997 bore scoring found..
Discussion
I don't care what any expert says with regards to how good these cars are, because in a nutshell they're crap! A car that costs circa £70,000 should not have so many serious engine failures. I've been trawling through the various internet horror stories regarding the cylinder bore damage caused to the 997's and found that the majority will eventually fail. You're just driving around in ticking time bomb.
I've come to this marque from the likes of BMW, VW and Subaru and really expected a much higher level of engine reliability. Having to fit all these aftermarket gizmos to protect the fragile engine is piss poor on the manufacturer part. I think they flopped with the 997. Heck, all you have to do is visit any Porsche Indy and you'll find at least 1 997 bring stripped to repair this issue.
I think I'm just gonna get mine repaired under the OPC warranty and move on. I can't drive a car with a weakness like this in its engine. As much as I don't want to go backwards in terms of model, I'd rather have a 996 turbo.
I've come to this marque from the likes of BMW, VW and Subaru and really expected a much higher level of engine reliability. Having to fit all these aftermarket gizmos to protect the fragile engine is piss poor on the manufacturer part. I think they flopped with the 997. Heck, all you have to do is visit any Porsche Indy and you'll find at least 1 997 bring stripped to repair this issue.
I think I'm just gonna get mine repaired under the OPC warranty and move on. I can't drive a car with a weakness like this in its engine. As much as I don't want to go backwards in terms of model, I'd rather have a 996 turbo.
cd1957 said:
Hi Trev450, thats a STEEL/IRON liner thats done 1100 miles since rebuild!!!!!. Don't know where or what started to damage first, as all the bores are in the same condition,oil pressure relief valve jammed and blew filter seal out.
Chris
Crikey. 1100 miles since a rebuild - I bet the owner is miffed to say the least. It would also appear to support Hartech's findings in relation to the longevity of iron/steel liners. Chris
Abagnale said:
How many are there? What is the percentage of failed cars of the total built?
I've seen one Indy say its as much as 8%. Might not sound like a lot so far, but that figure has slowly been increasing over time and I'm pretty sure it will keep growing as these vehicles age even more!chowgar said:
I've seen one Indy say its as much as 8%. Might not sound like a lot so far, but that figure has slowly been increasing over time and I'm pretty sure it will keep growing as these vehicles age even more!
But you see I'm confused, because you previously said the majority will fail. 8% seems a hefty minority to me.chowgar said:
Ok 8% of 100,000 is 8,000 vehicles. Now that's too many for my liking. You need to read the extensive topics that Hartech have published about this issue, then you'll understand the inherent flaw with regards to the inefficient cooling of the cylinder block.
I guess there are two schools of thought. You either worry about the (very serious) and well documented graphic accounts of failures that other people have had OR you tell yourself that 8% is a low number (logically reduced to much lower still if you fit the 'gizmos') and get on with it.I think what is important is to understand that according to all our data, knowledge and records - this is ) not a flaw in just some vehicles that causes bore scoring for them that will not happen to the majority (and therefore something worth risking) but rather a combination of designs and specifications that could have been made differently but each of which have a potential problem that will gradually get worse over a period of time.
It is really a matter of the quality of some parts during manufacture, the combination of them, the different owners driving styles and care and the quality of maintenance.
You could do everything perfect but be unlucky to have an engine with a particular weakness that fails early or do everything wrong and have one last a long time - but they will all deteriorate eventually and need rebuilds and when they do it is better to modify the potential weak spots than live with them again.
So Some may last 20K while others last 150K - but it is a gamble and a risk which a reliable type of cover can minimise and is therefore worth investigating.
In all the engines we rebuild - after finding the primary cause of the failure we also find the other weak areas worn and often beneficial to change or modify as well. The reasoning here is that if one problem doesn't get you - another one might. So one bore might be scored but others have piston coating loss and are already oval while crank bearings are already worn etc.
We are starting to receive engines in the 150K area that have lasted well but have let go often leaving a rod through the crankcases - destroying the crankshaft and engine - so preventative rebuilds may prove less expensive eventually when predictions become more reliable.
Perhaps a good example of the problem is that different theories exist about the causes. Some believe the theory that fuel is the cause. When questioned why just one side of the engine fails first the defence is that it runs hotter. We don't happen to think that fuel additives are the problem (especially as no other alloy internal parts show any signs of corrosion) but even so the solution would then be to lower those temperatures like they are on bank 1 (something we have managed and are making parts for and meanwhile by fitting a LTT). if it was fuel and temperatures you would expect more problems from cars driven fast or raced - but that does not seem to correlate - indeed high torque/low revs seem more frequent candidates.
If everything else survives - the biggest long term problem remaining is piston coating loss and bore ovality that will not go away and always get worse.
To be fair - how long should a modern very high performance engine with low emissions last before needing a rebuild anyway?
They are such good cars otherwise - they seems an ideal candidate to find some form of protection to minimise consequences if the worst happens - especially if it partly covers other future proofing changes during a rebuild.
Baz
It is really a matter of the quality of some parts during manufacture, the combination of them, the different owners driving styles and care and the quality of maintenance.
You could do everything perfect but be unlucky to have an engine with a particular weakness that fails early or do everything wrong and have one last a long time - but they will all deteriorate eventually and need rebuilds and when they do it is better to modify the potential weak spots than live with them again.
So Some may last 20K while others last 150K - but it is a gamble and a risk which a reliable type of cover can minimise and is therefore worth investigating.
In all the engines we rebuild - after finding the primary cause of the failure we also find the other weak areas worn and often beneficial to change or modify as well. The reasoning here is that if one problem doesn't get you - another one might. So one bore might be scored but others have piston coating loss and are already oval while crank bearings are already worn etc.
We are starting to receive engines in the 150K area that have lasted well but have let go often leaving a rod through the crankcases - destroying the crankshaft and engine - so preventative rebuilds may prove less expensive eventually when predictions become more reliable.
Perhaps a good example of the problem is that different theories exist about the causes. Some believe the theory that fuel is the cause. When questioned why just one side of the engine fails first the defence is that it runs hotter. We don't happen to think that fuel additives are the problem (especially as no other alloy internal parts show any signs of corrosion) but even so the solution would then be to lower those temperatures like they are on bank 1 (something we have managed and are making parts for and meanwhile by fitting a LTT). if it was fuel and temperatures you would expect more problems from cars driven fast or raced - but that does not seem to correlate - indeed high torque/low revs seem more frequent candidates.
If everything else survives - the biggest long term problem remaining is piston coating loss and bore ovality that will not go away and always get worse.
To be fair - how long should a modern very high performance engine with low emissions last before needing a rebuild anyway?
They are such good cars otherwise - they seems an ideal candidate to find some form of protection to minimise consequences if the worst happens - especially if it partly covers other future proofing changes during a rebuild.
Baz
My last car was a Subaru Impreza WRX STI, which was stage 1 modified from 265 bhp and 253 lb-ft torque to 340 bhp and 330 lb-ft torque. This was only a 2.0 litre engine, which was mildly tuned with just a new exhaust system, high flow fuel pump, and a Cosworth air filter. I drove it for three and a half years and it never missed a beat.
Fact are facts, in my short 16 years of driving Japanese and German cars, the former are far, far more reliable. You'll shout from your keyboards, "Why did you sell and buy German then!". Well, truth be told, I missed the refinement, elegance, stealth and luxury that the German cars provide. Even though, I know it'll hurt me in the wallet in the end, I was willing to make that sacrifice. It's for these mere reasons why I believe so many do the same.
Fact are facts, in my short 16 years of driving Japanese and German cars, the former are far, far more reliable. You'll shout from your keyboards, "Why did you sell and buy German then!". Well, truth be told, I missed the refinement, elegance, stealth and luxury that the German cars provide. Even though, I know it'll hurt me in the wallet in the end, I was willing to make that sacrifice. It's for these mere reasons why I believe so many do the same.
chowgar said:
My last car was a Subaru Impreza WRX STI, which was stage 1 modified from 265 bhp and 253 lb-ft torque to 340 bhp and 330 lb-ft torque. This was only a 2.0 litre engine, which was mildly tuned with just a new exhaust system, high flow fuel pump, and a Cosworth air filter. I drove it for three and a half years and it never missed a beat.
Fact are facts, in my short 16 years of driving Japanese and German cars, the former are far, far more reliable. You'll shout from your keyboards, "Why did you sell and buy German then!". Well, truth be told, I missed the refinement, elegance, stealth and luxury that the German cars provide. Even though, I know it'll hurt me in the wallet in the end, I was willing to make that sacrifice. It's for these mere reasons why I believe so many do the same.
Impreza engine isn't exactly bulletproof - yours may have survived in your ownership, but there are a some well known failure modes for that engine. Fact are facts, in my short 16 years of driving Japanese and German cars, the former are far, far more reliable. You'll shout from your keyboards, "Why did you sell and buy German then!". Well, truth be told, I missed the refinement, elegance, stealth and luxury that the German cars provide. Even though, I know it'll hurt me in the wallet in the end, I was willing to make that sacrifice. It's for these mere reasons why I believe so many do the same.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff