Gonzo911

I have been wondering how many engine failures are misdiagnosed as IMS related? With the requirement by PCNA that the owner prove the failure was IMS related, the silver lining could be the IMS failure rate could go down.

On the contrary, to take advantage of the settlement it may benefit the Dealer/Servicer to state an IMS failure when the cause of the engine failure was related to something else. This could result in the number of IMS failures to be over reported.

alpine003

Exactly. Dealers have traditionally just replaced the engine instead of doing a proper tear down and diagnosis to repair the engine or to even know if it was truly IMS related.

I'm wondering what percentage has actually been truly IMS related damage since there have been so many that just assumed and chalked it up to IMS. We all know there are other modes of failure as well, including that of the owner to properly maintain or use(abuse) the car.

alpine003

FWIW,

I did find the old blurb again about distinguishing single row from double row cited by Softronic as a source but IIRC, the same range was also part of the LN website at one point. Later it was pointed out that this wasn't entirely accurate and that you should do a visual inspection of the flange to determine the single vs. double. Interesting nonetheless...

LordVicious

Sooooooo this was all total BS? No updates, no additional documentation, just utter nonsense.

Flat6 Innovations

None of the directives were accurate. The records and VIN/ engine # references are a joke.

alpine003

Care to elaborate? Didn't LN website at one point have a list of VIN you could check to see if it was double or single?

Also does anyone have the full PET docs to reference what Softronics was talking about?

Flat6 Innovations

The LN directive was pulled after people started bitching about its accuracy. The directive was created from the factory releases on the topic.

The record keeping was horrible, today if a car is a 2000 or 2005 it has to see a visual inspection to know what bearing is installed.

alpine003

Thanks as I've stated in my previous post, I think we are in agreement that a visual inspection is needed instead of speculation.

I was just trying to see if those number ranges correlated in anyway to the number ranges listed in this lawsuit, but the numbers seem confusing with the various ranges for me to make any sense of it.

street rod

+1 and Jake thanks for the info.

KrazyK

Someone saw a dual row in an 05 996??????

alpine003

The larger single IMS bearing cannot also be assumed in the 05-06 transition.

Bob Rouleau

Update and a reminder - nothing can be done until the court accepts the settlement. That is supposed to happen this month. Please don't call the lawyers until I confirm that the court has accepted the deal.

Regards,

KrazyK

You guys do realize that for Porsche to actually admit there is a problem with their design and agree to civil penalties or remedies, that the problem is far, far worse than anyone can imagine? If civil litigation were allowed to proceed through a court, discovery including interrogatories would probably do great damage to the brands reputation.

Can you imagine what kind of emails, memos, notes, etc. have been sent back and forth between employees, techs, and engineers about this problem? Then throw depositions where cross examination is allowed in the mix and you just destroyed a company.

Porsche has an A+++ legal team to fight any civil onslaught so you can be assured the problem is many times worse than you may think or they would have remained silent.

And if there was any chance to insinuate a hazard to the consumer or public, its over.

Cefalu

And despite this treasure trove of info, no one on this list who is a class member has inquired of to see the discovery information!

rpm's S2

Would you have to have suffered a failure to be a class member and gain access to discovery?