Crown

The suppliers are required to manufacture parts with the specs Porsche provided. So if the specs are OK, from an engineering point of view but the supplier didn't "respect" these specs, who is to blame? Suppliers are bound by contract, this is no game. Porsche cannot control every single part they receive, no car manufacturer does this.

Please THINK before you write...

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Turbo S, Porsche Boxster S (981), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014), BMW X3 35d (2013)

RC:

The suppliers are required to manufacture parts with the specs Porsche provided. So if the specs are OK, from an engineering point of view but the supplier didn't "respect" these specs, who is to blame? Suppliers are bound by contract, this is no game. Porsche cannot control every single part they receive, no car manufacturer does this.

Please THINK before you write...

Porsche doesn't have to outsource anything. They choose to do so ( as many other companies) to either increase profits, or to acquire parts from those with better/ proven expertise, etc.

Bottom line, customers usually don't care where the part was made. My clients didn't care if we were to blame or our subcontractors. They would always hold us accountable.

Leawood911:

 

Next it will be George Bush's fault.

Watch Obama taking credit for fixing the GT3.

Whoopsy:

Leawood911:

 

Next it will be George Bush's fault.

 

Watch Obama taking credit for fixing the GT3.

No...That's Chis Christies job.

Some time  I wonder why we have  such B...crap on rennteam 

surely MP can't be serious that Porsche should make all parts  

does he suggest  they should make the tires??

DJC:

Some time  I wonder why we have  such B...crap on rennteam 

surely MP can't be serious that Porsche should make all parts  

does he suggest  they should make the tires??

Maybe he thinks Apple, Dell, Boeing, Tesla, HP, Ford (continue list ad infinitum) make all their products entirely in-house?   

fritz

On a positive note, look at that astonishing lap time!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zSaDV_gHLU

pxaxh:

On a positive note, look at that astonishing lap time!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zSaDV_gHLU

Wow astonishing. Thanks for posting this. 

mp:

 

Porsche doesn't have to outsource anything. They choose to do so ( as many other companies) to either increase profits, or to acquire parts from those with better/ proven expertise, etc.

 

Nominated for most naive post of the year on any car forum.

991 GT3 incoming, 964 Turbo 3.6, E36 M3 ltw S54 conversion, bunch of other stuff

Agree 

NSXER:

Whoopsy:

Leawood911:

 

Next it will be George Bush's fault.

 

Watch Obama taking credit for fixing the GT3.

No...That's Chis Christies job.

Nah, Christies will deny having any knowledge of it.

Indeed a nice aggressive lap!

2013 BMW 750 xDrive MSport & 2012 x5 - TurboS Cab on Order Mar14. Range Rover V8 on order June14

GTlover:

reginos:

An enormous blunder on behalf of Porsche, especially after all this hype about the 9000rpm engine and the initial journalistic frenzy. No excuse could absolve Preuninger and his engineers of responsibility.

These things are good to happen once in a while, because Porsche with all their sales success since the Cayenne, thought they were infallible.

--

"Form follows function"

 exactly..even if I was just ordering a new boxster - I would cancel my order - just because of Porsches behaviour. If everybody would act like me..we could change things over there quite quickly.

Its that they come down from their arrogant position and tell us "peasants" what the real situation is..

this will never change as long as we long time loyalists are addicted to their Kool-aid, where they can charge over $2K for a sport plus button which used to be all software and a dash clock  or the current practice of requiring $4 to 6K or more  for a two tone dash/ interior  to reduce dangerous/ annoying reflected windshield  glare with their light colored interiors which other  makes spec as baseline , even for $15K rentawreck econoboxes and which Porsche  themselves did so until 20 yrs ago when they decided that THE iconic sports car should from then on should come dressed  with an all beige or all light grey interior, down to the steering wheel.... so it could emulate  grandpa's Oldsmobile from the 70s.

MKW:

 

this will never change as long as we long time loyalists are addicted to their Kool-aid, where they can charge over $2K for a sport plus button which used to be all software and a dash clock  or the current practice of requiring $6K total for a two tone dash/ interior  to reduce dangerous glare with their two light colored interiors which other  makes spec as baseline , even for $15K rentawreck econoboxes and which Porsche  themselves did so until 20 yrs ago when they decided that THE iconic sports car should from then on should come dressed  with an all beige or all light grey interior, down to the steering wheel.... so it could emulate  grandpa's Oldsmobile from the 70s.

As much as I love the cars PAG builds I have to agree with this.  Except monotone black, any other monotone color is tragic.  Body panels, leather, vinyl, never totally match in texture or tone, so it always looks half baked.  No option black tan in my 964 looks great. . .

991 GT3 incoming, 964 Turbo 3.6, E36 M3 ltw S54 conversion, bunch of other stuff

mp:

RC:

The suppliers are required to manufacture parts with the specs Porsche provided. So if the specs are OK, from an engineering point of view but the supplier didn't "respect" these specs, who is to blame? Suppliers are bound by contract, this is no game. Porsche cannot control every single part they receive, no car manufacturer does this.

Please THINK before you write...

Porsche doesn't have to outsource anything. They choose to do so ( as many other companies) to either increase profits, or to acquire parts from those with better/ proven expertise, etc.

Bottom line, customers usually don't care where the part was made. My clients didn't care if we were to blame or our subcontractors. They would always hold us accountable.

 

Outsourcing isn't a bad thing, especially not in the car industry.

Take my new family ride, the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT. The 8-speed automatic is from ZF (latest gen), the chassis/adaptive dampers system is from Bilstein and there are many many parts around the car who are made by the same suppliers others use, including Porsche...or even Ferrari. The panoramic roof of the car looks exactly like the one used on the Cayenne, almost 1:1. 

I think you are getting things very very wrong about outsourcing but I don't blame you. Car manufacturers hide this outsourcing pretty well. 

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Turbo S, Porsche Boxster S (981), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014), BMW X3 35d (2013)

RC:

mp:

RC:

The suppliers are required to manufacture parts with the specs Porsche provided. So if the specs are OK, from an engineering point of view but the supplier didn't "respect" these specs, who is to blame? Suppliers are bound by contract, this is no game. Porsche cannot control every single part they receive, no car manufacturer does this.

Please THINK before you write...

Porsche doesn't have to outsource anything. They choose to do so ( as many other companies) to either increase profits, or to acquire parts from those with better/ proven expertise, etc.

Bottom line, customers usually don't care where the part was made. My clients didn't care if we were to blame or our subcontractors. They would always hold us accountable.

 

Outsourcing isn't a bad thing, especially not in the car industry.

Take my new family ride, the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT. The 8-speed automatic is from ZF (latest gen), the chassis/adaptive dampers system is from Bilstein and there are many many parts around the car who are made by the same suppliers others use, including Porsche...or even Ferrari. The panoramic roof of the car looks exactly like the one used on the Cayenne, almost 1:1. 

I think you are getting things very very wrong about outsourcing but I don't blame you. Car manufacturers hide this outsourcing pretty well. 

 Hi RC,

Fully agree to what you write..but this blaming on the suppliers - its too easy - in the end there are just two possibilities:

a) supplier delivered faulty parts - or below specification; in this case - Porsche is still partly to blame (e.g. Porsche chooses its supplier and should make sure before starting with them that they had a very good record)

b) supplier delivered according to specification..but specification was in general "too low"..meaning that even if every part is OK..long term there would still be issues as the parts were simply not designed for the immense stress of a GT3 engine.

I fear its point b)..because of cost savings (e.g. "it must be possible to built a cheaper engine") - all this makes me sad..because Porsche has the knowledge, its employees are like us "petrolheads"..I remember when I drove with my GT2 a few months ago to the musueum and the factory..all facory employees walking outside put up their thumbs..when I talked to some employees later in the sales..even their eyes where sparkling when we talked about the 997 GTs..they all loved them. Immediattely we shared a common passion. So far the 997 GTs have been ruling the tracks around the world..from the simple 3.8 GT3 (not the fastest car..but a solid-fun car to the GT2RS - the killer car)

No, I´m not blaming any employee of Porsche on this issue here..but from what I heard - this story is not yet over .- worse is to come, but I therefore clearly blame Porsche´s Management - its time for them to come out of their "hiding position"..and to take the consequence for their decisions. I have already in mind who should be that..but I wont mention the name here. Given that its about the GT3, about the racing etc..it must come from there (R&D).

In any industry there are tier 2/3 specialists that generally provide better quality/performance and better value for money.  RC just highlighted some of the more well known ones but there are many many more.  IMO you would be stupid not to employ them.  In fact, some are so well known they add brand value, especially if there is a motorsport connection.  It even works for consultancy support:  Lotus are often trumpeted when they tune a car's suspension and remember when pre-VAG Seat claimed their car was engineered by Porsche.  Shame it was rubbish

To expect perfect reliability in a brand new product as complex as a car is unrealistic IMO and sometimes those failures are safety critical.  When it happens an exhaustive investigation is needed which takes time.  There is little Porsche can say other than that have they halted supply and are investigating.  It would be foolish for them to speculate and wash their dirty linen in public.  Having said that, periodic progress reports for customers would help just to say where the investiagation is focussing. 

Gen II Cayman S

GR:

In any industry there are tier 2/3 specialists that generally provide better quality/performance and better value for money.  RC just highlighted some of the more well known ones but there are many many more.  IMO you would be stupid not to employ them.  In fact, some are so well known they add brand value, especially if there is a motorsport connection.  It even works for consultancy support:  Lotus are often trumpeted when they tune a car's suspension and remember when pre-VAG Seat claimed their car was engineered by Porsche.  Shame it was rubbish

To expect perfect reliability in a brand new product as complex as a car is unrealistic IMO and sometimes those failures are safety critical.  When it happens an exhaustive investigation is needed which takes time.  There is little Porsche can say other than that have they halted supply and are investigating.  It would be foolish for them to speculate and wash their dirty linen in public.  Having said that, periodic progress reports for customers would help just to say where the investiagation is focussing. 

 

This is the most intelligent comment I read regarding this matter. Bravo. 

I agree: Porsche should inform customers and directly, not through dealers.

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Turbo S, Porsche Boxster S (981), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014), BMW X3 35d (2013)

"out of a 911 Porsche book : "Früher hat man zugunsten des Kunden noch Sicherheitsmargen eingebaut, das kostete zwar mehr, hielt aber " - translate : in the past we have in favor for the customer added safety margines - at higher costs of build - but was reliable.

Having grown up with 911's THAT was always the killerargument when I was having my first experiences in the 90's on Monza for example and we drove home with the 964RS after the track-day - wheras the 348's M3's n others drove back on the trailer....- it would be very sad when this reputation is killed because of profit-thinking - no matter of who produces or quality-controlls the parts 

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=48&t=1267552&mid=193859&i=7360&nmt=Prospective+991+GT3+Ow...

The MPSC are going to catch more out..Scroll down and see the damage..Such a shame..

--

throt

"I Have Done It!".

GT3 pick up 01/03/14.

Are you suggesting the new MPSC2 is much worse than the previous MPSC? I enjoy being able to drift them around in the wet in my GT3 and they were never uncontrollable. But then again I don't get the low temp you guys get over in the UK 

throt:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=48&t=1267552&mid=193859&i=7360&nmt=Prospective+991+GT3+Ow...

The MPSC are going to catch more out..Scroll down and see the damage..Such a shame..

--

throt

"I Have Done It!".

GT3 pick up 01/03/14.

Well... I wrote few weeks ago that despite Porsche's claims new 991 GT3 has limited daily usage. Mainly, it is because of both set of available tires. I drove new GT3 with MPSC on very wet road(rain was pouring intensly) and PSM was working overtime. Despite my efforts I had few sudden not-so-nice reactions that scared me. Yes, speed was maybe little bit above avergae for wet road, but at same speed 991 Turbo S with P Zeros were super stable at wet.

Hi Way, not sure it was due to lack of grip. Going  by other reports their grip is woeful in damp conditions..

No doubt we will find out eventually, it'll  be good to learn some traits from this beast.

throt

"I Have Done It!".

GT3 pick up 01/03/14.

GTlover:

RC:

mp:

RC:

The suppliers are required to manufacture parts with the specs Porsche provided. So if the specs are OK, from an engineering point of view but the supplier didn't "respect" these specs, who is to blame? Suppliers are bound by contract, this is no game. Porsche cannot control every single part they receive, no car manufacturer does this.

Please THINK before you write...

Porsche doesn't have to outsource anything. They choose to do so ( as many other companies) to either increase profits, or to acquire parts from those with better/ proven expertise, etc.

Bottom line, customers usually don't care where the part was made. My clients didn't care if we were to blame or our subcontractors. They would always hold us accountable.

 

Outsourcing isn't a bad thing, especially not in the car industry.

Take my new family ride, the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT. The 8-speed automatic is from ZF (latest gen), the chassis/adaptive dampers system is from Bilstein and there are many many parts around the car who are made by the same suppliers others use, including Porsche...or even Ferrari. The panoramic roof of the car looks exactly like the one used on the Cayenne, almost 1:1. 

I think you are getting things very very wrong about outsourcing but I don't blame you. Car manufacturers hide this outsourcing pretty well. 

 Hi RC,

Fully agree to what you write..but this blaming on the suppliers - its too easy - in the end there are just two possibilities:

a) supplier delivered faulty parts - or below specification; in this case - Porsche is still partly to blame (e.g. Porsche chooses its supplier and should make sure before starting with them that they had a very good record)

b) supplier delivered according to specification..but specification was in general "too low"..meaning that even if every part is OK..long term there would still be issues as the parts were simply not designed for the immense stress of a GT3 engine.

Or c) Sub-assembly tolerance stacks are wrong. To meet a very tight engine tolerance, it is quite normal to build indivudual components which the supplier can meet. As long as the build up sub-assembly tolerances are met using mix/match method. This is why sometime is not possible just to replace a single connecting rod in and engine since it has to be matched against the original crankshaft/pinton, etc.

I fear its point b)..because of cost savings (e.g. "it must be possible to built a cheaper engine") - all this makes me sad..because Porsche has the knowledge, its employees are like us "petrolheads"..I remember when I drove with my GT2 a few months ago to the musueum and the factory..all facory employees walking outside put up their thumbs..when I talked to some employees later in the sales..even their eyes where sparkling when we talked about the 997 GTs..they all loved them. Immediattely we shared a common passion. So far the 997 GTs have been ruling the tracks around the world..from the simple 3.8 GT3 (not the fastest car..but a solid-fun car to the GT2RS - the killer car)

No, I´m not blaming any employee of Porsche on this issue here..but from what I heard - this story is not yet over .- worse is to come, but I therefore clearly blame Porsche´s Management - its time for them to come out of their "hiding position"..and to take the consequence for their decisions. I have already in mind who should be that..but I wont mention the name here. Given that its about the GT3, about the racing etc..it must come from there (R&D).

OUCH! 

Are you an automotive engineer?

Please share with us what you heard. How bad could it be?

"worse is to come". Can you tell us more?..

throt

"I Have Done It!".

GT3 pick up 01/03/14.

nberry:

OUCH! 

Are you an automotive engineer?

Please share with us what you heard. How bad could it be?

In short, it is shown (from Cayenne V8 engine building, as far as I remember) that for Porsche to meet final specification (in this case, may be horse power/torque), for example +/-5% variation from 485hp. If this specification is translated to an individual component tolerance, it is almost xxx.xxxx +/- 0.0001 (just example here). Impossible for supplier to meet.The only way to meet the final specification is to use mix/match of various components, so each component can be manufatured as xxx.xxx +/- 0.002 (or 0.005) so that the stack up tolerances for the final assembly are within the specification that specified by client can be met. This is the reason I think that Porsche prefer to change out a complete engine rather than replacing component. Is not that you can not replace a single component but the chances of meeting the original specification is slim. we talking about Cayenne engine here, let alone the high specs engine like GT3 or Turbo version. Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

If the actual measured tolerances of all the parts are documented when assembled (I would expect this to happen at Porsche), then replacement of a single part is possible, no?  Just replace it with one that measures the same (or within required tolerance for that one part to mesh with the others).

73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550

Yes. like you said, all data should be documented on both Porsche and suppliers. It may be a bit of delay in getting the specific part with specific tolerance, depending if they have stock on various tolerances (doubtful if just in time process). I am not sure but I think the engine parts are kitted from supplier and built by Porsche. Worse case scenario would be to supply the part with "close" enough tolerance (under) and not on the "high" side. Sorry again......