Concerned
Owners Group
An owner-organized group for 991.1 GT3 RS and 911 R owners, on the cam and finger follower failure mode Porsche addressed on the 991.1 GT3 with a 10-year / 120,000-mile engine warranty extension. You do not need to have a problem with your car to take part — most members will not. Being counted is the part that gets us in the room; documented inspections, including clean ones, are what change the conversation once we are.
Join the roll
You do not need to have a problem with your car. Most members will not. Being counted is the entire ask, and it is the thing that gets this group taken seriously — in 2017 the GT3 owners represented over 250 people across 16 countries, and only one of the five in the room had personally experienced the failure.
Nothing here is ever shared with Porsche in identified form. They see aggregate metadata only — counts, countries, model years. No names, no addresses, no VINs. This is the same commitment the 2017 group made to its members, and it is the reason a low-friction roll is safe to join.
Prefer email? Send your first name and last initial, city and state or country, and model and model year to 991rscog@gmail.com and we will add you by hand.
The evidence registry
A separate and much smaller ask, for owners who have something documented. Submit if you have a confirmed failure, documented wear, an engine already replaced for this failure mode, or a clean inspection on record.
It asks for VIN, findings and photos, and it carries its own separate consent checkboxes — none of which are implied by joining the roll. Clean inspections genuinely matter: a registry that collects only failures is advocacy, and Porsche's engineers will recognise the difference in the first thirty seconds.
The precedent
In 2017, a group of 991.1 GT3 owners organized as the Concerned Owners Group, assembled a credible case, and asked Porsche to engage. Porsche did — and the outcome set the template this effort is built on.
120,000 mi
The GT3 RS and 911 R were stated to be unaffected — different finger followers, no material inclusions. That was a reasonable position on the information available then, and it was made in good faith. New physical evidence is what this effort exists to collect, organize, and put in front of Porsche properly.
Why now
Two things changed. A 991.1 GT3 RS was diagnosed by independent teardown and inspection with cam and finger follower wear matching the failure mode Porsche acknowledged on the GT3. And in January 2026, a Rennlist thread documented a 2016 991.1 GT3 RS with roughly 8,200 miles whose dealer teardown confirmed a finger follower failure — a dropped valve on cylinder one, and a quote of about $124,000 for a new engine.
One car is an anecdote. A structured, verifiable set of cars — including the ones that inspect clean — is evidence. The number and quality of documented cases is the single variable that determines whether Porsche engages the way they did in 2017.
Who should submit evidence
What happens to your data
The two tracks carry two different promises. Keeping them distinct is the point.
The roll
Personal information from the roll is never shared with Porsche. Aggregate metadata only — counts, countries, model years. This is the same commitment the 2017 group made to its members, and it is what made a low-friction signup safe enough to scale.
The evidence registry
Registry submissions are held by the organizers and are not public. The form asks you to choose, separately, what your record may be used for — nothing is assumed, and the three boxes are independent.
VINs are used for verification and deduplication so the same car is never counted twice. They are never published.
The plan
Breadth and evidence accumulate at completely different speeds, so neither waits on the other. The roll is the number that appears in the letter; the registry is the appendix that makes it mean something.
Four to six people built to a role spec rather than a headcount — a failure witness, technical authority, institutional standing, and at least one EU or UK owner. Then agree on one clean ask before any contact with Porsche.
Requesting a meeting and Porsche's own inspection of affected cars. Collaborative and evidence-first, modeled directly on the 2017 approach. No attorneys, no press, no deadlines.
Four or five attendees, fifteen to twenty minutes, physical evidence on the table. Lead with loyalty, then listen.
A meeting to review the evidence together. Porsche's own inspection of affected cars, at Porsche's direction. And an interim goodwill review for members whose cars are currently disabled.
Deliberately not a demand for a specific remedy. The 2017 group asked for clarity and a meeting, and Porsche authored the warranty extension itself. The GT3 precedent is here as evidence of how Porsche handles these things — not as a bill being presented.
Individual goodwill cases should continue in parallel — none of this is a substitute for opening one with your dealer, and each outcome reported back is itself a data point.