996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here!

996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here!

Author
Discussion

tonikaram

Original Poster:

324 posts

178 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
Draft summary of the results till now:

Each line below represents a car surveyed:
1 failure, (10,000 Euro fixing), No RMS, 77Km
1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km
1 failure, No RMS, 16Km
1 failure, No RMS, 40Km
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km
No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km
no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km
no failure, no RMS


Out of a total of 14 996's:
- 29%, or 4 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km)
- 71%, or 10 cases, have had RMS, which is sometimes recurring. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.4 times.


Kay

The Griffalo

72,817 posts

207 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
Shock, horror. Buy a TVR, they're more reliable....

Geneve

3,683 posts

187 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
3.4 996 - No problems
3.6 996 - No problems (1 RMS under warranty)

+ 3 986s - No problems

whoami

13,102 posts

208 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
2002 C4S 2 x RMS
2005 997S, 1 x RMS

Wanta996

5,622 posts

175 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
997s have RMS?? I thought there was a re-designed component on the latter 2004 996s that fixed the problem?? You would think after all the bad press, Porsche would have got it sorted for the 997.

The Griffalo

72,817 posts

207 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
Wanta996 said:
997s have RMS?? I thought there was a re-designed component on the latter 2004 996s that fixed the problem?? You would think after all the bad press, Porsche would have got it sorted for the 997.
ALL engines have an RMS of sorts, although it's known as the Rear Main Seal in a Porsche. It's just a lip seal between the engine and gearbox that happens to be at the rear on a Porsche.

Ballcock

3,855 posts

187 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
The Griffalo said:
. It's just a lip seal between the engine and gearbox that happens to be at the rear on a Porsche.
I was told last week by a Porsche engineer that the problem is there is no 'lip' .. i.e. nothing to push the rubber seal against on the block , so it's very difficult to seat correctly.

And as far as I know the 997 block hasn't been retro-fitted with a rim or lip , so they're going to have leaky seals too.

The big question is DO 997'S SUFFER THE SAME INCIDENCE OF ENGINE FAILURE?

whoami

13,102 posts

208 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
Wanta996 said:
997s have RMS?? I thought there was a re-designed component on the latter 2004 996s that fixed the problem?? You would think after all the bad press, Porsche would have got it sorted for the 997.
You'd think so wouldn't you smile

To be honest, I didn't even notice that one.

The car was in for other work, got a call informing me that they needed it a little longer than first thought to replace the RMS which was leaking.


Ballcock

3,855 posts

187 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
tonikaram said:
Out of a total of 14 996's:
- 29%, or 4 cases, have had engine failures ...
This is pretty good news when you consider that peeps are much more likely to log an engine failure than a reliable donkey..

bcnrml

2,107 posts

178 months

Monday 11th June 2007
quotequote all
Geneve said:
3.4 996 - No problems
3.6 996 - No problems (1 RMS under warranty)

+ 3 986s - No problems
Please could you state the ages/model years/mileages for each of these so that they can be properly accounted for? You may have had each car for only short spells, y'see....

Thanks.

PS: Some might consider the RMS on a 3.6 996 to be a problem, else why would it be a warranty item? Just a thought, no offence meant. smile

tonikaram

Original Poster:

324 posts

178 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
Updated stats with more entries:

1 failure, No RMS, 77Km
1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km
1 failure, No RMS, 16Km
1 failure, No RMS, 40Km
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS
No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km
No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km
No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km
no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km
no failure, 1 RMS
no failure, 2 RMS
no failure, no RMS
no failure, no RMS


Out of a total of 17 996's:
- 24%, or 4 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km)
- 71%, or 12 cases, have had RMS, which is sometimes recurring. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.4 times.

RMS percentages stayed equal after the new entries. I think we can consider these accurate.

Kay

GreigM

6,560 posts

217 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
Should you include Boxsters (986 and 987) as well as 996/997 in this survey - after all they're all fundamentally the same engine design.

If so, for the record:
2.7 986 - 1xRMS at 10K, 1xEngine failure at 17K
3.2 986 - 1xRMS at 17K

C4SCAB

35 posts

195 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
'02 986 2.7 Manual 20k miles - no RMS, no other failures
'04 996 C4S Cab Manual 11k miles - no RMS, (radiators and coolant header tank replaced under warranty)


C4SCAB

35 posts

195 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
'02 986 2.7 Manual 20k miles - no RMS, no other failures
'04 996 C4S Cab Manual 11k miles - no RMS, (radiators and coolant header tank replaced under warranty)


HONEYMON57ER

562 posts

178 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
996 1999 C2 62K 1 X RMS

Dreammeister

115 posts

172 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
If you're cynical like me you may want to reduce the RMS failures by 5% to account for OPCs doing unnecessary work.

mbutchers

691 posts

188 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
'00 3.4 - 7k miles no RMS
'03 3.6 - 5k miles no RMS
'03 3.6 - 18k miles 1 RMS
'01 GT2 - 7k miles 1 RMS eek (if that's what it's called on a GT2?)



Edited by mbutchers on Wednesday 13th June 15:59

nbetts

1,454 posts

197 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
1999 3.4 60k miles 1 x RMS at 40k
2003 3.6 25k miles 0 problems
2006 3.8 997 6.5k miles 0 problems

Bumcrack

977 posts

233 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
It's pretty obvious most people who had an issue will want to vote and most of the peopl who haven't had any probs won’t even think about it, not the way to compile a meaningful and accurate survey. The only way to really find the truth is to ask every single Porsche owner.

Edited by Bumcrack on Wednesday 13th June 18:31

tonikaram

Original Poster:

324 posts

178 months

Wednesday 13th June 2007
quotequote all
Bumcrack said:
It's pretty obvious most people who had an issue will want to vote and the ones which haven't had any problems won’t even think about it, not the way to compile a meaningful and accurate survey. The only way to really find the truth is to ask every single Porsche owner.
Bumcrack, till now, I was under the impression that we were doing a fair job at that. The survey is open to all PH users, not only those with a blown enigne. If I had gone and searched for threads about blown engines and added them to the data, then only one side of the data would be in since it's impossible to search for threads about good engines because these mostly don't exist.

It seems to me that owners from all sides of the fence are contributing.

Kay

Edited by tonikaram on Wednesday 13th June 18:35