winkingchef

Insurance is for people who can't afford risk.

I can't afford the risk of some nitwit in a Prius ramming into me and then suing me for $3M to replace his haircut because his father is a bloodsucking lawyer (no offense intended to my fellow Porsche-owning bloodsucking lawyers)

I CAN afford the 10% risk of a $1000 expense out of pocket RMS expense or a 0.5% $20k engine blowup.

There's no shame in it, just rich people using statistics and the Law of Averages to bleed average people of more of their money.

boolala

IOW you don't insure yourself against risk you can easily absorb.
.

r2b2007

LOL, say hi to Sarah for me at your next Tea Party

Palmbeacher

I bought an exclusionary (aka "bumper to bumper",) extended warranty for my MY05 for 6 years for $4500 (the Porsche dealer wanted to sell me the Fidelity for $8600!!! and the small print says it doesn't cover wear-and-tear failures after 50K miles!). The first week off CPO I took it to the dealer to rectify a hard-hot-start problem: one ordinary cable, installed: $900!!!. The warranty picked it up, so my cost is now down 20% to $3900. Let me repeat: all it was was a cable, for $900!!!

So you can blather on all you want about how these warranties are useless because warranty companies are in business to make money. Surely that's true for some people, and if I owned a Honda or a Lexus I might pause before buying a warranty. But I've never yet had one on a European car that didn't pay me back well more than it cost and so far I have no reason to believe this one will be any different. From a cost standpoint there's no such thing as a "minor" repair on a German car unless you DIY, and it's pretty easy in 6 years (on a car that's already 6 years old!) to rack up $4-5K in "minor" repairs even using indy shops.

boolala

Did you ever hear of "publication bias?"

This is a well known phenomenon in the medical field. Researchers who come up with a null result of their experiements tend not to publish them: so the more expensive drug A is no better (and maybe worse) than drug B, well whoop de doo. Nobody cares to hear about it. The results of a favorable trial, however, are all over the news.

Similarly we tend to hear from people who have benefitted from extended warantees. People who shelled out $4000 and got only a fraction in return are not likely to post "hey,that was a waste of money."

Mspeedster

What I don't get is why many on this forum will always recommend getting a CPO car, while OTOH, many frown on extended warranty-like insurance. Both seem similar to me. On the average, a CPO car will cost ~$2K more than a non-CPO car from a private seller. Which only gives 2 more years over the standard warranty. For $2-$3K, you can get 3rd party coverage (e.g. Fidelity, Easycare etc.) and it covers the car for 4 additional years.

boolala

I would trust the Porsche warantee over that of any third party any day.

winkingchef

Per the publication bias comment: I concur. I bought my 997 2 years ago with 30k miles from a private seller. Aside from the 40k service and another oil change at 50k, I have had zero maintenance or repair costs for 20k miles of pleasurable driving.

Let me be clear - I don't frown on warranties/CPO, I am just exposing the financial calculations behind this decision for your consideration. *If* you have the financial buffer to handle the risk then you can pay the costs as they come up (e.g. "self-insure"), then you net win on average (e.g. in my case) because you are not padding the insurance company's profits. Before I bought, I got a PPI at a dealer and had my mechanic look over it for good measure. That was $300 worth of "self-insurance".

I will admit that I did my research and discovered that I'm lucky to live next to a very trustworthy (100+ 5 star Yelp ratings) Porsche Master Mechanic who charges $75/hr and gives me a discount for cash. This reduces my risk tremendously and is definitely part of the equation.

I should probably add if you are the kind of person who wants everything perfect and can't stand the tiniest rattle or paint chip (I'm looking at you, slicky rick), you should get the warranty. These people are the reason that warranty prices are so high - everyone feels that they need to "get their money's worth" and take the car in for questionable services.

Palmbeacher

As someone actually practicing in the medical field, let me just say that legitimate researchers are bound by ethics and in most cases the conditions of their grant, to publish their results regardless of whether their hypothesis is proved or disproved by the data. The patently false insinuation you make, if not for its laughable ignorance, is insulting and borders upon libel. (Whether or not the lay media chooses to publicize the results of a trial depends, like everything else in the media, on how much readership/viewership they can attract.)

And as we all know, negative opinions are far and away more likely to be posted on internet fora and blogs, so you are again ignorantly wrong that "People who shelled out $4000 and got only a fraction in return are not likely to post "hey,that was a waste of money".

In point of fact if you go back and read the anti-extended-warranty posts you will find that the overwhelming majority of them are from people who have never bought one.

boolala

Well you "practice in the medical field?" Well whoop de doo. So have I for the last 30 years. Take your head out of your *** for a minute and do some investigation into the subject of publiucation bias which is a well known phenomenon in medicine. Here's a snippet from the recent Rosen's on this topic (you can look up the listed references for yourself):

The enthusiasm of most investigators and clinicians for the results of a clinical trial is partly determined by the direction of the results.[36] For example, a trial that shows a highly effective new therapy for a serious disease is interesting and exciting. On the contrary, a trial that shows that a previously unstudied therapy has no advantage over the currently accepted treatment may be less interesting. Because positive results are inherently more interesting, it is commonly believed that clinical trials yielding positive results are more likely to be published than those with negative results. This effect is termed publication bias.[37-39]

However, studies have shown that trials with negative results may be less likely to be submitted for publication but, once submitted, are as likely to be published as trials with positive results.[37,39] Thus, publication bias may be the result of a file drawer problem, meaning that study results that are negative sometimes end up in the file drawer instead of in manuscripts submitted for publication.[40]

Publication bias and the file drawer problem are serious threats to the validity of the medical literature taken as a whole. If negative trials are selectively excluded from the medical literature, an ineffective treatment may appear to be at least partially effective because those (possibly poorly designed) studies that show some positive treatment effect are selectively submitted for publication. Meta-analyses or systematic reviews often utilize only published research. It may be unethical to subject patients to the risks and discomforts of participation in a clinical study and not publish the results, especially if participation did not result in any direct benefit to the patient.

Publication bias and other sources of bias can be especially problematic in pharmaceutical or commercially sponsored clinical research. Commercial studies are less likely to report unfavorable conclusions.[41] Data from industry-sponsored research may go unpublished or may be difficult to obtain for subsequent review.[42] When reading a clinical trial, one should determine what agency or company funded the research and consider what biases, if any, might have been introduced."

Sorry but you've just demonstrated your complete ignorance.

Mspeedster

Most who buy 3rd party buy it from the Porsche dealer who will do the service. So it's more a question of whether one trusts your dealer to stand up for the repair claim, regardless of CPO or 3rd party. But that's a slightly different topic for debate.

The logic being used in this thread (and many other similar threads that have come before) is that 3rd party extended warranty/insurance may or may not pay off in the long run. Buy it for peace of mind. This I do agree. But from the same logic, the CPO car may or may not be worth the added cost of CPO. But hardly ever do you hear folks say don't get the CPO. This is what I find odd.

sizquik

$700? Are you talking Porsche or Kia repair costs?

boolala

Yes. RMS leak is a $700 repair: https://rennlist.com/forums/7243726-post5.html

Only an idiot would spend $3000 to cover himself for a $700 failure (and that was the whole point of this thread.)

jpasiczn

The extended warranty would cover more than just an RMS failure, many issues could easily crop up that would well exceed the cost of the coverage. To some people, it makes sense to buy the coverage, it gives them peace of mind that if anything were to come up, they're covered. Some people prefer to not pay up front, and bet that any issues that do arise cost less than the warranty.

Whatever is best for the individual is what they should do. Autonomy is a wonderful thing, and something you should be well aware of, with your 30 years experience in the medical field (I have less than a year of practice experience as a doc, but even I remember that one from school)

sizquik

[QUOTE=jpasiczn;8317637]The extended warranty would cover more than just an RMS failure, many issues could easily crop up that would well exceed the cost of the coverage. To some people, it makes sense to buy the coverage, it gives them peace of mind that if anything were to come up, they're covered. Some people prefer to not pay up front, and bet that any issues that do arise cost less than the warranty.


I can't speak for the 911 as I've only had it for a year but the extended warranty I bought for my Audi S4 paid for itself 3x over.