Engine Failure Class Action
 

Just ran across this on another board...

http://www.northjersey.com/business/news/Porsches_blown_motor_spurs_suit.html

I hope it happens, I can't wait to join!

I think this who thing is going to make or break it on the basis of who told the car owner that Porsche built a defective item. If it was a dealership,then he will get somewhere,if it was an indy shop I think he is screwed.

If anyone here has experienced a faulty engine you should find a way to contact this guy.

Here is more info;

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-njdce/case_no-2:2008cv03658/case_id-217306/

Class action suits benefit no one but the lawyers involved. Out of curiosity I'd love to see a data pull from the engine.
Chris

Does it really matter legally whether the engines blow up or not? Is it a car company's responsibility to have their engines last indefinitely? Porsche warrants that the car will run for 4 years or 50K miles and will repair it if it does not. After that any manufacturing defects are tough ********************.

Even if Porsche knows about a defective part, it is under no obligation to inform the public of it, unless it is safety related. How can Porsche know haw the car was driven by the first owner? Was all maintenance performed by an authorized service department?

I think an individual lawsuit by a second owner is irresponsible and frivolous. As a class action suit it serves no one but the lawyers. This attitude that I should be protected for every decision I make or anything that happens to me is what's wrong with the country. Its slowly squeezing our freedoms down to nothing.

:ah: :ah: :ah: :ah: :ah: :ah: :ah: :ah: :ah: :ah:

I hear what you're sayin', renzop, and I think in general that's true. But I'm not so sure here. If Porsche is building their engines using components they KNOW are prone to early failure, I think there just might be a case here.

The same logic, I would submit, holds even more true with the IMS failures that occur all too frequently.

amen to that. i do think the issues with early engine losses (20k on a car that's 5yrs old) WOULD have warrented some kind of action had porsche not stepped up to the plate. as it were, they examined these on a case by case basis, and where it was clearly a design issue, they replaced the engines in good faith.

a second hand owner with an out of warranty car is a fool to sue; **************** happens.

No, it certainly is not the responsibility of any company to warrant their products indefinitely. Why is it that everytime this issue is raised someone says something like that? 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

I think this whole class action lawsuit thing will be interesting to watch. If you look back 25-30 or more years ago, it was unusual for high revving European cars in the US to have engines that lasted 100K miles without some sort of failure. When I was growing up, we had a 1966 4 cylinder Mercedes that needed a full valve job at 70K miles. The quality Japanese cars really changed the standards for how long small 4 and 6 cylinder engines would last on US highways. Big slow turning American V-8s back then could easily go over 100K miles, which is why they were so highly prized in many places.

Now everyone expects any engine to last forever. Forget about Yugos and all the early imported Korean cars. Engine technology has changed significantly, and so has everyone's expectations.

Here's a good story - my nephew drove down from San Jose to visit us in late June in his hand-me-down 1997 Dodge Intrepid. He had major transmission issues, to the point where his car couldn't make it up my driveway. We did some research and found that a lot of the Chrysler auto transmissions don't last much more than about 50-60K miles, and to get much more than that, you need to do a complete transmission service every 20K miles as well as be lucky. Somehow Chrysler is still in business, but I don't understand why

It's clear that for as much as cars have improved, based upon the high standards and expectations set by the Japanese manufacturers, the reality is that some parts on some cars just don't last forever. Even Porsche has had engine problems throughout its history with the air cooled 911 motors, most recently with 993 engines needing top end rebuilds because of gunked up secondary air injection systems - at less than 40K miles.

I'd like to see this guy win his case, and Porsche have to provide new engines to 986 and 996 owners for free until the end of time (just because I have a selfish, vested interest), but I don't see his case going that way

Are you guys kidding?
 

****************************
With all the blown engines and other design flaws I read about on this forum and others...I hope this suit gets a TON of press! Sorry but most cars today - especially the Asian ones- easily get 100K with minimal trouble. Hell, my Jeep Liberty (not entirely a quality Daimler-Chrysler product) got to 100K without problems....Porsche (and many other *high end* auto manufacturers sell the quality dream so why shouldn't I as a consumer EXPECT it? I certainly bought my Porsche (as a 2nd owner no less) thinking I was buying a higher quality product. Maybe it's going to take a few of these lawsuits against the luxery auto manufacturers to force them into delivering what they're selling. I know too many engineers who have gone to work for auto companies. They know exactly what the life span is of the parts in their cars. The fact that they want to hold out as long as they can without upping the quality is nothing more than capitalism at it's finest.

I am not saying my car should last forever...that's a pipe dream. But there's a clear difference between forever and engine failures at the under 100K mark. Why 100K? If the Japs can do it... so can everyone else. Maybe that's why the Asian auto market is kicking everyone's a$$.

And as for the comments about 2nd owners not to expect any kind of guarantee??? WTF??? If the car's has documentation to support that it's been well maintained, cared for and driven reasonably, then who gives a crap how many owners it's had? Or was that comment just a smack in the face to the people who can't / refuse to buy one brand new????

Lawyers be dammed! Make it a public trial by Porsche owners!

Sorry, that just got me really fired up...
Kennedi

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.

This would be a non issue if Porsche sold parts to rebuild the engines or didn't charge so much for replacement engines.

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.

As the resident libertarian here, I would tend to disagree with you here. I am fine about a class action suit in this case, where I BELIEVE the manufacturer is selling engines that it knows will grenade more than anyone would believe.

Even if the plantiffs receive no money, the company MAY actually fix the design flaw.

IMHO.

I would diagree with your last point. The local service manager clued me in once. It is not a pretty story.

I'm in no way saying that Porsche is justified in what they charge for a replacement engine, and I think that the refusal to sell rebuild parts is almost criminal! However, to put it in perspective...

Price an outboard motor for a boat. Say, a 250 hp modern outboard, 2 or 4 stroke, brand new. $15,000 to $20,000 or more.

They know that they are not a commodity item, but rather a specialty one. They charge a specialty price. When you think about a Porsche engine costing less than a Yamaha outboard engine, it makes you think a bit. One thing though... the Yamaha outboard doesn't have a reputation for grenading!

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.

It may be 9 (or 7) years old, but it’s common for chronologically old Porsches to have very few miles. Is it acceptable for a car with 40-50K miles to undergo catastrophic failure, assuming it was maintained properly and not abused. (Like you, I have NO idea how many miles the car in this case had on it, and that figure IS an important one. I’m just playin’ devil’s advocate here.)

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

Indeed, but this would be true, would it not, even if the car was still under warranty? An interesting question, I guess. Would an existing and valid warranty cover the cost of engine replacement if the initial problem was easily fixable but the huge majority of the damage was caused by the stupidity of the owner, ie continuing to drive with no coolant? I dunno.

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.

As a TRIAL LAWYER, I doubt you'd proceed along those lines, counselor, were you representing the plaintiff here. I suspect their opening statement will be worded somewhat differently. A jury, some of whom may drive Toyotas or Hondas that have 150K or 200K miles, may well empathize with someone who saved his nickels and dimes for years to be able to afford his “dream car” that turned into a nightmare through no fault of his own. Especially if that car had only 40-50K on it, and it is proven that maintenance was proper and abuse did not occur. It didn’t simply have “engine problems” in need of repair---it self-destructed.

In a David vs. Goliath situation such as this, the jury may well feel sorry for David whether he drives a Porsche or a Dodge Dart.

It ain’t gonna be an easy case to win. As insite said, he may well be gunnin’ for a decent settlement. If not, he’ll have his hands full. Porsche, I have no doubt, has a ton of very talented lawyers. What with discovery, pretrial motions, delay tactics, etc. they can make life miserable for a lesser team of advocates (not to mention expensive for the plaintiff). All that I’m saying is this: Assuming proper maintenance and lack of owner contribution to the problem can be established, a decent argument can be made that an automobile owner should reasonably be able to expect that car to last more than say 40-50K miles. It’s going to have to be a common law kind of case, some sort of implied warranty (implied warranty of merchantability?), bolstered, ideally, by bad faith on the part of Porsche (ie knowingly using substandard components in their cars).

People have come to expect more from a car. A while back, I had my Camry into the Toyota dealership (picking up an oil filter or something…I don’t remember); I told the guy it had 165K miles on it. His response? “Hell, it’s just gettin' broke in.” The expected standards are higher, the bar has been raised. Juries know that. So should Porsche.

What boggles my mind is that Porsche chooses to profit from their own poorly designed product. At the very least you'd think they could offer to sell replacement engines at cost for those whose engines implode below 100,000 miles. That way they're not making or losing any money, the dealer can still make some dough on the installation and the car owner ends up with a newer and(hopefully) better engine. Not ideal by any means, but I'd say that would be one way to make the best of a bad situation all around. If I'd been given an offer like that I'd have been reasonably happy. Maybe I'd even consider buying another Porsche. Too bad, now they have a basher for life...

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?

actually it's 76.3% :D


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.

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

insite--got a question for you
 

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.

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.

Are you a lawyer? (Just curious)

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.

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

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.

Bs
 

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...

I believe, as stated previously, that this really is capitalism at its best. The fact that someone buys a second hand Porsche and the engine fails sucks. Yes it is second hand and beyond warranty, but it may have a "reasonable" amount of miles on it. I know that on my Honda s2000, which had a complex valve adjusting system, the first tune up was needed at 90,000+ miles.

What makes me say this is capitalism at its best are two facts that come to mind. First is the build quality of 74-77 Porsche 911s. At this period in time Porsche SUCKED. The metallurgy was just flat out bad and the design had serious problems that, IMO, were easy to foresee (i.e. increasing displacement and not increasing heat core size). Porsche worked on it and in 78 the engines were extremely reliable. By 84 the engines with regular maintenance could last 250k+ miles.

Another factoid that came to mind was Mercedes. Around '93 they traded off their extremely high build quality for profits. Since then benzes have sucked IMO. I know plenty of people that have had silly problems with their benzes.

I do think that Porsche is cutting corners with their engines, but not with the cylinder sleeve. That part was fixed. Im more concerned with the IMS bearings.

Do I think Porsche should replace his engine? If the milage was higher than the warranty figure No, but I think they should help OR offer rebuild parts that were defective. One doesn't see many water cooled engines being disassembled because they just get replaced...

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.

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