RE: Porsche 997 Carrera: Catch it while you can

[converted lurker]

Surely the fact there are hundreds of 911 engines for sale suggests that there have been a lot of replacement engines fitted to the fleet and the damaged/extracted engines have been repaired and made available for sale by the repairers?

I'm not seeing many Honda S2000 engines on eBay.

[fordy999]

It's interesting googling about for 996/7 engine issues as the inter webs advice has changed over the years. I saw some threads from back in 2004 that stated to avoid the chocy 3.4 996 in favour of the bullet proof 3.6 996. Then the IMS failures started and so the 997 became bullet proof until IMS and bore scoring started to affect these engines too. I followed this saga for years with interest as I've always seen myself in one of these cars one day. The Peter Morgan article confuses to be honest as its a bit inconsistent but overall you get the impression that it appears to me that the least risky 996/7 engine is the original 3.4. Time is proving them to be the prettiest too. How times change eh?

[Terminator X]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Do you agree that there are thousands if not 10's of thousands of happy owners who have had no problems at all?

TX.

[JMo22]

derin100 said:

JMo22 said:

Values of these have been going up for a year already.

I bought a nicely specced 2005 Manual C2S (GT Silver, Cocoa leather, PCM, Sport Chrono, BOSE, Sport Design wheels) with just under 40k miles for £25k in April 2014. Don't think you can get an equivalent for that now.

Haven't had a single problem and IMO the engine issues are over-hyped. Plenty of cars with worse reliability that don't get as much bad press.

Edited by JMo22 on Saturday 27th June 14:35

That's an absolutely gorgeous car! It would be my ideal car in terms of spec and colour combo if I were to buy one.

To an outsider with very little knowledge on the main subject being discussed here this is a very interesting thread. Clearly, there is a huge amount of detailed and in-depth knowledge amongst contributors. I've skimmed through the thread several times and have learnt much from both the "Yay" and "Nay-sayers"...for want of a better term (If you see what I mean?). However, sometimes it takes the clarity of thought of an ignoramus to see through the trees and the minutia of technical details etc.

It is evident that there seems to be absolutely no doubt that these engines failures do occur. To me, as an ignoramus, it seems that the real significance of this whole discussion isn't really the prevalence of these actual engine failures. The real reason that it has taken on such significance and is being so hotly debated comes down to money! It's because of the cost. If this were a failure that only cost a very small amount of money to rectify would anyone really be that interested or bothered? No, it is only because of the large cost of repair that will fallen upon an unfortunate owner should one of these issues occur.

Did I read somewhere in this thread that someone had paid £9K for an engine rebuild on a Cayman. Did I read somewhere £10K for a 911 rebuild/"new" engine and £15K from a Porsche Main-dealer?

That's an awful lot of money, isn't it? And isn't that what people are really scared of and why it's being debated?

I think of myself as a relatively highly paid (albeit Public Sector) worker, in a responsible job, at the top-end of my salary scale. Those sums for an engine/rebuild could represent more than my total take-home pay for a full quarter of a year's worth of work. Isn't that what people are really scared of and why this whole issue is being debated?

Yet, thus far, I can see no one who has questioned the justification for those sums to repair a fault on a car in the first place. How and why should it cost £15K? Sure, if Porsche set a price of £15K then it follows that an Independent can set (and get away with) £10K because to the average Joe that looks like a significant of £5K saving. Who would blame them? £5K is a lot of money in my World. The fact that the starting premise of it costing or being 'worth' figures anything like £15K or similar huge sums, is what really needs to be questioned.

Thanks for the compliments..I'm blushing Couple more photos for you as a reward!

As a previous poster has said the servicing and running costs are so far below most other cars in this category that having what is clearly less than a 5% chance of a max £10k bill that it just doesn't concern me. I have a friend who repairs Porsche engines for a living and I've seen a failed 997 engine in his workshop and it didn't put me off. Often it doesn't cost that much to repair anyway and as somebody else has pointed out it's not that hard to get an engine out of a Cat C/ Cat D or whatever car on eBay.

From my experience so far servicing costs at a main dealer are about £1k every two years. Could do it much cheaper at an independent. Compare that with an F355, F360/430 or a McLaren 12C with all its fancy hydraulic suspension that needs re-doing every single year from what I've read. Suddenly a probability-weighted engine repair cost of less than £500 isn't a big deal.

[Terminator X]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So what?! It's a reasonable rare issue being pumped up by people like you. Look at any performance car they all seem to have problems of some description.

TX.

[anonymous-user]

Terminator X said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So what?! It's a reasonable rare issue being pumped up by people like you. Look at any performance car they all seem to have problems of some description.

TX.

Not many that can suffer with terminal engine issues though. Especially from a manufacturer like Porsche. 996s were known for engine problems and I'm shocked that Porsche didn't do their upmost to prevent it happening one model on.

p.s. why on earth do you sign off your posts with TX? It's not a letter or email lol.

[Hungrymc]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I used the term natural bias - because it's the nature of their business, they work on developing counter measures all day every day, they think about nothing else - they are not going to be the best indicator to get an impartial analysis of the number of cars which don't fail. They also may be focused on the rebuild side - but the warranty and service is still part of the business.

Once again, this isn't about Hartech's business strategy, it's about the certainty with which people claim these engines will fail prematurely compared to other similar engines. I go back to eBay and autotrader etc - more high milage water cooled 911s than anything remotely similar.... Don't take this as me claiming there is no risk. There is a risk, and it's expensive if it happens. But people spread the message that a premature failure is inevitable - and I do not see any evidence supporting this.

[minerva]

I think that T X is an abbreviation of Terminator X, or is that a wah?

I am very pleased that Moose is posting, since his views are representative of a certain proportion that are justifiably angry. I am however, sure that there are (at least) 95% of owners that are satisfied.

[minerva]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There is an assumption, I grant you but where did all of the engines being offered come from and, also, where are all the cars with broken engines go to? I know hat I am being simplistic,, but please give me an answer and I will gladly eat hat.

[identity_crisis]

Just re-read this thread and found these 2 comments which made me laugh.

cmoose:

Fear it's not a question if a 997.1 Cx/CxS has bore scoring, it's how much.

and

Axel981:

Id say failure rate is at least 50 % , possibly more. and thats every 100.000 km.

Not scaremongering at all are we guys. Both comments are just based on your opinions and have been proven wrong with someone on here having a car with over 80,000 miles which does not have any borescoring.

No one has any actual facts in this thread just overblown opinions that are stated as fact.

[SidewaysSi]

At this rate 997s will be worth 2p pretty soon

[jakesmith]

identity_crisis said:

Just re-read this thread and found these 2 comments which made me laugh.

cmoose:

Fear it's not a question if a 997.1 Cx/CxS has bore scoring, it's how much.

and

Axel981:

Id say failure rate is at least 50 % , possibly more. and thats every 100.000 km.

Not scaremongering at all are we guys. Both comments are just based on your opinions and have been proven wrong with someone on here having a car with over 80,000 miles which does not have any borescoring.

No one has any actual facts in this thread just overblown opinions that are stated as fact.

Nail. Head.

[identity_crisis]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well at least you are admitting you are wrong.

And this is where the problem lies.

You are a respected member on this forum and you post up on thread under this subject on a regular basis but as has been proven not everything you are saying is true. Its only your opinion but people are taking it as fact and the entire bore scoring issue a gets blown out of proportion like it already has.

There is a problem, No one on this thread including owners is desputing that. The problem is no one actually knows how many cars are affected and when yourself and others come on here and start disputing an article about buying these cars stating that the problem is widespread, that every car is affected and that over 50% of cars will suffer failures all before 100,000km which is only 62,000miles then obviously people who are going to challenge those views especially when they know they are not true.

Edited by identity_crisis on Sunday 28th June 19:18

[fastgerman]

jakesmith said:

identity_crisis said:

Just re-read this thread and found these 2 comments which made me laugh.

cmoose:

Fear it's not a question if a 997.1 Cx/CxS has bore scoring, it's how much.

and

Axel981:

Id say failure rate is at least 50 % , possibly more. and thats every 100.000 km.

Not scaremongering at all are we guys. Both comments are just based on your opinions and have been proven wrong with someone on here having a car with over 80,000 miles which does not have any borescoring.

No one has any actual facts in this thread just overblown opinions that are stated as fact.

Nail. Head.

Haha

In other news, there are over 100,000 997's and I've never seen one at the side of the road steaming or with a puddle of oil underneath. In fact, the only Porsche models I've seen broken down are a 914 on the way back from Le Mans, a 928 and my 968 when the radiator exploded :-).

I would make a guess that less than 5% have an issue. The Pistonheads poll in the Porsche forum has around 20% with reported issues including IMS, RMS, Bore scoring etc:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

I would assume a vast majority of people that have problems have used this poll whereas the vast majority of 997 owners have no idea what Pistonheads is.

This brings me to my less than 5% estimation.

At least I'm using some 'facts'.

[JMo22]

minerva said:

There is an assumption, I grant you but where did all of the engines being offered come from and, also, where are all the cars with broken engines go to? I know hat I am being simplistic,, but please give me an answer and I will gladly eat hat.

I put the answer to this question in my post earlier. A lot are from Cat C / Cat D cars, which are being broken and sold as spares. Cars have accidents, especially 300bhp+ cars with an engine slung being the rear axle

[JMo22]

St John Smythe said:

Not many that can suffer with terminal engine issues though. Especially from a manufacturer like Porsche. 996s were known for engine problems and I'm shocked that Porsche didn't do their upmost to prevent it happening one model on.

p.s. why on earth do you sign off your posts with TX? It's not a letter or email lol.

Really? Think again:

http://jalopnik.com/here-s-why-you-should-never-bu...

http://jalopnik.com/5937499/the-jalopnik-guide-to-...

[anonymous-user]

JMo22 said:

St John Smythe said:

Not many that can suffer with terminal engine issues though. Especially from a manufacturer like Porsche. 996s were known for engine problems and I'm shocked that Porsche didn't do their upmost to prevent it happening one model on.

p.s. why on earth do you sign off your posts with TX? It's not a letter or email lol.

Really? Think again:

http://jalopnik.com/here-s-why-you-should-never-bu...

http://jalopnik.com/5937499/the-jalopnik-guide-to-...

355 issue can be fixed with preventive maintenance so not terminal. Not sure what cars catching on fire has to do with this though?

[JMo22]

St John Smythe said:

JMo22 said:

St John Smythe said:

Not many that can suffer with terminal engine issues though. Especially from a manufacturer like Porsche. 996s were known for engine problems and I'm shocked that Porsche didn't do their upmost to prevent it happening one model on.

p.s. why on earth do you sign off your posts with TX? It's not a letter or email lol.

Really? Think again:

http://jalopnik.com/here-s-why-you-should-never-bu...

http://jalopnik.com/5937499/the-jalopnik-guide-to-...

355 issue can be fixed with preventive maintenance so not terminal. Not sure what cars catching on fire has to do with this though?

Yes the 355 issue can be fixed with constant maintenance and engine-outs that cost more than a 997 engine. Some of those burning cars are engine issues to say the least. Isolated maybe but may well be just as high a percentage of failures as the 997, just they weren't manufactured in 6 figure volumes.

My point is people are making out that a few broken engines means the 997 is somehow the supercar with reliability issues and that it means they are overvalued at £20-30k!

Moosey is complaining that it's only owners saying that they haven't had reliability issues and that we are somehow biased. How the hell else are we supposed to know other than through 1st hand experience! I said in an earlier post that I've seen a bore scored 997 engine so it does happen but then every car has its weak points and all this scaremongering on Pistonheads (where a good deal of 997s are for sale) means any issues are already more than factored into the price you're paying for a 997 if you consider the probability of you having an issue.

[jakesmith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Very defensive post, but you just read what you want to read - you have misrepresented my posts and inferred things from what I have written that I did not say or mean, but I am trying to avoid being responsible for this thread descending into a tit-for-tat affair that unfortunately often characterises this forum, I accept that my initial was over the top in its language

There are plenty of voices on this thread agreeing with me that your statements about every engine failing are unlikely to be correct, with all sorts of reasons backing this up, of course they are unsubstantiated, just like your own opinions which are equally finger-in-the-air in terms of their basis in fact.

You have described me as a hypocrite for rubbishing your opinions, on the basis that I know no better myself, but that is an admission that your own opinions are unfounded.

I asked you before, to consider whether you may be doing more harm than good with your approach to spreading your very strong opinions on this topic and you didn't respond. It is a reasonable question and I think you should answer it here.

[JMo22]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Eh?