Mark GT2

Just went to arbitration and the outcome was to deny resolution. Porsche flew in two representatives for this meeting - obviously there is concern about the outcome of this case. One person was flown in from Rochester and the other was flown in from Atlanta. The reasons for the denial of my case are:

“The Manuracturer presented documentary evidence indicating the the Porsche includes a warranty with the vehicle in question which excludes from warranty coverage any….competition, racing or track use… While Porsche, according to the warranty booklet, will repair or replace with a new or remanufactured part distributed by Porsche Cars NA…that is defective in material or workmanship under normal use…Normal use is defined in the Porsche warranty Manual as follws: To be driven on reasonable road surfaces within legal speed limits… For the above stated reasons, the Arbitrators agreed that this Consumer is not entitled to relief…

The games continue.........I will keep all advised that are interested. If you want to see my entire thread it's now in the 996 forum under "Another PCCB Story".

FixedWing

This is just royal. Porsche sells a car by promoting its lap times at the Nürburgring, its 0-100 km/h and its 0-200 km/h times and then turns around and claims that the warranty is valid only if driven within the speed limit.

Congratulations Porsche on reaching new levels of hypocrisy.

Stephen

Les Quam

This is amazing I have a GT 2 that Porsche will only warranty if I drive within the limit. Meanwhile Dodge encourages me to use my viper on the track and has warrantied everything I have broke at the track. This is going to get real ugly when I try to get my deposit back on my 200 mph Carrera GT that they want me to drive under 65 MPH.

MetalSolid

Is there a "legal speed limit" on a race track?? Plus, most track road surfaces are more than reasonable...

Porsche has been going the wrong direction since Wedeking.

Marco Polo

Seriously disturbing. This info will already be burning down customer relations at Porsche enthusiast sites all over the web.

Some language has been omitted from the quote. I would guess that the three dots between "any" and "competition" replace a phrase like "damage, failure, or defect resulting from."

This detail is important because, under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the burden is on a manufacturer denying a warranty claim to establish that the condition complained of actually resulted from an excluded activity. The mere fact that a vehicle has been used in an excluded activity prior to the damage does not establish such causation.

Decisions in arbitration do not carry the force of legal precedent, but the principle upon which this decision was based seems (from this extremely condensed report) to be that operation of a vehicle above the speed limit at any time raises an irrebuttable presumption of excluded causation. The rationale is, on its face, absurd, but taking it as given, one of my many questions would be which speed limit? In my State there are posted limits up to 75 mph. Is that my warranty cut-off speed? I have a Constitutional right to travel with my vehicle to States with much higher limits, why isn't my warranty also effective in those States? Are citizens of those States allowed much more extensive warranty coverage? What are the geographical and temporal limits for establishing the "warranty cut-off speed"? 500 miles or within the last 12 months? Patently arbitrary, absolutely absurd.

I had been so pleased to see the paragraph in the GT3 owner's manual simply advising operators to check tire pressure and such after track events before street use. Now I've got to wonder why they gave me gears 4, 5, and 6 that cannot be used under warranty, because surely it also voids the warranty to operate the vehicle under load for extended periods at engine speeds under 2,500 rpm.

Seriously disturbing.

0396

This is amazing I have a GT 2 that Porsche will only warranty if I drive within the limit. Meanwhile Dodge encourages me to use my viper on the track and has warrantied everything I have broke at the track. This is going to get real ugly when I try to get my deposit back on my 200 mph carrera GT that they want me to drive under 65 MPH.

Les,
I'm currently going through a disagreement with them NOW on my GT2 .
Sure glad I didn't opt for the CGT ,but spent it on a new townhouse (second hobby-skiing)in Whistler Cn.

Another new Porsche ....not for me!

washington951

i've said it before: "60 Minutes"
it would be REALLY bad to see Porsche torn down like this, but it looks like they deserve it.

Karl S

This is consistent with my experience with PCNA. I had a 1999 996 C2. It was a street legal car but I had modified it with safety devices such as GT3 seats, 6 point harnesses, and a roll bar. I also upgraded the brakes to GT3 Mk 1 parts and had a double-adjustable shocks with stiffer springs and GT3 roll bars. I did a lot of DEs with the car but no racing.

I got into a situation in summer 2002 where every time I went to the track, I'd get a check engine light. The first time, the dealer attempted to fix under warranty. The second time I brought it back for the same problem, the charged me over $2K for the repair, which was attributed to a cracked oil separator. When I asked why, they claimed that my piggy-back chip caued the car to run rich and overheat exhaust which melted the oil separator. First I asked about the apparent inconsistency of an over-rich condition causing the exhaust to run hotter (generally a rich condition will run cooler). When I didn't get a reasonable answer to that, I asked them to measure the exhaust temps and then remove the piggy-back and remeasure, to prove that it was the piggy-back. The dealer didn't want to be bothered, so I appealed to the zone rep.

The zone rep not only backed the dealer, he canceled the remainder of my powertrain and emissions warranty. He also pointed out the "no track" language in the warranty and made the same point about remaining within the speed limit.

PCNA has a ridiculous warranty contract. Fortunately, most dealers don't enforce it. However, whenever they are pushed, they fall back on this language and if they can prove or you admit that you've tracked the car, you're screwed.

I wonder if Ferrari owners have these kinds of issues?

Karl

Les Quam

Marco Polo, sorry to go briefly off topic but do you have experience with Jim Ellis Porsche? I just bought a car from them sight unseen and have not yet received the car. Do you have any info. this is my first sight unseen car and I am nervous.

AW

Karl, there are similar situations with Ferrari 360 Modena F1. If not setup right, the F1 box can eat clutches very fast. Some people got a brand new clutch under waranty. Some people did not.

Mark, I'm really sorry about your story. I was hoping that Porsche will stand behind its $200K car. While my rotors are still OK according to my dealer, my car does not brake very well. Basically, I have decided against tracking the GT2 again and will keep it until I get my stradale next year.

I hate to say it, but this may be my last 911

AW

ToffeeGT2

Totally unbelievable, Porsche is not standing behind their $200K car for replacing just the rotors, the outcome of this incidence will definitively cost Porsche lose their loyal customers in a long run. If this was happen couple months ago and I would think twice before I bought my GT2.

johnfm

MArco raises an interesting point - do they define in any way the ' leagl speed limit' part. Its a very vague description, seemingly without mention of 'public roads'.

This looks like it will be a long running saga.....

DJF1

So what would have happened if you had taken your car to Europe for a european vacation or had a euro delivery of your GT2 and drove it in an Autobahn without speed limits??????

This is ridiculous.... Has anyone contacted Porsche in Stuttgart? The crones at PCNA has given many owners including myself a lot of bad service...

Cupcar

Really disgusting, but it seems Ferrari have problems with their system on the Enzo, I think it was reported in Road and Track that some poor guy spent around $24,000 for rotors after a track day in his Enzo.

A little honesty here would have gone a long way. All Porsche had to say was: "We have a new braking system we call PCCB. It is light weight, has great pedal feel, works great in the wet, is beautiful and easy to keep looking beautiful and will last over 250,000 miles in street use. It is the greatest daily use system ever, but please DON'T USE IT ON THE TRACK."

Instead they go the duplicitous route, drawing all kinds of references to track use in their advertising and then hide behind their lawyers when a track duty cycle is actually attempted by the owner. The management at Porsche it seems do not think the cars will be used as advertised.

Sun Ra

"When I asked why, they claimed that my piggy-back chip caued the car to run rich and overheat exhaust which melted the oil separator. First I asked about the apparent inconsistency of an over-rich condition causing the exhaust to run hotter (generally a rich condition will run cooler). When I didn't get a reasonable answer to that, I asked them to measure the exhaust temps and then remove the piggy-back and remeasure, to prove that it was the piggy-back. The dealer didn't want to be bothered, so I appealed to the zone rep."

-Karl, your comment is nuts: when you chip your car you lose your warranty, as we have all known for [15] years [in my case]. that's the price you pay.

-"a car with a cat. converter is run rich to try and give it more horsepower in a given area or rpm range, this will effect the rest of the rpm ranges. This will make the converter over heat and will eventually melt the inside of the converter and damage other things on or in the engine. This is why Porsche will not pay a claim on a car that has been modified to make more horsepower....." a quote from the inside

i am sorry guys, but i see a bunch of victim mentality expecting mommy porsche to pay for everything including self induced problems.

maybe mommy ferrari and others will pay?

crap on me all you want, but i only hear one, biased side of the story here.