Can anyone offer some 996 technical advice?
Discussion
Hi,
I am new to this so apologies if it has been covered before but I couldnt find anything in the searches.
Finally realised the boyhood dream and bought myself a Carrera (996) last year.
Unfortuantely about 3 weeks ago the engine popped (rather embarrassingly) as I pulled away from some traffic lights....
The initial diagnosis from the OPC was something to do with the crank sensor.
They pulled the engine and gearbox out and told me that a "loose nut" in the bell housing had caused the problem.
They also told me that this loose nut is a "foreign object" and therefore it would not be covered under the extended warranty which I bought in December last year.
I have spent the last few weeks trying to find out from them where this "loose nut" has come from but to no avail.
Finally today I received the official response on this which to summarise says:
"The flywheel ring gear for the Tiptronic gearbox has been damaged by a metallic nut in the gear bell housing"
After assessing images of the nut and damage they have:
"concluded that the nut was not part of the gearbox owing to the fact that the gearbox is secured with bolts"
so their conclusion is the same, its an "outside influence" and is therefore not covered by the warranty!
So to the point, can anyone offer any advice as to where this "loose nut" can have come from?
From what I know about engines (which isnt much) it is a completely sealed unit so anything loose must have either come from the engine or gearbox itself or been dropped into the Oil cap (which I think I would have noticed).
Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated as right now I feel that the boyhood dreams have been dashed :-(
Thanks
Phil
I am new to this so apologies if it has been covered before but I couldnt find anything in the searches.
Finally realised the boyhood dream and bought myself a Carrera (996) last year.
Unfortuantely about 3 weeks ago the engine popped (rather embarrassingly) as I pulled away from some traffic lights....
The initial diagnosis from the OPC was something to do with the crank sensor.
They pulled the engine and gearbox out and told me that a "loose nut" in the bell housing had caused the problem.
They also told me that this loose nut is a "foreign object" and therefore it would not be covered under the extended warranty which I bought in December last year.
I have spent the last few weeks trying to find out from them where this "loose nut" has come from but to no avail.
Finally today I received the official response on this which to summarise says:
"The flywheel ring gear for the Tiptronic gearbox has been damaged by a metallic nut in the gear bell housing"
After assessing images of the nut and damage they have:
"concluded that the nut was not part of the gearbox owing to the fact that the gearbox is secured with bolts"
so their conclusion is the same, its an "outside influence" and is therefore not covered by the warranty!
So to the point, can anyone offer any advice as to where this "loose nut" can have come from?
From what I know about engines (which isnt much) it is a completely sealed unit so anything loose must have either come from the engine or gearbox itself or been dropped into the Oil cap (which I think I would have noticed).
Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated as right now I feel that the boyhood dreams have been dashed :-(
Thanks
Phil
I thought about that and mentioned it to them.
The engine was replaced under warranty a little under 2 years ago.
Another extract from their letter says they:
"believe the nut has not been left in the gearbox from the previous engine repair because the damage would have become evident sooner"
They did even tell me on the phone that the damage would have been caused "within miles" of the nut getting into the gearbox.
I have covered around 10,000 miles since last September and in that time its been to the OPC for a service (just before I bought it) and for the 111 check for the extended warranty.
you are right - this is an odd one.....
The engine was replaced under warranty a little under 2 years ago.
Another extract from their letter says they:
"believe the nut has not been left in the gearbox from the previous engine repair because the damage would have become evident sooner"
They did even tell me on the phone that the damage would have been caused "within miles" of the nut getting into the gearbox.
I have covered around 10,000 miles since last September and in that time its been to the OPC for a service (just before I bought it) and for the 111 check for the extended warranty.
you are right - this is an odd one.....
phil996newby said:
damage would have been caused "within miles" of the nut getting into the gearbox.
I have covered around 10,000 miles since last September and in that time its been to the OPC for a service (just before I bought it) and for the 111 check for the extended warranty.
I have covered around 10,000 miles since last September and in that time its been to the OPC for a service (just before I bought it) and for the 111 check for the extended warranty.
Would have thought there's your answer. Nobody but them has touched it in 10,000 miles?
Just need to make them see it.
phil996newby said:
Thanks for the reponses everyone.
So outside of someone dropping said loose nut into the gearbox during previous work is there any other ways of it getting in there?
Phil
So outside of someone dropping said loose nut into the gearbox during previous work is there any other ways of it getting in there?
Phil
Not unless you're David Blaine.
The car was fine. They serviced it. The car is not fine.
A court could well find, on the balance of probabilities (civil burden of proof) that the nut must have been put in there during the service.
I'd see a solicitor for an hour and explain it, and get a view, then get the solicitor to write a stiff letter.
This does sound VERY odd.
Given Porsche have stated that the problem would come to light quickly after the nut appeared, what can you have done to have introduced it?
If you haven't opened the engine up, then either (a) it's the service (how long ago was it?) or (b) Porsche are not correct and it has been in there for ages.
One could be cynical, and say that (b) seems more plausible. If the nut has been in there since day 1 of the new engine, then they should be forking out for a new one..... so maybe their explanation suits their pockets?
Yeah
the letter that I posted the extracts from came from their Customer Assistance Team.
Apparently the decision has come from the Porsche technical folks in Reading and their decision is final.
The thing that gets me on this is that ok I can't prove that they left something in there but by the same token they cant prove that they didnt and yet their assumption is that they shouldnt have to pay for the work.
Now that the car is ready I am going to have to pay to get it back and then fight which doesnt put me in a great position :-(
the letter that I posted the extracts from came from their Customer Assistance Team.
Apparently the decision has come from the Porsche technical folks in Reading and their decision is final.
The thing that gets me on this is that ok I can't prove that they left something in there but by the same token they cant prove that they didnt and yet their assumption is that they shouldnt have to pay for the work.
Now that the car is ready I am going to have to pay to get it back and then fight which doesnt put me in a great position :-(
phil996newby said:
Yeah
the letter that I posted the extracts from came from their Customer Assistance Team.
Apparently the decision has come from the Porsche technical folks in Reading and their decision is final.
The thing that gets me on this is that ok I can't prove that they left something in there but by the same token they cant prove that they didnt and yet their assumption is that they shouldnt have to pay for the work.
Now that the car is ready I am going to have to pay to get it back and then fight which doesnt put me in a great position :-(
the letter that I posted the extracts from came from their Customer Assistance Team.
Apparently the decision has come from the Porsche technical folks in Reading and their decision is final.
The thing that gets me on this is that ok I can't prove that they left something in there but by the same token they cant prove that they didnt and yet their assumption is that they shouldnt have to pay for the work.
Now that the car is ready I am going to have to pay to get it back and then fight which doesnt put me in a great position :-(
In a civil claim you only have to prove your case on the balance of probabilities.
So you have to convince the judge that on the balance of probabilities
1. the nut was there in the new engine on day 1 (Porsche's problem);or
2. that the nut came from the Porsche service. This would mean you giving evidence that you didn't open the engine, and that Porsche are the only people who've been near it other than you.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Monday 16th April 14:34
Vesuvius 996 said:
phil996newby said:
Yeah
the letter that I posted the extracts from came from their Customer Assistance Team.
Apparently the decision has come from the Porsche technical folks in Reading and their decision is final.
The thing that gets me on this is that ok I can't prove that they left something in there but by the same token they cant prove that they didnt and yet their assumption is that they shouldnt have to pay for the work.
Now that the car is ready I am going to have to pay to get it back and then fight which doesnt put me in a great position :-(
the letter that I posted the extracts from came from their Customer Assistance Team.
Apparently the decision has come from the Porsche technical folks in Reading and their decision is final.
The thing that gets me on this is that ok I can't prove that they left something in there but by the same token they cant prove that they didnt and yet their assumption is that they shouldnt have to pay for the work.
Now that the car is ready I am going to have to pay to get it back and then fight which doesnt put me in a great position :-(
In a civil claim you only have to prove your case on the balance of probabilities.
So you have to show that on the balance of probabilities
1. the nut was there in the new engine on day 1 (Porsche's problem);or
2. that the nut came from the Porsche service. This would mean you giving evidence that you didn't open the engine, and that Porsche are the only people who've been near it other than you.
listen to him, he's one of the leaches, erm, lawyers...
I cant have opened the engine up - wouldnt have a clue how to - Ive only just got to grips with it being at the back of the car ;-).
(b) you could be right on this. The well known Surrey based specialist I bought the car from said the same thing as the OPC though - it would have manifested itself within miles of it coming loose.
They wont let me see the technical report or the images - saying that they are "Porsche Proprietary" - so I dont even know how big the loose nut is or anything more than they have told me in the letter.
(b) you could be right on this. The well known Surrey based specialist I bought the car from said the same thing as the OPC though - it would have manifested itself within miles of it coming loose.
They wont let me see the technical report or the images - saying that they are "Porsche Proprietary" - so I dont even know how big the loose nut is or anything more than they have told me in the letter.
Vesuvius 996 said:
phil996newby said:
Yeah
the letter that I posted the extracts from came from their Customer Assistance Team.
Apparently the decision has come from the Porsche technical folks in Reading and their decision is final.
The thing that gets me on this is that ok I can't prove that they left something in there but by the same token they cant prove that they didnt and yet their assumption is that they shouldnt have to pay for the work.
Now that the car is ready I am going to have to pay to get it back and then fight which doesnt put me in a great position :-(
the letter that I posted the extracts from came from their Customer Assistance Team.
Apparently the decision has come from the Porsche technical folks in Reading and their decision is final.
The thing that gets me on this is that ok I can't prove that they left something in there but by the same token they cant prove that they didnt and yet their assumption is that they shouldnt have to pay for the work.
Now that the car is ready I am going to have to pay to get it back and then fight which doesnt put me in a great position :-(
In a civil claim you only have to prove your case on the balance of probabilities.
So you have to convince the judge that on the balance of probabilities
1. the nut was there in the new engine on day 1 (Porsche's problem);or
2. that the nut came from the Porsche service. This would mean you giving evidence that you didn't open the engine, and that Porsche are the only people who've been near it other than you.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Monday 16th April 14:34
good to see you're back on during 'office hours'; does that mean you've earned enough brownie points with the new employer to be on PH all day?
phil996newby said:
I cant have opened the engine up - wouldnt have a clue how to - Ive only just got to grips with it being at the back of the car ;-).
(b) you could be right on this. The well known Surrey based specialist I bought the car from said the same thing as the OPC though - it would have manifested itself within miles of it coming loose.
They wont let me see the technical report or the images - saying that they are "Porsche Proprietary" - so I dont even know how big the loose nut is or anything more than they have told me in the letter.
(b) you could be right on this. The well known Surrey based specialist I bought the car from said the same thing as the OPC though - it would have manifested itself within miles of it coming loose.
They wont let me see the technical report or the images - saying that they are "Porsche Proprietary" - so I dont even know how big the loose nut is or anything more than they have told me in the letter.
Tell them that when you sue them, you will be entitled to see them during the "disclosure phase" of the case. Cheeky cvnts. I am starting to think that they know they are on the back foot here in every respect other than they have a billion in the bank and you don't.
This nut came from somewhere.
It was either in the engine when they fitted it, or it was introduced at some point very recently.
If it's the former, it should be easy to sue them.
If it's the latter, then my previous advice applies. You have to show on the balance of probabilities that the nut came from Porsche. Since you haven't put it there, it must have come from them.
UNLESS (and I need to to rack the brains here) there is anyone else who could have dropped a nut into a filler pipe??
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff