Couldn't resist a smile just now. While PCA declined to enter the IMS fray on behalf of affected members, I see it accepts advertising revenue from aftermarket suppliers selling improved IMS bearings.

IIRC, they have been doing that for a while.
In the last year, they had a story about Porsche reliability in their email news, followed--as in right underneath the article--by an advertisement from Flat 6 on their IMS solution. The juxtaposition of the add relative to the article gave me a chuckle.

Editorial independence from the business of publishing.

Minus 40 degrees... Is that Fahrenheit or Celsius?

..and they did advise members of the suit's existence (although registered owners got the info).

they just did not get involved in this class action law suit.

G

Grant

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

I don't fault PCA for not participating in the suit. That can get quickly get expensive, and another 'me too' party to the suit doesn't necessarily add anything. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly said that it isn't particularly keen on granting intervener status unless the proposed intervener is truly going to add something. US courts may be similarly inclined.

Would PCA be possessed of any additional evidence, or would it have simply be one more person banging its fist on the table?

I can understand why the OP raised the matter - it isn't black and white. On balance, PCA probably made the right decision. It's in PCA's members' interests that it have a good working relationship with Porsche. I don't regard PCA as an advocate, so much as a club and provider of information.

R