Has your 996 or 997 engine had a major rebuild?
Poll: Has your 996 or 997 engine had a major rebuild?
Total Members Polled: 867
Discussion
blueg33 said:
Matt Seabrook said:
Its not exactly an engine rebuild problem though is it. Not a cheep job but also not a rebuild. Its not that uncommon on any car to have a leaking RMS and something to look at when changing clutches. So far the pole is at <8% interesting stuff
To me, it depends on the cost or what it leads to if not fixed. If its a £800 job then IMO its not major, if it costs £5k it may as well be in the same class as a rebuildEdited by Matt Seabrook on Sunday 11th September 18:05
HoHoHo said:
Still the doom mongers obviously haven't come back from the pub yet so there may still be a change in statistics 
You called! I like the cars but, I fall into the latter option. There are other cars I'd rather buy without the risks. Or at least what I perceive to be the risks, rightly or wrongly.
HoHoHo said:
Pretty sure RMS problems don't cost £5k to fix, nowhere near that figure and I've not heard of any instances of engine rebuild as a result of RMS failure (again, stand to be corrected!)
I really don't know, thats why I asked. Many people are put off by stories of RMS failures, so I wondered what it cost. It was a factor when I was considering a 996, but I admit that I didn't research it properly, so I am genuinely interestedThe RMS problem didn't put me off getting one, so it is appropriate to exclude that here IMO. It was the IMS that put me off a C4S some years ago. I only understood the scoring issue fairly recently.
Around 12% now - which I assume has resulted in a new engine either under warranty, with goodwill or at around £10k (or perhaps slightly cheaper repair indie options).
Worth the risk? I think that will always be a personal choice (if you are aware of the issue of course).
Around 12% now - which I assume has resulted in a new engine either under warranty, with goodwill or at around £10k (or perhaps slightly cheaper repair indie options).
Worth the risk? I think that will always be a personal choice (if you are aware of the issue of course).
The only fly in the statistical ointment (other than the usual issue of non-failure being a passive state), is that there is no way of saying you have had or still have a fleet of working 996, 986, 987, 997 vs someone with one failure as you only get one vote and therefore isn't weighted to the number of vehicles.
Additionally, what happens if only one of the cars you own/have owned has failed?
For example, I have a friend with three 996 and one failed.
So he could only presumably vote for "YES" (failure) and thus ignoring the two that didn't break?
On his stats alone the probability would look like 100%, whereas although he was unlucky, his actual stats were 33% chance of failure.
Additionally, what happens if only one of the cars you own/have owned has failed?
For example, I have a friend with three 996 and one failed.
So he could only presumably vote for "YES" (failure) and thus ignoring the two that didn't break?
On his stats alone the probability would look like 100%, whereas although he was unlucky, his actual stats were 33% chance of failure.
X51 said:
The only fly in the statistical ointment (other than the usual issue of non-failure being a passive state), is that there is no way of saying you have had or still have a fleet of working 996, 986, 987, 997 vs someone with one failure as you only get one vote and therefore isn't weighted to the number of vehicles.
Additionally, what happens if only one of the cars you own/have owned has failed?
For example, I have a friend with three 996 and one failed.
So he could only presumably vote for "YES" (failure) and thus ignoring the two that didn't break?
On his stats alone the probability would look like 100%, whereas although he was unlucky, his actual stats were 33% chance of failure.
That's a valid point - in fact I have had a Boxster S, a 996 and a 997 and not had a major problem on any of the three!Additionally, what happens if only one of the cars you own/have owned has failed?
For example, I have a friend with three 996 and one failed.
So he could only presumably vote for "YES" (failure) and thus ignoring the two that didn't break?
On his stats alone the probability would look like 100%, whereas although he was unlucky, his actual stats were 33% chance of failure.
This is as good as the forum software will allow I'm suspect, but will give us an idea albeit not 100% accurate.
What is interesting is we are now at 2% which indicates to me the problem isn't anywhere near as bad as some posters would have you believe, those who haven't purchased because of the threat of a problem can hopefully see far more cars run as they should than don't.
All I can say is..... 'INSIGNIFICANT'
No engine rebuild, but very recently has needed:
1. A waterpump - looks like the original was on a knife edge and not doing my usual route meant less cool down time off the motorway. It failed in the dealership overnight. Went in for a clutch change.
2. RMS housing replacement (Looks like the RMS has been replaced - but NOT in the history - and the person doing it filled over the centre cavity with gasket sealant, so I decided to have the housing replaced. IMS is smooth, so left it alone.
3. Brake pipes. The two rear hard pipes were very badly corroded in a couple of places. Hidden by the under trays, this corrosion would not have been spotted by MOT, and would only have been noticed at failure. I have seen this posted on PH once before, and I would recommend everyone have the undertrays off for a look. It looks like the coating on the steel (not stainless!) pipes has been rubbed off by the undertrays and then they've obviously got wet.
