9k miles. Runs better than the day I bought it in '07 after the TUBI

they are pretty strong cars. Motor is bullet proof. They can take a beating and beg for more.

 

Per PCNA, it was a 3 or 4, but I am picking up my car tomorrow from Stevinson and will get a chance to read the DME print out. The lead tech checked my engine and said it was strong.

I know from reading the board discussions, there are 6 levels of overrevs. However, it is very hard to get a honest answer from PCNA on what are the "bad" numbers exactly. According to PCNA, it is on a case by case situation, but ranges 3 to 6 are considered bad in general.

My car has basically been in the shop two of the last four weeks during the approval process, etc. A real pain.

I think these are the ranges give or take:

R1: 6800-7000
R2: 7000-7200
R3: 7200-7400
R4: 7400-7900
R5: 7900-9000
R6: +9000

Please help if these are wrong.

 

A DME scan should be part of the criteria used in Porsche's CPO process. If significant overrevs weren't checked for, the car probably should not have received CPO status. PCNA has specific guidelines that dealerships are supposed to follow...although they do not disclose it to the public.

While the overrevs probably weren't the cause of all your problems, they are an indication that your car may have been abused by the previous owners. The number of ignitions at each range will give an indication the amount of time the car spent at each RPM.

I hope you have luck with your repairs.

 

Has your car been flashed? How could someone get that far past the rev-limiter to reach a lev 3 or 4?

I have occasionally hit the limiter @ ~7200 in my car and now I wonder if PCNA would disallow warranty should it be required.

Can the DME be read/modified with the Durametric cable/software?

 

Thank you. I agree, the DME scan should be a part of the CPO process.

I did ask Momentum to check the DME, but I think they just told me what I wanted to hear. Not the greatest way to do business, but I should have looked at the numbers myself.

I did talk to a couple of attorneys during the past few weeks and it seems to me that if Porsche advertises a car as "APPROVED CERTIFIED PRE-OWNED," and this car has a PRE-EXISTING condition or defect (such as an overrev) at the time of certification, then Porsche is prohibited from using this pre-existing condition to deny future warranty work under the Magnuson-Moss Act. It probably is prohibited under the UCC and a few State statutes that have similar "deceptive warranty" laws.

As explained to me, it would be like Porsche certifying a car with a defective engine (or other part) and then trying to use this same defect to deny warranty work under its CPO program when the engine or part fails. It would be a way of nullifying the CPO warranty after the car is sold, and therefore is deceptive. Or something like that . . .

However, I think Porsche likes things to be ambiguous because it basically allows Porsche (through an agent dealer) to certify [SELL] a car that has a pre existing condition, while simultaneously using this pre existing condition to deny claims by stating that it is not responsible for the acts of its dealer agents. It is very clever, but probably unlawful. This is also why PCNA specifically tells its dealers that they do not need to examine the overrevs to certify a car.

It is also clever because it causes the buyer to put his guard down assuming he can rely on the fact that the car is advertised as Approved Certified Pre-Owned. After all, per Porsche "The Porsche Approved Certified Pre-Owned limited warranty is just like our new car limited warranty. . . All in all, you can rest easy knowing that you're covered." Again, this is a very clever method of selling more cars but avoiding the true cost of the CPO warranty.

I am actually in the process of attempting to "help" Porsche see that this type of activity is in fact unlawful under the Magnuson-Moss Act (not to mention other statutes), but this has been very difficult.

The last person I spoke to at PCNA talked under her breath while I talked. It was like she had some sort of "tick" and would utter things (very quietly) like, "oh no there he goes again." It was both odd and amusing at the same time. Each time I talked she would utter something.

One can actually file a complaint with the FTC for these type of deceptive warranty policies. I have actually become more aware over the last few weeks of the existing remedies; and the ones that include attorney fees. It has been a real learning experience.


The car was not flashed by me. It was with me for a few days and then it went to the shop. However, the DME was defective and needed to be replaced so I don't know what the prior owner did. I think the CPO does require the DME to be "inspected" so I don't know why Momentum didn't realized it was defective. Maybe it just did a visual inspection?


The overrevs would be the result of a missed downshift; like 3rd to 2nd when you intended to go to 4th. Stuff like this will cause overrevs that might damage the valves, etc. However, PCNA will try to use these overrevs to deny unrelated warranty work; like post cat. O2 sensors.


Here is a solution: Put a type of magnetic tracker on the shifter so a beep / alarm can be sounded if one attempts to shift into a gear at too high of a speed. A simple fix that would allow one to correct the shift before letting the clutch out.

The overrevs cannot be changed on the DME with a scanner. However, PCNA does not consider R1 to R2 an issue; Just R3 to R6 cause PCNA to need further support that the damage wasn't the result of the overrev. Also, I think it typically needs to be within 70 "drive hours" of the repair. This equates to around 2000 to 3000 miles. If the overrev is 2 years old then it should not be a problem.

 

hey, details on this please? PM me maybe

 

My thought was to line the very top of the gearbox with something that could basically track the location of the shifter. The staff of the shifter would need something that allowed this communication with the lining.

A chip could then be used to compare the location of the shifter with the MPH of the car. If the car was going 100 MPH, then some type of alarm would sound if the shifter was starting to enter 2nd grear for example.

The theory would be to create something similar to the cars that signal when you hit the rev limit; and it is time to shift.

It is probably easier just to go the duel clutch route????

Again, I found this list of the ranges.

range 1 --- 6800 rpm - 7000 rpm

range 2 --- 7000 rpm - 7200 rpm

range 3 --- 7200 rpm - 7400 rpm

range 4 --- 7400 rpm - 7900 rpm

range 5 --- 7900 rpm - 9000 rpm

range 6 --- 9000 rpm +

So at the top end my car had 2000 ignitions in range 4!!!! That is about 5 to 5.7 seconds in the 7400 to 7900 range over its 800 hours of driving hours.

I am not sure if I would have bought the car knowing this, but as long as PCNA stands behind its CPO, then I will live with it. The tech said the engine feels strong; that the bottom end can handle much higher RPMs, and that if the top end was damaged then we would have known by now. I guess once the valves get bent it becomes obvious. Basically, the tech thought that it was unlikely that the engine is damaged given that it is running so strong now.


Does anyone know if the top end can get damaged, but not show signs for years?


So far, PCNA has repaired under warranty the gearbox, the DME, the exhaust, 4 O2 sensors, the battery, and the ashtrey. I think if the overrevs took place after the CPO then I would have had issues given the range 4 overrevs.

I hope PCNA realizes that to use pre CPO overrevs would be a deceptive warranty practice and prohibited under the FTC. Who knows . . . It really is like talking to a politician when I am the phone with PCNA. Very smooooooth.

Finally, the service team at Stevinson Porsche (Kipp, Todd, Marcus) have been great! More than great.

 

I went through some similar discussion in the pre-purchase discussion for my '07 CPO TT. I had them run the full DME report and deliver it to me prior to purchase, so I would have a full record of any pre-existing condition. The dealer did confirm that the Over-rev report is NOT part of the normal CPO process.

 

Totally agreed, but the certification is not just a warranty of the things that get checked. According to Porsche it is basically the same as the new car warranty and covers basically the same items as the the new warranty (but for an extra 2 years); and is designed to give buyers "comfort" that the car is fully covered -- at least that is what PCNA advertises.

This is not my area of law, but I have been told by 2 attorneys that it would be unlawful for Porsche to use a pre CPO overrev to get out of its warranty obligations; because it would be considered a deceptive warranty practice according to the FTC, etc.

Basically, PCNA cannot certify a car that has a pre existing "defect" and then use such defect to avoid its CPO obligations. For example, if the overrevs caused clear valve damage, but for some reason the car was certified after the fact, then it would be unlawful for PCNA to refuse to fix the damage because of the overrevs.

The certification basically reinstates and extends the warranty so buyers feel okay with buying a used car. It is as if the certification "restarts" the warranty, give or take.

If the car wasn't certified or the overrevs came afterwards, then it would be a different story.

It is interesting though that PCNA specifically states in its internal documents that the dealer does not need to consider the overrevs during the CPO process. To me that indicates it is aware of the issue, but has taken a don't look, don't tell position in order to have more opportunity to create confusion on its exact responsibility.

It should have a clear standard; for example it will not CPO a car with range 4 overrevs (or whatever). It only takes a second to get the overrev info, and the DME is supposed to be inspected as part of the CPO process. So PCNA is either trying to create a method of avoiding warranty coverage or it generally doesn't consider overrevs to be a mechanical concern if damage doesn't show up right away.

But if this is the case, why does it use overrevs in an attempt to deny coverage for busted O2 sensors, etc., that happen a few thousand miles later?

For me, I wasn't aware that PCNA used overrevs to deny warranty coverage. This was my first 911 so I wasn't totally up to speed on these issues. But I did take comfort in the fact that the car was a CPO. I figured I was covered for an extra 2 years and that was great.

Once PCNA tried to deny my O2 sensor claim because of the pre CPO overrevs I got up to speed on this issue, talked with a few attorneys, etc. I was really surprised by PCNA's position given my specific facts, and thought that it must be a tort, if not unlawful under some statute.

 

Some thoughts:

1. What keeps the individual dealers honest? I don't think there is any formal auditing or inspection done by corporate. Lets say a dealer gets a trade-in that has some issues but then CPOs it anyway so he can sell it for more money. I recall a local tv station doing an investigation on behalf of a customer that bought a CPO car that was in an accident and never disclosed.

2. How can one prove when the actual over-revs happened...by the engine hours? Even so, an engine might have "x" occurences of over-reving, but then some poor guy buys the car and ruins the engine on over-rev # "x+1"
So who's to blame in this case, as the car certainly had a lot of abuse before he got it but hadn't blown up yet?

 

Hopefully I can resurrect this initial question - reliability of the 2007 TT. I'm looking and have been reading the posts for any particular issues. My Porsche service manager stated that the engines have been "bullet proof" and that he's seen no particular issues with the TT. Given that I live in Germany now, its safe to say that many of the cars seen at my local Porsche dealer have some pretty interesting miles on them on the autobahn.... Would appreciate any update that anyone might have on issues or problem areas with the 2007 TT. Thanks!

 

I think tomorrow will be 3 years when I picked up my car new from the dealer. 34K miles (not my DD but I drive it - usually just for pleasure) and the car is awesome. First car that i'm not really looking to replace it with something else after this amount of time.

In fact, have been doing quite a bit of mods lately. May add to it, but don't think it will be replaced anytime soon.

Only problems I've had were a faulty cam or crank position sensor (I always forget which one) after having the car about a month. Lost all the power steering fluid a few months ago, which was clutch related and fixed under warranty.

 

Early models (all?) have had leaking radiator hoses.

 

i am assuming that the overrev issue mostly exist on the manual cars. is this correct?

 

clutch slave cylinder - replaced under warranty but other than that no problems. 22,000+ miles now...