996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here!

[willl]

Hi,
I looked at a 1999 996 yesterday that I am thinking of buying. It has done around 55K, and full service history from porsche dealerships. No record of RSM problem, it did have some work done by Lancaster in 1999 (obviously on warranty) but the records don't show what was done.

If it's done this many miles/years 'in the clear' is there still a risk of future problems? I'm thinking of getting an independant specialist look at the engine, can anyone recommend someone for the SW london/ A3 chessington area?

Thanks

[rossfitz]

Here's mine:

1999 C2 with 3 RMS's (latest two being 65,000 and 75,000) and 1 rebuild (intermediate shaft bearing at 75,000)

[Bumcrack]

willl said:

Hi,
I looked at a 1999 996 yesterday that I am thinking of buying. It has done around 55K, and full service history from porsche dealerships. No record of RSM problem, it did have some work done by Lancaster in 1999 (obviously on warranty) but the records don't show what was done.

If it's done this many miles/years 'in the clear' is there still a risk of future problems? I'm thinking of getting an independant specialist look at the engine, can anyone recommend someone for the SW london/ A3 chessington area?

Thanks

I wouldn't worry about it; according to baz at Hartech, it's a 1 in 50 chance of leaking seal, nothing like the figures produced by this thread.

Get a warranty and you’ll be fine.

[bcnrml]

Bumcrack said:

willl said:

Hi,
I looked at a 1999 996 yesterday that I am thinking of buying. It has done around 55K, and full service history from porsche dealerships. No record of RSM problem, it did have some work done by Lancaster in 1999 (obviously on warranty) but the records don't show what was done.

If it's done this many miles/years 'in the clear' is there still a risk of future problems? I'm thinking of getting an independant specialist look at the engine, can anyone recommend someone for the SW london/ A3 chessington area?

Thanks

I wouldn't worry about it; according to baz at Hartech, it's a 1 in 50 chance of leaking seal, nothing like the figures produced by this thread.

Get a warranty and you’ll be fine.

Yawn.....

Willl, you'd get direct answers to your questions if you'd started a separate thread. However, see Rossfitz's contribution earlier.

Bumcrack, indulge me for a moment. As Baz noted in another thread, that figure was laced with sarcasm.

Baz, I did wonder why you left said figure unqualified, and despite my having asked for elucidation, you ignored my request and posted on another thread that the figure was not to be taken seriously.

So, if it is not already obvious, allow me to expand on some of my thoughts. In relation to the aforementioned figure, a reminder is in order: Baz, IIRC in another thread, stated that he's pleased to have positioned his business towards service and repairs rather than only or mainly sales. Why did he do this?

I'm not impugning his integrity. On the contrary, it makes business sense.

So, first question: Is the positioning not related to the reliability rates referred to in this and other threads? Smart move, methinks, and I'm an admirer of the service, so again I note that I am not objecting to the strategic decision.

Second question (to Willl and Bumcrack): Have you reviewed Dunit's contributions to this thread? If the figures were as low as Bumcrack would have you believe, this thread would not exist.

Given the legal challenges facing any indie selling these cars (fit for purpose, etc), I'm not surprised at any shift in focus away from sales alone. Anyone remember the Butcherboy and Butcherslayer event/thread?

So my interpretation is this: On the evidence, it makes sense for Baz (and others) to be in the business of repairs. In the UK, with its volumes, it is likely a sustainable business, and if only 10% of these cars have recurring problems (RMS and/or failures), it is a potentially superb business to be in. Do the maths for the population of 996s and 986s exceeding the envelope of OPC warranty rights.

Baz, if I am misrepresenting your business, please correct me (and I apologise in advance if so).

Finally, a gentle reminder to Bumcrack: We seek hard evidence here. A sarcastically purported 2% probability of failures bears no resemblance to the figures implied by this and other well-visited forums.

Hard statistical evidence contradicting my statements would be very welcome.

Thank you.

[Bumcrack]

bcnrml said:

Bumcrack said:

willl said:

Hi,
I looked at a 1999 996 yesterday that I am thinking of buying. It has done around 55K, and full service history from porsche dealerships. No record of RSM problem, it did have some work done by Lancaster in 1999 (obviously on warranty) but the records don't show what was done.

