997 Gen 2 DFI Engines - Woes finally sorted?

[///ajd]

It is encouraging if the 997.2 onwards etc. is really is the end of the water cooled engine problems.

It is possible to read the blub about "increased block stability regarding cylinder bore roundness" as an admission that previous engines perhaps were lacking in this department. You can read the other aspects similarly.

7.2s are still >£40k. I wonder if they will keep their value better than 996/997.1s as a result?

Is the (potential) coking an expensive fix in other engines where it has happened, or just a case of cleaning/decoking (for another 100k miles say) - how would this be achieved - is it a full strip anyway?

[mollytherocker]

///ajd said:

It is encouraging if the 997.2 onwards etc. is really is the end of the water cooled engine problems.

7.2s are still >£40k. I wonder if they will keep their value better than 996/997.1s as a result?

I am wondering this. Logically, you would have to believe that they will fare better but due to their numbers and the doom and gloom economy, I reckon they will fall just as fast.

The gen 2 may end up being a pretty smart purchase in a couple of years.

MTR

[///ajd]

mollytherocker said:

The gen 2 may end up being a pretty smart purchase in a couple of years.

I suspect we aren't the only 2 thinking this. Stop it, it'll improve residuals before we buy one = bad .

[mollytherocker]

///ajd said:

mollytherocker said:

The gen 2 may end up being a pretty smart purchase in a couple of years.

I suspect we aren't the only 2 thinking this. Stop it, it'll improve residuals before we buy one = bad .

Conversation in 5 years time.

Owner - 'Hi, I just bought a 997!'
Friend - 'Wow, very nice! Gen 2 DFI?'
Owner - 'Er no.'
Friend - 'Oh'.

MTR

[nsm3]

90% of buyers probably won't have a clue about engine failures etc, so I would expect Gen 2 prices to go down the same plughole as all the others?

[HoHoHo]

nsm3 said:

90% of buyers probably won't have a clue about engine failures etc, so I would expect Gen 2 prices to go down the same plughole as all the others?

And most will still have a warranty of some kind so it won't matter if it's a 7.1.

[Waitforme]

nsm3 said:

90% of buyers probably won't have a clue about engine failures etc, so I would expect Gen 2 prices to go down the same plughole as all the others?

Exactly, If I had known I would not have bought a Gen 1 Cayman and if I buy a 911 then it will be a Gen 2 , wouldn't touch another Gen 1 with what I know now.

[Martian O]

Waitforme said:

nsm3 said:

90% of buyers probably won't have a clue about engine failures etc, so I would expect Gen 2 prices to go down the same plughole as all the others?

Exactly, If I had known I would not have bought a Gen 1 Cayman and if I buy a 911 then it will be a Gen 2 , wouldn't touch another Gen 1 with what I know now.

Turbo/GT models?

[Wills2]

nsm3 said:

90% of buyers probably won't have a clue about engine failures etc, so I would expect Gen 2 prices to go down the same plughole as all the others?

When you look at 911 Virgin, who seem to be able to sell every car they get, offering 997.1's at about 50% of the original purchase price at 6 years old I don't really think prices of either generation are going down the plug hole.

If you had spent your money on an AMG/M/RS you wouldn't get anything like that back.

Edited by Wills2 on Friday 19th August 11:16

[ChrisW.]

This sound very promising ... and just in time since the Mezger engine is no more for the Turbo GT3 cars ...

Again this would suggest that Porsche are confident with what they now have ...

[drmark]

bcnrml said:

But for the sake of others who might be swayed by your points, I thought it would be helpful to point out just how much ill-informed and ill-researched rubbish you have put in one post.

Cordial saludos to all pursuing the science of DFi engines for the benefit of us all. It's time.....and I'm off to enjoy the sun.

Interesting to see how this thread has developed....

[bcnrml]

drmark said:

bcnrml said:

But for the sake of others who might be swayed by your points, I thought it would be helpful to point out just how much ill-informed and ill-researched rubbish you have put in one post.

Cordial saludos to all pursuing the science of DFi engines for the benefit of us all. It's time.....and I'm off to enjoy the sun.

Interesting to see how this thread has developed....

This is not a conversation with you drmark, so I seek no response of you (and will ignore it for reasons already stated on here). But I write this post for the sake of others who might be misled by your points, and I'd really love to know who awarded your doctorate (if true) so I can avoid such a hallowed institution and your fellow alumni.

jackwood said:

I wonder if they have actually looked at the bores of any of those engines?

Above is a very pertinent question to R Soul's reference. Further, the material R Soul quotes describes the use of these engines in a manner completely different to normal road use (and a likely major factor in their findings). This refers to such a basic tenet of scientific research!

The evidence to date suggests no-one has solved this problem. Until there is a Eureka moment worthy of a major announcement in the automotive and mainstream engineering press, I'll not be holding my breath.

And I'll also wait for Ian_UK1's research before suggesting Porsche have solved a problem no-one else has.

[///ajd]

I feel certain issues should be kept separate - I.e 996 cylinder / ims known engine issues and possible dfi side effects.

The potential coking issues have as yet totally undetermined likelihood or impact - it may turn out to be a non-issue, a minor but manageable irritatant (I.e. Like worn valve guides in old engines), or a engine pop scandal. It feels at the moment unlikely to be the latter.

There is much useful info on here - the "I told you so", "I'm smarter than you" rants don't really add anything or put the post in a good light.

[bcnrml]

///ajd said:

I feel certain issues should be kept separate - I.e 996 cylinder / ims known engine issues and possible dfi side effects.

The potential coking issues have as yet totally undetermined likelihood or impact - it may turn out to be a non-issue, a minor but manageable irritatant (I.e. Like worn valve guides in old engines), or a engine pop scandal. It feels at the moment unlikely to be the latter.

There is much useful info on here - the "I told you so", "I'm smarter than you" rants don't really add anything or put the post in a good light.

If you're referring to my posts on here, then please could you explain which parts of my content are consistent with the comments you're making in your post quoted above?

IMO my points are quite clear - and in case you hadn't noticed, you'll find the thread title allows for all of the items in your second paragraph. So if you don't like the scope of this thread, why not invite the thread starter (and all of us) to limit the scope of our contributions to what you consider pertinent. Or start one of your own limited to whatsoever subject(s) you wish on the DFi engine. In the latter event, I'd be very happy to leave your thread untouched. Happy now?

---

ETA (for those too busy to check) the original questions posted by Mollytherocker:

mollytherocker said:

Do these engines mark the end of the much discussed weaknesses, i.e; liner cracking, bore scoring and IMS failures?

Can we now buy with confidence?

Or is it too early to conclude? Is coking up a real issue on these engines?

MTR

Edited by bcnrml on Sunday 21st August 19:02

[///ajd]

bcnrml said:

///ajd said:

I feel certain issues should be kept separate - I.e 996 cylinder / ims known engine issues and possible dfi side effects.

The potential coking issues have as yet totally undetermined likelihood or impact - it may turn out to be a non-issue, a minor but manageable irritatant (I.e. Like worn valve guides in old engines), or a engine pop scandal. It feels at the moment unlikely to be the latter.

There is much useful info on here - the "I told you so", "I'm smarter than you" rants don't really add anything or put the post in a good light.

If you're referring to my posts on here, then please could you explain which parts of my content are consistent with the comments you're making in your post quoted above?

IMO my points are quite clear - and in case you hadn't noticed, you'll find the thread title allows for all of the items in your second paragraph. So if you don't like the scope of this thread, why not invite the thread starter (and all of us) to limit the scope of our contributions to what you consider pertinent. Or start one of your own limited to whatsoever subject(s) you wish on the DFi engine. In the latter event, I'd be very happy to leave your thread untouched. Happy now?

---

ETA (for those too busy to check) the original questions posted by Mollytherocker:

mollytherocker said:

Do these engines mark the end of the much discussed weaknesses, i.e; liner cracking, bore scoring and IMS failures?

Can we now buy with confidence?

Or is it too early to conclude? Is coking up a real issue on these engines?

MTR

Edited by bcnrml on Sunday 21st August 19:02

What made you think I meant you? Perhaps you recognised some aspects of your posts

I have no issue what is in the thread, just that the different problems/issues should be treated objectively. I may have misunderstood but I interpreted your view as being the dfi coking was definately a big issue on a par with the cylinder & ims issues. This is the way you came across. Is that what you meant?

[R Soul]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about and I'm not talking about Maseratis either

There's enough anecdotal evidence to show several recurring issues that have variously affected the 9x6/9x7 models and Ian UK1's detailed info appears to pertain to the known engine-related instances. If what Ian UK1 has written is true, and I'd assume Porsche may have actually thought those changes through a little bit, then there's some chance they may have helped reduce, or eliminate, the issues they were trying to resolve by making those modifcations.

The fact that some of those modifcations coincide with the kind of things Baz is doing suggests either they're both right or both wrong this time.

There is no IMS - that seems pretty significant. Haven't heard of widespread RMS leaks on pre Gen-2 9x7 engines either.

I know jack, as I don't race, but I'll bet most race engines have a far more brutal existence than most poster's road cars (mainly-stationary warm-up, stationary on the grid, flat out for 10/20/30mins, a minute or two of slow driving, back to the garage) and assuming that 'that bloke' I quoted is also telling the truth then this would not only be great news but could also be indicative of the changes IAN UK1 posted as, perhaps, having made some impact, no?

Yes 'said' makes no mention of bores... but all the other items have been known issues.

As far as this coking goes (if someone could please explain what this DFI-specific coking concern is - I know what coking is - it'll save a new thread) 'said' points out that their environment (racing) isn't likely to experience coking but does mention using an additive - anyone known anything about this high pressure pump lube requirement? Additionally could this 'additive' be helping mitigate some DFI-related problem?

said:

We have not had a problem with carbon build up as you can imagine. These cars are run constanly at high RPM not like a Cayenne.
We do run some "secret sauce" in the fuel to keep the high pressure pumps lubed,other than that it's all normal.

So what's left is coking and bore scoring... Gen1 bore scoring appeared on engines with mileages ranging from below 10K to over 80K miles, Gen2 has been around long enough for the lower end of that range to be surpassed in sufficient numbers, without any significant instances of reported failures, to at least feel a bit more confident. Give it another year or two and we'll know for sure.

So, yeah, I'd say it sounds like good news.

Edited by R Soul on Monday 22 August 01:13

[bcnrml]

RSoul, I'm making a very simple point previously and repeatedly made on two other threads here. My response to drmark is based on his comments on the M96/97 problems and shouting down new and valid questions on the DFI engines. Look up Ian_UK1's thread on exploring coking in the DFI engine. IIRC, I was not alone in firmly putting his points in their place.

Stressful though the racing environment may be, isn't coking much less likely in it? Further, isn't an oft-raced engine more likely to be far better maintained (including more frequently) than a car used mainly for the road?

But hey, if any of you prefer to draw only positive conclusions from the racing examples you quoted, good for you - your money, etc.

[bcnrml]

///ajd said:

What made you think I meant you? Perhaps you recognised some aspects of your posts

Your post directly followed mine, so it is reasonable to assume you were referring to either drmark or I. Of course you seem to have ignored the fact that I started my post with the word "if".

///ajd said:

I have no issue what is in the thread, just that the different problems/issues should be treated objectively.

To my mind that's different to your previous post, but thanks for clarifying.

///ajd said:

I may have misunderstood but I interpreted your view as being the dfi coking was definately a big issue on a par with the cylinder & ims issues. This is the way you came across. Is that what you meant?

Ah, I see. Methinks you misunderstood a little.

Whether it is as big an issue as the IMS and cylinder scoring we won't know for a while. If you read Ian_UK1's first thread on the coking problem, you'll see my own hopeful naivety exposed by those more knowledgeable on the engineering and remediation options. If true, the cost implications are not minor, though the risk of a catastrophic failure a la the IMS is apparently much less likely. My initial optimism has been severely dented by the fact of Porsche's approach to sorting all of the problems on the M96 and M97 engines.

Anyway, some on here will say the IMS and cylinder issues are not major - all would be sorted with a warranty. Not a dig at anyone, just acknowledging a perspective different to mine.

[///ajd]

bcnrml said:

It is an issue and it does exist.

This is what caused my misunderstanding, but I can see in your above post that you are, to an extent, trying to keep your fear over the coking issue in perspective.

[drmark]

///ajd said:

This is what caused my misunderstanding, but I can see in your above post that you are, to an extent, trying to keep your fear over the coking issue in perspective.

Don't encourage him James - he loves the sound of his own voice and has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. And I am not sure he has ever sat in a Porsche let alone driven one.
Only time will tell if Porsche DFI engines have a coking issue - so far not one jot of evidence that they do. And, since there is nought owners can do about it any way, I think threads like this are pointless doom mongering.

Edited to add: and no I don't own a DFI engined car.