Cayman S engine failure and how Porsche will deal with you.
Discussion
Thanks for the positive comments guys it makes it all feel worthwhile.
We are reluctant to comment on the later gen 2 engines yet because there is insufficient evidence to form conclusions and statistics and we are accused enough of scare mongering anyway when all we are trying to do is inform people needing help what to do and where to go!
Baz
We are reluctant to comment on the later gen 2 engines yet because there is insufficient evidence to form conclusions and statistics and we are accused enough of scare mongering anyway when all we are trying to do is inform people needing help what to do and where to go!
Baz
hartech said:
But all the engines fitted with ferrous coated pistons would be green (this is all the engines from Boxster 2.5 up to most of the early 996 3.4 engines) - no bore scoring. All the engines made after the pistons coating was changed to a "plastic" coating would be BLUE (not RED including the last of the 996 3.4 engines, Cayman 3.4S and all larger engines with Lokasil cylinders) - because it only affects one side of the engine (bank 2).
Thanks Baz. All interesting stuff.Is the date for the cut off/change known? (bold bit)
hartech said:
You want to know what Causes Bore Scoring? and who to believe? - there is no easy answer. We always try to avoid directly naming and arguing with our competitors because it is difficult enough to manage this type of problem with no support from the manufacturer and in our view anyone who is trying to assist owners in difficulty with the products we make our living from deserves to be left alone doing their best without us interfering directly. I think the only time we have zoned in is indirectly when as a result of 50 years appreciation that fitted iron or steel liners are not ideal for this type of high performance sports car - we started receiving engines that have already been fitted with them and failed . Even then we still didn't mention the businesses involved directly but of course the manufacturers of the liners and businesses fitting them were not happy and some (perhaps understandably) hit back at us. I also prefer not to generate arguments with other specialists who are otherwise doing a good job over trivial issues that armchair engineers know very little about but would enjoy fuelling.
Humans still have a fantastic capacity for drawing the right answer from fragments of clues - providing they have enough general knowledge and experience (still faster and better than computers). The more experiences they have of related subjects and examples and the better they are at managing them - the better they can become at solving such problems.
The difficulty is when there is no easy way to know who to believe and trust. In manufacturing it is hard to distinguish between exaggerated claims and real benefits and products - but one place that demonstrates who is good at doing this is in sports engineering - where often an individual or small group intimately involved in the whole sphere of their sport can deduce and solve engineering problems better than massive competitors full of individual specialists that lack the direction from one person to put it all together and are hampered by departmental competitiveness, politics and empire building. This is why many large F1 teams are actually run from relatively small and separate specialists and why consultants have taken over many problem solving roles.
These two facts combined mean that you should have more confidence in people that can get to the front in competitive motor sport and who have the largest number of experiences and history of similar product improvements than others - of which we at Hartech must rate at the very top in our specialist Porsche sphere.
The other alternative is to use logic and try to find correlations and explanations for them.
Let's imagine a spreadsheet with the M96 and M97 models across the top in chronological order and the well known problems down the page!
We would start with a 2.5 Boxster across the top moving on to the 2.7. 3.2 Boxster S etc and right across to a 997 3.8 on the right hand side.
Downwards we could list things like IMS bearing failures, bore ovality, head cracks, bore scoring, piston coating type, fuel type used.
Each cell could then represent something - say red for a serious problem and green for OK, blue for "only affects bank 2" and dark colours if it is a common problem with lighter colours if it is rare.
When fully completed - if you stood back you would see a colourful pattern emerge and not a random distribution and this is similar to how our brains work out influences.
The IMS failure cells would be dark red for all the models with the different versions of the smaller bearings and green for the later engines with the larger bearings - creating an obvious conclusion that the original small bearings were the main problem.
If we picture say bore ovality (leading to excessive piston clearances and cracking) the LHS with the 2.5 and 2.7 Boxster would be dark green, the 3.2 Boxster S light green (it takes a lot of racing to eventually result in a few cracking), and from the 3.4 engines upwards it would be dark red. The correlation would be that the 2.5 and 2.7 Boxsters have thicker cylinder walls and less strain as they are less powerful - whereas as the engine size (power and strain) increases so the wall thickness reduces - making it possible to make a logical deduction as to the causes.
With cracked cylinder heads - just the 3.2 Boxsters and 3.4 996's would be light red (both made from the same casting - ref. pictures in our buyers guide showing sections and thin areas of weakness) the rest would be green.
So far no blue areas on the spreadsheet so both banks affected equally.
If we now come to bore scoring we would start to see the blue colours emerging.
But all the engines fitted with ferrous coated pistons would be green (this is all the engines from Boxster 2.5 up to most of the early 996 3.4 engines) - no bore scoring. All the engines made after the pistons coating was changed to a "plastic" coating would be BLUE (not RED including the last of the 996 3.4 engines, Cayman 3.4S and all larger engines with Lokasil cylinders) - because it only affects one side of the engine (bank 2).
The smaller engines with "plastic coated" pistons would be light blue (as they are not yet proving a problem but may do in the future) and we are just starting to get reports that some Gen 2 cars are starting to score - so they would be mid-blue and this adds an additional rider that the larger the capacity and power output the sooner the "plastic coated" pistons fail and the bores score.
These pictorial representations of tracing a problem are how engineers with experience and ability can manage to draw reliable conclusions from relatively small samples - although the better they are at problem solving and the more they sample the more reliable the results.
The obvious next question is - why do the only scored bores come from bank two? (allowing for the fact that actually bank 1 will score eventually it just probably lasts about 4 or 5 times longer than bank 2 before it becomes a problem by which time bank 2 has already scored and probably been fixed along with bank 1 for those able to afford it).
Let's look at this the other way around - if we could make bank 2 run exactly the same as bank 1 (no differences anywhere) would bank 2 still score bores so prematurely? you work out your own answer and if it is "NO" - how can the cause be the same fuel that is being supplied to both banks?
The differences all relate to the temperatures around the cylinder block where the coolant enters both blocks at the bottom (and exits from the top), the proportion of that coolant has been severely reduced (compared to the head flow) and the thermostat rating that has been raised, but the thrust face (where all the scoring occurs) is on the bottom of bank 1 and the top of bank 2 resulting in the temperature of the piston and cylinder at the thrust face being hotter on bank2 than bank 1.
Hotter temperatures lead to thinner oil and reduce the oil film thickness, viscosity and support separating the piston from the cylinder wall while also running the piston plastic coating at a higher temperature on the thrust face of bank 2 (and plastics lose hardness and bonding strength as temperatures rise which ferrous electroplating does not and is already twice as hard as plastic anyway).
The combination of these factors with one other similar influence that we are not reporting on yet - result in bank 2 scoring long before bank 1 might.
But bank 2 cannot be made to run exactly the same as bank 1 - but anything that can make it run more like bank 1 is therefore beneficial. We therefore we need to consider, measure, test and establish what the differences actually are that might encourage bore scoring - and if we can change any of them to run more like bank 1 does.
We have been doing all this for many years including fitting temperature sensors inside several engines and altering radiator sizes and thermostat positions and settings and this has resulted in us creating our LTT and altering the coolant balance between the banks and the heads.
The addition of a third radiator seems a logical additional benefit but is only so at very high ambient conditions and hard driving whereas on cooler days and more steady driving it can make the inside of the engine run even hotter (previously discussed, explained and proven under test)
Recently we managed to develop a method of replicating the bank 1 temperatures inside bank 2 while managing the addition of a third radiator effectively in all conditions, but a heavy existing workload and the design, manufacture and installation of new tooling has delayed availability.
These are designed to enable engines not yet scored to last much longer and will be fully explained and hopefully available in the early New Year.
Going back to the start and trying to help you decide who and what to believe - all the above should help and describes how people that are good at solving similar engineering problems think, work, deduce causes and develop solutions.
We speak to all our customers in great detail about the circumstances leading up to their problem and various issues relating to their driving, type of fuel used, previous servicing schedules, oil used manual or tiptronic etc. There are huge variations but this is the benefit of carrying out far more of these engine rebuilds than anyone else - for longer - that the data base of answers in the spreadsheet in our engineers minds enables them to process more options and causes than anyone with less experience and volume while our considerable success on the track demonstrates that our ability to deduce the right causes from such data and answers is very high indeed.
It is certainly likely to be more reliable than the contribution of self confessed armchair "engineers" who for some reason take a dislike to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about and seem to take every opportunity to criticise others.
Finally (and just for the record) there are several Cayman S cars with 24K mileages and above for sale at around the price of ours. They have the standard original engine that is therefore more likely to fail than ours that is not only the subject of a top rebuild but also has all the right changes to make it better than new. The car is manual and superb and has had our full sales preparation (including many other new parts) and comes complete with automatic entry into our Lifetime Maintenance Plan. This means the engine is not only covered fully for 24K or 24 months but is also covered for the cost of labour for the rest of its life (if the owner so chooses - no mileage age or cost limits) as are all the other wear and tear parts and all for £48/month +Vat (3k/annum) or £66/month +Vat (10K/annum) - which also covers the full cost of scheduled services (parts and labour) and an annual Mot (so you get most if not all of that cost back making the free labour guarantee element effectively free - oh and you can stop whenever you want without penalty.
For interest among present rebuilds we have 5 Cayman S cars/engines in and another Cayman S car we are in the process of buying with more average mileage that will be less expensive. This is not a new "sideline" as we have been selling Porsche's for almost 20 years but we did back off initially when the reports started coming through of engines starting to go wrong and then needed the space to store cars with engines removed for rebuild and had little space to stock sale cars.
Our premises are currently being enlarged to provide more storage space and as a result we hope to return to more car sales soon. Meanwhile - it does help owners that cannot afford to repair them (or perhaps don't want to) that we might offer to buy them and prepare them for sale. This avoids rebuilds being anything less than the very best we can do (with all the future proofing possible, 6 new Nikasil alloy liners etc etc) - while providing sale cars with the highest specification of engine rebuilds, guarantees and Maintenance cover that we are more confident to sell and that suits some buyers wanting to start out with a great car that will not go wrong and can be looked after for the rest of their ownership for a modest cost by people they trust - and as a result they are always in demand.
Now I need a lie down after writing all this and you probably do to after reading it! I hope it has helped.
Baz
..... so when do you get time to repair engines?Humans still have a fantastic capacity for drawing the right answer from fragments of clues - providing they have enough general knowledge and experience (still faster and better than computers). The more experiences they have of related subjects and examples and the better they are at managing them - the better they can become at solving such problems.
The difficulty is when there is no easy way to know who to believe and trust. In manufacturing it is hard to distinguish between exaggerated claims and real benefits and products - but one place that demonstrates who is good at doing this is in sports engineering - where often an individual or small group intimately involved in the whole sphere of their sport can deduce and solve engineering problems better than massive competitors full of individual specialists that lack the direction from one person to put it all together and are hampered by departmental competitiveness, politics and empire building. This is why many large F1 teams are actually run from relatively small and separate specialists and why consultants have taken over many problem solving roles.
These two facts combined mean that you should have more confidence in people that can get to the front in competitive motor sport and who have the largest number of experiences and history of similar product improvements than others - of which we at Hartech must rate at the very top in our specialist Porsche sphere.
The other alternative is to use logic and try to find correlations and explanations for them.
Let's imagine a spreadsheet with the M96 and M97 models across the top in chronological order and the well known problems down the page!
We would start with a 2.5 Boxster across the top moving on to the 2.7. 3.2 Boxster S etc and right across to a 997 3.8 on the right hand side.
Downwards we could list things like IMS bearing failures, bore ovality, head cracks, bore scoring, piston coating type, fuel type used.
Each cell could then represent something - say red for a serious problem and green for OK, blue for "only affects bank 2" and dark colours if it is a common problem with lighter colours if it is rare.
When fully completed - if you stood back you would see a colourful pattern emerge and not a random distribution and this is similar to how our brains work out influences.
The IMS failure cells would be dark red for all the models with the different versions of the smaller bearings and green for the later engines with the larger bearings - creating an obvious conclusion that the original small bearings were the main problem.
If we picture say bore ovality (leading to excessive piston clearances and cracking) the LHS with the 2.5 and 2.7 Boxster would be dark green, the 3.2 Boxster S light green (it takes a lot of racing to eventually result in a few cracking), and from the 3.4 engines upwards it would be dark red. The correlation would be that the 2.5 and 2.7 Boxsters have thicker cylinder walls and less strain as they are less powerful - whereas as the engine size (power and strain) increases so the wall thickness reduces - making it possible to make a logical deduction as to the causes.
With cracked cylinder heads - just the 3.2 Boxsters and 3.4 996's would be light red (both made from the same casting - ref. pictures in our buyers guide showing sections and thin areas of weakness) the rest would be green.
So far no blue areas on the spreadsheet so both banks affected equally.
If we now come to bore scoring we would start to see the blue colours emerging.
But all the engines fitted with ferrous coated pistons would be green (this is all the engines from Boxster 2.5 up to most of the early 996 3.4 engines) - no bore scoring. All the engines made after the pistons coating was changed to a "plastic" coating would be BLUE (not RED including the last of the 996 3.4 engines, Cayman 3.4S and all larger engines with Lokasil cylinders) - because it only affects one side of the engine (bank 2).
The smaller engines with "plastic coated" pistons would be light blue (as they are not yet proving a problem but may do in the future) and we are just starting to get reports that some Gen 2 cars are starting to score - so they would be mid-blue and this adds an additional rider that the larger the capacity and power output the sooner the "plastic coated" pistons fail and the bores score.
These pictorial representations of tracing a problem are how engineers with experience and ability can manage to draw reliable conclusions from relatively small samples - although the better they are at problem solving and the more they sample the more reliable the results.
The obvious next question is - why do the only scored bores come from bank two? (allowing for the fact that actually bank 1 will score eventually it just probably lasts about 4 or 5 times longer than bank 2 before it becomes a problem by which time bank 2 has already scored and probably been fixed along with bank 1 for those able to afford it).
Let's look at this the other way around - if we could make bank 2 run exactly the same as bank 1 (no differences anywhere) would bank 2 still score bores so prematurely? you work out your own answer and if it is "NO" - how can the cause be the same fuel that is being supplied to both banks?
The differences all relate to the temperatures around the cylinder block where the coolant enters both blocks at the bottom (and exits from the top), the proportion of that coolant has been severely reduced (compared to the head flow) and the thermostat rating that has been raised, but the thrust face (where all the scoring occurs) is on the bottom of bank 1 and the top of bank 2 resulting in the temperature of the piston and cylinder at the thrust face being hotter on bank2 than bank 1.
Hotter temperatures lead to thinner oil and reduce the oil film thickness, viscosity and support separating the piston from the cylinder wall while also running the piston plastic coating at a higher temperature on the thrust face of bank 2 (and plastics lose hardness and bonding strength as temperatures rise which ferrous electroplating does not and is already twice as hard as plastic anyway).
The combination of these factors with one other similar influence that we are not reporting on yet - result in bank 2 scoring long before bank 1 might.
But bank 2 cannot be made to run exactly the same as bank 1 - but anything that can make it run more like bank 1 is therefore beneficial. We therefore we need to consider, measure, test and establish what the differences actually are that might encourage bore scoring - and if we can change any of them to run more like bank 1 does.
We have been doing all this for many years including fitting temperature sensors inside several engines and altering radiator sizes and thermostat positions and settings and this has resulted in us creating our LTT and altering the coolant balance between the banks and the heads.
The addition of a third radiator seems a logical additional benefit but is only so at very high ambient conditions and hard driving whereas on cooler days and more steady driving it can make the inside of the engine run even hotter (previously discussed, explained and proven under test)
Recently we managed to develop a method of replicating the bank 1 temperatures inside bank 2 while managing the addition of a third radiator effectively in all conditions, but a heavy existing workload and the design, manufacture and installation of new tooling has delayed availability.
These are designed to enable engines not yet scored to last much longer and will be fully explained and hopefully available in the early New Year.
Going back to the start and trying to help you decide who and what to believe - all the above should help and describes how people that are good at solving similar engineering problems think, work, deduce causes and develop solutions.
We speak to all our customers in great detail about the circumstances leading up to their problem and various issues relating to their driving, type of fuel used, previous servicing schedules, oil used manual or tiptronic etc. There are huge variations but this is the benefit of carrying out far more of these engine rebuilds than anyone else - for longer - that the data base of answers in the spreadsheet in our engineers minds enables them to process more options and causes than anyone with less experience and volume while our considerable success on the track demonstrates that our ability to deduce the right causes from such data and answers is very high indeed.
It is certainly likely to be more reliable than the contribution of self confessed armchair "engineers" who for some reason take a dislike to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about and seem to take every opportunity to criticise others.
Finally (and just for the record) there are several Cayman S cars with 24K mileages and above for sale at around the price of ours. They have the standard original engine that is therefore more likely to fail than ours that is not only the subject of a top rebuild but also has all the right changes to make it better than new. The car is manual and superb and has had our full sales preparation (including many other new parts) and comes complete with automatic entry into our Lifetime Maintenance Plan. This means the engine is not only covered fully for 24K or 24 months but is also covered for the cost of labour for the rest of its life (if the owner so chooses - no mileage age or cost limits) as are all the other wear and tear parts and all for £48/month +Vat (3k/annum) or £66/month +Vat (10K/annum) - which also covers the full cost of scheduled services (parts and labour) and an annual Mot (so you get most if not all of that cost back making the free labour guarantee element effectively free - oh and you can stop whenever you want without penalty.
For interest among present rebuilds we have 5 Cayman S cars/engines in and another Cayman S car we are in the process of buying with more average mileage that will be less expensive. This is not a new "sideline" as we have been selling Porsche's for almost 20 years but we did back off initially when the reports started coming through of engines starting to go wrong and then needed the space to store cars with engines removed for rebuild and had little space to stock sale cars.
Our premises are currently being enlarged to provide more storage space and as a result we hope to return to more car sales soon. Meanwhile - it does help owners that cannot afford to repair them (or perhaps don't want to) that we might offer to buy them and prepare them for sale. This avoids rebuilds being anything less than the very best we can do (with all the future proofing possible, 6 new Nikasil alloy liners etc etc) - while providing sale cars with the highest specification of engine rebuilds, guarantees and Maintenance cover that we are more confident to sell and that suits some buyers wanting to start out with a great car that will not go wrong and can be looked after for the rest of their ownership for a modest cost by people they trust - and as a result they are always in demand.
Now I need a lie down after writing all this and you probably do to after reading it! I hope it has helped.
Baz
OK two answers to provide.
When I started my first business on leaving university, as it grew I learned how to carry out all the management roles myself (finance, advertising designing, supervision, machine setting, machining, customer reception etc etc until it grew and I could not cope anymore but realised I had not developed anyone else to support me nor could find anyone to recruit with a similar level of broad experience. It was a real problem solved when I was approached to sell to a large public group and work there as a technical director.
When I was fed up with running an aerospace company in Brikenhead many years later Grant suggested I start up on my own again and when I explained this problem to him he suggested he started with me and we ran with the principle to pass on and train up every employee until they could replace everything I could do when I could retire - sounded like a superb solution and we adopted it there and then.
Ever since I have gradually encouraged, supported, trained and helped different employees to reach their potential with us. I realised they needed to do things for themselves to learn and most have stayed with the business now for years (some enjoying the additional full weeks holiday they get for over 15 years service).
A great example was Tobias who joined aged 16 from school, went through to a degree in automotive engineering and now is a director and manages the entire workshop workforce.
I also realised what a great place to learn motorsport is and encouraged our team to build our first ever race car 3 years ago (winning its second race and class 1 the following year). The guy in charge of that was another graduates Rob who was previously stacking shelves in ASDA - and has become our motorsport manager and is a brilliant young engineer.
Now approaching 69 my task is almost over. Grant is the MD now and I spend less time at work generally being available when needed and overseeing investment, development, engineering design and testing and responding here when I feel utter nonsense is confusing interested readers (and fortunately I can still type fast).
I am not infallible and do not set myself up as the ultimate authority - but our achievements speak for what is a superb team effort and not just that of any one individual and they are set to continue or get better when I am no longer interfering.
We jointly know and have tested a lot and only post things we are sure of and not just what we think (even though we are usually in the right ball park).
The products we supply and the modifications we apply work well and have done for over a thousand engine rebuilds of all models in that range and we are still developing new ideas and improvements and not sitting back on our Laurels.
Many are understandably jealous while others cannot wait to pull us down and even set up arguments to promote confusion.
If I rate another engineer or businesses contribution but don't actually agree I usually avoid conflict (for reasons already stated) or if anyone is happy to list their own experiences and engineering achievements and I think are capable of making worthwhile contributions and want answers - I try and help - but some I can tell are clearly just in it for the self promotion and simply don't like being shown us as wrong when they have taken a position and I am too old to be manipulated by them into areas I prefer to leave alone.
If you cannot work out from my previous post what my view is of the contribution of different fuels I am sorry but any extended arguments about it will not (IMHO) help other readers and get us nowhere.
I (like everyone else) do not have hundreds of cars and drivers to run for thousands of miles over several years - to then strip and test the theory. I have discussed it with manufacturers, specialists and customers and so far can find no correlation or evidence to support that opinion - but that does not mean it cannot be a contributory factor although there are far more compelling explanations above.
Some argue that the combination of a particular fuel on a hotter side of the engine causes bore scoring.
Almost everything we do reduces those temperatures and stabilises the cylinders (and anyway is irrelevant where owners replace with Nikasil alloy liners) so it is not a big issue for us anyway.
None of our rebuilt engines (many of which have been running for years and thousands of miles with different fuels and drivers) have suffered cylinder problems in either Lokasil or Nikasil - so it is not such a big issue to me as it seems to be for someone else.
I would be very surprised if it has any correlation but cannot rule it out - but cover the necessary changes anyway and more than the other examples I have seen from some competitors who do not it seems convert crankcases to a closed deck design nor re-round any remaining Lokasil cylinders at the same time nor re arrange the coolant flow and usually have to send crankcases away for others to re-work - delaying completion and losing control. Beware - some appear to have a top hat section but it is not fitting into a precision machined matching location and some have been even bogged with resin to make up the gaps.
I am getting to old to worry if others disagree and prefer to believe someone else or take their rebuild elsewhere. We have no aspirations to grow the business much more (fearing we would lose something valuable we have created if we got too big) and already have enough of the market to keep everyone occupied in the foreseeable future with many new ideas and products joining our provisions manufactured in house in an expanding precision machine shop.
There is also going to be plenty of business for lots more places to support a growing demand.
We are already providing the best quality of crankcase rebuild and have just invested in more new machinery to keep costs down and output up and supply a large part of the market in the UK and Internationally with a large batch of exchange crankcases being planned to help smaller specialists to turn round their own rebuilds more quickly (that will come as a package with piston and gaskets etc and our other products if desired).
When you find someone else who knows enough to match the volume and content of the technical posting I have provided and they put up a sensible and rational tested and thought out alternative to anything I have posted in the past - I will be more than happy to take up the challenge and could well learn something to everyone's benefit.
I know my position sounds extremely arrogant but arrogant people do not make good engineers and I am at least claiming to be that (a good engineer of course not arrogant) and until there is anyone else capable of posting something of similar well rounded and researched quality supporting alternative arguments I am going to rest my case on this issue and not be dragged into pointless discussions with people who I do not think know enough to warrant the effort - I do have other things and people in my life you know and frankly have worked hard enough and long enough to deserve time for them as well.
Baz
When I started my first business on leaving university, as it grew I learned how to carry out all the management roles myself (finance, advertising designing, supervision, machine setting, machining, customer reception etc etc until it grew and I could not cope anymore but realised I had not developed anyone else to support me nor could find anyone to recruit with a similar level of broad experience. It was a real problem solved when I was approached to sell to a large public group and work there as a technical director.
When I was fed up with running an aerospace company in Brikenhead many years later Grant suggested I start up on my own again and when I explained this problem to him he suggested he started with me and we ran with the principle to pass on and train up every employee until they could replace everything I could do when I could retire - sounded like a superb solution and we adopted it there and then.
Ever since I have gradually encouraged, supported, trained and helped different employees to reach their potential with us. I realised they needed to do things for themselves to learn and most have stayed with the business now for years (some enjoying the additional full weeks holiday they get for over 15 years service).
A great example was Tobias who joined aged 16 from school, went through to a degree in automotive engineering and now is a director and manages the entire workshop workforce.
I also realised what a great place to learn motorsport is and encouraged our team to build our first ever race car 3 years ago (winning its second race and class 1 the following year). The guy in charge of that was another graduates Rob who was previously stacking shelves in ASDA - and has become our motorsport manager and is a brilliant young engineer.
Now approaching 69 my task is almost over. Grant is the MD now and I spend less time at work generally being available when needed and overseeing investment, development, engineering design and testing and responding here when I feel utter nonsense is confusing interested readers (and fortunately I can still type fast).
I am not infallible and do not set myself up as the ultimate authority - but our achievements speak for what is a superb team effort and not just that of any one individual and they are set to continue or get better when I am no longer interfering.
We jointly know and have tested a lot and only post things we are sure of and not just what we think (even though we are usually in the right ball park).
The products we supply and the modifications we apply work well and have done for over a thousand engine rebuilds of all models in that range and we are still developing new ideas and improvements and not sitting back on our Laurels.
Many are understandably jealous while others cannot wait to pull us down and even set up arguments to promote confusion.
If I rate another engineer or businesses contribution but don't actually agree I usually avoid conflict (for reasons already stated) or if anyone is happy to list their own experiences and engineering achievements and I think are capable of making worthwhile contributions and want answers - I try and help - but some I can tell are clearly just in it for the self promotion and simply don't like being shown us as wrong when they have taken a position and I am too old to be manipulated by them into areas I prefer to leave alone.
If you cannot work out from my previous post what my view is of the contribution of different fuels I am sorry but any extended arguments about it will not (IMHO) help other readers and get us nowhere.
I (like everyone else) do not have hundreds of cars and drivers to run for thousands of miles over several years - to then strip and test the theory. I have discussed it with manufacturers, specialists and customers and so far can find no correlation or evidence to support that opinion - but that does not mean it cannot be a contributory factor although there are far more compelling explanations above.
Some argue that the combination of a particular fuel on a hotter side of the engine causes bore scoring.
Almost everything we do reduces those temperatures and stabilises the cylinders (and anyway is irrelevant where owners replace with Nikasil alloy liners) so it is not a big issue for us anyway.
None of our rebuilt engines (many of which have been running for years and thousands of miles with different fuels and drivers) have suffered cylinder problems in either Lokasil or Nikasil - so it is not such a big issue to me as it seems to be for someone else.
I would be very surprised if it has any correlation but cannot rule it out - but cover the necessary changes anyway and more than the other examples I have seen from some competitors who do not it seems convert crankcases to a closed deck design nor re-round any remaining Lokasil cylinders at the same time nor re arrange the coolant flow and usually have to send crankcases away for others to re-work - delaying completion and losing control. Beware - some appear to have a top hat section but it is not fitting into a precision machined matching location and some have been even bogged with resin to make up the gaps.
I am getting to old to worry if others disagree and prefer to believe someone else or take their rebuild elsewhere. We have no aspirations to grow the business much more (fearing we would lose something valuable we have created if we got too big) and already have enough of the market to keep everyone occupied in the foreseeable future with many new ideas and products joining our provisions manufactured in house in an expanding precision machine shop.
There is also going to be plenty of business for lots more places to support a growing demand.
We are already providing the best quality of crankcase rebuild and have just invested in more new machinery to keep costs down and output up and supply a large part of the market in the UK and Internationally with a large batch of exchange crankcases being planned to help smaller specialists to turn round their own rebuilds more quickly (that will come as a package with piston and gaskets etc and our other products if desired).
When you find someone else who knows enough to match the volume and content of the technical posting I have provided and they put up a sensible and rational tested and thought out alternative to anything I have posted in the past - I will be more than happy to take up the challenge and could well learn something to everyone's benefit.
I know my position sounds extremely arrogant but arrogant people do not make good engineers and I am at least claiming to be that (a good engineer of course not arrogant) and until there is anyone else capable of posting something of similar well rounded and researched quality supporting alternative arguments I am going to rest my case on this issue and not be dragged into pointless discussions with people who I do not think know enough to warrant the effort - I do have other things and people in my life you know and frankly have worked hard enough and long enough to deserve time for them as well.
Baz
m444ttb said:
Every time I read this thread I feel the need to lie down. Not that I'll sleep of course. Just stare at the ceiling worrying about the 996 3.6 Carrera I just bought developing an oil habit! At least if it has one from the off I can fall back on the Sale of a goods act I suppose.
Pls don't tell me you didn't know about the inherit problems with the 996/997 before buying the car?I knew well enough. I've not even picked up the car yet but will have a £7k 'engine contingency fund' once I shift my Westfield in the spring. Hopefully should the worst happen IT won't be an awfully huge gap to bridge. As someone mentioned on a previous page, the car then suddenly becomes more enjoyable so there's an upside I suppose.
northernmedia said:
I find it incredible that you'd buy a car knowing you need a slush fund upwards of £7k for when it goes pop.
Mental!
Tell me of another car where this is the case? (TVR not included of course
)
I agree to a degree but of course this potential cost is already factored into the purchase price. Its the key reason they are so cheap.Mental!
Tell me of another car where this is the case? (TVR not included of course
)northernmedia said:
Mental!
Nature abhors a vacuum, but in the absence of information, a vacuum is what this subject is. The group think lurches toward the assumption that buy one of these, end up saddled with a lemon. It's a percentage of cars, no one knows what that percentage is so in step the unhappy owners with empty wallets & worn shoe leather, making all the noise & yet the voices who pipe up to point out their 100k car has been faultless are roundly ignored.I'm not saying there isn't a serious issue, but I am saying the debate is distorted with the loudest voices being the disappointed owners & a guy with, in the final analysis, a business to promote.
Abagnale said:
Nature abhors a vacuum, but in the absence of information, a vacuum is what this subject is. The group think lurches toward the assumption that buy one of these, end up saddled with a lemon. It's a percentage of cars, no one knows what that percentage is so in step the unhappy owners with empty wallets & worn shoe leather, making all the noise & yet the voices who pipe up to point out their 100k car has been faultless are roundly ignored.
I'm not saying there isn't a serious issue, but I am saying the debate is distorted with the loudest voices being the disappointed owners & a guy with, in the final analysis, a business to promote.
I think you hit the nail on the head 100 pct and it's a shame as this forum is ruined because of it. Who wants to contribute to discussions about enjoying these cars (or is that not the point) when all these loudest voices want to do is constantly go on about bore scoring etc. in contrast on planet 9 the problems are acknowledged but most posters find more positive things to discuss.I'm not saying there isn't a serious issue, but I am saying the debate is distorted with the loudest voices being the disappointed owners & a guy with, in the final analysis, a business to promote.
Similar debates, albeit on a smaller scale, used to take place on BMW forums (and here) concerning M52 engine series bore wear. I was unlucky enough to buy my 1996 328i Sport in a private sale in 2004 only to find it using significant quantities of oil. I'm going to look foolish of it happens again aren't I!
PR36 said:
I think you hit the nail on the head 100 pct and it's a shame as this forum is ruined because of it. Who wants to contribute to discussions about enjoying these cars (or is that not the point) when all these loudest voices want to do is constantly go on about bore scoring etc. in contrast on planet 9 the problems are acknowledged but most posters find more positive things to discuss.
You appear to have identified the direction this forum has been taking for a while now and goes some way to explaining why knowledgeble members such as Fiorano and Steve Rance rarely post on here any longer. I don't for one minute consider myself to have anywhere near the expertise that these guys have, but have found myself spending much more time on Planet 9 recently for the reasons you've given. Oh but it does when you have people coming along saying you'd be mental to buy one. That's context for you, not an attempt to control what direction a thread does or doesn't take. In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to point out that some balance is needed when the general tone distorts the overall view of these cars. Now carry on, unhappy porkers.
Thanks for the clarification CMOOSE - you all know who I am but I do not know as much about you nor your motives and it is difficult to always assume the right things especially when we know that some contributors are competitors or their stooges simply trying to divert attention away from the market leaders and towards their own business or preferred suppliers while others just like contributing more than the resolution of the issue!
Perhaps I should have added to my imaginary spreadsheet that if I had a line for what fuel was used - unlike all the other colour changes that formed an easy to spot pattern - even if I contacted all the previous owners of every car and then checked how often they used which type of fuel etc - the resulting colour mix would not show any correlation whatsoever. Of course we also mainly retrieve the data from people with failures but even if we added data from our customers without bore scoring I know it would still not demonstrate anything valuable. Meanwhile if I had done so I would have invoked the displeasure of others that propose the fuel as an explanation and I wanted to avoid such wedges being thrust between specialists that jointly are doing their best to help customers solve problems that they did not cause. Indeed I personally believe that customers would benefit if there were more technology exchange agreements between specialists and more product sharing information so that instead of several different sources trying to manufacture smaller quantities of different solutions to say the IMS problem (that all work) they jointly produce larger volumes of selected products and share them at lower costs for them and their customers - but there seems to be an understandable competitiveness that prevents others from considering such a sensible proposal. Except that is with our engine rebuild partners in Europe - with whom we are now generating a growing business and some component and part supply benefits and exchanges that help everyone.
I think the reason many others no longer contribute is simply because they find (like me) that they get dragged into spending too much time answering things that take ages to explain when the audience are at a different level and drag all sorts of other issues in that if you don't defend make it appear are right (when they often are not) and take up more and more time.
A typical example being the cost of the Cayman S we have for sale. I never mentioned it all until it was implied it was too expensive and a poor choice and if I left it there - others may think so - but I think my role on here is best directed to answer serious technical issues - if I can - and at a level that most people can benefit from - which is really difficult at times.
I also never mentioned fuel because I do not think it is a significant issue - but have been steered into discussing that when I think it is unnecessary and prefer not to get into an unnecessary argument with other respected specialists.
Our business exists mainly to fix things that have gone wrong or try and prevent them going wrong by good preventative maintenance.
Because of our previous engineering expertise and experiences it just happens to be the case that there probably could not have been a more suitable problem for us to address or remedy than bore scoring - so inevitably we spend a lot of our time and investment on that subject.
I don't set off to start a topic about bore scoring but when I read serious questions being asked that I have the knowledge, experience and time to answer - it seems a worthwhile exercise when I also know and see the results of other peoples alternative solutions that have gone wrong.
I hope everyone never loses sight of the fact that I have stated many times that I think these are fantastic cars, very few have gone wrong statistically and I personally own one and love the thing.
I noticed on "Watchdog" in the last 2 weeks that other engine rebuilds and replacements of ordinary car and van engines are costing around £4K to £6K and they are for vehicles often a quarter of the price of these Porsche's. Furthermore they rarely have to machine out and replace the core of the engine in the process and their individual spares prices are much lower - so I think that in the circumstances of engines going wrong (that we did not cause) and a cost from the manufacturer of around £16K to replace with one that is no different - the fact that there is a solution that is probably better and costs a third to a half of that (and sometimes the same or not much more than for a bog standard road vehicle) from a reliable source - should be really good news for anyone owning one or thinking of buying one and especially since prices are quite low and bound to go up and we also offer a method to reduce the potential costs if it does go wrong through our Maintenance Plan.
We don't advertise the problems with these models in the general press or media - so don't have an impact on people interested in buying one - but we do think it is a valuable position to make sure people can find good sources of information about the problems and solutions - if and when they experience - what is a serious problem for owners (especially those unable to afford a new Porsche and sinking all they have into the dream car that can turn into a nightmare).
If there is a crossover of readers who have not yet bought one and realise they could not afford to pay for some form of protection if it went wrong - and they are annoyed about that - can I just add - that IMHO it is better then not to buy one than find out you have to dispose of it in a damaged condition and have all your dreams shattered than embark on something you may regret one day and that might put you off the Porsche marque for permanently. For some others it might enable them to proceed by buying a car already improved or add in the cost of some cover against future failures.
So although I understand the position of those fed up with reading about the failures and the accusations that we do this to promote our business - I think the benefits for others of us contributing far outweigh the disadvantages for most people and if it does not - you can always stop reading about subjects that obviously involve these problems and upset you.
Baz
Perhaps I should have added to my imaginary spreadsheet that if I had a line for what fuel was used - unlike all the other colour changes that formed an easy to spot pattern - even if I contacted all the previous owners of every car and then checked how often they used which type of fuel etc - the resulting colour mix would not show any correlation whatsoever. Of course we also mainly retrieve the data from people with failures but even if we added data from our customers without bore scoring I know it would still not demonstrate anything valuable. Meanwhile if I had done so I would have invoked the displeasure of others that propose the fuel as an explanation and I wanted to avoid such wedges being thrust between specialists that jointly are doing their best to help customers solve problems that they did not cause. Indeed I personally believe that customers would benefit if there were more technology exchange agreements between specialists and more product sharing information so that instead of several different sources trying to manufacture smaller quantities of different solutions to say the IMS problem (that all work) they jointly produce larger volumes of selected products and share them at lower costs for them and their customers - but there seems to be an understandable competitiveness that prevents others from considering such a sensible proposal. Except that is with our engine rebuild partners in Europe - with whom we are now generating a growing business and some component and part supply benefits and exchanges that help everyone.
I think the reason many others no longer contribute is simply because they find (like me) that they get dragged into spending too much time answering things that take ages to explain when the audience are at a different level and drag all sorts of other issues in that if you don't defend make it appear are right (when they often are not) and take up more and more time.
A typical example being the cost of the Cayman S we have for sale. I never mentioned it all until it was implied it was too expensive and a poor choice and if I left it there - others may think so - but I think my role on here is best directed to answer serious technical issues - if I can - and at a level that most people can benefit from - which is really difficult at times.
I also never mentioned fuel because I do not think it is a significant issue - but have been steered into discussing that when I think it is unnecessary and prefer not to get into an unnecessary argument with other respected specialists.
Our business exists mainly to fix things that have gone wrong or try and prevent them going wrong by good preventative maintenance.
Because of our previous engineering expertise and experiences it just happens to be the case that there probably could not have been a more suitable problem for us to address or remedy than bore scoring - so inevitably we spend a lot of our time and investment on that subject.
I don't set off to start a topic about bore scoring but when I read serious questions being asked that I have the knowledge, experience and time to answer - it seems a worthwhile exercise when I also know and see the results of other peoples alternative solutions that have gone wrong.
I hope everyone never loses sight of the fact that I have stated many times that I think these are fantastic cars, very few have gone wrong statistically and I personally own one and love the thing.
I noticed on "Watchdog" in the last 2 weeks that other engine rebuilds and replacements of ordinary car and van engines are costing around £4K to £6K and they are for vehicles often a quarter of the price of these Porsche's. Furthermore they rarely have to machine out and replace the core of the engine in the process and their individual spares prices are much lower - so I think that in the circumstances of engines going wrong (that we did not cause) and a cost from the manufacturer of around £16K to replace with one that is no different - the fact that there is a solution that is probably better and costs a third to a half of that (and sometimes the same or not much more than for a bog standard road vehicle) from a reliable source - should be really good news for anyone owning one or thinking of buying one and especially since prices are quite low and bound to go up and we also offer a method to reduce the potential costs if it does go wrong through our Maintenance Plan.
We don't advertise the problems with these models in the general press or media - so don't have an impact on people interested in buying one - but we do think it is a valuable position to make sure people can find good sources of information about the problems and solutions - if and when they experience - what is a serious problem for owners (especially those unable to afford a new Porsche and sinking all they have into the dream car that can turn into a nightmare).
If there is a crossover of readers who have not yet bought one and realise they could not afford to pay for some form of protection if it went wrong - and they are annoyed about that - can I just add - that IMHO it is better then not to buy one than find out you have to dispose of it in a damaged condition and have all your dreams shattered than embark on something you may regret one day and that might put you off the Porsche marque for permanently. For some others it might enable them to proceed by buying a car already improved or add in the cost of some cover against future failures.
So although I understand the position of those fed up with reading about the failures and the accusations that we do this to promote our business - I think the benefits for others of us contributing far outweigh the disadvantages for most people and if it does not - you can always stop reading about subjects that obviously involve these problems and upset you.
Baz
anonymous said:
[redacted]
northernmedia said:
You'd have to be slightly mental to buy one I reckon
northernmedia said:
I find it incredible that you'd buy a car knowing you need a slush fund upwards of £7k for when it goes pop.
Mental!
Tell me of another car where this is the case? (TVR not included of course)
Incredible, mental.Mental!
Tell me of another car where this is the case? (TVR not included of course
)Abagnale said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
northernmedia said:
You'd have to be slightly mental to buy one I reckon
northernmedia said:
I find it incredible that you'd buy a car knowing you need a slush fund upwards of £7k for when it goes pop.
Mental!
Tell me of another car where this is the case? (TVR not included of course)
Incredible, mental.Mental!
Tell me of another car where this is the case? (TVR not included of course
)
Lighten up eh.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff