ouch...

[DenverSteve]

Originally Posted by Dragonwind

Well I find the tone of this a little condescending but that may be just because it is hard to translate it into text. Of course he has brought it to the dealer...multiple times and they have never been able to eliminate it. Apparently word is 2009's are notorious for electrical issues. Chris

Nothing condescending about my post - not taken out of context I exclude your friend in my first sentence.

[jotoole]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

This tells you how much these surveys are worth in the first place.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Dragonwind]

Originally Posted by DenverSteve

Nothing condescending about my post - not taken out of context I exclude your friend in my first sentence.

Ah no worries then. Really thought I'd be pretty pissed with Porsche if my car couldn't go a week without needing to be on a charger.

But back to the main topic I wonder what the SUV complaints are all about? I remember the DFI was causing a lot of issues with excessive oil deposit buildups on the valves.

Chris

[tonycarreon]

Originally Posted by DenverSteve

If I had a vehicle, of any type, with which a live/dead short couldn't be found, I would install a Cole-Hersee (or similar) Automatic Low Voltage Disconnect Switch to disengage the battery while not being driven. Or keep it on a trickle charger.

doesn't this just kind of prove the point?
"my car's battery is constantly being drained while it's not running."
"well, put it on a charger or unplug the battery."

as an aside, it does appear the cayenne is what dragged the results down, though not engine issues. the report states that the boxster's positives were not enough to overcome the suv's flaws. remember the boxster was CR's top pick last year.

(and it's not that i put a lot of stock in CR's reports, but it's still a black eye overall. i imagine most people who are planning to buy a porsche have already decided to buy a porsche and do not go pick up a CR to read the survey results.)

[jbs986]

Originally Posted by Ghostrider 310

denversteve, I politely say to that Beee ESSSS! My car was coddled and some people who went to the dealer and received new engines had the second engines blow up too. Simply stated there isn't one scheduled maintenance that was skipped on my crippled car. Furthermore, when I took my 944 to the dealer they returned it leaking oil and then charged full for the second repair. There is ZERO truth that a car maintained well by a competent indy mechanic is the reason a Boxster will fail. I don't agree that the cheapness was all for weight savings either, the interior in the 98 is really quite cheesy considering cost and a 944 is likely lighter than a Boxster at 2800/ 2900 pounds.
The dentist owns an island, he goes to the dealer for the really pretty stamp collections and both are under Porsche warranty AND when your name begins with doctor Porsche dealers deliver a different style of service.

+ 1, I did all the maintenance on my 99 Boxster on time and the right way and it suffered from all the common problems that Boxsters are known for, I now own a 2002 Boxster and love it but like all Boxsters I am always working on it. I only paid $9,000.00 for my 2002, It was a great deal, Part of the reason is because of the fact that these cars have so many issues, and please don't tell me all cars do, I also have a 2006 Lotus Elise that I drive and track the hell out of with Zero Problems, all I do is regular maintenance.

The M96 motor that Porsche put in are cars, is a joke and for this reason alone Porsche deserves such a low rating, They deserve it.

[Idaho Red Rocket 3]

Funny thing is....we all still love our Porsches !!

[fivepointnine]

ALL my vehicles have serious engine issues that have popped up on other cars

Boxster-IMS/RMS issues
Saab-severe sludge issues/random loss of all oil pressure going down the highway@70
BMW X3-transfer case tends to explode, front diffs explode, trannys dont last past 60k miles, CCV fail causing oil hydrolock which leads to blown head gaskets or engine failure....etc etc etc

if you dig deep enough into most cars, they will have known issues


hands down the least reliable vehicle I owned was a 2001 Ford Explorer 5.0 awd, just throwing that out there

[smshirk]

I've had 3 M96 cars with no engine issues. Just lucky I guess, but I don't believe the IMS failures are as pervasive as the forums indicate. We only hear about the problems here generally speaking.

Every model of 911 had its issues out of the gate. The 993 requires a 10-15k top end rebuild to turn off a CEL. The 2.7s are considered inferior and the SC, now considered to be bullet proof did not come with hydraulic tensioners. That was a fix in 84 that had to be applied to the 2.7s and 3.0s, that's 10 years worth of 911s with hardy doors!

My only point is that Porsche has always been the way they are now with IMS/RMS issues. If you buy new, they usually take care of you even out of warranty on this kind of stuff, but if you buy somewhere else, that car is no longer their problem. It's not unusual for car manufacturers. I think Porsche should hold themselves to a higher standard, but they never have and they have never been very open about failure percentages either, even after redesigning away a known problem. We keep buying them because they are so much fun to drive and we get hooked. It's an addiction that I've had for 30 years.

As for the tops and windows on Boxsters compared to the Targa tops and early 911 Cabs, there is really no comparison, the 986 is far superior in design, comfort, noise, and especially they don't leak!