997 engine failure - update...interesting!

[bigfish]

So, now sold my 997C2 54 plate that had replacement engine at 32,000 miles. The head of Porsche GB did not want to know. Enough said

Anyway...had an inspection done by a very well regarded chap. Very well regarded. Bottom line said it was a lovely car. What I found interesting was his comments about the engine.

Now Porsche replace "like for like"...so a 2004 car should have a replacement engine from 2004. But mine had a 2006 engine. I enquired as to why. Answer was that there has been so many failures (assume most on warranty???) that they are onto the 2006 batch. And that was a year ago. Do I assume if mine was a 2004 failed now...enough would have been replaced that I would be onto a 2007...2008????? Porsche...shame on you

Bottom line here is be careful of that brand....that engine (and the UK CEO) is...urm.....not upto the mark (being nice about the CEO here!)....being really nice about that CEO...the UK one!

[mayes911]

they replaced with 2006 engine because maybe thats the one with the ims upgrade.my 2003 boxster went in 2007 replaced with 2004 engine so nothing to do with running out of engines.m96 blocks from 996 might have been used in early 997 hence failure rate of early 997 also doesnt pay to keep engines lying around in the factory so they get used up hence if having replacement tend to get later years and extras produced in run out year ie 2008

Edited by mayes911 on Sunday 4th April 21:16

[bigfish]

Thats not what the expert said - who knows.....plus stated "engine reliabilty same as 996"...is that progress or regress? I am not sure as my 996 engine never went pop

[anonymous-user]

Erm - please tell me you don't actually think Porsche stock dated engines to replace like with like. If your engine failed in or after 2006 then you get a 2006 on engine with all upgrades that came in that year (assuming it's still the same basic engine). It it fails in 2008, guess what you might get one made in 2008.
Think about it....

[bcnrml]

drmark said:

Erm - please tell me you don't actually think Porsche stock dated engines to replace like with like. If your engine failed in or after 2006 then you get a 2006 on engine with all upgrades that came in that year (assuming it's still the same basic engine). It it fails in 2008, guess what you might get one made in 2008.
Think about it....

I'm guessing what he means is that Porsche's run out of their projected allocation of replacement engines for the 2004 and 2005 model years. This would mean a higher failure rate than they expected.

IIRC from his original 997 engine falure thread, his engine was replaced last year.

Happy to be corrected.

[bigfish]

bcnrml said:

drmark said:

.

I'm guessing what he means is that Porsche's run out of their projected allocation of replacement engines for the 2004 and 2005 model years. This would mean a higher failure rate than they expected.

IIRC from his original 997 engine falure thread, his engine was replaced last year.

Happy to be corrected.

Correct....thats what the guy who inspected the car told me

Edited by bigfish on Monday 5th April 08:39

[anonymous-user]

bcnrml said:

drmark said:

Erm - please tell me you don't actually think Porsche stock dated engines to replace like with like. If your engine failed in or after 2006 then you get a 2006 on engine with all upgrades that came in that year (assuming it's still the same basic engine). It it fails in 2008, guess what you might get one made in 2008.
Think about it....

I'm guessing what he means is that Porsche's run out of their projected allocation of replacement engines for the 2004 and 2005 model years. This would mean a higher failure rate than they expected.

IIRC from his original 997 engine falure thread, his engine was replaced last year.

Happy to be corrected.

Why assume that? If I ran Porsche, and significantly revised the IMS in the 997 engine for 2006 model year, I would use that to replace any 2004 model failures. I certainly would not put aside a set number of engines from each production month to allow me to replace failures like with like. I would just pull off the latest version from the line. Why stock an out of date, expensive and ageing engine - other than to cover model and significant spec changes that inevitably require use of old superceded stock due to model changes?
To suggest that getting a 2006 engine means they used up all their 2004 and 2005 reserve engines is daft. Equally one could argue that the fact that Bigfish got a 2006 engine in 2009 means they over estimated failure rates and have got loads of three years old engines clogging up the factory.... And how relibale is the date on a remanufactured unit (as most exchanges are) anyway?
Sorry, but these engine failure threads are often based on so much hearsay that I find them laughable. And I speak as someone who had a new engine at 7500 miles in my 54 997 - and I got a 2006 engine in 2006 and would have been livid had it been anything else.

PS
Would someone who knows what they are talking about - eg Pope - care to confirm the truth. I am happy to be proved wrong - but am not happy to accept the illogical musings of an "inspector" without hard proof.

Edited by drmark on Monday 5th April 11:54

Edited by drmark on Monday 5th April 11:58

[bcnrml]

drmark said:

Why assume that? If I ran Porsche, and significantly revised the IMS in the 997 engine for 2006 model year, I would use that to replace any 2004 model failures. I certainly would not put aside a set number of engines from each production month to allow me to replace failures like with like. I would just pull off the latest version from the line. Why stock an out of date, expensive and ageing engine - other than to cover model and significant spec changes that inevitably require use of old superceded stock due to model changes?

You don't run Porsche, and I'd assumed from our previous exchanges on here - confirmed by the above - that you take a different approach to these things. I'm paying you a compliment and doing the opposite with respect to the previous leadership at Porsche, before they got taken over.

drmark said:

To suggest that getting a 2006 engine means they used up all their 2004 and 2005 reserve engines is daft.

Not daft at all - we can agree to disagree on that. Y'see, my assumption is not based on a literal interpretation of what Bigfish suggests. It is an assumption based on the likelihood that every manufacturer plans for a failure rate, and that they don't all do the same thing. Some may replace a 2006 product with a 2009 product, others may insist on replacing like for like (2006 for 2006 for all sorts of good reasons, peripherals being one). I don't know for certain, and I doubt anyone in Porsche will tell you either.

drmark said:

Equally one could argue that the fact that Bigfish got a 2006 engine in 2009 means they over estimated failure rates and have got loads of three years old engines clogging up the factory....

That's a reasonable interpretation indeed. But it could also be that they went into overdrive in allocating a higher proportion of replacement engines in 2006, and are offering those instead of preceding years.

drmark said:

And how relibale is the date on a remanufactured unit (as most exchanges are) anyway?

That's a good question, and to my mind helps make my case on 2006 being a year for higher numbers allocated to failures historical and/or future. Or it could be that they've allocated in 2009 to Bigfish an engine returned/repaired from a 2006 car (due to peripherals, etc, I know not). It could be that they are indeed ahead of the curve. But if so, why raise the warranty costs so sharply? That, for any insurance policy, usually follows a greater than projected number of expensive claims.

drmark said:

Sorry, but these engine failure threads are often based on so much hearsay that I find them laughable.

Yes, you find the hearsay laughable. But those in the industry don't think they're hearsay. Don't take my word for it. Ask the leading lights in the UK who are closely involved in repairing or replacing these engines. Some of them post on here.

drmark said:

And I speak as someone who had a new engine at 7500 miles in my 54 997 - and I got a 2006 engine in 2006 and would have been livid had it been anything else.

Interesting. Did you share that information on here at the time? Just curious.

drmark said:

PS
Would someone who knows what they are talking about - eg Pope - care to confirm the truth. I am happy to be proved wrong - but am not happy to accept the illogical musings of an "inspector" without hard proof.

Why on earth do you think Pope would tell you facts on here that would potentially leave him exposed to losing his job, and Porsche potentially liable to litigation of some sort on these matters?

As for what's illogical, for years people said the financial markets were operating perfectly. That's illogical to most sensible people, but the (logical) economists were right all along were they? You're an astrophysicist. Tell me - is everything in your field logical at face value?

You don't have to accept Bigfish's statement on here, nor the musings of his inspector. You only need to look at the facts of depreciation on 997s, the hike in the cost of the warranty, the repeated statements that the engine failures were history, and that the causes of engine failures seem to be changing from M96 to M97. You only need to read the latter pages of the 996 wet-sump reliability where two respected indies have posted evidence on M97 engines that corroborate Bigfish's statements on here. And you only need to look up the history of the Black Swan to see how received wisdom reacted when black swans were first spotted. Similar response as yours on here, by the way.

And finally, Drmark, was Einstein's early work consistent with or illogical in all ways relative to the prevailing theories in your field at the time that he mooted and researched them?

[anonymous-user]

Einstein applied logic based on existing knowledge to formulate new therories which he then attempted to prove. He did not spot a date on an engine and then draw potentially erroneous conclusions based on something he read on the internet. But I am a scientist and like facts, not "facts".

I don't share your conspiracy theories re Porsche, but do think they can give some pretty crap back up to their customers unless you stand your ground. But at least they have the common sense to upgrade replacements with the the latest spec engines (rather than reissue one with potentially the same inherent fault) - little, did they know that such an eminently sensible move would lead to accusations that they have "run out of 04 engines" because of high demand. They can't win.

Over and out bcnrml - I don't have your stamina.

[bcnrml]

drmark said:

Einstein applied logic based on existing knowledge to formulate new therories which he then attempted to prove. He did not spot a date on an engine and then draw potentially erroneous conclusions based on something he read on the internet. But I am a scientist and like facts, not "facts".

I don't share your conspiracy theories re Porsche, but do think they can give some pretty crap back up to their customers unless you stand your ground. But at least they have the common sense to upgrade replacements with the the latest spec engines (rather than reissue one with potentially the same inherent fault) - little, did they know that such an eminently sensible move would lead to accusations that they have "run out of 04 engines" because of high demand. They can't win.

Over and out bcnrml - I don't have your stamina.

Drmark, you're courteous and informative as usual.

I don't hold any consipracy theories about Porsche, but I don't trust the UK company a jot. They get away with behaviour that they'd be held to account for in other markets, because the UK consumer's easily bullied into submission (or simply apathetic). I am not alone in thinking or stating as much on here.

As for what they might do, IIRC, at least one poster on PH reported more than one IMS failure (consecutive replacement engines) in his porker. This may have been before your time on here. They've form - after all, RMS was repeatedly fixed years go wasn't it? And if the IMS was a known weakness in the M96 and M97 engines, why replace failed engines on 996 and 997 cars with engines that have the IMS? For the new DFi engines, why note in the literature the absence of an IMS for the new engines?

Anyway, here's to you, and thanks for a useful, albeit short debate.

[fwaggie]

Interesting discussion.

I agree with drmark. If anyone thinks that Porsche build a number of surplus engines each year to keep in stock to replace failures is one sandwich short of a picnic.

That would be such a financial outlay, such a burden to keep them somewhere, in an environment where they do not deteriorate, plus all the other parts for the entire range.

I *can* see them keeping a limited stock (of parts) only if and when the design changes and the new parts are not backwards compatible.

In the case of an engine, I'd expect the replacement to be as young as possible and incorporate all the design and engineering improvements over the years. If it had been superseded I wouldn't expect the superseded model, I would expect it to be built up from parts (the parts being a mix of current parts who's design hasn't changed to make them incompatible and limited stock parts who's design has changed and made them incompatible with the older engine design)

[bcnrml]

fwaggie said:

Interesting discussion.

I agree with drmark. If anyone thinks that Porsche build a number of surplus engines each year to keep in stock to replace failures is one sandwich short of a picnic.

Exactly where in this thread has anyone stated Porsche built surplus engines? You'll be surprised who suggested as much (even if that was not his intention).

fwaggie said:

That would be such a financial outlay, such a burden to keep them somewhere, in an environment where they do not deteriorate, plus all the other parts for the entire range.

I *can* see them keeping a limited stock (of parts) only if and when the design changes and the new parts are not backwards compatible.

For even a failure rate of 3% (OPC source, allegedly) I suggest your first paragraph isn't credible, and I doubt anyone on here meant that. I certainly didn't.

On the basis of your second paragraph above, what percentage of engine parts do you think they'd keep for replacement engines? You define how that percentage is worked out (I'm not fussed). I'm curious to have a number to explore a thought or two, and I'd rather have your number.

fwaggie said:

In the case of an engine, I'd expect the replacement to be as young as possible and incorporate all the design and engineering improvements over the years. If it had been superseded I wouldn't expect the superseded model, I would expect it to be built up from parts (the parts being a mix of current parts who's design hasn't changed to make them incompatible and limited stock parts who's design has changed and made them incompatible with the older engine design)

Could this be what Bigfish and his specialist are referring to?

I've some thoughts on how the engines can be "allocated". In simple terms, say in 2005, X% of engine failures occurred on 2004 cars, would Porsche replace those engines using (i) newly built ones with 100% new components straight off the still running production line, (ii) reconditioned, previously failed engines or (iii) a combination of both?

In Option (ii), where the old engine parts are refreshed with new parts, would that consititute a "new" engine to replace a failed engine? Or would those refreshed engines find their way somewhere else (you choose where)?

One could apply the same questions to the issue of gearboxes (which are usually on exchange, whoever the manufacturer). You could even apply this model to the food you eat (yup, it happens, and you wouldn't be wiser - did you know that it is a common enough practice to serve yesterday's plain croissants as today's by turning them into filled croissants - almond, especially)? You'd need to really know your croissants to tell if the establishment is good at doing this (and I know my croissants!).

So, key question follows: given your choice of % above, what are your views on what the numbers for engine components would need to look like in the rebuilding of replacement engines, and how do you think Porsche would store those, in a commercially sensible manner?

---

My view is simple. Given that those engines have been rolling off the line for some time now, whilst failures have been occurring, I'd suggest they've not been built as surplus to be stored anywhere. Instead, a production run may have allowed for a theoretical projection of replacement engines (and sub-standard engines, and other mistakes, etc) based on an internal (and highly confidential) dataset that suggests X% failures over a given time. If that failure rate was exceeded in say, year 2005 for 2004 engines/cars, then I'd expect the production run for 2006 to be raised (you choose how much) to accommodate this. Or, perhaps your parts scenario would be modified accordingly (and expensively, probably).

My last paragraph above is key to my conjecture in trying to explain what Bigfish is referring to. I think it works. It could be wrong. Even so, it is very different to the scenario you've painted which led to your comments about sandwiches and picnics.

Meanwhile, I'll check back in a couple of days as I'm on the move, so don't take my silence as intentional.

[hartech]

For what it is worth, when I was last in Industry, very few spares were ever made for long term storage - the parts cost, space cost, deterioration through corrosion, damp, age etc and the logistics of managing it all were always far to big a problem to think about in advance.

in the 1950's and 1960's, when physical space was greater, some spares over production did occur (and it was common for manufacturers to move on a whole model range of remaining stock to a sub contracted independent dealer after a set number of years) - but as manufacturing management has moved towards just in time philosophy - all that has changed. Instead you simply set a minimum stock level of parts and as they sell them you review the frequency and alter the re-order figures to suit. You must remember that every year that a new model comes out (or a modified version or a different version) the manufacturer already inherits a problem to stock and process a whole new cars worth of parts - for several years. There is also a huge cost implication drawing on profit or borrowing to fund stock until it is sold and paid for - so the management of spares is already a major logistical and financial headache that is only eased by minimising stock and responding to demand.

The fact that when these engines first came out we could not get any parts to repair them - implies that was the case then (as very few spares would have been envisaged) and then later on as the designs were superceeded (like the IMS etc) you could only get the later version and if that meant changing the cranksahft to a matching one - even though there was nothing wrong with yours - that's what you had to do as well. The original IMS double row bearing for example has not been available as a spare part for years (if ever). So spares and engines it seems are made to suit the market demand (unless it has clear faults that need replacing) and therefore I guess a lot of the suppliers who made the original engine parts are being kept busy making replacement parts (sometimes only to the newest spec) and also complete engines with the same rules etc.

You couldn't fit a later engine needing different auxiliaries or engine management systems - so you would have to maintain some element of remanufacturing old designs (even if they incorporated weaknesses discovered later on) but you could incorporate some replaced internal parts with new designs without any adverse consequences.

What is fairly obvious from this is that these spares prices will eventually escalate because inflation will play its part and quantities will slowly reduce adding to the pressure on remanufacturing costs while any subsidy from Porsche or contribution to make the many engine replacements more affordable will slowly evaporate as they move more towards an "acceptable" age anyway for engine problems to be expected to emerge.

Baz

[edo]

drmark said:

Erm - please tell me you don't actually think Porsche stock dated engines to replace like with like. If your engine failed in or after 2006 then you get a 2006 on engine with all upgrades that came in that year (assuming it's still the same basic engine). It it fails in 2008, guess what you might get one made in 2008.
Think about it....

exactly.

[Ballcock]

I can't remember exact numbers , but in that progamme about the Porsche 'Megafactory' recently , it gave numbers for cars made per day , and then engines per day , and the engines (from recall) out manufactured the cars by something like two to one...
It did make me wonder...

[mankey]

Ballcock said:

...... and the engines (from recall) out manufactured the cars by something like two to one...

Yes, but I wonder whether the engine production runs were shorter anyway.

[ScienceTeacher]

What happens should I want a new 3.4 unit for my '98 996? I believe Porsche quotes a price for one of these, so I wouldn't get a 3.6. What about the IMS? New IMS etc, 3.4 block?

Edited by ScienceTeacher on Tuesday 6th April 11:14

[Pickled Piper]

ScienceTeacher said:

What happens should I want a new 3.4 unit for my '98 996? I believe Porsche quotes a price for one of these, so I wouldn't get a 3.6. What about the IMS? New IMS etc, 3.4 block?

Edited by ScienceTeacher on Tuesday 6th April 11:14

I don't know Porsche intimately but I work with several other car manufacturers.

I suspect that where it is not possible to retrofit a later engine into an older car, they will simply build an old spec engine to order.

pp

[bcnrml]

Nice to see Hartech's response to this thread. And yes, Mr Hart, I do mean that. I'm surprised people seem to forget the logistical nightmare in - and commercial challenge of - managing multiple components of any one product.

Interesting comment from Ballcock - would the eternal optimists like to explain that? I'm sure there's a good explanation, and I'm all ears (and eyes).

ScienceTeacher, I note that Drmark and edo haven't answered your very apt questions.....

Now, folks, what do you think Porsche will be doing for failures in IMS-engined cars now that they've got DFi engines in production? "New" engines installed? Built to order as Pickled piper implies, taken (unused) from stock, or reconditioned/refreshed? Would you be served another bowl of soup from the same pot that had fies in it? Or would you like a new pot of soup made up instead?

For the 997, the IMS is not the only issue. They may have improved the IMS engine in 2006, but a search on here will likely confirm (as Hartech, Sportsandclassic, and Bigfish have IIRC reported) that the engine problem seems to have moved from being a mainly IMS related matter to certain cylinders failing - something I think happened to Drmark, and only more recently confirmed.

So, it may be reasonable to expect that if you get an engine replaced from 2006, the IMS is less likely to be the problem - a certain bank of cylinders might be instead. However, for those preceding 2006, the usual IMS suspect may well apply (as Scienceteacher may be implying). Or not at all.

Now to the very specific points that provoked part of this debate - where's Porsche getting those replacement engines from? Might the answer be reflected in the much lower price now for a replacement engine than was the case when I started lurking (before joining) Pistonheads? That price may be a function of how the engines are made up (refreshed) plus an unexpectedly higher volume than originally anticipated. IIRC, the price of a replacement (note I didn't say new) engine has fallen from circa 10k to circa £5-6k.

If you ask me, this sounds like a lot of engine rebuilding/replacement business coming the way of the independents (and OPCs), not one of whom continues to doubt on here the facts supporting the emerging trends.

Thinking aloud, that's all, and happy to be corrected.

[DSM2]

bcnrml said:

Nice to see Hartech's response to this thread.
Interesting comment from Ballcock - would the eternal optimists like to explain that? I'm sure there's a good explanation, and I'm all ears (and eyes).

Possibly building engines to be shipped to other assembly plants? Not an uncommon practice for any motor manufacturer.