Looking at buying a 997... Is a Hartech repaired .1 as good
Discussion
ooid said:
RacerMDR said:
....just drive it until it happens and then spend the money with Hartech etc
I think many of them that on sale, just already on that specific age if one inspects/looks at it clearly. We have seen a few of stories here and 911uk that owners with only 60 minutes driving than catastrophic results.I, myself looked at these cars last year for a long time, and decided not to go ahead. In general, thanks to Porsche AG sloppy engineering, most cars that they produced between 2000-2008 is pretty eventful. One can easily look at, how many independent engine builders or mechanics made a living out of this in the last decade, not to mention big brands like hartech or Autofarm.
woollyjoe said:
carry on with your pitch.
It's probably easy to label hartech engineers here, to think that they have a conflict, but if you really read what they reflect on their research, it is quite impressive and informative -Not to mention free of charge here-. I guess we all know, what would be Porsche AG's response about any of these cars nearly terminal problems if you ask them? (Many would be clue-less in my humble experience and opinion) Edited by ooid on Tuesday 23 January 22:20
Mine on 57k mile - the last 5k miles were me, and it seems spot on.
Regardless of the random nature of differences in production quality, the rate of wear will still be increased for cars that were mainly driven with high torque and reduced for cars driven gently.
Not everyone buys a Porsche to drive flat out everywhere. Many owners either do not own them to drive fast or simply do not drive fast - or their daily drive is in traffic conditions that would make it difficult to do so even if they wanted to.
This range of cars are potentially very much faster than their predecessors and so even owners that used to thrash their air cooled 911's, 944's or 968's may not find that that do the same in one of these and it is significant that the smaller engine versions of the same engines last much longer due largely to the lower stress the parts are put through.
It is therefore very difficult for us to quantify the type of driving a particular car engine experienced during its lifetime, but I guess that IF it was driven largely relatively slowly by all its owners, and had a "good set of blocks and piston coatings", then it might last out the life of the car.
On the other hand if it was at the lower end of the random quality issues and was driven aggressively a lot by many owners it is more likely to fail prematurely.
I am not proposing however that every owner should drive slowly, I believe these cars should be enjoyed to their full potential (by those that want to) and not have to hold back - and that is why we have come up with solutions that enable owners to do just that with increased reliability - like they probably expected in the first place building a stronger more resilient engine.
We cannot find details of if and when Lokasil "2" replaced Lokasil "1" (or if it did) so the following is supposition - but - despite the same relative cylinder wall thickness dimensions - the later engines (3.4 Cayman S, 3/6 and 3.8) do not go oval as soon or as much as earlier engines and therefore seem to have mainly avoided cylinder cracks. However Lokasil "2" had a different ratio of silicon particles in it and they were also bigger. This suggests the mix was changed to make them stronger (which worked) but the introduction at a similar point in time of plastic coated pistons meant that IF a loose particle of silicon became free it would damage the piston coating more quickly - especially as the particle size range seems possible to exceed the bore clearance.
The much smaller silicon particles in Nikasil are dissolved into the Nickel and plated onto the surface and do not become loose to cause issues.
British fuels have had ultra low sulphur content for a long time now but there was no problem using the original high sulphur content fuels with all the air cooled Porsche models in use at the time of the BMW failures - all of which had Nikasil bores. We have had not one problem with the coating we use and I think the BMW problem had other related causes.
Regarding the comment about us making a living from these failures - we were making a living before these models experienced any problems and only expanded our services to cover engine repairs because I happened to have been one of the first people ever to manufacture cylinders with Nikasil bores over 45 years ago and also had spent many years designing and manufacturing similar cylinders - so for us it was a no brainer to find a viable solution that has stood the test of time since.
Although we do make a living while we are repairing these engines - we also help any owner involved experience a reduced repair cost and a longer lasting outcome - so we help them make the best of the money they earn for other things as well. Furthermore we have invested a considerable sum in new CNC manufacturing equipment, staffing, training and facilities to enable us to bring the highest quality of repair at a similar price (often less expensive) than some competitors with what are accepted as "cheaper" technical solutions. Our investment is not amortised to repay itself foe several years yet so it was a risk businesses make and because we were the first to offer such a solution and have continually invested since (and have a large share of the market) it would not be viable for anyone else to try and replicate the set-up for what would then only be a smaller share and a longer rate of return.
Don't forget also our engines are not such a great solution just because they have Nikasil alloy cylinders (although that is a key component), they also are closed deck (unlike competitors), wet liners, with modified coolant flow (following extensive research), and stripped, cleaned , measured and rebuilt by experts doing nothing else all day long in purpose built rooms (example 5 different types of cleaning machines in just one) and that all that expertise resulted in our engines winning all 3 Porsche production championships last season in the UK with 100% reliability.
I think we are the only business able to do all this entirely with "IN HOUSE" facilities and equipment to maintain our own quality control and speedup throughput.
Repairing engines has turned out to provide a lot of our turnover but that has been used to invest in continual improvements at a level others cannot match for the benefit of owners.
Baz
Not everyone buys a Porsche to drive flat out everywhere. Many owners either do not own them to drive fast or simply do not drive fast - or their daily drive is in traffic conditions that would make it difficult to do so even if they wanted to.
This range of cars are potentially very much faster than their predecessors and so even owners that used to thrash their air cooled 911's, 944's or 968's may not find that that do the same in one of these and it is significant that the smaller engine versions of the same engines last much longer due largely to the lower stress the parts are put through.
It is therefore very difficult for us to quantify the type of driving a particular car engine experienced during its lifetime, but I guess that IF it was driven largely relatively slowly by all its owners, and had a "good set of blocks and piston coatings", then it might last out the life of the car.
On the other hand if it was at the lower end of the random quality issues and was driven aggressively a lot by many owners it is more likely to fail prematurely.
I am not proposing however that every owner should drive slowly, I believe these cars should be enjoyed to their full potential (by those that want to) and not have to hold back - and that is why we have come up with solutions that enable owners to do just that with increased reliability - like they probably expected in the first place building a stronger more resilient engine.
We cannot find details of if and when Lokasil "2" replaced Lokasil "1" (or if it did) so the following is supposition - but - despite the same relative cylinder wall thickness dimensions - the later engines (3.4 Cayman S, 3/6 and 3.8) do not go oval as soon or as much as earlier engines and therefore seem to have mainly avoided cylinder cracks. However Lokasil "2" had a different ratio of silicon particles in it and they were also bigger. This suggests the mix was changed to make them stronger (which worked) but the introduction at a similar point in time of plastic coated pistons meant that IF a loose particle of silicon became free it would damage the piston coating more quickly - especially as the particle size range seems possible to exceed the bore clearance.
The much smaller silicon particles in Nikasil are dissolved into the Nickel and plated onto the surface and do not become loose to cause issues.
British fuels have had ultra low sulphur content for a long time now but there was no problem using the original high sulphur content fuels with all the air cooled Porsche models in use at the time of the BMW failures - all of which had Nikasil bores. We have had not one problem with the coating we use and I think the BMW problem had other related causes.
Regarding the comment about us making a living from these failures - we were making a living before these models experienced any problems and only expanded our services to cover engine repairs because I happened to have been one of the first people ever to manufacture cylinders with Nikasil bores over 45 years ago and also had spent many years designing and manufacturing similar cylinders - so for us it was a no brainer to find a viable solution that has stood the test of time since.
Although we do make a living while we are repairing these engines - we also help any owner involved experience a reduced repair cost and a longer lasting outcome - so we help them make the best of the money they earn for other things as well. Furthermore we have invested a considerable sum in new CNC manufacturing equipment, staffing, training and facilities to enable us to bring the highest quality of repair at a similar price (often less expensive) than some competitors with what are accepted as "cheaper" technical solutions. Our investment is not amortised to repay itself foe several years yet so it was a risk businesses make and because we were the first to offer such a solution and have continually invested since (and have a large share of the market) it would not be viable for anyone else to try and replicate the set-up for what would then only be a smaller share and a longer rate of return.
Don't forget also our engines are not such a great solution just because they have Nikasil alloy cylinders (although that is a key component), they also are closed deck (unlike competitors), wet liners, with modified coolant flow (following extensive research), and stripped, cleaned , measured and rebuilt by experts doing nothing else all day long in purpose built rooms (example 5 different types of cleaning machines in just one) and that all that expertise resulted in our engines winning all 3 Porsche production championships last season in the UK with 100% reliability.
I think we are the only business able to do all this entirely with "IN HOUSE" facilities and equipment to maintain our own quality control and speedup throughput.
Repairing engines has turned out to provide a lot of our turnover but that has been used to invest in continual improvements at a level others cannot match for the benefit of owners.
Baz
hartech said:
Regardless of the random nature of differences in production quality, the rate of wear will still be increased for cars that were mainly driven with high torque and reduced for cars driven gently.
Not everyone buys a Porsche to drive flat out everywhere. Many owners either do not own them to drive fast or simply do not drive fast - or their daily drive is in traffic conditions that would make it difficult to do so even if they wanted to.
This range of cars are potentially very much faster than their predecessors and so even owners that used to thrash their air cooled 911's, 944's or 968's may not find that that do the same in one of these and it is significant that the smaller engine versions of the same engines last much longer due largely to the lower stress the parts are put through.
It is therefore very difficult for us to quantify the type of driving a particular car engine experienced during its lifetime, but I guess that IF it was driven largely relatively slowly by all its owners, and had a "good set of blocks and piston coatings", then it might last out the life of the car.
On the other hand if it was at the lower end of the random quality issues and was driven aggressively a lot by many owners it is more likely to fail prematurely.
I am not proposing however that every owner should drive slowly, I believe these cars should be enjoyed to their full potential (by those that want to) and not have to hold back - and that is why we have come up with solutions that enable owners to do just that with increased reliability - like they probably expected in the first place building a stronger more resilient engine.
We cannot find details of if and when Lokasil "2" replaced Lokasil "1" (or if it did) so the following is supposition - but - despite the same relative cylinder wall thickness dimensions - the later engines (3.4 Cayman S, 3/6 and 3.8) do not go oval as soon or as much as earlier engines and therefore seem to have mainly avoided cylinder cracks. However Lokasil "2" had a different ratio of silicon particles in it and they were also bigger. This suggests the mix was changed to make them stronger (which worked) but the introduction at a similar point in time of plastic coated pistons meant that IF a loose particle of silicon became free it would damage the piston coating more quickly - especially as the particle size range seems possible to exceed the bore clearance.
The much smaller silicon particles in Nikasil are dissolved into the Nickel and plated onto the surface and do not become loose to cause issues.
British fuels have had ultra low sulphur content for a long time now but there was no problem using the original high sulphur content fuels with all the air cooled Porsche models in use at the time of the BMW failures - all of which had Nikasil bores. We have had not one problem with the coating we use and I think the BMW problem had other related causes.
Regarding the comment about us making a living from these failures - we were making a living before these models experienced any problems and only expanded our services to cover engine repairs because I happened to have been one of the first people ever to manufacture cylinders with Nikasil bores over 45 years ago and also had spent many years designing and manufacturing similar cylinders - so for us it was a no brainer to find a viable solution that has stood the test of time since.
Although we do make a living while we are repairing these engines - we also help any owner involved experience a reduced repair cost and a longer lasting outcome - so we help them make the best of the money they earn for other things as well. Furthermore we have invested a considerable sum in new CNC manufacturing equipment, staffing, training and facilities to enable us to bring the highest quality of repair at a similar price (often less expensive) than some competitors with what are accepted as "cheaper" technical solutions. Our investment is not amortised to repay itself foe several years yet so it was a risk businesses make and because we were the first to offer such a solution and have continually invested since (and have a large share of the market) it would not be viable for anyone else to try and replicate the set-up for what would then only be a smaller share and a longer rate of return.
Don't forget also our engines are not such a great solution just because they have Nikasil alloy cylinders (although that is a key component), they also are closed deck (unlike competitors), wet liners, with modified coolant flow (following extensive research), and stripped, cleaned , measured and rebuilt by experts doing nothing else all day long in purpose built rooms (example 5 different types of cleaning machines in just one) and that all that expertise resulted in our engines winning all 3 Porsche production championships last season in the UK with 100% reliability.
I think we are the only business able to do all this entirely with "IN HOUSE" facilities and equipment to maintain our own quality control and speedup throughput.
Repairing engines has turned out to provide a lot of our turnover but that has been used to invest in continual improvements at a level others cannot match for the benefit of owners.
Baz,
Thank you, I always look forward to seeing your posts and thank you for continuing to upload them.
Corky
Not everyone buys a Porsche to drive flat out everywhere. Many owners either do not own them to drive fast or simply do not drive fast - or their daily drive is in traffic conditions that would make it difficult to do so even if they wanted to.
This range of cars are potentially very much faster than their predecessors and so even owners that used to thrash their air cooled 911's, 944's or 968's may not find that that do the same in one of these and it is significant that the smaller engine versions of the same engines last much longer due largely to the lower stress the parts are put through.
It is therefore very difficult for us to quantify the type of driving a particular car engine experienced during its lifetime, but I guess that IF it was driven largely relatively slowly by all its owners, and had a "good set of blocks and piston coatings", then it might last out the life of the car.
On the other hand if it was at the lower end of the random quality issues and was driven aggressively a lot by many owners it is more likely to fail prematurely.
I am not proposing however that every owner should drive slowly, I believe these cars should be enjoyed to their full potential (by those that want to) and not have to hold back - and that is why we have come up with solutions that enable owners to do just that with increased reliability - like they probably expected in the first place building a stronger more resilient engine.
We cannot find details of if and when Lokasil "2" replaced Lokasil "1" (or if it did) so the following is supposition - but - despite the same relative cylinder wall thickness dimensions - the later engines (3.4 Cayman S, 3/6 and 3.8) do not go oval as soon or as much as earlier engines and therefore seem to have mainly avoided cylinder cracks. However Lokasil "2" had a different ratio of silicon particles in it and they were also bigger. This suggests the mix was changed to make them stronger (which worked) but the introduction at a similar point in time of plastic coated pistons meant that IF a loose particle of silicon became free it would damage the piston coating more quickly - especially as the particle size range seems possible to exceed the bore clearance.
The much smaller silicon particles in Nikasil are dissolved into the Nickel and plated onto the surface and do not become loose to cause issues.
British fuels have had ultra low sulphur content for a long time now but there was no problem using the original high sulphur content fuels with all the air cooled Porsche models in use at the time of the BMW failures - all of which had Nikasil bores. We have had not one problem with the coating we use and I think the BMW problem had other related causes.
Regarding the comment about us making a living from these failures - we were making a living before these models experienced any problems and only expanded our services to cover engine repairs because I happened to have been one of the first people ever to manufacture cylinders with Nikasil bores over 45 years ago and also had spent many years designing and manufacturing similar cylinders - so for us it was a no brainer to find a viable solution that has stood the test of time since.
Although we do make a living while we are repairing these engines - we also help any owner involved experience a reduced repair cost and a longer lasting outcome - so we help them make the best of the money they earn for other things as well. Furthermore we have invested a considerable sum in new CNC manufacturing equipment, staffing, training and facilities to enable us to bring the highest quality of repair at a similar price (often less expensive) than some competitors with what are accepted as "cheaper" technical solutions. Our investment is not amortised to repay itself foe several years yet so it was a risk businesses make and because we were the first to offer such a solution and have continually invested since (and have a large share of the market) it would not be viable for anyone else to try and replicate the set-up for what would then only be a smaller share and a longer rate of return.
Don't forget also our engines are not such a great solution just because they have Nikasil alloy cylinders (although that is a key component), they also are closed deck (unlike competitors), wet liners, with modified coolant flow (following extensive research), and stripped, cleaned , measured and rebuilt by experts doing nothing else all day long in purpose built rooms (example 5 different types of cleaning machines in just one) and that all that expertise resulted in our engines winning all 3 Porsche production championships last season in the UK with 100% reliability.
I think we are the only business able to do all this entirely with "IN HOUSE" facilities and equipment to maintain our own quality control and speedup throughput.
Repairing engines has turned out to provide a lot of our turnover but that has been used to invest in continual improvements at a level others cannot match for the benefit of owners.
Baz,
Thank you, I always look forward to seeing your posts and thank you for continuing to upload them.
Corky
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff