POLL: HAVE YOU HAD CATASTROPHIC ENGINE FALILURE ?

OK I am un-scientifically Trying to figure out what percentage of 996's have actually had the total engine failure problem.

Yes, Just died, waiting for new one to come in.

Once again, another worthless thread on engine grenades. Nothing other than to serve the agenda of the fellowship of the miserable.

i am actually doing this because i am sick and tired of this 996 bashing. you wonder why they are not holding their value ? because misinformed people see too much negativity on the vehicle. I am hoping this brings a little clarity to the true extent of the problem. I believe if this was such a widespread problem some sort of recall would have been in order.

If you held a Survey for the health of the nation in a Doctors waiting room, you would deduce that 90% of the population were sick.... move it to a Gym and that would be reversed. Im sure the Dealer only ever sees cars with problems too. I would guess people on a forum are more likely to respond if they have had a problem, thus inflating the numbers

I do not want to get into this again, but I think this problem is a little more than a statistical anomaly. Cars with/in all different types of mileage, usage, and climates have had this problem, and part of the reason **I think** we have not seen it as much with later model cars is that they don't have the mileage yet to tell. Being on this forum makes me no more likely to report my engine failure I don't think. That is not why I started reading/posting here. As for the recalls, I think it is MUCH cheaper for PCNA to quietly pay off some, while telling others to pi$$ off if they are just a little out of the warranty period. Unfortunately, that is how they lost me as a customer.

I also think this is nothing more than a little senseless fun, as I would think rennlisters are more likely to properly perform preventative maintenance. Also, what if I pick "no problems" and the engine blows up in two years. I clicked to play along, as I admire the goal, but I still think this doesn't get us anywhere. Let's argue about RMS again

Christ, I am not going to explain again how many ways this is violating just about every statistical assumption we base sound results on. Have fun with your little poll and if makes you beleive that it will do something other than provide anecdotal evidence for humor, anger, excitement, agreement, bashing, or whatever you think, then go right ahead. But, do NOT claim that this is something that is is not--statistical. When you get PCNA to release the data you are looking for please let me know.

FYI...you might be able to state that the results from your poll will be the following: "I have concluded that X% of 996 engines on those indivuduals car's have failed that chose to sign in to this thread and post a result valid or otherwise." Then add the disclaimer like most of this crap you see on late night infomercials........**results not typical**

How many times can I vote? I got bored after my first 15 clicks.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif

this is getting ridiculous....

When you're right you're right!!! Dell you've got this one pegged!!

I agree with goodhands. Anyone I meet where type of car ownership comes up, I get offered the concerned advice to be careful because "those engines have problems". HAH Also, how about the "oh you shouldn't track that car, engines blow up and they have oiling problems" One more... If you don't replace your RMS right away it will ruin the area around the seal and never be able to take an new seal again, thus forcing you to get a new engine. I can probably sit and think of a few more urban myths about 996s that I have heard either prior to ownership or since owning it.

New poll. Please answer after watching video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omFPQenVdbQ Estimate how many m96 engines we've blown up in this car in 4 years of racing?

0?

I don't know much about much, but this is one subject I do, and you're right. It's so far beyond statistical validity - sample bias, anybody? - it's not funny.

Awesome vid Jim!

Great video Jim!! I have 6 years of Autocrosses and DE's on my Boxster. I've replaced more than my fair share of tires, gas, pads, rotors, and brake fluid. However, there has been no need to replace the motor!!

If this poll is invalid what is the purpose of any of the polls on this site? And what makes a person more inclined to vote a failure on the poll? I would also say that there are more people on a P-car forum that would prefer to squash the internet/dealer myths and therefore reverse the bias. But I think the purpose of the poll is to have a general idea of the issue. It's a poll, and all polls have an accuracy of a certain percentage, if you want a study then go to statistics. And where else would you go to get a representation of P-car owners and a less likely chance of some lurker who would vote even though they do not own the car? That being said, I think this forum would be as close as it could get to getting a realistic sample of owners outside of contacting owners through the company. Or at least of owners concerned about the issue. It seems that this thread is a sensitive subject and people are coming down hard on the original poster.

Simple. The universe for this poll is putatively 996 owners. Two problems with that. One, it isn't necessarily the case that the users of this site are a representative sample of 996 owners. And two, the sample isn't designed. It's opt in. By definition, voluntary participants will be those personally engaged in the issue, whereas the study attempts to measure a universe of all 996 owners. This is like trying to predict election results at a party convention. Some polls are fun and valid on this site, because the results are not putatively representative of all owners. Just of the community on this site. The original poster might argue that this was true of his poll also, but given the sensitivity of the issue and the likelihood that the data would be taken out of context, it's unhelpful. I'm all for "who likes the silver instrument bezels" polls, but I just think this kind of thing is counterproductive. I watched people get all Lord of the Flies like this over BMW's S54 engine issues. Took the fun out of driving one, took the fun out of being on the board. Just my .02, and I'm a newbie so probably not qualified to comment. But that's how I feel.

Certainly you would acknowledge that web forums such as Rennlist's not only attract "enthusiasts". They also tend to be a magnet for people with problems that are searching for answers and fixes. Polls like this are worthless because they only take from small cross sections of the overall population (all 996 owners). As such any data they produce is inherently flawed. This poll will not have statistical validity because of this sample bias. To be accurate the poll would need to take an unbiased sample of the overall population (all 996 owners). (Not just a group of owners and others who may not even own the model that decide to visit a web site) Surely you understand that a web site like this will never produce such an unbiased sample??

among all the ENGINE FAILURE polls, this one is the worst. i mean, at least, it should be radio button, not check box. op, please do a search, and read all the polls, threads, before you do this. otherwise you wouldn't understand many ppl replies here.

So what is being said is that the readers of this forum are more than likely on the engine failure party. And therefore biased. And as to the fact that other readers might not be owners, wouldn't this forum represent a more accurate cross section than say, Carpoint or MSNcars? It's a poll and should be taken for what it's worth. Saying that it's similar to polling at a convention is a little stretched. This forum is a P-car forum not a RMS, Engine failure forum, both sides read the forum both sides opt to take the poll. Apparently this poll is running similar in numbers as a recent article in one of the UK magazines. It's a poll with a margin of error. And where else would one go to ask a question like this that would give a more unbiased opinion? And anybody can take anything out of context. It's the internet...Gore invented it.

Wrong again. What's being said is you just don't know because the sample is crap! The real number could be 40% or .004%, but you are never going to know because the sample is flawed. Garbage in....garbage out...

Apparently I'm simple so can I have a reason why the poll is flawed? Now, even though the past posts state that it's due to the bias of people on line looking for problems with their cars. We are now saying that it's not because people are biased to the enigine failure. So what makes this a "crap" sample? The real number can be anything and I've already stated the fact that it has a margin of error. But I have not seen an answer that does not contradict the previous answers to the flaw issue. And what would justify garbage in? We are assuming that a reasonable vote would be from a owner who has or has not had a engine failure. The only flaw is if the voter does not have a 996 then it's flawed. But I really cannot see what else could make this small sample of owners a flawed group. I'm not seeing the forest.

Ohhh and I wasted post 69 on a polling issue. By the looks of the Off Topic forum it should have been in there....

Eharrison....please come sit in on one of my stats lectures and you will understand VERY quickly what is wrong with this poll. You're the exact type of student I want in one of my sections--the critical one that questions everything. Until then, you can believe what ever you want. I mean this is cyberspace and all.

I voted and I'm not a 996 owner. Ha Ha! I've skewed your results!

Still no one has given a reason. That's all I'm asking.

Not stretched at all. The simple truth. I've been making my living with market research for 26 years. I'm not going to try to condense a course in statistics for you, here, but my comparison to a political convention was apt and precise. The issue is not the internet. The issue is a non-representative universe plus no sample design in a situation where bias would affect the outcome. Put another way, if one of the possible answers to a question involves something that has never happened to you, the sample has to be built and the responses weighted to reflect the population, since the results would otherwise likely overstate the responses from people to whom something DID happen. You'd get the same problem with a lost luggage poll on TripAdvisor, for example. The fact that these numbers seem similar to those of other studies simply reflects that survey design problems affect the probability of accurate results, they don't absolutely guarantee the wrong ones. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. I didn't even mention margin of error, which is a statistical phenomenon unrelated to sample bias. In fact, for the universe of Rennlist users, the sample size is very solid.

That makes sense, however, the numbers in this pool do represent the statistics for this forum group and this sample, whatever the group may be. The same is true I am sure for any other car forum group on the internet. Correct? With that in mind then, if you compare the number of catastrophic engine failures in 996 to the other brands, like BMW, using forums, it seems to me that there are more failures here... And that comparison in my mind is a valid one. I am looking into getting used 996 but this has put me on the fence. Now I know that I must get the CPO-ed one. The truth is, I frequent BMW and Audi (own both) message boards and have not seen this many engine catastrophic failures reported.

Several people have provided numerous reasons all of which you have chosen to ignor. Take a look at MrBonus's post (above your last) and you might start to form a idea about internet polls.

I'll give you one. lack of validity. I'll give you a second. lack of reliability. I'll give you a third........ well, you get the point.

You hit the nail right on the head! DING DING DING....we have a winner. The issue of validity is in YOUR mind and NOT based on sound science.

the fact that catastrophic engine failure exists should tell you something. i went thru this with a ford diesel 6.0 to some extent. i researched prior to purchase on forums such as this one and found the number of f'ed-up trucks to be very high given the overall number of posts about the 6.0 diesel. i also stopped visiting those particular forums after trading my first 6.0 (mildly fubar-ed) after 7 months for another 6.0 that so far (80 K miles) has been solid and non-problematic. forums attract certain kinds of postings, including those that make vehicles seem to be junk. are these polls representative of the overall population? i think not. are they a good indication that the problem is not a very isolated one? i would have to say yes. i look at my ownership of a 6.0 ford as more luck and probability, rather than statistically speaking. knock on wood, it is still running fine. it appears this particular post is reaching "dead horse" status more than anything else. the only reason it continues is because both sides feed the fire. doesn't change the fact that bad motors or whatever still exist. and as i am shopping i take this info seriously. albeit maybe, with a grain of salt given my ford experience.

You know what I hate? Trying to read this thread on a blackberry while standing in line at the airport. I appreciate the response. And have taken the comments in. I still feel that a poll at a convention would not be the same. The forum is not a forum of owners with engine failures. It would be similar in the fact that you ask a question at the convention with respect to what republican you support not what party. But it's my opinion and I'll leave it at that.

I don't have a NA car (Turbo), nor have I had a failure, I just voted YES because it seems like a more fun choice. I'm a very optimistic positive person, so I don't believe in the word NO

this reminded me years ago, how we "elected" our president, and what happened in palm beach..

pl......actually that "election" you refer to was both valid and reliable with statistical certainty. Was it valid? Yes. Votes that were accurately cast were counted. Was it Reliable? Yes. Those votes were counted more than once against different counters establishing within statistical limits that the voting results were repeated within statistical limits between counters. Personally, I didn't care for EITHER candidate so this isn't me supporting one cadidate or another. Just me illustrating how incorrect your assumption is. Time for this crap to head to OT. Leave it to a democrat to turn a poll about engine failures into rationale for a lost bid to the white house. .

It seems like somebody should write up a little article about the problems with the different 996s and have John "sticky" it for new or potential owners to read before they ask the same questions for the 500th time. Let's face it. There is a good possibility that you will have an RMS issue at some point if you buy a 996. I have no idea if it's a 20% chance for a 80% chance but it may happen. You shouldn't buy the car if you don't have an extra $1000 laying around to fix it. There is a remote possiblity that you will blow an engine. This is especially true if you are buying used and don't know the PO. There are all kinds of ways to abuse these engines that the average Camary will never experience. If replacing an engine at some point would bankrupt your family then you shouldn't own this car. You will replace your rear tires every 10k miles or so and they are very expensive. If this doesn't fit your budget, don't buy this car. etc. etc. My approach is to just ignore these threads but a summary would be a better approach. So Dell, why don't you whip that up. I'd be glad to review it. Jim

Funny one Jim! I for one, think the 996 is a fantastic step forward in reliability in the long line of cars PAG has put out. IIRC, there was an article in Total911 recently that talked about the reliability of the 996 engine as well in another issue talked about the RMS issue. Both articles were well researched as well as well written. I might have a scan of them that I could post up for good reading. Also, Excellence had an issue recently (a couple actually) that talked about buying tips for the 996 in the "market update" section.

Here is a link to the reliability of 996 engine article: http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=6470 As for the RMS article, if somebody would be able to host it and put a link to it I would be happy to email them the scanned article.

for your read pleasure: http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=6470 The pdf version: http://www.renntech.org/forums/index...e=post&id=3224 another one from total911: http://www.autofarm.co.uk/new.php3/Total911_July06.pdf

Yes, and I buy the car not sound science All I am saying is that I see more engine failures resulting in replacement reported here than on other car forums ( www.bimmerfest.com and www.audiworld.com ) and that as used car buyer does not inspire confidence.

Then don't buy one devexpert. You'll quickly find out though that vast majority of 996 owners have experienced ZERO major problems and love their cars.

Exactly and that is what makes companies pay attention. You vote with your $$$. The one thing that I know is that if I decide to purchase one, I will buy only CPO-ed car with 2 year warranty or just get the new 997. Anything else looks like risky proposition to me... But I am known to be risk averse It is great forum and I've learned a lot here. Thanks guys

14 failures out of 89 replies ... a little more than I expected. Where are all you smooth running fellows?

Out drving their cars not paying attention to this poll.

I hit the wrong button, 14 times, sorry.

Exactly the problem with the poll. Except you put it so much more succinctly.

Well for all the naysayers that spout lack of validity.... Here is a pic of my REPLACED engine. Is that valid enough? Sounds like those lucky enough to never have problems are just convincing themselves of lack of any real threat.

Robert, you are confusing validity with a data point.

Let me understand your logic, here: You have a broken engine, therefore this survey is statistically valid? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I feel bad for you that you had this issue, and there's no question that there IS an issue or even that maybe Porsche owes you something. The debate over validity really bears on how worried people should be about it vs. what power they have to control the outcome. If I decided to worry that everything I saw happen to other people was likely to happen to me, I'd shoot myself. Because a blown engine is pretty far down the list. Google "porsche 996 engine failures" and you'll get 22,500 hits. Google "heart attack" and you'll get 48 million. I bought a Porsche for passion. I learned a long time ago that emotionally based decisions come with risks. I cannot fathom why owners would put themselves through all this grief.

No, I just think you are a bit oversensitive to the issue. Right it's just an enthusiast internet site, nobody is going to use the results to write a thesis, or sue Porsche. In fact if someone is dumb enough to buy or not buy a car based on an internet poll of strangers... So who really cares about the validity, it should be no more than if it were: do like silver bezels? My only point is that I hear alot of the same people(not just you re: this poll) always saying engine failure really isn't a problem. Well, and it isn't unless it happens to you. lol I have a replaced engine and I love my Porsches!!!!

so u got a new engine? how much you paid for it?

Precisely, people come to this site to discuss their Porsche's. They look for fixes, advice, etc.........and they come here to bitch about problems. Posting a poll like this to a biased segment of the population is like going to a Cancer treatment website and asking how many people there have cancer. The results will probably not reflect the true population.

Thanks, I appreciate the constructive comment. If I'm sensitive, I guess it's because one thing the internet is good at is creating truisms out of rumours. Let me give you a personal example: There was a lot of heavy discussion on Land Rover boards over the last couple of years about RMS failures on D2s. Well, the truth is that it was relatively uncommon on regularly driven trucks, and even if you had the issue the biggest risk was spots in your driveway. But people get all freaked about engines that leak (even if they have eight liters of oil in them) and the issue got some real traction. The result was that Disco resale values plummetted as soon as they were out of warranty. The black book price for mine, for example, is less than $8500 Canadian for a truck that cost $54,000. Seems wrong for a truck that's been absolutely bulletproof and stylepoints besides. So I just feel like when one of these bunfights gets going, it's important for the people who aren't having problems to weigh in so the perspective is balanced. It hurts us all, otherwise. Thanks for listening. Peace out!

BruceP "Google "porsche 996 engine failures" and you'll get 22,500 hits. Google "heart attack" and you'll get 48 million." Hmmm... How many people in the world?? Couple of BILLION? How many years has a "heart attack" been around? And how many 996's has porsche sold?? Several Thousands? And how many years was the 996 made? Do the %'s on that one BruceP. You may want to rethink that.

What the H*ll does googling something have to do with this? Talk about unscientific. You actually think because you get x number of hits on google it is an accurate assessment of anything. Data analysis is all about the data acquisition plan (sampling). And has been stated here many times...this one is a lousy one...although it is entertaining. (I couldn't even vote not sure )

What the H*ll does googling something have to do with this? Kind-of the point I was trying to get across to Bruce.Thanks. Only Porsche knows for sure and until someone sues them and subpoena's the records its only a guess.

Google 996 and you get 66 million hits with the first link being a positive remark to the new generation of water cooled Porsche. It even says "and definitely the nicest and most efficient Porsche ever built.". You're a DOPE. Now let's google "DOPE", what will we find? A picture of a music group that apparently look like DOPE's. Are you in the band?

Big-D, you always put a smile on my face! I think I just had diet coke spew out my nose

To 4s, you might want to add 'how long has the internet been around' to your elegant polemic. Also, as a matter of interest, the world hasn't had "a couple of billion" people in it for a few centuries. To you and to wross, it's called 'rhetoric'. Sorry if I aimed over your head. I'll let you guys get back to your USA Today.

Dude. Turn of phrase. Rhetoric designed to make a point, the point being that there are bigger things in life to worry about than whether your engine might blow up. Things like mortality. And literacy.

Great, now I have to worry about death plus learning how to read and write................. Man, what a bummer

Dell, help me................ Wait, I have to sack this woman's groceries, BRB.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif

The number of failures in this poll are probably due to those damn 993list guys coming over here and clicking "failure" just to screw with the 996 blown engine hand wringers.

Is there a limit to how many times I can click yes?? I do not even own one, but I am waiting for 02s to hit 20K to get one. If the engine in my future 996 blows up, I can go to my local porsche dealer and get a factory engine with a 2year warranty for around 8K. On the other hand, just a top end rebuild on any earlier p-car will likely cost me more. I see that as 996 being best bargain out there. But what do I know. I race an Audi 944

Well I am one that had castrophic engine failure. I got the car with 24 miles on the clock. I kept it under 4k rpm at all time for 2k miles, and under 4k until 180 threafter. I drive the car daily, and take meticulous care of it inside and out. Still at 5k miles for no apparent reason i.e no over revs, hell I don't think I've come any closer to the red line than maybe 6500 rpm, I got a new engine. I am fine with that. It does seem that there are a lot of people who have had various engine malodies ranging from repeated RMS to engine failures. Right now on the poll there are 18 people who have said they have had an engine failure out of 108 responses. If we discount 14 of the 15 times the one guy voted then we have 18 out of 94 - damn near 20%. That may be all fine and well to those who have not had problems, but imagine if you were like me and for no apparent reason your $80k+ car's engine blows up. Well let's just say you'd have a slightly different opinion than simply dismissing it as people wanting to complain. PCNA gave me a new engine under warranty and treated me fairly over the issue, however I would not buy a car that did not have warranty if I were buying used. No way. There are just too many people who have had too many engine problems. People should be able to expect more when paying this kind of money for a car. Porsche should be able to build more reliable engines. They should not be going on 10 years now of engines produced with RMS flaws that remain a design flaw. That is simply unacceptable from a brand like Porsche. Still I love my car, but I will sell it and get another one, probably another 911 before the warranty is up on this one.

And now it begins.......5 pages of why this poll is crap and yet you believe that 20% of 996 engines fail (based on this illustrious poll). If that were true Porsche dealers would be replacing engines in 996's weekly, if not daily in some cases. Hell, you be just as likely to see a 996 on a lift getting a new engine as an oil change. With numbers that high Porsche would even be regularly replacing replacement engines (after all 20% of the replacements should also fail correct!!). Sorry for your engine problems, but it's time to put the crack pipe down. This alleged 20% failure rate based on an internet chat poll is a good laugh...

Excellent post Ray...didn't you know that USA Today uses this to publish statistics for our cars! (just like the rest of their ridiculous statistics).

With 180,000 or so 996's sold, 20% failure rate would be 36,000 failed engines......... 36,000 engine failures! Yeah, right. If ANY car model had 36,000 engine failures, it would probably receive publicity rivaling the infamous "unintended acceleration"..........

aaaaaaahhhh, can you say Ford 6.0 liter diesel. while it may not be 36K motors it is a known problem with dealers. great truck. unless you get a bad one. defending a product just because you got a good one while discounting the bad ones is truly assanine. suggesting a warranty or CPO very helpful. to say if an engine failure will cause you to lose your home then don't buy one seems to me to be a "back against the wall" defensive attitude. they break apparently and in a major way. part of the mystique? please, you guys crack me up. damn Corvette guys. i hear that new motor is..............................

Yeh, and a few years ago, Firestone had problems with some SUV tires failing, so I suppose we should be wary of the Michelins on our sports cars.

Well if you are really concerned you could always buy the "stang" back...

it is a rather juvenile sounding moniker i must admit. and i am sure "Mr. Dell" is tired of hearing the whining regarding the apparent build flaw in the 996 motor. as are most of those on this forum that have heard it all before i am sure. but i gotta say, you guys are a defensive bunch. so to loosely quote someone i don't know, " why would i belong to any group that would have me as a member?" it is an addiction, i gotta get a life and stay off these dumb *** forums looking for an arguement. i just have not sold the P-car purchase down the river just yet. but i must say, a second Z06 looks better all the time.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/xyxwave.gif

I think the Corvette guys have forums, too. I can find you a pissy one to read, if it will make you feel better.

AMF yohe. fo shizzle. with any luck, Panthers from cellar to stellar.

It's ok, you don't even need a P-car to become a member (or to vote in this poll for that matter), you only need to send in a few bucks. Good luck with the Z06. While were on the subject of "internet problems" that are blown out of proportion, I hope the roof on your vette doesn't delaminate!!

I hope everyone who had voted yes really had a catostrophic failure (broke rod, cam, pistons, heads, or whatever) and not the RMS replacement. RMS engine replacement is not catostrophic. If your engine was replaced due to the RMS, that says how much Porsche cares about their reputation. They rather lose tons of money on replacement engines than take a risk of repeated RMS leaks. A 50 cent RMS versus a thousands of dollar engine. Meaning Porsche could replace many, many RMS's before it would add up to the cost of an engine replacement, they choose the high road.

huh? I have a z06 for sale, want it? '03 with 8k miles and lingenfelter engine. It's got a lot of cavalier parts but it's fast.................

I do not believe 20% of ALL Porsche engines fail. I was only using the poll as an example that out of only 100 people nearly 20% have had a failure. Spin it any way you want, call me crazy, poll crappy or whatever. I am sure if we had the full numbers from Porsche on the number of 996 engine failure it would be hopefully well below 20%, but i bet it would be higher than many think. I have never seen any car brand that has this many engine replacements. Granted some of it is because they simply do not do that much engine work any longer, but elect to go with component replacement. Other car companies are doing the same thing. Still I believe that there are far more engine replacements for a company as distinguished as Porsche that there should be concerned particularly those buying a 996 in the used market. I still think it is a great car, and I have no regrets.

Sorry, I don't know where I came up with that idea..... Oh yeah....there's the reason.

she's a googleler.................

For the record, I didn't vote 15 times, I was just being sarcastic. So for whatever it's worth, I only voted once.

Here's a fun fact, just to lighten the mood: If we pretend that the sample is representative of the entire 996 owner population in the world, the margin of error in this survey is roughly +/- 8.7% at the 95% confidence level. Therefore, maybe 20% of engines failed. Or maybe nearly 30% did. Or maybe 11% did. And there's even a 5% chance that every single engine failure on the planet was experienced by a Rennlister who answered this survey. Statistics are fun.

"Lies , damn lies and statistics" B. Disraeli

Now THAT's why I joined a Porsche forum.

A friend of mine had total catastrophic engine failure in his 993. Doesn't that therefore imply that those engines tend to be problematic? Oh, he was on the racetrack when it happened? Doesn't matter, the car is designed for that, you could say. Then you discover that he missed a downshift. Obviously user error. Shall we still blame the engine? Shall we blame Porsche for making a transmission that permits a mis-shift (I've actually seen this suggested on some BMW boards)? I'm with Dell on this one. I applaud the intent of the pollster, but not the method. Michael

Just out of curiosity, anyone here that has either purchased a new engine or keeps claiming that they are available for $8k, can you please let me know where these $8k engines with a 2 year factory warranty can be found? I currently have a '99 996 that just had a catastrophic engine failure. After speaking with the two Arizona dealers and three independent shops, I can't find anything less than $14k installed. And, one place quoted almost $17k.

please let me know what happens Factory Porsche Parts, Tequipment and Selection (Boutique) All at Dealer Cost Plus 15% Handling and Shipping Cost -- No Sales Tax! Phone: [phone removed] Email: [email removed]