What do you hate more - Porsche or Maserati

Discussion in 'Car Comparisons' started by blackie, Nov 8, 2010.

  1. the fix on the RMS failures were to replace the entire engine (which they did) on every car effected. that problem also only came about on the Mk1 996's. the intermediate shaft failures happened when there were at least 80k kilometers on the engine and again those problems were fixed. the cylinder liners had occasional bad batches, which every manufacturer deals with.

    the PCCB issue was also solved quickly and without cost to owners. the people that replace with the steel disc for track use do so because they don't want to spend the extra money on the composite discs because they are expensive. if you're constantly tracking a car you sometimes want to save money and thats a very easy way to do it.

    when it comes to modern Maseratis the one thing that jumps right to the top of my head of problems is the clutches that only last 5k kilometers. regardless of how you drive them, the constant fit and finish issues, and (in the early models) the piston ring failures.
  2. #52 Guibo, Nov 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Replacing the entire engine with another engine that also has poorly engineered RMS does NOT fix the problem. There have been owners who have had over 3 engine replacements, some with even 5 replacements. Here's one on the 997 GT3:
    Only a problem on 996.1's? LOL. Let me know if you want to read more from 997 owners who've had it. There's loads, and that's just the people who have already had it.

    Check the polls on Porsche forums, where well over 50% report at least one RMS "fix." Would you say well over 50% of modern Maseratis have piston ring failures?

    IMS failure on cars with as low as 60k km and 12k miles:

    PCCB resolved quickly and without cost to owners?

    BTW, I didn't say anything about Porsche's *service* when it comes to replacing engines. I'm talking about the engineering of the engines in question. Clearly there was a problem.
  3. Ah, your a lucky man <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> Wanna trade lives for a week? All I see are PT Cruisers and Civics all day <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/sad.gif"></A>
  4. #54 TrueSportsCarMechanic, Nov 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    you should know by now that most people on forums dont' know what they're talking about (yes I realize I'm saying this on a forum). of all the 997's I work on regularily I've never seen one with a RMS failure.

    that IMS failure is most likely due to infrequent oil changes.

    the PCCB issue seems to be this guy driving it agressively (abusing the car).

    don't get me started on the engineering of Maserati/Ferrari.
  5. #55 Guibo, Nov 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    It's not forum members diagnosing it as RMS failure; it's invariably their *service techs* who advise them that its RMS failure. These guys don't just swap out their M96/97 engine for one sitting in their basement; it' the dealers doing the work. There's a shitload more than that too, if you'd like to read them. Just say the word.

    IMS failure is due to a design or manufacturing defect. You think all those guys who post about this problem didn't take care of their engines? LOL. You buy a $70k sports car and you don't follow the recommended change intervals, ok that makes a lot of sense. I think these guys know it's more than just oil change intervals:

    If it's an oil change interval issue, why did Porsche issue a recall to install a spacer under the intermediate shaft?

    PCCB was designed for track use. How is it abuse if Porsche advertised PCCB largely on its track ability? From the official GT2 literature, regarding PCCB:
    "A powerful new technology designed to cope with even the most extreme conditions on racetrack and road."
  6. Oh what a tempting offer, let me think it over..
  7. YOu can attend the same Tea Bagging rallies he goes to, cool right?
  8. Blackies
  9. stfu
  10. #60 TrueSportsCarMechanic, Nov 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I'm not saying the diagnosis is wrong. it was a problem and updates have been done to fix the problem.

    also I'm not saying the IMS failure isn't a design failure. it clearly is. it just sounds to me like that guy didn't take care of his engine from the working in his first post.

    every manufacturer of high end stuff says in their literature. however if you read the fine print in your warranty it specifically states that track use or hard/abusive driving can void the warranty. every manufacturer does that.
  11. You said it was a problem isolated only to 996.1's. That is flat out false.

    What, from that guy's first post, made you think he didn't take care of the engine? If you read his other posts, he seems like a far more hands-on, maintenance-focused kind of guy than most Porsche owners.

    I know that every manufacturer has warranty clauses relating to track use. That's not the issue. Not every manufacturer touts a specific component as tried and tested ON TRACK. The GT2 isn't exactly the kind of car one buys just to drive around to posh restaurants. Don't you think that a part, advertised as being tried and tested to withstand the most extreme track conditions, should be fit for purpose?
  12. - trying to charge me $850 for a new rear Pirelli P-Zero.
    - trying to charge me 4 dollars for each mother #$%#ing license plate screw.
    - the dipshit at the Porsche/Audi/VW dealership correcting me on the phone when I asked for the "por-shhh" department instead of "por-sha".
    - my CD Changer just #$%#ed up but I'm going to replace it with an InDash CD player.
  13. as far as I know those problems were just on the 996.1's. I've never had a 997 come in with a failed RMS.

    the problem with cars like these are unless you know what you're doing you shouldn't touch it (the owners usually do more harm to the car than good). for the amount of time he had the car with the mileage on it makes me quesion weather or not he's taken car of the car.

    no not every manufacturer claims track tested but they all do track test. the Porsche warranty for parts does cover racing components, for 24 hours. I don't know how these people drive their cars but I'll step out on a limb here and make an educated guess that the guy did abuse the car.
  14. Yup, and I can save him a spot in the welfare line.
  15. NO U
  16. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you ever had a Z06 come in with dropped valves? No? Well, it happens. Porsche themselves acknowledged the problem by issuing "fixes" well into the 997 generation.

    What part of that post, specifically, makes you question whether he's taken care of the car? Quote?

    According to the lawsuit, Porsche denied coverage on the basis that being on the track was enough to be considered "abuse." It didn't matter that he was NOT taking part in a timed event (other mfrs will not automatically void warranty for track use, and some specifically state warranty is denied only in competition or timed events). The conditions under which the Porsche warranty claim would be honored, as spelled out in arbitration:
    "To be driven on reasonable road surfaces within legal speed limits…"
    Basically, if they produce a faulty part that fails as a direct result of engineering/machining error while you're doing 60 in a 45 zone, they can deny coverage. I'm not aware of another manufacturer that has stipulated adherence to speed limits as a condition of warranty coverage. Perhaps Maserati does. Do they?
    You really don't have any evidence he abused the brakes.
  17. track use is abuse, for any car and any manufacturer. Period. This isnt a porsche thing, its an auto industry thing. Its unreasonable for any company to warranty a car for 60k or whatever for track use. Nothing stands up to that much abuse. Some dealers may let you slide (our porsche and subaru dealers here are cool), but thats not the company line.
  18. agreed. but I do work on alot of 997's and neither me nor my employer have ever seen one with that problem.

    that fact that he's #$%#ed with the car makes me think he hasn't taken care of it.

    every manufacturer can and will void a warranty due to track use.
  19. Why the #$%# is a serious discussion going on in this thread?
  20. it must be sc.nets time of the month.
  21. How can you hate any of them? + you can't compare them...
  22. The #$%#ing with the car comes after the IMS failed, correct?

    Not every manufacturer will void a warranty due to track use. People with Corvettes have had warranty coverage on track so long as the following criteria are met:
    - car is stock
    - event wasn't timed; ie, DE

    People with GT-R's can have full warranty coverage with a post-track inspection.

    I'm not saying *all* tracked cars will be covered; some have been denied. The difference here is that Porsche denied warranty on a component which was specifically designed for track work, which they advertised as being capable of withstanding the most extreme track conditions. On top of this, there is the speed limit clause which was introduced as a factor in arbitration resulting in denial of coverage to that customer.

    I'm aware that *all* cars will have *some* problems; that is the nature of any complex mechanical system. What's at issue is the differences in magnitude, and the fact that Porsche finally acknowledged there was a problem and issued recalls, but only after enough people complained. If you can show that Maseratis in the past decade have had congenital defects (to the extent of RMS and IMS failure), or if they have components that fail when specificaly used as advertised (like ceramic brakes crumbling due to track use), then I'm all ears.
  23. Bullshit. Friends Z06, motor blown, non timed DE, no warranty coverage.

    GT-Rs also have to do like 5k in service according to the rules every time they take it on track.

    And he already listed the 5k mile clutch issue with the cars.
  24. #75 Guibo, Nov 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Bullshit? Based on anectodal "evidence"? You know as well as I do how absurd that statement is. You can dig up the old GT-R thread where I showed that a Corvette customer had his balljoints replaced under warranty even though his dealer knew he had tracked it. You can also find arbitration result where GM didn't even challenge because they knew damn well the language in their warranty terms didn't exclude track events. Quite different from Porsche, who won their case partly because of the road and legal speed limits clause of the warranty. Did your friend try another dealer, the zone rep, or arbitration?
    You can see some owners being covered for track day failures here:

    5k in required service? Proof?

    Listing 5k mile clutch issue isn't proof of a congenital defect. Show me links.

Share This Page