moab

judge would not award costs to a massive company like Porsche if it was not a frivolous claim.

Lemikson

One more option for the OP is to file a CAMVAP arbitration claim.
PCC would have a hard time to defend their position that altered (aftermarket) PASM ECU (DCS) is the cause of this failure.
https://www.camvap.ca/FAQ/~english
Cost you no money to file and attend hearing if you get to that point, but you will spend time and effort.
Good thing is you will get PCC attention either with small claim court or CANVAP. They might decide you are really pissed off and determined, and will settle with you.

johnsjmc

I had completely forgotten about camvap
I expect arbitration re application of a new vehicle warranty is exactly what you need.

Gregster

It came from the CEO of PCar who I was seated across from at a very private dinner last year. They make sure the GT and Turbo S people are taken care of. I recently had to get involved to have a timing cover on a Macan S replaced under good will as it was leaking. Porsche dealer told him to screw off, I emailed a contact at Porsche who approved 90% coverage

Dyim

I wish I know you personally.

I just paid 2k for the macan turbo TC leak. More than 14 months out of warranty when discovered.

991GTA

after going through the award of 'costs' several times, I agree with this

you should absolutely file in small claims court - I believe the limit was just increased. File against both PCL and PCNT. Were you out any loss of use since they waited weeks to even touch your car? Your claim should include every possible cost and I would even throw depreciation in there too.

I would have to disagree with LZRD GRN - I've had several unethical interactions with PCNT...promised myself I wouldn't buy a car from them and kicked myself when I decided not to follow my own advice.....

PCNT was supposed to be fix all the games that Pfaff started...they're no better...and actually worse since they're not concerned with the value of your business or relationship building. That's where the privately owned dealerships will always be better.

theiceman

.. its an interesting discussion to be sure .. but like any messy divorce and like Phil Collins said there are always " Both Sides of the Story" .
I'm not saying i disbelieve the OP at all . Just maybe there is more to this story.
I have a feeling like someone said earlier, there is a "human element" at play here...

someone got their back up and said " No"

Torontoworker

If I'm not mistaken an operation like PCNT would never* be allowed in the US (*Changing depending on State now) unlike here in Canada. In fact Canada is unique in that we also allowed 'company towns' unlike in the US.

For the defense (supporting non manufacturer direct sales - paper written for the American Bar Assoc.)...

"In the early twentieth century, independently owned automobile dealerships were a rarity. Automakers sold vehicles through department stores, by mail order and through the efforts of traveling sales representatives. The prevailing delivery system was direct-to-consumer sales.In 1898, automobile enthusiast William E. Metzger established what is generally believed to be the first car dealership, a General Motors franchise. ...Today, tens of thousands franchised auto dealers conduct business across the United States.Direct automaker-to-consumer sales are now prohibited in almost every state by franchise laws requiring that new cars be sold only by licensed, independently owned dealerships. The specific prohibitions in these laws vary from state to state, but most are based on two underlying principles. The first principle is that allowing automakers to sell cars directly to customers will endanger the businesses of automobile franchisees, which presumably do not have the economic resources to compete with manufacturers on vehicle pricing. The second principle is that consumers need a knowledgeable, independent sales intermediary who is capable of guiding individuals through the buying process and can later be called on for support in the event of difficulties with the vehicle.The promotion of these principles is evident in various state franchise regulations. New York State, for example, has its Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act (see, NY Vehicle and Traffic Law, Title 4, Article 17-A), which prohibits any automaker from possessing ownership in a dealership offering its vehicles."

For the Prosecution (against restrictions on factory direct sales) - Elon Musk...

"The evidence is clear: when has an American startup auto company ever succeeded by selling through auto dealers? The last successful American car company was Chrysler, which was founded almost a century ago, and even they went bankrupt a few years ago, along with General Motors. Since the founding of Chrysler, there have been dozens of failures, Tucker and DeLorean being simply the most well-known. In recent years, electric car startups, such as Fisker, Coda, and many others, attempted to use auto dealers and all failed.An even bigger conflict of interest with auto dealers is that they make most of their profit from service, but electric cars require much less service than gasoline cars. There are no oil, spark plug or fuel filter changes, no tune-ups and no smog checks needed for an electric car. Also, all Tesla Model S vehicles are capable of over-the-air updates to upgrade the software, just like your phone or computer, so no visit to the service center is required for that either.Going a step further, I have made it a principle within Tesla that we should never attempt to make servicing a profit center. It does not seem right to me that companies try to make a profit off customers when their product breaks. Overcharging people for unneeded servicing (often not even fixing the original problem) is rampant within the industry and happened to me personally on several occasions when I drove gasoline cars. I resolved that we would endeavor never to do such a thing at Tesla, as described in the Tesla service blog post I wrote last year.The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures "consumer protection". If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of "protection", this is obviously untrue. As anyone who has been through the conventional auto dealer purchase process knows, consumer protection is pretty much the furthest thing from the typical car dealer's mind."

So two sides to the coin here. Jury is out...

wizee

All a DSC Sport does is alter the control algorithms for the dampers. It doesn’t modify suspension geometry, it doesn’t involve replacement of any suspension components, it doesn’t alter grip. Claiming that it can can cause oil starvation through greater than stock G-forces is complete nonsense.

With that said, I am not familiar with legal precedents in Ontario regarding warranty claim denials as a result of unrelated modifications. I think taking it to small claims court is not a bad idea, but it would be helpful to have some references regarding legal precedent of similar situations. Another option could be reaching out to media, and/or having a bunch of Rennlisters start an unhappy letter writing campaign to PCNT and Porsche Cars Canada regarding how this episode has made them question their Porsche’s ethics and commitment to customer service, and has made them reluctant to purchase more Porsches in the future.

theiceman

oh i think we all agree, but you gotta think that's what Porsches argument would be ..

Apparently this is all over the internet and social media too .. that's the problem for Porsche, everything is spinning out of control.

wizee

My point was more that such an argument (oil starvation caused by excessive G force due to “suspension mod” that doesn’t actually modify the suspension) would not stand up to scrutiny in court.

991GTA

FazedChicken - did PCNT specifically say they weren't covering it because of the DSC or was it because the car was towed in from Mosport? Don't answer the question publicly, but did they simply assume you were on track when the failure occurred? Burden of proof is on them since they denied the coverage.

After reading the warranty terms, it states they will not cover damage as a result of track use. Depending on the cause of the failure, they may be relying on that warranty exclusion here. However, you have a pretty solid argument in court since they wouldn't return the engine to you to investigate the cause of the failure and it sounds like they didn't investigate it either...?

Wizee is bang on about the DSC. In fact, the DSC puts less wear and tear on the suspension because it only pings the individual shock when necessary, whereas the OEM PASM controller runs constant current to all 4 shocks. It's not some super soldier serum, and does not force the shock to operate outside of its defined ranges, just changes how it responds to inputs based on data collected from various OEM sensors.

vern1

They dont give a crap, there's always another guy that will buy or will, in fact, beg them to let them buy at GT car (with ADT). I think this has been well established

Would love to be proven wrong though

vern1

I thought it was established above that it was the DSC.

However you are saying track use invalidates the warranty which is not what others have said, since this was my 1st question above

991GTA

Yeah it depends on what PCNT put in writing

Hopefully they said it was the DSC controller in writing which really weakens their argument in court and makes the case significantly easier to win or at least win partially.

I would even reach out to TPC Racing to see if they have any details from customers who had (engine) warranty repairs done WITH the DSC controller on board