So I had a PPI done on my 2001 996TT. I paid a Porsche dealer for the report which stated: "Performed pre-purchase inspection- test drove vehicle – all system function normally. Note: vehicle has aftermarket springs, exhaust system – vehicle also has short shifter installed".

I bought the car based on this report. Then I found the car has the 2nd gear "pop out" issue. The total repair cost was over $5,000 including many different gears and labor. The car has been in the shop for 3 weeks. I have owned it for less than 4 weeks.

I would consider this bad luck, but in the car I found a work order from THE SAME DEALER who performed the PPI for me two months before the PPI which states: "Client states that when coasting in second gear when not accelerating, it will jump out of second gear. test drove vehicle – found vehicle has aftermarket short shift added – attempted to adjust shifter but it will not stay in second gear". So the prior owner knew of the issue and notified the dealer about it. He's not liable because I bought the car on consignment from an exotic car dealer.

So my question for the group is, do you think the dealership is liable given that the prior owner made them aware of the issue? Do you think they should accept any responsibility? I called them and their position is very clear that they aren't responsible and that they couldn't be expected to have found this problem, in spite of the fact that they could pull up the prior work order from any computer at their dealership.

What do you think? I am definitely going to take legal action against them, but how far should I take it? I suspect I could file a case in small claims court relatively cheaply, but what do you think the outcome would be? What would be your primary argument and what would you settle for?

 

My initial response to your situation is that the dealer would not be liable. You asked the dealer to perform a PPI which is an inspection of the car at that time. The question is whether or not you asked the dealer to review or fax you copies of the previous service records. If you had those you would have seen this issue yourself.

I purchased a Ferrari from a private party and actually paid an administrative clerk to photocopy all the service records for me with the seller's authorization. I was able to see ever issue that had come up with the car. Had I only asked for a PPI they would not have been under any obligation to review previous records. How would they remember that this particular car had a gear issue? No way for someone to know that unless it happened at the time the PPI was being done and the car road tested.

Unfortunately, I think the onus is on the buyer to do as much due diligence as possible and to rely on the seller to be forthright. Unfortunately, even due diligence occasionally falls short. I hate to say this but I think the dealer is not at fault.

 

You don't have a case, the pop out thing doesn't happen every time, plus they DID state that it had an aftermarket shifter.....which is known to cause tranny gear wear......

 

Shark01, is that really true? Do you know for a fact that a short shift kit causes tranny issues? Because on a poll on this very site there seemed to be no correlation between short shift kits and 2nd gear pop outs....do you know something to the contrary as fact?

 

Porsche loves to blame aftermarket shifters for the pop out issue. reason enough to stick with the oem ssk, although it's exactly the same as the BM, just with warranty protection.
As far as your case. The dealer is probably off the hook, the seller should have disclosed something like this imo. He obviously knew about it and his only avenue to sell the car was on consignment, sounds murky.

 

In my opinion (and many others) yes it is true. It takes more force to jam them into gear and that damages the gears/syncros over time. And most people are figuring that out. It used to be thought of as a no brainer mod......there were threads every week on them......now nothing.

 

THis discussion has NOTHING to do with whether or not ths shifter caused the problem!

The inspecting dealer stated:"but it will not stay in second gear"

Subsequently they stated they test drove it....

Their telling you that it has an SSK has nothing to do with their blatant failure to test drive it, or failure to disclose an obvious defect if they did drive it.

They have liability but you will need to sue them, or make big noise.

Did the seller misrepresent this condition in writing? "No know mechanical issues" or "no other known problems"???

GL

A

PS What did it do when YOU test drove it?

 

Yes, the seller listed the car as having "no known defects", but again, I didn't buy the car from the owner, I bought it from a dealer who sold it on consignment. I spoke to the prior owner and he knew of the problem, said it had "always done that".

When I test the drove, it popped out of second gear within 100 yards of the dealership, but I assumed (stupidly) that it was a new car, I must not have had it in gear all the way - it did not happen again and I didn't think anything of it, but had I known about this issue I would have been looking for it. After finding out about the issue, it was obvious - it would pop out of gear while coasting in second within 5 minutes. The dealer knew the car's history and could easily have tested for this.

I've spoken to mechanics at other dealers, and they tell me the first thing they do for a PPI is to pull the records to see what the car has been through and ensure that any previous issues with the car have been addressed. They were the ones in a position to know, not me.

Also, they noted it had a SSK before the PPI and they noted it had an SSK after the PPI, so I don't see how they can say it was the SSK that caused the issue, but it still had the SSK and "all systems function normally".

Thanks again for your advice.

 

Is the shifter different on the 997? Because the 996 factory shifter is not the same as a B&M, as the housing is nylon versus metal on the B&M and inferior compared to the stock one in my opinion.

 

Go pay a lawyer a couple hundred bucks to write them a nasty letter. If they don't cough up some dough, then file a small claims suit against them. The worst that can happen is that you will lose and spend a couple hundred bucks. You might end up winning and get all your costs back. Seems like a lot of upside without much downside.

 

Agree. The SSK is a red herring. The issue is something isn't right an they didn't disclose it- or it was so plainly obvious they were negligent in their inspection. The fact that they had previously seen this defect makes this (for me) a slam dunk.

Agree with sdorn... lay out the claim in a letter from a lawyer, and make sure it gets to the person paying and managing lawsuits. Right now you are just having chats with people who's job it is to shut you down and turn you away...


A

 

Agree, lawyer letter time.

 

this is exactly why we don't perform ppi's.

 

Brian, could you elaborate on that? Are you aware of any law that would expose the dealer to strict liability in this case? Or you just assume that the PPI revenue isn't worth the exposure to a lawsuit for failing to find something?

 

Getting in the middle of a buyer/seller is never easy. Reporting something that the seller doesn't agree with, or getting blammed for when the car fails... No one would want to pay for the actual time it really takes to really perform a complete pre purchase inspection...