Johnnyceesred

2003 996 C4S. As of today, it's 230,072 miles and I've driven 226,208 of those since purchasing it as an OPC ex-demonstrator. Rgds JCR

2003 C4S 196,984 miles so far. I bought the car as a dealer ex-demo in July 2003 at 3,870 miles. It's had 2 engines & 3 tiptronic gearboxes but still the original supsension (apart from as set of Powerflex bushes) Rgds JCR

Hi Chuck, Thankyou for your comments. Thanks also for your concern about an appeal etc., I did wait until the dealer's cheque had cleared before updating the topic with the judgement!!! Very best regards John

Hi, Thanks for your reply and comments. Kind regards John

Outstanding ! You definitely have my admiration.. A very impressive narrative of a successful fight for 'consumer rights'. I wonder if you could post (or PM) the information that identifies your case and ruling in the English courts? I realize that you had the British 'fit for purpose' law on your side, but it's possible the information in your arguments could serve as precedent if anyone here in the US is considering bringing suit against Porsche/its subsidiaries. I'm especially fascinated by the juge's comment that your engine "should have lasted for at least 200,000 miles before requiring any significant work and expense." :) Once again, nicely done! Hi, The case number was 7SY00777 in Shrewsbury County Court, Cambrian Centre, Chester Street, Shrewsbury. SY1 1NA. Kind regards John

Hi Brian, Maurice is correct OPC "Official Porsche Centre" Rgds John

Hi, I'm not sure if this would set any legal precedents in your region but please see my topic and the ruling regarding Porsche engines lasting 200,000 miles. http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry116311 Rgds John

John, All I can say to you is "to the victor go the spoils...." Congrats to you and your perseverence has paid off!! I ( along with many others I'm sure) has followed your thread for months and I applaude your determination and resolve to "make it right". demosan :cheers: Thanks Kelvin and Demosan for your comments. It shows I was right to pursue the faults in the crank cradle and de-couple the complaint and claim from the original misfire which started the whole diagnostic process. It also shows the value in taking lots of photos and getting expert reports, the full costs of which the Judge ruled I should be recompensed by the OPC as part of my award. In fact I received full payment from the OPC for all my legal and report expenses. If I can be of help to anyone on Renntech if they are thinking about a claim or want to know in more detail the process I went through, I'd be more than happy to assist at any time. Very best regards to all those that have been watching the topic. John

Thanks Spiro, It took some time but it shows what can be achieved if you approach a situation with the right facts and support. Kind regards John

SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME TO LEGAL ACTION :) Many of you asked to be kept up to date on the outcome of my topic. I'm pleased to report that I was successful in my legal action through the English County Court system against the supplying OPC and the Judge awarded me compensation and costs. My claim was based on the Sale and Supply of Goods Acts 1979 and 1994 and the responsibility of suppliers within those Acts. The formula he used to calculate the amount of compensation was based on his judgement that the original engine should have lasted for at least 200,000 miles before requiring any significant work and expense. He confirmed that I was absolutely within my rights to purchase the replacement engine and claim compensation. If any of you would like further details I'd be happy to oblige if you send me a PM. The case was a public one so I'm not restricted to what I can comment on about the proceedings. Kind regards, John

John, This has been a fascinating thread. I am really sorry to hear about your problems and I hope that I never have to go through the same thing. First, I'll get straight to the point, then I'll explain. Based on the information we have (and I'm kind of making a big assumption that I have all of the key, relevant information that the shop had when they decided to disassemble it) I believe you have a stronger case against the shop that performed the initial diagnosis than you do against Porsche. I believe that the engine disassembly was premature and was not the appropriate course of action given the evidence. I don't think they did enough to determine that the disassembly was necessary before diving in. I think that they only did it because they couldn't find the source of the problem and had nothing else to follow up on besides a small piece of metal. It was the right decision to eventually replace it *after* it was already disassembled and *potential* trouble parts were identified, but it never needed to get that far in the first place. That probably wouldn't have been necessary for at least another 10k-30k miles. To try to briefly summarize all that has already been reported with respect to the sequence of events that led to the engine replacement: 1) Engine is running rough. Problem comes and goes, and shifts from one side to another. Several attempts to troubleshoot it don't lead to a solution, but a small piece of metal is found in the case. 2) Engine is disassembled as a result of finding the metal to see if that is the source of the problem. There are definitely a few areas of concern with regard to structural integrity, but catastrophic mechanical failure has not occurred as a result of those issues, and there were no huge metal particle problems (the contents of the oil filter is the biggest factor to me). 3) Ultimately, the source of the misfiring is never determined, but because of the concerns with the structural integrity and its high mileage, the engine is deemed not worth all the trouble to reassemble and restart the troubleshooting process, so the engine is replaced. Here is the predicament: 1) The engine did not actually experience catastrophic failure. It had a fairly uncommon problem, but it was not self-destructing. 2) The structural issues that were identified do not lend to an explanation of the engine woes. I can't even justify a very loose correlation. 3) The source of the problem that contributed to the engine woes was never identified. 4) The engine was replaced without having experienced a catastrophic failure or identifying the source of the problem that put it in the shop in the first place. Given all of this, it will not be possible to prove that the structural problem that is the focus of the metallurgical examination would have been the source of the engine's ultimate demise. Who's to say that something else wouldn't have eventually given way first - a crank bearing, a piston, valve springs - all parts that are more likely to fail and not as likely to suggest that Porsche should be responsible for replacing the engine (or at least a partial offer). I'll bet that Porsche has performed numerous FMEA's (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) on the failed engines that they've taken back. Since Porsche does not release statistics or other detailed information about engine failures, we will never know if any of those FMEA's pointed to the same part that is the focus of your investigation (though I would like to hear from any mechanics of Porsche's water-cooled engines that have identified this as the source of failure in an engine they removed). If by some chance they had seen that in another engine, the best conclusion they can draw is that this part has some probability of being the ultimate cause of failure, but that it hasn't failed yet and there's no way to prove that something else wouldn't have gone first. You have many valid points in your case. The piece in question probably never should have been used. I've read about another process Porsche implemented to retrofit new sleeves into new blocks that were deemed unfit upon receipt, which seem to have ultimately led to piston wall failure in some engines, so I would not put it beyond Porsche to take an imperfect engine component and try to make it acceptable for use. Personally, I think their gamble with that part in your engine paid off. The engine went 118,000 miles and the part still hadn't failed, and nobody can prove that it ever would have prematurely failed. I know you have several strong supporters here and I'm probably going to get railed for this conclusion, but I can only conclude that the diagnosis of the initial problem you were experiencing went way off track due to a small, but relatively insignificant piece of metal, simply because the real source of the problem was not yet identified. Retrospectively, it seems that the first thing they should have done after finding that metal is remove and cut the oil filter and determine if there were really significant metal shavings. Had they found nothing in the oil filter prior to disassembly, do you think your shop still would have disassembled the engine? Probably not. After all, the little metal they did find is not really cause for great alarm yet (at least I don't think so, but maybe there will be other very knowledgeable people that disagree). Once you got to the point of disassembling the engine, and given the high mileage, I agree that it was wise to replace it rather than try to reassemble it with some new components, figure out the real problem, and put it back in service; but you were in that situation in the first place because of a fumbled diagnosis that was not performed by an OPC. The shop kind of derailed any case against Porsche for compensating a required engine replacement. The fact that the part probably shouldn't have been used by Porsche in the first place appears to be a valid complaint with legal justification that Porsche had definitely compromised the engine's original build quality in some way and should be obligated to do *something* about it even though it hadn't yet failed, but it is not directly related to the costs you incurred so it's impossible to determine damages owed to you. Because there is no strong, direct correlation of a major engine part failure (and more specifically the component that was the source of your investigation) to the need to replace that engine, I don't think Porsche will ever conclude they have a direct responsibility for an offer of partial compensation. They might still do it out of goodwill if you persist and eventually reach the right person, and I wish you luck on that. IMHO, Porsche makes more than enough money on these cars to take care of uncommon situations like this. I would be interested in hearing from other forum members that believe the shop did have sufficient justification to disassemble the engine (excluding that at the point they did it, they couldn't find any other problems yet - that is clearly not sufficient). I don't think that the small piece of metal was significant enough on its own to initiate a tear-down, and if the real problem was fixed the engine may very well have gone on for many thousands more miles. I personally believe that these engines should go at least 130k miles before needing any major rebuild or replacement. However, given what I read about the limit of Porsche's goodwill, I only have enough confidence in keeping my 996 until it has almost 80k miles, and should I need that, I will quickly change my avatar in this forum and edit previous posts about my one on-track experience in this car. :rolleyes: I think we all have a couple of really good lessons learned from John's experience: 1) If the diagnosis is being performed somewhere other than a Porsche service center and it gets to the point where they believe they have to tear down the engine, stop there, and take it to a really good Porsche service department. It may be more costly, but one way or another, you're in for a big one anyway (or you might save a lot of money from a misdiagnosis). If the independent shop never found the problem (or if they think they found the problem but they're not convincing), the dealer will need to reinforce the shop's findings (or lack thereof) before you really owe the shop much of anything anyway. 2) If you keep your Porsche over 80k miles, you do so at your own risk of not having Porsche support/goodwill, and can take that into account when determining the value in buying a high-mileage Porsche or keeping your high-mileage Porsche. Hi John, Thankyou so much for a very detailed and reasoned response. It's great to get another person's analysis of the series of events. I haven't re-read my whole thread so in case I've missed any important detail I'd like to clarify the points below. I did actually take my car to two different OPC's for diagnosis and got 2 different results and the second one, which is where I bought the car from originally, concluded that the problem "might" be a broken valve spring and to determine that would necessitate them taking out the engine and stripping off the cylinder heads at a cost to me of £2,100 + tax just to prove or disprove their theory, without any guarantee of a correct diagnosis. The advice from the independent, who by the way has many years' experience building, running and maintaining Porsche 917's etc., see his web site http://www.davegriffithsracing.co.uk/aboutus.htm was that if it was a broken valve spring it would be a more consistent problem. Dave carried out all the tests that an OPC would carry out (leakdown tests, MAF tests etc.) and I'm confident that the tear down was very much a last resort, given that all his contacts (some with Porsche factory training) with their many years' of experience of Porsche engines as well, could offer no explanations either. He also has a very good relationship with the OPC where I bought the car from and he talked to them very openly about the situation and explained everything that he had done and thought about. If I had stayed with the OPC that did the second diagnosis, the final bill for labour alone could have been in excess of £6,700 + tax and the new engine was £7,356 + tax which make a total of £14,056 + tax, about £3,000 + tax more than I have paid using the independent. There is a clause in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in English Law, that states that goods must be "safe and durable" to be fit for purpose. My argument is that the crank cradle did not meet the durability aspect of this law and as it was cracked and flaking was becoming unsafe. In conclusion, I'm more than confident that the independent took the right course of action and I will pursue the matter to it's final conclusion. As you can see from the previous update the gearbox and prop shaft have been replaced under extended warranty at 125,300 miles. Best regards John

I also noticed one of the guys on the Porsche Club GB website had also suffered a cracked crankcase and I've e-mailed him for more details. Rgds John

Hi, I've got a thread relating to engine problems see http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?s...t=0&start=0 The thread shows a complete history of the situation. As a brief summary of my actions, I took a series of photos of my problem engine the main complaint about which is a defective crank cradle identified when the engine was disassembled by the independent I use. Because I use the car for business I had to buy an exchange engine as I had to limit the amount of time the car was off the road. It was still off the road from November 11th 2006 to the middle of February this year anyway. I have complained to Porsche GB Customer Assistance under the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 within English Law and after a series of e-mails and letters they advised me to get an independent report done on the defects. This was done by The RAC (Royal Automobile Club) a motoring organisation in the UK. I subsequently got a specialist metallurgy company to report on the evidence as well as recommended by The RAC and submitted this to Porsche GB. Both reports said the component in question had manufacture-related defects, was sub-standard and should not have been fitted in the engine in the first place as it was not fit for purpose. The latest letter I received last Friday from Porsche GB still refused my claim so I have obtained the direct e-mail address of Dr. Wendelin Wiedeking, President and CEO of Porsche AG and have e-mailed him today with the details of the defects and have requested his assistance in resolving the situation. I'll keep my thread updated with the next events. Rgds John This is very disturbing!!! Porsche prides itself as a Top Notch Quality Behemoth. So far (knocking on wood) I have been lucky with mechanical issues (minus minor issues non-engine related). But when buying a Porsche you should not wonder if you are going to be lucky or not. Would be nice if a major Auto Organization did a report on the quality of Porsche. 20/20 or 60 minutes anyone???...lol. It appears that you drove the hell out of that C4S. I am sure you did the recommended services. Hi, All servicing was done as per the book right on each mileage interval. Most of the miles are on motorways and dual carriageways cruising at around 75-80MPH, so easy on the engine. At 125,300 miles (23rd May 2007) the gearbox developed a severe whine around 2,500-3,0000 RPM. Luckily I'd taken out extended warranty on 1st May so I've had a new gearbox and front-to rear prop shaft with all costs (approx £9,300 + tax) covered by the EW. I'm still pursuing my claim against Porsche GB and have updated my thread. Rgds John

Gearbox failure and replacement at 125,300 miles!!!!!! Hi all, There's not been much to update since my last post save 2 points: - 1. As you can see from the title above, my gearbox failed and was replaced. It developed a severe whining noise at around 2,500-3,000 rpm and this was particularly noticeable when manually changing from 3rd to 2nd gear (it's Tiptronic S). I took it to the local OPC whose technician did a test drive and concluded a new gearbox was required. Had that fitted June 7. Whilst fitting the gearbox they also noticed that the rubber mounting on the front-to-rear prop shaft had split and that the only solution was a new prop shaft (Porsche do not supply the rubber mounting separately). So that was fitted June 16. End user cost for these parts and labour would have been around £9,300. The good news is I took out a year's extended warranty on 1st May at around 124,300 miles so all costs were covered by the warranty. That was £895 well spent. 2. I've got the local Trading Standards Office (part of the UK Government's Office of Fair Trading Department) communicating with the OPC that sold me the car and Porsche Cars GB, to see if they can progress my claim for compensation against the cost of the replacement engine etc. I'll update the thread with any news that I can publish. Regards John

Hi Cosmos, Thanks for your supportive comments. I've also sent the photos and correspondence to the solicitor my employers use to get his assessment of what I've done so far and his recommendations of the next steps. Since I've had the new engine there's been no recurrence of the misfire so I can safely say it was related to the original engine and not to any other electricals or connections from other parts of the car to the engine. I'll keep things updated. Best regards John