I just went over the terms of the settlement of the class-action suit again
( see
IMS Class Action Suit 2001-2005 owners win. Update Mar 12 - Rennlist Discussion Forums )
and made a couple of observations:
1. The settlement applies to Porsche Boxsters that were built between May 4, 2001 and Feb. 21, 2005, within the listed range of serial numbers. I suspect that the excluded serial numbers during that time period are for cars that were built for markets other than the USA, as that is the only country to which the settlement applies.
2. Regardless of the date of manufacture within that range, Porsche will compensate purchasers on a sliding scale if a failure of the IMS occurred within 10years of the commencement of the warranty (typically the date of sale) and 130,000 miles. It is not the date of the claim that must be within 10 years (or the mileage at the time of the claim), but rather the date and mileage at the time of failure.
Hence, although the 2001 and 2002 vehicles (and a number of 2003's) would already be more than 10 years old since the in-service date, nevertheless they are covered (and will continue to be covered until some future cut-off date for claims) for monies that were expended due to failure of the bearings that occurred within 10 years of the original sale.
What is interesting, therefore, is that 2000 and 2001 Boxsters built before May 4, 2001, are not included in the settlement. If they had suffered an IMS failure within 10 years of sale, then why are they not covered just like other Boxsters that were produced more than 10 years ago? What is the magic in a manufacturing date of May 4, 2001? Lets face it, the warranty period for a car is predicated on the date it was put in service/sold and not the manufacturing date. Consequently, a car that was produced in early 2001 will often have been sold, or put in service AFTER a car which was manufactured later in the year - dealerships carry an inventory.
It srikes me that Porsche is saying (and presumably had the records to prove to the plaintiffs), that no Boxsters assembled after that date had a dual-row RMS bearing and consequently, they are entitled to be a part of the settlement.
Did the plaintiff's simply rely upon Porsche's engine serial numbers for the end of the dual-row bearing? Perhaps. However, we do know that the single-row bearing was not introduced at the same time as the introduction of the 2.7 and 3.2 engines - it was a mid-2000 'upgrade'. Since in Europe, model years are unimportant (they rely on date of manufacture for the year of the car), then can we not assume that mid-2000 refers to the date of manufacture of the engine, rather than the model year of the car?
We also know that there is a gap between the date of manufacture of an engine and the date of manufacture of the car. For example, my 2.7 engine was built in 1998 (denoted by the letter Y prior to the final 5 sequential numbers in the engine's serial number) and yet the car was not manufactured until August of 1999 (as a North American 2000 model year). If I am correct and the single-row bearing was not first introduced in engines built until some point during the 2000 calendar year, rather than the 2000 model year, then we can explain the fact that some 2000 and 2001 Boxsters seem to have the single-row bearing and some do not:
1. If the engine was built in 1998, it will by definition have a double-row bearing (again, a Y preceding the last 5 sequential digits in the engine serial number) as the single-row bearing was not introduced until the year 2000.
2. If the engine was built in claendar year 1999, it will also have a double-row bearing (denoted by a Z preceding the final 5 sequential digits). This will include 2000 MY cars assembled early in calendar year 2000, until the dual-row bearings ran out. It may also include cars assembled for release as early North American MY 2001's (just as my engine, although built in 1998, was installed in a 2000 model year car that was assembled in August 1999.)
3. If the engine was manufactured in calendar year 2000 after the introduction of the single-row bearing (and presumably, after they had run out of all remaining dual-row IMS bearings), it will have a single row IMS bearing. This would include late 2000 MY's, as well as the remaining early to mid 2001 MY's. The serial number for engines built in 2000 (which interestingly, is also when Porsche changed from letters to numbers to signify the year), have the number 0 prior to the final 5 sequential numbers in the engine serial number.
This would not only explain why some MY 2000's (the late ones) may have the single-row bearing, but also why some 2001's (the early ones) may have the dual-row bearing. It would also explain why the settlement applies only to 2001's manufactured after May 4, 2001, as perhaps Porsche's records show that the last of the dual-row bearing engines was installed in a car on that date.
Anyway, I would be interested in hearing if anyone has had a dual-row bearing in an engine that was built in either 1998 or 1999.
Brad
Linear Mode
