I've just bought some poverty Pork…
Discussion
I think it is. I'm comparing an E36 M3 to a 986 Boxster S.
In terms of comfort, I don't get on well with BMW seats. I've had an E36 M3 with vader seats, E36 328i with sports seats and a E46 Alpina B3 and not found any of them to be that comfortable on long journeys. My Boxster has the sports seats and they are much more comfortable.
With regards to the drive I think the Boxster is superior in all aspects other than straight line performance. M3's are nice but at the end of the day they are just a 3 series with a decent engine.
In terms of comfort, I don't get on well with BMW seats. I've had an E36 M3 with vader seats, E36 328i with sports seats and a E46 Alpina B3 and not found any of them to be that comfortable on long journeys. My Boxster has the sports seats and they are much more comfortable.
With regards to the drive I think the Boxster is superior in all aspects other than straight line performance. M3's are nice but at the end of the day they are just a 3 series with a decent engine.
Wow wasn't expecting those odd comments either !
For the record I had an E46 SMG convertible with 19's which apparently are not so good for the road. Having never driven one on 18's ...
Basically I am amazed how much feel you get for the road compared to the BMW and the chassis is not as compromised by being a convertible as it was designed to be what it is and not a family hatchback. The brakes actually have feel, oh and the seats are a much better fit and I don't slide from one side to the other. Even the indicators work- how's that for an odd comment !
For the record I had an E46 SMG convertible with 19's which apparently are not so good for the road. Having never driven one on 18's ...
Basically I am amazed how much feel you get for the road compared to the BMW and the chassis is not as compromised by being a convertible as it was designed to be what it is and not a family hatchback. The brakes actually have feel, oh and the seats are a much better fit and I don't slide from one side to the other. Even the indicators work- how's that for an odd comment !
ATM said:
If I were to dip my toe into the 987 market, would I be better going for an earlier 3.2s Boxtser or a 3.4s? Is there much difference - I assume it is just the engine. I know the 3.4 has a bad reputation in terms of engine reliability - so is the 3.2 any better?
Has anyone ever quantified in percent terms the engine failures amongst 987s?The 3.2 is rated at something like 280 bhp and the gen1 3.4 something like 295 bhp. Its circa 10k for a 3.2. At the other end of the scale an 09+ gen 2 3.4 is something like circa 20k. The early 987s seems to be exhibiting some of the same sorts of maintenance items as the 986 but also introducing some new ones like coolant pipes being corroded.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is the part I have difficulty with. It's unquantified & without context. Porsche will never say & neither will the flip side I.e. owners who've run them up to Starship Enterprise mileages with no issues in anything like the same megaphone unhappiness as the guy who dropped 25k on an unwarranted second hand car that blew up the next day.You've given me a half a dozen examples of some bloke I know's dog's uncle. So yes, it is demonstrably without context. I asked for a percentage of the build that blows up, it can't be done, so in the absence of evidence I'm suggesting that the blowy uppy number is perhaps not the 9.5/10 cars one reads about daily on here.
So, are the 2.7 and 3.2 987.1s generally more reliable (More from an IMSB perspective) than the similarly badged 986 cars?
I take it neither of these suffer from bore scoring.
The silver 987.1 2.7 I linked to at the top of this page has me interested, but right now I don't have the funds to buy it outright, so it's all moot. However, if this was not the case, I have a few queries:
I take it neither of these suffer from bore scoring.
The silver 987.1 2.7 I linked to at the top of this page has me interested, but right now I don't have the funds to buy it outright, so it's all moot. However, if this was not the case, I have a few queries:
- My 2.7 is an early model with a dual row IMSB, so I'm worried about a step backwards from a reliability perspective
- Would the 987 feel discernably quicker in the real world
- I know it's clichéd, but I do quite like the 'old school' feel of the 986 - how does the steering compare between them (cmoose, I'm looking at you
) - Finally, my car is pretty much sorted mechanically - the only other things that I could really do are new dampers all round, but it doesn't feel like it needs them just yet. So solid 986 vs unknown 987...
I want to know the ratio of damaged engines vs the number of cars built.
I'm asking a simple question and getting patronising responses in lieu of anything objectively quantifiable, so as a very happy 987.1 3.4 Cayman owner, who is closer to these cars than you keep suggesting without knowing who I am, I think I too will leave it there.
I'm asking a simple question and getting patronising responses in lieu of anything objectively quantifiable, so as a very happy 987.1 3.4 Cayman owner, who is closer to these cars than you keep suggesting without knowing who I am, I think I too will leave it there.
Eddie Strohacker said:
I want to know the ratio of damaged engines vs the number of cars built.
This will never happen. Just how would that info ever be captured?The weaknesses and failure modes are reasonably well known and risks pretty well understood. It adds very little arguing - or speculating - what the exact bore score (etc) failure rate actually is
skinny said:
This will never happen. Just how would that info ever be captured?
The weaknesses and failure modes are reasonably well known and risks pretty well understood. It adds very little arguing - or speculating - what the exact bore score (etc) failure rate actually is
Agree with the analysis that without quantifying, one can't know. My issue is giving a dog a bad name & two posts on we see someone looking at one that's run to 112k & still alive. It's some sort of miracle, clearly. We've found the one 3.4 Cayman that hasn't eaten itself.The weaknesses and failure modes are reasonably well known and risks pretty well understood. It adds very little arguing - or speculating - what the exact bore score (etc) failure rate actually is
I just had a quick look at latest Classic Cars Magazine at the airport last week. Really nice cover and owners discussing their cars. The chap (I don't know if he ever reads or writes here?) was mentioning that the only problem his used cayman S (gen1) currently needing too much oil! but the rest is fine. I felt, oh bugger, hopefully he is aware of bore scoring... 
Never ceases to amaze me how we appear to delight in talking about how crap our cars are.
We members of this forum must be responsible for putting more people off becoming Porsche owners than anything else.
I have no statistics to offer on how many M96/97 engines blow up, reading this thread you'd think it was most of them.
My 2005 997S has covered 82000 miles, runs like a dream and doesn't use any oil.
Am I just lucky, I don't think so.
In my opinion the people who suffer the horror of bore scoring, particularly at low mileages are very unlucky.
Fortunately there are very many Porsche drivers out there who don't read Porsche forums and are not needlessly worrying about their engines blowing up, just driving and enjoying their cars.
We members of this forum must be responsible for putting more people off becoming Porsche owners than anything else.
I have no statistics to offer on how many M96/97 engines blow up, reading this thread you'd think it was most of them.
My 2005 997S has covered 82000 miles, runs like a dream and doesn't use any oil.
Am I just lucky, I don't think so.
In my opinion the people who suffer the horror of bore scoring, particularly at low mileages are very unlucky.
Fortunately there are very many Porsche drivers out there who don't read Porsche forums and are not needlessly worrying about their engines blowing up, just driving and enjoying their cars.
colnagoglyn said:
Never ceases to amaze me how we appear to delight in talking about how crap our cars are.
We members of this forum must be responsible for putting more people off becoming Porsche owners than anything else.
I have no statistics to offer on how many M96/97 engines blow up, reading this thread you'd think it was most of them.
My 2005 997S has covered 82000 miles, runs like a dream and doesn't use any oil.
Am I just lucky, I don't think so.
In my opinion the people who suffer the horror of bore scoring, particularly at low mileages are very unlucky.
Fortunately there are very many Porsche drivers out there who don't read Porsche forums and are not needlessly worrying about their engines blowing up, just driving and enjoying their cars.
Prices really have firmed up for 997.1 C2S with Clamshell alloys low to mid £20's. We members of this forum must be responsible for putting more people off becoming Porsche owners than anything else.
I have no statistics to offer on how many M96/97 engines blow up, reading this thread you'd think it was most of them.
My 2005 997S has covered 82000 miles, runs like a dream and doesn't use any oil.
Am I just lucky, I don't think so.
In my opinion the people who suffer the horror of bore scoring, particularly at low mileages are very unlucky.
Fortunately there are very many Porsche drivers out there who don't read Porsche forums and are not needlessly worrying about their engines blowing up, just driving and enjoying their cars.
Lovely lovely cars - dated sat nav etc but perfect looks noise
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff