Extend gen2 warranty or not
Discussion
My 2011 C2 997.2 GTS extended warranty expires next March and I have already decided not to extend it.
So far my car has been faultless (21,000 miles) and my experiences so far with OPC's has always seemed like hard work. I also like to modify my cars and know that OPC's possess zero common sense on this front. I have replaced the crap OE Moll battery with a Bosch battery which in OPC world is like committing a heinous crime. H&R springs and Sharkwerks bypass could land me with a death sentence and don't even start me on non N rated Michelin Pilot Super Sports!
So far my car has been faultless (21,000 miles) and my experiences so far with OPC's has always seemed like hard work. I also like to modify my cars and know that OPC's possess zero common sense on this front. I have replaced the crap OE Moll battery with a Bosch battery which in OPC world is like committing a heinous crime. H&R springs and Sharkwerks bypass could land me with a death sentence and don't even start me on non N rated Michelin Pilot Super Sports!
Not convinced the OPC warranty represents value for money. Particularly on a 997.2 which doesn't have the same weaknesses as the gen1. OPC servicing costs can be 'rapacious' at the best of times, and it's true their stance regarding anything off the official menu (tyres in particular) means you're stuffed if you want to have anything non-standard or have work done elsewhere.
On the other hand, I know a few people who manage to 'get their money back' off the back of having a warranty. If you're lucky you'll manage to find enough jobs that can be taken care of every year using it, and if you're unlucky and have a major problem (engine/gearbox/pccb) chances are it might be covered.
Question is though - will the OPC pay out?....having read one or two horror stories with OPC/Porsche wriggling wherever possible on large claims due to things like overrevs, I have my doubts. The warranty is actually nothing more than an insurance policy and in the event of a claim you may well be dealing with the underwriter or Porsche AG/GB rather than your local OPC. It can get messy.
I have a GT3 outside warranty and have the freedom of choice as to where/whom I choose to look after it, and like the cooking Gen2 997s it doesn't keep me awake at night with reliability concerns. Instead of paying into Porsche finance's pockets, I keep a fund aside for unexpected problems. Or worst come to worst and it was a significant expense I'd get a loan to cover it. If nothing unexpected happens, I still have the funds I haven't given to Porsche!!
At the end of the day - like most kinds of insurance it's very much a personal choice based on a variety of factors - not least your degree of aversion (or not) to risk.
Hope this helps!
On the other hand, I know a few people who manage to 'get their money back' off the back of having a warranty. If you're lucky you'll manage to find enough jobs that can be taken care of every year using it, and if you're unlucky and have a major problem (engine/gearbox/pccb) chances are it might be covered.
Question is though - will the OPC pay out?....having read one or two horror stories with OPC/Porsche wriggling wherever possible on large claims due to things like overrevs, I have my doubts. The warranty is actually nothing more than an insurance policy and in the event of a claim you may well be dealing with the underwriter or Porsche AG/GB rather than your local OPC. It can get messy.
I have a GT3 outside warranty and have the freedom of choice as to where/whom I choose to look after it, and like the cooking Gen2 997s it doesn't keep me awake at night with reliability concerns. Instead of paying into Porsche finance's pockets, I keep a fund aside for unexpected problems. Or worst come to worst and it was a significant expense I'd get a loan to cover it. If nothing unexpected happens, I still have the funds I haven't given to Porsche!!
At the end of the day - like most kinds of insurance it's very much a personal choice based on a variety of factors - not least your degree of aversion (or not) to risk.
Hope this helps!
I would renew the warranty and extend if poss same time as service to get inspection charge reduced or waived.
In the last 9 months I had the following done on 997.2 that equates to I guess 2.5 - 3 times annual cost of warranty:
2x new rear LED light lense units (original were misting up)
New AC condensor
New coolant hose connectors at front end of car
and other bits I cannot remember
The Moll battery thing is nonsense but chip OPC down on cost using prices from Europarts or RAC website or the like. Remember the Moll comes with 2 year parts warranty so ensure the OPC does crank test on battery at each inspection and service so you can get a free repalcement if Moll starts failing within 2 years.
The N rates thing again is daft but the N rated pilot sports are very good beside the superlative pilot super sports.
In the last 9 months I had the following done on 997.2 that equates to I guess 2.5 - 3 times annual cost of warranty:
2x new rear LED light lense units (original were misting up)
New AC condensor
New coolant hose connectors at front end of car
and other bits I cannot remember
The Moll battery thing is nonsense but chip OPC down on cost using prices from Europarts or RAC website or the like. Remember the Moll comes with 2 year parts warranty so ensure the OPC does crank test on battery at each inspection and service so you can get a free repalcement if Moll starts failing within 2 years.
The N rates thing again is daft but the N rated pilot sports are very good beside the superlative pilot super sports.
jetbox said:
Hi, as the title says. Should I extend the warranty or not? Gen2 2s Pdk with 20k miles. Faultless so far......
I would extend it unless you want to mod the car or use an Indy for servicing. Faultless for 20K doesn't mean it will remain faultless for another 20K. There are plenty of expensive bits on these cars that can fail and you are probably just coming up to the mileage range where they are more likely to start showing up.Can I refer you to my recent posts on the "has your engine had a major rebuild" section on this forum because while the Gen 2 has changed in spec in almost all the weak areas we are familiar with the one potential problem of the plastic coated pistons running in Alusil still remains a worry.
When the 996 cylinders cracked (and we developed our Nikasil alloy cylinder replacement solution) it was some time later that we heard of cylinders scoring. It took quite some time for us to understand that it was the change in piston coating that coincided with the scoring that was the cause and for the cars affected to clear the Porsche new guarantee and warranty period and some time later before they started coming to us scored (which fortunately our existing cylinders were also a solution for). This enabled us to offer a proven solution immediately without requiring too much additional test and development time.
We are now hearing about some Gen 2 engines soring bores (I would say about a year later than the same period compared to the plastic coated pistons introduced for the 996's and when we first heard about them failing).
Because the Gen 2 has changed many of the Gen 1 issues we regard as weaknesses (so they have a closed deck, more coolant in the block, a better bore material etc - and no overhanging rear crankshaft either - all things we pointed out in our buyers guide long before the Gen 2 was even conceived) it will no doubt be a much better engine. However - there is experience of aftermarket plastic coated pistons running in Alusil with some 944 and 968 models (rebuilt later) and although they lasted well - they did not generally last as long as the original ferrous coated pistons - so it is no surprise to us that pistons with similar coatings running in Alusil are reported to be failing in the Gen 2 engines.
Now when the problem emerged with Gen 1 engines there was a lot of information restricted and Porsche "not recognising it as a problem" (even when they were changing engines regularly) so it took a long time before it became a recognised issue - so if the same problem affects Gen 2 engines (all be it at an average higher mileage) once again I expect it to be a long time before it becomes accepted and meanwhile no doubt those warning of the possibility (like us) will receive the same accusations of scare mongering etc we received before whenever we identified a weakness that later became common knowledge (even the IMS bearing and LTT were in this category - now accepted and supplied almost everywhere!).
So I think it would be sensible (if you can afford it) to remain with the Porsche warranty while the cars are still new and worth a lot more than most Gen 1 cars now and when the value drops too low to justify it to consider some other warranty or maintenance plan (like ours) that protects you against the full cost of fixing the problem. Saving for a rainy day instead is also a good alternative if you can afford it and be disciplined enough to really do it! or taking on a loan to fix it (if your credit rating and income can support it).
Out of interest we are developing a cylinder replacement solution right now for Gen 2 cars - so we can road test and prove the outcome in advance of the possibility of it affecting more cars in the fullness of time. This sort of development costs a lot of money stripping and designing solutions, manufacturing prototypes and then road testing them - stripping and rebuilding again for inspection etc. It also requires a car and lots of time driving it around - but it is how we managed to provide such good and well proven solutions for the previous weaknesses.
Whereas previously we had to design a replacement cylinder first (for the ones that cracked and "D" chunked and that also became the solution for bore scoring - while converting the engine to a closed deck) there is presently no great need for us to undertake this development project - but when others tried to jump on the bandwagon and fit alternative cylinders to Gen 1 cars once they realised there was a market for it - they didn't undertake similar test and development beforehand and many failed quite soon afterwards through inadequate design and testing.
If eventually (long after most cars will be out of the Porsche warranty age and affordability) it turns out that our assessment of the situation is wrong - we will have only wasted our own time and R & D funds and not anyone else's - but if we are right then once again we have a proven and developed solution available that will turn out a better option than those coming in late with untested alternatives and our investment will be justified.
We have been proven right over our ability to assess and predict weaknesses in many areas before (even going back to the 944 S2 and 968 camshaft sprocket and chain weaknesses (first reported by us in the Porsche press at the time - that once again we were out of line with Porsche's own "service for life" position) and received criticism at the time of warning people but later it became a standard accepted preventative maintenance requirement. We always supply technical reasons why we consider something a problem (so it can be discussed) and even explain a lot about our solutions and despite providing this information in hard copy from our buyers guide (www.hartech.org sections 4 and 5 - now incidentally quite out of date and being updated) I cannot remember a technical issue we have previously raised in advance or a solution about which we have later been proven wrong.
The third radiator issue was typical when everyone was promoting it as the answer to bore scoring when actually without a control thermostat in line it can make things worse. That took a lot of debate to persuade others about but now it is understood and tests proved the outcome was correct (and hopefully will extend the life of many more cars).
But we will not always be right (no one or business ever is). One day we will no doubt identify a potential problem - spend time and money looking into it (or more) that turns out to be a waste of time and then everyone who seeks opportunities to knock our efforts can have a field day - so right now it is a bit of a gamble weighing up the history and an engineering assessment of the situation. In many ways I hope we are proven wrong (and we have big enough shoulders to stand it) but if not I will once again be happy to have got ahead of market need with a tested and proven solution - which is one of the cornerstones of running a successful business.
Baz
When the 996 cylinders cracked (and we developed our Nikasil alloy cylinder replacement solution) it was some time later that we heard of cylinders scoring. It took quite some time for us to understand that it was the change in piston coating that coincided with the scoring that was the cause and for the cars affected to clear the Porsche new guarantee and warranty period and some time later before they started coming to us scored (which fortunately our existing cylinders were also a solution for). This enabled us to offer a proven solution immediately without requiring too much additional test and development time.
We are now hearing about some Gen 2 engines soring bores (I would say about a year later than the same period compared to the plastic coated pistons introduced for the 996's and when we first heard about them failing).
Because the Gen 2 has changed many of the Gen 1 issues we regard as weaknesses (so they have a closed deck, more coolant in the block, a better bore material etc - and no overhanging rear crankshaft either - all things we pointed out in our buyers guide long before the Gen 2 was even conceived) it will no doubt be a much better engine. However - there is experience of aftermarket plastic coated pistons running in Alusil with some 944 and 968 models (rebuilt later) and although they lasted well - they did not generally last as long as the original ferrous coated pistons - so it is no surprise to us that pistons with similar coatings running in Alusil are reported to be failing in the Gen 2 engines.
Now when the problem emerged with Gen 1 engines there was a lot of information restricted and Porsche "not recognising it as a problem" (even when they were changing engines regularly) so it took a long time before it became a recognised issue - so if the same problem affects Gen 2 engines (all be it at an average higher mileage) once again I expect it to be a long time before it becomes accepted and meanwhile no doubt those warning of the possibility (like us) will receive the same accusations of scare mongering etc we received before whenever we identified a weakness that later became common knowledge (even the IMS bearing and LTT were in this category - now accepted and supplied almost everywhere!).
So I think it would be sensible (if you can afford it) to remain with the Porsche warranty while the cars are still new and worth a lot more than most Gen 1 cars now and when the value drops too low to justify it to consider some other warranty or maintenance plan (like ours) that protects you against the full cost of fixing the problem. Saving for a rainy day instead is also a good alternative if you can afford it and be disciplined enough to really do it! or taking on a loan to fix it (if your credit rating and income can support it).
Out of interest we are developing a cylinder replacement solution right now for Gen 2 cars - so we can road test and prove the outcome in advance of the possibility of it affecting more cars in the fullness of time. This sort of development costs a lot of money stripping and designing solutions, manufacturing prototypes and then road testing them - stripping and rebuilding again for inspection etc. It also requires a car and lots of time driving it around - but it is how we managed to provide such good and well proven solutions for the previous weaknesses.
Whereas previously we had to design a replacement cylinder first (for the ones that cracked and "D" chunked and that also became the solution for bore scoring - while converting the engine to a closed deck) there is presently no great need for us to undertake this development project - but when others tried to jump on the bandwagon and fit alternative cylinders to Gen 1 cars once they realised there was a market for it - they didn't undertake similar test and development beforehand and many failed quite soon afterwards through inadequate design and testing.
If eventually (long after most cars will be out of the Porsche warranty age and affordability) it turns out that our assessment of the situation is wrong - we will have only wasted our own time and R & D funds and not anyone else's - but if we are right then once again we have a proven and developed solution available that will turn out a better option than those coming in late with untested alternatives and our investment will be justified.
We have been proven right over our ability to assess and predict weaknesses in many areas before (even going back to the 944 S2 and 968 camshaft sprocket and chain weaknesses (first reported by us in the Porsche press at the time - that once again we were out of line with Porsche's own "service for life" position) and received criticism at the time of warning people but later it became a standard accepted preventative maintenance requirement. We always supply technical reasons why we consider something a problem (so it can be discussed) and even explain a lot about our solutions and despite providing this information in hard copy from our buyers guide (www.hartech.org sections 4 and 5 - now incidentally quite out of date and being updated) I cannot remember a technical issue we have previously raised in advance or a solution about which we have later been proven wrong.
The third radiator issue was typical when everyone was promoting it as the answer to bore scoring when actually without a control thermostat in line it can make things worse. That took a lot of debate to persuade others about but now it is understood and tests proved the outcome was correct (and hopefully will extend the life of many more cars).
But we will not always be right (no one or business ever is). One day we will no doubt identify a potential problem - spend time and money looking into it (or more) that turns out to be a waste of time and then everyone who seeks opportunities to knock our efforts can have a field day - so right now it is a bit of a gamble weighing up the history and an engineering assessment of the situation. In many ways I hope we are proven wrong (and we have big enough shoulders to stand it) but if not I will once again be happy to have got ahead of market need with a tested and proven solution - which is one of the cornerstones of running a successful business.
Baz
Don't worry about it being difficult to fathom out - it has taken us a long time and so much research and money to get to understand it all and I think if I had not had my background, had tested lots of different piston coatings in lots of engines, been working with alloy cylinders and different bore materials as long as 45 years ago and had the good fortune to have been involved in stripping and rebuilding thousands of these engines - and had the facilities to make and test things, fit gauges to test engines etc etc - I would be just as confused.
I think there is a correlation I can draw from the typical customers we see who prefer say a cabriolet to a hard top car (the former more laid back and less likely to thrash it), and you are right about the different capacities and torques. Most people drive just about as quickly in any similar car as another (its what they are comfortable doing), but the bigger the engine the greater the torque at lower revs and many who are not naturally aggressive or quick drivers still use a lot of low speed torque where the typical damage will occur.
The engine is also the same block height right from the 2.5 to the 3.8 (despite longer stroke cranks as they increase in capacity) and of course bigger pistons leave less space for coolant volume in the same displacement between cylinders.
If any similar engine has a capacity increase it usually follows that it is impossible to increase maximum mass air flow in line with the increase in capacity and this means it breathes better at slightly lower revs. It still produces more power at the top end because the bore diameter and/or torque is bigger but not usually by the same proportion.
Choices for manuals and tiptronics also come into this equation as tips deliver more low speed torque due to the ramp of the torque slip of the torque converter.
On top of all that by far the greatest proportion of owners that can afford newer sports cars do not drive them very fast at all - rather more enjoying the image from ownership of such an expensive and desirable car and as they age and depreciate - a greater proportion will hammer them (obviously as always there are exceptions).
We didn't hear about bore scoring in Gen 1 cars either for a long time and there are Gen 2 engines that have scored bores.
It is still a minority that suffer and I am not making a case for anyone to follow my advice (I thought that was clear from the content) but the question was about extended warranty (I believe) and I think the situation is not harmed by me adding my opinion on the matter.
We are backing our belief that a smaller number will score bores at a higher (and quite probably acceptable) mileage - but they will still then need repairing or replacing and we think it is worth our while to develop a solution now - even if it turns out not to be needed.
When engineers form opinions like this it is often difficult to quantify why exactly and more often it is an accumulation of all sorts of things that become more of a suspicion than a provable fact. All ideas come out of this and solutions are usually better found by people with this sixth sense than not.
There is definitely going to be some business repairing scored bores - the only question is how many and when it will all start - but even if (as we expect) the numbers will be very small - someone still needs to find answers and develop and test solutions before they are required or it will revert to the way many specialists work by trying a solution they are already selling in a customer car and hoping for the best.
Baz
I think there is a correlation I can draw from the typical customers we see who prefer say a cabriolet to a hard top car (the former more laid back and less likely to thrash it), and you are right about the different capacities and torques. Most people drive just about as quickly in any similar car as another (its what they are comfortable doing), but the bigger the engine the greater the torque at lower revs and many who are not naturally aggressive or quick drivers still use a lot of low speed torque where the typical damage will occur.
The engine is also the same block height right from the 2.5 to the 3.8 (despite longer stroke cranks as they increase in capacity) and of course bigger pistons leave less space for coolant volume in the same displacement between cylinders.
If any similar engine has a capacity increase it usually follows that it is impossible to increase maximum mass air flow in line with the increase in capacity and this means it breathes better at slightly lower revs. It still produces more power at the top end because the bore diameter and/or torque is bigger but not usually by the same proportion.
Choices for manuals and tiptronics also come into this equation as tips deliver more low speed torque due to the ramp of the torque slip of the torque converter.
On top of all that by far the greatest proportion of owners that can afford newer sports cars do not drive them very fast at all - rather more enjoying the image from ownership of such an expensive and desirable car and as they age and depreciate - a greater proportion will hammer them (obviously as always there are exceptions).
We didn't hear about bore scoring in Gen 1 cars either for a long time and there are Gen 2 engines that have scored bores.
It is still a minority that suffer and I am not making a case for anyone to follow my advice (I thought that was clear from the content) but the question was about extended warranty (I believe) and I think the situation is not harmed by me adding my opinion on the matter.
We are backing our belief that a smaller number will score bores at a higher (and quite probably acceptable) mileage - but they will still then need repairing or replacing and we think it is worth our while to develop a solution now - even if it turns out not to be needed.
When engineers form opinions like this it is often difficult to quantify why exactly and more often it is an accumulation of all sorts of things that become more of a suspicion than a provable fact. All ideas come out of this and solutions are usually better found by people with this sixth sense than not.
There is definitely going to be some business repairing scored bores - the only question is how many and when it will all start - but even if (as we expect) the numbers will be very small - someone still needs to find answers and develop and test solutions before they are required or it will revert to the way many specialists work by trying a solution they are already selling in a customer car and hoping for the best.
Baz
Having been stuck waiting for a machining part all day - I have time to reply fully today (unfortunately for everyone else!).
There are going to be lots of factors contributing to this problem, some we can analyse, some we can guess at and there may be some we have not identified yet. We find for example most Boxster owners don't even drive fast in low gears.
If it helps your research look up "piston scuffing" on the Internet and "Alusil cylinder bores" and "ferrous piston coatings".
Crankcases for the Cayman S are also different from a 996 3.4.
But to be practical - although we are interested in trying to find correlations from which to help us deduce causes etc - our solution to bore scoring is 100% reliable and so in another way we fix everything that comes in very well and it doesn't really make any difference to us what the proportions are for what numbers sold and why - we can be objective and just consider the repair we provide (which we do very well).
If for example it was extreme cold weather that causes the problem - why are we repairing so many in the UK. But then on the other hand because the thermostat is on the entry to the engine - the coolant flow will be low (similar to having a third radiator in cold weather) and that can cause hot spots inside the crankcase (as previously variously discussed at length) and I think that is more likely than it being expansion rates - but that particular problem would be easily resolved if we knew if the pistons that scored were damaged on both faces or just the thrust face (for example) answers please?.
We have also stated that the quality of the distribution of silicon particles in the Lokasil preforms is variable and it may be that a different casting tool and different preformed cylinders in the Cayman engines have some variation we cannot find out about but that is relevant.
Our first priority is to fix the engines (which we execute very well) and our next is to try and understand why they failed and if there is anything else we can do to avoid the problem and allow the engines to last longer.
When a problem only reveals itself in a small proportion of engines over a long period it is almost impossible to afford sufficient testing to identify the causes and supply solutions (and this is something you should expect the manufacturers to do and not a tiny privately funded specialist business).
We have a very good record of correctly identifying causes and that helps us to provide good solutions but sometimes you can design a good solution without fully understanding the underlying causes. An example is using a Nikasil Alloy cylinder (that will work with almost any piston coating or none at all) to replace one that is clearly failing. Although we understand a lot of the causes of those failures - even if we didn't the solution works brilliantly. Understanding the causes helps identify future problems and adds to a long list of what might be generally called "experience" and helps reduce development times in the future and finding design solutions.
It doesn't really matter too much if some readers disagree as that is just professional opinion and I am really happy to have different opinions to consider but most of it I read is more opinion and speculation and not usually backed up by the experience we have of working on so many engines nor the test procedures we followed in all sorts of development and racing that helped form our own opinions.
The interesting thing to me is that if you wind back a few years to when several issues were under discussion you will find a lot of the same disagreements over many issues that eventually were accepted and very few in the opposite direction.
With this problem only time will actually reveal who is right and who is not and no amount of speculation or technical arguments will change that.
If someone thinks they know better because they haven't heard of any Gen 2 engines with bore scoring - that's just fine to me and if they decide as a result not to do anything to protect them in the event that it happens to them - that is absolutely fine as well.
All I have tried to do is to add some evidential comment and correlation that we already know that plastic coated pistons in Lokasil don't work well for long enough and that plastic coated pistons in Alusil are better but don't last as long as ferrous coated pistons (fact). We also know that already some Gen 2 engines have experienced bore scoring with plastic coated pistons in Alusil and all this is not opinion but is also fact.
So it doesn't really matter what the causes are or even why they appear different in different models. If there is a correlation that can be found - that is helpful - but if not we can keep searching for it but it doesn't mean we are wrong about them scoring - just that we might not understand all of the influencing factors just yet!
Any contribution to this analysis I find really helpful and welcome and I am absolutely not saying we are always right - just that we probably have more opportunity to consider the complex factors than most and certainly enough technical background to form reasonably reliable opinions (and this has been historically backed up) and the solutions that result from that have proven reliable.
Baz
There are going to be lots of factors contributing to this problem, some we can analyse, some we can guess at and there may be some we have not identified yet. We find for example most Boxster owners don't even drive fast in low gears.
If it helps your research look up "piston scuffing" on the Internet and "Alusil cylinder bores" and "ferrous piston coatings".
Crankcases for the Cayman S are also different from a 996 3.4.
But to be practical - although we are interested in trying to find correlations from which to help us deduce causes etc - our solution to bore scoring is 100% reliable and so in another way we fix everything that comes in very well and it doesn't really make any difference to us what the proportions are for what numbers sold and why - we can be objective and just consider the repair we provide (which we do very well).
If for example it was extreme cold weather that causes the problem - why are we repairing so many in the UK. But then on the other hand because the thermostat is on the entry to the engine - the coolant flow will be low (similar to having a third radiator in cold weather) and that can cause hot spots inside the crankcase (as previously variously discussed at length) and I think that is more likely than it being expansion rates - but that particular problem would be easily resolved if we knew if the pistons that scored were damaged on both faces or just the thrust face (for example) answers please?.
We have also stated that the quality of the distribution of silicon particles in the Lokasil preforms is variable and it may be that a different casting tool and different preformed cylinders in the Cayman engines have some variation we cannot find out about but that is relevant.
Our first priority is to fix the engines (which we execute very well) and our next is to try and understand why they failed and if there is anything else we can do to avoid the problem and allow the engines to last longer.
When a problem only reveals itself in a small proportion of engines over a long period it is almost impossible to afford sufficient testing to identify the causes and supply solutions (and this is something you should expect the manufacturers to do and not a tiny privately funded specialist business).
We have a very good record of correctly identifying causes and that helps us to provide good solutions but sometimes you can design a good solution without fully understanding the underlying causes. An example is using a Nikasil Alloy cylinder (that will work with almost any piston coating or none at all) to replace one that is clearly failing. Although we understand a lot of the causes of those failures - even if we didn't the solution works brilliantly. Understanding the causes helps identify future problems and adds to a long list of what might be generally called "experience" and helps reduce development times in the future and finding design solutions.
It doesn't really matter too much if some readers disagree as that is just professional opinion and I am really happy to have different opinions to consider but most of it I read is more opinion and speculation and not usually backed up by the experience we have of working on so many engines nor the test procedures we followed in all sorts of development and racing that helped form our own opinions.
The interesting thing to me is that if you wind back a few years to when several issues were under discussion you will find a lot of the same disagreements over many issues that eventually were accepted and very few in the opposite direction.
With this problem only time will actually reveal who is right and who is not and no amount of speculation or technical arguments will change that.
If someone thinks they know better because they haven't heard of any Gen 2 engines with bore scoring - that's just fine to me and if they decide as a result not to do anything to protect them in the event that it happens to them - that is absolutely fine as well.
All I have tried to do is to add some evidential comment and correlation that we already know that plastic coated pistons in Lokasil don't work well for long enough and that plastic coated pistons in Alusil are better but don't last as long as ferrous coated pistons (fact). We also know that already some Gen 2 engines have experienced bore scoring with plastic coated pistons in Alusil and all this is not opinion but is also fact.
So it doesn't really matter what the causes are or even why they appear different in different models. If there is a correlation that can be found - that is helpful - but if not we can keep searching for it but it doesn't mean we are wrong about them scoring - just that we might not understand all of the influencing factors just yet!
Any contribution to this analysis I find really helpful and welcome and I am absolutely not saying we are always right - just that we probably have more opportunity to consider the complex factors than most and certainly enough technical background to form reasonably reliable opinions (and this has been historically backed up) and the solutions that result from that have proven reliable.
Baz
I haven't renewed my C2S warranty. I've had the new back lights, some minor parts and a new engine under warranty.
The C4S has had some minor stuff but is in now for noise from the steering (I suspect new rack).
I think the overall cost is high for the risk they carry. Time will tell how that goes. I think the C2S PDK box would be the only major thing that could go.
The C4S has had some minor stuff but is in now for noise from the steering (I suspect new rack).
I think the overall cost is high for the risk they carry. Time will tell how that goes. I think the C2S PDK box would be the only major thing that could go.
Yes there is very little evidence but then neither was there when the IMS problem started to come to our attention, bore scoring etc. I guess the manufacturers naturally want to keep the lid on such problems until they themselves can work out how serious it may or may not be and then how nest to handle it.
Even then it is hard to get information at the outset - which is odd when you realise that every car that is repaired has some spares bought from the Main Agents and they will be running a stock level and adjusting orders and deliveries (and that minimum stock level) to keep up with demand - so if anyone knows what the problem is or how serious it is - it is them initially.
It seems to only be when failures occur and the owner is outside of the manufacturers warranty period or guarantee etc and the owner cannot afford a brand new replacement engine that they start to work their way down to the likes of us who then have to work out how serious it might be without the benefit of those historical statistics.
I think this is unfortunate because businesses like ours are providing a superb service to help owners of the products Porsche made (and problems they created) and in so doing preserve the quality of their cars and minimise the flack resulting (and dimish bad publicity) by offering good repairs at reasonable prices.
It would be much better for everyone if the main manufacturers embraced those with the skill and experience to help by technical intercourse and sharing when there is a problem best suited to the independent network to manage - but from the feedback I get that seems the last thing on their minds.
For several years since we knew about several problems customers reported that their main agent seemed to know nothing about it - often needing to strip down an engine to find the problem when at the very same time specialists like us are able to diagnose it over the phone almost always spot on first time despite having had a shorter lead time from which to deduce if it is going to become a repeating problem.
This is where the technical experience of some comes into play as they can see if they can match the sparse initial evidence to engineering analysis and when there seems to be an obvious design or materials problem and evidence of failures combined - they can draw the conclusion that it is going to probably repeat itself.
I guess also owners of brand new high performance sports cars may not all thrash them flat out whenever they can and are more inclined to try and preserve the appearance than test the performance (obviously will be exceptions).
That is why it so very difficult to know when to spend time and money looking into a problem and investing in a solution.
Our guess is that some other Gen 2 engines will also score bores. We cannot at this stage guess at what average mileage nor what the statistics might be - but we are getting on with a solution - just in case - on our hunch that it will prove worthwhile eventually.
Until we start to receive different models and get some fixed it will be impossible to establish which models and engine sizes will be better or worse but the bigger the pistons and the higher the output - the more we would expect to see.
Overall I think the Gen 2 engines are very much better than Gen 1 so for those exploiting the full potential of the car - the Gen 2 versions should prove much more reliable. Those just tootling about in a and model with a Gen 2 engine may well find no problems at all over many tens of thousands of miles and they may get a good reputation as a result.
It is just simply that some are already reported as having scored bores and the timing and reaction is similar to the previous experiences of scored bores and we know technically that the best coating for Alusil is a ferrous coating which is not being provided - and that plastic coated pistons did not work well in Lokasil either (but should be better in Alusil).
So technical opinion combined with reports of some scoring already suggest it will be a problem but hopefully only a small one and we hope we have a viable solution available if and when it does.
Baz
Baz
Even then it is hard to get information at the outset - which is odd when you realise that every car that is repaired has some spares bought from the Main Agents and they will be running a stock level and adjusting orders and deliveries (and that minimum stock level) to keep up with demand - so if anyone knows what the problem is or how serious it is - it is them initially.
It seems to only be when failures occur and the owner is outside of the manufacturers warranty period or guarantee etc and the owner cannot afford a brand new replacement engine that they start to work their way down to the likes of us who then have to work out how serious it might be without the benefit of those historical statistics.
I think this is unfortunate because businesses like ours are providing a superb service to help owners of the products Porsche made (and problems they created) and in so doing preserve the quality of their cars and minimise the flack resulting (and dimish bad publicity) by offering good repairs at reasonable prices.
It would be much better for everyone if the main manufacturers embraced those with the skill and experience to help by technical intercourse and sharing when there is a problem best suited to the independent network to manage - but from the feedback I get that seems the last thing on their minds.
For several years since we knew about several problems customers reported that their main agent seemed to know nothing about it - often needing to strip down an engine to find the problem when at the very same time specialists like us are able to diagnose it over the phone almost always spot on first time despite having had a shorter lead time from which to deduce if it is going to become a repeating problem.
This is where the technical experience of some comes into play as they can see if they can match the sparse initial evidence to engineering analysis and when there seems to be an obvious design or materials problem and evidence of failures combined - they can draw the conclusion that it is going to probably repeat itself.
I guess also owners of brand new high performance sports cars may not all thrash them flat out whenever they can and are more inclined to try and preserve the appearance than test the performance (obviously will be exceptions).
That is why it so very difficult to know when to spend time and money looking into a problem and investing in a solution.
Our guess is that some other Gen 2 engines will also score bores. We cannot at this stage guess at what average mileage nor what the statistics might be - but we are getting on with a solution - just in case - on our hunch that it will prove worthwhile eventually.
Until we start to receive different models and get some fixed it will be impossible to establish which models and engine sizes will be better or worse but the bigger the pistons and the higher the output - the more we would expect to see.
Overall I think the Gen 2 engines are very much better than Gen 1 so for those exploiting the full potential of the car - the Gen 2 versions should prove much more reliable. Those just tootling about in a and model with a Gen 2 engine may well find no problems at all over many tens of thousands of miles and they may get a good reputation as a result.
It is just simply that some are already reported as having scored bores and the timing and reaction is similar to the previous experiences of scored bores and we know technically that the best coating for Alusil is a ferrous coating which is not being provided - and that plastic coated pistons did not work well in Lokasil either (but should be better in Alusil).
So technical opinion combined with reports of some scoring already suggest it will be a problem but hopefully only a small one and we hope we have a viable solution available if and when it does.
Baz
Baz
Looking at this objectively - the older your car gets, the more miles that they cover, the more parts will fail and the better value the warranty is. The only caveat is that in the first year or so of any new car sometimes teething problems arise, but then you always have warranty to cover this. In my experience, it's years 6-10 where you will get much better value from the warranty than from years 2-6. I've had plenty of cover from my warranty, recently a new PCCB disc (£4.5k), starter motor, front speaker, amplifier, and I've previously had RMS and FMS done under warranty also (which gave me a free labour clutch change!). IF I was running a non-mezger then it's a no brainer to keep the warranty till the car is 10 years old, the £7k or so spent in the 7 years of extended cover isn't actually bad value when compared to other marques - and even if you don't need a new engine or gearbox you will have some components fail in 10 years of ownership. Even if you get benefit from half the cost of the warranty (say £3.5k) then the other £3.5k is your "catastrophy" fund. As all insurance goes, 9/10 people probably wont need a new engine - but the one that does gets subsidised by the others who shared the risk. If you like to pool your risk with others and feel it's good value then extend it. After over a decade in the insurance business, I renew and always will do until mine is 10 years old.
Good advice and logic which I largely agree with IF you would want an engine that might fail replaced with one that incorporates the self same technical spec and therefore potential reliability. To be fair they do last generally over 20K - more usually over 40K before some score bores and most replacing an engine in an older car might not keep them that long anyway This is relevant because if the next failure is at similar typical age it will no longer be covered by the Porsche warranty.
Our Lifetime Maintenance Plan works differently and I think is worth considering as it covers completely free servicing and the labour for most wear and tear replacements (a few exclusions re-corrosion, air con, electronics but most things like clutches, brakes, steering covered - which most commonly are needed). It has no age, mileage or cost limit and would cover an engine failure (costing only the parts). Probably more beneficial as the car gets older - but still lower annual cost and - just as the last contributor stated - all on it share the cost for those very few unfortunate enough to need expensive work.
It comes with monthly instalments, can be stopped at any time (so if you sell your car you do not waste the cost paid for an annual cover elsewhere - you just stop paying) and all those on it seem extremely happy with the arrangements.
Baz
Our Lifetime Maintenance Plan works differently and I think is worth considering as it covers completely free servicing and the labour for most wear and tear replacements (a few exclusions re-corrosion, air con, electronics but most things like clutches, brakes, steering covered - which most commonly are needed). It has no age, mileage or cost limit and would cover an engine failure (costing only the parts). Probably more beneficial as the car gets older - but still lower annual cost and - just as the last contributor stated - all on it share the cost for those very few unfortunate enough to need expensive work.
It comes with monthly instalments, can be stopped at any time (so if you sell your car you do not waste the cost paid for an annual cover elsewhere - you just stop paying) and all those on it seem extremely happy with the arrangements.
Baz
S1MMA said:
IF I was running a non-mezger then it's a no brainer to keep the warranty till the car is 10 years old, the £7k or so spent in the 7 years of extended cover isn't actually bad value when compared to other marques -
does this mean you see no point in taking out Porsche warranty on Mezger engined cars? if so, why?SFO said:
does this mean you see no point in taking out Porsche warranty on Mezger engined cars? if so, why?
I think he means that these engines are much less likely to fail with their track record. Obviously lots of other warrantable items could fail, but probably not the whole engine. So depends if you are considering the warranty only to protect against the possibility of catastrophic failure. You could argue that the gen 2 engine is very unlikely to fail too. SFO said:
does this mean you see no point in taking out Porsche warranty on Mezger engined cars? if so, why?
As per UKTM above, I am running a GT3 and have extended every year. Mezger engines are very reliable on the whole, so the catastrophe element of the warranty isn't as relevant compared to non-mezger in my view. Most of the other components and ancillary are the same regardless of engine, so the benefit of cover is there for all models. Also if a mezger was to go pop, it's going to cost a whole lot more to put right or replace, so it's a far less likely but more volatile risk if it were to go wrong.Baz makes a good point about having a replacement engine that will just fail again in time - either way we have to pay for a solution, be it OPC warranty or Hartec maintenance plan. You pay your money and take your choice!
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff