Engine Failure Class Action

[2001saxster]

Originally Posted by bmussatti

I have 6 things to say:

1) The lawyers will do well and get paid.

2) We have just over 14,000 Forum Members here.

3) How many "failures" have we discussed here?

4) Less than 1% for sure (<140), and we are the VOCAL ones in the Porsche ownership experience. Is this really an issue?

5) I have never seen a Porsche stranded at the side of the road in the past 15 years and over 450,000 miles of driving in the midwest. Never. But, I have seen tons of Japanese cars...and other brands.

6) The Porsche dealerships I visit don't look busy doing catastrophic engine work.

I agree 100% with you on point 1, but just because the lawyers are going to make out the best of anyone I don't think that is a reason for Porsche not to be held accountable.

#'s 2, 3, & 4 all seem to lead up to the same point. I see what you are getting at, but i don't necesarrily agree. You put the figure at 1%, while others put it at 10-15%. A while back someone on another board had a great comment in response to similar percentages that were dropped..."80% of all statistics are made up on the spot"...Truth is that only Porsche knows and they obviously aren't saying anything which IMHO is why this lawsuit is needed.

As for #'s of Porsches on the side of road versus #'s of Japanese cars, well I get what your saying, but come on, there are probably 100,000 Japanese vehicals for every Porsche on the road. One person's recollection of years of driving isn't exactly a very scientific poll.

As to dealers not being busy doing engine replacements, I doubt they'd admit to it (although my dealer actually did moan "We've been down this road before" when I told him the diagnosis on my Boxster). When my engine went I spoke with three dealers and four independants. All the dealers sounded astonished when I told them the diagnosis on my car (I could imagine them scratching their head while looking bewilderedly skyward). Yet all the indys implied that it was indeed an all to common occurance. Hmm? Who has the motivation to lie?

[Burg Boxster]

Originally Posted by 2001saxster

80% of all statistics are made up on the spot

actually it's 76.3%


Seriously though.....

I feel bad for this guy (based on what I read quickly) but we don't know the whole story which is where the truth lies. Regardless, based on what I read I don't think he's entitled to a nickel. If his "case" wasn't compelling enough for Porsche to good will a new engine then there is a reason. I've read postings from Boxster owners who, well out of warranty, have gotten an engine good willed to them (even 2nd owners).

Bottom line.... lot's of cars have lot's of problems. Many less problems than they did 10yrs ago let alone 20..... It's called progress. Unless it's a safety defect possibly affecting a person's life, then there's absolutely no reasonable responsibility for the mfg. If I were in his shoes, I'd hope Porsche would help me out, but I would certainly have no expectations of them doing so.

A friend who wasn't able to get a new engine good willed to them once told me: "If your biggest complaint all day is that you have a blown motor in your Porsche.... then you really have nothing to complain about" Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Topless]

A nine year old car??? Not gonna happen.

[MikenOH]

Originally Posted by insite


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.
---------------------

As a former owner of a '99' model, I have followed this issue closely from when it was first discovered. I know Porsche was replacing the engines that failed with in the warranty period n/c and even if it was a bit our of warranty the reports I heard were either a comp[lete free replacement or a shared cost approach.

Having said that, I've seen posts on this and other boards of owners with the same model year, built in that period where the sleeved blocks were supposed to have been used, with failed engines with low miles on cars that were several years past there warranty period and got zip from Porsche. These were garage queens that just weren't driven much that suddenly went bang.

You've made a definitive statement that Porsche fixed all these cars N/C to the owner. What facts is your statement based on ? Do you have any info from Porsche on this? I ask since I've never seen anything publicly said about this from Porsche.

[wild1poet2]

Wouldn't the plaintiff, as part of discovery, be able to request and receive all Porsche documents(i.e., research, stats, memos, emails) and correspondence related to this type of engine failure? And if it turns out that it was a known defect..... well so goes the argument

This is what happened in those class action suits against the tobacco companies.

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by MikenOH

You've made a definitive statement that Porsche fixed all these cars N/C to the owner. What facts is your statement based on ? Do you have any info from Porsche on this? I ask since I've never seen anything publicly said about this from Porsche.

Are you a lawyer? (Just curious)

[insite]

Originally Posted by MikenOH

You've made a definitive statement that Porsche fixed all these cars N/C to the owner. What facts is your statement based on ? Do you have any info from Porsche on this? I ask since I've never seen anything publicly said about this from Porsche.

define low mileage. i have yet to hear of an owner of a '98 / '99 car with a sleeved block that failed and was NOT replaced IF it had under about 30k miles. if these engines failed, they tended to fail very early in their life cycles. if they made it past 30k, they generally never slipped a sleeve (apparently there was a 'good' tool and a 'bad' tool; if you got the good one, your sleeves didn't slip).

there MAY be some owners who got left out in the cold by this; i don't personally know of any. the assertion that porsche replaced these motors comes from an article i read awhile back from an independant warranty company that was researching M96 failures. i'll try to find the article.

[MikenOH]

I look forward to see that info--I'm sure it would be an interesting read.

I have corresponded via email with 2-3 guys on this subject that had under 20K miles and have gotten zip from Porsche; these were people mostly off Pete's boxster board but here may have been off of this one. They sounded legit.


Here's' one guy--the email was from April 2006. Last I hear he got squat

Hi Mike: Thanks for the response. Car is now at the dealer so I can't get
you the build date sticker. Will the VIN # help? A little more info. Car is
mine since it was delivered new in Dec 98. Car was already on its way from
the factory when I got involved and the car was delivered to
Pioneer/Porsche in San Diego. A true garage queen. several concurs and 2
wash'n shine first places and only 14,850 until last week when the
catastopic engine failure occured. We did a Porsche driving experience and
one autocross since the car was new.
I've been hearing about cylinder sleeve failure- have you? Let's keep in
touch. I appreciate your help and interest.
Les,

ike: The build date on my '99 is 12 nov, 1998. The local delivery was 28
decmber, 98.
To bring you up to date, I can safely say that I am being stonewalled by
the Local dealer, the So Cal rep and by the National PCA "Customer
commitment" on the East Coast. They just refuse to help on the engine. Do
you happen to know if there is a central Porsche guy that could help
document the engine sleeve problem? All I have is heresay to work with and
I afraid it is not going to cut the mustard when I write my strongly worded
letter (in progress). Anything you can add will be appreciated....Les

[insite]

wow; sucks for those guys. didn't think porsche left any with the slipped sleeve issue hanging in the wind unless there was more to the story.

at any rate, this is the article i was thinking of. it doesn't mention porsche having fixed all of the slipped sleeve issues. must be another article i'm thinking of; i'll keep looking. this one shows all of the failure modes common to the M96 and discusses metal matrix composites in detail.

FYI, the company called autofarm out of the UK who is sleeving these blocks w/ nikasil is not the only company doing this now. i'm pretty sure that phillip raby from autofarm and jake raby from flat6 innovations are related. at any rate, jake has the capability to bore and sleeve our motors for reliability and power. this is great news, becuase THEY HAVE STOPPED making 2.5L replacement motors at porsche. there are like six left; that's it. still expensive to get the rebuild done, but probably about the same as a replacement from porsche. plus, more power & way more reliability. they can get 260HP from the 2.5L.

anyway, here's the article:

UPDATE: the article is 48 pages long and 2.7MB PDF file. it won't let me post it here. anyone have a place i can upload it to & link it here? thanks.

[c4s]

As a person who's been on the receiving end of a class action notice I can illuminate a few basic facts...
1. To have a judge certify a class is not easy to do (they don't like to waste the government's time).
2. the majority of class actions never go to trial
3. the lawyers get most of the dough and the class gets peanuts (with the exception of the guy bringing the case on your behalf)
4. this is a pr blemish for Porsche... no more no less

Lastly I know at least ten box/box s owners... no blown engines in my little universe...

[LoveBunny]

If I'm reading the article correctly, the guy who owns the car is the attorney filing the suit. Also, it says he seeks class action status, not that it's been accepted as a class. But I could have missed something. I didn't read it that closely.

[2001saxster]

Originally Posted by LoveBunny

If I'm reading the article correctly, the guy who owns the car is the attorney filing the suit. Also, it says he seeks class action status, not that it's been accepted as a class. But I could have missed something. I didn't read it that closely.

No, you mis-read, but I can understand how. The last name of the plaintiff and the attorney are very similar. The attorney is Nagel, the plantiff is Noble. I thought the same thing when I read it.

[insite]

anyone have a place i can upload a PDF to & link it here?