Welcome to 911UK
The only place for Porsche, 911uk is the definitive enthusiast and resource site for the Porsche 911.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so join up today for full access to the site and benefit from latest member offers.

Porsche Classifieds
Sell Your Porsche on 911uk
Create a Free Classified Advert
Search Ads
Classified Adverts FAQ
Trade Classified Information
Buyer & Seller Fraud Protection
Consumer Rights Act
Pre Purchase Inspection (PPI)
Porsche Car Sourcing
Porsche Cars Wanted
Official Porsche Centre Reviews
Model
Stock
Porsche 911
992 : 2019- 0
991 : 2011- 24
997 : 2004- 67
996 : 1997-2005 34
993 : 1993-1998 4
964 : 1989-1993 2
Carrera 3.2 : 1983-1989 2
Carrera SC : 1977-1983 2
930 Turbo : 1975-1989 1
Early 911 : 1964-1977 1
Porsche Other Models
Classic : 1950-1965 0
Boxster : 1997- 30
Cayman : 2005- 21
Cayenne : 2003- 7
Macan : 2014- 6
Panamera : 2009- 0
912-914-924-928-944-968 1
959 - CarreraGT - RaceCar 0
Car Parts For Sale & Wanted
Other Items For Sale & Wanted
Wheels Tyres For Sale & Wanted
Number Plates For Sale Wanted

Porsche Services
Porsche Body Shop Repair
Paint Protection & Wrapping
Porsche Classic Insurance
Porsche Classic Parts
Porsche Classic Restoration
Porsche Design Collection
Porsche Engine Gearbox Rebuild
Porsche Heritage & History
Porsche News
Porsche Picture Gallery
Win a New Porsche 911

Porsche Parts
Body Parts, Body Styling
Brakes, Clearance
Electrical, Exhausts
Engine Cooling, Engine Electrical
Engine Rebuild, Heating Cooling
Interior Incar, Lighting
Rubber Seals, Service Parts
Steering, Suspension
Transmission, Workshop Tools
Early 911, 911 - 930, 928 - 968
964 - 993, 996 - 997, Boxster
Cayman, Cayenne, Panamera

Porsche Model Range
911 [992] 2018-Current
Porsche 911 [992]
911 [991] 2011-2019
Porsche 911 [991]
911 [997] 2004-2012
Porsche 911 [997]
911 [GT] GT1-GT2-GT3
Porsche 911 [GT]
911 [996] 1997-2005
Porsche 911 [996]
911 [993] 1993-1998
Porsche 911 [993]
911 [RS] RS-RSR
Porsche 911 [RS]
911 [964] 1989-1993
Porsche 911 [964]
911 3.2 1983-1989
Porsche 911 3.2 Carrera
911 SC 1977-1983
Porsche 911 SC
911 [Early] 1964-1977
Porsche 911 [Early]
Boxster & Cayman
Porsche Boxster & Cayman
Cayenne & Panamera
Porsche Cayenne & Panamera

911uk Site Partners

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
crash7
Hockenheim


Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 678



PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rigsby99 wrote:
crash7 wrote:
Rigsby99 - Do you have a vested interest in this car? Have a relationship with the owner/seller? Or do you own a car that is in a similar situation?

Your ferocious defence of its situation seems a little excessive and very committed.


I have no interest or knowledge of this car. Ferocious defence, oh please, I merely find this witch hunt pathetic Oh my God it's had a scratch, no worse a bumper replaced that's 10k off, woops two bumpers thats 20k. You may all be surprised at how many of your 20 yr old cars have had a bit more than this.


Could you perhaps share the accident repair report, which I assume you have given that you continually state the car has only had a bumper replacement?

Cars that are insured for track work and take a hit whilst on track are often not Cat recorded. - This is not to say that the damage was not significant.

The market dictates the value, end of, and this has been for sale for a long long time, draw from that what you will.

Last edited by crash7 on Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
917k
Magny-Cours


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2558
Location: Bromley, kent

2011 Porsche Cayman 987

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rigsby99 wrote:
crash7 wrote:
Rigsby99 - Do you have a vested interest in this car? Have a relationship with the owner/seller? Or do you own a car that is in a similar situation?

Your ferocious defence of its situation seems a little excessive and very committed.


I have no interest or knowledge of this car. Ferocious defence, oh please, I merely find this witch hunt pathetic Oh my God it's had a scratch, no worse a bumper replaced that's 10k off, woops two bumpers thats 20k. You may all be surprised at how many of your 20 yr old cars have had a bit more than this.


Just a scratch, or at worst a replacement bumper??

How do you work that out when the repair estimate was 20k, and had it gone back to Porsche 3 times that amount

So no, it clearly wasn't just a scratch or bumper replacement
_________________
We come unseen
 
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
   
Senoj
Zolder


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 5210
Location: Oxfordshire


PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rigsby99 wrote:
Senoj wrote:
Cunno wrote:
Cunno wrote:
I’ve seen the screen shot above, that says the car has been subject to a salvage auction , but what does that mean? Does this car have a CAT status? Asking because AT have the car showing as clear on their site? And still advertised by present seller.


Anyone know the answer to my question?


It means nothing Jon. Apart from the fact it’s been through a salvage auction, that in itself is not a ‘status’ of any sort.

The only way a car gets any sort of status is if the ins co tells the Dvla. Without wishing to be cynical you could think that the ins co gets more for the salvage without any status so what’s their motivation for telling the DVLA...obviously it’s a selling plus point for the salvage auction as they go to the effort of informing perspective buyers that cars are unrecorded with DVLA. You could argue they are being totally factual,which they are, but they are also pointing out an opportunity for perspective buyers to fix and put back on the road with zero disclosure.

You can think what you like about that. I think it’s a bit bent.


Insurers have to inform DVLA of Cat A,B,S


Car was a total loss. Ergo a write off. Every write off has a category A,B,C,D,N,S . So why didn’t they, is it still in the post?
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
jonttt
Long Beach


Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 6441
Location: Liverpool


PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keep up the posts, Google loves it Grin
_________________
1997 Porsche 911 993 C4S My Journal
2011 Porsche 987.2 Boxster Black Edition My Journal
Ex 2014 Porsche Boxster GTS My Journal
2017 BMW 740 Msport
2017 RR Evoque Autobiography
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
NXI20
Paul Ricard


Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 3384
Location: South Bucks

2004 Porsche 996 GT3 Mk2

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senoj wrote:
Car was a total loss. Ergo a write off. Every write off has a category A,B,C,D,N,S . So why didn’t they, is it still in the post?


It's a peculiarity of the trackday insurance AIUI. It's not one of those letters, it's a U (uncatagorised).
_________________
Nick

2004 GT3 CS in Atlas Grey with too many mods to list!
1995 993 GT2 recreation in Polar Silver
2010 GT3 CS in Riviera Blue Smile
1978 Carrera SC in Red (for sale)
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Senoj
Zolder


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 5210
Location: Oxfordshire


PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NXI20 wrote:
Senoj wrote:
Car was a total loss. Ergo a write off. Every write off has a category A,B,C,D,N,S . So why didn’t they, is it still in the post?


It's a peculiarity of the trackday insurance AIUI. It's not one of those letters, it's a U (uncatagorised).


Hmmm. So its possibly in the no category category. Ergo, the ins co didn’t tell Dvla it was a total loss. If so it’s the same thing. If they didn’t categorise it why not, is there an invisible force field stopping them telling Dvla or do the just want to maximise their salvage sale price.. Floor
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
stuttgartmetal
Indianapolis


Joined: 23 Feb 2009
Posts: 2427
Location: Caterham. Surrey


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could anyone point me towards where this car is for sale please
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
rigsby99
Monza


Joined: 22 Oct 2015
Posts: 204
Location: South Cheshire


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Cunno
Indianapolis


Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 2366
Location: Nottinghamshire


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What classes the car as a right off, the original owner was paid out we know that as a few of us track regularly with him.
So not sure why this car didn't get a cat status.

There seem to be no consistency from the insurers
_________________
Porsche is for driving not for washing.
Present Car: 2006 3.6 Porsche GT3 997(White)
Ex: 2006 3.4 Porsche Cayman S (Silver)
Ex: 2001 2.7 Porsche Boxster (Seal Grey)
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Cunno
Indianapolis


Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 2366
Location: Nottinghamshire


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stuttgartmetal wrote:
Could anyone point me towards where this car is for sale please


Piston heads or auto trader
_________________
Porsche is for driving not for washing.
Present Car: 2006 3.6 Porsche GT3 997(White)
Ex: 2006 3.4 Porsche Cayman S (Silver)
Ex: 2001 2.7 Porsche Boxster (Seal Grey)
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
917k
Magny-Cours


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2558
Location: Bromley, kent

2011 Porsche Cayman 987

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rigsby99 wrote:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.


You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch
_________________
We come unseen
 
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
   
Cunno
Indianapolis


Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 2366
Location: Nottinghamshire


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

917k wrote:
rigsby99 wrote:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.


You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch


What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.

The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.




Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).
_________________
Porsche is for driving not for washing.
Present Car: 2006 3.6 Porsche GT3 997(White)
Ex: 2006 3.4 Porsche Cayman S (Silver)
Ex: 2001 2.7 Porsche Boxster (Seal Grey)
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
917k
Magny-Cours


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2558
Location: Bromley, kent

2011 Porsche Cayman 987

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cunno wrote:
917k wrote:
rigsby99 wrote:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.


You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch


What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.

The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.




Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).


It s mentioned earlier in the tread, by Cherubator I believe, who was going to buy the car but left it after the auction went over 35k

Not sure what the relevance of the being worse cars out there tbh, we're discussing this car, and the retailers who have all failed to disclose its history, despite it being widely know n amongst enthusiasts

And again, if the car was so lightly damaged why was the repair estimate 20k or 3 times that from Porsche??

Porsches are expensive, we all know that, but a those costs don't add up to a minor scratch
_________________
We come unseen
 
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
   
T8
General
General


Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Posts: 16122
Location: Kent


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LaSource wrote:


A lot of obsession with this car.

Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).

I'm not connected to the repair or sale of the car - but was in it when it happened Smile



= A bit more than 'a witness'.
_________________
2007 Guards Red 997 Turbo Tiptronic
ex 2004 Polar Silver 996T Tiptronic
ex 2002 Seal Grey 996.2 C4 Tiptronic
ex 1978 Silver 924 Manual
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Diggermeister
Nürburgring


Joined: 26 May 2015
Posts: 469



PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

T8 wrote:
LaSource wrote:


A lot of obsession with this car.

Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).

I'm not connected to the repair or sale of the car - but was in it when it happened Smile



= A bit more than 'a witness'.
Yes, much more than a witness. He showed me the in car video over dinner at the Pistenklause on the eve of my first ever track day there. Surprised

It was not intended to scare, but rather part of some very generous and useful advice about the track.
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
Cunno
Indianapolis


Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 2366
Location: Nottinghamshire


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

917k wrote:
Cunno wrote:
917k wrote:
rigsby99 wrote:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.


You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch



What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.

The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.




Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).


It s mentioned earlier in the tread, by Cherubator I believe, who was going to buy the car but left it after the auction went over 35k

Not sure what the relevance of the being worse cars out there tbh, we're discussing this car, and the retailers who have all failed to disclose its history, despite it being widely know n amongst enthusiasts

And again, if the car was so lightly damaged why was the repair estimate 20k or 3 times that from Porsche??

Porsches are expensive, we all know that, but a those costs don't add up to a minor scratch


Cherubator was willing to pay £35k for the salvage from what I read + £20k repair has you in at £55k what I and I think most GT3 owner would consider a fare price for a repaired car. The fact that he was willing to spend £35k indicates to me that he thought it was repairable.
_________________
Porsche is for driving not for washing.
Present Car: 2006 3.6 Porsche GT3 997(White)
Ex: 2006 3.4 Porsche Cayman S (Silver)
Ex: 2001 2.7 Porsche Boxster (Seal Grey)
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
917k
Magny-Cours


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2558
Location: Bromley, kent

2011 Porsche Cayman 987

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cunno wrote:
917k wrote:
Cunno wrote:
917k wrote:
rigsby99 wrote:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.


You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch



What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.

The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.




Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).


It s mentioned earlier in the tread, by Cherubator I believe, who was going to buy the car but left it after the auction went over 35k

Not sure what the relevance of the being worse cars out there tbh, we're discussing this car, and the retailers who have all failed to disclose its history, despite it being widely know n amongst enthusiasts

And again, if the car was so lightly damaged why was the repair estimate 20k or 3 times that from Porsche??

Porsches are expensive, we all know that, but a those costs don't add up to a minor scratch


Cherubator was willing to pay £35k for the salvage from what I read + £20k repair has you in at £55k what I and I think most GT3 owner would consider a fare price for a repaired car. The fact that he was willing to spend £35k indicates to me that he thought it was repairable.


Who suggested it wasn't repairable?

The whole issue is about (a number of) dealers being less than forthcoming about the cars history, and therefore its value
_________________
We come unseen
 
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
   
911UK
Porsche Community
Porsche Community


Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 10289
Location: 911UK

1997 Porsche 993 Carrera 2

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rossi911 wrote:
Senoj wrote:
917k wrote:
Now for sale with Phil Raby

Poor form for not mentioning the accident in the ad


Maybe he doesn’t know? Would be surprised though as it’s not to find out Smile

Great car for the right money, just isn’t the right money..


Phil Raby Porsche, not as squeaky clean as his scripted claims are PC having experience, wouldnt touch him with a barge pole

and this is the car that hasn't been serviced correctly since 2015, so full service history my arse

still a good car at the right price that starts wth a 4, but trying to punt it for full market price just shows at the end of the days it's dealer profit 1st
wack


the main issue is traders true to form, passing off the car as clean since it is unrecorded knowing the car's history

this ad is currently live on autotrader, the UK's biggest market place https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201903226156391

Hand
_________________
Get a Porsche Car Insurance Quote


FOLLOW 911UK ON TWITTER
 



2019-03-25_11-54-40.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  299.59 KB
 Viewed:  2420 Time(s)

2019-03-25_11-54-40.jpg


  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
   
jonttt
Long Beach


Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 6441
Location: Liverpool


PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Full service history, how have they achieved that as it was previously documented as having a 4 year gap Question
_________________
1997 Porsche 911 993 C4S My Journal
2011 Porsche 987.2 Boxster Black Edition My Journal
Ex 2014 Porsche Boxster GTS My Journal
2017 BMW 740 Msport
2017 RR Evoque Autobiography
 
  
View user's profile Send private message
   
MisterCorn
Dijon


Joined: 08 Jan 2011
Posts: 7311
Location: Nottingham, England

2004 Porsche 996 Turbo

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have seen 'full service history' to mean that details of all of the previous services are present. When I was looking for my DB9 I looked at one which was 8 years old, on 16k miles. I had just had a service, and had had 1 previous service. When asked, I was told it is due at 10k miles and had been done at 9k and 16k so was all good. I left.

MC
 
  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
   
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 12 of 14

 
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum