Thanx Don for the 958 link, & it is much more useful than the 955/957 equivalent.

From your knowledge, in addition to the plastic T-pipe for coolant (return?) in the V8 valley, & the adhesive fitting on the coolant horseshoe - what are the other issues for the 957 to get checked in a PPI?

I may send an 09 to get a PPI next week, if it checks out otherwise.

And you're correct that CR doesn't rate the 3rd Party EWP/ESP & usually don't recommend them .... except for expensive & costly to repair items - of which I think Porsches may just qualify.

TIA for the 957 items!
Tom
///////

 

Hi,

I was specifically told from one of my local dealership they would NOT install parts from an outside source. I am going to check with the other local Porsche dealership to check on their own policy on the matter. Nothing is ever easy. By the way LET'S GO PENS!!!

 

That was why I suggested that they might ship directly to the dealer, so that there is no question that they're fresh & genuine parts.

Of course the best thing, is if they respect their customers enough to just match the price from another P-dealer.

Good Luck!
Tom
///////

 

Just wanted to update: Porsche still has my Turbo, 3-weeks now, still being given the "once we have it apart we will know what we can do for you, but in the meanwhile I was finally offered a loaner", I missed the call, called today but was never called back (out of the office), so I followed up with Kerry West again to ask what we can do about the loaner and if any more information was available on the Cayenne (since I was told that they would know more this week, it's Thursday after 6PM).

I will try and keep things updated as they happen.

 

Porsche still at the dealership, no real information other than I was able to get a loaner now... here is a photo of how she sits motor out of the Cayenne, transmission, drive-train and all.

 

I have some like that..

 

Since they have the heads off yours (can see a cylinder just to the right of the top red rag) - it would seem they should know what's up with it by now. Heads off it should be pretty obvious if the valves hit the pistons, or if they just hit each other. I don't think the turbo is a "collision" engine (where failure of the valve drive results in the valves wonking into the pistons) so hopefully some new valves, Variocam adjusters, etc and you'll be good to go.

I would suggest if they talk about just reworking one cylinder head that you press them to do both. Redoing one and leaving the other alone will not make for a happy running engine. The intake valves have a nice coating of carbon burned on the backs of them - so they all need to be disassembled and cleaned. As long as they're doing that - new valve guide seals should be installed too.

 

Actually, all of the V8s & V6s are considered "Interference Engines" (not sure of the TDIs) - wherein the cam adjuster failure, cam chain/belt, adjuster, etc. failures causing them to go out of time, will result in an unhappy meeting of valves & pistons, according to Jim at Cape Auto from our PCA-OCR breakfast meeting this morning.

Cheers!
Tom
///////

 

You can also try Rick Perkins, PCNA Service DM, for help. I'm not sure if he & Kerry are same level, over or under in their org. chart, but Rick is a long time old school SoCal service guy.

Good Luck!
Tom
///////

 

The reason I postulated that the turbo may not be is the lower compression ratio on a turbo. That said, it's entirely possible it is a collision engine. And if someone knowledgeable says it is, I bow to their superior knowledge.

 

Hey Don,

High or low CR has nothing to do with it - it's how the operation of the valve train is designed, & whether they drop into the same space as where the piston is at TDC - & then when the timing goes off, the two meet with bad results.

It's why changing timing belts on cars with them is so important - even for mundane Honda Civics, etc.

I know that the 928 V8 was also an interference engine, since I researched that first as a potential cool old school Porsche V8 tow vehicle for us!

Cheers!
Tom
///////

 

Hi Tom, according to some buyers guides - the later 928 V8 was interference - the earlier wasn't.

IMHO, compression ratio does or can have something to do with it - besides valve timing the stroke length in a higher compression engine may be longer, or the connecting rod longer in order to increase the compression. In either case - the piston getting closer to the valves/head means the possibility of contact is higher.

I looked it up just because I was curious. The turbo is 10:1, the S (V8) is 12.5:1. That's a reasonably significant difference.

Back on memory lane - I can remember when ALL Toyota engines were not interference engines. And BMW's were. That was by design by Toyota. I suspect that is no longer the case since every HP/CC is considered vital now.

 

Hi all,

My Cayenne S has not had its bolts shear (yet) but seems likely to do so in the near term. The car of a family friend had the camshaft bolts shear a few weeks ago. Porsche has covered all repairs (total of approximately $11K). He purchased his car 3 months after me (December 2010) but had 15,000 miles more than me when this happened (54,000 miles vs. my 39,000). I purchased my car new and have serviced it exclusively at the dealership. I am also a repeat customer (third purchase in 10 years) and have always been a good promoter of the brand.

Following my friend's ordeal, I contacted PCNA to request a preventative fix. As other members on this forum have reported, this request was turned down. I was assured that if it the bolts do shear, Porsche would work with me to "exploit all available avenues".

Great, but I would not have my two children ride in a car that is likely to fail on the highway. In an effort to make this fair, I have proposed to cover the preventative repairs and then take the bolts to a lab to be tested and x-rayed. Should such tests/x-rays indicate issues with integrity, I would like PCNA to pay me back whatever the repair will cost me. If the bolts are good, I will eat the bill and not worry about the safety of my family. To note, the bolts did not pass the dental-mirror test and the year of production (2010) also implies that I have the defective ones. I also asked for the contact information of a decision maker within the PCNA organization. I am still waiting for a response on this.

My dealer quoted me on the phone "approximately $7-8K" for the preventative fix. I had read all 31 pages of posts here (thanks to all who have taken the time to document their cases) and knew the range is closer to $2,600-3,500. I noted this sounds wildly excessive, sent a link with the parts quoted at $576.14 per set, and requested a formal quote with labor and parts on Porsche stationary (who knows where this process ends up, I may as well start a document file).

I apologize for the lengthy post - I think this may be somewhat relevant to members that are going through the same steps in figuring out a preventative fix. Any comments, suggestions, ideas are much appreciated.

 

To Nedino & others in the situation of PCNA/PAG denial to cover a preventative fix - especially with known WC22 VIN range cars ....

My suggestion is:

Request in writing for them to give you their denial in writing, & for them to include:
1.) That they will agree to fully repair it in the future regardless of age/mileage & for subsequent owner(s) should you sell it; &
2.) that they are aware that the vehicle can lose brake/steering boost &/or fuel & stop in high speed traffic or other dangerous situations (based on documented situations in this topic alone).

Give or Certified mail the letter to your dealer (note which & to whom name/title GM/SM if hand delivered), with cc's to PCNA "Customer Care" mailed by Certified Mail with return receipt (the green card -ask your Postal official if unfamiliar), & Certified with a cover letter to the NHTSA investigator mentioned in previous posts herein, with your request attached - & make sure to list ALL cc's below your signature area too.

And let them know that you will be filing the letter & your complaint with the NHTSA investigator mentioned earlier in this topic who is now investigating the failures. Outside the USA, file with your country's transportation authority responsible for auto safety, such as TUV in Germany, etc.

These letters would go a long way to show PCNA's/PAG's knowledge of the problem & it's serious safety issues, their willful neglect in refusing to repair/replace when notified of a defective part(s), & will build the log at NHTSA (& other countries) on the numbers affected.

This both puts PCNA/PAG on notice, as well as the governmental agencies, builds for any future legal case(s), & gives you a paper trail.

If PCNA/PAG refuses, then you have your letter(s) - & I'd suggest at least one follow request later after +/-4-6 weeks if no reply to the 1st - as documentation for later.

My guess is that PCNA/PAG will either change their mind & do WC22 on any Cay in that range, & they may still do so on any outside of the WC22 VINs - or else & most probably will refuse to supply the letter - which you should also document with date & name(s) of who refused.

However, it will get the attention of the legal beagles at PCNA/PAG & the dealers that they're now on notice if anything tragic happens, let alone for negligence in preventing more extensive & damage to your vehicle. They'll also know that the customers are getting serious about the matter, & the costs for inaction is rising due to their willful neglect.

And get a free Consult with a lawyer familiar with such actions too.

As Don E. said above, for full disclosure - I too am not a lawyer, but have had to deal with lawyers in my almost 50 years in my business activities, & having a paper trail is always recommended by them.

Good Luck to Nedino & All affected!

Cheers!
Tom
///////

 

Correct - IIRC the change was with the 5.0L motor in 86 or 87. It was a new engine design which changed over to interference design - vs. the earlier motor - not [EDIT: relative to] because of any change in CR.


The higher CR is one of those side issues, wherein the higher CR motors may just happen to be interference designs.

In the case of the Cayenne V8's, in all probability the S, GTS, Turbo, Turbo S, etc. will all be interference design - unless they change the head design between them - regardless of CR.

It purely a matter of whether the valves extend into the range of piston motion. The only exception may be with a highly domed piston now reaching to the valve area at TDC, but I'm not an engine engineer, & they can better answer that.

As an example, I do know for sure that I can swap from 7.6:1 USA/CA pistons/cylinders, to the Euro 8.0:1 ones for more HP/TQ on my 73 914-2.0 & other much higher CR ones too up to 2.7L IIRC at as much as 12:1 CR with 250+ HP - all without it becoming an interference engine (most were not interference in that era - not even the Porsche 6's).

So the the CR can be a possible indicator that an engine may be interference, but it is not the causative reason the motor is or isn't interference design.

Cheers!
Tom
///////