944 Turbo Battery Replacement
-
Latitude48
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:08 pm
- Location: Seattle Area
- Has thanked: 103 times
- Been thanked: 113 times
- Contact:
I believe there was a thread in a 964 forum that got pretty negative, but I've had zero issues with mine... knock on wood. I also have one of their portable emergency start batteries; I used it once to start my landscaper's Ford truck and it worked like a charm. YMMV.gruhsy wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 1:06 pm I thought there was some issues with the antigravity…..no idea what but there was something negative floating around the net.
Tom Pultz
- 1989 944 Turbo - Guards Red/Linen
- 1990 944 S2 - Guards Red/Black
- 2003 Audi 1.8TQ - Denim Blue/Black
- 2003 Honda Civic Si - Vivid Blue/Black
- 2023 VW Golf R Base - Lapiz Blue/Titan Black
- 1989 944 Turbo - Guards Red/Linen
- 1990 944 S2 - Guards Red/Black
- 2003 Audi 1.8TQ - Denim Blue/Black
- 2003 Honda Civic Si - Vivid Blue/Black
- 2023 VW Golf R Base - Lapiz Blue/Titan Black
-
Tom
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8965
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:04 pm
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
- Has thanked: 941 times
- Been thanked: 4027 times
- Contact:
Antigravity Batteries was at one point under investigation by the FTC for certain advertising claims. Someone pointed that out on RL in response to a customer complaint. In response, among other things, Antigravity posted a falsified letter from the FTC stating that the FTC's actions "should be construed as a determination that there was no violation" of the relevant law. In fact, the actual FTC letter (as posted on the FTC's website) said their actions "should NOT be construed as a determination that there was no violation" of the relevant law, and summarized a remediation plan Antigravity Batteries had implemented to prevent false claims in the future. Put simply, the falsified letter made it look like the FTC had cleared Antigravity Batteries of wrong-doing, which was simply not true.
There was concern among RL members, given this verifiably dishonest claim. Several months later, Antigravity claimed the post was made by an unauthorized staff member, which I have a hard time believing because: 1) the post in question had the same cadence, tone and rambling style of all the others in my opinion, 2) the doctored FTC letter was posted March 25, 2021, and this claim of an unauthorized staffer wasn't posted until July 6, 2021 despite many prior posts including defensive posts from Antigravity, and 3) Dunn and Bradstreet currently states that Antigravity Batteries LLC has 8 employees total. After this event, nearly all the RL moderators were secretly banned (including the founder, John Dunkle, who came to my aid in that thread). RL now shows Antigravity Batteries as the sponsor of the 944 forum, making me wonder if RL's decision to retain Antigravity was related in any way to an increase in payments to sponsor an entire board. That is all.
There was concern among RL members, given this verifiably dishonest claim. Several months later, Antigravity claimed the post was made by an unauthorized staff member, which I have a hard time believing because: 1) the post in question had the same cadence, tone and rambling style of all the others in my opinion, 2) the doctored FTC letter was posted March 25, 2021, and this claim of an unauthorized staffer wasn't posted until July 6, 2021 despite many prior posts including defensive posts from Antigravity, and 3) Dunn and Bradstreet currently states that Antigravity Batteries LLC has 8 employees total. After this event, nearly all the RL moderators were secretly banned (including the founder, John Dunkle, who came to my aid in that thread). RL now shows Antigravity Batteries as the sponsor of the 944 forum, making me wonder if RL's decision to retain Antigravity was related in any way to an increase in payments to sponsor an entire board. That is all.