996 3.4 engine changes / dates
Discussion
mollytherocker said:
rival38 said:
I don`t think its worth being too hung up about it not being `pre 2000`.
Every car is different and should be taken on their numerous merits or otherwise. As you know, many have had engine work and/or replacement engines anyway.Provided you buy a decent car, even if you have bad luck and have to fork out for an engine repair (which is only a small possibility), if you keep the car for a few years, you shouldn't lose out financially with the way prices are going.
Here's another guaranteed dual row IMS & ferrous piston car
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/p...
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/p...
appletonn said:
Here's another guaranteed dual row IMS & ferrous piston car
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/p...
Looks like a good buy at that price, but would it have a 'guaranteed dual row IMS & ferrous piston' just from a top end rebuild?http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/p...
ras62 said:
Change over to single row IMS came after engine number # 661 14164
http://www.911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=100755&si...
To add to the confusion to my above post, just checked the engine no. for mine and it is before 661 14164.http://www.911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=100755&si...
So, dual row and tougher coating? On a 2001 car?
The more I read about ims bearings the more confused I get.
I thought the generally accepted failure mode was for the seal to fail in the wrong way, the grease to escape and the bearing to eat itself. Conversely, if the seal fails in the right way, engine oil gets in and the bearing lives forever.
I understand dual row, large and small are all different capacities, but is there really a link with failure rate? Or just fewer dual row to fail? Surely if the seal fails, the seal fails. Or are dual row bearing seals more prone to failing in the 'right' way?
Given that bore scoring is apparently very rare in the m96 3.4 are the effects of the design changes actual or perceived?
Whatever, I'm going to check the clocks on my March 2001 in a minute!
I thought the generally accepted failure mode was for the seal to fail in the wrong way, the grease to escape and the bearing to eat itself. Conversely, if the seal fails in the right way, engine oil gets in and the bearing lives forever.
I understand dual row, large and small are all different capacities, but is there really a link with failure rate? Or just fewer dual row to fail? Surely if the seal fails, the seal fails. Or are dual row bearing seals more prone to failing in the 'right' way?
Given that bore scoring is apparently very rare in the m96 3.4 are the effects of the design changes actual or perceived?
Whatever, I'm going to check the clocks on my March 2001 in a minute!
BrotherMouzone said:
To add to the confusion to my above post, just checked the engine no. for mine and it is before 661 14164.
So, dual row and tougher coating? On a 2001 car?
Does the Porsche cert give the engine number that the car was built with? The engine you have may not be the original. So, dual row and tougher coating? On a 2001 car?
monthefish said:
I thought the clocks changed along with the big facelift (3.4 - 3.6, headlights etc), but not entirely sure....
Did a 3.4 ever have the electric front/rear lid opening?
Yeah they got those around the time of the clear lights. Mine has them, but an early cable throttle car I viewed had cable operated lids.Did a 3.4 ever have the electric front/rear lid opening?
At some point the four spoke steering wheel changed to three spoke too. I'm guessing all these add up to the mild facelift, but I don't know if they all cam in together.
griffter said:
monthefish said:
I thought the clocks changed along with the big facelift (3.4 - 3.6, headlights etc), but not entirely sure....
Did a 3.4 ever have the electric front/rear lid opening?
Yeah they got those around the time of the clear lights. Mine has them, but an early cable throttle car I viewed had cable operated lids.Did a 3.4 ever have the electric front/rear lid opening?
At some point the four spoke steering wheel changed to three spoke too. I'm guessing all these add up to the mild facelift, but I don't know if they all cam in together.
ras62 said:
BrotherMouzone said:
To add to the confusion to my above post, just checked the engine no. for mine and it is before 661 14164.
So, dual row and tougher coating? On a 2001 car?
Does the Porsche cert give the engine number that the car was built with? The engine you have may not be the original. So, dual row and tougher coating? On a 2001 car?
I have not actually checked the engine itself as I have not yet collected the car (only just bought it). When I viewed the car I only checked the VIN; I'll check the engine number when I collect the car (if I can find it!).
So my 2001 car has the old dials, PSM and an engine before 661 14164.
For reference CofA for my car:
Then I would say you have the double row IMS! The US class action lawsuit stated...Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001...more likely this is referring to the year as opposed to the model year as your engine would suggest.
http://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/745057-ims-cl...
http://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/745057-ims-cl...
in the end i went for an 80k 2001 from a private seller. clockwork maintenance record, low owners, new (flawed) engine & clutch at 40k huge file of invoices and fascinating letters to and from OPC regarding incurable RMS leak. seems the crank case manufacture was poor and the RMS could not be made to fit. Eventualy, the owner,after involving his solicitor, got a fresh engine under extended warranty. its a plain c2, no aerokit and no sunroof, but full interior leather in amazing condition. inspection highlighted some minor issues, deal struck accordingly and fettling at indy underway, including precautionary water pump & low temp thermostat.
rival38 said:
in the end i went for an 80k 2001 from a private seller. clockwork maintenance record, low owners, new (flawed) engine & clutch at 40k huge file of invoices and fascinating letters to and from OPC regarding incurable RMS leak. seems the crank case manufacture was poor and the RMS could not be made to fit. Eventualy, the owner,after involving his solicitor, got a fresh engine under extended warranty. its a plain c2, no aerokit and no sunroof, but full interior leather in amazing condition. inspection highlighted some minor issues, deal struck accordingly and fettling at indy underway, including precautionary water pump & low temp thermostat.
Sounds great, well done. Enjoy!Would you mind sharing what the inspection highlighted? Would be interesting for owners/potential owners of these great cars. My indie, when asked about the low temp thermostat said not an issue on the 3.4. I wonder who's right!
O/T: My March 2001 has "old" style clocks. I bet they changed with the facelift.
Edited by griffter on Thursday 3rd March 07:46
@Griffter - sure, nothing really major but as you know it adds up. A weeping engine mount, brake disks getting worn and rear faces corroded beyond surface rust, a dmaged/ crushed a/c pipe (but system still working)incorrect rear indicator bulbs, and rusty exhaust fittings. The low temp thermostat was my initiative, like yours my indy was sceptical of the benefit for a 3.4, but agreed it could be a help and would do no harm. Easy and cheap to do if changing the pump as a precaution.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff