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
guyvert1 said:
hartech said:
...
I am finishing with this topic now - more important things to do for customers than respond to what I regard as purposely critical attention seeking posts with no logical or engineering based reasoning to them and facts and figures miles off the mark.
Baz
Please try not to take these internet baiters to heart, you offer a great service for all your customers and stand out amongst the crowd.I am finishing with this topic now - more important things to do for customers than respond to what I regard as purposely critical attention seeking posts with no logical or engineering based reasoning to them and facts and figures miles off the mark.
Baz
Want a 997. 1
Have a hartech search in auto trader and ebay.
Would only buy one with a Hartech rebuild
TrotCanterGallopCharge said:
.Like the TVR Speed 6 engine, which had/can have issues, it took time to resolve them, but it can now be had with a 5 yr/100k mile warranty - engineering solutions are out there, but it's still up to the customer if it's worth it to them.
Not sure if it's a fair comparison. TVR did not make massive upgrades until Sagaris and later they shut it down. So owners had no option to upgrade to a newer version of Tuscan or whatever and clearly the rebuilt straight six engines out there quite reliable. Porsche A.G. basically washed their hands off with these engines by replacing with 9A1 back in late 2008. Nearly all crappy engineering gone with new architecture but the reality is in terms of price, a premium engine rebuild costs on these cars with the initial car price is sometimes more than a used 997.2 or 987.2 with better engines (9A1)So, a potential owner should really make a sanity check imho whether it's worth or not.
Chris, little question, (being the devils advocate with a detail but please no offence!
). Are you the first owner of your car? The reason I'm asking I know a few examples with high mileage but actually the first owner did not disclose the info about an engine replacement in early years under warranty. I've seen similar examples on 986s too on auctions, loads of owners simply do not disclose that info but when you put the cars into ramp or close inspection, recondition engines are mostly easy to spot. (Some shops even put their adv. sticker on them! 
). I hope its still on the original engine and you get another 150k too!Edited by ooid on Sunday 21st May 05:42
Chris Stott said:
Its hard to reply to that essay , Baz, without appearing flippant, but that’s not my intention…
I know your reputation… I’ve owned my car for 17 years and covered over 150k miles in that time… you can’t be around 996’s that length of time without hearing of Hartech.
I’ve read your stuff over the years, and I know you know a lot about the engines.
However, with regard to this particular discussion… if I were contemplating a rebuild with you, why would I ‘invest’ in all the optional ‘improved’ parts at significant extra cost if a part you buy off the shelf can fail in a couple of years… leaving me with another massive bill.
May as well go for the cheapest rebuild I can find… I’ll probably get 2 of those for similar money to the full bells and whistles… which will likely last longer than 2 years.
I’m struggling to see the value personally.
It's the Porsche bits that fail. Sadly. As I have learned the hard way twice. The first one at just 7500 miles and 12 months old resulting in a new engine from Porsche under warranty. Second one (different car) heading for trouble at 60k. Now rebuilt at Hartech and upgraded to 4.1. With their own, better, crank bearings, liners, pistons, closed deck etc.I know your reputation… I’ve owned my car for 17 years and covered over 150k miles in that time… you can’t be around 996’s that length of time without hearing of Hartech.
I’ve read your stuff over the years, and I know you know a lot about the engines.
However, with regard to this particular discussion… if I were contemplating a rebuild with you, why would I ‘invest’ in all the optional ‘improved’ parts at significant extra cost if a part you buy off the shelf can fail in a couple of years… leaving me with another massive bill.
May as well go for the cheapest rebuild I can find… I’ll probably get 2 of those for similar money to the full bells and whistles… which will likely last longer than 2 years.
I’m struggling to see the value personally.
Edited by Discombobulate on Sunday 21st May 21:19
ooid said:
TrotCanterGallopCharge said:
.Like the TVR Speed 6 engine, which had/can have issues, it took time to resolve them, but it can now be had with a 5 yr/100k mile warranty - engineering solutions are out there, but it's still up to the customer if it's worth it to them.
Not sure if it's a fair comparison. TVR did not make massive upgrades until Sagaris and later they shut it down. So owners had no option to upgrade to a newer version of Tuscan or whatever and clearly the rebuilt straight six engines out there quite reliable. Porsche A.G. basically washed their hands off with these engines by replacing with 9A1 back in late 2008. Nearly all crappy engineering gone with new architecture but the reality is in terms of price, a premium engine rebuild costs on these cars with the initial car price is sometimes more than a used 997.2 or 987.2 with better engines (9A1)So, a potential owner should really make a sanity check imho whether it's worth or not.
Chris, little question, (being the devils advocate with a detail but please no offence!
). Are you the first owner of your car? The reason I'm asking I know a few examples with high mileage but actually the first owner did not disclose the info about an engine replacement in early years under warranty. I've seen similar examples on 986s too on auctions, loads of owners simply do not disclose that info but when you put the cars into ramp or close inspection, recondition engines are mostly easy to spot. (Some shops even put their adv. sticker on them! ). I hope its still on the original engine and you get another 150k too!Edited by ooid on Sunday 21st May 05:42
Well documented woes .Even if you take off some incident number volume due to the internet attracting whinges and only bitter and twisted writing about them all .
You know filter ……it’s still risky .The engineering of the M96/M97 open deck casting in what ever modal just isn’t up to longevity.
ATM - the short answer is "YES".
Nitride hardening process only puts a relatively thin hard layer on the crankshaft journals and is a time based process. It can go deeper but takes longer - hence more expensive. in a World where fashion dictates lifespans often more than actual longevity and labour costs have become the dominating component of repair costs - many manufacturers are reducing planned life expectancy.
However - we re-hardened some crankshafts (about 15 years ago) and re-machined some suitable shells from other manufacturers to fit - and they have lasted ever since. But it is not the cheapest of processes as the cranks have to be ground twice requiring great precision setting and modifying shells to fit was also expensive. So while good used cranks were available we didn't need to use the solution we had already proven.
Now new crankshafts have escalated in price and good used ones are as rare as hens teeth - the time has come where it is worth resurrecting the proven solution and as crankshaft failure is increasing (with the additional mileages covered in the meantime) we hope it justifies a considerable investment in high quality batches of shells.
Flammetta - considering that the engine range was always a budget 911 - it is actually a very clever piece of engineering with many quality features (like the hard iron inserts in the crankcase cassettes to maintain main bearing fits).
It was a whole new experience for Porsche to change the original designs that were not suitable for economic mass production (too many parts) and make affordable cars which have been great to drive and for which many have lasted an acceptable length of time and mileage.
Perhaps the only weak areas were the IMS bearing (although many have survived) and the lack of support for the upper weak cast in cylinder tubes (caused by the need to compress the castings to localise Lokasil) which was improved in later models by changing the material mix, the change away from hard iron coated pistons (apparently enforced by health and safety legislation or the cost of applying it to the process) and the lack of support for the overhang of the flywheel when combined with a narrow rear main bearing.
IF the cylinders had been fitted with a top support ring (closing the deck), pistons were still hard iron coated and crankshafts had been fitted with a wider rear main bearing - they would have a greatly improved reliability rating.
Those changes could have been made during the production run (but were not) and IF these engines are fitted with closed deck cylinders and better quality wider big ends (as we offer) the become much more reliable.
Although not designed for track work or racing (more expensive models available for that and worked well), with the addition of a racing sump and rear crankshaft support these modifications have even proven reliable in winning endurance Championships and with raised torque and BHP using our capacity conversions.
It was a brilliantly engineering example of a wholly new solution that only incorporated a few minor weaknesses which could have been sorted and if they had been (or when they are) transforms the package. Perhaps history will show the main problem was ignoring upgrades during the production run that would have improved the result enormously.
Baz
Nitride hardening process only puts a relatively thin hard layer on the crankshaft journals and is a time based process. It can go deeper but takes longer - hence more expensive. in a World where fashion dictates lifespans often more than actual longevity and labour costs have become the dominating component of repair costs - many manufacturers are reducing planned life expectancy.
However - we re-hardened some crankshafts (about 15 years ago) and re-machined some suitable shells from other manufacturers to fit - and they have lasted ever since. But it is not the cheapest of processes as the cranks have to be ground twice requiring great precision setting and modifying shells to fit was also expensive. So while good used cranks were available we didn't need to use the solution we had already proven.
Now new crankshafts have escalated in price and good used ones are as rare as hens teeth - the time has come where it is worth resurrecting the proven solution and as crankshaft failure is increasing (with the additional mileages covered in the meantime) we hope it justifies a considerable investment in high quality batches of shells.
Flammetta - considering that the engine range was always a budget 911 - it is actually a very clever piece of engineering with many quality features (like the hard iron inserts in the crankcase cassettes to maintain main bearing fits).
It was a whole new experience for Porsche to change the original designs that were not suitable for economic mass production (too many parts) and make affordable cars which have been great to drive and for which many have lasted an acceptable length of time and mileage.
Perhaps the only weak areas were the IMS bearing (although many have survived) and the lack of support for the upper weak cast in cylinder tubes (caused by the need to compress the castings to localise Lokasil) which was improved in later models by changing the material mix, the change away from hard iron coated pistons (apparently enforced by health and safety legislation or the cost of applying it to the process) and the lack of support for the overhang of the flywheel when combined with a narrow rear main bearing.
IF the cylinders had been fitted with a top support ring (closing the deck), pistons were still hard iron coated and crankshafts had been fitted with a wider rear main bearing - they would have a greatly improved reliability rating.
Those changes could have been made during the production run (but were not) and IF these engines are fitted with closed deck cylinders and better quality wider big ends (as we offer) the become much more reliable.
Although not designed for track work or racing (more expensive models available for that and worked well), with the addition of a racing sump and rear crankshaft support these modifications have even proven reliable in winning endurance Championships and with raised torque and BHP using our capacity conversions.
It was a brilliantly engineering example of a wholly new solution that only incorporated a few minor weaknesses which could have been sorted and if they had been (or when they are) transforms the package. Perhaps history will show the main problem was ignoring upgrades during the production run that would have improved the result enormously.
Baz
As an owner of a 997.1, what grinds my teeth, are blanket statements, that you should not buy a M96/7 engined car at all unless it has been to Hartech.
Yes, Hartech do know a thing or two about these engines and I highly respect Baz and his views that he takes time to post here.
There are small points where my opinion differs to his. But my opinion is rooted mainly in what I read in different Porsche forums, especially the german PFF, and I'm just a layman that is interested in cars and engines.
The cynic in my can't help but notice that the 30 minutes or so it takes for an elaborate post is of course very good invested and are basically free marketing
Not that I condemn this in any way! Fair game to Baz and Hartech.
Also parts fail and it is unreasonable to expect a infinite warranty by anybody. Of course it is unfortunate when a bearing fails shortly after the warranty runs out, but from the informations given, Hartech/Baz handled correctly. (And I presume people realize that warranties are prized into the end product, right? Every manufacturer does this. When an American gives you a lifetime warranty, you are paying for this. It is basically a bet against the failure if a given part. Of course, the more reliable a product is, the less is the factored in cost for a warranty.)
But back to what irritates me: There are other engine builders who rebuild these engines as well! Just as good you ask? I can't know for sure. A very difficult question to answer.
There is a very well known PHer for instance, who went to someone else for the rebuild of his high mileage 996 (albeit, as I understand, they used the same Capricorn liners as Hartech do). There are other highly respected engine builders and Porsche indies who rebuild these engines on a regular basis. Yes there are different schools of thought regarding certain aspects on the rebuild. And yes, there have been engine builders who went out of business, especially in Germany, for lack of reliability after a rebuild. But the field has cleared now. By now, these who rebuild these engines on a regular basis know what they are doing.
The cult like following of Hartech, to the point where numerous people on the internet claim that you can only buy a M96/7 engined car that has a full Hartech rebuild, really irritates me. There was a lovely X51 997.1 C2S with a rebuild done by Torque/Serdi (iirc) discussed on an other thread, that got borderline slanted because it wasn't done by Hartech.
The other thing I highlighted before:
not every M96/7 fails prematurely.
There are certain design flaws that can lead to premature failure (and then, what is premature? what is an adequate life expectancy for a Porsche engine?). Different engine configurations have different problems and certain elements got changed during the 12 years of production (some changes where for the better, some where for the worse).
Every ICE is subject to wear and every engine eventually needs a rebuild. Mileage is less relevant that heat cycles. This is much like airplanes that have a lifespan measured in number of flights, regardless of hours (this is due to the cycles of how often the cabin was pressurized). Also how an engine is driven and how the car has been maintained can have an affect on the engine life. Now take into consideration the known problems that can occur with the M96/7 engines and it gets really difficult to make statements about their reliability.
When people want to buy a 9A1 engined 911 to avoid those potential problems, fair enough. If you can sleep better at night do it! But keep in mind that these engines, as many, many others as well, get rebuild due to wear and tear as well. (albeit maybe/probably/I guess far less often)
If people only want to buy a M96/7 engined car that has a Hartech rebuild, again: if it makes you sleep better at night keep, go for it!
But the narrative that the M96/7 engined cars are a heap of junk and that Hartech is the sole savior is overstated.
For the majority of people who just wan't to enjoy a 9x6 and 9x7.1: these are fabulous cars, keep your eyes open when buying, make your homework and enjoy the summer that is arriving
drive safely
Yes, Hartech do know a thing or two about these engines and I highly respect Baz and his views that he takes time to post here.
There are small points where my opinion differs to his. But my opinion is rooted mainly in what I read in different Porsche forums, especially the german PFF, and I'm just a layman that is interested in cars and engines.
The cynic in my can't help but notice that the 30 minutes or so it takes for an elaborate post is of course very good invested and are basically free marketing
Not that I condemn this in any way! Fair game to Baz and Hartech.Also parts fail and it is unreasonable to expect a infinite warranty by anybody. Of course it is unfortunate when a bearing fails shortly after the warranty runs out, but from the informations given, Hartech/Baz handled correctly. (And I presume people realize that warranties are prized into the end product, right? Every manufacturer does this. When an American gives you a lifetime warranty, you are paying for this. It is basically a bet against the failure if a given part. Of course, the more reliable a product is, the less is the factored in cost for a warranty.)
But back to what irritates me: There are other engine builders who rebuild these engines as well! Just as good you ask? I can't know for sure. A very difficult question to answer.
There is a very well known PHer for instance, who went to someone else for the rebuild of his high mileage 996 (albeit, as I understand, they used the same Capricorn liners as Hartech do). There are other highly respected engine builders and Porsche indies who rebuild these engines on a regular basis. Yes there are different schools of thought regarding certain aspects on the rebuild. And yes, there have been engine builders who went out of business, especially in Germany, for lack of reliability after a rebuild. But the field has cleared now. By now, these who rebuild these engines on a regular basis know what they are doing.
The cult like following of Hartech, to the point where numerous people on the internet claim that you can only buy a M96/7 engined car that has a full Hartech rebuild, really irritates me. There was a lovely X51 997.1 C2S with a rebuild done by Torque/Serdi (iirc) discussed on an other thread, that got borderline slanted because it wasn't done by Hartech.
The other thing I highlighted before:
not every M96/7 fails prematurely.There are certain design flaws that can lead to premature failure (and then, what is premature? what is an adequate life expectancy for a Porsche engine?). Different engine configurations have different problems and certain elements got changed during the 12 years of production (some changes where for the better, some where for the worse).
Every ICE is subject to wear and every engine eventually needs a rebuild. Mileage is less relevant that heat cycles. This is much like airplanes that have a lifespan measured in number of flights, regardless of hours (this is due to the cycles of how often the cabin was pressurized). Also how an engine is driven and how the car has been maintained can have an affect on the engine life. Now take into consideration the known problems that can occur with the M96/7 engines and it gets really difficult to make statements about their reliability.
When people want to buy a 9A1 engined 911 to avoid those potential problems, fair enough. If you can sleep better at night do it! But keep in mind that these engines, as many, many others as well, get rebuild due to wear and tear as well. (albeit maybe/probably/I guess far less often)
If people only want to buy a M96/7 engined car that has a Hartech rebuild, again: if it makes you sleep better at night keep, go for it!
But the narrative that the M96/7 engined cars are a heap of junk and that Hartech is the sole savior is overstated.
For the majority of people who just wan't to enjoy a 9x6 and 9x7.1: these are fabulous cars, keep your eyes open when buying, make your homework and enjoy the summer that is arriving
drive safely Filibuster - it's a shame my time trying to explain things irritates you. What is it exactly that you d not like about it?
The only people who can fit our Capricorn Liners are us or those agents we authorise to under contract but we do fit those liners for other specialists (and that explains that particular issue).
We provide a comprehensive service for other engine assemblers including fitting liners to blocks, building short blocks, building full engines and receiving a car for the whole job. I don't see how we can fairly be criticised for this service or be accused of trying to hog all the actual engine rebuild work.
We have never claimed we are the only people who can rebuild these engines and if anyone thinks we have - just think why would we provide the service for others in that case?
I think we are the only specialist that has been as successful in the various racing series' over the last 13 years, and carries out the full range of other services, who also has our own dyno, our own precision machine shop, manufactures special parts for engine rebuilds and racing, is carrying out research and development into how to make our engines more economical and expel fewer emissions.- and has set up agencies in a number of different Countries - including more recently to replicate our manufacturing processes in the USA.
I also doubt very much there is any specialist who has rebuilt anywhere near as many engines as we do and there is no doubt that the more you see, strip, analyse and repair - the greater knowledge you have accumulated and the more obvious trends are. Those volumes justify investing in systems that smaller operations could not and give an insight into trends that then help us to decide what to invest in to have the greatest benefit for our customers - (like the special crankshaft bearing, pistons, liners, crankshaft re-grinds etc).
I don't think anyone could fairly say that is not the highest level of support for individuals and other specialists that any other organisation is offering and that does set-us apart.
But I agree with you that there are some other specialists who can put the engine together OK - but you would surely not expect me to promote what they do - that is up to them.
Regarding the lengthy posts - you cannot have it both ways. you cannot on the one hand find detailed accurate and technically correct explanations about faults and advice that people are asking about and do so in a sentence - you are not forced to read it..
There is nothing stopping other specialists doing the same and it is very unfair to criticise us for doing so when we usually are the only source of reliable accurate scientifically correct explanations that take time and cost money to do FOC.
While you are annoyed that so many people support what we do by voicing their opinion that we are the best place to go to for an engine rebuild - I am irritated by those that then try to find some way to criticise us because of that strong position in the market - that I think (and the majority of the general Porsche public clearly think) is absolutely justified.
I also think it is unfair to criticise us for responding to issues like the crank regrinds and new higher quality shells when this is an information medium and the knowledge we post is of value to those who have engine problems and seek a cost effective solution.
They say a good sign of success is all those that cannot stand you for it and try to bring you down - just because you are perceived as the best.
I admit we set out to be the best and to provide the best properly engineered solutions and rebuilds but it is only our customers that have benefitted from that commitment and we are not doing anything to stop anyone else trying to do the same.
Baz
.
.
.
The only people who can fit our Capricorn Liners are us or those agents we authorise to under contract but we do fit those liners for other specialists (and that explains that particular issue).
We provide a comprehensive service for other engine assemblers including fitting liners to blocks, building short blocks, building full engines and receiving a car for the whole job. I don't see how we can fairly be criticised for this service or be accused of trying to hog all the actual engine rebuild work.
We have never claimed we are the only people who can rebuild these engines and if anyone thinks we have - just think why would we provide the service for others in that case?
I think we are the only specialist that has been as successful in the various racing series' over the last 13 years, and carries out the full range of other services, who also has our own dyno, our own precision machine shop, manufactures special parts for engine rebuilds and racing, is carrying out research and development into how to make our engines more economical and expel fewer emissions.- and has set up agencies in a number of different Countries - including more recently to replicate our manufacturing processes in the USA.
I also doubt very much there is any specialist who has rebuilt anywhere near as many engines as we do and there is no doubt that the more you see, strip, analyse and repair - the greater knowledge you have accumulated and the more obvious trends are. Those volumes justify investing in systems that smaller operations could not and give an insight into trends that then help us to decide what to invest in to have the greatest benefit for our customers - (like the special crankshaft bearing, pistons, liners, crankshaft re-grinds etc).
I don't think anyone could fairly say that is not the highest level of support for individuals and other specialists that any other organisation is offering and that does set-us apart.
But I agree with you that there are some other specialists who can put the engine together OK - but you would surely not expect me to promote what they do - that is up to them.
Regarding the lengthy posts - you cannot have it both ways. you cannot on the one hand find detailed accurate and technically correct explanations about faults and advice that people are asking about and do so in a sentence - you are not forced to read it..
There is nothing stopping other specialists doing the same and it is very unfair to criticise us for doing so when we usually are the only source of reliable accurate scientifically correct explanations that take time and cost money to do FOC.
While you are annoyed that so many people support what we do by voicing their opinion that we are the best place to go to for an engine rebuild - I am irritated by those that then try to find some way to criticise us because of that strong position in the market - that I think (and the majority of the general Porsche public clearly think) is absolutely justified.
I also think it is unfair to criticise us for responding to issues like the crank regrinds and new higher quality shells when this is an information medium and the knowledge we post is of value to those who have engine problems and seek a cost effective solution.
They say a good sign of success is all those that cannot stand you for it and try to bring you down - just because you are perceived as the best.
I admit we set out to be the best and to provide the best properly engineered solutions and rebuilds but it is only our customers that have benefitted from that commitment and we are not doing anything to stop anyone else trying to do the same.
Baz
.
.
.
Baz, you have misunderstood me!
Your posts do not irritate me and I your opinion together with your lengthy posts is much appreciated. I didn't state otherwise, did I?
You come highly recommended and have built up a solid reputation. This takes time and hard work!
As you are stating, there are other very good engine builders. You state as much as they "can put the engine together OK".
It is only natural that you think highly of your work. A healthy portion of self-confidence is the mannerism of any successful business man. And you have stated clearly where your self-confidence comes from. I have no problem with this whatsoever!
I was merely pointing out, and this is what irritates me, that many people on this forum speak about Hartech like it was a cult. Hartech or nothing!
This of course comes, amongst your very good reputation, from your many lengthy, technical posts. I was calling them marketing. As I have clearly stated, I have no problem with this. Your reputation comes well deserved and as I have written above, takes a lot of work and a long time. Good for you!
Regarding the story about the failed crank bearing, I clearly stated that this can happen to anyone and that you handled the whole situation very well.
What I was criticising is that this any many other threads and post resemble an echo chamber for Hartech. It grinds my teeth when people who have never owned a Porsche come here and state that they only consider buying a car with a full Hartech rebuild. If it makes them sleep better, fine by me. But there are cars that work perfectly fine without a rebuild and there are cars that run perfectly fine with a rebuild done by someone else.
Again, I was neither questioning your abilities as an engineer, nor the work of your company. I was merely pointing out that the talking about Hartech has reached cult like tendencies and that there are other engine builders available. Some of them are even able to put an engine together in an ok way
Oh, regarding the other build I was referring to: I meant PPBB's infamous 996. He had a highly specced rebuild done by Autofarm back in 2017. He mentioned that he initially wanted to go to Capricorn, but due to timing, he ended up with Autofarm castings.
Your posts do not irritate me and I your opinion together with your lengthy posts is much appreciated. I didn't state otherwise, did I?
You come highly recommended and have built up a solid reputation. This takes time and hard work!
As you are stating, there are other very good engine builders. You state as much as they "can put the engine together OK".
It is only natural that you think highly of your work. A healthy portion of self-confidence is the mannerism of any successful business man. And you have stated clearly where your self-confidence comes from. I have no problem with this whatsoever!
I was merely pointing out, and this is what irritates me, that many people on this forum speak about Hartech like it was a cult. Hartech or nothing!
This of course comes, amongst your very good reputation, from your many lengthy, technical posts. I was calling them marketing. As I have clearly stated, I have no problem with this. Your reputation comes well deserved and as I have written above, takes a lot of work and a long time. Good for you!
Regarding the story about the failed crank bearing, I clearly stated that this can happen to anyone and that you handled the whole situation very well.
What I was criticising is that this any many other threads and post resemble an echo chamber for Hartech. It grinds my teeth when people who have never owned a Porsche come here and state that they only consider buying a car with a full Hartech rebuild. If it makes them sleep better, fine by me. But there are cars that work perfectly fine without a rebuild and there are cars that run perfectly fine with a rebuild done by someone else.
Again, I was neither questioning your abilities as an engineer, nor the work of your company. I was merely pointing out that the talking about Hartech has reached cult like tendencies and that there are other engine builders available. Some of them are even able to put an engine together in an ok way
Oh, regarding the other build I was referring to: I meant PPBB's infamous 996. He had a highly specced rebuild done by Autofarm back in 2017. He mentioned that he initially wanted to go to Capricorn, but due to timing, he ended up with Autofarm castings.
Filibuster said:
Baz, you have misunderstood me!
Your posts do not irritate me and I your opinion together with your lengthy posts is much appreciated. I didn't state otherwise, did I?
You come highly recommended and have built up a solid reputation. This takes time and hard work!
As you are stating, there are other very good engine builders. You state as much as they "can put the engine together OK".
It is only natural that you think highly of your work. A healthy portion of self-confidence is the mannerism of any successful business man. And you have stated clearly where your self-confidence comes from. I have no problem with this whatsoever!
I was merely pointing out, and this is what irritates me, that many people on this forum speak about Hartech like it was a cult. Hartech or nothing!
This of course comes, amongst your very good reputation, from your many lengthy, technical posts. I was calling them marketing. As I have clearly stated, I have no problem with this. Your reputation comes well deserved and as I have written above, takes a lot of work and a long time. Good for you!
Regarding the story about the failed crank bearing, I clearly stated that this can happen to anyone and that you handled the whole situation very well.
What I was criticising is that this any many other threads and post resemble an echo chamber for Hartech. It grinds my teeth when people who have never owned a Porsche come here and state that they only consider buying a car with a full Hartech rebuild. If it makes them sleep better, fine by me. But there are cars that work perfectly fine without a rebuild and there are cars that run perfectly fine with a rebuild done by someone else.
Again, I was neither questioning your abilities as an engineer, nor the work of your company. I was merely pointing out that the talking about Hartech has reached cult like tendencies and that there are other engine builders available. Some of them are even able to put an engine together in an ok way
Oh, regarding the other build I was referring to: I meant PPBB's infamous 996. He had a highly specced rebuild done by Autofarm back in 2017. He mentioned that he initially wanted to go to Capricorn, but due to timing, he ended up with Autofarm castings.
There are other water cooled engine builders available but after 110,000 miles in different 997s over 18 years, which included two bored scored engines. And after a disaster with a box and air-cooled 1970 911 engine rebuild with one of the "best names" in the business (the diff exploded after 1000 miles and within 4000 miles the next owner had to spend 25K on proper, second rebuild with Neil Bainbridge). I wanted to get it right this time. And, for me, it was Hartech or not bother. Your posts do not irritate me and I your opinion together with your lengthy posts is much appreciated. I didn't state otherwise, did I?
You come highly recommended and have built up a solid reputation. This takes time and hard work!
As you are stating, there are other very good engine builders. You state as much as they "can put the engine together OK".
It is only natural that you think highly of your work. A healthy portion of self-confidence is the mannerism of any successful business man. And you have stated clearly where your self-confidence comes from. I have no problem with this whatsoever!
I was merely pointing out, and this is what irritates me, that many people on this forum speak about Hartech like it was a cult. Hartech or nothing!
This of course comes, amongst your very good reputation, from your many lengthy, technical posts. I was calling them marketing. As I have clearly stated, I have no problem with this. Your reputation comes well deserved and as I have written above, takes a lot of work and a long time. Good for you!
Regarding the story about the failed crank bearing, I clearly stated that this can happen to anyone and that you handled the whole situation very well.
What I was criticising is that this any many other threads and post resemble an echo chamber for Hartech. It grinds my teeth when people who have never owned a Porsche come here and state that they only consider buying a car with a full Hartech rebuild. If it makes them sleep better, fine by me. But there are cars that work perfectly fine without a rebuild and there are cars that run perfectly fine with a rebuild done by someone else.
Again, I was neither questioning your abilities as an engineer, nor the work of your company. I was merely pointing out that the talking about Hartech has reached cult like tendencies and that there are other engine builders available. Some of them are even able to put an engine together in an ok way
Oh, regarding the other build I was referring to: I meant PPBB's infamous 996. He had a highly specced rebuild done by Autofarm back in 2017. He mentioned that he initially wanted to go to Capricorn, but due to timing, he ended up with Autofarm castings.
Regarding the 997s: I know 2 swallows don't make a summer, and some cars do huge mileage with no issues, but my own experience with 997s (which I love by the way) means I would not buy another one unless it had been rebuilt by Hartech. A clear borescope at purchase isn't enough to reassure me now. 10k down the road it could still be knackered. But then I would never sell ours so academic.
However I understand why so many posters say the same. Equally I fully understand why that irritates existing 997 owners (unless their car has been to Hartech).
PS I should add that, in 43 years of driving, I have never had to have any major engine work done on any of my other cars. Just the 997s. I don't count the 2.2s as it was nearly 50 years old so deserved one.
Edited by Discombobulate on Monday 22 May 15:55
hartech said:
Filibuster - it's a shame my time trying to explain things irritates you. What is it exactly that you d not like about it?
The only people who can fit our Capricorn Liners are us or those agents we authorise to under contract but we do fit those liners for other specialists (and that explains that particular issue).
We provide a comprehensive service for other engine assemblers including fitting liners to blocks, building short blocks, building full engines and receiving a car for the whole job. I don't see how we can fairly be criticised for this service or be accused of trying to hog all the actual engine rebuild work.
We have never claimed we are the only people who can rebuild these engines and if anyone thinks we have - just think why would we provide the service for others in that case?
I think we are the only specialist that has been as successful in the various racing series' over the last 13 years, and carries out the full range of other services, who also has our own dyno, our own precision machine shop, manufactures special parts for engine rebuilds and racing, is carrying out research and development into how to make our engines more economical and expel fewer emissions.- and has set up agencies in a number of different Countries - including more recently to replicate our manufacturing processes in the USA.
I also doubt very much there is any specialist who has rebuilt anywhere near as many engines as we do and there is no doubt that the more you see, strip, analyse and repair - the greater knowledge you have accumulated and the more obvious trends are. Those volumes justify investing in systems that smaller operations could not and give an insight into trends that then help us to decide what to invest in to have the greatest benefit for our customers - (like the special crankshaft bearing, pistons, liners, crankshaft re-grinds etc).
I don't think anyone could fairly say that is not the highest level of support for individuals and other specialists that any other organisation is offering and that does set-us apart.
But I agree with you that there are some other specialists who can put the engine together OK - but you would surely not expect me to promote what they do - that is up to them.
Regarding the lengthy posts - you cannot have it both ways. you cannot on the one hand find detailed accurate and technically correct explanations about faults and advice that people are asking about and do so in a sentence - you are not forced to read it..
There is nothing stopping other specialists doing the same and it is very unfair to criticise us for doing so when we usually are the only source of reliable accurate scientifically correct explanations that take time and cost money to do FOC.
While you are annoyed that so many people support what we do by voicing their opinion that we are the best place to go to for an engine rebuild - I am irritated by those that then try to find some way to criticise us because of that strong position in the market - that I think (and the majority of the general Porsche public clearly think) is absolutely justified.
I also think it is unfair to criticise us for responding to issues like the crank regrinds and new higher quality shells when this is an information medium and the knowledge we post is of value to those who have engine problems and seek a cost effective solution.
They say a good sign of success is all those that cannot stand you for it and try to bring you down - just because you are perceived as the best.
I admit we set out to be the best and to provide the best properly engineered solutions and rebuilds but it is only our customers that have benefitted from that commitment and we are not doing anything to stop anyone else trying to do the same.
Baz
.
Hi Baz,
Apologies for changing tack on the thread, but I was wondering if there's now a reasonably sensible solution for a 991.1 GT3 if the engine lets go beyond the warranty period? Not an imminent concern, but thinking ahead!
.
.
The only people who can fit our Capricorn Liners are us or those agents we authorise to under contract but we do fit those liners for other specialists (and that explains that particular issue).
We provide a comprehensive service for other engine assemblers including fitting liners to blocks, building short blocks, building full engines and receiving a car for the whole job. I don't see how we can fairly be criticised for this service or be accused of trying to hog all the actual engine rebuild work.
We have never claimed we are the only people who can rebuild these engines and if anyone thinks we have - just think why would we provide the service for others in that case?
I think we are the only specialist that has been as successful in the various racing series' over the last 13 years, and carries out the full range of other services, who also has our own dyno, our own precision machine shop, manufactures special parts for engine rebuilds and racing, is carrying out research and development into how to make our engines more economical and expel fewer emissions.- and has set up agencies in a number of different Countries - including more recently to replicate our manufacturing processes in the USA.
I also doubt very much there is any specialist who has rebuilt anywhere near as many engines as we do and there is no doubt that the more you see, strip, analyse and repair - the greater knowledge you have accumulated and the more obvious trends are. Those volumes justify investing in systems that smaller operations could not and give an insight into trends that then help us to decide what to invest in to have the greatest benefit for our customers - (like the special crankshaft bearing, pistons, liners, crankshaft re-grinds etc).
I don't think anyone could fairly say that is not the highest level of support for individuals and other specialists that any other organisation is offering and that does set-us apart.
But I agree with you that there are some other specialists who can put the engine together OK - but you would surely not expect me to promote what they do - that is up to them.
Regarding the lengthy posts - you cannot have it both ways. you cannot on the one hand find detailed accurate and technically correct explanations about faults and advice that people are asking about and do so in a sentence - you are not forced to read it..
There is nothing stopping other specialists doing the same and it is very unfair to criticise us for doing so when we usually are the only source of reliable accurate scientifically correct explanations that take time and cost money to do FOC.
While you are annoyed that so many people support what we do by voicing their opinion that we are the best place to go to for an engine rebuild - I am irritated by those that then try to find some way to criticise us because of that strong position in the market - that I think (and the majority of the general Porsche public clearly think) is absolutely justified.
I also think it is unfair to criticise us for responding to issues like the crank regrinds and new higher quality shells when this is an information medium and the knowledge we post is of value to those who have engine problems and seek a cost effective solution.
They say a good sign of success is all those that cannot stand you for it and try to bring you down - just because you are perceived as the best.
I admit we set out to be the best and to provide the best properly engineered solutions and rebuilds but it is only our customers that have benefitted from that commitment and we are not doing anything to stop anyone else trying to do the same.
Baz
.
Hi Baz,
Apologies for changing tack on the thread, but I was wondering if there's now a reasonably sensible solution for a 991.1 GT3 if the engine lets go beyond the warranty period? Not an imminent concern, but thinking ahead!
.
.
hartech said:
Flammetta - considering that the engine range was always a budget 911 - it is actually a very clever piece of engineering with many quality features (like the hard iron inserts in the crankcase cassettes to maintain main bearing fits).
It is fair to say that you are a little bit too generous now. 
A budget 911? I do have a price list of 996 and 986 from early 97 and 996 s were like 70k back than. They did have the knowledge and skills back than (959) but they really pushed a crappy product to mainstream without any major upgrade until 9A1. Actually, an oil rig test of 9A1 shows how they were already advanced in 2008 but they did not implement it which shows a really bad faith as a brand imho. Similar issues recorded on GT products too such as 991 (finger followers?) But that's another discussion.
Sorry If anyone being offended but I think it is a bit naive to over exaggerate these cars, they are what they are and absolute bargain for the people who can work on them.
hartech said:
ATM - the short answer is "YES".
Nitride hardening process only puts a relatively thin hard layer on the crankshaft journals and is a time based process. It can go deeper but takes longer - hence more expensive. in a World where fashion dictates lifespans often more than actual longevity and labour costs have become the dominating component of repair costs - many manufacturers are reducing planned life expectancy.
However - we re-hardened some crankshafts (about 15 years ago) and re-machined some suitable shells from other manufacturers to fit - and they have lasted ever since. But it is not the cheapest of processes as the cranks have to be ground twice requiring great precision setting and modifying shells to fit was also expensive. So while good used cranks were available we didn't need to use the solution we had already proven.
Now new crankshafts have escalated in price and good used ones are as rare as hens teeth - the time has come where it is worth resurrecting the proven solution and as crankshaft failure is increasing (with the additional mileages covered in the meantime) we hope it justifies a considerable investment in high quality batches of shells.
Baz
Ok thanks Nitride hardening process only puts a relatively thin hard layer on the crankshaft journals and is a time based process. It can go deeper but takes longer - hence more expensive. in a World where fashion dictates lifespans often more than actual longevity and labour costs have become the dominating component of repair costs - many manufacturers are reducing planned life expectancy.
However - we re-hardened some crankshafts (about 15 years ago) and re-machined some suitable shells from other manufacturers to fit - and they have lasted ever since. But it is not the cheapest of processes as the cranks have to be ground twice requiring great precision setting and modifying shells to fit was also expensive. So while good used cranks were available we didn't need to use the solution we had already proven.
Now new crankshafts have escalated in price and good used ones are as rare as hens teeth - the time has come where it is worth resurrecting the proven solution and as crankshaft failure is increasing (with the additional mileages covered in the meantime) we hope it justifies a considerable investment in high quality batches of shells.
Baz
The time I spend posting replies is intended to help people understand the true story and statistics about these engines so they can assess the risk they take and try and minimise it. nothing in what I post forces anyone to come just us for a rebuild and the information is available to all my ccompetitors (who largely don't spend their time doing the same) while others can choose to use our intermediate engine services that take advantage of our suprior products and leave them to cary out the bulk of the remaining work..
Crankshaft life is similar. As we see a new engine every day our statistics can be based on far greater numbers than probably anyone else and therefore our advice is likely to be more accurate and therefore relevant. It still doesn't stop anyone going anywhere else as a result of it.
Crankshaft shell life is difficult to advise about because of the variations in evidence. Some last over 150K some fail under 60K - what are we to advise?
It's like the medical profession - some people have a heart attack under 65 years of age others last into their 90's - so it is right to advise those approaching 65 to think about a good diet, a check up. perhaps exercise and statins - or right to say "well some last into their 90's so therefore we should not give any statistical advice and it's tough luck on those that pass earlier?
The cost of a new crankshaft has recently spiraled and therefore I cannot see anything wrong in advising those that want their cars and engines to "live longer" to consider pre-emptive rebuilds. To make that choice more acceptable we offer the best and longest lasting cylinder solution, the best big ends, a business that carries out all the work "IN HOUSE" entirely under our control, proven success of the quality through years of racing reliability and success and a dedicated team that do nothing else but work on these engines every day and gain the most experience of what to look out for and how to improve the resulting rebuilds.
So this week another crank failure (this time right at the bottom end of our advisory mileage range (see picture).
if the general public want to pass on their opinion that we are the best place for an engine rebuild that is not "our marketing" but theirs and such a reputation is hard won over many years and I think entirely justified.
I happen to think there is actually no other specialist as good (because no one else can match the improved quality of the parts we designed, manufactured and supply, the equipment we have and the reputation the general public have experienced), but there are definitely other good ones and the choice is free.
On a more serious, practical and extremely relevant note - if we didn't have such high volumes of engines to rebuild we could never justify the enormous cost of developing some of the solutions we provide. Special pistons, superior crankshaft shells that have to be ordered in hundreds, test cars to develop capacity conversions etc (not to mention the work going on to reduce emissions and increase economy to enable our cars to be legally driven in more geographical areas in the future and do our bit to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions).
The shells for the specialist crankshaft rebuilds alone have cost thousands and will not show a return for a few years. Such investment would never be possible for other specialists (however "good" they may or may not be) because they simply would not have the volumes to make it viable. We backed our opinion that they will become the next main weak spot and if we are proved wrong we will end up with lots of expensive shells we will never sell and lose money - such commitment to preserving these cars and improving their quality comes about partly because of our engineering expertise but also because of the volumes we have grown to handle - without which - however "good" a competitors might be - they are unlikely to have the volumes to replicate.
It is a typical business model where it can almost become self sustaining. DO a good job = more business. Invest in product development = do an even better job = more business = can continue to invest = a better job = more business etc etc. It is only because we invested so much in trying to provide the best engine rebuild service for these troubled engines that we can continue to improve what we provide (as time reveals more weaknesses and spares costs and availability influence choices) and that level of investment is almost a self sustaining benefit because the more we rebuild, the more we can justify investment in further improvements and it all adds up to the best service available - but doesn't stop anyone choosing to go anywhere else - if they want to! Meanwhile we manage to continually improve what we offer.
As to the time it takes to write this stuff I got up at 5 am to do this one, we are totally booked up for months ahead and I don't need a greater demand - so why do I do it - because the truth about the engines and the differences in what we provide - should be in the public domain for owners to make informed choices and I feel an obligation to supply it as we have the best intelligence about that - readers can dis-regard it - consider it "just marketing", be competitors trying to discredit us for their own business ends or be jealous that we are so successful and criticise us - but that is out of my hands and up to them.
But I do object most strongly to implications that we are no better than loads of other engine builders and only post responses to feather our own nest - and @ 6am now I didn't get up early to do this to get any more business - just to prove that some engine crankshafts do fail early and explain why I feel it is right to inform owners of that rather than keep quiet about it to increase the resulting repair costs for others.
Baz
Crankshaft life is similar. As we see a new engine every day our statistics can be based on far greater numbers than probably anyone else and therefore our advice is likely to be more accurate and therefore relevant. It still doesn't stop anyone going anywhere else as a result of it.
Crankshaft shell life is difficult to advise about because of the variations in evidence. Some last over 150K some fail under 60K - what are we to advise?
It's like the medical profession - some people have a heart attack under 65 years of age others last into their 90's - so it is right to advise those approaching 65 to think about a good diet, a check up. perhaps exercise and statins - or right to say "well some last into their 90's so therefore we should not give any statistical advice and it's tough luck on those that pass earlier?
The cost of a new crankshaft has recently spiraled and therefore I cannot see anything wrong in advising those that want their cars and engines to "live longer" to consider pre-emptive rebuilds. To make that choice more acceptable we offer the best and longest lasting cylinder solution, the best big ends, a business that carries out all the work "IN HOUSE" entirely under our control, proven success of the quality through years of racing reliability and success and a dedicated team that do nothing else but work on these engines every day and gain the most experience of what to look out for and how to improve the resulting rebuilds.
So this week another crank failure (this time right at the bottom end of our advisory mileage range (see picture).
if the general public want to pass on their opinion that we are the best place for an engine rebuild that is not "our marketing" but theirs and such a reputation is hard won over many years and I think entirely justified.
I happen to think there is actually no other specialist as good (because no one else can match the improved quality of the parts we designed, manufactured and supply, the equipment we have and the reputation the general public have experienced), but there are definitely other good ones and the choice is free.
On a more serious, practical and extremely relevant note - if we didn't have such high volumes of engines to rebuild we could never justify the enormous cost of developing some of the solutions we provide. Special pistons, superior crankshaft shells that have to be ordered in hundreds, test cars to develop capacity conversions etc (not to mention the work going on to reduce emissions and increase economy to enable our cars to be legally driven in more geographical areas in the future and do our bit to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions).
The shells for the specialist crankshaft rebuilds alone have cost thousands and will not show a return for a few years. Such investment would never be possible for other specialists (however "good" they may or may not be) because they simply would not have the volumes to make it viable. We backed our opinion that they will become the next main weak spot and if we are proved wrong we will end up with lots of expensive shells we will never sell and lose money - such commitment to preserving these cars and improving their quality comes about partly because of our engineering expertise but also because of the volumes we have grown to handle - without which - however "good" a competitors might be - they are unlikely to have the volumes to replicate.
It is a typical business model where it can almost become self sustaining. DO a good job = more business. Invest in product development = do an even better job = more business = can continue to invest = a better job = more business etc etc. It is only because we invested so much in trying to provide the best engine rebuild service for these troubled engines that we can continue to improve what we provide (as time reveals more weaknesses and spares costs and availability influence choices) and that level of investment is almost a self sustaining benefit because the more we rebuild, the more we can justify investment in further improvements and it all adds up to the best service available - but doesn't stop anyone choosing to go anywhere else - if they want to! Meanwhile we manage to continually improve what we offer.
As to the time it takes to write this stuff I got up at 5 am to do this one, we are totally booked up for months ahead and I don't need a greater demand - so why do I do it - because the truth about the engines and the differences in what we provide - should be in the public domain for owners to make informed choices and I feel an obligation to supply it as we have the best intelligence about that - readers can dis-regard it - consider it "just marketing", be competitors trying to discredit us for their own business ends or be jealous that we are so successful and criticise us - but that is out of my hands and up to them.
But I do object most strongly to implications that we are no better than loads of other engine builders and only post responses to feather our own nest - and @ 6am now I didn't get up early to do this to get any more business - just to prove that some engine crankshafts do fail early and explain why I feel it is right to inform owners of that rather than keep quiet about it to increase the resulting repair costs for others.
Baz
Edited by hartech on Friday 26th May 06:12
Edited by hartech on Friday 26th May 07:00
Edited by hartech on Friday 26th May 08:06
very subtle sarcasm there ....No in all honesty, thank you Baz for this info. While I have called on you, you make many valid points.
What interests me is the point regarding the crankshaft. This is news to me, in regard of these engines. I heared of failing crankshaft bearings, and I can see a crankshaft going kuputt as a consequence, but what exactly is main problem with the M96/7 engines and their crankshafts? Is this due to an "design fault", driving style or oil grade?
You advice people on doing preemptive engine rebuilds, before a crankshaft fails and is not regrindable. Just curious, what is the cost for e preemptive, fully working M96/7 with 100k miles as opposed to one on it's last leg?
Well Fillibuster - in answer to your question - firstly there are different ways to harden crankshafts and different ways to make the crankshaft shells and each costs more or less.
The M997/1 has a crankshaft nitride hardened with a hardness depth of about 3 thou (or 0.076mm) and provides a hard surface that will last a very long time as long as the oil pressure and shells are not worn out.
The oil pressure is delivered by a gear pump that has relatively low oil pressure at low revs that increases as revs increase until it reaches the relief valve pressure after which it remains constant.
It makes no difference if you are on light throttle or full throttle - the oil pressure is the same at any revs and oil temperature.
Most engines were like this but the (A1 Gen 2 engine has a variable pressure system with a pump that can exceed the low oil pressures at low revs and can increase the oil pressure delivered to the crankshaft depending on the load (or power) you are selecting - so more oil pressure when under maximum and full throttle than at cruising at the same revs.
However despite the relatively crude oil pressure system on your 997/1 the crankshaft is so well made and hard o the surfaces that it will usually survive a very long time despite the less expensive shells fitted as long as the shells are still OK and the driving style has not resulted in the overhung crankshaft wobbling about on fast downchanges and not worn the rear main bearing as a result.
The crankshafts are not made with enough hardness depth to re-grind to a hard layer. The shells will eventually wear. How long that takes depends on many factors like how the car was driven in it's lifetime, maintenance, oil grades and condition, avoiding low oil levels, avoiding track use that drops oil pressure under braking or in corners.
Most owners will not know how that was applied by previous owners - so there is always a risk.
The big ends carry far more load than the main bearings because they drive the crankshaft round and reverse the mass of the piston and rod when it passes over TDC and BDC - so are most vulnerable.
The oil that reaches the big ends starts out in the main bearings and there is a hole in the crankshaft that then allows some of the pressurised oil to travel up a hole and reach the big ends.
So there are two ways the shells can wear.
If a main bearing wears first it reduces the oil pressure in that bearing and therefore reduces the pressure that travels up to the more highly loaded big end - which wears prematurely and soon fails - because as it wears more of the oil being delivered to it can escape from the edges and lowers the pressure at the bearing. or the shells simply wear out too soon.
When a shell wears because more of the presurised leaks out the pressure in the bearing drops so it is a vicious circle that quickly deteriorates. Eventually the gap between the shell and the journal gets so great - THAT COMBINED WITH THE LACK OF OIL PRESSURE HAMMERS THE SHELLS UNTIL IT SQUASHES THINNER AND WIDER (AS SEEN IN THE TOP TWO SHELLS IN THE ABOVE PICTURE) .
Usually that kills the crankshaft but sometimes we get in in time.
The standard big ends are narrower than the big end journal on the crankshaft so offer less support since support is pressure over an area - and if the shells are shorter they offer lower support. That is why our first change was to supply wider big end shells and while we were doing that we contracted the best in the business to make the best quality they could. Stocking costs were very high to get a viable quantity made but we did it to improve the longevity of our engines compared to anyone using standard shells.
As long as an engine has an unworn crankshaft - replacing the shells is all that is needed to achieve longer life from it.
The crankshaft bearing journals can be re-hardened but you have to grind off the old hard remaining layer before re-hardening by infusing the surface with Nitrides. That then leaves a "white layer" which is not suitable so they then have to be re-ground again.to final size - doubling the handling and regrind costs.
The cars are older now than a few years ago so general average mileages are increasing. Most engines we rebuilt before had crankshafts we could re-use and there were some available from breakers so it wasn't worth investing in special big ends of a different re-grind size.
As more cars have gone past 70-100K now - more are failing with crankshafts too worn to use and yet the cost of a new crankshaft was not too high (Under £3K). Now they have gone up to £5754 (with Vat) and so suddenly the extra cost of a new (or good used) crankshaft makes doubling the regrind costs more justifiable and so in turn the investment in special shells becomes long term viable.
While we are doing that we ordered the top quality possible again (like the big ends - racing specifications).
Now we are testing the new set-ups - not because we have any doubts about anything (already proved the re-hardening and grinding process years ago and trust the shell manufacturers) but because we have to be absolutely sure of everything we do before selling to the public and that means building an engine - putting mileage on it and then stripping to check everything and rebuilding it again. All this R & D is something no one seems to take account of when we provide our services and products for rebuilds. It is hugely expensive and every new product goes through the same procedure and delays the point at which volume sales make a viable return.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to mention this difference in what we provide compared to others when questions are asked about longevity of rebuilds, comparative costs and the resulting criticism for hogging the subject on social media.. We are not stopping any competitor responding with what they do by comparison - or offering technical criticism - but we don't usually see that because we know what we are doing and it would only expose that they often don't at the same level.
All this would not be possible if our volumes were not high enough to give us the confidence to invest in these very expensive solutions to improve the resulting rebuilds and make them better than anyone else's.
It is entirely possible that there are other specialists that have the background knowledge to engineer the same solutions but it is the first to gain ground on volumes that can justify it and if they then receive the bulk of the work - volumes for everyone else make a similar investment more risky and less justifiable..
It is only because we invested in fixing these engines over 25 years ago when at the time volumes were low but our engineering analysis predicted the failures that followed a few years later (and turned out to be right).
If we misjudged that we would have lost a lot of money - but we didn't and now I believe purely as a result of good engineering, investing early and proving the results through the many customers who have enjoyed the performance and reliability since - that we enjoy the fruits of that risk when no one else did the same.
It is for that reason I would claim we are the best at what we do and will continue to be so - not necessarily claiming some technical superiority no one else could match but risking getting an early lead in the market that paid off.
Mind you - in TT week and having both designed and manufactured 3 different motorcycle racing engines and transmissions decades ago that won several different events there - I have yet to meet another Porsche specialist business with that proven historical capability.
I hope this answers all your questions and now await the criticism for providing such a lengthy and comprehensive reply - typically thorough and detailed - like everything we do - and another reason behind our success.
Baz
. .
The M997/1 has a crankshaft nitride hardened with a hardness depth of about 3 thou (or 0.076mm) and provides a hard surface that will last a very long time as long as the oil pressure and shells are not worn out.
The oil pressure is delivered by a gear pump that has relatively low oil pressure at low revs that increases as revs increase until it reaches the relief valve pressure after which it remains constant.
It makes no difference if you are on light throttle or full throttle - the oil pressure is the same at any revs and oil temperature.
Most engines were like this but the (A1 Gen 2 engine has a variable pressure system with a pump that can exceed the low oil pressures at low revs and can increase the oil pressure delivered to the crankshaft depending on the load (or power) you are selecting - so more oil pressure when under maximum and full throttle than at cruising at the same revs.
However despite the relatively crude oil pressure system on your 997/1 the crankshaft is so well made and hard o the surfaces that it will usually survive a very long time despite the less expensive shells fitted as long as the shells are still OK and the driving style has not resulted in the overhung crankshaft wobbling about on fast downchanges and not worn the rear main bearing as a result.
The crankshafts are not made with enough hardness depth to re-grind to a hard layer. The shells will eventually wear. How long that takes depends on many factors like how the car was driven in it's lifetime, maintenance, oil grades and condition, avoiding low oil levels, avoiding track use that drops oil pressure under braking or in corners.
Most owners will not know how that was applied by previous owners - so there is always a risk.
The big ends carry far more load than the main bearings because they drive the crankshaft round and reverse the mass of the piston and rod when it passes over TDC and BDC - so are most vulnerable.
The oil that reaches the big ends starts out in the main bearings and there is a hole in the crankshaft that then allows some of the pressurised oil to travel up a hole and reach the big ends.
So there are two ways the shells can wear.
If a main bearing wears first it reduces the oil pressure in that bearing and therefore reduces the pressure that travels up to the more highly loaded big end - which wears prematurely and soon fails - because as it wears more of the oil being delivered to it can escape from the edges and lowers the pressure at the bearing. or the shells simply wear out too soon.
When a shell wears because more of the presurised leaks out the pressure in the bearing drops so it is a vicious circle that quickly deteriorates. Eventually the gap between the shell and the journal gets so great - THAT COMBINED WITH THE LACK OF OIL PRESSURE HAMMERS THE SHELLS UNTIL IT SQUASHES THINNER AND WIDER (AS SEEN IN THE TOP TWO SHELLS IN THE ABOVE PICTURE) .
Usually that kills the crankshaft but sometimes we get in in time.
The standard big ends are narrower than the big end journal on the crankshaft so offer less support since support is pressure over an area - and if the shells are shorter they offer lower support. That is why our first change was to supply wider big end shells and while we were doing that we contracted the best in the business to make the best quality they could. Stocking costs were very high to get a viable quantity made but we did it to improve the longevity of our engines compared to anyone using standard shells.
As long as an engine has an unworn crankshaft - replacing the shells is all that is needed to achieve longer life from it.
The crankshaft bearing journals can be re-hardened but you have to grind off the old hard remaining layer before re-hardening by infusing the surface with Nitrides. That then leaves a "white layer" which is not suitable so they then have to be re-ground again.to final size - doubling the handling and regrind costs.
The cars are older now than a few years ago so general average mileages are increasing. Most engines we rebuilt before had crankshafts we could re-use and there were some available from breakers so it wasn't worth investing in special big ends of a different re-grind size.
As more cars have gone past 70-100K now - more are failing with crankshafts too worn to use and yet the cost of a new crankshaft was not too high (Under £3K). Now they have gone up to £5754 (with Vat) and so suddenly the extra cost of a new (or good used) crankshaft makes doubling the regrind costs more justifiable and so in turn the investment in special shells becomes long term viable.
While we are doing that we ordered the top quality possible again (like the big ends - racing specifications).
Now we are testing the new set-ups - not because we have any doubts about anything (already proved the re-hardening and grinding process years ago and trust the shell manufacturers) but because we have to be absolutely sure of everything we do before selling to the public and that means building an engine - putting mileage on it and then stripping to check everything and rebuilding it again. All this R & D is something no one seems to take account of when we provide our services and products for rebuilds. It is hugely expensive and every new product goes through the same procedure and delays the point at which volume sales make a viable return.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to mention this difference in what we provide compared to others when questions are asked about longevity of rebuilds, comparative costs and the resulting criticism for hogging the subject on social media.. We are not stopping any competitor responding with what they do by comparison - or offering technical criticism - but we don't usually see that because we know what we are doing and it would only expose that they often don't at the same level.
All this would not be possible if our volumes were not high enough to give us the confidence to invest in these very expensive solutions to improve the resulting rebuilds and make them better than anyone else's.
It is entirely possible that there are other specialists that have the background knowledge to engineer the same solutions but it is the first to gain ground on volumes that can justify it and if they then receive the bulk of the work - volumes for everyone else make a similar investment more risky and less justifiable..
It is only because we invested in fixing these engines over 25 years ago when at the time volumes were low but our engineering analysis predicted the failures that followed a few years later (and turned out to be right).
If we misjudged that we would have lost a lot of money - but we didn't and now I believe purely as a result of good engineering, investing early and proving the results through the many customers who have enjoyed the performance and reliability since - that we enjoy the fruits of that risk when no one else did the same.
It is for that reason I would claim we are the best at what we do and will continue to be so - not necessarily claiming some technical superiority no one else could match but risking getting an early lead in the market that paid off.
Mind you - in TT week and having both designed and manufactured 3 different motorcycle racing engines and transmissions decades ago that won several different events there - I have yet to meet another Porsche specialist business with that proven historical capability.
I hope this answers all your questions and now await the criticism for providing such a lengthy and comprehensive reply - typically thorough and detailed - like everything we do - and another reason behind our success.
Baz
. .
To Baz and the guys and girls at Hartech well done, you have earned a very good reputation in the engine rebuild market and as mentioned there are others, there are some that have gone to the wall but no one else spends the time to share knowledge and pictures so again thank you for your time.
Yes i have a 996 4s and love it if it came to the time when the engiine needsa a rebuild i will do my own research but Hartech will be top of the list
Anyway keep enjoying your cars
Yes i have a 996 4s and love it if it came to the time when the engiine needsa a rebuild i will do my own research but Hartech will be top of the list
Anyway keep enjoying your cars
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff