Over 200K Miles.... Still works.

[Slickhillsy]

hondansx said:

Great stories there - very reassuring!

Worse with Ferraris though Wozy. Can't do more than a handful of miles in a Fezza or it's not worth anything! Your reward? It will cost you thousands to repair bits that go wrong because of underuse!

Unless you decide to keep it and then none of the above applies...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=132...

If used 'modern Ferrari's are as reliable as the next car. The one thing you dont hear are about are engine failures and their units are very strong...

[fastgerman]

mollytherocker said:

fastgerman said:

Interested to see their new product line as mine has no low temperature modifications at present.

I thought 964's were suppose to need engine rebuilds by 100k? Makes them similar to a 996 / early 997 then right?

Theres quite a difference. The 964 M64 sufferred leaks from the head bolts due to poor sealing. This could be fixed fairly easily.

The 996 M96 self destructs itself in many different ways, exploding IMS, ovalling and cracking liners, scoring liners etc.

I guess the leaking RMS is a similar issue.

End result is the same however - a large bill. I imagine the 964 is also more expensive to rebuild.

I've seen a few 3.2's advertised with engine rebuilds also. Only seems to be the 993 and 997.2 onwards that are bullet proof.

[boxsey]

fastgerman said:

Interested to see their new product line as mine has no low temperature modifications at present.

I thought 964's were suppose to need engine rebuilds by 100k? Makes them similar to a 996 / early 997 then right?

My guess is that if we did a poll of mileages that 964 owners had their engines rebuilt at, the average would be around the 120K mark. However the range would be very large and therefore there's no hard and fast rule about them having to be rebuilt. Many 964s are running around with 200K+ on the clock (lots of examples in the US). The owners often get fed up with the engine being covered in oil and the rotting tinware which acts as the catalyst to having a rebuild. Some just decide that after 20+ years it's time to get it refreshed.

While almost all will show signs of wear when they're torn apart (pitted camshafts, worn bearings, worn valve guides, etc) or a few might have a broken head stud that initiated the rebuild, it's rare to hear of one having to get rebuilt because it went bang. Mine showed all the signs of wear when it was rebuilt at 170K but there was nothing found that indicated it might have failed any time soon. The P+Cs were still fine after all the years and miles. It'll be topping 200K next year and will continue to be used as intended.

[thegoose]

boxsey said:

fastgerman said:

Interested to see their new product line as mine has no low temperature modifications at present.

I thought 964's were suppose to need engine rebuilds by 100k? Makes them similar to a 996 / early 997 then right?

My guess is that if we did a poll of mileages that 964 owners had their engines rebuilt at, the average would be around the 120K mark. However the range would be very large and therefore there's no hard and fast rule about them having to be rebuilt. Many 964s are running around with 200K+ on the clock (lots of examples in the US). The owners often get fed up with the engine being covered in oil and the rotting tinware which acts as the catalyst to having a rebuild. Some just decide that after 20+ years it's time to get it refreshed.

While almost all will show signs of wear when they're torn apart (pitted camshafts, worn bearings, worn valve guides, etc) or a few might have a broken head stud that initiated the rebuild, it's rare to hear of one having to get rebuilt because it went bang. Mine showed all the signs of wear when it was rebuilt at 170K but there was nothing found that indicated it might have failed any time soon. The P+Cs were still fine after all the years and miles. It'll be topping 200K next year and will continue to be used as intended.

For a rebuild of a non-failed engine (i.e. still running, even if burning oil, top end rattling a bit when cold etc) there's probably not much in it cost wise between an air and water cooled unit. It's the "time-bomb" potential of unpredictable catastrophic failure with the water cooled cars that makes them a risk. D'ya feel lucky, punk? Well, do yah?

[73 Duchess]

mollytherocker said:

Wozy68 said:

Molly, I've noticed on 911uk that yours has tipped over the 100k mileage. I congratulate you and assume you no longer worry that your 993 is now worthless

PS. Not to worry, 964 owners haven't had to worry about stellar mileage v value for a couple of years now.

Yes, its now at 102k and is therefore worth little more than a few hundred pounds.

Its currently at 9m having a not insignificant amount of work carried out to the body.

I expect to be sleeping on the streets by Christmas....

Great news Molly. Mine has just hit the 102k and has been just treated to Pagid discs and pads, 2 replacement KW Super Sport front top mounts, near side rocker cover, pollen filter change(thought it may be causing misting inside on startup) and a full service. Incoming child in March and I can guarantee 993 staying put too. Roll on the next 102k.

[drmark]

fastgerman said:

End result is the same however - a large bill. I imagine the 964 is also more expensive to rebuild.

I've seen a few 3.2's advertised with engine rebuilds also. Only seems to be the 993 and 997.2 onwards that are bullet proof.

I had a top end rebuild on a 993 at 80k, a top and bottom on a 3.2 at 112k, and a new engine in a 997 at 7500 miles. And before you suggest I learn how to drive, all were used purchases and I bought the last 2 knowing there was an issue. The 997 - my wife's car - was the only surprise
Lowest air cooled rebuild I know of was top end on a 3.2 on an otherwise gorgeous car (worn valve guides from memory)

Edited by drmark on Thursday 4th December 18:26

[Beaky59]

My 3.2 is on 125k miles and just produced 252 BHP on the dyno,

3.2's that needed a rebuild earlier in their lives are probably due to the way they were driven in the as opposed to engine issues........

[drmark]

Beaky59 said:

My 3.2 is on 125k miles and just produced 252 BHP on the dyno,

3.2's that needed a rebuild earlier in their lives are probably due to the way they were driven in the as opposed to engine issues........

Other than the 3.2s with the chocolate valve guides - a well known issue that has resulted in many a top end build in cars. 86 - 88 models from memory. Porsche changed design and then changed it again. Google Porsche and 3.2 valve guides and you will turn up a few concerns. Mostly pre-Internet though.