Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2 3
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

FactoryPilot

Original Poster:

1,350 posts

99 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Does anyone know the score on this?

It seems to be being hushed up, but in a short period of time over ten 4.0RS's have gone pop, and apparently 3.8's are affected too. There was some talk about some flap becoming detached and going into the engine, but I don't know anymore than this.

Apparently, a lot of people have been told to park up their Gen2 and not use until further notice??

And.... no this isn't some sort of sicko wind-up, its a genuine problem that needs to be got to the bottom of.

Tripe Bypass

315 posts

86 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Not sure if this is the same thing but over on Teamspeed....

http://teamspeed.com/forums/gt/75116-gt3-rs-4-0-pr...

ttdan

577 posts

76 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Hushed up by who?

Old Trout

1,582 posts

58 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
I have a 3.8RS and can confirm it is parked up.




I sometimes need to take rests inbetween driving it. Certainly no-one has indicated it should not be driven around. Bought new from OPC - no issues to date.

Steve Rance

2,719 posts

114 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
I know of 2 x uk 3.8s that have had catastrophic failures, although no 3.6's other than one with a holed rad that was run on afterwards.
Advertisement

David Hype

2,180 posts

135 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
coffee

woppum

823 posts

69 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
I'll sayit again, 20k miles and totally fine! wink

Old Trout

1,582 posts

58 months

[news] 
Friday 5th October 2012 quote quote all
ttdan said:
Hushed up by who?
Indeed - it is the internet - look how well the GTR gearbox failures were hushed up globally - all 17 of them!

By morning there will be at least 374 UK GT2 RSs alone with blown engines.

bobsan

491 posts

102 months

[news] 
Friday 5th October 2012 quote quote all
They must be using the same glue as the water hose fitting issue from 996's

After all this time you'd think.…

RDMcG

8,474 posts

90 months

[news] 
Friday 5th October 2012 quote quote all
I have a 3.8 and zero problems. Have not heard of others.

RatBoy M3CSL

1,452 posts

79 months

[news] 
Friday 5th October 2012 quote quote all
..Luckily, I don't own either so am immune to the problem..., relieved.. biglaugh

ChrisW.

1,761 posts

138 months

[news] 
Friday 5th October 2012 quote quote all
I started the rumour and am looking to buy a 4.0 litre ....

But Steve Rance knows a thing or two .. smile

keep it lit

2,510 posts

50 months

[news] 
Friday 5th October 2012 quote quote all
ChrisW. said:
I started the rumour and am looking to buy a 4.0 litre ....

But Steve Rance knows a thing or two .. smile
very good..

&

very true.

ttdan

577 posts

76 months

[news] 
Friday 5th October 2012 quote quote all
I have seen quite a few 3.6 997's with rods sticking out of the crankcase and one 4 litre go home on a flatbed with an engine issue that left oil on the floor...

None of these cars are immune to failure.

keep it lit

2,510 posts

50 months

[news] 
Friday 5th October 2012 quote quote all
ttdan said:
I have seen quite a few 3.6 997's with rods sticking out of the crankcase and one 4 litre go home on a flatbed with an engine issue that left oil on the floor...

None of these cars are immune to failure.
plenty 997 failures... not so many 996 failures..

true?

fioran0

1,817 posts

55 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
the 997.1 certainly wouldnt be anything to do with the fact that porsche said they were using an "improved" longer and thinner connecting rod with a smaller diameter wrist pin (131.5mm/21mm) in the engines to further save weight, giving this a new and unique 997 part number.
a spec that wasnt used in the 997 Cup engines which instead stuck with the rod and wrist pin dimensions used in the 996.2 GT3 and 996 Cup (130mm/22mm) and using a 996 part number.

it would also be a complete coincidence that this "improved" rod was superseded from its original 997 part number after release to a new 996 part number before being superseded again to the 996 part number used for the connecting rods on the 996.2GT3, 996 Cup and 997 Cup 3.6L.
that this change in PN would mean that the comnecting rods also changed in spec back to the original length and wrist pin diameter from this new spec, all without a mention to anyone is merely a footnote.

fwiw, the only 997.2 problems ive seen anything about are to do with the clutch pressure plates failing (warranty) and wheels falling off (no warranty). that porsche has done seemingly nothing at all on the wheels would seem to rule out them suddenly rushing into action for some engine issue telling owners not to move their cars- unless ofcourse it would be harder to deny warranty for an engine popping than a wheel falling off and they were going to have to pick up a lot of tabs.
IMHO for any issue plan on the solution chosen as being whatever is cheapest. placing fingers into your ears while closing your eyes is pretty cheap.

Edited by fioran0 on Saturday 6th October 02:07

RDMcG

8,474 posts

90 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
fioran0 said:
the 997.1 certainly wouldnt be anything to do with the fact that porsche said they were using an "improved" longer and thinner connecting rod with a smaller diameter wrist pin (131.5mm/21mm) in the engines to further save weight, giving this a new and unique 997 part number.
a spec that wasnt used in the 997 Cup engines which instead stuck with the rod and wrist pin dimensions used in the 996.2 GT3 and 996 Cup (130mm/22mm) and using a 996 part number.

it would also be a complete coincidence that this "improved" rod was superseded from its original 997 part number after release to a new 996 part number before being superseded again to the 996 part number used for the connecting rods on the 996.2GT3, 996 Cup and 997 Cup 3.6L.
that this change in PN would mean that the comnecting rods also changed in spec back to the original length and wrist pin diameter from this new spec, all without a mention to anyone is merely a footnote.

fwiw, the only 997.2 problems ive seen anything about are to do with the clutch pressure plates failing (warranty) and wheels falling off (no warranty). that porsche has done seemingly nothing at all on the wheels would seem to rule out them suddenly rushing into action for some engine issue telling owners not to move their cars- unless ofcourse it would be harder to deny warranty for an engine popping than a wheel falling off and they were going to have to pick up a lot of tabs.
IMHO for any issue plan on the solution chosen as being whatever is cheapest. placing fingers into your ears while closing your eyes is pretty cheap.

There was a recall on the wheels - I had it and they replaced the centre lock hubs.

Edited by fioran0 on Saturday 6th October 02:07

RDMcG

8,474 posts

90 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Not sure how it got inside your comment, but as I said, there was a recall on the wheels. I had mine done - warranty..

Old Trout

1,582 posts

58 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
And the later cars (of which mine is one) had revised hubs when they were sold.

fioran0

1,817 posts

55 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Apologies for not being clearer. I was commenting on what id seen/heard of as being 997.2 problems and so meant the wheels that have been physically falling off rather than the recall carried out after the torque spec for the wheel nuts was updated.
It seems that warranty has been denied in the cases of falling off wheels, even though some cars have experienced significant damage as a result.
Numbers are of course small and cause unknown, it may be user error but there's a risk to life with this and with reference to the original post in this thread, no grounding of cars requested pending investigation was made.

For info though, the recall for the wheels that took place simply changed the original nuts (carrying a printed torque rating) for nuts now minus the torque rating print. The nut design wasnt changed.
The reason for this was that an increased torque spec was to be used going forward and the original nuts now clearly carried the old torque value. The original value specified was allowing the wheels in some cases to gouge the hub surface and drive pins.
While any hubs showing marks from gouging were also to be replaced at the time of the nut change, there was no change to design on these either. All hubs parts remained the same.
The update thus consisted of the same nut, now without text being tightened more. Those that had already experienced parts wear prior to the update had their worn parts replaced with the same parts but new.

Edited by fioran0 on Saturday 6th October 11:21

2 3
Reply to Topic