4. Clutch. I took it in because it was juddering. The clutch plate was fine, but the pressure plate ring had heat marks on it, so had it done anyway given the cost of labour to get in there. Glad I did really, having seen the condition of the rear brake pipes.
An expensive day.
1. A waterpump - looks like the original was on a knife edge and not doing my usual route meant less cool down time off the motorway. It failed in the dealership overnight. Went in for a clutch change.
2. RMS housing replacement (Looks like the RMS has been replaced - but NOT in the history - and the person doing it filled over the centre cavity with gasket sealant, so I decided to have the housing replaced. IMS is smooth, so left it alone.
3. Brake pipes. The two rear hard pipes were very badly corroded in a couple of places. Hidden by the under trays, this corrosion would not have been spotted by MOT, and would only have been noticed at failure. I have seen this posted on PH once before, and I would recommend everyone have the undertrays off for a look. It looks like the coating on the steel (not stainless!) pipes has been rubbed off by the undertrays and then they've obviously got wet.
4. Clutch. I took it in because it was juddering. The clutch plate was fine, but the pressure plate ring had heat marks on it, so had it done anyway given the cost of labour to get in there. Glad I did really, having seen the condition of the rear brake pipes.
An expensive day.
Kieran said:
Having inadvertently clicked on 'Skip Voting' to review the current results it would appear the option to then Vote is removed. Is there a way of now registering a vote? if not can the Poll administrator amend to show an additional IMS failure vote.
Thanks
I've had a look and I can't see a way of adding your vote - can you back space in your browser?Thanks
Can I just add to the opinion that the statistics render the possibility of engine failure insignificant - to ask if any of those who expereinced it (and the cost of sorting it out) regarded it as insignificant.
It is a classic low risk but high cost problem that I relate as similar probably to writing your car off or suffering a house fire. They are statistically even less likely to happen to you yet very few would risk not insuring against it because the resulting cost to fix would be so high.
However the warranty schemes available can be expensive and often do not actually cover the fault or the whole cost of repair. Often they exclude wear and tear causes or limit pay outs (and are too wealthy to take on legally - referring everything to appeal to delay a result and increase potential costs if you lose).
The only ones I know of that are reliable are the Porsche warranty scheme (more expensive but you get a new engine) and our own Lifetime Maintenance Plan (less expensive but you pay for parts - but can have the causes of the faults modified to reduce the likelyhood of a repetition).
Baz
It is a classic low risk but high cost problem that I relate as similar probably to writing your car off or suffering a house fire. They are statistically even less likely to happen to you yet very few would risk not insuring against it because the resulting cost to fix would be so high.
However the warranty schemes available can be expensive and often do not actually cover the fault or the whole cost of repair. Often they exclude wear and tear causes or limit pay outs (and are too wealthy to take on legally - referring everything to appeal to delay a result and increase potential costs if you lose).
The only ones I know of that are reliable are the Porsche warranty scheme (more expensive but you get a new engine) and our own Lifetime Maintenance Plan (less expensive but you pay for parts - but can have the causes of the faults modified to reduce the likelyhood of a repetition).
Baz
hartech said:
Can I just add to the opinion that the statistics render the possibility of engine failure insignificant - to ask if any of those who expereinced it (and the cost of sorting it out) regarded it as insignificant.
It is a classic low risk but high cost problem that I relate as similar probably to writing your car off or suffering a house fire. They are statistically even less likely to happen to you yet very few would risk not insuring against it because the resulting cost to fix would be so high.
However the warranty schemes available can be expensive and often do not actually cover the fault or the whole cost of repair. Often they exclude wear and tear causes or limit pay outs (and are too wealthy to take on legally - referring everything to appeal to delay a result and increase potential costs if you lose).
The only ones I know of that are reliable are the Porsche warranty scheme (more expensive but you get a new engine) and our own Lifetime Maintenance Plan (less expensive but you pay for parts - but can have the causes of the faults modified to reduce the likelyhood of a repetition).
Baz
BazIt is a classic low risk but high cost problem that I relate as similar probably to writing your car off or suffering a house fire. They are statistically even less likely to happen to you yet very few would risk not insuring against it because the resulting cost to fix would be so high.
However the warranty schemes available can be expensive and often do not actually cover the fault or the whole cost of repair. Often they exclude wear and tear causes or limit pay outs (and are too wealthy to take on legally - referring everything to appeal to delay a result and increase potential costs if you lose).
The only ones I know of that are reliable are the Porsche warranty scheme (more expensive but you get a new engine) and our own Lifetime Maintenance Plan (less expensive but you pay for parts - but can have the causes of the faults modified to reduce the likelyhood of a repetition).
Baz
I think you misunderstood my post.
I'm not suggesting it's insignificant to the person personally when their engine goes pop - of course it's significant, upsetting and every other emotion that you feel at the time!.
This thread was a result of comments suggesting Porsche had a significant number of engine failures (one quote was 'it happens to them all' or words to that effect) which it would appear (based on figures in so far) as not being the case.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff