996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here!
Discussion
GravyStain said:
I'll wade in here , although the thread is somewhat off topic.
My 996 Cab (1998) - No engine issues for three years
My 996 C4S (2001) - No engine issues for three years
My 996 Turbo S (2004) - No engine issues for five and a half years.
Now, where's that lump of wood to touch.......
No need to touch wood if you still have the Turbo. It has a different block and is free from these issues.My 996 Cab (1998) - No engine issues for three years
My 996 C4S (2001) - No engine issues for three years
My 996 Turbo S (2004) - No engine issues for five and a half years.
Now, where's that lump of wood to touch.......
Mind you, theres plenty else to go wrong!
MTR
2000 Carrera 4 Cabriolet - purchased last August as weekend plaything, done about 500 miles (original mileage 33,500), sitting in the garage and not been out really this year so far. No engine issues so far.
If you keep it in the garage, the IMS problem will definitely not occur, thats my philosophy :-)
If you keep it in the garage, the IMS problem will definitely not occur, thats my philosophy :-)
bqf said:
2000 Carrera 4 Cabriolet - purchased last August as weekend plaything, done about 500 miles (original mileage 33,500), sitting in the garage and not been out really this year so far. No engine issues so far.
If you keep it in the garage, the IMS problem will definitely not occur, thats my philosophy :-)
Ironically, this is probably not good for the engine!If you keep it in the garage, the IMS problem will definitely not occur, thats my philosophy :-)
MTR
I don't know if the following helps, it is a confusing subject - but the manufacturing World has changed in recent years and new methods, designs, production techniques and materials technology - all combined - have enabled manufacturers to make a product that is generally more accurate and better quality (in it's individual component parts), and cheaper to produce - resulting in good value for customers and profits to continue in business.
The marketing World has changed too with buyers preferring to abandon older designs sooner (even if they still worked OK) as increases in the West's wealth resulted in style and image shortening the planned life expectancy of some products. Whereas our parents may have waited for a TV or washing machine to fail before they replaced it - our children throw out perfectly good stuff because it is no longer "current" - basically because they can afford that luxury as the new fashionable version is often little more expensive than a repair.
Technology and manufacturing processes changed little for say 50 years up until then (about 20 years ago) and so it was easy to design a cheap engine or a much more expensive but more reliable one. Gradually the cost of quality using those "old fashioned methods" became too high - so something had to change.
In moving quickly ahead into new technical areas - inevitably some ideas failed to be as much of an improvement as expected and some were worse - but overall there was a gain.
If an equation was produced comparing production costs of very similar products between 20 years ago and today and compared to their relative reliability - the modern products would win - overall there would be slightly more serious failures now but those that didn't fail (statistically) would be better.
The problem we have emerges when Porsche's become older and those able to afford them expect the same reliability they used to enjoy - but - just like many other similar vehicles - a greater number will fail and replacements costs will be higher, while overall the cost of that product is probably the second most expensive behinds a home and not so viable to simply throw away and replace.
I think the above is a fact of life that the latest Porsche models are not the only examples of and the situation should be expected and not be unexpected.
Fortunately there are safeguards from this inevitability by way of various Warranty schemes and cover to minimise or negate the cost of an engine repair or replacement.
This not wise enough to include this possibility and cost in their choice of their next used sports car - should not complain if they are caught out by the relatively rare but well publicised potential for an engine failure.
Get some cover and enjoy a fantastic car that will probably never fail you but if it does can easily be fixed and you can continue to drive one of the best cars ever built. What you cannot do is change the inevitability of the consequences of us experiencing a great life in the 21'st Century.
Baz
The marketing World has changed too with buyers preferring to abandon older designs sooner (even if they still worked OK) as increases in the West's wealth resulted in style and image shortening the planned life expectancy of some products. Whereas our parents may have waited for a TV or washing machine to fail before they replaced it - our children throw out perfectly good stuff because it is no longer "current" - basically because they can afford that luxury as the new fashionable version is often little more expensive than a repair.
Technology and manufacturing processes changed little for say 50 years up until then (about 20 years ago) and so it was easy to design a cheap engine or a much more expensive but more reliable one. Gradually the cost of quality using those "old fashioned methods" became too high - so something had to change.
In moving quickly ahead into new technical areas - inevitably some ideas failed to be as much of an improvement as expected and some were worse - but overall there was a gain.
If an equation was produced comparing production costs of very similar products between 20 years ago and today and compared to their relative reliability - the modern products would win - overall there would be slightly more serious failures now but those that didn't fail (statistically) would be better.
The problem we have emerges when Porsche's become older and those able to afford them expect the same reliability they used to enjoy - but - just like many other similar vehicles - a greater number will fail and replacements costs will be higher, while overall the cost of that product is probably the second most expensive behinds a home and not so viable to simply throw away and replace.
