996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here!

[tonikaram]

All,

Let's establish a ratio. All those who owned a 996 non GT3/GT2, please just reply to this thread with the year model, how many years of ownership, and whether the engine failed.

I'm getting to the bottom of this!

Kay

[tonikaram]

I haven't found a statistics thread about this yet, Let's keep this up!

[tonikaram]

The Griffalo said:

Something like this?

HTH.

Not quite, Griffalo, something slightly more thorough.

Kay

[tonikaram]

Wanta996 said:

I guess the warranty is the only way to go when buying a 911 which either tells you allot about the car OR the fear being on this forum has instilled in me.

This is what this forum has done to me too, but where I live, warranty is not an option, and plenty of 996s are wandering around getting sold and resold without one, it's strange. OPC can't reinstate expired warrantees, no 111point check around here.

Kay

[tonikaram]

Testarossa said:

out of 12 cars and a combined mileage of over 500,000 miles we did not have any engine failures, nor any warranty work.

sleep envy said:

have yet to buy a warranty for a porsche in over 3 years of being an owner

gents, are we talking about 996s? (non-GT2/GT3 at that)

[tonikaram]

[quote=Gazboyhe ran two threads simultaneously, ones for rebuilt sixes, and ones that have never been a problem, more people posted they hadn't had a problem. Unfortunately some people still had their fingers in their ears
[/quote]

An observation though: you mention that more people said they didn't have a problem, but that still leaves the odds to say 40/60. From what I have been reading for the 996, it's even less, but that doesn't mean that it's not still too high. My guess about the 996 is that about 70/80% have had no problem, and 30/20% have had a failure. In production cars language, such a percentage for engine failures (nothing less) is mindblowingly high.


Kay

[tonikaram]

Draft summary of the results till now:

Each line below represents a car surveyed:
1 failure, (10,000 Euro fixing), No RMS, 77Km
1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km
1 failure, No RMS, 16Km
1 failure, No RMS, 40Km
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km
No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km
no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km
no failure, no RMS


Out of a total of 14 996's:
- 29%, or 4 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km)
- 71%, or 10 cases, have had RMS, which is sometimes recurring. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.4 times.


Kay

[tonikaram]

Updated stats with more entries:

1 failure, No RMS, 77Km
1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km
1 failure, No RMS, 16Km
1 failure, No RMS, 40Km
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km
No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km
no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km
no failure, 1 RMS
no failure, 2 RMS
no failure, no RMS
no failure, no RMS


Out of a total of 17 996's:
- 24%, or 4 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km)
- 71%, or 12 cases, have had RMS, which is sometimes recurring. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.4 times.

RMS percentages stayed equal after the new entries. I think we can consider these accurate.

Kay

[tonikaram]

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

[tonikaram]

Homer J said:

2000 Boxster S - No Problems
2001 996 - No Problems

Homer J, from which mileage to which mileage have you kept the 996, and over which years? finally, which year model is it?

Kay

[tonikaram]

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

[tonikaram]

Bumcrack said:

Highly unlikely

33 996s so far.

Kay

Edited by tonikaram on Friday 22 June 11:00

[tonikaram]

Ballcock said:

*bumpidy bump bump bump*
Hey Toni , You keepin scores any more??

As requested :

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
1 failure, no RMS, 138Km, 3.4
1 failure, 1 RMS, 112Km, 3.4
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, 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
no failure, 1 RMS, 77Km, 3.6
no failure, no RMS, 88Km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 30Km, 3.4
no failure, 1 RMS, 48km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 38Km, 3.6
no failure, no RMS, 106Km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 152Km, 3.4
no failure, 3 RMS, 72Km, 3.6
no failure, no RMS, 51Km, 3.6
no failure, no RMS, 107Km, 3.4
no failure, no RMS, 27Km, 3.6
no failure, 1 RMS, 43km, 3.6



Out of a total of 42 996's:
- 16.6%, or 7 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 70,000Km
- 52%, or 22 cases, have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.4 times.
From those that specified the engine, 19 3.4s and 19 3.6s participated so far in the survey.
- 38% or 16 cases had none of these two problems, with an average of 57,000Km (9 3.4s average 80,000Km, and 6 3.6s average 30,000Km)


The rate of engine failure is decreasing, although not spectacularly. Same for RMS.

Kay

Edited by tonikaram on Monday 2nd July 10:12

[tonikaram]

Ballcock said:

:cheers:
.. Interesting to note that there's nearly as many 3.6 as 3.4 failures.
I know there's a general perception that the 'facelifted' cars have more reliable engines , but I was told by an inside source a few months ago that the failures (when they did happen) were fairly even across the board.

I thought the same. A Porsche mechanic at the dealership here strongly believed that 2002+ models are of better quality mechanically, but the stats here don't really show that. Same numbers although these are 3 to 4 years younger.

Ballcock said:

The longer we can keep the thread alive the lower the failure rates will go.

The failure rate was actually 14.6% when I posted , but meanwhile TheMonster entered his data prompting me to edit my post back to 16.6%..

Kay

Edited by tonikaram on Monday 2nd July 10:29

[tonikaram]

Ballcock said:

tonikaram said:

A Porsche mechanic at the dealership here strongly believed that 2002+ models are of better quality mechanically, but the stats here don't really show that.

This may be a little cynical of me but the lads to talk to about failure rates are the indies , they don't have an axe to grind. OPC's may stop talking up the face lifters when they don't have them on their forecourts any more ... Then it'll be a case of ' the 997 has the much more reliable engine ' , even though it's been taken straight out of the 3.6 996...

Cynical mode off......

Good point, may as well be right on actually

Kay

[tonikaram]

fulham911club said:

2003 C2 owned from new. Just had RMS fixed (noticed after service in May). Got goodwill payment from Porsche (didn't even need to ask for it) and all it cost me was £80. Other than a flat battery (from 4 weeks of non-use) hasn't cost me a penny in repairs.

fulham, what is the mileage at which the RMS was done?

Kay

[tonikaram]

Porsche Tech said:

nxi20 said:

2002 C4 56,300 miles, original engine and no RMS failure that I know of.

And what do you hope to gain from this survey??????????

Like in the garage, we only see the bad ones, the good ones far out way them.

Buy your used car warrenty's, never understand people not buying them and then moaning when PCGB wont offer good will claim, epecially when they have had them serviced at none OPC garage

Regardless of the existence of solutions (warranty) and whether they are suitable or not, the point of this thread is to attempt to assess the reliability of the M96 996 engine against catastrophic failure.
Each is entitled to have faith or not in the outcome of this thread, but not to wish that it stops. It has already gathered significant contribution and may already have value.


Kay

[tonikaram]

Current stats:

Out of 56 996's:
- 12.5% or 7 engine failures (four 3.4 and three 3.6)
- 54% or 30 cases have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on average 1.3 times.
- 39% or 22 cases have had none of these two problems (twelve 3.4s, nine 3.6, one unspecified).
In the survey, there are twenty-six 3,6s, twenty-six 3.4s, and four unspecified


RMS distribution:
1998 2 RMS out of 4 cars in survey
1999 4 RMS out of 9 cars in survey
2000 3 RMS out of 7 cars in survey
2001 3 RMS out of 4 cars in survey
2002 7 RMS out of 10 cars in survey
2003 6 RMS out of 9 cars in survey
2004 0 RMS out of 4 cars in survey
9 entries in the stats didn't specify the year. 5 were affected by RMS, 4 not.

engine failure distribution:
1998 2 failures out of 4 cars in survey
1999 2 failures out of 9 cars in survey
2000 0 failures out of 7 cars in survey
2001 0 failures out of 4 cars in survey
2002 2 failures out of 10 cars in survey
2003 0 failures out of 9 cars in survey
2004 1 failure out 4 cars in survey
9 entries didn't specify the year, none with a failure.

enginefailure failuremileage rms rmsmileage currentmileage enginesize year username

1 failure 3 RMS 36 3.6 2002 xTVR
1 failure No RMS 48 3.4 1998 siko
no failure 1 RMS 55 3.6 2001 Wetwipe
no failure no RMS Bumcrack
no failure 1 RMS Wanta996
no failure 1 RMS Wanta996
no failure 1 RMS Wanta996
no failure 1 RMS 18 30 3.6 2002 steve996
no failure 1 RMS 55 64 3.4 1998 jonny996
no failure 1 RMS 53 56 3.4 1999 Ballcock
no failure 1 RMS 26 3.4 2001 2something
1 failure 10 No RMS 3.4 1999 fastfreddy
1 failure 25 No RMS 25 3.6 2004 hussar10a
no failure 3 RMS 25 3.6 2003 Dreammeister
no failure 1 RMS 3.6 Geneve
no failure no RMS 3.4 Geneve
no failure 2 RMS 3.6 2002 whoami
no failure no RMS 11 3.6 2004 C4SCAB
no failure 1 RMS 62 3.4 1999 HONEYMON57ER
no failure no RMS 7 3.4 2000 mbutchers
no failure no RMS 5 3.6 2003 mbutchers
no failure 1 RMS 18 3.6 2003 mbutchers
no failure 1 RMS 40 60 3.4 1999 nbetts
no failure no RMS 25 3.6 2003 nbetts
no failure 1 RMS 30 3.4 2000 R1_JON
no failure no RMS 3.4 Homer J
no failure 2 RMS 35 3.6 2003 deevee
1 failure 29 1 RMS 29 3.6 2002 joelasagna
no failure 1 RMS 48 3.6 2002 baptistsan
no failure no RMS 55 3.4 1999 The Griffalo
no failure no RMS 19 3.4 2000 Ir Baboon
no failure 1 RMS 30 68 3.4 2000 Vesuvius 996
no failure 1 RMS 42 3.4 DucatiGary
no failure no RMS 24 3.6 2004 andrew!
no failure no RMS 66 3.4 1998 EVO575
no failure no RMS 95 3.4 1999 Ogiii
no failure 3 RMS 45 3.6 2001 thepilsbury
no failure no RMS 32 3.6 2002 wadfa
no failure no RMS 67 3.4 1999 LeeME3
no failure no RMS 17 3.6 2004 widebody
1 failure 86 no RMS 3.4 1999 italiansummer
no failure 1 RMS 27 3.6 2003 alxce
1 failure 70 1 RMS 3.4 1998 TheMonster
no failure 1 RMS 15 3.6 2003 fulham911club
no failure 1 RMS 11 3.4 1999 Jessica_Wabbit
no failure 1 RMS 4 3.6 2003 Jessica_Wabbit
no failure no RMS 52 3.4 2000 tracer.smart
no failure 1 RMS 52 3.6 2002 Spid
no failure no RMS 48 3.4 2001 Neilpeel59
no failure 2 RMS 80 3.6 2002 flow99
no failure no RMS 54 3.4 Fabster
no failure 1 RMS 27 3.4 2000 Ragtop
no failure no RMS 12 3.6 2002 Ragtop
no failure no RMS 49 3.4 2000 Diesel130
no failure no RMS 56 3.6 2002 nxi20
no failure no RMS 9 3.6 2003 C4S 3.6



Kay

[tonikaram]

fastfreddy said:

Just reading through that lot and I remembered that I had a RMS failure on my second engine at approx 50K miles. Please amend my details. Thnx!

Noted. Will be done at the next round.

Thanks,
Kay

[tonikaram]

g_j_d said:

2001 911 with 63k miles. Had the oil/coolant mixing problem for 3 months now. Just heard today that a complete new engine is required... even my Range Rover was never this bad.

hmm. My understanding about engine failures till now was that it was either an intermediate shaft failure, or engine and gearbox leaking into each other, commending an engine + clutch replacement. Is the oil mixing with coolant a new type of failure for this thread? Is it a known issue as well?
no doubt of course that this will count as an engine failure for the purpose of this thread.


Kay