Follow up to RMS poll - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners

Tool Pants · 02-08-2006, 09:40 PM

The portion of my post that you quoted was the response by Porsche Cars GB after members of the Porsche Club of Great Britian met with them. Porsche Cars GB is like our PCNA. PCBG is like our PCA. The members of the club met with the officials of Porsche with the survey results and that was the response from Porsche.

The quoted portion is not my response on the issue. And those poor blokes only have a 2 year warranty. Sometimes they have to pay out of their pocket for a seal replacement. And multiple seal replacements do not result in an engine replacement like in the US.

You can search on the club site under the word "survey" and read all about it. For example. http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=102495&mpage=4&key=survey&#118606 If you search on other UK boards aftermarket warranty companies would not even cover the cars, thus Porsche started to issue (for a fee) their own extended warranty. Search on boxa.net for that issue, another UK board.

Again, the site for what I consider to be the "best" survey in my almost 7 years of Boxstering is http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/ You had to be a PCGB member to register and see the messages and you needed a PCGB membership number, which I obviously do not have since I live in the US and do not belong to their club. But they let me on anyway as a non club member. But I think now the message board is open to all.

Brucelee · 02-09-2006, 08:35 AM

I don't believe that this will change unless someone legally forces Porsche to pay up or change the engine design.

I agree with the point above; Porsche knows about the issue and has taken the
"patch" approach rather than the expensive redesign approach.

It has been 9 years now, so lets be clear, the boys in Germany have found there "solution" and unless the marketplace or the courts tell them otherwise, they are sticking to it.

Cayeene seal anyone?

Perfectlap · 02-09-2006, 08:47 AM

I think if they had answer they would have implemented it. Certainly into the design of the new engine. But I guess that would open the door to litigation as they would have to acknowledge that a mistake was identified and that they took steps to correct it with the 987. Kind of greedy when you think about it.
A total recall isn't necessary but Porsche should definitely have made a statement like "we have so much confidence in our cars and we are making sooooo much money ($140 Million in January on the Cayenne and Cayman Alone) that we will pay for any RMS labor and parts of existing 996/986 owners if they should have a problem. Then I woke up.

BoxsterSbob · 02-09-2006, 08:59 AM

Porsche should step-up.

It's unthinkable that a company known for engineering can be this lame on a central and basic engineering task.

Subaru makes a couple of flat engine designs, a 4 and a 6. And, in large volume. Does anyone know if those designs have the same, or a similar problem? If they don't there's simply no excuse!

'04S
bob

Perfectlap · 02-09-2006, 10:07 AM

I think its one of those things that happens in business where fixing the issue becomes the issue.

Brucelee · 02-09-2006, 10:36 AM

The Sub 4 is fine, very bullet proof. Early on, they had some cam cover and valve cover leaks but these have been handled.

Perfectlap · 02-09-2006, 11:30 AM

yes that's what sway swayed a few STI owners I know away from the Mitsu EVO.
The Subaru engine is great and the EVO's got some problems.