The answer for RMS problems?

[GreigM]

This thread distresses me more and more for several reasons.

1) I feel the survey results are being withheld at the request of Porsche. I feel this is a bad situation for the club to be in, and I agree with Nic's original feeling of "publish and be damned". It also leads me to believe that Porsche hold an option with the club of the survey results not every being published? I fear for the club if this is the case, as it will simply implode.

2) I feel Nic is "softening us for the blow" that there is effectively no progress from Porsche except the "it's now covered under the extended warranty" answer.

3) I also feel that Porsche don't quite realise how upset some people are about this issue, and they WILL "whistle blow" regardless of the consequences. I fear for the value of my car after this happens, and also for Porsche's general reputation. So much so that I will be taking my car to the OPC this weekend to get a price for it.....I feel very much like dawn in that I love my car, but feel it is flawed and there is no support from the manufacturer.

And for those who ask about newer cars, I have an '03 boxster - RMS diagnosed and replaced at first service. []

 

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: NicD

Nigel,

if any consolation, my initial reaction was "to publish and be damned" but cooler heads prevailed and the path we are taking is best for the members, the Club and Porsche Cars.

but we should not be under any illusions about how big (or small) a part we play in the over all scheme of Porsche, at least, at the moment

Nic

Some interesting contributions arising since your last post. Without being too negative I think we all know what the answer from Porsche will be.

PCGB as the 'premier' UK owners Club representing all models of the marque, have a very important part in resolving issues. Indeed from reading other sites it appears that other Clubs are monitoring our progress.

Please KIV that for the next round IMO we need to be far more more transparent in 'our' approach taken with Porsche - only you and a few others know what has gone on so far - the rest of us are totally in the dark and may well be 'barking up different lamposts'.

keep well

 

[Helen Goff]

ORIGINAL: GreigM

This thread distresses me more and more for several reasons.

1) I feel the survey results are being withheld at the request of Porsche. I feel this is a bad situation for the club to be in, and I agree with Nic's original feeling of "publish and be damned". It also leads me to believe that Porsche hold an option with the club of the survey results not every being published? I fear for the club if this is the case, as it will simply implode.

2) I feel Nic is "softening us for the blow" that there is effectively no progress from Porsche except the "it's now covered under the extended warranty" answer.

3) I also feel that Porsche don't quite realise how upset some people are about this issue, and they WILL "whistle blow" regardless of the consequences. I fear for the value of my car after this happens, and also for Porsche's general reputation. So much so that I will be taking my car to the OPC this weekend to get a price for it.....I feel very much like dawn in that I love my car, but feel it is flawed and there is no support from the manufacturer.

And for those who ask about newer cars, I have an '03 boxster - RMS diagnosed and replaced at first service. []

i think your spot on with all three points. except that i think this is going to hit the press sometime soon (not because of the PCGB survay but because of general world wide un happiness)and unless Porsche are prepared to do something about it and SOON then yes it will damage them and the price of our cars.

i was told by a TVR driver this week-end that he wouldn't buy a Porsche because they suffer with engine failure,when i asked where he'd heard that he said "oh it's common knowledge"

 

[Helen Goff]

PCGB as the 'premier' UK owners Club representing all models of the marque, have a very important part in resolving issues. Indeed from reading other sites it appears that other Clubs are monitoring our progress.

correct.

 

[kenwardc]

Hi there

ORIGINAL: GreigM

2) I feel Nic is "softening us for the blow" that there is effectively no progress from Porsche except the "it's now covered under the extended warranty" answer.

OK - so in the event this is the case..... when does one need to look to the extended warranty - before the new warranty expires or just after? Any feedback welcome.

Regards
Chris

 

[steve lyden brown]

Are we talking of the same "Honest John" column in the same Motoring supplement of the same Saturday "Daily Telegraph" ? I ask, since as both a regular reader and contributor to that selfsame column, I haven'r read once about Porsche engine RMS problems, let alone three times and never since Christmas of yonks ago, let alone the last Happy Yuletide !
SGLB

 

[steve lyden brown]

I can't but help feel that anyone watching this Forum in the hope that they will obtain clarification of the RMS problem, is likely to have to wait a long time. Not that this Forum is unhelpful or misguided, far from it, but it is really rather more a case of there being a distinct lack of focus or direction. Moreover, very valid seeds of doubt are being sown by what appears to be a lack of openness on the part of the Club about what it is doing and seeking to do about this problem in their discussions with Porsche. This alone will cause disenchantment and frustration and will also be the cause of dissent amongst members and a fragmentation of our (not very strong ) cohesiveness. One thing, however, that you can all be sure of, and that is that nobody is capable of fighting more strongly for your own rights and interests than you are ; to let your best interests repose entirely in the hands of others is rarely, if ever, the best way forward.

Irrespective of whatever the individual members may or may not choose to do, the first thing that everybody requires and deserves, is that the Club gives a detailed and comprehensive report on what it has done about the RMS problem, and what it is seeking to do, as soon as is humanly possible.
SGLB

 

[Helen Goff]

ORIGINAL: kenwardc

Hi there

ORIGINAL: GreigM

2) I feel Nic is "softening us for the blow" that there is effectively no progress from Porsche except the "it's now covered under the extended warranty" answer.

OK - so in the event this is the case..... when does one need to look to the extended warranty - before the new warranty expires or just after? Any feedback welcome.

Regards
Chris

Chris you will be contacted just before you current warrenty runs out and invited to apply for a new one.

 

[Andrew Killington]

Steve
I have seen items in the Honest John column; I did post a thread here some time ago; however I can't remeber if RMS was actually quoted. Whatever; they did relate to engine failures/problems for 996/986

 

[Mark_Bennett]

ORIGINAL: steve lyden brown
... it is really rather more a case of there being a distinct lack of focus or direction. Moreover, very valid seeds of doubt are being sown by what appears to be a lack of openness on the part of the Club about what it is doing and seeking to do about this problem in their discussions with Porsche....

OK, I'll try (as the RS who was not at the meeting) to give direction[]

Nic and John have both posted the discussions that they had with Porsche.
I think they have been pretty open, even stating thier opinion that they voiced in the meeting, and thier opinion on how they thought Porsche will react...
Porsche have apparently requested holding off publishing the survey results until they have got back to us. As we are hoping they are going to come back with something we are happy with - we should perhaps respect this request for the moment (we don't want to scupper our chances by p'ing them off...[])
It has only been a week since the meeting - this is a very short time in the real world! The online world (such as this forum) is immediate - and a day without a reply seems an age! As Porsche are likely to be taking this back to Germany, you have to respect that it will take time to schedule discussion just between themselves (anyone that works for a large company kmows how difficult it can be to get the people you need in a meeting due to conflicts in schedules!), let along formulate a plan of action for us.

Yes we need to chase them if we hear nothing for a while - but chasing after a week is not realistic!

And before you think I am taking this lightly, I do have a vested interest - I think my RMS is leaking (I pointed it out to a dealer back in Feb - heard nothing...), my 1 year extended warranty runs out in about 1 week and is the old "we don't cover leaks" one.
Car is booked in for service in a week and a half... I'm probably on a loser here.

Let's keep the discussion going with news about RMS (new info from the other countries, new stances by dealers, warranty etc), but can we wait a bit before demanding a response when Porsche have not even had time to think about it?

Thanks![]

 

[kenwardc]

Hi Helen

Chris you will be contacted just before you current warrenty runs out and invited to apply for a new one.

Ta! Oh well - I have two years I guess.

Regards
Chris

 

[Rotorhead]

I don't envy Porsche AG's position.

The manner in which they endeavour to resolve this issue will have a major influence on their future reputation. Any acceptable solution is likely to be expensive, but I don't see that they have an option.

If they fail to handle it satisfactorily, it is likely to 'blow up' in the media and this could cause incalculable damage to Porsche's USP - its engineering integrity.

 

[lazza]

Mark makes a pretty good summary of where we are with this. It is very sensitive and the Club is keen not to do anything that will lead to further problems for members and Porsche alike, without thinking it all through thouroughly first. We need Porsche's feedback first. We are somewhat between a rock and a hard place here. Either way, folks will be unhappy somewhere.

As an aside will the 997 and 987(if that is what the new boxster will be called) have this problem? That is something we can be ready for!

Lazza

 

[GreigM]

Ok, to put a more positive spin on things, I CAN see a reason why Porsche would ask the club to hold back on publishing the survey details...

...maybe the survey came back very poorly, with a high percentage of failures. Seeing this Porsche imagine the headline "owners club survey shows 80% of boxsters have faulty engines". For that reason they would rather have the response ready for when the figures are published, and could turn it into a good PR day when they say, "Yes there is a problem, but we worship our customers who have spent £30K+ on their cars, and will always correct this problem when diagnosed FREE OF CHARGE - even if the car is not with it's original owner".

Thinking about it this can be the only good reason not to publish at this point, and in that case.

And no, that wasn't meant as sarcasm, the more I think about it I fundamentally believe this must be the case as Mark/Nic are smart guys and appreciate that the negativity of a bad poll result could have a bad effect on all of us, unless Porsche are standing beside them saying "not a problem". If this is the case, a thorough well done to you all.

 

[NicD]

Can I just say that Porsche have NOT requested withholding the poll results, that would be rather forward of them. We took that decision (I think I have mentioned this before) to maximise the chance of a good outcome.

Also, please remember that I am constrained as to what I say, by being an officer of the Club.

and can I also second the suggestion that in the first instance, people have to take care of their own interests. Porsche have re-iterated that each case is judged on its own merits. If you dont agree with their assessment, you must pursue all avenues you have.

 

[Mark_Bennett]

ORIGINAL: NicD

Can I just say that Porsche have NOT requested withholding the poll results, that would be rather forward of them. We took that decision (I think I have mentioned this before) to maximise the chance of a good outcome.

... my initial reaction was "to publish and be damned" but cooler heads prevailed and the path we are taking is best for the members, the Club and Porsche Cars.

So you did, my bad!
(See - I'm getting confused now[] )

 

[GreigM]

Nic, Mark

sorry if it sounded like I was pressing the point there....the flipside really just occurred to me, so thought I would throw it out there for people to digest a not so negative viewpoint.

I'm sure it'll all become clear in time.

Thanks for your efforts.

 

[NicD]

Please KIV that for the next round IMO we need to be far more more transparent in 'our' approach taken with Porsche - only you and a few others know what has gone on so far - the rest of us are totally in the dark and may well be 'barking up different lamposts'.

Nigel,

I have explained everything we (the Club) have done and know on the RMS topic, except for the poll result itself. I have said why we have held back on this. You may want more detail, but please remember, this is effectively an open public forum.

btw what is "KIV"?

 

[Helen Goff]

btw what is "KIV"?

Keep in view

 

[Guest]

Nic

The easy bit first - KIV stands for Keep In View.

In the nicest possible way and not wishing to add to your workloads I am not in full agreement with your comment "I have explained everything we (the Club) have done and know on the RMS topic". We know you have met with Porsche personel, discussed the RMS survey and possibly other things - and we now await their response. Having said that, like others, I am prepared to wait for the reply from Porsche and will continue to gather useful information that may help in the future.

With regards to the Forum being a 'public place' - I have no difficulty whatsoever with that - understandably I am sure Porsche will have. Can you at some stage clarify - are you saying that the Club has a problem? Above all I think we (Members) need to have an input with (Directors) on the next round with Porsche - the Club must have a two way communication if it is to avoid being accused of the mushroom principle[]