IMS settlement follow up
 

Has anyone who filed for the IMS settlement received any follow up info from either Porsche or the lawyers. I sent in my paperwork and documentation about 6 weeks ago and have not received even an acknowledgement that they received it. Guess it is too much trouble for them to communicate with the common folk.

I received a negative response from the IMS lawyers within 24 hours of sending it.At least they acknowledged me right away. My 2001 Box was outside the 10 year start of service but was in the Class so no past or future compensation. My ims though is still good. I can look up in my emails to see if there is a ph. no. Will get back to you.
G.

I have sent you a pm....

The settlement, as I understand it, is a 'proposed' settlement and not yet final. People have until October 15 IIRC to object to it or exclude themselves from it. Then court will then decide what to do after that. It may give final approval or do something else. So I'd be interested in what folks, who have submitted a claim already, have heard so far.

I inquired about the ims failure lawsuit even though I was told that I was not eligible because my Box is a 2001(outside of the 10 years in service). I am not a lawyer nor will ever be but what about future ims fails of those Boxsters that will be within the ten years of being in service? The way I see it is that you have nothing to lose by "registering" with these lawyers. See the email address for the lawyers involved under search.

Mine is over 10 years old as well and I'm planning to op-out of this settlement... Any benefit to include myself in this settlement (in case they change the settlement criteria)?

Does anyone know what the IMS failure rate is for this 01 -05 Boxster/911 series?
From 2001 to 2005, Porsche sold 39,633 Boxsters and a whopping 51,375 Porsche 911 models (including rarer and unattached-to-this-suit GT2s, GT3s and Turbos).

Be good to know some stats as to % of failures and if its high mileage cars with lots of wear and tear vs. the luck of the draw bearing can go at any point scenario?

This sounds like the Toyota acceleration scare a few years ago, turned out to be more hype with a few incidents than the majority of the cars.

To me, the facts are everything and BS is worthless. Why isn't there a recall on this by the NHTSA.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130918/CARNEWS/130919830?utm_source=DailyDrive20130918&utm_medium =enewsletter&utm_term=article2&utm_content=2013091 8-Porsche-whiffs-on-customer-care&utm_campaign=awdailydrive

[QUOTE=soucorp;363816]Does anyone know what the IMS failure rate is for this 01 -05 Boxster/911 series?
From 2001 to 2005, Porsche sold 39,633 Boxsters and a whopping 51,375 Porsche 911 models (including rarer and unattached-to-this-suit GT2s, GT3s and Turbos).

Be good to know some stats as to % of failures and if its high mileage cars with lots of wear and tear vs. the luck of the draw bearing can go at any point scenario?

Try the search for Boxster failure rate of ims.....

I think I recall reading that only about 20% of cars are effected by failure, and it tends to be more the low mileage, seldom driven cars.

The failure rate, based upon statistics obtained by the plaintiffs in the class-action suit, was much less than 1% for cars with a dual-row IMS bearing and 8-10% for those with the single-row bearing. It should be noted that this is an underestimate as it is based upon failures reported to Porsche (either because the car was brought into a dealership after failure, or because after diagnosis a claim for warranty/extended warranty/post warranty coverage was made to Porsche. It stands to reason that certain people who suffered a failure after the expiry of the warranty didn't even bother to contact Porsche and hence would not be included in the failure rate percentages.

Brad

"There is NO Substitute" Is False Advertising Now!
 

WARNING: You may not want to read this….
image.jpghttp://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1379534363.jpg

Porsche's IMS bearing explained Intelligently: MUST SEE


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hzUq2DFpeKw?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

^ I thought Pedro was a cartoon!

I may not have this precisely correct, but this is my understanding.

The settlement would pay all or some of the costs that owners incurred when repairing IMS caused damage to their Boxster engines. The damage must have taken place within 10 years of the car's in-service date. For example, suppose your Boxster was placed in service on January 1, 2001. You may be reimbursed for IMS related damage if that damage occurred before the end of 2010. If it happened after that, your out of luck. And there is no money for those who took preventative steps like installing an IMS Retrofit.

If you had IMS damage and qualify for some payment, your best bet in my opinion is to file a claim. If you don't qualify, then your best bet is to send a letter to the court objecting to the settlement in the hope of more favorable terms from a revised settlement. If you just opt out, then your in the position of having to sue Porsche on your own because there will not be a second class action suit allowed.

Southernstar, are suggesting that almost 4,000 boxsters had IMS failures reported to Porsche? That figure seems pretty far-fetched.

The percentages are based upon Porsche's own figures obtained by the plaintiff's during the discovery process in the class-action suit. I assume it was based upon figures from the United States only (although I suspect the failure rate would be similar internationally).

Brad

Interesting explanation of IMS issue by Pedro. Would Jake Raby or anyone from LN comment on this theory and potential fix?

What I want to know is why are they only agreeing to pay after the engine is effed up! Why isn't this treated like a safety recall by the GOV to make them replace the defect put in place by a bean counter to reduce cost. The way Porsche went about handling it is ridiculous and is hurting the brand Big Time.

just my $.02, I love my car still... just heart broken and venting and now I have to pay for a preventive service out of my own pocket for piece of mind that my car could be in the 1%-10% failure rate.

He said they change from double to single row in 99:
Mine is a 2000 (and just almost failed), it is a double row bearing.

So his logic isn't 100% correct, when he states that engines started failed right after they went from double to single bearing....

in 2000, porsche started using the single row. not every engine had a single row until 2002 MY, so it's possible that 2 cars of the same MY (2000, 2001) have different bearings.

he also said that there were more failures from single row than double row, which i think has been shown to be true from others who have worked on this. doesn't mean the double row doesn't fail, just that the single row fails more often.

remember, statistics don't matter to the individual.