Seems to me that default mechanism is a class action lawsuit, which does nothing for the people affected. It just enriches the attorney. Perhaps, a better way to go might be to have one of the affected drivers to meet with a Porsche representative and explain that if the problem is not resolved they can expect both an asserted and unasserted claim. This should be followed in writing. PCNA will now how to reserve against this potential loss. This will get their attention.

Frank C.

 

Paging Mr. Nick Murray. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

 

If PCNA only hears of this problem on rare occasions they would rightfully assume that it's a very minor issue affecting only a handful of owners. If, on the other hand, they were presented with a letter signed by several hundred concerned 991 owners (complete with vin #s and dates of purchase) they might possibly figure out that this is in fact a sizeable problem. They could no longer claim that they'd never heard of it.

You business or legal guys out there - is there an easy way of drafting a letter or email signed by numerous respondents?

 

At least one 911 owner beat the system!

http://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum...999-996-a.html

See post #5.

"Porsche dealer diagnostics did not reveal any codes in this case, was strictly seat of the pants (mine) and a dealer who believed me."

 

This is why you have to drive with the tech and demonstrate it to him. The way to get their attention is for everyone with this problem to accomplish this, have it acknowledged by the dealer and signed off as repaired, then take it back for it's second time if it's not repaired. At that point you write PCNA and notify them that if it's not fixed you will be filing a lemon law claim. You don't have to use the same dealer each time if you prefer to get a second opinion and a second one is within a reasonable distance. It is very important in the process to document the issue as early as possible. If you end up going LL and they buy the car back you will only be charged for the miles used (and that's not much).

ChuckJ

 

I did just that. I got the tech to acknowledge the issue (even shows up on my work invoice, so I have it in writing). However, their conclusion is that it's still "normal". He claims he drove another 2013 7MT on their lot and had a similar behavior, therefore it's just supposed to do that.

 

I would ask him to demonstrate that to you and if it does happen I would go to the another dealer. Keep the WO as they all count. Look in the warranty section of your manuals to determine how many times you need for a LL action (most are 3). PCNA will respond. They said my Honda issue was normal and the arbitrator still required a buyback. You don't have to go to the extent that Nick did unless you want to capture that extra use money for the time you drove it without notifying them. Best result in my book is a new car and pay the very small use fee for the number of miles you have driven yours (which is outlined in the state LL). I think taking this action is a lot less annoying than living with it and being frustrated.

ChuckJ

 

No! Dang it Chuck, you give generally good advice, but please, please don't mislead people on this thing. Lemon Laws (LL) are state laws, not federal, so they vary from, yes, you guessed it, from state to state.

Also missing from all of these excellent LL suggestions is the consideration that some people would prefer that their car be fixed rather than bought back.

 

Chuck's advice is correct. The warranty manual has the LL's for each state.

 

I think there was a presumption already that the opportunity for fixing had been explored. And of course no one goes LL until they have just given up..

And threatening LL, at least provides some leverage in an overall situation which is heavily leveraged in favor of the OEM.. Leverage is good, just ask Nick Murry..

But what puzzles me is would you object to looking in the warranty section as a bad thing??

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. Yes they are state laws and that's why I said you have to look in the warranty section of the manuals to find out the exact criteria. And letting PCNA know that you are contemplating using the LL give them the opportunity to excel so you can get your car fixed.

ChuckJ

 

Even if you haven't considered the LL route, especially if you just want to fix it, please do. It is there to protect you, whether you want a repair or a buy back. The main thing to remember is that if you do not follow through with it, then you can not fall back on it.

In my state, Florida, after three attempts at repairing the same fault, or the car being unusable for 15 cumulative days, then the owner must notify the manufacturer.
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/...256cc9005da68a

By not notifying the manufacturer in a timely manner you may provide a loophole. By letting them know, it forces them to respond to the situation. They will then be given a chance to inspect/repair the issue to satisfaction before any further steps are followed. In my case a representative from PCNA came down to visit and inspect the car. This is where you can bring up the variocam possibilities. I'm not saying this may rectify the entire problem, but it will make PCNA more aware. A step on your part the, consumer, may make things easier for the rest of us who have not yet had the displeasure of experiencing this tugging sensation.

In either case, if you fit the criteria for a Lemon Law action, follow up on it. If the dealer can't/won't research the issue, I'm sure if Porsche receives enough certified letters, something will be done. I wouldn't want to get 10 letters demanding buy backs of vehicles @ $100k each.

 

All of this sounds straightforward until you start trying to actually get this fixed. I'm so frustrated because the dealer says it's normal, and PCNA is friends with the dealer.

Currently I have this situation:

- Dealer A (who sold me the car) has looked at it three times and isn't willing to look into my issue anymore (no codes). The tech did admit to experiencing the problem at least.

- Called Dealer B to see if they were interested. Haven't had a call back in a week.

- Called Dealer C and they initially expressed interested. However, I haven't had a call back in a week.

- PCNA called two weeks ago (after I mailed them a letter) to say they are trying to work with Dealer A to get a PCNA field rep out there to meet me but I haven't heard back.

Basically, nobody wants to solve my problem and I have to continue to pursue this. It's like pulling teeth. I was hoping Dealers B or C would be interested in taking business from Dealer A, but I think they're all just the same and don't want to try to diagnose something that doesn't result in quick money for them (codes).

I'm at the point where I want to just GIVE money to people to fix this, so I'm leaning towards my independent Porsche mechanic just so I'm out of this warranty and non-helpful dealer world. I think dealers are too caught up in being reimbursed by Porsche for warranty work instead of fundamentally making customers happy.

 

If you let a non Porsche authorized repair dealer touch it you may be giving PCNA an out. Dealers don't have to be interested in checking it out. I recommend you take it in and tell the service adviser the problem and tell him you want a tech to ride with you to demonstrate it- even though you already have that with the first dealer. Now you have two. You must get it written down, however or it won't count. If the field rep wants to see it be sure to ride with him also.

It doesn't matter if they think it's normal. That's what they said about my Honda just before the arbitrator told them they were buying the car back.

Hang in there!

ChuckJ
PS In some states the arbitrator can direct them to repair it and pay you compensation.

 

I don't object. I did not realize that the warranty section is now state-specific. Obviously I need to just RTFM!

I concur. Don't give them a chance to say "we're not interested." Make an appointment, bring it in, and see what they say. I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be willing to be that they still get paid an hour from Porsche for the diagnoses effort.

I'm reminded of my E34 BMW that had the short block replaced as part of the Nakasil fiasco. They also changed the thermostat so that the car ran hotter, and reprogrammed the computer so the temperature gauge showed the new temperature as normal. They can make the car tell you whatever they want it to tell you.

I suspect that BMW did something similar with the HPFP issue years ago. Instead of lower fuel pressure setting the check engine light and going into limp-home mode, they lowered the error threshold. Yes, I had one of those cars as well. The E34 never ran right after that work was done, and I got a buyback on it. The E92 with the HPFP recall never ran right after that was done, and I just sold it. No BMW in my garage now.

But I digress. Far OT was I. Sorry.


.