Engine Failure Class Action

[insite]

Originally Posted by 2001saxster

We are talking about failures occuring in vehicals just slightly over the millage limit, or in some cases vehicals still within the millage limit but out of the time limit of their warranties.

we are dealing with a man who's SECOND-HAND car is NINE years old, and we don't know how many miles are on it. his issue is the classic cylinder wall D-Chunk; it happens on a very small number of cars.

Originally Posted by 2001saxster

We are also talking about vehicals that had an inheriant flaw from day one that could have gone at any time. Ironically, the guy involved in this suit (and myself as well) had the mis-fortune to end up with one that lasted longer (past the warranty period). Still, it was just a matter of time until it failed.

until failure mode and effects analysis is done by a forensic engineering firm, this is heresay. this problem can be caused by overheating the car. if the man's coolant tank blew and he continued to drive the car with the warning light on, the water jacket would empty and the metal matrix composite in the cylinder walll could break down and cause the chunk. this would be an example of how he or the previous owner could be liable.

Originally Posted by 2001saxster

You may think that this lawsuit is frivilous, but I say it is an important part of the checks and balances system that we, as consumers, rely on to protect us from unconscionable practices by large corporations. Porsche is already at a distinct advantage to take advantage of its customers by putting out faulty products. The relatively small number of their vehicals on the road combined with the low average millage on them masks what may be a VERY large percentage of them suffering massive failures. We already know that Porsche cut corners in 98 and 99 MY Boxsters to increase profits by sleeving porous engine blocks, a move which cost many loyal customers a boat load if their engine went after the warranty period. Without the risk of losing millions in a suit and gaining a bad reputation what is the motivation for them not to make similar moves in the future? I will concede though that it is unfortunate that the lawyers will be getting the most benifit out of this.

porsche replaced all of the engines that suffered the sleeved block failures, regardless of warranty expiration. FYI, this porous block fix was an acceptable manufacturing work around. they had a problem with one of the sleeving machines that was not detected until many engines were already sold. again, this guy's problem is the D-Chunk. this can be caused by a LOT of things, MANY of which the owner would bear responsibility for.

Originally Posted by 2001saxster

With regards to your question "How can Porsche know how it was driven by the first owner", it seems that they can pretty easily determine how it was driven. The cars computer does, after all, save all the info regarding events such as over revs and the like. By all accounts Porsche regularly uses this info to deny warranty replacements. As for maintainence, well the dealers should have those records. If it was serviced by an independant then I concede that the burden should be on the customer to prove that it was maintained properly.

the computer does record type II over-rev events, but it doesn't record lots of other information that would be required to PROVE this was due to porsche's MMC design. as for the records? IF the car was dealer serviced, they will have records. there are just too many things one of the owners could have played a roll in to conclusively burn porsche IN THIS CASE.

i personally believe that engine failures in cars this expensive should be UNHEARD of. i also believe in good faith effort to resolve these types of issues when they do appear. porsche did fix all of the slipped sleeve blocks as well as many d-chunk and IMS failure cars, even if they were out of warranty. the d-chunk issue, IMO, is the hardest one to PROVE porsche is at fault for. this guy won't win in court. at best, he'll get a settlement.

[23109VC]

this case is CRAP.

I can hear the opening statement now: "Ladies and Gentelman, my client bought a used Porsche, that had no warranty, and after he drove it around, it had engine problems and needs repairs. He wants Porsche to pay for it. Please feel sorry for my Porsche driving client who doesn't want to foot his own repair bill."

As a TRIAL LAWYER - I can tell you that juries vote on emotion, with the law being only PART of the equation. *No one* is going to feel sorry for a guy who drives a Porsche.

This is not some poor innocent soul who had their car blow up because of a design defect in the gas tanks and suffered life threatening burns or death. This is a guy who knowingly and willingly bought a used sports car. It broke.

Even if the engine is designed poorly, and is PRONE to failure - this is a loser case. He bought a used car and it broke. The car comes with a warranty, they warrant it will last for a set period. They have NO obligation to design and sell a product that lasts 100,000 miles. There is no statement by Porsche that they warrant that their cars will last this long.

For every motor that fails, you can find another one that has gone 100k and did not fail. Porsche is in business to make cars that are fun and fast, not cars that are reliable, dependable, and economical.

You buy a used car - you take your chances. Bottom line.

This case is a big fat loser and Porsche knows it and they will tell this guy to pound sand.

sorry but that's my take on it. I do ONLY criminal law, not civil, so any of you civil guys feel free to chime in and correct me if you feel I am wrong. I don't know the "law" of civil like I do criminal - but I know what a jury will do - and they will laugh this plaintiff out of court. I know there are cases where people settle to minimize costs, etc...so sometimes people will "get" something due to a defendant making a decision based on costs/benefits - but I just don't see them paying this guy. that would just encourage anyone with a bad part to start suing Porsche...

[2001saxster]

Originally Posted by insite

we are dealing with a man who's SECOND-HAND car is NINE years old, and we don't know how many miles are on it. his issue is the classic cylinder wall D-Chunk; it happens on a very small number of cars.



until failure mode and effects analysis is done by a forensic engineering firm, this is heresay. this problem can be caused by overheating the car. if the man's coolant tank blew and he continued to drive the car with the warning light on, the water jacket would empty and the metal matrix composite in the cylinder walll could break down and cause the chunk. this would be an example of how he or the previous owner could be liable.



porsche replaced all of the engines that suffered the sleeved block failures, regardless of warranty expiration. FYI, this porous block fix was an acceptable manufacturing work around. they had a problem with one of the sleeving machines that was not detected until many engines were already sold. again, this guy's problem is the D-Chunk. this can be caused by a LOT of things, MANY of which the owner would bear responsibility for.



the computer does record type II over-rev events, but it doesn't record lots of other information that would be required to PROVE this was due to porsche's MMC design. as for the records? IF the car was dealer serviced, they will have records. there are just too many things one of the owners could have played a roll in to conclusively burn porsche IN THIS CASE.

i personally believe that engine failures in cars this expensive should be UNHEARD of. i also believe in good faith effort to resolve these types of issues when they do appear. porsche did fix all of the slipped sleeve blocks as well as many d-chunk and IMS failure cars, even if they were out of warranty. the d-chunk issue, IMO, is the hardest one to PROVE porsche is at fault for. this guy won't win in court. at best, he'll get a settlement.

What difference does it make if the guy is the first, second, or tenth owner? The way I see it what matters is the upkeep and the mileage. True, it doesn't say the mileage in the article, but that just means that we don't have all the info. He might very well have a very low mileage vehical that was always maintained to specification. By the way, the car is 9 years old now, but if you read the article again you will note that this happened in October of 06'. So it was only 7 years old when that happened.