If it's done this many miles/years 'in the clear' is there still a risk of future problems? I'm thinking of getting an independant specialist look at the engine, can anyone recommend someone for the SW london/ A3 chessington area?

Thanks

I wouldn't worry about it; according to baz at Hartech, it's a 1 in 50 chance of leaking seal, nothing like the figures produced by this thread.

Get a warranty and you’ll be fine.

Yawn.....

Willl, you'd get direct answers to your questions if you'd started a separate thread. However, see Rossfitz's contribution earlier.

Bumcrack, indulge me for a moment. As Baz noted in another thread, that figure was laced with sarcasm.

Baz, I did wonder why you left said figure unqualified, and despite my having asked for elucidation, you ignored my request and posted on another thread that the figure was not to be taken seriously.

So, if it is not already obvious, allow me to expand on some of my thoughts. In relation to the aforementioned figure, a reminder is in order: Baz, IIRC in another thread, stated that he's pleased to have positioned his business towards service and repairs rather than only or mainly sales. Why did he do this?

I'm not impugning his integrity. On the contrary, it makes business sense.

So, first question: Is the positioning not related to the reliability rates referred to in this and other threads? Smart move, methinks, and I'm an admirer of the service, so again I note that I am not objecting to the strategic decision.

Second question (to Willl and Bumcrack): Have you reviewed Dunit's contributions to this thread? If the figures were as low as Bumcrack would have you believe, this thread would not exist.

Given the legal challenges facing any indie selling these cars (fit for purpose, etc), I'm not surprised at any shift in focus away from sales alone. Anyone remember the Butcherboy and Butcherslayer event/thread?

So my interpretation is this: On the evidence, it makes sense for Baz (and others) to be in the business of repairs. In the UK, with its volumes, it is likely a sustainable business, and if only 10% of these cars have recurring problems (RMS and/or failures), it is a potentially superb business to be in. Do the maths for the population of 996s and 986s exceeding the envelope of OPC warranty rights.

Baz, if I am misrepresenting your business, please correct me (and I apologise in advance if so).

Finally, a gentle reminder to Bumcrack: We seek hard evidence here. A sarcastically purported 2% probability of failures bears no resemblance to the figures implied by this and other well-visited forums.

Hard statistical evidence contradicting my statements would be very welcome.

Thank you.

Hard statistical evidence, based on what exactly?

It’s completely flawed method of collecting data

It’s not exactly gathered in a way which stands up to any sort of proven numerically method for gathering data as far as I’m aware.
Asking a small section of users to post information about RMS leaks they’ve had isn’t the way to collection data in an accurate fashion, the unaffected majority will remain silent and RMS affected will want to tell.

What about everybody who hasn’t had any problems and doesn’t use the BB’s like this one or has never heard of RMS? I’d bet the number of 996 owners who use this site doesn’t even come close to a quarter of one percent of the total number of 996 in the UK.

I can’t believe you are so naïve to trust an internet poll over someone who sees more Porsches through their hands as a matter of course through there daily business, Baz is in a much better position to contribute to the discussion because he has no axe to grind and isn’t focused solely on a specific issue.


If you believe everything you read on the internet you’ll be misinformed most of the time.

[bcnrml]

Bumcrack said:

[
Hard statistical evidence, based on what exactly?

It’s completely flawed method of collecting data

It’s not exactly gathered in a way which stands up to any sort of proven numerically method for gathering data as far as I’m aware.
Asking a small section of users to post information about RMS leaks they’ve had isn’t the way to collection data in an accurate fashion, the unaffected majority will remain silent and RMS affected will want to tell.

What about everybody who hasn’t had any problems and doesn’t use the BB’s like this one or has never heard of RMS? I’d bet the number of 996 owners who use this site doesn’t even come close to a quarter of one percent of the total number of 996 in the UK.

I can’t believe you are so naïve to trust an internet poll over someone who sees more Porsches through their hands as a matter of course through there daily business, Baz is in a much better position to contribute to the discussion because he has no axe to grind and isn’t focused solely on a specific issue.


If you believe everything you read on the internet you’ll be misinformed most of the time.

Okay, seems I've made no headway with your position and you've ignored my points about Baz. So I refer you to the previous postings within this thread addressing the issue of methodology, to which you contributed. I now intend to make no further contributions on said subject as doing so will only take this thread off topic.

Oh, I'll awaken to make the following point: With respect to the internet, its content, its strengths and weaknesses (as a medium and information sharing backbone), and indeed proficiency in statistical analyses and survey methodology, may I respectfully note that my Government and blue chip FMCG clients across the world have better views of my competencies in that regard than perhaps you have. It's just possible that I know a little bit about these than you might imply.......

Here's hoping we can get back on topic..... Thank you!

Now I wonder if Butcherboy will post his data? IIRC, he used the services of a well-respected Indie (wonder who.... ) to provide a report on the engines concerned in support of a case he won.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Edited by bcnrml on Tuesday 10th July 22:13

[Bumcrack]

Reading your post, it seems you think you know more than every body that has the cheek to disagree with you

[Ballcock]

Guys could y'all put away the handbags.

This thread is exclusively about getting numbers for 996 failures.

That's why it was made into a sticky.

If you've got a fundamental problem with the mechanics of this thread then start your own thread and vent spleen on that instead.

996 stats!!!

[headlesshorseman]

53 plate 996 3.6 blew engine at 15k replaced f.o.c new engine now done 3k seems to be ok

[Bumcrack]

Ballcock said:

Guys could y'all put away the handbags.

This thread is exclusively about getting numbers for 996 failures.

That's why it was made into a sticky.

If you've got a fundamental problem with the mechanics of this thread then start your own thread and vent spleen on that instead.

996 stats!!!

Fair enough

[richardb.jones]

1999 3.4 65K - No RMS, No Engine Failure.

Tracked regularly. Oil : Silkolene Pro S 10W-50

[gfreeman]

1998 3.4 996 RMS at 35k when I bought it. Not replaced under warranty (early days).

Never used a drop of oil but OPC spotted a weep (at around 50k IIRC). By this time I had learnt all about RMS so I told them not to bother. Still didn't use any oil, no drips, nothing.

You could see a small excuse for a drip trying to make it onto the garage floor but it never quite did.

My GF's Vauxhall Vectra made the Torrey Canyon (younger readers try googling)look like a witch's fanny.

Edited by gfreeman on Thursday 12th July 21:41

[Peter123]

Not wishing to sound dumb, but what is RMS ?

I`ve asked the question because I`m considering changing to a 996 soon.

[Vesuvius 996]

Peter123 said:

Not wishing to sound dumb, but what is RMS ?

I`ve asked the question because I`m considering changing to a 996 soon.

Oh god.

[xTVR]

RMS is just a dappy little oil seal that doesnt seal. Nothing to worry about.
What you DO have to worry about is all these references to engine failures - intermediate shaft bearings - and when that happens it is only a new engine, no prob if you have £12k going spare.
But go for a 996 anyway, glorious to drive, best everyday GT around.

[Peter123]

xTVR said:

RMS is just a dappy little oil seal that doesnt seal. Nothing to worry about.
What you DO have to worry about is all these references to engine failures - intermediate shaft bearings - and when that happens it is only a new engine, no prob if you have £12k going spare.
But go for a 996 anyway, glorious to drive, best everyday GT around.

Thanks mate.

[dingus21]

Can any one tell me if Carrera tiptronics have fared any better than the manuals. I am considering a purchase of a 1998 996. As far as I can see it is to old for the OPC warrantry.

Thanks, Mike.

Edited by dingus21 on Sunday 15th July 17:54

[Ballcock]

dingus21 said:

Can any one tell me if Carrera tiptronics have fared any better than the manuals..

There's no evidence to suggest that tippy's are better or worse. There were rumours initially that RMS hit tips less but I believe this is largely untrue.
There are some good products out there for 'older' 996's , Hartech's "lifetime warranty plan" being top of the pile. Read all about it on www.hartech.org .. Hopefully Bolton isn't as far from you as it is from me!!

[dingus21]

Thanks for the reply. I will be speaking to Hartech tomorrow. Not to far as I am in South Manchester.

Cheers, Mike.

[dvs_dave]

Vesuvius 996 said:

I bet Porsche GB are loving this thread.

Indeed, they can have far reaching consequences. It was threads like this concerning the TVR Speed 6 engine that imho significantly contributed to the downfall of TVR.

Basically, people with an axe to grind shouted loudest and consequently skewed any survey results for the worse.

Judging by this thread it would appear that 996 engines were made by Willy Wonka. A criticism usually levelled at the TVR Speed 6.