I think the above is a fact of life that the latest Porsche models are not the only examples of and the situation should be expected and not be unexpected.
Fortunately there are safeguards from this inevitability by way of various Warranty schemes and cover to minimise or negate the cost of an engine repair or replacement.
This not wise enough to include this possibility and cost in their choice of their next used sports car - should not complain if they are caught out by the relatively rare but well publicised potential for an engine failure.
Get some cover and enjoy a fantastic car that will probably never fail you but if it does can easily be fixed and you can continue to drive one of the best cars ever built. What you cannot do is change the inevitability of the consequences of us experiencing a great life in the 21'st Century.
Baz
Have had a Boxster 2.5 ad it for 9 years, covered 360.000 km with, without any robles at all
Now I have a 2001 996 C2 cabrio, done 220.000 km and counting, tiptronic, no problems at all, nothing, nada
Planning to put another 200.000 km on this one and then move on to a gt3
I repect the engine when cold, never go above 4000 revs when cold, warmed up I go flat out regularly (on German autobahns off course)
regards
ronny
Now I have a 2001 996 C2 cabrio, done 220.000 km and counting, tiptronic, no problems at all, nothing, nada
Planning to put another 200.000 km on this one and then move on to a gt3
I repect the engine when cold, never go above 4000 revs when cold, warmed up I go flat out regularly (on German autobahns off course)
regards
ronny
hartech said:
I don't know if the following helps, it is a confusing subject - but the manufacturing World has changed in recent years and new methods, designs, production techniques and materials technology - all combined - have enabled manufacturers to make a product that is generally more accurate and better quality (in it's individual component parts), and cheaper to produce - resulting in good value for customers and profits to continue in business.
The marketing World has changed too with buyers preferring to abandon older designs sooner (even if they still worked OK) as increases in the West's wealth resulted in style and image shortening the planned life expectancy of some products. Whereas our parents may have waited for a TV or washing machine to fail before they replaced it - our children throw out perfectly good stuff because it is no longer "current" - basically because they can afford that luxury as the new fashionable version is often little more expensive than a repair.
Technology and manufacturing processes changed little for say 50 years up until then (about 20 years ago) and so it was easy to design a cheap engine or a much more expensive but more reliable one. Gradually the cost of quality using those "old fashioned methods" became too high - so something had to change.
In moving quickly ahead into new technical areas - inevitably some ideas failed to be as much of an improvement as expected and some were worse - but overall there was a gain.
If an equation was produced comparing production costs of very similar products between 20 years ago and today and compared to their relative reliability - the modern products would win - overall there would be slightly more serious failures now but those that didn't fail (statistically) would be better.
The problem we have emerges when Porsche's become older and those able to afford them expect the same reliability they used to enjoy - but - just like many other similar vehicles - a greater number will fail and replacements costs will be higher, while overall the cost of that product is probably the second most expensive behinds a home and not so viable to simply throw away and replace.
I think the above is a fact of life that the latest Porsche models are not the only examples of and the situation should be expected and not be unexpected.
Fortunately there are safeguards from this inevitability by way of various Warranty schemes and cover to minimise or negate the cost of an engine repair or replacement.
This not wise enough to include this possibility and cost in their choice of their next used sports car - should not complain if they are caught out by the relatively rare but well publicised potential for an engine failure.
Get some cover and enjoy a fantastic car that will probably never fail you but if it does can easily be fixed and you can continue to drive one of the best cars ever built. What you cannot do is change the inevitability of the consequences of us experiencing a great life in the 21'st Century.
Baz
I agree to a point but the "throwaway society" analagy shouldnt be applied to a weak design of a previously high end reliable marque,I feel Porsche has had the werewithall to sort this and have not done thereselves (and their clients) justice with these engines.The marketing World has changed too with buyers preferring to abandon older designs sooner (even if they still worked OK) as increases in the West's wealth resulted in style and image shortening the planned life expectancy of some products. Whereas our parents may have waited for a TV or washing machine to fail before they replaced it - our children throw out perfectly good stuff because it is no longer "current" - basically because they can afford that luxury as the new fashionable version is often little more expensive than a repair.
Technology and manufacturing processes changed little for say 50 years up until then (about 20 years ago) and so it was easy to design a cheap engine or a much more expensive but more reliable one. Gradually the cost of quality using those "old fashioned methods" became too high - so something had to change.
In moving quickly ahead into new technical areas - inevitably some ideas failed to be as much of an improvement as expected and some were worse - but overall there was a gain.
If an equation was produced comparing production costs of very similar products between 20 years ago and today and compared to their relative reliability - the modern products would win - overall there would be slightly more serious failures now but those that didn't fail (statistically) would be better.
The problem we have emerges when Porsche's become older and those able to afford them expect the same reliability they used to enjoy - but - just like many other similar vehicles - a greater number will fail and replacements costs will be higher, while overall the cost of that product is probably the second most expensive behinds a home and not so viable to simply throw away and replace.
I think the above is a fact of life that the latest Porsche models are not the only examples of and the situation should be expected and not be unexpected.
Fortunately there are safeguards from this inevitability by way of various Warranty schemes and cover to minimise or negate the cost of an engine repair or replacement.
This not wise enough to include this possibility and cost in their choice of their next used sports car - should not complain if they are caught out by the relatively rare but well publicised potential for an engine failure.
Get some cover and enjoy a fantastic car that will probably never fail you but if it does can easily be fixed and you can continue to drive one of the best cars ever built. What you cannot do is change the inevitability of the consequences of us experiencing a great life in the 21'st Century.
Baz
Borne out by the poor residual values of most early w/c stock.
Its I feel naive to belive (if its not your buisness sorry Baz) to expect this knowledge, and worry of random low mileage engine failure should not put people of purchase,it clearly has and clearly should IMO no one wants to spend 4-5k on a low mileage rebuild!
Reliability was Porsches middle name is it still?
Edited by Gary11 on Friday 15th July 07:28
It's a hard one to call Gary - because – let’s say (and this figures are just for example not meant to be accurate or actual) previously 1 in 1000 Porsche engines had a failure within 5 years (and it did occur occasionally) - they were anyway all rebuilt (because there were lots of people dotted around who could do it) and because the Internet didn't exist - no one found out about it. If yours failed you assumed it was the only one and nothing became of your misfortune. But those cars were made by very outdated methods because the very quality and long time it took to make then meant the manufacturer never made enough profit to re-invest in new methodology, equipment and machinery – so as labour rates became a greater proportion of production costs – they were trapped in a vicious circle for which the only end was probably closure (and this was imminent in 1993 or there abouts).
Of the two choices (close or massive re-investment) Porsche chose the latter (a huge risk only justified if it was “guaranteed” to transform the financial position that was precarious to say the least) and as they had to move to liquid cooling – had to make a giant leap from extremely outdated production to the very latest ideology and technology – with help from Japanese sources (I believe).
The result worked. They made increasing numbers, massive profits and were able to continuously develop newer versions – a success in all except a small number in which that sea change in design and manufacturing – found a few weak spots – that resulted in a very small number failing (while the vast majority had no problems whatsoever – sustaining global sales that have increased year on year).
They cannot then be described as poor products or bad designs when most perform perfectly OK. The few that do fail – do so in a new World order in which labour rates make rebuilds by the expensive main agents less attractive than the supply of a whole new engine and the Internet allows everyone to hear about the failures.
True the numbers failing are more than before but many other high performance sports car engines have similar ratios. In the never ending quest for performance, economy and reduced emissions – parts inside get lighter, pistons get smaller, running temperatures get higher while production tolerances slightly increase, resulting in a few failures.
By providing a warranty scheme up to 10 years old – Porsche can hardly be accused of not covering this possibility of occasional failures – but for those expecting a better car – with improved performance and even greater longevity than before – some will prove a disappointment.
The main criticism IMHO should just be that there are different ways the problem could have been handled. When BMW had engine problems they more or less fitted new engines for everyone FOC (at huge cost), Porsche have decided their present position of a warranty or new engine is enough.
Fortunately – with lower overheads to manage – some specialists have found ways to rebuild the engines at about half the cost and some include modifications to render the problems less likely to re-occur – so there is now a reasonably priced way to get going again. Other specialists even offer their own warranty scheme to reduce the cost of an engine rebuild if needed (we offer both).
With widespread publicity about the possibility of failures (although rare) it is really only owners of older cars that didn’t bother to protect their position (or just didn’t find out about it in time) that have something to complain about.
Porsche could have been more generous in their support through subsidies but it is their business and they still make good profits and increasing sales – so from their board room point of view – they are still doing it right.
They are great cars, a few go wrong, I can understand why this happened, for some it is a financial disaster – but very few who didn’t do anything to protect their position and those that did can enjoy all the benefits of the Porsche marque that ever existed – in better cars – and there is very little wrong with that.
Baz
Of the two choices (close or massive re-investment) Porsche chose the latter (a huge risk only justified if it was “guaranteed” to transform the financial position that was precarious to say the least) and as they had to move to liquid cooling – had to make a giant leap from extremely outdated production to the very latest ideology and technology – with help from Japanese sources (I believe).
The result worked. They made increasing numbers, massive profits and were able to continuously develop newer versions – a success in all except a small number in which that sea change in design and manufacturing – found a few weak spots – that resulted in a very small number failing (while the vast majority had no problems whatsoever – sustaining global sales that have increased year on year).
They cannot then be described as poor products or bad designs when most perform perfectly OK. The few that do fail – do so in a new World order in which labour rates make rebuilds by the expensive main agents less attractive than the supply of a whole new engine and the Internet allows everyone to hear about the failures.
True the numbers failing are more than before but many other high performance sports car engines have similar ratios. In the never ending quest for performance, economy and reduced emissions – parts inside get lighter, pistons get smaller, running temperatures get higher while production tolerances slightly increase, resulting in a few failures.
By providing a warranty scheme up to 10 years old – Porsche can hardly be accused of not covering this possibility of occasional failures – but for those expecting a better car – with improved performance and even greater longevity than before – some will prove a disappointment.
The main criticism IMHO should just be that there are different ways the problem could have been handled. When BMW had engine problems they more or less fitted new engines for everyone FOC (at huge cost), Porsche have decided their present position of a warranty or new engine is enough.
Fortunately – with lower overheads to manage – some specialists have found ways to rebuild the engines at about half the cost and some include modifications to render the problems less likely to re-occur – so there is now a reasonably priced way to get going again. Other specialists even offer their own warranty scheme to reduce the cost of an engine rebuild if needed (we offer both).
With widespread publicity about the possibility of failures (although rare) it is really only owners of older cars that didn’t bother to protect their position (or just didn’t find out about it in time) that have something to complain about.
Porsche could have been more generous in their support through subsidies but it is their business and they still make good profits and increasing sales – so from their board room point of view – they are still doing it right.
They are great cars, a few go wrong, I can understand why this happened, for some it is a financial disaster – but very few who didn’t do anything to protect their position and those that did can enjoy all the benefits of the Porsche marque that ever existed – in better cars – and there is very little wrong with that.
Baz
Thanks for your reply Baz,informative as usual I just feel from my research there are (according to a US rebuilder) some 16 modes of failure for these engines,the common position from cars Ive seen are ANY overheating problems DO make the chance of internal engine damage much more likely,cars showing any evidence of blocked rads leaking expansion tanks low water levels ect needs carefull scruitiny.
However I feel the unit is mechanicaly weak as described in this forum and thermaly on its working limit (as you have measured) with both these issues potentialy causing various modes of damage,but the view that the cars are so cheap now its worth taking a chance does carry some weight justifying the rebuild costs somewhat.
However I feel the unit is mechanicaly weak as described in this forum and thermaly on its working limit (as you have measured) with both these issues potentialy causing various modes of damage,but the view that the cars are so cheap now its worth taking a chance does carry some weight justifying the rebuild costs somewhat.
Gary11 said:
Thanks for your reply Baz,informative as usual I just feel from my research there are (according to a US rebuilder) some 16 modes of failure for these engines,the common position from cars Ive seen are ANY overheating problems DO make the chance of internal engine damage much more likely,cars showing any evidence of blocked rads leaking expansion tanks low water levels ect needs carefull scruitiny.
However I feel the unit is mechanicaly weak as described in this forum and thermaly on its working limit (as you have measured) with both these issues potentialy causing various modes of damage,but the view that the cars are so cheap now its worth taking a chance does carry some weight justifying the rebuild costs somewhat.
Agreed with your points. However I feel the unit is mechanicaly weak as described in this forum and thermaly on its working limit (as you have measured) with both these issues potentialy causing various modes of damage,but the view that the cars are so cheap now its worth taking a chance does carry some weight justifying the rebuild costs somewhat.
Not only mechanically weak, the number of different modes of failure very much affirms weak/poor design principles. Or design principles perhaps aimed at achieving certain levels of customer transactions, at the cost of the reputation. If the name Porsche were still being compared to Ferrari, perhaps (just perhaps) that might be relatively understandable. But they're not. Anything below GT and TT has benchmarks far, far more reliable and much less costly to acquire and run. As carcar (under)states, simply not good enough.
bcnrml said:
Agreed with your points. Not only mechanically weak, the number of different modes of failure very much affirms weak/poor design principles. Or design principles perhaps aimed at achieving certain levels of customer transactions, at the cost of the reputation. If the name Porsche were still being compared to Ferrari, perhaps (just perhaps) that might be relatively understandable. But they're not. Anything below GT and TT has benchmarks far, far more reliable and much less costly to acquire and run.
As carcar (under)states, simply not good enough.
Nice to hear from you I hope all is well with you! Not only mechanically weak, the number of different modes of failure very much affirms weak/poor design principles. Or design principles perhaps aimed at achieving certain levels of customer transactions, at the cost of the reputation. If the name Porsche were still being compared to Ferrari, perhaps (just perhaps) that might be relatively understandable. But they're not. Anything below GT and TT has benchmarks far, far more reliable and much less costly to acquire and run. As carcar (under)states, simply not good enough.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff