Autoweek Words on IMS

[southernstar]

I must say that I am in complete agreement with Perfectlap on this. Lets look at this in context: The problems themselves happened in only 8 % of cars with single-row bearings and less than 1% in cars with double-row bearings. Keep in mind that this is regardless of mileage, age and maintenance schedules - and that it seems clear that cars with frequent oil changes are much less likely to have a failure. If despite what are pretty good odds at avoiding failure on all cars (and exceptionally good on dual-row bearing IMS cars with frequent oil changes) you are still worried, then pay for an upgrade and/or or the LN 'solution, or DOF. Considering the relatively low cost at present for 986's and early 987's, for many it will be relatively cheap, but worthwhile insurance to take into consideration when you buy the car. At least this is a problem that is predictable (and most mechanical problems on cars cannot be predicted with any certainly as no stats are available from the manufacturer); it is also a problem for which there are fixes available.

Brad

[joeyclouse]

Does anyone now why the lawsuit is only for 2001-2005? I have a 2007 and had IMS failure 2 months ago. My Mechanic says in the past 2 months he has seen 3 more post 2005 boxsters come in with complete IMS failure. I'm also curious how if ever these types of repairs get reported back to Porsche so they can get included in the offical number of failures, since they aren't being repaired at the dealerships.

[rp17]

Originally Posted by joeyclouse

Does anyone now why the lawsuit is only for 2001-2005? I have a 2007 and had IMS failure 2 months ago. My Mechanic says in the past 2 months he has seen 3 more post 2005 boxsters come in with complete IMS failure. I'm also curious how if ever these types of repairs get reported back to Porsche so they can get included in the offical number of failures, since they aren't being repaired at the dealerships.

The lawsuit only targets those cars because they were the most likely to fail like stated about 8%.

Can you tell us about the symptoms of your failure? How often you changed your oil? Did you have a manual transmission? Your oil change intervals and driving habits? Did they actually split the engine case to see what was the culprit?

[joeyclouse]

Originally Posted by rp17

The lawsuit only targets those cars because they were the most likely to fail like stated about 8%.

Can you tell us about the symptoms of your failure? How often you changed your oil? Did you have a manual transmission? Your oil change intervals and driving habits? Did they actually split the engine case to see what was the culprit?

I had an automatic with around 50K miles only owned it for 1 year bought it from car max had one oil change drove it as my daily commuter car fairly aggressively. No symptoms until when I noticed when quietly listening to it while it was idling you could here a light crunching noise. At that point the I already had the faliure the shaft was damaged and metal pieces were everywhere including the oil pan. The bearings were pitted the only good thing was the bearings stayed in place.

[riverside986]

In the next few days I'll be mailing or emailing the enrollment forms for the class action thing. It galls me to do it. If Porsche had simply acknowledged the obvious and made a semi-reasonable accommodation early in the game, we (and the motoring press) wouldn't be having this sorry conversation.

Back around model year 1998, Mercedes eventually offered an extended warranty on engines when serious sludge issues arose, aggravated by MB North America's continued embrace of mediocre conventional engine oils along with extended service intervals. I just received notice of an extended warranty from VW. GTIs of the vintage of mine (2010) have a predilection for problems with intake manifolds and injectors. Those components are now covered for 10 years and 120,000 miles. VW's hand may have been forced a little because these are considered emissions-related.

We shouldn't expect any company to warranty their product to the end of time or re-engineer every car they have sold, even if it's performing well. And I'm reconciled to assuming responsibility for the maintenance of my car. But Porsche extending the engine warranty to 10 years (even 12 years considering the numerous low-mileage cars) and 100,000 miles for at least the highest risk models would have made a huge difference in perception and customer loyalty.

As with the Mercedes program, a fairly small percentage of total cars sold would likely have been involved in major repairs. We would be thanking them, instead of wondering why Porsche management of the recent past squandered so much attention and resources on foolishness like their attempted swallowing of VW Group. But no "what ifs" are going to change anything now.

A lot of people in new car sales tell me to simply lease cars for no term longer than the warranty. That concept of throw-away machines goes against the grain of my many years of collecting, enjoying and preserving fine cars, but they might be right. I can take some solace that my 2004 Boxster S has (as of this morning) been one of the most trouble-free and enjoyable automobiles I've owned.

Gil

[rp17]

Originally Posted by joeyclouse

I had an automatic with around 50K miles only owned it for 1 year bought it from car max had one oil change drove it as my daily commuter car fairly aggressively. No symptoms until when I noticed when quietly listening to it while it was idling you could here a light crunching noise. At that point the I already had the faliure the shaft was damaged and metal pieces were everywhere including the oil pan. The bearings were pitted the only good thing was the bearings stayed in place.

Joey this is awful looking pictures. Can't imagine how pissed you are right now. Do you know what you are going to do with the car? There is a thread on this forum about a sale on refurb engines. Might want to source a used engine if your still in love with this car. Can your Indy do a rebuild?

[southernstar]

Gil (riverside986) couldn't have put it better: many manufacturers have given extended warranties on engines which have proven to have problems and Porsche not only could have, but should have done this once they became aware of the issues with the IMS. Ultimately, standing behind your products is not expensive - it is the cost of doing and staying in business. Who knows what this will ultimately cost Porsche in terms of damaged reputation and lost business, but the fact that publications such as Autoweek are continuing to report on it suggesst that the bleeding is far from over for Porsche.

Brad

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Who knows what this will ultimately cost Porsche in terms of damaged reputation and lost business.

Not very much. The average person who owns a Porsche now doesn't know that engines went down or even know what an IMS is. Namely because they are increasingly Pana and Cayenne buyers. Porsche could completely stop selling Boxsters/Caymans and Carreras and still be an extremely successful company. And From what Jake Raby has posted, the Cayenne engines are not at all plagued with these m96 issues. Also, Porsche doesn't make their bread and butter from people who hold onto their cars long enough to see the error of their engineering ways. Porsche is firmly a luxury brand now and that sort of buyer gets antsy when their car seems like its old hat. Luxury car brands making mediocre cars as far as durability and longevity is not a ground breaking achievement for Porsche. Just look at the other German brands losing half their values before the warranty is even up.

Originally Posted by southernstar

but the fact that publications such as Autoweek are continuing to report on it suggesst that the bleeding is far from over for Porsche.

Autoweek's reporting of this issue did not do us, the present owners, any good. For very obvious reasons of heightening the drama they chose not to tell the readers of this piece that there have been fixes for this issue since 2010. Read the comments and you'll dozens of people saying "oh I will never buy a used Porsche now". Either Mandel is very very sloppy in doing his research or Autoweek deliberately presented this as a "no remedies that will cost Porsche and owners untold fortunes". If it was meant to inform, particularly those time-out of the settlement, then he at the very least could have provided links for LNE, Pelican or other experts who can carry out preventative maintenance on the issue or that you can instal a simple dash-mounted device to alert you a impending failure -- a simple mod that could have saved the owner a total loss on the car's purchase price.. This is type of IMS reporting we can all do without: Partial facts and no shortage of dramatics and colorful language.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by southernstar

I must say that I am in complete agreement with Perfectlap on this. Lets look at this in context: The problems themselves happened in only 8 % of cars with single-row bearings and less than 1% in cars with double-row bearings. Keep in mind that this is regardless of mileage, age and maintenance schedules - and that it seems clear that cars with frequent oil changes are much less likely to have a failure. If despite what are pretty good odds at avoiding failure on all cars (and exceptionally good on dual-row bearing IMS cars with frequent oil changes) you are still worried, then pay for an upgrade and/or or the LN 'solution, or DOF.
Brad

I think people today take false comfort in those 1- 8% figures. Figures that weren't vetted by a third party for unintended and intended ommissions. They can't even tell us which cars have dual or single row bearings with any certainty. More importantly, those numbers are always evolving and were done when most of the cars had not yet reached high mileage. Hence why Porsche often ranks high in reliability surveys. If most 986/996/997.1 Porsches were daily drivers, that 8% would not be 8%, as most owners do not service their cars the way the post-mortem experts advise today.