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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-11-2013, 07:26 PM   #1
Registered User
 
LAP1DOUG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 408
IMSB Class Action Settlement

IMS Class Action Suit 2001 through 2005 owners win - Rennlist Discussion Forums


Anyone familiar with this?

__________________
Kippis
LAP1DOUG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 08:40 PM   #2
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,085
Would love to hear the status of this case. It does appear real: Bruce Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America Inc :: Justia Dockets & Filings.

This looks like a proposed settlement, not final settlement. I did note one thing in the text. It only applies to cars that had IMSB damage within 10 years after they were sold originally. If true, it would leave me out. Even if it did apply, it would only pay me 25% because I bought my car used without a CPO. Of course there is no admission of liability on PCNAs part
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 04:06 AM   #3
1998 Boxster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Posts: 110
What is a CPO?
rah rah 986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 04:59 AM   #4
Registered User
 
Sunsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah rah 986 View Post
What is a CPO?
Certified Pre-Owned
Sunsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 05:19 AM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 874
Sorry, can't work out what's going on.

Is this some law firm chancing its luck or has something actually happened?
__________________
Manual '00 3.2 S Arctic Silver
pothole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:24 AM   #6
Registered User
 
tonycarreon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 1,396
* if you lease, leased, own or owned a 2001 - 2005 boxster or 911
AND
* you purchased it new or certified pre-owned
AND
* your engine destructed because of an IMS failure
OR
* you replaced / repaired the IMS
AND
* your car is currently less than 10 years old AND under 130,000 miles
OR
* you had to repair or replace because of IMS before 10 years / 130,000 miles
THEN
you may be entitled to $ from PCNA

if it's MY 2000 or older, or MY 2006 or newer; you didn't purchase it new or CPO (from a porsche dealer); currently more than 10 years old or has over 130k miles (or when failure occurred) - you're not getting anything if the settlement is approved.
__________________
"Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary... that's what gets you."

Last edited by tonycarreon; 03-12-2013 at 06:34 AM.
tonycarreon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:41 AM   #7
Registered User
 
Porsche Chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 560
If it is only for cars under ten years old, then it really only covers 2003-2005.

Cuts out half the cars right off the bat, and according to the sales figures that were posted on this forum, the vast majority of cars.

Ridiculous corporate lawyer BS.
__________________
2009 Porsche Boxster - Guards Red/Tan
Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… that’s what gets you. – Jeremy Clarkson
Porsche Chick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 07:17 AM   #8
Registered User
 
welles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16
As others on this thread have noted, this settlement doesn't expose PCNA to much more liability than they had already accepted. But hey, some lawyers make a million or so - gotta love class action suits.
welles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 08:52 AM   #9
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,085
I could be wrong due to some fine print clause, but the proposed settlement does seem to apply to people who bought their cars from a party other than Porsche.

(New Vehicle Purchaser ACPO Purchaser* Used Vehicle Purchaser Not Purchasing ACPO
Up to 50,000 miles 100% 100% 25%
50,001-60,000 miles 90% 100% 25%
60,001-70,000 miles 80% 100% 25%
70,001-80,000 miles 70% 100% 25%
80,001-90,000 miles 60% 100% 25%
90,001-100,000 miles 50% 100% 25%
100,001 – 130,000 miles 40% 40% 25%

Used car buyers without a ACPO get 25 cents on the dollar. If the court waits long enough before approving the settlement, the 10 year limitation will have run and nobody will get anything.
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:43 AM   #10
Registered User
 
Ckrikos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 633
I didnt read the entire thread, but where I read the 10 year limitation indicated that the IMSB or engine repair must have occured before the car reached 10 service years and 138,000 miles.

For example my car is a 2002 and I just replaced the IMSB I am not eligible because the expense has been incurred more than 10 years after the car has been in service. Had I repaired the car last year I would be a class member. It appears that the judgement states if you got 10 years or 138,000 problem free miles then you are not getting anything, but if you repaired your car or experienced a failure within that period you are due compensation.

This is fair given car manufacturers typically extend warranty's to 100K miles or 7-10 years when a problem such as this is found. Honda did this for my 2001 Accord transmission (replaced 3x), the old BMW E46 M3 problem, and BMW 335 problem.
__________________
LB/GG/MB 02 2.7 sold
MB/GG 02 996TT
Ckrikos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:16 AM   #11
Registered User
 
Johnny Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,810
Garage
I'm suing Columbia House Records for defrauding me of albums when I was a teenager if anyone is interested.
__________________
Don't worry … I've got the microfilm.
Johnny Danger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:35 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Perfectlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 8,696
All this does is to underline the point that all modern Porsches are not be owned for more than 100K miles or you will A) have to be prepared to spend an outrageous sum of money and B) lose nearly all of the value of the car as it approaches that 100K marker.

Which makes the Koreans, also builders of mass produced cars like Porsche, total geniuses for offering 10 year warranties on cars that cost 1/5 the price of Porsche. Err why are people paying the Porsche premium again?

Think about it. It will be easier to sell 20 year old Sonata than it will be sell a 20 year old Carrera. Whose engineering was better given that neither is a racing car nor has a racing engine?
__________________
GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW

Last edited by Perfectlap; 03-12-2013 at 11:37 AM.
Perfectlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 02:05 PM   #13
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Miami florida
Posts: 1,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by welles View Post
As others on this thread have noted, this settlement doesn't expose PCNA to much more liability than they had already accepted. But hey, some lawyers make a million or so - gotta love class action suits.
The lawyers taking this case took it on a contingency, meaning they don't get paid unless there is a settlement or judgement thay can collect on. The spent hundreds of thousands of dollars OF THEIR OWN MONEY for experts and other costs which were a straight gamble, if they lost, they lost it all. They also put in huindreds, if not thousands of hours of their time into the case before they see a penny.

No more liability than they have already accepted? When was the last time you heard that PCA gave someone a free motor six years after the warranty expired? The results were great, basically any IMS failure occurring up to six years after the warranty expires will get compensated in whole or in part.

These lawers deserve every penny if not more.

By the way, how much did you have pay to have these lawyers represent YOU. Nothing, right? What are you complaining about.
__________________
Current car

2000 Boxster 2.7l red/black

Previous cars

1973 Opel Manta
1969(?) Fiat 850 Convertible
1979 Lancia Beta Coupe
1981 Alfa Romeo GTV 6
1985 Alfa Romeo Graduate
1985 Porsche 944
1989 Porsche 944
1981 Triumph TR7
1989 (?) Alfa Romeo Milano
1993 Saab 9000
san rensho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 02:32 PM   #14
Registered User
 
Ckrikos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 633
I agree completely, this ruling forces Porsche to warranty their cars for an additional six years. This should not have been forced upon them rather they should have provided it to their customers showing they stand behind their product.

It would have been nice if they were a little more transparent with this problem and addressing it when it first appeared.
__________________
LB/GG/MB 02 2.7 sold
MB/GG 02 996TT
Ckrikos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:54 PM   #15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: idaho falls
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Danger View Post
I'm suing Columbia House Records for defrauding me of albums when I was a teenager if anyone is interested.
Hahaha. I'm with u JD! Those d-bags stole my chidhood!
sam c. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 08:13 AM   #16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Winnipeg MB
Posts: 2,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Danger View Post
I'm suing Columbia House Records for defrauding me of albums when I was a teenager if anyone is interested.
I'm in, as long as it will apply to my 8-track tapes as well. I've noticed lately that the sound quality on many of them is starting to degrade rather severely. I've also had a couple of internal magnetic spindle failures resulting in several miles of tape wrapping itself around every moving part in my quadraphonic deck. Someone needs to be held accountable!
__________________
'99 black 986
Mark_T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 01:37 PM   #17
Registered User
 
Porsche Chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 560
So is this the secret decoder ring for IMS issues?

This is the list of VIN's that can make claims:

• Model year 2001 - 2005 Porsche Boxster vehicles manufactured with an IMS between May 4, 2001 and February 21, 2005 with VINs in the following ranges:

o WP0CA29851S620508 - WP0CA29831S620619

o WP0CB29811S660405 - WP0CB29801S660492

o WP0CA29821U625959 - WP0CA29891U627644

o WP0CB29861U664289 - WP0CB29841U665473

o WP0CA29892S620061 - WP0CA29802S620238

o WP0CA29832U620061 - WP0CA29892U626107

o WP0CB29802U660062 - WP0CB29892U664319

....etc., there's long list in the settlement details

What did they put into the Porsches whose VIN's aren't listed?
__________________
2009 Porsche Boxster - Guards Red/Tan
Speed has never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary… that’s what gets you. – Jeremy Clarkson
Porsche Chick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 01:46 PM   #18
Registered User
 
Perfectlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 8,696
^ must be for single row IMS cars with the m96 bearing.
So if you have a dual row you're (mostly) excluded. If you have a the non-upgradeable m97 bearing you're excluded.
If you have no IMSB you're excluded. If you have no Porsche you're excluded.

the lawsuit might be arguing something about Porsche knowing that the single row was worse than leaving the dual row as is.
__________________
GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW

Last edited by Perfectlap; 03-13-2013 at 01:49 PM.
Perfectlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 04:23 PM   #19
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,424
Just like we've been saying for years, the single row bearing is the main problem.

But until this we were just "fear mongers" making up stuff. Feels good to be proven right. Maybe now all those hard heads that didn't believe the problem existed will actually do something while they still can.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 06:43 PM   #20
Registered User
 
LAP1DOUG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 408
OK, so I have an 11 year old 986S, which excludes me, but I have a 2006 year engine (from a failure with the previous owner), so my engine is less than 10 years old, so I may be back in, but my 2006 engine has the large diameter non-serviceable bearing, so I'm back out again

I guess I just gotta get this thing up the road to Cleveland soon for the "ultimate solution". Might as well get a 3.4 upgrade while I'm there.

__________________
Kippis
LAP1DOUG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 09:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page