996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here!
Discussion
STiG911 said:
'100% of engines will fail by 100k' Pointless and markedly false statements backed up with precisely no facts whatsoever.
I hope you read your warranty small print better than you read my 19:45 post.I'm sure thread hijacking is trendy in some places but it's just messing up this thread, start your own if you want to b
h about your limited comprehension of english.FFS I give a statistical example and idiots start arguing about the fecking numbers. Christ, were you like this in Algebra arguing that X might not be 2, it might be 11 instead?
fastgerman said:
Globs said:
Secondly the issue is one of 'when' it will let go, not 'if'. If a typical model lasts 10 years before going pop and on average it gets an owner every 2 years - or 5 owners in a lifetime, the owners will report a 20% failure rate (It fails for 1 of the 5 owners), but the actual failure rate at the end of the 10 years will be 100%.
90% of users here are making up statistics? 98.872% of users here are making up statistics.
hartech said:
We also tested a teflon coated frying pan and discovered that if very high temperatures are directed underneath the coating softens and the older the pan the sooner it does.
That's brilliant, I couldn't stop laughing for ages when I read that.
Porsche's engineers will be green with envy when they find out how advanced your R&D department is.
Perhaps a new thread is required including chassis number and cost incurred to repair. If Porsche have paid then no issue, if the owner has paid and it's significant to them, then it should be reported, otherwise this is just advertising for specialists and rubbing the Porsche brand in the dirt for later cars.
For info, I have bought a 997 Carrera S as heard running costs weren't too different to my E46 M3. So far, petrol is 4 mpg worse but that's it. I bet a Ferrari 360, Maserati 4200 or Aston V8 Vantage would cost more to run. Even a BMW M6 out of warranty with Vanos and SMG issues can be costly. These are not at the top of their forums however.
For info, I have bought a 997 Carrera S as heard running costs weren't too different to my E46 M3. So far, petrol is 4 mpg worse but that's it. I bet a Ferrari 360, Maserati 4200 or Aston V8 Vantage would cost more to run. Even a BMW M6 out of warranty with Vanos and SMG issues can be costly. These are not at the top of their forums however.
Globs said:
They probably are, Porsche's engineering record for engines is pretty sad isn't it 
Are they really that different from other manufacturers? The first batch of any engines is likely to have some teething issues. These engines are comparatively low volume, compared to say a ford four pot. So 100,000 engines would be a few months (or even weeks?) of a new ford model, which would be signed off as "well new model, kind of expected", whereas in the Porsche it that could be years worth of engines and problems (and hence fixes) would be slower as fewer problems develop over a longer period of time.Not defending Porsche, but just another angle to consider.
Globs said:
STiG911 said:
'100% of engines will fail by 100k' Pointless and markedly false statements backed up with precisely no facts whatsoever.
I hope you read your warranty small print better than you read my 19:45 post.I'm sure thread hijacking is trendy in some places but it's just messing up this thread, start your own if you want to b
h about your limited comprehension of english.FFS I give a statistical example and idiots start arguing about the fecking numbers. Christ, were you like this in Algebra arguing that X might not be 2, it might be 11 instead?
I'm not hijacking threads either - I'm voicing my opinion. Something you also claim to be doing, so get over yourself.
So the brilliant Porsche engineers design and make an engine which has flaws that years later they correct by introducing a closed deck design and different cylinder material (that they used to use years before) and proclaim how superior their new design is because of it.
Years before they show their new design, we at Hartech announced that the open deck was the major problem and managed to design a modification to correct the error and convert their flawed engine to a closed deck design - we then repair their cracked cylinders (to enable owners to get going again for less than the cost of a new engine with the same flaws) and when they bring out a newer version of the "old engine" which has cylinder scoring problems - we at Hartech test it and work out what the problem is and solve it and again manage to modify their flawed engine to improve that potential problem - and you Monty Zoomer think it is us that are laughable - Boot and the other Foot seems to come into it to me.
Furthermore when the piston coating on the "older design" works fine but the exact same coating gradually flakes off the newer (otherwise identical) pistons (bearing in mind that our test that have already shown that the later cylinders run hotter) decide to find a simple way to test if softening temperatures and plastic coatings could be a contributory cause - and prove it and again find a cure for the Porsche engineers problems.
There are just 14 of us and we have to earn our living from caring for Porsches before we find time and the money to try and cure their mistakes. To suggest they have a right to laugh at us because we don't have the resources they do is frankly is insulting and the actions of a biggot.
The truth is that these engines have been designed to be cheaper to manufacture and to do this they run closer to their operating limit than the older designs (that cost too much to make) did. As a result - those cars that are driven to the absolute limit (or are not cared for properly) may fail before 100K - but those driven modestly (which is by the far greater majority) and warmed up properly etc - may last for over 100K - but they are not as strong as the older designs and this benefits careful owners more.
Some design aspects (like the older IMS bearing design) do not favour any type of driving and are random and can affect anyone (although the later design was indeed better).
The decision on how to design the engines and what to source in parts - the quality and from whom - will not be done by the engineers at Porsche but by other cost saving departments.
I would guess that the engineers at Porsche - far from laughing at Hartech would be in quiet admiration that such a small business can introduce solutions that they themselves probably promoted in their original designs - and prolong the life of the cars they designed but were handicapped by financial considerations as the first priority.
Baz
Years before they show their new design, we at Hartech announced that the open deck was the major problem and managed to design a modification to correct the error and convert their flawed engine to a closed deck design - we then repair their cracked cylinders (to enable owners to get going again for less than the cost of a new engine with the same flaws) and when they bring out a newer version of the "old engine" which has cylinder scoring problems - we at Hartech test it and work out what the problem is and solve it and again manage to modify their flawed engine to improve that potential problem - and you Monty Zoomer think it is us that are laughable - Boot and the other Foot seems to come into it to me.
Furthermore when the piston coating on the "older design" works fine but the exact same coating gradually flakes off the newer (otherwise identical) pistons (bearing in mind that our test that have already shown that the later cylinders run hotter) decide to find a simple way to test if softening temperatures and plastic coatings could be a contributory cause - and prove it and again find a cure for the Porsche engineers problems.
There are just 14 of us and we have to earn our living from caring for Porsches before we find time and the money to try and cure their mistakes. To suggest they have a right to laugh at us because we don't have the resources they do is frankly is insulting and the actions of a biggot.
The truth is that these engines have been designed to be cheaper to manufacture and to do this they run closer to their operating limit than the older designs (that cost too much to make) did. As a result - those cars that are driven to the absolute limit (or are not cared for properly) may fail before 100K - but those driven modestly (which is by the far greater majority) and warmed up properly etc - may last for over 100K - but they are not as strong as the older designs and this benefits careful owners more.
Some design aspects (like the older IMS bearing design) do not favour any type of driving and are random and can affect anyone (although the later design was indeed better).
The decision on how to design the engines and what to source in parts - the quality and from whom - will not be done by the engineers at Porsche but by other cost saving departments.
I would guess that the engineers at Porsche - far from laughing at Hartech would be in quiet admiration that such a small business can introduce solutions that they themselves probably promoted in their original designs - and prolong the life of the cars they designed but were handicapped by financial considerations as the first priority.
Baz
hartech said:
So the brilliant Porsche engineers design and make an engine which has flaws that years later they correct by introducing a closed deck design and different cylinder material (that they used to use years before) and proclaim how superior their new design is because of it.
Years before they show their new design, we at Hartech announced that the open deck was the major problem and managed to design a modification to correct the error and convert their flawed engine to a closed deck design - we then repair their cracked cylinders (to enable owners to get going again for less than the cost of a new engine with the same flaws) and when they bring out a newer version of the "old engine" which has cylinder scoring problems - we at Hartech test it and work out what the problem is and solve it and again manage to modify their flawed engine to improve that potential problem - and you Monty Zoomer think it is us that are laughable - Boot and the other Foot seems to come into it to me.
Furthermore when the piston coating on the "older design" works fine but the exact same coating gradually flakes off the newer (otherwise identical) pistons (bearing in mind that our test that have already shown that the later cylinders run hotter) decide to find a simple way to test if softening temperatures and plastic coatings could be a contributory cause - and prove it and again find a cure for the Porsche engineers problems.
There are just 14 of us and we have to earn our living from caring for Porsches before we find time and the money to try and cure their mistakes. To suggest they have a right to laugh at us because we don't have the resources they do is frankly is insulting and the actions of a biggot.
The truth is that these engines have been designed to be cheaper to manufacture and to do this they run closer to their operating limit than the older designs (that cost too much to make) did. As a result - those cars that are driven to the absolute limit (or are not cared for properly) may fail before 100K - but those driven modestly (which is by the far greater majority) and warmed up properly etc - may last for over 100K - but they are not as strong as the older designs and this benefits careful owners more.
Some design aspects (like the older IMS bearing design) do not favour any type of driving and are random and can affect anyone (although the later design was indeed better).
The decision on how to design the engines and what to source in parts - the quality and from whom - will not be done by the engineers at Porsche but by other cost saving departments.
I would guess that the engineers at Porsche - far from laughing at Hartech would be in quiet admiration that such a small business can introduce solutions that they themselves probably promoted in their original designs - and prolong the life of the cars they designed but were handicapped by financial considerations as the first priority.
Baz
Baz, I'm sure your company and research are exceptional and I know you have carried out work to fix cars for less than the main dealer, so please don't take anything I write as an insult. Have you sent your findings to Porsche GB Reading or HQ to see their response? I would be interested to read it as I'm sure others would. Years before they show their new design, we at Hartech announced that the open deck was the major problem and managed to design a modification to correct the error and convert their flawed engine to a closed deck design - we then repair their cracked cylinders (to enable owners to get going again for less than the cost of a new engine with the same flaws) and when they bring out a newer version of the "old engine" which has cylinder scoring problems - we at Hartech test it and work out what the problem is and solve it and again manage to modify their flawed engine to improve that potential problem - and you Monty Zoomer think it is us that are laughable - Boot and the other Foot seems to come into it to me.
Furthermore when the piston coating on the "older design" works fine but the exact same coating gradually flakes off the newer (otherwise identical) pistons (bearing in mind that our test that have already shown that the later cylinders run hotter) decide to find a simple way to test if softening temperatures and plastic coatings could be a contributory cause - and prove it and again find a cure for the Porsche engineers problems.
There are just 14 of us and we have to earn our living from caring for Porsches before we find time and the money to try and cure their mistakes. To suggest they have a right to laugh at us because we don't have the resources they do is frankly is insulting and the actions of a biggot.
The truth is that these engines have been designed to be cheaper to manufacture and to do this they run closer to their operating limit than the older designs (that cost too much to make) did. As a result - those cars that are driven to the absolute limit (or are not cared for properly) may fail before 100K - but those driven modestly (which is by the far greater majority) and warmed up properly etc - may last for over 100K - but they are not as strong as the older designs and this benefits careful owners more.
Some design aspects (like the older IMS bearing design) do not favour any type of driving and are random and can affect anyone (although the later design was indeed better).
The decision on how to design the engines and what to source in parts - the quality and from whom - will not be done by the engineers at Porsche but by other cost saving departments.
I would guess that the engineers at Porsche - far from laughing at Hartech would be in quiet admiration that such a small business can introduce solutions that they themselves probably promoted in their original designs - and prolong the life of the cars they designed but were handicapped by financial considerations as the first priority.
Baz
STiG911 said:
In your 19:45 post: 'but the actual failure rate at the end of the 10 years will be 100%.' This isn't vastly different from what I said, I simply summarised your made up facts.
No stig, you are summarising my made up example.You may as well have a go at me for assuming a new owner every 2 years, as I wrote that too.
Regardless I think that actual failure rate at £100k miles will be over 90%.
I.e. for every 100 cars left on the road, over 90 will have had new engines - some more than once.
STiG911 said:
noumenon said:
Globs said:
Regardless I think that actual failure rate at £100k miles will be over 90%.
I.e. for every 100 cars left on the road, over 90 will have had new engines - some more than once.
How do you get to that number?I.e. for every 100 cars left on the road, over 90 will have had new engines - some more than once.
Then there are people who do short journeys and never quite warm up the engine all the way through, and this same group may then take long journeys very easily indeed, saving fuel and inadvertently their
The number of 'lucky cars' could therefore be as high as 10%, giving you a lower failure rate of 90% of these cars.
Edited by Globs on Friday 14th October 22:21
fastgerman said:
Perhaps a new thread is required including chassis number and cost incurred to repair. If Porsche have paid then no issue, if the owner has paid and it's significant to them, then it should be reported, otherwise this is just advertising for specialists and rubbing the Porsche brand in the dirt for later cars.
For info, I have bought a 997 Carrera S as heard running costs weren't too different to my E46 M3. So far, petrol is 4 mpg worse but that's it. I bet a Ferrari 360, Maserati 4200 or Aston V8 Vantage would cost more to run. Even a BMW M6 out of warranty with Vanos and SMG issues can be costly. These are not at the top of their forums however.
I think that highlighting the problem I appropriate as:For info, I have bought a 997 Carrera S as heard running costs weren't too different to my E46 M3. So far, petrol is 4 mpg worse but that's it. I bet a Ferrari 360, Maserati 4200 or Aston V8 Vantage would cost more to run. Even a BMW M6 out of warranty with Vanos and SMG issues can be costly. These are not at the top of their forums however.
1. The failure rate is worryingly high IMO
2. The cost to fix is typically £7k+ - a lot for some owners who may see £10k 996s as cheap ownership prospect. The costs could bite some.
3. Porsche have shown no interest in stepping up, hiding behind warranty. This is quite different to eg how BMW responded when the big end on E46 M3s started failing - they just fixed them.
It sounds like you are worried about the issue affecting the residuals and are trying to suppress it.
Residuals have already been affected - that is the wonder of a free market economy - it always finds the right balance eventually.
Bearing in mind that there are ways to minimise the repair cost of finding your car has a damaged engine (for example by our Lifetime Maintenance Plan that for a similar overall cost to servicing, repairs elsewhere reduces the potential cost of an engine failure to just parts - which anyone with a Porsche should be able to afford) - anyone in the UL can take out that point "that it will cost about £7K minimum if the engine fails" to nearer £1500 to £2K max including various improvements.
Such a car can therefore be affordable even though there is undeniably a small chance of an otherwise expensive engine failure.
Baz
Bearing in mind that there are ways to minimise the repair cost of finding your car has a damaged engine (for example by our Lifetime Maintenance Plan that for a similar overall cost to servicing, repairs elsewhere reduces the potential cost of an engine failure to just parts - which anyone with a Porsche should be able to afford) - anyone in the UL can take out that point "that it will cost about £7K minimum if the engine fails" to nearer £1500 to £2K max including various improvements.
Such a car can therefore be affordable even though there is undeniably a small chance of an otherwise expensive engine failure.
Baz
If it helps FWIW most indies and OPC I visit have replaced "many" engines,many retail sale (privately owned) M96/7 cars I look at have had new engines or display early stage symtoms of failure it is IMO a problem of a severe nature not manifested in any other mainstream performance (or not) vehicle.Despite this I am not saying or inferring that they all fail.
I was actually in a low volume sports car dealer yesterday and he advised he had changed four engines!
In my nearly 35yrs (OMG) motor trade experiance I cant of the top of my head remember a terminal engine weakness type issue such as this,even the nicasil issue was fuel (excess sulphur) related,not IMO bendy cranks failed bearings cracked bores,dchunks ect ect in fact 16 modes of repeated reportable documented trade acnowledged defects and weakness!
In reality cynicaly you could say cars for sale or sold on could have been so for a reason warping figures somewhat,I dont doubt many more owners are enjoying "keepers" ect than have suffered failure,the point Im trying to make is the ones for sale arent the whole picture for sure but there are many issues with these units of an unprecedented level of failure.The sad thing is really the lack of manufacturer based improvements and options with IMO people like Baz at the forefront re-engineering fixes for these issues ,it will be interesting in 5 or so years to see how much wated cooled stock is running its original engine or a Hartech or similar unit,also the longevity of the modified units will be tested and compared over the years ahead.
G
Globs said:
I know people are too cynical and they say 'There's no reason why they shouldn't _all_ fail', but frankly I'm far more optimistic than that. For instance the main issue in early Boxsters is the IMS bearing, but if they survive a few thousand miles the oil seal gets worn so despite Porsches strange ideas they actually get lubricated and live far longer.
Then there are people who do short journeys and never quite warm up the engine all the way through, and this same group may then take long journeys very easily indeed, saving fuel and inadvertently theirwallet engine too.
The number of 'lucky cars' could therefore be as high as 10%, giving you a lower failure rate of 90% of these cars.
Porsche sells about 10k of these engines in cars in the UK every year. Taking a few out for accidents, there are what, something like 100k cars running around in the UK with these engines in them. If the failure rate is 90%, then there should have been 90k replacement engines. That's roughly 170 engines a week needing to be replaced. Does the UK Porsche and indepdendent community have this capacity? I doubt it.Then there are people who do short journeys and never quite warm up the engine all the way through, and this same group may then take long journeys very easily indeed, saving fuel and inadvertently their
The number of 'lucky cars' could therefore be as high as 10%, giving you a lower failure rate of 90% of these cars.
Most of these people have the internet and would find this site. So why are we seeing so few people add to this thread to say they have experienced the issue. I know if it happened to me, I would want to vent on a site like this. The last time someone posted here it was on 12 July - should have been more than 2000 replacement engines since then, surprised none of those people has googled and ended up here. If 10% of those found the site and then only 10% bothred to post, then where are those 20 people?
No matter what way I slice it, I can't make a failure rate that high work. If you still believe it, help me out with some calculations.
noumenon said:
Porsche sells about 10k of these engines in cars in the UK every year. Taking a few out for accidents, there are what, something like 100k cars running around in the UK with these engines in them. If the failure rate is 90%, then there should have been 90k replacement engines.
No matter what way I slice it, I can't make a failure rate that high work. If you still believe it, help me out with some calculations.
10k of this type of unit a year in the UK? You'll have to help me believe that figure, esp. as they no longer sell them.No matter what way I slice it, I can't make a failure rate that high work. If you still believe it, help me out with some calculations.
Regardless your figures are so short on basic math they hold up about as well as the engines.
First you bang on about failure rate but fail to define it, then you imply it's the amount of current failures of all made (with your 90k figure).
So no - you can't make that failure rate work because it's rubbish, and nothing like my statement. I specified a 90% failure rate over 100k (or over the lifetime - can't see my post now I'm typing this). This is a very clear definition - if we use the 100k mile one it says 'I expect 90 out of every 100 cars will have gone pop by the time they reach 100k miles'. A brief read of the classifieds will show you how few of these cars have even reached 100k miles, and none in there will be at the end of life.
If we work from some basic figures of a 3 year average ownership and a reported 11% failure rate within that (bearing in mind we will never hear about most early term warranty fixes) you could say roughly a third will fail over 9 years - or nearly 40% so far with the average car age. Then as the average age doubles in 6 years time or so you'd expect that 40% to creep up to 80% failure.
Failure doesn't of course work in linear ways like this, a gentle owner could sell a mint 30k miler car to someone who likes racing at the lights and bang - it's another one biting the dust. But the figures reported and my opinion that 9 out of 10 cars will eventually fail are sadly compatible. Also it's a mechanical end-of-life bathtub curve thing, in the next few years as more and more cars reach the wear limits we could be looking at an explosion of failures, I certainly would not be surprised with a product that appears to have a lifetime somewhat less than 10 years built in.
This probably helps explain some of the sales drop of the 911/Boxster in 2010 (while the Cayenne carried on unaffected) - the stories are now so widespread that it's affecting new car sales - even despite their new design engine. I really don't think the bean counters at Porsche thought this through to the impact this huge brand damage would have on the bottom line a few years down the line. And I know Porsche bleat on about rising sales - that's the Panamera, not the declining 911/Boxster/Cayman.
And the sad thing is - this situation is entirely (and quite literally) of their own making and easily avoidable with some basic QA, they (and all their customers left holding the baby) really have only one place to blame: Porsche.
Perhaps all that time upper management spent playing the stock market, annoying the hedge funds and VW could have been more usefully spend glancing over at their core business?
Yes the mistake is not factoring in the age of the cars etc. If 10% fail over say 10 years it is only and average of 1%/year (because each year 12months of production gets a year older). Then each year there is another new year of production to add to the overall number sold.
Lets say 1 % fail at 5 years old, 2% at 6 years old, 3% at 7 years old etc - you end up with a typical scatter gram graph which - right about now - throws up quite a lot of failures of cars anywhere between say 5 and 10 years old.
Eventually cars will be scrapped rather than rebuilt and the spares resulting in Porsche breakers will help keep the remaining cars running at relatively low costs.
So although my own position is that failures are still very rare - it is the build up of each years production adding to the overall quantity of cars out there - that has generated this quite large number of failures.
I assumed that the next generation of 3.6, 3.8 and Cayman S engines would have solved the problems - but they introduced a new on - so there is still plenty of cars yet to fail that will do so in the next few years.
It also seems that this cylinder scoring may also affect other newer models - probably because of the higher coolant temperatures they seem to need to run them at to maintain emission low levels.
Great cars - reasonable prices - ready to enjoy with some form of protection against the full cost of an engine rebuild - dangerous to invest in if you neither have protection nor the cash to replace or repair a damaged engine.
Baz
Lets say 1 % fail at 5 years old, 2% at 6 years old, 3% at 7 years old etc - you end up with a typical scatter gram graph which - right about now - throws up quite a lot of failures of cars anywhere between say 5 and 10 years old.
Eventually cars will be scrapped rather than rebuilt and the spares resulting in Porsche breakers will help keep the remaining cars running at relatively low costs.
So although my own position is that failures are still very rare - it is the build up of each years production adding to the overall quantity of cars out there - that has generated this quite large number of failures.
I assumed that the next generation of 3.6, 3.8 and Cayman S engines would have solved the problems - but they introduced a new on - so there is still plenty of cars yet to fail that will do so in the next few years.
It also seems that this cylinder scoring may also affect other newer models - probably because of the higher coolant temperatures they seem to need to run them at to maintain emission low levels.
Great cars - reasonable prices - ready to enjoy with some form of protection against the full cost of an engine rebuild - dangerous to invest in if you neither have protection nor the cash to replace or repair a damaged engine.
Baz
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff