Autoweek Words on IMS

[rp17]

Originally Posted by joeyclouse

I had an automatic with around 50K miles only owned it for 1 year bought it from car max had one oil change drove it as my daily commuter car fairly aggressively. No symptoms until when I noticed when quietly listening to it while it was idling you could here a light crunching noise. At that point the I already had the faliure the shaft was damaged and metal pieces were everywhere including the oil pan. The bearings were pitted the only good thing was the bearings stayed in place.

Joey this is awful looking pictures. Can't imagine how pissed you are right now. Do you know what you are going to do with the car? There is a thread on this forum about a sale on refurb engines. Might want to source a used engine if your still in love with this car. Can your Indy do a rebuild?

[southernstar]

Gil (riverside986) couldn't have put it better: many manufacturers have given extended warranties on engines which have proven to have problems and Porsche not only could have, but should have done this once they became aware of the issues with the IMS. Ultimately, standing behind your products is not expensive - it is the cost of doing and staying in business. Who knows what this will ultimately cost Porsche in terms of damaged reputation and lost business, but the fact that publications such as Autoweek are continuing to report on it suggesst that the bleeding is far from over for Porsche.

Brad

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Who knows what this will ultimately cost Porsche in terms of damaged reputation and lost business.

Not very much. The average person who owns a Porsche now doesn't know that engines went down or even know what an IMS is. Namely because they are increasingly Pana and Cayenne buyers. Porsche could completely stop selling Boxsters/Caymans and Carreras and still be an extremely successful company. And From what Jake Raby has posted, the Cayenne engines are not at all plagued with these m96 issues. Also, Porsche doesn't make their bread and butter from people who hold onto their cars long enough to see the error of their engineering ways. Porsche is firmly a luxury brand now and that sort of buyer gets antsy when their car seems like its old hat. Luxury car brands making mediocre cars as far as durability and longevity is not a ground breaking achievement for Porsche. Just look at the other German brands losing half their values before the warranty is even up.

Originally Posted by southernstar

but the fact that publications such as Autoweek are continuing to report on it suggesst that the bleeding is far from over for Porsche.

Autoweek's reporting of this issue did not do us, the present owners, any good. For very obvious reasons of heightening the drama they chose not to tell the readers of this piece that there have been fixes for this issue since 2010. Read the comments and you'll dozens of people saying "oh I will never buy a used Porsche now". Either Mandel is very very sloppy in doing his research or Autoweek deliberately presented this as a "no remedies that will cost Porsche and owners untold fortunes". If it was meant to inform, particularly those time-out of the settlement, then he at the very least could have provided links for LNE, Pelican or other experts who can carry out preventative maintenance on the issue or that you can instal a simple dash-mounted device to alert you a impending failure -- a simple mod that could have saved the owner a total loss on the car's purchase price.. This is type of IMS reporting we can all do without: Partial facts and no shortage of dramatics and colorful language.

[southernstar]

Perfectlap, I wasn't suggesting that the reporting in Autoweek did current owners any favour; I also agree that the article was anything but 'balanced' and comprehensive. My point related solely to the ongoing damage to Porsche's reputation by such reporting and I stand by that assertion. I still maintain that this episode will damage Porsche's reputation in terms of both quality and their willingness to stand behind their products.

Could Porsche be profitable without sports cars? No doubt. However, the Porsche image, even for its sedans and sport-utes, is inextricably bound up with, or at least enhanced by the company's reputation for high-performance sports cars and by their racing heritage. Eliminate that connection and I have little doubt that eventually, sales of even the sedans and sport utes will suffer. Why do you think that Porsche builds cars such as the new 918? Why are they said to be re-entering the prototype fray in endurance racing next year?

While you are correct that Porsche's 'bread and butter' is not from purchasers who hang onto their cars long enough to see the error of their engineering ways, nevertheless, many purchasers of new Porsche Boxsters, Caymans and Carerras put on very low annual mileage and hang onto their cars for a very long period. I suspect that many of their prospective purchasers will be concerned when reading about Porsche's response to an obvious engineering flaw in their sports cars, albeit one that is apt to only appear after the warranty expires. I suspect that many will also be concerned about the impact that this is having on resale values, as eventually that will effect everyone.



Brad

[BYprodriver]

Autoweek is a "breaking news" focused publication, formerly weekly, now bi-monthly? I believe. Dutch Mandel's column is limited to a single page like most of the editors in Autoweek. The column was about Porsche's acknowledging the IMSB issue is a problem. Endorsing a aftermarket product without some form of proof would be like publishing a test drive evaluation without actually driving the vehicle.
Dutch includes his E-mail address at the end of every column.


Autoweek's reporting of this issue did not do us, the present owners, any good. For very obvious reasons of heightening the drama they chose not to tell the readers of this piece that there have been fixes for this issue since 2010. Read the comments and you'll dozens of people saying "oh I will never buy a used Porsche now". Either Mandel is very very sloppy in doing his research or Autoweek deliberately presented this as a "no remedies that will cost Porsche and owners untold fortunes". If it was meant to inform, particularly those time-out of the settlement, then he at the very least could have provided links for LNE, Pelican or other experts who can carry out preventative maintenance on the issue or that you can instal a simple dash-mounted device to alert you a impending failure -- a simple mod that could have saved the owner a total loss on the car's purchase price.. This is type of IMS reporting we can all do without: Partial facts and no shortage of dramatics and colorful language.[/QUOTE]

[Perfectlap]

Fine, make no mention of LNE or Pelican. But at least inform the reader that a simple Google search or poke in any Porsche forum for the letters IMS will reveal that the specific owner he profiled had options available to him. Options that would have saved his car had he taken the time to stay informed rather than waiting around for Porsche to provide him with that info. It seems that the years of ad nauseum forum threads and magazine articles on this one issue still weren't enough?

But adding this one line about proven options to address this issue would have taken much of the reader outrage right out of his article. That was an accidental ommission? I dont think so....It's very aparent that in trying to rile up the crowd against Porsche on this issue he chose to keep the crowd deliberately underinformed on what's been going on in the aftermarket for over three years now. He chose only the certain facts that inflame rather than the basic facts that best inform. He should be working in partisan cable news instead.