Not necessarily, the bean counters have a lot to do with these decisions, I saw plenty of "let it ride" fortune 100 behavior. The game is to always raise profits if that pursuit has a nexus with doing what's best for customers it's likely serendipity. When a company does not even return written correspondence on a car dead at less than 30K they simply don't care about it and their actions state that fact loudly.
The transition from 986 to 987 was more than a mid model upgrade. If there had been a class action worthy problem it would have been addressed ( pushed by the bean counters to reduce liability). I am perfectly aware of the propensity toward the Peter Principal in business organizations.
__________________
2001 Boxster S 3.6L, Zeintop
"Calling upon my years of experience, I froze at the controls." - Stirling Moss
landrovered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2012, 03:56 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by landrovered View Post
If the German Porsche engineers thought that the IMS was a major defect they would have changed the design in a millisecond and not kept it though the transition from 986/996 to 987/997.
If this was a known failure after the manufacture of the engine and it did fail during r&d testing then these failures would have been calculated into the production costs. A cetain failure rate is expected by all manufacturers of most products. How they deal with said failures ia a different matter entirley.
dewolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page