Discussion
WindyM said:
With approximately 50 991.1 GT3s for sale today, (and some examples have been for at least 3 months), why would there be a price increase?
I suppose my question is: why are these 50 cars not selling if there is so much demand and they are actually too cheap?
I'm suggesting that the introduction of the warranty could increase demand, that's all.I suppose my question is: why are these 50 cars not selling if there is so much demand and they are actually too cheap?
sidicks said:
WindyM said:
With approximately 50 991.1 GT3s for sale today, (and some examples have been for at least 3 months), why would there be a price increase?
I suppose my question is: why are these 50 cars not selling if there is so much demand and they are actually too cheap?
I'm suggesting that the introduction of the warranty could increase demand, that's all.I suppose my question is: why are these 50 cars not selling if there is so much demand and they are actually too cheap?
WindyM said:
I understand (and agree). The thirty-odd figure FS will increase because as has been recognised previously, several 991.2 customers are p/x-ing 991.1s. In the case of my OPC the suggestion was 10 out of their initial 20 allocation.
Your OPC is getting 20 ?! They must shift huge amounts of cars to get that many. Not heard a number that high before. WindyM said:
I understand (and agree). The thirty-odd figure FS will increase because as has been recognised previously, several 991.2 customers are p/x-ing 991.1s. In the case of my OPC the suggestion was 10 out of their initial 20 allocation.
Err, your OPC is telling porkies. If you mean they expect 10 991.1 GT3s back in px against the 991.2 GT3 that is clearly extremely unlikely and nigh on impossible.
Firstly there were an average of only 10 991.1 GT3s PER OPC, 332 UK cars in total.
And secondly it is likely there will only be similar number of gen 2s as gen1s in total.
kev.RS said:
I read on here somewhere that people have had more than one engine replacement on their .1 GT3.
Is this a failure of the rectified new part or something different?
A small number of the initial cars were affected apparantly.Is this a failure of the rectified new part or something different?
Post c May 2014 cars received the revised engine in situ at the factory as opposed to OPC engine swaps.
I think the engine story goes something like this (apologies in advance for the length of post and the absence of hard data relating to build numbers and cut-off/introduction dates):
The early GT3 cars, built up to May 14, had the original spec of MA175 engines with the prefix 'E0' (so: E01234 for example) where a handful (only) of them exhibited the conrod bolt issue (thought to be caused by the bolts not holding torque correctly, leading to the rod coming loose, punching a hole in the block, causing oil egress and the possibility of a fire). These early vehicles were subject to the 'stop sale/stop driving' recall in early 2014 and were subsequenty fitted with replacement engines. There were around 765 of these original 'E0' engines replaced, either at the factory (post May 14 as above) where cars were yet to be delivered, or at the supplying dealer where the car had been supplied already.
The replacement engines (and, indeed, engines fitted in series production for the remainder of MY14) were effectively to an updated MY14 specification which carried the prefix 'E1' (so: E11234 for example). They were built wth an 'optimised conrod bolt' but it is thought that there were also process changes in the factory to more accurately control the torquing of the bolts during engine assembly. I don't think there have been any reported incidences of any 'E1' (or later) spec engines exhibiting the conrod bolt issue.
However, as these 'E1' spec engines were used and increasingly subjected to in-service operations, including track work, a small proportion of them began to exhibit a top-end wear problem (wear on the rocker fingers/followers and/or on cam lobes). This was signalled to the driver by the illumination of a 'reduced performance' warning light, itself triggered by the wear in the upper valvetrain area causing a small timing issue at high engine rpm (typically 8500 rpm and above). Although the incidence of these failures is believed to be small, it appears that the root cause was a combination of insufficient lubrication in these areas combined with an incorrect or insufficient depth of the very hard 'diamond-like coating' (DLC) on the interfacing surfaces. It is likely that this design or process deficiency was also present in the original, pre-replacement engines but never came to light because of their relatively short in-service period.
In instances where these 'E1' spec engines have failed, they have typically been replaced with a new unit - generally being to the MY15 'G' spec engine (see two paragraphs below). It is these cars, believed to be very small in number, which produce the stories about cars having two replacement engines; the original replacement to overcome the conrod bolt issue and a second change to address the upper-valvetrain lubrication/wear problem.
In parallel to these issues becoming known on the MY14/'E1' spec engines, Porsche updated the engine again with a series of running-changes which were introduced at the start of MY15. These engines carry an 'F' prefix. The modifications are thought to include changes to address the emerging lubrication issue (incluidng uprated camshafts and followers/fingers) and some new ECU parameters to modify oil pressures under specific conditions. I think that the number of reported issues with valvetrain wear on 'F' spec engines is very low, although more time in-service is required to give complete confidence.
Finally, for MY16 (yes, there were a few cars...) a 'G' specification of engine was introduced. This went further than the mods introduced in the 'F' spec and incorporated additional engineering changes that had been developed for the MA176 RS engine, including a new oil pump and filter arrangement.
It is thought that, where 'E1' or 'F' engines show evidence of the lubrication and valvetrain wear problem described above, these units will be replaced with the latest 'G' spec (RS based) engine design, and that this approach forms the basis of the 10-year engine warranty that Porsche has spoken about (and which is expected to be formally confirmed by Porsche GB in the coming weeks).
Apologies that takes a while to read (and write), but that's the situation as I understand it - and I should add that I have no inside knowledge (so this could all be rubbish) but is what I have pulled together from mostly on-line research.
James
The early GT3 cars, built up to May 14, had the original spec of MA175 engines with the prefix 'E0' (so: E01234 for example) where a handful (only) of them exhibited the conrod bolt issue (thought to be caused by the bolts not holding torque correctly, leading to the rod coming loose, punching a hole in the block, causing oil egress and the possibility of a fire). These early vehicles were subject to the 'stop sale/stop driving' recall in early 2014 and were subsequenty fitted with replacement engines. There were around 765 of these original 'E0' engines replaced, either at the factory (post May 14 as above) where cars were yet to be delivered, or at the supplying dealer where the car had been supplied already.
The replacement engines (and, indeed, engines fitted in series production for the remainder of MY14) were effectively to an updated MY14 specification which carried the prefix 'E1' (so: E11234 for example). They were built wth an 'optimised conrod bolt' but it is thought that there were also process changes in the factory to more accurately control the torquing of the bolts during engine assembly. I don't think there have been any reported incidences of any 'E1' (or later) spec engines exhibiting the conrod bolt issue.
However, as these 'E1' spec engines were used and increasingly subjected to in-service operations, including track work, a small proportion of them began to exhibit a top-end wear problem (wear on the rocker fingers/followers and/or on cam lobes). This was signalled to the driver by the illumination of a 'reduced performance' warning light, itself triggered by the wear in the upper valvetrain area causing a small timing issue at high engine rpm (typically 8500 rpm and above). Although the incidence of these failures is believed to be small, it appears that the root cause was a combination of insufficient lubrication in these areas combined with an incorrect or insufficient depth of the very hard 'diamond-like coating' (DLC) on the interfacing surfaces. It is likely that this design or process deficiency was also present in the original, pre-replacement engines but never came to light because of their relatively short in-service period.
In instances where these 'E1' spec engines have failed, they have typically been replaced with a new unit - generally being to the MY15 'G' spec engine (see two paragraphs below). It is these cars, believed to be very small in number, which produce the stories about cars having two replacement engines; the original replacement to overcome the conrod bolt issue and a second change to address the upper-valvetrain lubrication/wear problem.
In parallel to these issues becoming known on the MY14/'E1' spec engines, Porsche updated the engine again with a series of running-changes which were introduced at the start of MY15. These engines carry an 'F' prefix. The modifications are thought to include changes to address the emerging lubrication issue (incluidng uprated camshafts and followers/fingers) and some new ECU parameters to modify oil pressures under specific conditions. I think that the number of reported issues with valvetrain wear on 'F' spec engines is very low, although more time in-service is required to give complete confidence.
Finally, for MY16 (yes, there were a few cars...) a 'G' specification of engine was introduced. This went further than the mods introduced in the 'F' spec and incorporated additional engineering changes that had been developed for the MA176 RS engine, including a new oil pump and filter arrangement.
It is thought that, where 'E1' or 'F' engines show evidence of the lubrication and valvetrain wear problem described above, these units will be replaced with the latest 'G' spec (RS based) engine design, and that this approach forms the basis of the 10-year engine warranty that Porsche has spoken about (and which is expected to be formally confirmed by Porsche GB in the coming weeks).
Apologies that takes a while to read (and write), but that's the situation as I understand it - and I should add that I have no inside knowledge (so this could all be rubbish) but is what I have pulled together from mostly on-line research.
James
Edited by short-shift on Monday 4th September 09:13
short-shift said:
I think the engine story goes something like this (apologies in advance for the length of post and the absence of hard data relating to build numbers and cut-off/introduction dates):
The early GT3 cars, built up to May 14, had the original spec of MA175 engines where a handful (only) of them exhibited the conrod bolt issue (thought to be caused by the bolts not holding torque correctly, leading to the rod coming loose, punching a hole in the block, causing oil egress with the possibility of a fire). These early vehicles were subject to the 'stop driving' recall in early 2014 and were subsequenty fitted with replacement engines. There were around 765 of the original engines replaced, either at the factory (post May 14 as above) where cars were yet to be delivered, or at the supplying dealer where the car had been supplied already.
These replacement engines (and, indeed, engines fitted in series production for the remainder of MY14) were effectively to an updated MY14 specification which carried the prefix letter 'E'. They were built wth an 'optimised conrod bolt' but it is also thought that there were also process changes in the factory to more accurately control the torquing of the bolts during engine assembly. I don't think there have been any reported incidences of any 'E' (or later) spec engines exhibiting the conrod bolt issue.
However, as these 'E' spec engines were used and increasingly subjected to in-service operations, including track work, a small proportion of them began to exhibit a top-end wear problem (wear on the rocker fingers/followers and/or on cam lobes). This was signalled to the driver by the illumination of a 'reduced performance' warning light, itself triggered by the wear in the upper valvetrain area causing a small timing issue at high engine rpm (typically 8500 rpm and above). Although the incidence of these failures is believed to be small, it appears that the root cause was a combination of insufficient lubrication in these areas combined with an incorrect or insufficient depth of the very hard 'diamond-like coating' (DLC) on the interfacing surfaces. It is likely that this design or process deficiency was also present in the original, pre-replacement engines but never came to light because of their relatively short in-service period.
In instances where these 'E' spec engines have failed, they have typically been replaced with a new unit - generally being to the MY15 'G' spec engine (see two paragraphs below). It is these cars, believed to be very small in number, which produce the stories about cars having two replacement engines; the original replacement to overcome the conrod bolt issue and a second change to address the upper-valvetrain lubrication/wear problem.
In parallel to these issues becoming known on the MY14/'E' spec engines, Porsche updated the engine again with a series of running-changes which were introduced at the start of MY15. These engines carry an 'F' prefix. The modifications are thought to include changes to address the emerging lubrication issue (incluidng uprated camshafts and followers/fingers) and some new ECU parameters to modify oil pressures under specific conditions. I think that the number of reported issues with valvetrain wear on 'F' spec engines is very low, although more time in-service is required to give complete confidence.
Finally, for MY16 (yes, there were a few cars...) a 'G' specification of engine was introduced. This went further than the mods introduced in the 'F' spec and incorporated some engineering changes that had been developed for the MA176 RS engine, including a new oil pump and filter arrangement.
It is thought that, where 'E' or 'F' engines show evidence of the lubrication and valvetrain wear problem described above, these units will be replaced with the latest 'G' spec (RS based) engine design, and that this approach forms the basis of the 10-year engine warranty that Porsche has spoken about (and which is expected to be formally confirmed by Porsche GB in the coming weeks).
Apologies that takes a while to write (and read), but that's the situation as I understand it - and I should add that I have no inside knowledge (so this could all be rubbish) but is what I have pulled together from mostly on-line research.
James
Brilliant post - great to read all the pieces of the jigsaw stitched together - thanks The early GT3 cars, built up to May 14, had the original spec of MA175 engines where a handful (only) of them exhibited the conrod bolt issue (thought to be caused by the bolts not holding torque correctly, leading to the rod coming loose, punching a hole in the block, causing oil egress with the possibility of a fire). These early vehicles were subject to the 'stop driving' recall in early 2014 and were subsequenty fitted with replacement engines. There were around 765 of the original engines replaced, either at the factory (post May 14 as above) where cars were yet to be delivered, or at the supplying dealer where the car had been supplied already.
These replacement engines (and, indeed, engines fitted in series production for the remainder of MY14) were effectively to an updated MY14 specification which carried the prefix letter 'E'. They were built wth an 'optimised conrod bolt' but it is also thought that there were also process changes in the factory to more accurately control the torquing of the bolts during engine assembly. I don't think there have been any reported incidences of any 'E' (or later) spec engines exhibiting the conrod bolt issue.
However, as these 'E' spec engines were used and increasingly subjected to in-service operations, including track work, a small proportion of them began to exhibit a top-end wear problem (wear on the rocker fingers/followers and/or on cam lobes). This was signalled to the driver by the illumination of a 'reduced performance' warning light, itself triggered by the wear in the upper valvetrain area causing a small timing issue at high engine rpm (typically 8500 rpm and above). Although the incidence of these failures is believed to be small, it appears that the root cause was a combination of insufficient lubrication in these areas combined with an incorrect or insufficient depth of the very hard 'diamond-like coating' (DLC) on the interfacing surfaces. It is likely that this design or process deficiency was also present in the original, pre-replacement engines but never came to light because of their relatively short in-service period.
In instances where these 'E' spec engines have failed, they have typically been replaced with a new unit - generally being to the MY15 'G' spec engine (see two paragraphs below). It is these cars, believed to be very small in number, which produce the stories about cars having two replacement engines; the original replacement to overcome the conrod bolt issue and a second change to address the upper-valvetrain lubrication/wear problem.
In parallel to these issues becoming known on the MY14/'E' spec engines, Porsche updated the engine again with a series of running-changes which were introduced at the start of MY15. These engines carry an 'F' prefix. The modifications are thought to include changes to address the emerging lubrication issue (incluidng uprated camshafts and followers/fingers) and some new ECU parameters to modify oil pressures under specific conditions. I think that the number of reported issues with valvetrain wear on 'F' spec engines is very low, although more time in-service is required to give complete confidence.
Finally, for MY16 (yes, there were a few cars...) a 'G' specification of engine was introduced. This went further than the mods introduced in the 'F' spec and incorporated some engineering changes that had been developed for the MA176 RS engine, including a new oil pump and filter arrangement.
It is thought that, where 'E' or 'F' engines show evidence of the lubrication and valvetrain wear problem described above, these units will be replaced with the latest 'G' spec (RS based) engine design, and that this approach forms the basis of the 10-year engine warranty that Porsche has spoken about (and which is expected to be formally confirmed by Porsche GB in the coming weeks).
Apologies that takes a while to write (and read), but that's the situation as I understand it - and I should add that I have no inside knowledge (so this could all be rubbish) but is what I have pulled together from mostly on-line research.
James
Edited by short-shift on Wednesday 30th August 07:58
Edited by short-shift on Wednesday 30th August 08:02
Does that mean that 'E', 'F' and 'G' engines will be covered by the 10 year warranty as presumably the ones with the 'G' spec engines will be the ones to keep if this is a proper fix?
It will be interesting to see if the value changes on cars with the 'G' spec engines also be interesting to see in the future with cars that are still running the 'E' and 'F' spec engines when it comes to the end of the 10 year warranty that I imagine owners ( I definitely would) will be pushing for a 'G' spec engine to be fitted as proof of betterment and any kind of future value.
I know it is a long way away but does that mean that nobody will want to touch a .1 GT3 with a 'E' or 'F' spec engine when they are to old to qualify for a Porsche warranty?
It will be interesting to see if the value changes on cars with the 'G' spec engines also be interesting to see in the future with cars that are still running the 'E' and 'F' spec engines when it comes to the end of the 10 year warranty that I imagine owners ( I definitely would) will be pushing for a 'G' spec engine to be fitted as proof of betterment and any kind of future value.
I know it is a long way away but does that mean that nobody will want to touch a .1 GT3 with a 'E' or 'F' spec engine when they are to old to qualify for a Porsche warranty?
James a good summary, I have a car which was subject to the stop sale. It was originally an E0 engine code, the replament started with E1.
I'm not sure what revisions the F or G series had but I know there are multiple versions of the G series.
In terms of the 10 year warranty I believe from reading the outcome of the Concerned Owners Group of which I was a member that any replacement engines now have further revisions beyond what has already been seen in the G engines.
Regards
Fred
I'm not sure what revisions the F or G series had but I know there are multiple versions of the G series.
In terms of the 10 year warranty I believe from reading the outcome of the Concerned Owners Group of which I was a member that any replacement engines now have further revisions beyond what has already been seen in the G engines.
Regards
Fred
FredBasset said:
James a good summary, I have a car which was subject to the stop sale. It was originally an E0 engine code, the replament started with E1.
I'm not sure what revisions the F or G series had but I know there are multiple versions of the G series.
Thanks Fred. I understand that, as you say, the original (pre-replacement) MY14 engines had an E0 prefix (so; E01234 for example) and the modified versions with the conrod bolt improvements in place, which were used for the reworks and the balance of MY14 builds, were designated with an E1 prefix (so: E11234 for example). I've updated my original post a little further up the thread to reflect this.I'm not sure what revisions the F or G series had but I know there are multiple versions of the G series.
Interesting to hear that the 'final' G series may exist in a variety of different specs. I wonder if we will ever uncover a more detailed understanding of the further changes have been made?
James
Edited by short-shift on Wednesday 30th August 21:43
av185 said:
WindyM said:
I understand (and agree). The thirty-odd figure FS will increase because as has been recognised previously, several 991.2 customers are p/x-ing 991.1s. In the case of my OPC the suggestion was 10 out of their initial 20 allocation.
Err, your OPC is telling porkies. If you mean they expect 10 991.1 GT3s back in px against the 991.2 GT3 that is clearly extremely unlikely and nigh on impossible.
Firstly there were an average of only 10 991.1 GT3s PER OPC, 332 UK cars in total.
And secondly it is likely there will only be similar number of gen 2s as gen1s in total.
An interesting intersection of prices - two £124k cars both with 16k miles...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
for UK owners...
I've been in touch with both the OPC and PCGB
OPC couldn't find anything concrete out;
PCGB response:
Dear Mr Willis
Thank you for your enquiry.
I can confirm that Porsche have been made aware of such speculation. At this time, we have no formal confirmation from Porsche AG that GT3 warranties will be extended to 10 years.
Please be advised that should Porsche announce such an extension, all affected customers will be contacted directly in due course.
I am sorry that my response may be vague, however, I trust the above clarifies Porsche's current position.
Thank you for contacting Porsche Cars Great Britain Limited.
Kind regards
I've since discovered that this actually isn't PCGB, but RAC - they outsourced !
trying to get a contact @ PCGB to answer the simple question...
I've been in touch with both the OPC and PCGB
OPC couldn't find anything concrete out;
PCGB response:
Dear Mr Willis
Thank you for your enquiry.
I can confirm that Porsche have been made aware of such speculation. At this time, we have no formal confirmation from Porsche AG that GT3 warranties will be extended to 10 years.
Please be advised that should Porsche announce such an extension, all affected customers will be contacted directly in due course.
I am sorry that my response may be vague, however, I trust the above clarifies Porsche's current position.
Thank you for contacting Porsche Cars Great Britain Limited.
Kind regards
I've since discovered that this actually isn't PCGB, but RAC - they outsourced !
trying to get a contact @ PCGB to answer the simple question...
WindyM said:
An interesting intersection of prices - two £124k cars both with 16k miles...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
If they were both private sales and the 991 had bucket seats, you would expect parity in the pricing.https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff