Change HistoryDiscussion of Boxsters and other Porsches |  |  |
|
Buying through this link, gets PB a donation. |
Expect the best, and accept no substitute. |
 | |
Message: Re: Porsche Club of America on IMS Class Action Settlement
Changed By: chris & 987
Change Date: November 19, 2013 03:46PM
Re: Porsche Club of America on IMS Class Action Settlement
Change Date: November 19, 2013 03:46PM
Re: Porsche Club of America on IMS Class Action Settlement
[quote="Guenter in Ontario"]
I think we have to remember that PCA - Porsche Club of America, is not a union to help its members with legal matters. It was formed to help people meet other Porsche owners and help them get the most out of their cars through activities like social gatherings, Parade, Fun Runs, racing, technical sessions and information.
To keep us informed about what was happening with the IMS Class Action Settlement, is certainly part of what the PCA mission statement is all about.
From the PCA website, here is their mission statement. To see what PCA is all about, you can visit this page: http://www.pca.org/AboutUs/AboutPCA.aspx
The Porsche has no equal, and since 1955, the Porsche Club of America has catered to the particular needs and interests of the Porsche owner. Our main mission is to heighten the Porsche owning and driving experience, which we accomplish by meeting a number of objectives:
To promote the highest standards of courtesy and safety on the roads.
To enjoy and share good will and fellowship engendered by owning a Porsche.
To maintain the highest standards of operation and performance of the marque.
To establish mutually beneficial relationships with the Porsche factory, dealers and other service sources.
To exchange ideas with other Porsche Clubs throughout the world.
To establish mutually cooperative relationships with other sports car clubs.[/quote]
I have to chime in here that I agree with Bob's position about PCA and their perceived position between the end user and maunfacturer as he stated " I was curious what role PCA had played as an advocate for its members who are affected by the issue. It would seem to me that one of the most important functions of an organization like PCA is to go to bat for its membership when something important to many members is on the line."
In fact their mission stated as pointed out earlier SHOULD lead one to believe the same based on the language in their mission statement: to wit items such as:
1. main mission- heighten the Porsche owning and driving experience - the assumption here is that you are driving a safe car that wont blow the IMS at any given point.
2. promote the highest standards of courtesy and safety on the roads.- P Cars are sold at a premium price (new and used)for a reason- they are expected to be top performers w/minimal issues.
3. To maintain the highest standards of operation and performance of the marque.- Doesnt this lend itself to near zero defect workmanship? where is PCS advocacy position on this? Is it all just bluster? If yes, they should say so.
Using Bob;s case and situation I would have to ask of PCA the following? Are you an advocate for porsche and the end users yes or no? To skew the answer I would ask..Would PCA need for the IMS to go thru someones brain and kill them before they would be an advocate of safety related to the ims?: of course not but where do they draw this line?
bottom line is porsche has a defect, and pca has acknowledge it, as well as our p-forums and porsche has taken minimal steps to correct the issue and protect our investments, fiscal, social, and any other qualities you may want to include. bear in mind some of these investments are lifetime investments!
By not supporting their own membership and by porsche not correcting the defect - in the ims issue - they, PCA, become complicit by virtue of taking no stand at all!
excuse the typos and grammar and respond to the argument w/o ad hominem and porsche bias. Like our homes, boats, cars, businesses these p-cars are protected assets. That fact cannot be diminished by PCAs or Porsche's uneasy, standoff-ish, position (legal or otherwise) on an when it comes to [b]under-engineering a defective component [/b] that could cause a deadline fault of the car and any activity it may be engaged in at the time.
I think we have to remember that PCA - Porsche Club of America, is not a union to help its members with legal matters. It was formed to help people meet other Porsche owners and help them get the most out of their cars through activities like social gatherings, Parade, Fun Runs, racing, technical sessions and information.
To keep us informed about what was happening with the IMS Class Action Settlement, is certainly part of what the PCA mission statement is all about.
From the PCA website, here is their mission statement. To see what PCA is all about, you can visit this page: http://www.pca.org/AboutUs/AboutPCA.aspx
The Porsche has no equal, and since 1955, the Porsche Club of America has catered to the particular needs and interests of the Porsche owner. Our main mission is to heighten the Porsche owning and driving experience, which we accomplish by meeting a number of objectives:
To promote the highest standards of courtesy and safety on the roads.
To enjoy and share good will and fellowship engendered by owning a Porsche.
To maintain the highest standards of operation and performance of the marque.
To establish mutually beneficial relationships with the Porsche factory, dealers and other service sources.
To exchange ideas with other Porsche Clubs throughout the world.
To establish mutually cooperative relationships with other sports car clubs.[/quote]
I have to chime in here that I agree with Bob's position about PCA and their perceived position between the end user and maunfacturer as he stated " I was curious what role PCA had played as an advocate for its members who are affected by the issue. It would seem to me that one of the most important functions of an organization like PCA is to go to bat for its membership when something important to many members is on the line."
In fact their mission stated as pointed out earlier SHOULD lead one to believe the same based on the language in their mission statement: to wit items such as:
1. main mission- heighten the Porsche owning and driving experience - the assumption here is that you are driving a safe car that wont blow the IMS at any given point.
2. promote the highest standards of courtesy and safety on the roads.- P Cars are sold at a premium price (new and used)for a reason- they are expected to be top performers w/minimal issues.
3. To maintain the highest standards of operation and performance of the marque.- Doesnt this lend itself to near zero defect workmanship? where is PCS advocacy position on this? Is it all just bluster? If yes, they should say so.
Using Bob;s case and situation I would have to ask of PCA the following? Are you an advocate for porsche and the end users yes or no? To skew the answer I would ask..Would PCA need for the IMS to go thru someones brain and kill them before they would be an advocate of safety related to the ims?: of course not but where do they draw this line?
bottom line is porsche has a defect, and pca has acknowledge it, as well as our p-forums and porsche has taken minimal steps to correct the issue and protect our investments, fiscal, social, and any other qualities you may want to include. bear in mind some of these investments are lifetime investments!
By not supporting their own membership and by porsche not correcting the defect - in the ims issue - they, PCA, become complicit by virtue of taking no stand at all!
excuse the typos and grammar and respond to the argument w/o ad hominem and porsche bias. Like our homes, boats, cars, businesses these p-cars are protected assets. That fact cannot be diminished by PCAs or Porsche's uneasy, standoff-ish, position (legal or otherwise) on an when it comes to [b]under-engineering a defective component [/b] that could cause a deadline fault of the car and any activity it may be engaged in at the time.
Original Message
Author: chris & 987Date: November 19, 2013 03:44PM
Re: Porsche Club of America on IMS Class Action Settlement
[quote="Guenter in Ontario"]
I think we have to remember that PCA - Porsche Club of America, is not a union to help its members with legal matters. It was formed to help people meet other Porsche owners and help them get the most out of their cars through activities like social gatherings, Parade, Fun Runs, racing, technical sessions and information.
To keep us informed about what was happening with the IMS Class Action Settlement, is certainly part of what the PCA mission statement is all about.
From the PCA website, here is their mission statement. To see what PCA is all about, you can visit this page: http://www.pca.org/AboutUs/AboutPCA.aspx
The Porsche has no equal, and since 1955, the Porsche Club of America has catered to the particular needs and interests of the Porsche owner. Our main mission is to heighten the Porsche owning and driving experience, which we accomplish by meeting a number of objectives:
To promote the highest standards of courtesy and safety on the roads.
To enjoy and share good will and fellowship engendered by owning a Porsche.
To maintain the highest standards of operation and performance of the marque.
To establish mutually beneficial relationships with the Porsche factory, dealers and other service sources.
To exchange ideas with other Porsche Clubs throughout the world.
To establish mutually cooperative relationships with other sports car clubs.[/quote]
I have to chime in here that I agree with Bob's position about PCA and their perceived position between the end user and maunfacturer as he stated " I was curious what role PCA had played as an advocate for its members who are affected by the issue. It would seem to me that one of the most important functions of an organization like PCA is to go to bat for its membership when something important to many members is on the line."
In fact their mission stated as pointed out earlier SHOULD lead one to believe the same based on the language in their mission statement: to wit items such as:
1. main mission- heighten the Porsche owning and driving experience - the assumption here is that you are driving a safe car that wont blow the IMS at any given point.
2. promote the highest standards of courtesy and safety on the roads.- P Cars are sold at a premium price (new and used)for a reason- they are expected to be top performers w/minimal issues.
3. To maintain the highest standards of operation and performance of the marque.- Doesnt this lend itself to near zero defect workmanship? where is PCS advocacy position on this? Is it all just bluster? If yes, they should say so.
Using Bob;s case and situation I would have to ask of PCA the following? Are you an advocate for porsche and the end users yes or no? To skew the answer I would ask..Would PCA need for the IMS to go thru someones brain and kill them before they would be an advocate of safety related to the ims?: of course not but where do they draw this line?
bottom line is porsche has a defect, and pca has acknowledge it, as well as our p-forums and porsche has taken minimal steps to correct the issue and protect our investments, fiscal, social, and any other qualities you may want to include. bear in mind some of these investments are lifetime investments!
By not supporting their own membership and by porsche not correcting the defect - in the ims issue - they, PCA, become complicit by virtue of taking no stand at all!
excuse the typos and grammar and respond to the argument w/o ad hominem and porsche bias. Like our homes, boats, cars, businesses these p-cars are protected assets. That fact cannot be diminished by PCAs or Porsche's uneasy, standoff-ish, position (legal or otherwise) on an under-engineering a defective component that could cause a deadline fault of the car and any activity it may be engaged in at the time.
I think we have to remember that PCA - Porsche Club of America, is not a union to help its members with legal matters. It was formed to help people meet other Porsche owners and help them get the most out of their cars through activities like social gatherings, Parade, Fun Runs, racing, technical sessions and information.
To keep us informed about what was happening with the IMS Class Action Settlement, is certainly part of what the PCA mission statement is all about.
From the PCA website, here is their mission statement. To see what PCA is all about, you can visit this page: http://www.pca.org/AboutUs/AboutPCA.aspx
The Porsche has no equal, and since 1955, the Porsche Club of America has catered to the particular needs and interests of the Porsche owner. Our main mission is to heighten the Porsche owning and driving experience, which we accomplish by meeting a number of objectives:
To promote the highest standards of courtesy and safety on the roads.
To enjoy and share good will and fellowship engendered by owning a Porsche.
To maintain the highest standards of operation and performance of the marque.
To establish mutually beneficial relationships with the Porsche factory, dealers and other service sources.
To exchange ideas with other Porsche Clubs throughout the world.
To establish mutually cooperative relationships with other sports car clubs.[/quote]
I have to chime in here that I agree with Bob's position about PCA and their perceived position between the end user and maunfacturer as he stated " I was curious what role PCA had played as an advocate for its members who are affected by the issue. It would seem to me that one of the most important functions of an organization like PCA is to go to bat for its membership when something important to many members is on the line."
In fact their mission stated as pointed out earlier SHOULD lead one to believe the same based on the language in their mission statement: to wit items such as:
1. main mission- heighten the Porsche owning and driving experience - the assumption here is that you are driving a safe car that wont blow the IMS at any given point.
2. promote the highest standards of courtesy and safety on the roads.- P Cars are sold at a premium price (new and used)for a reason- they are expected to be top performers w/minimal issues.
3. To maintain the highest standards of operation and performance of the marque.- Doesnt this lend itself to near zero defect workmanship? where is PCS advocacy position on this? Is it all just bluster? If yes, they should say so.
Using Bob;s case and situation I would have to ask of PCA the following? Are you an advocate for porsche and the end users yes or no? To skew the answer I would ask..Would PCA need for the IMS to go thru someones brain and kill them before they would be an advocate of safety related to the ims?: of course not but where do they draw this line?
bottom line is porsche has a defect, and pca has acknowledge it, as well as our p-forums and porsche has taken minimal steps to correct the issue and protect our investments, fiscal, social, and any other qualities you may want to include. bear in mind some of these investments are lifetime investments!
By not supporting their own membership and by porsche not correcting the defect - in the ims issue - they, PCA, become complicit by virtue of taking no stand at all!
excuse the typos and grammar and respond to the argument w/o ad hominem and porsche bias. Like our homes, boats, cars, businesses these p-cars are protected assets. That fact cannot be diminished by PCAs or Porsche's uneasy, standoff-ish, position (legal or otherwise) on an under-engineering a defective component that could cause a deadline fault of the car and any activity it may be engaged in at the time.