996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here!
Discussion
kVA said:
High performance engines should NEVER be revved beyond half max. revs (or full throttle acceleration used) until properly warmed up! The man is an idiot if he doesn't have a warranty and still drives it like this - and a selfish one at that, as when he sells the car the next owner will almost certainly need a new engine at some stage as a result of his abuse early in the engine's life.
Considering there is an ECU that monitors temperatures it would be trivial to prevent that situation in software. If they chose not to do so - is that the drivers fault?Additionally thrashing from cold has always caused more rapid engine (bore) wear - even with synthetic oils - but wear is not the same as catastrophic 'engine replacement' failure is it?
It appears that there are a number of cost-free design errors/fixes that Porsche have failed to implement, but if they had, this would be a bomb-proof engine that we'd simply not hear any failures from. Lets just hope that the 2010 engine has been designed for reliability.
Globulator said:
kVA said:
High performance engines should NEVER be revved beyond half max. revs (or full throttle acceleration used) until properly warmed up! The man is an idiot if he doesn't have a warranty and still drives it like this - and a selfish one at that, as when he sells the car the next owner will almost certainly need a new engine at some stage as a result of his abuse early in the engine's life.
Considering there is an ECU that monitors temperatures it would be trivial to prevent that situation in software. If they chose not to do so - is that the drivers fault?Additionally thrashing from cold has always caused more rapid engine (bore) wear - even with synthetic oils - but wear is not the same as catastrophic 'engine replacement' failure is it?
It appears that there are a number of cost-free design errors/fixes that Porsche have failed to implement, but if they had, this would be a bomb-proof engine that we'd simply not hear any failures from. Lets just hope that the 2010 engine has been designed for reliability.
As for the bomb-proof engine, yes it's possible, but it would either be much more expensive, or much less powerful... Everything is made to a price these days and Porsche are obviously satisfied that, driven properly, these engines will outlive the warranty period. If you abuse them, the manufacturer always has the negligence card tucked in their pocket - if they can prove it (which is back to my first point and why the ECU already records type 1 and type 2 over-revs
It wouldn't be too complicated to extend that recording to other forms of abuse - and not just for the engine either, as most components are driven by ECUs sitting on a CAN BUS network these days).I'm quite sure the 2010 engine has been designed to meet the required reliability/longevity criteria and will have been tested in all sorts of conditions for many, many thousands of miles (probably millions) - Mostly by drivers using common sense and mechanical sympathy, with sufficient lubricant and coolant!
kVA said:
As for the bomb-proof engine, yes it's possible, but it would either be much more expensive, or much less powerful... Everything is made to a price these days and Porsche are obviously satisfied that, driven properly, these engines will outlive the warranty period.
I think it's safe to say I disagree with every point you have made To make the M96 last there was only a handful of small cost free (except for retooling) changes that needed doing, like thicker cylinder walls, bigger big ends, better bearing lubrication on the IMS races, a couple of extra webs on the crankcase, better cooling passages.
BMW seem to manage it.
It sounds like Porsche is run by accountants now who have worked out that reliability is not a major profit factor. They are wrong, but you try and tell them that!
In addition suppressing full power when cold is trivial and simple - have you any idea how fast those engines warm up? The answer is very fast!
Globulator said:
kVA said:
As for the bomb-proof engine, yes it's possible, but it would either be much more expensive, or much less powerful... Everything is made to a price these days and Porsche are obviously satisfied that, driven properly, these engines will outlive the warranty period.
I think it's safe to say I disagree with every point you have made Globulator said:
To make the M96 last there was only a handful of small cost free (except for retooling) changes that needed doing, like thicker cylinder walls, bigger big ends, better bearing lubrication on the IMS races, a couple of extra webs on the crankcase, better cooling passages.
BMW seem to manage it.
It sounds like Porsche is run by accountants now who have worked out that reliability is not a major profit factor. They are wrong, but you try and tell them that!
In addition suppressing full power when cold is trivial and simple - have you any idea how fast those engines warm up? The answer is very fast!
I agree that technically it is trivial and simple from an engineering perspective, but it is very difficult from a political and marketing perspective. BMW seem to manage it.
It sounds like Porsche is run by accountants now who have worked out that reliability is not a major profit factor. They are wrong, but you try and tell them that!
In addition suppressing full power when cold is trivial and simple - have you any idea how fast those engines warm up? The answer is very fast!
As for the accountants running the firm, I think I kind of said that, so I'm not sure why you are claiming to disagree with me on that point! I did say they are built to a price. If you think about it, as long as it doesn't have too big an impact on future new car sales (which with Porsche it doesn't seem to have so far), it makes no financial sense to Porsche to over-engineer a product to last beyond the warranty period!
I'm not meaning to be contrary, but Porsche AG have just received the Gold Award from JD Power for quality... If you were Porsche and sitting on that award, how would you feel about pissing away a heap of your profit just to keep a few whingers on Intenet forums happy - when they contribute sod-all to Porsche, because they bought cars outside the OPC network, didn't buy a warranty and have them serviced at the OPCs biggest competitors - the Independent Specialists. As I said, you would only do this if you thought reliability was affecting new car sales - which it doesn't appear to be doing AT ALL for Porsche. A cynical view, maybe, but if you bought new and anything that went wrong was covered and paid for by the warranty, why would you care about the 3rd or 4th owner in 4-5 years time?
kVA said:
Any form of engine rev / throttle inhibiter is an absolute no-no for a car manufacturer - both for marketing/PR purposes and from a customer perspective:
Not correct. The Toyota 2ZZ engine has just this system that prevents revs above 6k until the oil and water are warm. No more than a dual setting on the rev limiter.kVA said:
As for the accountants running the firm, I think I kind of said that, so I'm not sure why you are claiming to disagree with me on that point! I did say they are built to a price.
Yes - but this is not the issue, the issue is a cost analysis of failure within warranty vs fixing the issue. It has nothing to do with build cost.kVA said:
how would you feel about pissing away a heap of your profit just to keep a few whingers on Intenet forums happy
Is it a few internet whingers? The number of these cars that makes it past £100k without a new engine is vanishingly small it appears. If it turned me off the marque until user testing of the 2010 is complete it must have lost other sales. I'd also not classify it as 'pissing away', rather investing in your image before you lose it completely... Globulator said:
kVA said:
As for the accountants running the firm, I think I kind of said that, so I'm not sure why you are claiming to disagree with me on that point! I did say they are built to a price.
Yes - but this is not the issue, the issue is a cost analysis of failure within warranty vs fixing the issue. It has nothing to do with build cost.There is also the issue of being seen to be 'recognising' a design fault: If word got out (which it would within about 5 minutes on here) that existing engines had been replaced with re-engineered / improved designs, it would be open season for people to say they wanted a new design of engine to replace the one that Porsche had implied was not 'fit for purpose'.
I think the accountants may have considered this and decided very firmly in favour of replacing any that go pop - they only have to have their fingers crossed for two years in the UK (up until tomorrow) after all...
Used car /extended warranty is a totally different kettle of fish: Whatever the failure rate / costs, the premiums pay for them all... Plus a tidy little profit for the OPC and Porsche GB in the process (typically, the dealer margin on insurance products, which is what extended warranty is, is around 40% of the gross premium!) ... and that's ignoring Porsche GB's cut...
Globulator said:
kVA said:
how would you feel about pissing away a heap of your profit just to keep a few whingers on Intenet forums happy
Is it a few internet whingers? The number of these cars that makes it past £100k without a new engine is vanishingly small it appears. If it turned me off the marque until user testing of the 2010 is complete it must have lost other sales. I'd also not classify it as 'pissing away', rather investing in your image before you lose it completely... OK, so it is a cynical view, but Porsche is hardly struggling to sell new cars at the moment and any 'goodwill' to past customers comes straight off of today's profit.
I'm not condoning this behaviour, by the way, but sadly it is the way of the modern selfish commercial world and they can get away with it as long as small boys keep growing up wanting a GT3 or a Turbo when they grow up!
Globulator said:
Is it a few internet whingers? The number of these cars that makes it past £100k without a new engine is vanishingly small it appears.
Is this really correct? If it was it would certainly put me off buying a Porker to replace the Lotus when I get too old to wriggle into it ( not long !), but on any internet forums you get a disproportionate number of posters with problems. So I wonder.Does anyone really know the true reliability stats - forgive me if this has been given in the previous 40 odd pages but there are just too many to wade through.
Globulator said:
Is it a few internet whingers? The number of these cars that makes it past £100k without a new engine is vanishingly small it appears. If it turned me off the marque until user testing of the 2010 is complete it must have lost other sales. I'd also not classify it as 'pissing away', rather investing in your image before you lose it completely...
You are correct in your analysis and rationale. Look at this thread started by Andyuk911 helpfully giving us a heads up. Have a look at IanUK's response to my initial optimism. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The new engines do have inherent problems. Meanwhile, have a look at Bigfish's thread on his 997 engine failure: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
One or two of the usual deniers are on that thread too.
Porsche underperformed the UK market trend in 2008, 2009 and so far 2010. Removing the scrappage scheme skew of 2009, Porsche still underperformed other premium marques. My reports in the market discussion thread provide the well-sourced, fact-based evidence (from Porsche's US and UK market data). A reputation for low mileage engine failures have absolutely no influence on those sales numbers, of course.
bcnrml said:
[
Porsche underperformed the UK market trend in 2008, 2009 and so far 2010. Removing the scrappage scheme skew of 2009, Porsche still underperformed other premium marques. My reports in the market discussion thread provide the well-sourced, fact-based evidence (from Porsche's US and UK market data). A reputation for low mileage engine failures have absolutely no influence on those sales numbers, of course.
Porsche may have 'underperformed other premium marques' overall (in your opinion), but the appetite for the 911 model seems to be as strong as ever - which is the precise model we are discussing here... Cayenne underperformed because it was well known to be at the end of its life cycle, and the large SUV sector was the hardest hit by the global recession, so to try and imply that the 'underperformance' was entirely due to engine failures is just abusing statistics to try and justify your own hypothesis.Porsche underperformed the UK market trend in 2008, 2009 and so far 2010. Removing the scrappage scheme skew of 2009, Porsche still underperformed other premium marques. My reports in the market discussion thread provide the well-sourced, fact-based evidence (from Porsche's US and UK market data). A reputation for low mileage engine failures have absolutely no influence on those sales numbers, of course.
The fact is that 99% of new 911 buyers don't give a flying f*** about engine failures or any other serious problems, because the vast majority change them in a year and the rest within two years - so all covered by warranty even if it does go all Pete Tong. As for the minority that buy a new 911 and intend to keep it beyond the new car warranty, they either buy an extended warranty from Porsche (which makes Porsche VERY happy) or they choose to go outside the OPC network, thereby giving Porsche licence to say 'serves you right' and wash their hands of any responsibility (no manufacturer likes these customers anyway - they only contribute to the bottom line once in a blue moon (and then come and whinge on forums about the OPC network that they haven't used for 3 years.
I think a lot of people on here still believe that it is enthusiasts that buy new Porsches... It isn't (in the main): The vast majority just want a status symbol (except for the niche products like GT3s and GT2s), change it every year, rag it from cold and the only time they ever visit Internet forums is to have a moan about a dealer perhaps. They also mostly buy them on some form of lease / contract hire / balloon finance package and have a 'get out of jail free' card if residuals drop through the floor.
I think I might start a new poll asking how many people on here bought their 911 Carrera model brand spanking new (i.e. first registered keeper) - bet it's a tiny proportion and I also bet that most of those either don't know, or don't care about engine failures, because the car is under warranty and they won't have to foot the bill.
This whole issue is getting really really boring now... The tiny number of very vocal aggrieved individuals are not getting the response they had hoped for - Porsche are not going to hold their hands up and say 'we got it wrong' (actually, for every 911 owner's sake, let's hope this is true, else that will be the end of the company), the OP in this thread lost interest and pissed off years ago, so it's time the very few aggrieved individuals moved on and bought a warranty with their next car!
Lock this thread now... There are no stats that are of any use to anyone and the last umpteen pages consist almost entirely of arguments relating to just two engine failures - one from someone who tried to save some cash buying from an Indy and the other from someone's boss's who abuses the car on a daily basis, by the sound of it!
Couldn't resist quoting this in answer to those that believe scaremongering about other people's engine failures stops them buying new cars...
TOENHEEL said:
My dad had a 987 2.7 Boxster 05 from new and the intermediate went at 20k miles, my dad served his time as a service manager so has always looked after his cars etc so you can imagine the dissapointment..
Anyway moving on he's now looking at the new Boxster Spyder 3.4 with the new DI engine...
Really put him off, didn't it? Anyway moving on he's now looking at the new Boxster Spyder 3.4 with the new DI engine...
The engines in question were made to a price and for a life expectancy and had a few poor engineering designs that could have been improved upon.
Inevitably - drivers abusing those "weak areas" may have a greater incidence of premature failure but equally there are plenty of customers of ours who don't abuse their cars and bought them new and still have major failures - always of one of the four or five main weak spots well documented.
Similarly those careful, perhaps timid drivers, who didn't need to buy a 170mph sports car and drive slowly (and responsibly) and could have got anywhere just as quickly in a family saloon, probably have a greater reliability record (and in my experience this type of driver is about half of all owners) - but this really doesn't excuse basic poor design issues that predictably fail in such an expensive car.
The failures could have been avoided without any great cost implications and so criticism of the design is in my book fair and warranted - however the statistical low number that fail probably has more to do with the number of ordinary drivers who want to be seen in and drive such a car (but never approach the stress limits) than are some sort of support that the design is perfectly OK.
Opinions may differ of course but we repair so many now it is impossible not to criticise those deisgn failures and Porsche's attitude towards responsibility - they are in my view just lucky that speed limits, cameras, speed guns, traffic density and a more resposible or more timid set of drivers abale to afford the cars - largely result in very few ever being pushed towards performance limmits that if they were may increase the failure rates dramatically.
There are a lot more people comfortable giving full throttle in lower gears to a 1.4 or 1.6 family car than a full blown 996 and far more opportunity to do so.
When I was driving my first motorcycle there were no speed limits and relatively empty roads. The chance to learn how to drive quickly is lost to most younger drivers today unless they are particularly aggressive drivers and so in graphical format - as modern Porsche potential performance increases dramatically the opportunty to experience the results diminishes - giving more chance for a weak design to - on average - last more than perhaps it desrves to.
Baz
Inevitably - drivers abusing those "weak areas" may have a greater incidence of premature failure but equally there are plenty of customers of ours who don't abuse their cars and bought them new and still have major failures - always of one of the four or five main weak spots well documented.
Similarly those careful, perhaps timid drivers, who didn't need to buy a 170mph sports car and drive slowly (and responsibly) and could have got anywhere just as quickly in a family saloon, probably have a greater reliability record (and in my experience this type of driver is about half of all owners) - but this really doesn't excuse basic poor design issues that predictably fail in such an expensive car.
The failures could have been avoided without any great cost implications and so criticism of the design is in my book fair and warranted - however the statistical low number that fail probably has more to do with the number of ordinary drivers who want to be seen in and drive such a car (but never approach the stress limits) than are some sort of support that the design is perfectly OK.
Opinions may differ of course but we repair so many now it is impossible not to criticise those deisgn failures and Porsche's attitude towards responsibility - they are in my view just lucky that speed limits, cameras, speed guns, traffic density and a more resposible or more timid set of drivers abale to afford the cars - largely result in very few ever being pushed towards performance limmits that if they were may increase the failure rates dramatically.
There are a lot more people comfortable giving full throttle in lower gears to a 1.4 or 1.6 family car than a full blown 996 and far more opportunity to do so.
When I was driving my first motorcycle there were no speed limits and relatively empty roads. The chance to learn how to drive quickly is lost to most younger drivers today unless they are particularly aggressive drivers and so in graphical format - as modern Porsche potential performance increases dramatically the opportunty to experience the results diminishes - giving more chance for a weak design to - on average - last more than perhaps it desrves to.
Baz
Not a stat as such , but just to mention that I was around a local Porsche indies yesterday , and he had 3 Boxsters with the same complaint .. Lunched water pump. He showed me the broken pumps , the impellors are made of light plastic , the blades break easily if for instance a bearing goes.
Not a killer in itself , but if you ignore the flashing 'low coolant' warning (invariably the coolant gets dumped thru the broken pump) then you run the risk of quicly overheating the car , even though there'll be no instrument showing an over heat simply because the temperature gauge won't work seeing as it take it's heat measurement from the coolant.. If ya get me!
One of the Boxsters there had been driven around after the flashing coolant light came on , and the engine is now most likely scrap..
Not a killer in itself , but if you ignore the flashing 'low coolant' warning (invariably the coolant gets dumped thru the broken pump) then you run the risk of quicly overheating the car , even though there'll be no instrument showing an over heat simply because the temperature gauge won't work seeing as it take it's heat measurement from the coolant.. If ya get me!
One of the Boxsters there had been driven around after the flashing coolant light came on , and the engine is now most likely scrap..
hartech said:
The water pump\impellors run very close to the crankcase housing and the slightest bearing wear can make them touch and break up
Baz
Am I right in thinking that these impellors are made of some kind of molded plastic as upposed to much stronger materials in older water pumpers Baz?Baz
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff