Snapped Camshaft Adjuster Bolt = Engine & Brake Hydraulics Failure ?
#511
06-24-2017, 01:44 PM
Registered User
Worth reading: https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recall...compendium.pdf
Specifically - to those of use who preemptively repaired the defective Variocam adjusters:
Given this - I fully expect Porsche to reimburse me the full amount I paid to have the Variocam adjusters replaced. So should anyone else who suffered financially due to the Variocam issue. The rest of the paper includes information on time spans and procedures which should answer most of the questions I've seen asked here.
Specifically - to those of use who preemptively repaired the defective Variocam adjusters:
Originally Posted by NHTSA document
Reimbursement for Pre-Notification Remedies
The foregoing section addressed the typical situation in which the manufacturer discovers a defect or noncompliance in an item they have manufactured, notifies NHTSA of that problem, and then moves forward with a recall campaign to correct that problem in the field and in its inventory. There are often occasions, however, when an owner or purchaser of a defective or noncompliant vehicle or vehicle equipment fixes at their own cost the problem before the manufacturer has notified NHTSA and/or issued its owner notifications.
A manufacturer must include in its Defect and Noncompliance Information Report a plan for reimbursing an owner or purchaser who paid to remedy the defect or noncompliance in advance of the manufacturer’s owner notifications. This plan must contain several items, including a date range within which an owner’s payment of costs would qualify for reimbursement, the amount of costs to be reimbursed an owner, and an address to which claimants may mail reimbursement claims.
The date range within which an owner’s payment of costs would qualify for reimbursement is subject to several parameters. The beginning date for a noncompliance recall is the date of the first test or observation by NHTSA or the manufacturer indicating that a noncompliance may exist. For a safety defect, the beginning date is calculated different ways depending upon whether the decision that there was a defect was made following the opening of an Engineering Analysis (EA) by NHTSA or not. If the decision was made following the opening of an EA, the beginning date is either the date the EA was opened, or one year before the date the manufacturer notified NHTSA of its defect decision, whichever date is earlier. If an EA was not opened, (which is the majority of safety defect recalls) the beginning date is one year before the date the manufacturer notified NHTSA of its defect decision.
The ending date for reimbursement plans depends upon whether the recall is of motor vehicles or replacement equipment. For motor vehicles, this date cannot be any earlier than 10 calendar days after the last mailing of owner notification letters. For replacement equipment, the ending date cannot be any earlier than 10 calendar days after the last mailing of owner notification letters, or 30 days after the conclusion of the manufacturer’s initial efforts to notify owners of the recall, whichever date is later.
The manufacturer’s calculation of the amount of costs to be reimbursed is also subject to several limitations. For motor vehicles, the amount of reimbursement may not be less than the amount paid by the owner to remedy the vehicle, or the cost of parts, labor, and miscellaneous fees (disposal, taxes, etc.), whichever is the lesser amount. For replacement equipment, the amount of reimbursement is typically that amount the owner paid to replace the equipment (if the owner chose to replace the item with a different brand, the manufacturer may limit the amount of reimbursement to the retail list price of the defective or noncompliant item, plus taxes). If the owner chose to repair the equipment, then the limitations applicable to motor vehicles apply.
A manufacturer may stipulate its reimbursement on the satisfaction of certain conditions. A manufacturer may deny reimbursement for costs incurred where the manufacturer’s original or extended warranty would have provided for a free repair of the defect or noncompliance. Claims may also be denied where the pre-notification remedy did not address the defect or noncompliance at issue or was not reasonably necessary to correct the problem. Manufacturers may also require certain documentation from owners, such as adequate descriptions of the product involved and receipts.
Manufacturers are required to act on claims for reimbursement within 60 days of their receipt, including issuing the appropriate notices where claims have been denied. For claims for reimbursement that are incomplete at the time of submission, within 60 days of the manufacturer’s receipt of the incomplete claim, it must advise the claimant of the incompleteness, identify what additional information is needed, and offer an opportunity to resubmit the claim with the complete information.
Reimbursements must be in the form of cash or check.
The foregoing section addressed the typical situation in which the manufacturer discovers a defect or noncompliance in an item they have manufactured, notifies NHTSA of that problem, and then moves forward with a recall campaign to correct that problem in the field and in its inventory. There are often occasions, however, when an owner or purchaser of a defective or noncompliant vehicle or vehicle equipment fixes at their own cost the problem before the manufacturer has notified NHTSA and/or issued its owner notifications.
A manufacturer must include in its Defect and Noncompliance Information Report a plan for reimbursing an owner or purchaser who paid to remedy the defect or noncompliance in advance of the manufacturer’s owner notifications. This plan must contain several items, including a date range within which an owner’s payment of costs would qualify for reimbursement, the amount of costs to be reimbursed an owner, and an address to which claimants may mail reimbursement claims.
The date range within which an owner’s payment of costs would qualify for reimbursement is subject to several parameters. The beginning date for a noncompliance recall is the date of the first test or observation by NHTSA or the manufacturer indicating that a noncompliance may exist. For a safety defect, the beginning date is calculated different ways depending upon whether the decision that there was a defect was made following the opening of an Engineering Analysis (EA) by NHTSA or not. If the decision was made following the opening of an EA, the beginning date is either the date the EA was opened, or one year before the date the manufacturer notified NHTSA of its defect decision, whichever date is earlier. If an EA was not opened, (which is the majority of safety defect recalls) the beginning date is one year before the date the manufacturer notified NHTSA of its defect decision.
The ending date for reimbursement plans depends upon whether the recall is of motor vehicles or replacement equipment. For motor vehicles, this date cannot be any earlier than 10 calendar days after the last mailing of owner notification letters. For replacement equipment, the ending date cannot be any earlier than 10 calendar days after the last mailing of owner notification letters, or 30 days after the conclusion of the manufacturer’s initial efforts to notify owners of the recall, whichever date is later.
The manufacturer’s calculation of the amount of costs to be reimbursed is also subject to several limitations. For motor vehicles, the amount of reimbursement may not be less than the amount paid by the owner to remedy the vehicle, or the cost of parts, labor, and miscellaneous fees (disposal, taxes, etc.), whichever is the lesser amount. For replacement equipment, the amount of reimbursement is typically that amount the owner paid to replace the equipment (if the owner chose to replace the item with a different brand, the manufacturer may limit the amount of reimbursement to the retail list price of the defective or noncompliant item, plus taxes). If the owner chose to repair the equipment, then the limitations applicable to motor vehicles apply.
A manufacturer may stipulate its reimbursement on the satisfaction of certain conditions. A manufacturer may deny reimbursement for costs incurred where the manufacturer’s original or extended warranty would have provided for a free repair of the defect or noncompliance. Claims may also be denied where the pre-notification remedy did not address the defect or noncompliance at issue or was not reasonably necessary to correct the problem. Manufacturers may also require certain documentation from owners, such as adequate descriptions of the product involved and receipts.
Manufacturers are required to act on claims for reimbursement within 60 days of their receipt, including issuing the appropriate notices where claims have been denied. For claims for reimbursement that are incomplete at the time of submission, within 60 days of the manufacturer’s receipt of the incomplete claim, it must advise the claimant of the incompleteness, identify what additional information is needed, and offer an opportunity to resubmit the claim with the complete information.
Reimbursements must be in the form of cash or check.
Last edited by deilenberger; 06-26-2017 at 08:50 AM.
#513
06-27-2017, 12:15 PM
Update on some things.
I spoke with Brandon at Sewickley Porsche here in Pittsburgh about 30 minutes ago. He informed me the campaign obviously is a go just waiting to get my appointment date for my replacement bolts. He currently has 3 Panamera's awaiting new cylinder heads from the bolts shearing off. Three vehicles at one dealership in one city. I would say this is a pretty alarming issue.
I spoke with Brandon at Sewickley Porsche here in Pittsburgh about 30 minutes ago. He informed me the campaign obviously is a go just waiting to get my appointment date for my replacement bolts. He currently has 3 Panamera's awaiting new cylinder heads from the bolts shearing off. Three vehicles at one dealership in one city. I would say this is a pretty alarming issue.
#514
06-27-2017, 12:29 PM
I don't have the build date handy, but it was registered in NC as 1st sold 8/1/11 according to Autochek - so it's probably also a June or July 2011 build date, as noted above. They probably included some early build 2012 MYs &/or any built in 2011 regardless of MY. MY changeover is typically around June/July in order to have the new MY releases shipped to & available at dealers by Aug/Sept.
I find their wording that it's an "engine stalling" issue - not self-destruct, lose your power brakes/steering, etc. more serious issues! My concern is that folks may say, no big deal if my engine stalls - so hopefully the NHTSA Investigator is reading this, & contacts PCNA to rephrase their recall to properly reflect it's seriousness!
http://auto-recalls.justia.com/porsc...011/17v368000/
I was going to report this here, cuz I'd not gotten any emailed post notices on this new recall.
Well, at least if Porsche will now replace the defective bolts, I can put 2011-12 CS's back on my search list - assuming that they actually have the parts to do so!
Cheers!
Tom
///////
Last edited by Tom_T; 06-27-2017 at 12:33 PM.
#515
06-27-2017, 01:35 PM
Registered User
I just had the AH08 come up on a 2012 CS in the AutoChek/CarFax report as a pending Recall, which apparently was issued on 6/17/17 as a voluntary recall for the WC-22 issue, but they now mysteriously can replace only the defective bolts on the cam adjusters (not full adjuster part replacement as in the WC-22).
I don't have the build date handy, but it was registered in NC as 1st sold 8/1/11 according to Autochek - so it's probably also a June or July 2011 build date, as noted above. They probably included some early build 2012 MYs &/or any built in 2011 regardless of MY. MY changeover is typically around June/July in order to have the new MY releases shipped to & available at dealers by Aug/Sept.
I find their wording that it's an "engine stalling" issue - not self-destruct, lose your power brakes/steering, etc. more serious issues! My concern is that folks may say, no big deal if my engine stalls - so hopefully the NHTSA Investigator is reading this, & contacts PCNA to rephrase their recall to properly reflect it's seriousness!
http://auto-recalls.justia.com/porsc...011/17v368000/
I was going to report this here, cuz I'd not gotten any emailed post notices on this new recall.
Well, at least if Porsche will now replace the defective bolts, I can put 2011-12 CS's back on my search list - assuming that they actually have the parts to do so!
Cheers!
Tom
///////
I don't have the build date handy, but it was registered in NC as 1st sold 8/1/11 according to Autochek - so it's probably also a June or July 2011 build date, as noted above. They probably included some early build 2012 MYs &/or any built in 2011 regardless of MY. MY changeover is typically around June/July in order to have the new MY releases shipped to & available at dealers by Aug/Sept.
I find their wording that it's an "engine stalling" issue - not self-destruct, lose your power brakes/steering, etc. more serious issues! My concern is that folks may say, no big deal if my engine stalls - so hopefully the NHTSA Investigator is reading this, & contacts PCNA to rephrase their recall to properly reflect it's seriousness!
http://auto-recalls.justia.com/porsc...011/17v368000/
I was going to report this here, cuz I'd not gotten any emailed post notices on this new recall.
Well, at least if Porsche will now replace the defective bolts, I can put 2011-12 CS's back on my search list - assuming that they actually have the parts to do so!
Cheers!
Tom
///////
- I suspect the wording of the recall is Porsche - and they're trying to minimize the bad publicity - hence "bolts" instead of the VC adjusters. If they have to replace the VC adjusters to replace the bolts (as they did in the other countries) - that's just how it goes. And I bet that's what gets replaced.
The wording for "stalling" is NHTSA's catchall for an engine stopping in a situation which could be dangerous. They really don't care in the least if the engine blows up - it would still be a "stall". They aren't a consumer protection agency - they're a safety agency. If they can help the consumer out by keeping them safe - it's a win/win. That's the case here. An engine blowing up when it wasn't running (improbable I know) wouldn't present a danger to the driver, passengers or surrounding vehicles. It wouldn't qualify for a recall. It's the situational thing - stalling while driving down the road - that qualifies it for a recall.
The wording from NHTSA:
Originally Posted by NHTSA recall
Consequence:
An engine stall can increase the risk of a crash.
An engine stall can increase the risk of a crash.
Last edited by deilenberger; 06-27-2017 at 01:40 PM.
#516
06-27-2017, 02:41 PM
Tom - a few things..
- I suspect the wording of the recall is Porsche - and they're trying to minimize the bad publicity - hence "bolts" instead of the VC adjusters. If they have to replace the VC adjusters to replace the bolts (as they did in the other countries) - that's just how it goes. And I bet that's what gets replaced.
The wording for "stalling" is NHTSA's catchall for an engine stopping in a situation which could be dangerous. They really don't care in the least if the engine blows up - it would still be a "stall". They aren't a consumer protection agency - they're a safety agency. If they can help the consumer out by keeping them safe - it's a win/win. That's the case here. An engine blowing up when it wasn't running (improbable I know) wouldn't present a danger to the driver, passengers or surrounding vehicles. It wouldn't qualify for a recall. It's the situational thing - stalling while driving down the road - that qualifies it for a recall.
- I suspect the wording of the recall is Porsche - and they're trying to minimize the bad publicity - hence "bolts" instead of the VC adjusters. If they have to replace the VC adjusters to replace the bolts (as they did in the other countries) - that's just how it goes. And I bet that's what gets replaced.
The wording for "stalling" is NHTSA's catchall for an engine stopping in a situation which could be dangerous. They really don't care in the least if the engine blows up - it would still be a "stall". They aren't a consumer protection agency - they're a safety agency. If they can help the consumer out by keeping them safe - it's a win/win. That's the case here. An engine blowing up when it wasn't running (improbable I know) wouldn't present a danger to the driver, passengers or surrounding vehicles. It wouldn't qualify for a recall. It's the situational thing - stalling while driving down the road - that qualifies it for a recall.
My concern was the engine stalling vs. saying that a loss of brakes &/or steering is a a major safety issue - the engine grenading is a wallet problem.
Do you have the link to this AH08 Recall at the NHTSA website?
I got the impression that this was a voluntary recall, & not a NHTSA forced recall.
Also, it sounds from TJ in PGH that they're bolts only being replaced - so maybe he can clarify & confirm which it is - bolts or the entire adjuster, when his is done.
BTW - Thanx & kudos to Don & all who worked so long & hard on this, as it finally got Porsche/PCNA off their kiester to do right!
Cheers!
Tom
///////
#518
06-27-2017, 04:17 PM
Registered User
Don,
My concern was the engine stalling vs. saying that a loss of brakes &/or steering is a a major safety issue - the engine grenading is a wallet problem.
Do you have the link to this AH08 Recall at the NHTSA website?
I got the impression that this was a voluntary recall, & not a NHTSA forced recall.
My concern was the engine stalling vs. saying that a loss of brakes &/or steering is a a major safety issue - the engine grenading is a wallet problem.
Do you have the link to this AH08 Recall at the NHTSA website?
I got the impression that this was a voluntary recall, & not a NHTSA forced recall.
) and is not happy that Porsche tried to hide it in the USA (see the letter from NHTSA to Porsche questioning exactly this.. it's part of the recall documentation on NHTSA's website.)
#520
06-27-2017, 09:08 PM
I will let you know as soon as I am notified. I was informed I would get the first call for service and they are a very honest bunch over there. I'll relay the news once I receive it.
#521
07-06-2017, 06:33 PM
Well I just had an interesting texting exchange with a seller listing his 2011 CS on CL in LA & Orange County CA, so a local one for me to have checked out by my own longtime Porsche guy.
First I sent him info on the recall & the problem at this website topic to read up on as a FYI by email from his CL ad on Sat. 7/1/17, & then again by email via his AutoTrader ad which popped up on my CS search on 7/4 - no replies to either, & note that I did include some questions about the car & said we're real cash buyers + local.
So today I send a text to see if he got the emails (at 64-65, text is a last resort for such transaction discussions, being old school) & another recall/engine problem heads-up.
First he says there are no recalls, then he looks it up & says its just about 'engine stalling" so no big deal (recall what I said above about Porsche downplaying the real risks & dangers), & then when he finally calls the dealer - they say they don't have the parts & just drive it anyway until they do - they'll call him; & he says "the guy at the dealer" said if the engine blows Porsche will replace it! He's got no CPO time left either!
He says: because Porsche said it was okay & they wouldn't lie (essentially his words).
And if it fails on him, then he cannot sell a non-operable hulk - so why roll the dice!?
So what happens if somebody test drives it or buys it as-is, & is killed or seriously injured due to brake & steering failure, or the engine stops on a dangerous road - then what!!??
If the NHTSA guy is reading this, just ponder that liability question!
So I said No Thanx!
I'm not interested in a car with those problems, when the owner/seller isn't willing to take care of the problem.
So if you see a Meteor Grey/Black 2011 Cayenne S with about 45k miles advertised in SoCal - then I suggest you walk away, unless he gets it fixed first!
My search goes on .....
BTW Admins - 6speed needs this "cheers" & a few other good smilies, & that laughing one is just way too big & obnoxious to use!
Cheers!
Tom
///////
First I sent him info on the recall & the problem at this website topic to read up on as a FYI by email from his CL ad on Sat. 7/1/17, & then again by email via his AutoTrader ad which popped up on my CS search on 7/4 - no replies to either, & note that I did include some questions about the car & said we're real cash buyers + local.
So today I send a text to see if he got the emails (at 64-65, text is a last resort for such transaction discussions, being old school) & another recall/engine problem heads-up.
First he says there are no recalls, then he looks it up & says its just about 'engine stalling" so no big deal (recall what I said above about Porsche downplaying the real risks & dangers), & then when he finally calls the dealer - they say they don't have the parts & just drive it anyway until they do - they'll call him; & he says "the guy at the dealer" said if the engine blows Porsche will replace it! He's got no CPO time left either!
He says: because Porsche said it was okay & they wouldn't lie (essentially his words).
And if it fails on him, then he cannot sell a non-operable hulk - so why roll the dice!?
So what happens if somebody test drives it or buys it as-is, & is killed or seriously injured due to brake & steering failure, or the engine stops on a dangerous road - then what!!??
If the NHTSA guy is reading this, just ponder that liability question!
So I said No Thanx!
I'm not interested in a car with those problems, when the owner/seller isn't willing to take care of the problem.
So if you see a Meteor Grey/Black 2011 Cayenne S with about 45k miles advertised in SoCal - then I suggest you walk away, unless he gets it fixed first!
My search goes on .....
BTW Admins - 6speed needs this "cheers" & a few other good smilies, & that laughing one is just way too big & obnoxious to use!
Cheers!
Tom
///////
#522
07-06-2017, 06:42 PM
FYI - Some wording from the recall notice regarding what will be replaced, & reimbursement to customers of cost (presumably if done before.
<snipped from NHTSA doc "Part 573 Safety Recall Report 17V-368", with my reformatting so it reads here, essentially as intended therein>
"Description of Remedy :
Description of Remedy Program :
The vehicles will be recalled to the workshop to have the fastening screws
of the camshaft adjusters replaced. If necessary in any particular vehicles,
Porsche will replace the camshaft adjustor assemblies in their entirety.
Porsche will provide customer reimbursement for repairs related to the
camshaft controller fasteners.
How Remedy Component Differs from Recalled Component :
The remedy component will have an optimized design of the screw head
geometry of the camshaft fasteners, and therefore will be stronger.
Identify
How/When Recall Condition was Corrected in Production :
Improved camshaft controller fastenings were introduced into production
on September 14, 2011."
<end snip>
Tom
///////
<snipped from NHTSA doc "Part 573 Safety Recall Report 17V-368", with my reformatting so it reads here, essentially as intended therein>
"Description of Remedy :
Description of Remedy Program :
The vehicles will be recalled to the workshop to have the fastening screws
of the camshaft adjusters replaced. If necessary in any particular vehicles,
Porsche will replace the camshaft adjustor assemblies in their entirety.
Porsche will provide customer reimbursement for repairs related to the
camshaft controller fasteners.
How Remedy Component Differs from Recalled Component :
The remedy component will have an optimized design of the screw head
geometry of the camshaft fasteners, and therefore will be stronger.
Identify
How/When Recall Condition was Corrected in Production :
Improved camshaft controller fastenings were introduced into production
on September 14, 2011."
<end snip>
Tom
///////
#523
07-06-2017, 06:52 PM
Has anybody gotten their notice of the recall on their Cay or Pana yet?
... &/or has anybody who contacted the dealer about Recall AH-08 been called back yet that the parts are in, & come on down?
There is another 2011 CS at a TX P-dealer which I was looking seriously at, that was put off-market about the time of the recall's release, & is now awaiting the recall being done. So I'm curious as to how soon things will start moving forward with the recall repairs.
BTW - As Don said above in his reply to me - NHTSA has a pretty scathing rebuke for Porsche on the delay, & is demanding a written explanation from PAG on same! It's really worth reading the letter from that NHTSA Recall page, which pdf link I've put below FYI -
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/201...7V368-8382.pdf
Good Luck!
Tom
///////
... &/or has anybody who contacted the dealer about Recall AH-08 been called back yet that the parts are in, & come on down?
There is another 2011 CS at a TX P-dealer which I was looking seriously at, that was put off-market about the time of the recall's release, & is now awaiting the recall being done. So I'm curious as to how soon things will start moving forward with the recall repairs.
BTW - As Don said above in his reply to me - NHTSA has a pretty scathing rebuke for Porsche on the delay, & is demanding a written explanation from PAG on same! It's really worth reading the letter from that NHTSA Recall page, which pdf link I've put below FYI -
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/201...7V368-8382.pdf
Good Luck!
Tom
///////
#524
07-12-2017, 11:46 AM
I had my engine fail last year, $28k bill and after arguing got it down to $7.5k.
Just went to schedule service and my adviser mentioned it, they don't have specifics yet either but will contact me when they do. He said I'll get back every cent though, which is amazing because that's money I thought was gone forever.
Just went to schedule service and my adviser mentioned it, they don't have specifics yet either but will contact me when they do. He said I'll get back every cent though, which is amazing because that's money I thought was gone forever.
#525
07-12-2017, 11:56 AM
I had my engine fail last year, $28k bill and after arguing got it down to $7.5k.
Just went to schedule service and my adviser mentioned it, they don't have specifics yet either but will contact me when they do. He said I'll get back every cent though, which is amazing because that's money I thought was gone forever.
Just went to schedule service and my adviser mentioned it, they don't have specifics yet either but will contact me when they do. He said I'll get back every cent though, which is amazing because that's money I thought was gone forever.
I'm surprised that they even charged you anything with the fact that they've had their "voluntary" WC-22 fix for it in place since 2012 - which the AH08 Recall is & supersedes it - but always refused to do the WC-22 until it fails according to everything I've heard & what I've read on here.
While they reduced your cost last Fall, & will now refund money - I would report it to NHTSA, & insist on an immediate refund plus interest on your funds since then!
While I'm sure you're happy to get the money back, this is not any kindness nor even good business relations from Porsche, because they've known of the problem & it's serious consequences since at least 2011 or 2012, & they should've knowwn it was Recall serious when BMW had to do a recall on their version of the part from the same OEM supplier, as well as the recalls on the Cays & Panas in other countries since 2013.
The NHTSA official isn't impressed by Porsche's evasion on this matter.
JMHO - Cheers!
Tom
///////
