High Mileage 996 Engines
Discussion
Hi all.
I've read quite a few threads about a small proportion of 996 engines succumbing to various ailments resulting in the need for costly repairs or replacement but are there many examples of these engines reaching high mileages without much trouble? I was thinking of upwards of 100k. What about the rest of the main mechanical items?
Steve.
I've read quite a few threads about a small proportion of 996 engines succumbing to various ailments resulting in the need for costly repairs or replacement but are there many examples of these engines reaching high mileages without much trouble? I was thinking of upwards of 100k. What about the rest of the main mechanical items?
Steve.
You have the weekend which still wont give you enough time to read all the posts on here regarding 996 / boxster engine problems.
In a few lines, they nearly all have problems with the RMS (rear main seal)leaking oil, which depending on when noticed can lead to oil drips on the garage floor or total engine failure.
Some early cars had problems with the liners which leads to engine failure unless very lucky.
Before I get s
gged off for talking bad about 996's I had 3 boxsters (all new) and a low milage C2, only the 98 C2 needed attention to the RMS.
A very well respected Porsche dealer said to me when trying to px the C2 " its not a case of if they go wrong its when they go wrong, we have had them go pop at 8k miles and 108k miles you just dont know"
Wouldnt stop me buying one but would want warranty of some kind again well covered on here.
100k+ ...... I would be thinking carefully
In a few lines, they nearly all have problems with the RMS (rear main seal)leaking oil, which depending on when noticed can lead to oil drips on the garage floor or total engine failure.
Some early cars had problems with the liners which leads to engine failure unless very lucky.
Before I get s
gged off for talking bad about 996's I had 3 boxsters (all new) and a low milage C2, only the 98 C2 needed attention to the RMS.A very well respected Porsche dealer said to me when trying to px the C2 " its not a case of if they go wrong its when they go wrong, we have had them go pop at 8k miles and 108k miles you just dont know"
Wouldnt stop me buying one but would want warranty of some kind again well covered on here.
100k+ ...... I would be thinking carefully
There are very occasional issues, but many many engines have passed 100k with no issues.
I don't believe porsche are any worse than any other brand (BMW Vanos, Nissan GTR Gearboxes, Audi DRC, etc.), it's more that the cost is big when things go wrong and Porsche are not known for their helpfulness.
Buy a warranty if you really want to sleep well at night (applies to any expensive car imho).
Edit - brncrl will be along shortly, don't forget to ask him if he owns a porsche.
I don't believe porsche are any worse than any other brand (BMW Vanos, Nissan GTR Gearboxes, Audi DRC, etc.), it's more that the cost is big when things go wrong and Porsche are not known for their helpfulness.
Buy a warranty if you really want to sleep well at night (applies to any expensive car imho).
Edit - brncrl will be along shortly, don't forget to ask him if he owns a porsche.
Edited by noumenon on Friday 19th December 16:50
Stephen Pook said:
Hi all.
I've read quite a few threads about a small proportion of 996 engines succumbing to various ailments resulting in the need for costly repairs or replacement but are there many examples of these engines reaching high mileages without much trouble? I was thinking of upwards of 100k. What about the rest of the main mechanical items?
Steve.
I reckon I'd treat RMS as a service item.I've read quite a few threads about a small proportion of 996 engines succumbing to various ailments resulting in the need for costly repairs or replacement but are there many examples of these engines reaching high mileages without much trouble? I was thinking of upwards of 100k. What about the rest of the main mechanical items?
Steve.
Aside from that I reckon time will show that motor to go 200k plus if looked after.
Huntsman said:
Stephen Pook said:
Hi all.
I've read quite a few threads about a small proportion of 996 engines succumbing to various ailments resulting in the need for costly repairs or replacement but are there many examples of these engines reaching high mileages without much trouble? I was thinking of upwards of 100k. What about the rest of the main mechanical items?
Steve.
I reckon I'd treat RMS as a service item.I've read quite a few threads about a small proportion of 996 engines succumbing to various ailments resulting in the need for costly repairs or replacement but are there many examples of these engines reaching high mileages without much trouble? I was thinking of upwards of 100k. What about the rest of the main mechanical items?
Steve.
Aside from that I reckon time will show that motor to go 200k plus if looked after.
Biggest mileage ive see on original engine was 120K
Mike
sportsandclassic said:
Huntsman said:
Stephen Pook said:
Hi all.
I've read quite a few threads about a small proportion of 996 engines succumbing to various ailments resulting in the need for costly repairs or replacement but are there many examples of these engines reaching high mileages without much trouble? I was thinking of upwards of 100k. What about the rest of the main mechanical items?
Steve.
I reckon I'd treat RMS as a service item.I've read quite a few threads about a small proportion of 996 engines succumbing to various ailments resulting in the need for costly repairs or replacement but are there many examples of these engines reaching high mileages without much trouble? I was thinking of upwards of 100k. What about the rest of the main mechanical items?
Steve.
Aside from that I reckon time will show that motor to go 200k plus if looked after.
200K ! i would like to see this....
Biggest mileage ive see on original engine was 120K
Mike
sportsandclassic said:
Hi it snapped the timing chain !
Pistons picked up on 5 and 6 cylinders and alot of blow by past the rings.....big end bearings very out of shape !
Mike
Does the waterpumper sevice schedule mention ever replacing timing chains?Pistons picked up on 5 and 6 cylinders and alot of blow by past the rings.....big end bearings very out of shape !
Mike
Time will tell I guess as more get into big miles.
Huntsman said:
sportsandclassic said:
Hi it snapped the timing chain !
Pistons picked up on 5 and 6 cylinders and alot of blow by past the rings.....big end bearings very out of shape !
Mike
Does the waterpumper sevice schedule mention ever replacing timing chains?Pistons picked up on 5 and 6 cylinders and alot of blow by past the rings.....big end bearings very out of shape !
Mike
Time will tell I guess as more get into big miles.
No interval on the timing chains...we have started changing them as a preventative measure by fitting split link chains which means we do nothave to strip the engine down to the crank shaft and as far as we know are the only place to offer this service by checking the timing of the cams with the porsche tester on 3.6L engines and see how much the variators are adjusting due to stretch in the chains....we beleive the chains are being over tensioned as they are of very good origin and quality....
Mike
Some early engines had a bigger hydraulic chain tensioner but that was quickly rectified by Porsche although I have not seen any evidence of the change being formally recorded. Similarly head sizes on head bolts being made bigger.
Crankshaft to shell clearances are slightly higher than previous engines (probably to reflect the cracked con-rods being less accurate) and shell quality varioes and has been altered in later models.
Baz
Crankshaft to shell clearances are slightly higher than previous engines (probably to reflect the cracked con-rods being less accurate) and shell quality varioes and has been altered in later models.
Baz
77k on my early 3.4 Manual...
Using no oil or water between services in the 5k I have owned it and the temperatures still look good and performance is still awesome!
Then again, I guess that actually makes mine quite low mileage as it will be less than 8k per annum on its 10th birthday?
Also, no expense spared on maintenance and it is not thrashed/ abused.
Using no oil or water between services in the 5k I have owned it and the temperatures still look good and performance is still awesome!
Then again, I guess that actually makes mine quite low mileage as it will be less than 8k per annum on its 10th birthday?
Also, no expense spared on maintenance and it is not thrashed/ abused.
Its an odd one this how some cars do have problems and others dont, my dads 987 had problems at 29k miles, intermediate shaft went and flooded the garage out with quite a bit oil.. he had really looked after that car and never over revved it or drove it excessively hard, worked as a service manager so hes no mug when it comes to cars. Then there is my 986 which i reguarly gave the beans (always up to temperature first) right up to 50k miles and not even a RMS leak..nothing.
I will try and offer some explanations and answers to the various points made so far (and perhaps provide something for you to ponder over Christmas).
Most high performance engines will need rebuilds at some time in their lives to maintain performance.
Previous Porsche engines were generally manufactured to such a high standard they could be tuned up significantly without much increase in failure rates (i.e. 911's as the basic original design capacity grew from 2 to 3.6 litres, 924's and 944's to turbo's, and into the 968 etc and in all this Porsche made less and less profit until eventually it cost them more to manufacture than they sold for. This is because the "market" sets an acceptable price for volume sales of a product and basically they made too good a job - by "old fashioned methods" for the production costs that resulted and were unable to reinvest gradually/continually. The very fact that their "standard" engines could be "tuned up" without adverse consequences basically proved that they had been over engineered in the first place and the modern world simply cannot afford such extravagance - whoever you are and whatever you manufacture.
The world has got better at making perfectly good cars (engines and gearboxes) for a lower cost but Porsche increasingly were unable to afford the transition to that new technology until they had to make a leap of faith to the new range of Boxster and 996 engines. They went overnight from far too over engineered, expensive engines to manufacture - to "up to date" engines made by the latest technology for a purpose and to a price. This sets a point in time at which things obviously changed - but without which Porsche would not now exist.
The result is more powerful than before, less emissions, with a lot of good ideas and high quality parts but designed more for a price than just quality. When it came to more powerful examples this time (Gt's and turbocharged versions) Porsche already new that they would have to use better/different engine designs in some areas (rather than just uplift the power of the standard product) and did so and put up the cost accordingly. This time you paid extra for the basic engine that could provide extra performance (and IMHO quite rightly!).
All this means they did the right thing and designed and made things to serve the purpose they were intended and the price they attracted. Unfortunately they had been so reliable before (as a result of the over engineering) people expected the same reliability. I think Porsche thought they had achieved that too because a lot of the design is actually very clever and has been done that way for long term life and rebuild potential (of which the steel reinforced crank carrier is a great example and the Lokasil bore lack of surface wear and good lubrication is another). But when you design such a high output power plant with lots of new ideas and for a price - there are inevitably a few weak spots that time reveals that perhaps could have been done a little better in the first place and a few new ideas that were not the best - as it turns out.
The problems therefore split into 4 possible areas - (A) Those that were not the best design or production ideas (as it turns out), or new technology that hasn't quite worked as well as expected in practice - and (B) those that were the result of typical modern engine design practice that were always designed for the purpose intended - for a price and have a lifespan more typical of all other modern engines - and therefore that occasionally fail. (C) The fact that it may be financially beneficial (or a preference) for some places to recommend a new engine when in the past it would have been less expensive to simply repair the fault and rebuild the engine. (D) The emergence of the internet as a way of communicating product dissatisfaction that members of the public were previously largely unaware of.
Looking at (A) the following come to mind.
(1) The Lokasil bore idea provides a brilliant bore surface for a modest production cost - but needs sufficient aluminium wall thickness to prevent stretching and cracking. The Boxster up to (and including the 3.2S) were Ok but instead of increasing the wall thickness for the 3.4 and 3.6 engines - they kept the outside diameter the same and increased the bore - so making the wall thickness thinner and the bore became unstable and goes oval in time. They would not have expected this as it is probably a symptom of "metal matrix composites" which is too new a technology to anticipate. The benefits would have seemed to outweigh the possible problems although there are solutions that have not been taken up.
Oval bores increase piston clearance (and eventually prevent good ring sealing until the blow by burns off the lubricant and the piston partially or wholly seizes) or they crack.
We can re-round the bores and fit supporting rings to remove this problem.
(2) The dreaded IMS bearing failures. In my view this was a poor design - and should have been picked up sooner and sorted out quicker and for too long blindly continued to use the same design for the primary source of the problem by shielding the bearing from a replenishing oil supply. We change the lubricating method and fit stronger spindles.
(3) As with all other modern engines I have seen - the crankshaft shell bearings are thinner than could have been fitted into the space available - I am told to reduce friction and improve mpg (although I am sceptical about this explanation). Wider shells maintain vital oil pressure to critical parts longer and are therefore more reliable and probably cost no more. We have had wider undersize shells manufactured - currently under test - but they could have been fitted originally and probably would have extended crankshaft life - but this then opens up the debate about how long should the engine have been designed to last and what is an acceptable mileage for the cost and performance?
(4) The RMS leak is not technically a serious reliability problem – rather more an inconvenience and could have been cured with a relatively simple re-design that was not forthcoming.
(B)
(1) Cracked jointed con rods and Nitrided crankshafts are a modern production method that is good and dramatically lowers costs - almost with 100% reliability. Without explaining why (it would take too long) - occasionally they don't last as long as parts made by the older and more expensive methods - and if this happens it is a cost you pay for buying a modern car for the price you pay for it. We are testing re-ground and re-hardened crankshafts but it will be a while before we can do enough testing to use them as a production option
(2) Smaller chain driven sprockets (as fitted to modern engines) are cheaper to produce and take up less space but they load and wear chains more leading to occasional unreliability (although chain problems are extremely infrequent and the least of our concerns). New chains can be fitted during a rebuild or we can fit split link chains without stripping the engine.
(3) Plastic pipes, inlet manifolds, oil separators, etc. These dramatically reduce production costs but deteriorate more with age and mileage than traditional designs - again visiting the cost/expectation argument - what was planned and what is acceptable?
(C) Perhaps the biggest problem has been the reluctance to simply rebuild the engines. This has IMHO delayed the desire to learn about the shortcomings and redesign solutions. I am not suggesting this is wrong as it seems to be the modern way to address all product problems – but it has left owners with a harsh choice and a huge cost that has implied that the engines are poorly made (if they cannot be rebuilt) whereas in practice they are perfectly Ok to rebuild with very high reliability – if the desire is there to do it.
Furthermore if rebuilding is an option it is inevitable that changes will be thought of at the same time to improve the resulting performance and longevity, whereas simply replacing the engine doesn’t promote the same incentives.
It may well be that with main agent labour rates so relatively high - it is a better option for them to offer replacement engines (or it may be better financially for them to do so as they have lower recharge rates and a percentage of parts costs to consider in their internal costings).
The engines are also more difficult to rebuild than traditional engines and less places seem to have undertaken it – so again – that option seems less well publicised and has created an impression that the engines need to be replaced (and therefore are really bad) – which is nonsense.
(D) The internet has a lot to answer for.
On the one hand it has provided an invaluable platform for people to communicate by – but on the other hand it seems to have encouraged some people to raise their own self esteem by posting as experts (when they are not) and this has resulted in a lot of arguments to rage that were traditionally only the province of debating societies and between people usually at least qualified to present a case. It is human nature anyway to have different opinions but the greatly increased and potentially Worldwide readership has raised the profile of disagreements and for some people the desperation to be seen to be right – which is unprecedented – hence the volatility of some of the arguments on here.
Because we not only rebuild engines but also – in the process – improve all the known main weak spots (many of which we have not listed) and manage to do this for a price that is actually often less than most others are charging for 944’s, 968’s and air cooled 911’s – with exceptional reliability – from our point of view - these are all good engines that have a few relatively minor weak spots that can be improved or fixed and for a high performance engine the reliability rates are perfectly acceptable and rebuilds (if required) a reasonable alternative.
Consequently we defend the general quality of the engines and are relaxed about the repair situation – in the relatively few cases we come across. We are bound in these circumstances to argue with those who criticise them unfairly – but only because – for us – they do not present a problem and are easy and relatively inexpensive to fix.
Because we were probably first into rebuilding them commercially (and probably due to my background designing and manufacturing racing engines) we have managed to fix/re-use all the engines that come our way (in increasing numbers) for modest costs with good outcomes (despite most initially being condemned elsewhere and the only alternative then offered being a new replacement).
However – for others unable to access our services – or fearful of the problem that has been relatively exaggerated by the recent and prolific use of internet forums – they may form the opposite conclusions. I guess it is all relative and depends where you are coming from – but there are a few facts that are indisputable.
(1) Porsche could not have existed doing the same things again after the 1990’s and had to modernise production.
(2) Porsche had to use modern production ideas and methods to survive and there is an inevitable consequence.
(3) If the Internet had been active 20 or 30 years ago there would have been more criticism and awareness of other design/production failures in older examples.
(4) If Porsche had simply tried to rebuild all engines first and been more generous with compensation/rebuild prices – the engines would not have got such a poor reputation (and they possibly might have introduced permanent remedies more quickly).
(5) If you have a problem with your engine and have access to our services – or – if you find the idea of a rebuild for preventative maintenance (and the improvement of weak areas) acceptable (as it has been for all other models perhaps at slightly higher mileages) we can offer viable and reliable alternatives to a new engine with numerous rebuild options and technical changes.
Perhaps the only thing Porsche did wrong in their desire to survive as a sports car manufacturer, was to do too good a job of the cost reduction exercise (and therefore make more profit than they expected) and then be reluctant to admit to the few shortcomings that resulted (by way of compensation or replacement engine prices) to preserve their previous reputation.
For most people with engines under 100K - it is relatively no more expensive to repair an engine than invest in a premature rebuild to avoid a failure and so I think it is probably better to await the unlikely failure first (and this will be reinforced if our crankshaft repair methods prove reliable - as they should).
The mileage at which it may be worth considering a preventative rebuild is difficult to establish. For Boxsters I guess it will end up being around 140K but for 996's it will probably be 100K or so.
This allows that a few will fail before that and is trying to second guess the mileage that they can still be recovered from before wear and catastophic failures increase the costs too much.
Happy Christmas everyone,
Baz
Most high performance engines will need rebuilds at some time in their lives to maintain performance.
Previous Porsche engines were generally manufactured to such a high standard they could be tuned up significantly without much increase in failure rates (i.e. 911's as the basic original design capacity grew from 2 to 3.6 litres, 924's and 944's to turbo's, and into the 968 etc and in all this Porsche made less and less profit until eventually it cost them more to manufacture than they sold for. This is because the "market" sets an acceptable price for volume sales of a product and basically they made too good a job - by "old fashioned methods" for the production costs that resulted and were unable to reinvest gradually/continually. The very fact that their "standard" engines could be "tuned up" without adverse consequences basically proved that they had been over engineered in the first place and the modern world simply cannot afford such extravagance - whoever you are and whatever you manufacture.
The world has got better at making perfectly good cars (engines and gearboxes) for a lower cost but Porsche increasingly were unable to afford the transition to that new technology until they had to make a leap of faith to the new range of Boxster and 996 engines. They went overnight from far too over engineered, expensive engines to manufacture - to "up to date" engines made by the latest technology for a purpose and to a price. This sets a point in time at which things obviously changed - but without which Porsche would not now exist.
The result is more powerful than before, less emissions, with a lot of good ideas and high quality parts but designed more for a price than just quality. When it came to more powerful examples this time (Gt's and turbocharged versions) Porsche already new that they would have to use better/different engine designs in some areas (rather than just uplift the power of the standard product) and did so and put up the cost accordingly. This time you paid extra for the basic engine that could provide extra performance (and IMHO quite rightly!).
All this means they did the right thing and designed and made things to serve the purpose they were intended and the price they attracted. Unfortunately they had been so reliable before (as a result of the over engineering) people expected the same reliability. I think Porsche thought they had achieved that too because a lot of the design is actually very clever and has been done that way for long term life and rebuild potential (of which the steel reinforced crank carrier is a great example and the Lokasil bore lack of surface wear and good lubrication is another). But when you design such a high output power plant with lots of new ideas and for a price - there are inevitably a few weak spots that time reveals that perhaps could have been done a little better in the first place and a few new ideas that were not the best - as it turns out.
The problems therefore split into 4 possible areas - (A) Those that were not the best design or production ideas (as it turns out), or new technology that hasn't quite worked as well as expected in practice - and (B) those that were the result of typical modern engine design practice that were always designed for the purpose intended - for a price and have a lifespan more typical of all other modern engines - and therefore that occasionally fail. (C) The fact that it may be financially beneficial (or a preference) for some places to recommend a new engine when in the past it would have been less expensive to simply repair the fault and rebuild the engine. (D) The emergence of the internet as a way of communicating product dissatisfaction that members of the public were previously largely unaware of.
Looking at (A) the following come to mind.
(1) The Lokasil bore idea provides a brilliant bore surface for a modest production cost - but needs sufficient aluminium wall thickness to prevent stretching and cracking. The Boxster up to (and including the 3.2S) were Ok but instead of increasing the wall thickness for the 3.4 and 3.6 engines - they kept the outside diameter the same and increased the bore - so making the wall thickness thinner and the bore became unstable and goes oval in time. They would not have expected this as it is probably a symptom of "metal matrix composites" which is too new a technology to anticipate. The benefits would have seemed to outweigh the possible problems although there are solutions that have not been taken up.
Oval bores increase piston clearance (and eventually prevent good ring sealing until the blow by burns off the lubricant and the piston partially or wholly seizes) or they crack.
We can re-round the bores and fit supporting rings to remove this problem.
(2) The dreaded IMS bearing failures. In my view this was a poor design - and should have been picked up sooner and sorted out quicker and for too long blindly continued to use the same design for the primary source of the problem by shielding the bearing from a replenishing oil supply. We change the lubricating method and fit stronger spindles.
(3) As with all other modern engines I have seen - the crankshaft shell bearings are thinner than could have been fitted into the space available - I am told to reduce friction and improve mpg (although I am sceptical about this explanation). Wider shells maintain vital oil pressure to critical parts longer and are therefore more reliable and probably cost no more. We have had wider undersize shells manufactured - currently under test - but they could have been fitted originally and probably would have extended crankshaft life - but this then opens up the debate about how long should the engine have been designed to last and what is an acceptable mileage for the cost and performance?
(4) The RMS leak is not technically a serious reliability problem – rather more an inconvenience and could have been cured with a relatively simple re-design that was not forthcoming.
(B)
(1) Cracked jointed con rods and Nitrided crankshafts are a modern production method that is good and dramatically lowers costs - almost with 100% reliability. Without explaining why (it would take too long) - occasionally they don't last as long as parts made by the older and more expensive methods - and if this happens it is a cost you pay for buying a modern car for the price you pay for it. We are testing re-ground and re-hardened crankshafts but it will be a while before we can do enough testing to use them as a production option
(2) Smaller chain driven sprockets (as fitted to modern engines) are cheaper to produce and take up less space but they load and wear chains more leading to occasional unreliability (although chain problems are extremely infrequent and the least of our concerns). New chains can be fitted during a rebuild or we can fit split link chains without stripping the engine.
(3) Plastic pipes, inlet manifolds, oil separators, etc. These dramatically reduce production costs but deteriorate more with age and mileage than traditional designs - again visiting the cost/expectation argument - what was planned and what is acceptable?
(C) Perhaps the biggest problem has been the reluctance to simply rebuild the engines. This has IMHO delayed the desire to learn about the shortcomings and redesign solutions. I am not suggesting this is wrong as it seems to be the modern way to address all product problems – but it has left owners with a harsh choice and a huge cost that has implied that the engines are poorly made (if they cannot be rebuilt) whereas in practice they are perfectly Ok to rebuild with very high reliability – if the desire is there to do it.
Furthermore if rebuilding is an option it is inevitable that changes will be thought of at the same time to improve the resulting performance and longevity, whereas simply replacing the engine doesn’t promote the same incentives.
It may well be that with main agent labour rates so relatively high - it is a better option for them to offer replacement engines (or it may be better financially for them to do so as they have lower recharge rates and a percentage of parts costs to consider in their internal costings).
The engines are also more difficult to rebuild than traditional engines and less places seem to have undertaken it – so again – that option seems less well publicised and has created an impression that the engines need to be replaced (and therefore are really bad) – which is nonsense.
(D) The internet has a lot to answer for.
On the one hand it has provided an invaluable platform for people to communicate by – but on the other hand it seems to have encouraged some people to raise their own self esteem by posting as experts (when they are not) and this has resulted in a lot of arguments to rage that were traditionally only the province of debating societies and between people usually at least qualified to present a case. It is human nature anyway to have different opinions but the greatly increased and potentially Worldwide readership has raised the profile of disagreements and for some people the desperation to be seen to be right – which is unprecedented – hence the volatility of some of the arguments on here.
Because we not only rebuild engines but also – in the process – improve all the known main weak spots (many of which we have not listed) and manage to do this for a price that is actually often less than most others are charging for 944’s, 968’s and air cooled 911’s – with exceptional reliability – from our point of view - these are all good engines that have a few relatively minor weak spots that can be improved or fixed and for a high performance engine the reliability rates are perfectly acceptable and rebuilds (if required) a reasonable alternative.
Consequently we defend the general quality of the engines and are relaxed about the repair situation – in the relatively few cases we come across. We are bound in these circumstances to argue with those who criticise them unfairly – but only because – for us – they do not present a problem and are easy and relatively inexpensive to fix.
Because we were probably first into rebuilding them commercially (and probably due to my background designing and manufacturing racing engines) we have managed to fix/re-use all the engines that come our way (in increasing numbers) for modest costs with good outcomes (despite most initially being condemned elsewhere and the only alternative then offered being a new replacement).
However – for others unable to access our services – or fearful of the problem that has been relatively exaggerated by the recent and prolific use of internet forums – they may form the opposite conclusions. I guess it is all relative and depends where you are coming from – but there are a few facts that are indisputable.
(1) Porsche could not have existed doing the same things again after the 1990’s and had to modernise production.
(2) Porsche had to use modern production ideas and methods to survive and there is an inevitable consequence.
(3) If the Internet had been active 20 or 30 years ago there would have been more criticism and awareness of other design/production failures in older examples.
(4) If Porsche had simply tried to rebuild all engines first and been more generous with compensation/rebuild prices – the engines would not have got such a poor reputation (and they possibly might have introduced permanent remedies more quickly).
(5) If you have a problem with your engine and have access to our services – or – if you find the idea of a rebuild for preventative maintenance (and the improvement of weak areas) acceptable (as it has been for all other models perhaps at slightly higher mileages) we can offer viable and reliable alternatives to a new engine with numerous rebuild options and technical changes.
Perhaps the only thing Porsche did wrong in their desire to survive as a sports car manufacturer, was to do too good a job of the cost reduction exercise (and therefore make more profit than they expected) and then be reluctant to admit to the few shortcomings that resulted (by way of compensation or replacement engine prices) to preserve their previous reputation.
For most people with engines under 100K - it is relatively no more expensive to repair an engine than invest in a premature rebuild to avoid a failure and so I think it is probably better to await the unlikely failure first (and this will be reinforced if our crankshaft repair methods prove reliable - as they should).
The mileage at which it may be worth considering a preventative rebuild is difficult to establish. For Boxsters I guess it will end up being around 140K but for 996's it will probably be 100K or so.
This allows that a few will fail before that and is trying to second guess the mileage that they can still be recovered from before wear and catastophic failures increase the costs too much.
Happy Christmas everyone,
Baz
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff