996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here!
Discussion
tonikaram said:
Bumcrack said:
It's pretty obvious most people who had an issue will want to vote and the ones which haven't had any problems won’t even think about it, not the way to compile a meaningful and accurate survey. The only way to really find the truth is to ask every single Porsche owner.
Bumcrack, till now, I was under the impression that we were doing a fair job at that. The survey is open to all PH users, not only those with a blown enigne. If I had gone and searched for threads about blown engines and added them to the data, then only one side of the data would be in since it's impossible to search for threads about good engines because these mostly don't exist.It seems to me that owners from all sides of the fence are contributing.
Kay
Edited by tonikaram on Wednesday 13th June 18:35
Bumcrack said:
It's pretty obvious most people who had an issue will want to vote and most of the peopl who haven't had any probs won’t even think about it, not the way to compile a meaningful and accurate survey. The only way to really find the truth is to ask every single Porsche owner.
With all due respect, I disagree.Edited by Bumcrack on Wednesday 13th June 18:31
If the only way were to ask every single Porsche owner, then why do Porsche (and so many other companies) sample only a tiny proportion of their customers?
This thread is capable of delivering a meaningful survey, albeit one with some weaknesses. There are plenty of people without problems who have stated as much, and they appear to be in the majority. So may I gently
ask that you let this thread run without knocking what is an honourable attempt to shed further light on an issue that is of genuine interest to us all? When we have a higher set of numbers, we can all dissect the results ourselves and draw our own conclusions.
Thanks very much.
Ballcock said:
I do think this thread is a tad lop-sided , but if that's taken into account , then there's no reason why it can't be viewed as a useful data .
Agreed. So let's get the data, and then qualify it over time. We all benefit.....edited to give credit where it was due.... with apologies to Ballcock for erroneously ascribing his copy to Bumcrack
Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 13th June 21:17
I never had a 996 - but will my dad did - 3 to be exact. Of them all - each car did 20k miles minimum over about 12-15 mths - not one failure or RMS problem ....
The only Porsche he has had ever had problems with were his 993's .. but they were OPC related. Like when they left the oil cap off the engine the day he picked it up. The first he knew of it was when the oil blew into the engine bay half way home on the M4 leaving a lovely cloud of blue smoke everywhere! Or when they failed to check the lights worked on the PDI of the one he had after it.. both were brand new cars as well, as in just picked them up from the OPC!
But otherwise he has had 30 Porsches cars over the years - all models - and they have been faultless. That must be a pretty good stat?
The only Porsche he has had ever had problems with were his 993's .. but they were OPC related. Like when they left the oil cap off the engine the day he picked it up. The first he knew of it was when the oil blew into the engine bay half way home on the M4 leaving a lovely cloud of blue smoke everywhere! Or when they failed to check the lights worked on the PDI of the one he had after it.. both were brand new cars as well, as in just picked them up from the OPC!
But otherwise he has had 30 Porsches cars over the years - all models - and they have been faultless. That must be a pretty good stat?
Edited by Try5t on Thursday 14th June 17:10
2003 996 (3.6) owned from 9K-35K miles. 2 x RMS replacements (one under warranty, one on goodwill from OPC)
Maybe the following scenario contributes somewhat to the high incidence of RMS replacements:
Me to OPC: "What's the damage on the service then"?
OPC: "Well, there's a slight leak from the RMS - not a problem, but we could fix it for you".
Me: "Bugger! What'll that cost"?
OPC: "Nothing - it's covered"
Me: "Well be my guest and go ahead and fix it then"!
I have a feeling that if I'd have had to stump up the cash for the fix, I'd still be driving round with the original RMS and putting up with a few oil drips on the driveway!
Until of course oil ingress led to a catastrophic intermediate shaft failure!
Maybe the following scenario contributes somewhat to the high incidence of RMS replacements:
Me to OPC: "What's the damage on the service then"?
OPC: "Well, there's a slight leak from the RMS - not a problem, but we could fix it for you".
Me: "Bugger! What'll that cost"?
OPC: "Nothing - it's covered"
Me: "Well be my guest and go ahead and fix it then"!
I have a feeling that if I'd have had to stump up the cash for the fix, I'd still be driving round with the original RMS and putting up with a few oil drips on the driveway!
Until of course oil ingress led to a catastrophic intermediate shaft failure!
Ballcock said:
deevee said:
Until of course oil ingress led to a catastrophic intermediate shaft failure!
And your evidence of this ever happening before is ..... ???????Careful ... This how b.s. rumours start ...
As the Porsche folks said to me - your RMS is leaking, it's nothing to worry about, but we'll fix it under warranty if you like. We all know how keen the OPC service folks are to point out every possible 'service' item (new pads/disks anyone?
) so if this was a serious 'engine-threatning' problem, then we can be sure that they would be telling us at service time in no uncertain terms!So, RMS problem? Well, keep it topped up and (as someone mentioned on the thread earlier) lay a gravel driveway! It's not something that keeps me awake at night!
Its strange how RMS leaks and engines going bang, now seem to be lumped together as one and same thing
One mildly annoys and the other is a freaking nightmare, but it’s all grouped together under the banner of “996 engine is unreliable”
I don’t think a small leak underneath the car ever stopped anyone finishing a journey or cost a fortune to fix.
One mildly annoys and the other is a freaking nightmare, but it’s all grouped together under the banner of “996 engine is unreliable”
I don’t think a small leak underneath the car ever stopped anyone finishing a journey or cost a fortune to fix.
Edited by Bumcrack on Monday 18th June 09:24
Updated stats:
1 failure, No RMS, 77Km, 3.4
1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km, 3.6
1 failure, No RMS, 16Km, 3.4
1 failure, No RMS, 41Km, 3.6
1 failure, 1 RMS, 46Km, 3.6
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km, 3.4
No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km, 3.4
No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km, 3.6
No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km, 3.4
No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 3.6
no failure, 2 RMS, 3.6
no failure, no RMS, 3.4
no failure, no RMS
no failure, no RMS, 18km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 99Km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 8Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 64km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 40Km, 3.6
no failure, no RMS, 48Km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 32km, 3.4
no failure, 2 RMS, 56Km, 3.6
Out of a total of 28 996's:
- 18%, or 5 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km)
- 61%, or 17 cases, have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.3 times.
From those that specified the engine, 10 3.4s and 11 3.6s participated so far in the survey.
Kay
1 failure, No RMS, 77Km, 3.4
1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km, 3.6
1 failure, No RMS, 16Km, 3.4
1 failure, No RMS, 41Km, 3.6
1 failure, 1 RMS, 46Km, 3.6
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km, 3.4
No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km, 3.4
No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km, 3.6
No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km, 3.4
No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 3.6
no failure, 2 RMS, 3.6
no failure, no RMS, 3.4
no failure, no RMS
no failure, no RMS, 18km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 99Km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 8Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 64km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 40Km, 3.6
no failure, no RMS, 48Km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 32km, 3.4
no failure, 2 RMS, 56Km, 3.6
Out of a total of 28 996's:
- 18%, or 5 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km)
- 61%, or 17 cases, have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.3 times.
From those that specified the engine, 10 3.4s and 11 3.6s participated so far in the survey.
Kay
Hi
I have been in the motor trade for 40Years a i can not think of another engine that comes close to the poor reliability of these M96 engines.
They have been in production since 1996 and are still having trouble today.
A company like Porsche should have least have got on top of the RMS Problem at least, as the no of the different seals are now into double figures.
Years ago Honda produced a V4 engine that was fitted to the VF750 and within a year they were knocking out camshafts like sticks are breaking. The warranty work very nearly bankrupted them. They held there hands up and redesigned the whole engine replacing the camchains with gear drive and the engine became grenade proof. So when they decided to put the V-Tec system in their production cars they made certain the would be reliable. I think they have had 4 failures in 2 million units .
The idea that you buy a prestige sports car then are forced into buying a £900 warranty is a joke even though it is great value for money.
I do not know wether our USA cousins are offered these exstended warranties but reading some of their forums they just complain loudly have a replacement fitted free of charge.
BMW have had trouble with the M3 knocking ends out and as it is a known fault they will replace any engines with this trouble free of charge regardless of age or mileage.
With the the modern engineering systems that are about now more than one failure in 5000 units is unacceptable.
It should not have to be left to companies like Hartec and Auto farm to show Porsche how to make these engines reliable.
I have been in the motor trade for 40Years a i can not think of another engine that comes close to the poor reliability of these M96 engines.
They have been in production since 1996 and are still having trouble today.
A company like Porsche should have least have got on top of the RMS Problem at least, as the no of the different seals are now into double figures.
Years ago Honda produced a V4 engine that was fitted to the VF750 and within a year they were knocking out camshafts like sticks are breaking. The warranty work very nearly bankrupted them. They held there hands up and redesigned the whole engine replacing the camchains with gear drive and the engine became grenade proof. So when they decided to put the V-Tec system in their production cars they made certain the would be reliable. I think they have had 4 failures in 2 million units .
The idea that you buy a prestige sports car then are forced into buying a £900 warranty is a joke even though it is great value for money.
I do not know wether our USA cousins are offered these exstended warranties but reading some of their forums they just complain loudly have a replacement fitted free of charge.
BMW have had trouble with the M3 knocking ends out and as it is a known fault they will replace any engines with this trouble free of charge regardless of age or mileage.
With the the modern engineering systems that are about now more than one failure in 5000 units is unacceptable.
It should not have to be left to companies like Hartec and Auto farm to show Porsche how to make these engines reliable.
Dunit said:
Hi
I have been in the motor trade for 40Years a i can not think of another engine that comes close to the poor reliability of these M96 engines.
They have been in production since 1996 and are still having trouble today.
A company like Porsche should have least have got on top of the RMS Problem at least, as the no of the different seals are now into double figures.
The idea that you buy a prestige sports car then are forced into buying a £900 warranty is a joke even though it is great value for money.
With the the modern engineering systems that are about now more than one failure in 5000 units is unacceptable.
It should not have to be left to companies like Hartec and Auto farm to show Porsche how to make these engines reliable.
Thanks for this Dunit. Good to have an informed view. Do you have any statistics you could share with us?I have been in the motor trade for 40Years a i can not think of another engine that comes close to the poor reliability of these M96 engines.
They have been in production since 1996 and are still having trouble today.
A company like Porsche should have least have got on top of the RMS Problem at least, as the no of the different seals are now into double figures.
The idea that you buy a prestige sports car then are forced into buying a £900 warranty is a joke even though it is great value for money.
With the the modern engineering systems that are about now more than one failure in 5000 units is unacceptable.
It should not have to be left to companies like Hartec and Auto farm to show Porsche how to make these engines reliable.
By your benchmark (see emboldened text), the failure rate of a premium engine should be circa 0.02%.
If anyone else thinks otherwise, please could we have some hard statistics in support of your views?
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff