Each mode of failure requires separate proof

Why was the IMS class action lawsuit only for IMS? Why didn't they view the engine as a single system but singled out only one component?

There are multi failure modes for this engine design, and by looking at the engine as a single unitized system, the failure percentages would be higher. This of course should therefore, help their case.

I don't want to dredge up a flame war again, but IMS is falsely blamed for some failures. My second engine failure was diagnosed by 30 year Porsche mechanic as IMS failure but found not to be when the bearing was pulled and found to be fine. The actual cause was not known as the next owner replaced the engine but was just dying to see the wrecked bearing..... oops.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

I don't think most Porsche owners recognize the fact that there are so many failure modes with the earlier engines, and Porsche wanted to minimize damage to its reputation. The difference in values of 2007-2008 Boxsters compared with 2009-2010 Boxters similarly equipped and with similar mileage doesn't in my estimation reflect the big improvement in reliability with the 987.2.

my interactions with some leads me to think lawyers go after the low hanging fruit in class actions. They like already proven causes with identified plaintiffs and already identified expert witnesses. Since they have to invest money to fund the case and collect nothing if they lose, they like to improve their odds. Notice they didn't expand the class of "injured parties" to include the first generation of Boxsters, but, when Porsche offered to settle for a more narrow definition of the "class", they probably made a business decision. I've read dozens of such settlements. That is the way I've seen it happen.

(My grand-dad, father and youngest son and are/were all lawyers. I've worked with a lot of them. There are many who are fine people. The above remarks are not to disparage.)

"A mile of highway will take you one mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere."

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

I suspect the lawyers picked the one they thought had the highest ratio of payout to success.

They would have to either:

a) show that there was a systematic failure of the design process in the entire M96 motor (nearly impossible), or
b) show individual failure mechanisms with statistics and analysis, one by one

Grant

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

From what I recall, Porsche's lawyers were really able to get the court to narrow the scope of the engine issue associated with the class action. It wasn't even as simple as limiting it to IMS, as a whole. They were even successful in having the court narrowing that class definition, as well. Class actions are very hard to bring. You just can't cast a very wide net and have a "kitchen sink" approach (throw everything in, including the kitchen sink) to trying to create a class of potential victims. Courts seem to almost always favor the company in trying to limit what's allowable.