Menu toggle

August Porsche Post Editorial

JCB..

JCB..

Non-member
Ladies, Gentlemen and the rest of you....

I would just like to say that I totally disagree with the comments published by Stephen Mummery in this months Post regarding the Boxster.

Furthermore I am unsure who the 'We' is that should not get involved in 'issues'.

I have emailed Stephen expressing my dismay at the factual inaccuracies and his failure to consult the Register concerned.

My advice to anyone seeking advice from the Register would be don't listen to nonsense like that printed on page 5.

JCB..
 
As I read the editorial this morning I could surely hear the sound of hands being washed ...

As a non Boxster owner I have no vested interest here except that I believe the club is letting down it's members disgracefully with this editorial. Then to suggest that changing the oil every 5 thousand miles will fix all manor of engine ills is frankly complete cobblers.

Ian.
 
I must admit, the 5K miles oil change made me glad that I drove one of the 'older' versions - tough as old boots, the engine. It made me feel very sorry for you 'modern' owners, what with PCCB brakes failing so easily (should have bought iron !), and engines that need so much fresh oil.
 
If it were fact John I'd be content to see it in print but it makes us all look like a bunch of "Honest Johns"!

JCB..
 
Yes, I read this last night while eating dinner and nearly choked on a piece of carrot. I spoke to a mechanic once who reckoned that oil also needs to be "broken in" before it reaches it's maximum potential, so shouldn't be changed too often or you're just not getting the best from it.

Well done John for speaking your mind.
 
JCB
totally agree with you.
my initial reaction was one of disbelief.
poor communication within the club, no comprehension from the editor of the scale/feelings of the register in relation to this issue (or the current position) and all in all rather glib.
Andrew
 
I agree with the above I could not believe what I was reading on the train this morning.
 
Guys,

John phoned me last night so I read the editorial then. Immediately sent a message to our editor requesting clarification and pointing out that we as a Club were indeed doing something in this area. I would point out Stephen does a fantastic job on the magazine.

I expect to hear back from him shortly

So, to summarise, a misunderstanding I think, and certainly not representing the Club on this point
 
Nic

So, to summarise, a misunderstanding I think, and certainly not representing the Club on this point
Click to expand...
The 'misunderstanding' is one thing, albeit one would expect him to clarify the position before sounding off in the official organ.

Stating a 5K oil change will prevent engine failures is quite another.

It's not only patronising but, as Mark pointed out, it sends out another panic message to those not technically minded.

I also think that the very small minority of members who have had the great misfortune to suffer an engine failure will be less than pleased to read that a £60 oil change could have saved them a multi-thousand pound engine replacement. In a perverse sense it's fortunate for them that his advice is a complete pile of bovine by-products!

So can I expect to see a full retraction in the September Edition?

JCB..
 
Stating a 5K oil change will prevent engine failures is quite another.
Click to expand...

would have to agree it was a surprising thing to read ! now being new (!) my first impression is that the driver of the 'older' porsche may not be fully aware of how modern technology has moved on ?

but to add... being new (yes that again!) the ed's artcile is the one I always read.. sets the scene and being the 1st one.. is thus by the far the most important and to make such a major technicial statement for a car range that has spanned decades would 'appear' to make that the position of the PCGB (?)..

so as a newbie I was suddently thinking that I should be doing an oil change every 6k miles rather than the 12k mile service intervals.. but at £200 a go.. that's making my porsche ownership much even more expensive than I had budgetted for ... :(
 
I wonder if Stephen will join other members on the Forum and provide us with some more of his 'knowledge' or is it a case of "making the right noises and declining" - I think someone should be looking for a new position - probably working with Mobil selling their products.
 
It seems that the comments are those of the magazine and not those of PCGB.

Forgive me for thinking that the Porsche Post was the magazine of PCGB.

JCB..
 
Having read this complete rubbish I was so @!?@£$@ that I couldnt read the rest of the magazine.

