Discussion
I know there's lots of info but what concerns me is how I can be sure it's been checked properly and how long a check is valid. Ferxample if I go to a place that sells a lot of cars and they appear to be Porsche biased or indeed specialists and I ask if a particular car has been borescoped and they say yes we done it when it was serviced here last year does that constitute a satisfactory answer?
I started out thinking I would buy a cheapy ol boxster for bimming about in last summer. Then I did due dilligence and read about IMS and such so I kept saving my pennies for a 987 car which hopefully wouldn't cause me pain. Bore score is still an issue though right up to the top of my theoretical budget.
Are there any clues to this problem that might be noticed without sticking a camera in it - smoke or something? Or do I just get it scoped whatever? It seems a bit odd to ask a private seller to submit his car to internal inspection which might involve taking it some distance. Also if it's Ok today on a car with - say - 50k miles and I'm a sensible owner with reasonable mechanical sympathy will it stay OK?
Thanks for any input.
I started out thinking I would buy a cheapy ol boxster for bimming about in last summer. Then I did due dilligence and read about IMS and such so I kept saving my pennies for a 987 car which hopefully wouldn't cause me pain. Bore score is still an issue though right up to the top of my theoretical budget.
Are there any clues to this problem that might be noticed without sticking a camera in it - smoke or something? Or do I just get it scoped whatever? It seems a bit odd to ask a private seller to submit his car to internal inspection which might involve taking it some distance. Also if it's Ok today on a car with - say - 50k miles and I'm a sensible owner with reasonable mechanical sympathy will it stay OK?
Thanks for any input.
edc said:
If you started at a good but cheap 986 but your theoretical budget is now top of 987 Boxster and early Caymans then haven't you already spent the difference and then some in doing some mods to minimise IMS failure ...
Fair point well made but (hopefully) if I do go 987 I'll get something that's intrinsically better, free of issues and that will last longer. That said I've not driven a 987 so I don't know for sure that I'll enjoy it more. Also there's a degree of price overlap between really nice looking 986s and perfectly acceptable 987s. I think I'd take a nice 987 over a fantastic 986.In reply to cmoose.
The single row bearing in 2000-~2006.5 build Boxsters has been, according to public published papers filed in a US court of law, liable to a ~10% failure rate. A case which Porsche settled with payments to those affected, admitting the design/manufacturing was lacking. These are Porsche's admitted numbers. Not my opinion. They are also as of about 4 years old so they could be higher now.
Replacement engines are expensive. So, to a car owner who has the failure, it is a pretty big deal.
The earlier dual rows are ~1-~2%. The later third generation ~2006.5 to 2008 are ~1%. 2009-date have no IMS bearing.
I should also warn that the crossover years are fuzzy as to which bearing was used as there is no specific build date or VIN or even engine number that gives absolute certainty as to which bearing you have. You can't tell until you have the transmission off and can see the bearing cover and bolt. Any car could have a replacement engine which, depending on its date of manufacture, could have a different IMS bearing than the one you'd expect in that model year car. These uncertainties have been confirmed by confirmed multiple times via conversations with two shop owners who have together done many hundreds if not thousands of M96 engine failure investigations, engine replacements and IMS replacements. They keep getting surprised.
Every engine has its mechanical weaknesses. We know a lot about our engines because we care about them. They are wonderful cars. Owned two.
The single row bearing in 2000-~2006.5 build Boxsters has been, according to public published papers filed in a US court of law, liable to a ~10% failure rate. A case which Porsche settled with payments to those affected, admitting the design/manufacturing was lacking. These are Porsche's admitted numbers. Not my opinion. They are also as of about 4 years old so they could be higher now.
Replacement engines are expensive. So, to a car owner who has the failure, it is a pretty big deal.
The earlier dual rows are ~1-~2%. The later third generation ~2006.5 to 2008 are ~1%. 2009-date have no IMS bearing.
I should also warn that the crossover years are fuzzy as to which bearing was used as there is no specific build date or VIN or even engine number that gives absolute certainty as to which bearing you have. You can't tell until you have the transmission off and can see the bearing cover and bolt. Any car could have a replacement engine which, depending on its date of manufacture, could have a different IMS bearing than the one you'd expect in that model year car. These uncertainties have been confirmed by confirmed multiple times via conversations with two shop owners who have together done many hundreds if not thousands of M96 engine failure investigations, engine replacements and IMS replacements. They keep getting surprised.
Every engine has its mechanical weaknesses. We know a lot about our engines because we care about them. They are wonderful cars. Owned two.
Brutal800 said:
Fair point well made but (hopefully) if I do go 987 I'll get something that's intrinsically better, free of issues and that will last longer. That said I've not driven a 987 so I don't know for sure that I'll enjoy it more. Also there's a degree of price overlap between really nice looking 986s and perfectly acceptable 987s. I think I'd take a nice 987 over a fantastic 986.
If the 987 was a 2007 or 2008. See my posting just above for why.Many of these manufacturing defects have been almost eliminated in the later models 987.2 or 981 so, perhaps going one of these late models might be an option by stretching the budget a little bit.
Last year I've upgraded my IMS while doing other bits in the engine with clutch (early 2000, 986 model), I've always thought it was double row but it was not, big suprise it was a single row IMS bearing. After 65k on the clock, the original IMS (statistically the weakest one), was in a good shape but we have upgraded anyway since clutch was being replaced, it was a no-brainer. No bore scoring either.
In addition to unknowns, according to my mechanic who worked on these cars a lot, one of the things might trigger early IMS failures were also if the car had a mini accident (hit from rear) or similar situation that would physically shake the engine and gearbox more than usual. They believe that some of these cars not assembled properly in Finland, judging by the high volume demand they have been facing. This was a theory when back in early 2002-3 brand new cars IMS were failing prematurely, so some argued if the cars being damaged slightly or shaked during transportation from manufacturers to dealer and if engine break-in, or oil changes was not done properly which might have caused IMS failure.
Last year I've upgraded my IMS while doing other bits in the engine with clutch (early 2000, 986 model), I've always thought it was double row but it was not, big suprise it was a single row IMS bearing. After 65k on the clock, the original IMS (statistically the weakest one), was in a good shape but we have upgraded anyway since clutch was being replaced, it was a no-brainer. No bore scoring either.
In addition to unknowns, according to my mechanic who worked on these cars a lot, one of the things might trigger early IMS failures were also if the car had a mini accident (hit from rear) or similar situation that would physically shake the engine and gearbox more than usual. They believe that some of these cars not assembled properly in Finland, judging by the high volume demand they have been facing. This was a theory when back in early 2002-3 brand new cars IMS were failing prematurely, so some argued if the cars being damaged slightly or shaked during transportation from manufacturers to dealer and if engine break-in, or oil changes was not done properly which might have caused IMS failure.
Interesting. I'm sure I read somewhere that the VIN would tell you if it was single or double row IMS if the car was from the transitional period. If that's not the case that's useful info.
2007 then. Thought I'd be safe with a 2006. There goes the budget again. Sigh....
I know I could go earlier 987 but it hurts to buy a car and spend extra to solve a problem that may not even exist. But not as much as suddenly finding that it does.....
2007 then. Thought I'd be safe with a 2006. There goes the budget again. Sigh....
I know I could go earlier 987 but it hurts to buy a car and spend extra to solve a problem that may not even exist. But not as much as suddenly finding that it does.....
OK thanks for the clearup. Actually looking at available cars there seems to be quite a lot of price overlap between 06 and 07 and even 08s depending on spec/mileage. Also pricing seems a little counterintuitive which I suppose is based on the optimism/desperation of the seller.
I'm sort of veering towards a sport edition boxster. Interestingly some people are advertising them without even mentioning that they are sports. =Shrug=
I'm sort of veering towards a sport edition boxster. Interestingly some people are advertising them without even mentioning that they are sports. =Shrug=
dickb
dly said:
dly said: Thanks for the onfo guys.
I was frightened off the 3.4 cayman due to the bore score issues and went for the 2.7
I am now looking at a boxster but really want to go for the 3.4.
I am looking at a 2009 3.4 with 310 bhp
Are these safe from bore score and IMS failure??
Thanks in advance
The gen2 987 is the 9a1 engine with no IMS. I was frightened off the 3.4 cayman due to the bore score issues and went for the 2.7
I am now looking at a boxster but really want to go for the 3.4.
I am looking at a 2009 3.4 with 310 bhp
Are these safe from bore score and IMS failure??
Thanks in advance
Brutal800
Read the truth here .....
http://philipraby.co.uk/porsche-boxster-996-and-99...
Forget all the people who tell you what's going to or not going to happen, when the reality is, they do not know UNLESS they have experienced it!
Read the truth here .....
http://philipraby.co.uk/porsche-boxster-996-and-99...
Forget all the people who tell you what's going to or not going to happen, when the reality is, they do not know UNLESS they have experienced it!
The difficulty with "THE TRUTH" is that there are two types of failure and the future to consider (as we cannot do anything about the past).
Type (1) is a premature failure brought about because some part of one engine was not quite the same specification or tolerance than most others, or the drivers (particularly the first or second owners) drove too fast too soon without warming up and accelerated the wear. So for the next or subsequent owners these issues cannot be avoided and cannot really be traced - so there is an element of "pot luck" that they bring to the outcome that has not been too unreasonable to date.
Type (2) is that some aspects of the engine design and specification will wear out, distort or fail due entirely to wear and tear earlier than previous models. You can do something about this by making sure they are properly looked after, take advice on things like oil, thermostats etc, more frequent oil changes and perhaps different spec oils (all regularly advised on here and common knowledge now) but no manufacturer is going to make an engine so over-engineered that they ALL last for 40 years, 250 -400K or can retrospectively be turbocharged without any reduction in life expectancy - like the older air cooled and water cooled Porsche engines enjoyed.
Modern production methods, costs and the shift towards our desire for a new car being more important than longevity plus the dramatic increase in maintenance and repair labour costs (as cars age) all mean that all cars are going to be scrapped or will have to be reconditioned sooner than they used to be in the past.
I agree absolutely than the vast majority of the M96/7 cars have been reasonably reliable for the 9 to 18 or more years they have existed. Only a small number failed to make it to now - however I can assure you all that if you want the "TRUTH" it is that they are generally getting worn out and will quite soon need engine rebuilds in increasing numbers.
Cylinders do migrate oval and will either crack or score bores, plastic piston coatings in later models have already worn down and will eventually promote bore scoring, crankshaft shells will be worn enough to increase the clearance and lower the pressure leading to failure (and it is better to avoid requiring a new crankshaft during a rebuild than allowing it to fail).
So we have moved from a position where only a few failed (due to inherent or early owner influences) to one in which work will be required on a bigger scale than previous models needed.
Any historical check on Porsche car prices consistently shows a rapid depreciation first - then a slow down and eventual period of level prices (where history and mileage make some difference) to an eventual appreciation where refurbishment, re-sprays, yes and engine rebuilds - all add massively to the value of desirable classics.
In my opinion - the M96/7 range of cars are better drivers by far than their older stablemates and that as time goes by they will become appreciating assets and a joy to own and drive (and very desirable). This position will be greatly enhanced because there are businesses that are rebuilding engines for a much lower cost than those older examples or their GT or turbo versions.
I think they could well become a favourite classic car for future owners and that having the engines properly rebuilt to a reliable long term specification will add value as well as enjoyment.
So to put all that into a short statement I would say that the "TRUTH" is that yes few have failed until now but many more than we are used to with this manufacturer will fail at lower mileages than before but that the repair costs and long term financial and personal driving benefits will far outweigh that and that they will be regarded as a great buy from now on justifying the work needed to keep them running.
Baz
Type (1) is a premature failure brought about because some part of one engine was not quite the same specification or tolerance than most others, or the drivers (particularly the first or second owners) drove too fast too soon without warming up and accelerated the wear. So for the next or subsequent owners these issues cannot be avoided and cannot really be traced - so there is an element of "pot luck" that they bring to the outcome that has not been too unreasonable to date.
Type (2) is that some aspects of the engine design and specification will wear out, distort or fail due entirely to wear and tear earlier than previous models. You can do something about this by making sure they are properly looked after, take advice on things like oil, thermostats etc, more frequent oil changes and perhaps different spec oils (all regularly advised on here and common knowledge now) but no manufacturer is going to make an engine so over-engineered that they ALL last for 40 years, 250 -400K or can retrospectively be turbocharged without any reduction in life expectancy - like the older air cooled and water cooled Porsche engines enjoyed.
Modern production methods, costs and the shift towards our desire for a new car being more important than longevity plus the dramatic increase in maintenance and repair labour costs (as cars age) all mean that all cars are going to be scrapped or will have to be reconditioned sooner than they used to be in the past.
I agree absolutely than the vast majority of the M96/7 cars have been reasonably reliable for the 9 to 18 or more years they have existed. Only a small number failed to make it to now - however I can assure you all that if you want the "TRUTH" it is that they are generally getting worn out and will quite soon need engine rebuilds in increasing numbers.
Cylinders do migrate oval and will either crack or score bores, plastic piston coatings in later models have already worn down and will eventually promote bore scoring, crankshaft shells will be worn enough to increase the clearance and lower the pressure leading to failure (and it is better to avoid requiring a new crankshaft during a rebuild than allowing it to fail).
So we have moved from a position where only a few failed (due to inherent or early owner influences) to one in which work will be required on a bigger scale than previous models needed.
Any historical check on Porsche car prices consistently shows a rapid depreciation first - then a slow down and eventual period of level prices (where history and mileage make some difference) to an eventual appreciation where refurbishment, re-sprays, yes and engine rebuilds - all add massively to the value of desirable classics.
In my opinion - the M96/7 range of cars are better drivers by far than their older stablemates and that as time goes by they will become appreciating assets and a joy to own and drive (and very desirable). This position will be greatly enhanced because there are businesses that are rebuilding engines for a much lower cost than those older examples or their GT or turbo versions.
I think they could well become a favourite classic car for future owners and that having the engines properly rebuilt to a reliable long term specification will add value as well as enjoyment.
So to put all that into a short statement I would say that the "TRUTH" is that yes few have failed until now but many more than we are used to with this manufacturer will fail at lower mileages than before but that the repair costs and long term financial and personal driving benefits will far outweigh that and that they will be regarded as a great buy from now on justifying the work needed to keep them running.
Baz
But the problem with older cars is that the cost of a rebuild is rapidly approaching the worth of the car itself. For example an £8k rebuild on a car worth, say £12k when you can invest that £8k and buy a 2009 onwards 987.2.
What is the logic you have encountered from owners in that position?
What is the logic you have encountered from owners in that position?
hartech said:
The difficulty with "THE TRUTH" is that there are two types of failure and the future to consider (as we cannot do anything about the past).
Type (1) is a premature failure brought about because some part of one engine was not quite the same specification or tolerance than most others, or the drivers (particularly the first or second owners) drove too fast too soon without warming up and accelerated the wear. So for the next or subsequent owners these issues cannot be avoided and cannot really be traced - so there is an element of "pot luck" that they bring to the outcome that has not been too unreasonable to date.
Type (2) is that some aspects of the engine design and specification will wear out, distort or fail due entirely to wear and tear earlier than previous models. You can do something about this by making sure they are properly looked after, take advice on things like oil, thermostats etc, more frequent oil changes and perhaps different spec oils (all regularly advised on here and common knowledge now) but no manufacturer is going to make an engine so over-engineered that they ALL last for 40 years, 250 -400K or can retrospectively be turbocharged without any reduction in life expectancy - like the older air cooled and water cooled Porsche engines enjoyed.
Modern production methods, costs and the shift towards our desire for a new car being more important than longevity plus the dramatic increase in maintenance and repair labour costs (as cars age) all mean that all cars are going to be scrapped or will have to be reconditioned sooner than they used to be in the past.
I agree absolutely than the vast majority of the M96/7 cars have been reasonably reliable for the 9 to 18 or more years they have existed. Only a small number failed to make it to now - however I can assure you all that if you want the "TRUTH" it is that they are generally getting worn out and will quite soon need engine rebuilds in increasing numbers.
Cylinders do migrate oval and will either crack or score bores, plastic piston coatings in later models have already worn down and will eventually promote bore scoring, crankshaft shells will be worn enough to increase the clearance and lower the pressure leading to failure (and it is better to avoid requiring a new crankshaft during a rebuild than allowing it to fail).
So we have moved from a position where only a few failed (due to inherent or early owner influences) to one in which work will be required on a bigger scale than previous models needed.
Any historical check on Porsche car prices consistently shows a rapid depreciation first - then a slow down and eventual period of level prices (where history and mileage make some difference) to an eventual appreciation where refurbishment, re-sprays, yes and engine rebuilds - all add massively to the value of desirable classics.
In my opinion - the M96/7 range of cars are better drivers by far than their older stablemates and that as time goes by they will become appreciating assets and a joy to own and drive (and very desirable). This position will be greatly enhanced because there are businesses that are rebuilding engines for a much lower cost than those older examples or their GT or turbo versions.
I think they could well become a favourite classic car for future owners and that having the engines properly rebuilt to a reliable long term specification will add value as well as enjoyment.
So to put all that into a short statement I would say that the "TRUTH" is that yes few have failed until now but many more than we are used to with this manufacturer will fail at lower mileages than before but that the repair costs and long term financial and personal driving benefits will far outweigh that and that they will be regarded as a great buy from now on justifying the work needed to keep them running.
Baz
Thanks for always sharing your knowledge Baz. Type (1) is a premature failure brought about because some part of one engine was not quite the same specification or tolerance than most others, or the drivers (particularly the first or second owners) drove too fast too soon without warming up and accelerated the wear. So for the next or subsequent owners these issues cannot be avoided and cannot really be traced - so there is an element of "pot luck" that they bring to the outcome that has not been too unreasonable to date.
Type (2) is that some aspects of the engine design and specification will wear out, distort or fail due entirely to wear and tear earlier than previous models. You can do something about this by making sure they are properly looked after, take advice on things like oil, thermostats etc, more frequent oil changes and perhaps different spec oils (all regularly advised on here and common knowledge now) but no manufacturer is going to make an engine so over-engineered that they ALL last for 40 years, 250 -400K or can retrospectively be turbocharged without any reduction in life expectancy - like the older air cooled and water cooled Porsche engines enjoyed.
Modern production methods, costs and the shift towards our desire for a new car being more important than longevity plus the dramatic increase in maintenance and repair labour costs (as cars age) all mean that all cars are going to be scrapped or will have to be reconditioned sooner than they used to be in the past.
I agree absolutely than the vast majority of the M96/7 cars have been reasonably reliable for the 9 to 18 or more years they have existed. Only a small number failed to make it to now - however I can assure you all that if you want the "TRUTH" it is that they are generally getting worn out and will quite soon need engine rebuilds in increasing numbers.
Cylinders do migrate oval and will either crack or score bores, plastic piston coatings in later models have already worn down and will eventually promote bore scoring, crankshaft shells will be worn enough to increase the clearance and lower the pressure leading to failure (and it is better to avoid requiring a new crankshaft during a rebuild than allowing it to fail).
So we have moved from a position where only a few failed (due to inherent or early owner influences) to one in which work will be required on a bigger scale than previous models needed.
Any historical check on Porsche car prices consistently shows a rapid depreciation first - then a slow down and eventual period of level prices (where history and mileage make some difference) to an eventual appreciation where refurbishment, re-sprays, yes and engine rebuilds - all add massively to the value of desirable classics.
In my opinion - the M96/7 range of cars are better drivers by far than their older stablemates and that as time goes by they will become appreciating assets and a joy to own and drive (and very desirable). This position will be greatly enhanced because there are businesses that are rebuilding engines for a much lower cost than those older examples or their GT or turbo versions.
I think they could well become a favourite classic car for future owners and that having the engines properly rebuilt to a reliable long term specification will add value as well as enjoyment.
So to put all that into a short statement I would say that the "TRUTH" is that yes few have failed until now but many more than we are used to with this manufacturer will fail at lower mileages than before but that the repair costs and long term financial and personal driving benefits will far outweigh that and that they will be regarded as a great buy from now on justifying the work needed to keep them running.
Baz
Have you encountered any issues with the post 2009 DFI engine yet?
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff