5 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPPI ECU results need interpreting help
Leading reported evidence
Use tool we made ourselves
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
CD is perfectly normal - even Porsche new cars can have deviation of 5d - the marks to time are not a perfect way of getting deviation spot on - we use a tool we made ourselves which gets less than 0.5 on each bank when building these and we don't use the timing marks.
Leading evidence: 'Use tool we made ourselves' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use tool we made ourselves' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Use tool we made ourselves
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
CD is perfectly normal - even Porsche new cars can have deviation of 5d - the marks to time are not a perfect way of getting deviation spot on - we use a tool we made ourselves which gets less than 0.5 on each bank when building these and we don't use the timing marks.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
5 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
911uk: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T135432Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I am looking at a manual 996 turbo which was PPI'd last year. The ECU results have me a bit worried.
1. As the cam deviations for bank 1 & 2 are quite far apart. At -1.94 and -5.03 respectively.
2. Ignition range 1 has hit the max stored by the ecu at 65535
The car has 100k plus miles, and the ppi was done 10k miles ago. There are no leaks and engine seems to start from cold fine, and idled smoothly, and pulls well when warm.
Should I avoid due to the above points ?
Thank you.
max in range 1 .. it's been driven hard but if no range 2 it's not been .. over driven shall we say .
Porsche flag range 2 as more the issue .
PPI was done 10K ago .. if there was an issue then it would have developed further by now and would be obvious i feel.
Cam deviations .. I'm afraid i have no real knowledge of a Turbo .. non turbo and i would say it's a little high on B2 but within limits .. you will get an eml if too far out ... from the ones i've seen it seems to be about 11 degrees out but that's not Turbos which obviously are a different engine .
More a question for Hartech perhaps as i can only speculate i'm afraid .
Gut feeling .. maybe keep on looking .
It's Rev range 2 was also reached, however the number was around 520 only.
The variance in cam deviations points to a possible stretched chain issue if taken with the high revving life of this car. It's been tracked a few times. Perhaps a ticking time bomb that might require an engine rebuild,... I think I will pass on this one.
Thanks for your help.
Provided any range two is not with the last couple hundred of hours then no issue - nearly all turbos I see have maxed out in range ones.
CD is perfectly normal - even Porsche new cars can have deviation of 5d - the marks to time are not a perfect way of getting deviation spot on - we use a tool we made ourselves which gets less than 0.5 on each bank when building these and we don't use the timing marks.
Forget the stretched chain rubbish - it is just that.
As long as the cams clock forward 30d then everything is good.
You would need another PPI - 10k mileage is too much to ignore.
Ken
