To Warranty or not to Warranty on a 996TT .....

[MaKSiNG]

..... that is the question???

Would I be a fool to try and run a TT without a Porsche warranty???

Discuss.

[freedman]

At your own risk.

I wouldnt but wouldmt decry anyone who chose to take the gamble, maybe with warranty direct? or alternative provider

Edited by freedman on Thursday 22 March 19:11

[johnfm]

You know what I'm going to say......

[BLKROKT]

Although relatively bulletproof, I wouldn't put down all of my hard earned dough on a TT and then not spend a little extra on a warranty. TT engines, trannys, etc don't come cheap... Lends some peace-of-mind when giving it a good thrashing.

[MaKSiNG]

johnfm said:

You know what I'm going to say......

Let me guess, don't spend the money on a warranty but buy a subscription to Porsche magazine instead


I know it would make sense to buy it, but they have really wound me up with forcing me to have the brakes done when these are not covered under the warranty in the first place.

Let me ask another question, how difficult is it to actually get anything out of Porsche warranty if say the engine or gearbox fails? Do they have loads of items which are out of scope?

[wetwipe]

yes you would.

the engines and drive train are very good but bloody expensive to put right.

I dont have the W with my C2. will absolutely with the turbo

[johnfm]

A lot depends on how you intend to look after the car, how well you know its history etc. The warranty is just another form of insurance which you may, or may not, ever call upon. Some have found their OPC's pay up on things that others haven't - like MAFs etc. Not sure why they'd make you replace a non warrantable item though.

Good luck!!

[MaKSiNG]

Cheers John.

This is what I am trying to weigh up as well.
The car was supplied by OPC 18 months ago at 16k miles to the current seller, so had a warranty on it.
5 weeks later the clutch went. OPC said this is a wear and tear item so not covered. The seller was gutted and took it to an indy to get fixed (he is now of the strong opinion that the warranty is not worth anything, but I guess he would be).
Car has now done 27k and is going into an indy to get its 48k service done.

The indy said he would go over the car again as part of the service as if it was an inspection. So it should really be tip-top, well once I get the brakes done (it might only need discs as well since the pads were done very recently).

At the end of the day, all I have to do is spend another £175 for another 111-point check at OPC to get the warranty which is not the end of the world. And besides I would have saved that by not getting the brakes done by them there and then anyway.

[freedman]

johnfm said:

A lot depends on how you intend to look after the car, how well you know its history etc. The warranty is just another form of insurance which you may, or may not, ever call upon. Some have found their OPC's pay up on things that others haven't - like MAFs etc. Not sure why they'd make you replace a non warrantable item though.

Good luck!!

This is quite true, I had the same experience with my M3, on edealership wanted to charge me for stuff I believed sopuld be under warranty, another had no problem changing anything and everything.

Really need some recommendations from people who have had good warranty service from various OPCs

[guyvert1]

Nothing personal, but you've got to be kidding not getting an OPC warranty with the TT. Would you buy a new car without warranty ? Do you have house insurance? For a piddly £825 (now?) its a no-brainer .. WHY take the risk? Honestly, why?

[Grant3]

guyvert1 said:

Nothing personal, but you've got to be kidding not getting an OPC warranty with the TT. Would you buy a new car without warranty ? Do you have house insurance? For a piddly £825 (now?) its a no-brainer .. WHY take the risk? Honestly, why?

I'm with the G man!!!

It isn't any more expensive than a Boxster at £800 squid & represents a nice safety net for not much dosh against a £50k-ish car!!

[ukwill]

plus, they arent going to provide a warranty for a clutch. as a car manufacturer you'd be mad to.

[yetie]

warranty on my 993 turbo for the max 10 years worth every penny dont not do it

[kayc]

MaKSiNG said:

..... that is the question???

Would I be a fool to try and run a TT without a Porsche warranty???

Discuss.

Ive driven mine for 2 years without a warranty and not had any problems at all (apart from a failed maf sensor).Im still a little bemused as to why service history(which surely means all faults rectified as seen)is deemed to be crucial yet no-one actually trusts it does any good so you need a warranty. In my understanding a fpsh is a supposed to mean a faultless car,why should it go wrong then?..It seems to me that the warranty appears to be safety net to people who intend to thrash the shit out of their cars knowing someone else fits the bill.If a person makes such a big deal about having or needing a warranty im starting to question what they either have done to the car or are expecting to do .I have had loads of cars and until i started owning Porsches i have never come across this warranty 'panic' with any other brand..are we all saying these cars are built badly?Porsche offer a warranty because it makes business sense to them and they take more money in than they pay out.

Edited by kayc on Friday 23 March 07:49

[yetie]

car bits are so expensive today one relay can cost £1k thats why a proper warranty gives you peace of mind
£4k for gearbox etc....(OUCH)

[roshambo]

2 sides to every story. Had my TT for 3 years, no warranty & nothing has gone wrong.
Friend has a TT for 2 years and a couple of things have gone wrong, none of which would have been covered my a warranty anyway.

R.

[ukwill]

kayc said:

MaKSiNG said:

..... that is the question???

Would I be a fool to try and run a TT without a Porsche warranty???

Discuss.

Ive driven mine for 2 years without a warranty and not had any problems at all (apart from a failed maf sensor).Im still a little bemused as to why service history(which surely means all faults rectified as seen)is deemed to be crucial yet no-one actually trusts it does any good so you need a warranty. In my understanding a fpsh is a supposed to mean a faultless car,why should it go wrong then?..It seems to me that the warranty appears to be safety net to people who intend to thrash the shit out of their cars knowing someone else fits the bill.If a person makes such a big deal about having or needing a warranty im starting to question what they either have done to the car or are expecting to do .I have had loads of cars and until i started owning Porsches i have never come across this warranty 'panic' with any other brand..are we all saying these cars are built badly?Porsche offer a warranty because it makes business sense to them and they take more money in than they pay out.

Edited by kayc on Friday 23 March 07:49

I've lived in several houses. None of which have ever fallen down. All of which have been located in relatively decent areas with minimal crime rates. Why on earth I bought Buildings/Home&Contents Insurance I don't know...

[kayc]

ukwill said:

kayc said:

MaKSiNG said:

..... that is the question???

Would I be a fool to try and run a TT without a Porsche warranty???

Discuss.

Ive driven mine for 2 years without a warranty and not had any problems at all (apart from a failed maf sensor).Im still a little bemused as to why service history(which surely means all faults rectified as seen)is deemed to be crucial yet no-one actually trusts it does any good so you need a warranty. In my understanding a fpsh is a supposed to mean a faultless car,why should it go wrong then?..It seems to me that the warranty appears to be safety net to people who intend to thrash the shit out of their cars knowing someone else fits the bill.If a person makes such a big deal about having or needing a warranty im starting to question what they either have done to the car or are expecting to do .I have had loads of cars and until i started owning Porsches i have never come across this warranty 'panic' with any other brand..are we all saying these cars are built badly?Porsche offer a warranty because it makes business sense to them and they take more money in than they pay out.

Edited by kayc on Friday 23 March 07:49

I've lived in several houses. None of which have ever fallen down. All of which have been located in relatively decent areas with minimal crime rates. Why on earth I bought Buildings/Home&Contents Insurance I don't know...

Isnt it a legal requirement to have buildings insurance so you actually have no choice?Plus i dont recall many houses having full service history either or come with warranties..but we still buy them.

[ukwill]

kayc said:

ukwill said:

kayc said:

MaKSiNG said:

..... that is the question???

Would I be a fool to try and run a TT without a Porsche warranty???

Discuss.

Ive driven mine for 2 years without a warranty and not had any problems at all (apart from a failed maf sensor).Im still a little bemused as to why service history(which surely means all faults rectified as seen)is deemed to be crucial yet no-one actually trusts it does any good so you need a warranty. In my understanding a fpsh is a supposed to mean a faultless car,why should it go wrong then?..It seems to me that the warranty appears to be safety net to people who intend to thrash the shit out of their cars knowing someone else fits the bill.If a person makes such a big deal about having or needing a warranty im starting to question what they either have done to the car or are expecting to do .I have had loads of cars and until i started owning Porsches i have never come across this warranty 'panic' with any other brand..are we all saying these cars are built badly?Porsche offer a warranty because it makes business sense to them and they take more money in than they pay out.

Edited by kayc on Friday 23 March 07:49

I've lived in several houses. None of which have ever fallen down. All of which have been located in relatively decent areas with minimal crime rates. Why on earth I bought Buildings/Home&Contents Insurance I don't know...

Isnt it a legal requirement to have buildings insurance so you actually have no choice?Plus i dont recall many houses having full service history either or come with warranties..but we still buy them.

Whilst building insurance is, contents insurance isnt. Yet it would be rather stupid not to get contents insurance - or perhaps you disagree.

You may not have had a problem in the past 2yrs and so feel smug about saving yourself 2yrs warranty money (say around £1800). Tomorrow you could take your car out for a leg-stretch, only for the gearbox to die a death.

Having a full service history does not guarantee against mechanical failure.

And that leaves you where? In a car requiring (potentially) a new gearbox, with main dealer labour rates somewhere up in the stratosphere, and parts costs to match.

But hey, you saved £1800 right...

[rude-boy]

kayc said:

Isnt it a legal requirement to have buildings insurance so you actually have no choice?Plus i dont recall many houses having full service history either or come with warranties..but we still buy them.

1. It isn't a legal requirement to have Buildings Insurance (or contents). Often (as in I don't know of one that doesn't insist on it but someone might...)it is a requirement of your mortgage lender that this must be in place or else they have a right to foreclose.

2. You don't have as many 1000's of moving parts and other than the old man's Hymer I haven't seen many top 90. Oh, and ever heard of Zurich or the NHBC? Warrenties for houses less than 10 years old...