It seems we not only now have a dispute with Porsche concerning the RMS failures, but senior people within our own club are now against our stance on this issue.

I couldnt believe this boy scout/jolly hockey sticks/jumpers for goal posts drivel about the 5K oil change. This is just insulting to anyones intelligence in this day and age, 10 - 20 years ago maybe, but not now. When will this club stop dwelling in the 60's and 70's and get up to date?

We are talking serious money here for those poor s**ds who fall foul of the RMS problem. Its not a question of getting your hands dirty and doing it yourself.

I cannot believe given the amount of response on the forum about the RMS issue that such a weak and pathetic editorial can have been written and presumably been allowed to go to print with the club's blessing.

My immediate response is to not renew my membership unless some sort of retraction is made. I may calm down in the days to come but this got me absolutley fuming due to its total lack of connection with a large number of the club members.

Regards

Mark Davies

996 C2 MY2002 (1 RMS replacement so far)
 
One of the reasons I joined PCGB was because I thought it would offer sound and well-considered advice about the car I had chosen for my enjoyment. This editorial is not, I hope, a reflection of all the experience the club has to offer. I am sure that Stephen does a great job on Porsche Post but what does he know about modern engines and lubricants?

I am surprised at this piece appearing as the editorial of a respected magazine.
 
Guys,

I have written to Stephen (the editor) to say, there is no Boxster "wear" issue, rather there are some engine design/execution defects, and that while early oil changes are desirable for a car used on the track, what evidence of need for normal road use? In fact, he said he wasn't aware of the RMS Survey and discussions with Porsche. The "We" he referred to is the magazine staff - evidently they cannot get involved because of their tight deadlines.

Stephen (the editor) has said Editorial columns are intended to be opinionated and provocative...,

so I would suggest you write a letter to the Editor expressing your reaction. I have asked he clarify these points in the next editorial.
 
Stephen (the editor) has said Editorial columns are intended to be opinionated and provocative...,
Click to expand...

well well i never realised Porsche post was ment to provoke us like some cheap rag.[:-] i shall be reading it in a whole new light in the future[8D]

note to self: cancel order for gossip magazine,i won't be needing it anymore[:D][:D][:D]
 
Stephen (the editor) has said Editorial columns are intended to be opinionated and provocative...,
Click to expand...

That is true but when the author comes across as ill informed, out of touch and peddling hogwash solutions he loses the respect of his readership. Loosing the respect of the readership is one short step from reduced membership levels as the magazine is the major channel of communication between the PCGB and it's members.

Ian.
 
I don't mind opinionated, but dumping the register secretaries with having to firefight the result is not being very helpful!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members

Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the Club, who shall have no liability in respect of them or the accuracy of the content. The Club assumes no responsibility for any effects arising from errors or omissions.

Porsche Club Great Britain gives no warranties, guarantees or assurances and makes no representations or recommendations regarding any goods or services advertised on this site. It is the responsibility of visitors to satisfy themselves that goods and/or services supplied by any advertiser are bona fide and in no instance can the Porsche Club Great Britain be held responsible.

When responding to advertisements please ensure that you satisfy yourself of any applicable call charges on numbers not prefixed by usual "landline" STD Codes. Information can be obtained from the operator or the white pages. Before giving out ANY information regarding cars, or any other items for sale, please satisfy yourself that any potential purchaser is bona fide.

Directors of the Board of Porsche Club GB, Club Office Staff, Register Secretaries and Regional Organisers are often requested by Club members to provide information on matters connected with their cars and other matters referred to in the Club Rules. Such information, advice and assistance provided by such persons is given in good faith and is based on the personal experience and knowledge of the individual concerned.

Neither Porsche Club GB, nor any of the aforementioned, shall be under any liability in respect of any such information, advice or assistance given to members. Members are advised to consult qualified specialists for information, advice and assistance on matters connected with their cars at all times.

Porsche
Lockton
Pirelli
Officially approved
Oracle Finance
WEX Esso
Collecting Cars
Archant Dialogue
Back
Top