A bit of a shocker

[Sweet]

Is it only me who thinks this is disgraceful from porsche? Hopefully the guy gets legal advice and takes it all the way.
So what, he tracked a gt4, is this not what they are advertised for, as stated earlier?.
Admittedly the guy doing most the talking is a complete arse but for porsche to refuse this claim is shameful. Would I now buy a gt4, no chance,if this is how porsche will treat me. I can't believe the guy even paid for a new clutch when the issue was there when he bought the car.

 

[Boxsey]

Is it only me who thinks this is disgraceful from porsche? Hopefully the guy gets legal advice and takes it all the way.
So what, he tracked a gt4, is this not what they are advertised for, as stated earlier?.
Admittedly the guy doing most the talking is a complete arse but for porsche to refuse this claim is shameful. Would I now buy a gt4, no chance,if this is how porsche will treat me. I can't believe the guy even paid for a new clutch when the issue was there when he bought the car.

The thing is....that lots of people are making the assumption that the damage was sustained while on track. Yet there are no other incidents reported of UK owners having this happen to them on track. And lots of GT4s (and 991GT3s) have now done lots of track days. Personally, I don't think we're getting the full story of when it actually happened. By coincidence I've just been made aware of this one which clearly states pothole damage (you can also see the damaged wheel and front splitter that also took the impact):

https://auctions.car-transplants.co...ns=0&fuel=0&catc=0&dist=0&sort=0&srch=&page=3

 

[T8]

The thing is....that lots of people are making the assumption that the damage was sustained while on track .................... Personally, I don't think we're getting the full story of when it actually happened.

:yeah:

I'm pretty sure that the owner of the car in this story doesn't just pootle to and from the track days he does. I suspect that he drives it spiritedly quite a lot on the road.

I don't know but I'd be surprised if the Porsche GT cars are quite as tolerant of UK roads as non-GT models with regard to suspension travel etc.

I'd also add that whilst Porsche market the GT models that are ideally suited for track use I can't see why they could be expected to honour any warranty if cars had been 'off-track' like this one obviously has been a few times.

 

[Senoj]

Is it only me who thinks this is disgraceful from porsche? Hopefully the guy gets legal advice and takes it all the way.
So what, he tracked a gt4, is this not what they are advertised for, as stated earlier?.
Admittedly the guy doing most the talking is a complete arse but for porsche to refuse this claim is shameful. Would I now buy a gt4, no chance,if this is how porsche will treat me. I can't believe the guy even paid for a new clutch when the issue was there when he bought the car.

The thing is....that lots of people are making the assumption that the damage was sustained while on track. Yet there are no other incidents reported of UK owners having this happen to them on track. And lots of GT4s (and 991GT3s) have now done lots of track days. Personally, I don't think we're getting the full story of when it actually happened. By coincidence I've just been made aware of this one which clearly states pothole damage (you can also see the damaged wheel and front splitter that also took the impact):

https://auctions.car-transplants.co...ns=0&fuel=0&catc=0&dist=0&sort=0&srch=&page=3

Clearly states what they want to state to sell the thing...that's absolutely no guarantee of it being actually true. Why would the dismantler know what actually happened and why does it make any difference. Let's say I had a GT4, never tracked it, hit a pot hole and this happened. Is it now my fault the chassis isn't strong enough or the suspension design flawed that there's not enough travel or bump protection? Is it only safe to use on a track then..

Where the damage occurred isn't really the issue. The car, relative to any other vehicle has a seemingly obvious weak spot that the manufacturer should recognise and support their paying customers rather than try and fob them off and leave them to sort it out for themselves. It's obviously not a one off problem and they're just heads in the sand, as usual.

 

[T8]

......... Let's say I had a GT4, never tracked it, hit a pot hole and this happened. Is it now my fault the chassis isn't strong enough or the suspension design flawed that there's not enough travel or bump protection? Is it only safe to use on a track then..

Where the damage occurred isn't really the issue. The car, relative to any other vehicle has a seemingly obvious weak spot that the manufacturer should recognise and support their paying customers rather than try and fob them off and leave them to sort it out for themselves. It's obviously not a one off problem and they're just heads in the sand, as usual.

Hundreds of cars hit pot-holes every year and suffer this type of damage. My suggestion was only that the design of a Porsche GT car would make it more likely to suffer such damage based on it's stiffness and lack of suspension travel.

If any car is damaged by hitting a pot-hole it's an Insurance/compensation job not a warranty claim.

 

[Sweet]

I'm sorry but I disagree, just because a car may have had a few trips into a gravel trap on a track day is no reason to refuse a warranty claim.
Going over a pothole causes that damage? Really,if it does then as stated there is an obvious design flaw which porsche should be looking into.

The roads would by covered in broken down vehicles if it was the norm to cause that damage going over a pothole.

Porsche are a disgrace, and I think some on here are a little too caught up in the brand to admit it.

Would you really just walk away minus your 80,90k if it was your car?
Never mind porsche, thanks for your efforts,now I'll go and try and claim on MY Insurance!
If you would, you are just the customer porsche want.

It's an Insurance claim for a bent wheel or a broken strut,not actual chassis failure which is basically what that is, that's a warranty claim all day long.

 

[T8]

............ It's an Insurance claim for a bent wheel or a broken strut,not actual chassis failure which is basically what that is, that's a warranty claim all day long.

It would be a warranty claim if it was chassis failure as that would be classed as a manufacturing defect.

In this case it's pretty clear that it wasn't chassis failure as an outside influence, such as the car hitting a pothole hard enough to buckle a wheel, has caused the event.

In the video the engineer advising the owner clearly states that the wheel was buckled and points out where the impact was transmitted to the aluminium turret causing a small crack. The final damage looks so catastrophic due to the way the aluminium then reacts to that fracture.

Regarding the rest of your post (and others opinions expressed on this thread) it is clear that different people have different views on what should/should not be covered by a manufacturers warranty.

 

[ragpicker]

I've been down some big, cavernous holes in my time

But I've never driven over a pothole which could cause this kind of damage!

I also don't think we are getting the full story of how the damage occurred. Regardless, no part of the suspension turret should be lifting and then fracturing. As it has happened to a few GT4's and GT3's now there is clearly an issue/design flaw.

Porsche should be taking it very seriously instead of behaving in their usual manner with their head in the sand- ref borescore/ims.

Trouble is you would need very deep pockets to take it all the way when the least troublesome route would be to claim on the Insurance if possible.

A sad state of affairs. :nooo:

 

[Senoj]

I've been down some big, cavernous holes in my time

But I've never driven over a pothole which could cause this kind of damage!

I also don't think we are getting the full story of how the damage occurred. Regardless, no part of the suspension turret should be lifting and then fracturing. As it has happened to a few GT4's and GT3's now there is clearly an issue/design flaw.

Porsche should be taking it very seriously instead of behaving in their usual manner with their head in the sand- ref borescore/ims.

Trouble is you would need very deep pockets to take it all the way when the least troublesome route would be to claim on the Insurance if possible.

A sad state of affairs. :nooo:

Ditto, buckled a few wheels over the years in potholes, never has it cracked a strut tower. I hit one in my 997 and actually broke the drop link!

If it's a rare thing then even more reason to look after the customer one would think. Especially given the negative publicity it generates. A bit of humility would cost a fair bit less than their current quarter marketing campaigns, all of which hope to build brand equity, why not build some brand equity with these 'few" customers for relative buttons. So short sighted.

 

[infrasilver]

I would expect that to be a warranty claim all day long.

There is no way that strut tower should break before bursting a tyre or breaking a wheel no matter how deep the pot hole is. I would be seeking legal advice as this is a serious safety flaw with the cars, they would have to accept responsibility if someone gets seriously hurt, if the strut top completely pushed through on that side it could send you into oncoming traffic or the footway if the other side went through?

 

[Sweet]

............ It's an Insurance claim for a bent wheel or a broken strut,not actual chassis failure which is basically what that is, that's a warranty claim all day long.

It would be a warranty claim if it was chassis failure as that would be classed as a manufacturing defect.

In this case it's pretty clear that it wasn't chassis failure as an outside influence, such as the car hitting a pothole hard enough to buckle a wheel, has caused the event.

In the video the engineer advising the owner clearly states that the wheel was buckled and points out where the impact was transmitted to the aluminium turret causing a small crack. The final damage looks so catastrophic due to the way the aluminium then reacts to that fracture.

Regarding the rest of your post (and others opinions expressed on this thread) it is clear that different people have different views on what should/should not be covered by a manufacturers warranty.

So it's not a chassis failure because although the chassis has failed,he went down a big pothole and buckled his wheel which caused the chassis to fail.
It is not the norm for a chassis to fail like this just by going over a pothole!

 

[diverzeusy]

............ It's an Insurance claim for a bent wheel or a broken strut,not actual chassis failure which is basically what that is, that's a warranty claim all day long.

It would be a warranty claim if it was chassis failure as that would be classed as a manufacturing defect.

In this case it's pretty clear that it wasn't chassis failure as an outside influence, such as the car hitting a pothole hard enough to buckle a wheel, has caused the event.

In the video the engineer advising the owner clearly states that the wheel was buckled and points out where the impact was transmitted to the aluminium turret causing a small crack. The final damage looks so catastrophic due to the way the aluminium then reacts to that fracture.

Regarding the rest of your post (and others opinions expressed on this thread) it is clear that different people have different views on what should/should not be covered by a manufacturers warranty.

So it's not a chassis failure because although the chassis has failed,he went down a big pothole and buckled his wheel which caused the chassis to fail.
It is not the norm for a chassis to fail like this just by going over a pothole!

But, was it just a one time event pothole :dont know:
This looks 'broken' to me and not 'failed' there are thousands of Cayman out there with a handful like this, I think this car has been abused, I wonder how many new wheels it has had?

 

[Clanky]

Looking at the video, I cant see how anyone can blame Porsche for this.
He basically had a crash at 75mph (Look closely at the speedo on the vid) I wouldn't expect any car's suspension to take that with no damage at that sort of speed.
There is obviously a lateral impact as the car goes airborne & almost flips as it lands. Now imagine the force of around 1.3 tonnes impacting sideways on one wheel...

No way it's a warranty claim. I only hope he had good track Insurance.

From experience, I would say if he had left the "Please Save Me" button alone, it would have saved him a lot of hassle.

 

[diverzeusy]

If you think of WRC Rally cars, they are fine unless they get it major wrong and hit a big hole or rock etc, even then they don't always bust the suspension top mount, it takes real abuse to do this.

There, that's my 2 peneth😁👍

 

[Luddite]

Interesting the diversity of opinion on this... I feel so sorry for the poor guy, it must have come as a very nasty shock.. I have done a few laps of Knockhill and know not of any pothole, on or close to track that would cause a bent wheel, though it has been a few years since I have been there. Additionally, I would perhaps be surprised if any licensed race track had pot holes in any run off area that could bend a wheel even on a full race car with next to zero suspension travel....?

That aside, a road car set up with the lowest of low profile tyres with an aspect ratio no thicker than an elastic band, the lightest of wheels and the stiffest of suspension that some folk have the desire to promote as top notch kit.... If similarly kitted out and a pot hole is inadvertently approached at speed, the hole is deep and sharp edged enough then something just has to give..? What`s the alternative.... would it be better for the wheel and turret to be super strong and pass ALL the stress generated on to where... perhaps whole inner wing, chassis leg and much else to be bent out of shape, perhaps requiring a whole engine out front end realignment...Think such a repair might exceed circa £5k...hmm ?

My guess is you all know and understand that aspects of vehicles structure are designed to fail to absorb some level of shock to minimise damage, be that to the overall structure or more importantly it`s passengers..

I have heard loads of folk complain of broken springs which they determine as likely caused by all the speed bumps they have to climb over.... I guess it might depend upon the speed at which you choose climb over them at or indeed launch yourself over them... Apparently numerous police cars suffer turret failures as the result of chasing the bad guys over speed bumps etc. at speed..?

If the damage was caused on the Queens highway in a pot hole, I believe it is down to the local roads authority to cough up for repairs..? Apparently they spend a small fortune compensating drivers who claim for damage to wheels and tyres.... guess it must be cheaper for them than repairing the roads.... Sigh!

Still feeling real sorry for the poor guy, there will ever be hard lessons to learn in life, at least he did not damage himself or anyone else..

Just thinking in type claiming zero expertise..