Any warning signs here?

Hi all I've viewed a private 996 C4S which I am quite keen on. I've gathered the following details of work over the last 5yrs: - Clutch & flywheel within last 10-20k - Air con rads refurbished - Coffin arms etc. all round - Oil separator done - Uprated IMS (Eternal Fix version I believe with oil feed) - Various other works - mainly done DIY with lots of receipts / pictures - Brakes good all round, pedal feel different to most other cars I am familiar with (less pedal travel, more of a 'pad' feel). Pipes etc all done - Tyres reasonable - mid life cycle On my mind I have bore scoring as my primary concern - when starting there is no smoke initially followed by what appears to be 'normal' white smoke. Each tailpipe gets a gathering of water while running. It did appear to me that the car was sooting slightly more on the passenger side tail pipe as we left it idling for 10 mins or so. Is this a cause for concern or just coincidence? Secondly I would say the gear lever feels quite relaxed - easy enough to slot away each shift, but not as notchy or as keen to self centre as other cars I have driven. Is this a 911 thing with no self centring springs or similar? The car is sub £20k. High number of owners at 8, but same for the last 5yrs. Any thoughts appreciated. As it stands we don't have (m)any garages I would trust to boroscope locally so I am unsure what else I can do to assess the risk aside from a fairly good viewing. Thanks[/list]

What's the mileage? If you can't get a scope check done, I wouldn't bother with it. I just looked at a relatively low mileage car with a great history and lots of maintenance done. No obvious signs of scoring at all - no smoke or sooty pipes, etc. Turns out it has quite substantial bore score on one cylinder and the start of more on the other. I'm afraid it'll be very hard for you to assess without the scope.

Hmm doesn't sound too good! Around 80k mileage.

Sub £20k for 80k miles does sound quite reasonable though. Especially with the work that's been done, so I can see why you're tempted. 8 owners is a fair few, but as long as the last one of 5 years has taken care of it, then that wouldn't bother me that much personally. This is anecdotal, of course, but I would insist on a scope check. Have a look at the other thread on here I started about my experience and you'll see that a few others have had nasty surprises too. I didn't even want to get a scope check on the car I wanted to buy since everything else looked so good. I thought it was just going to be a formality. It wasn't.

I bought a 3.4 in part to minimise the risk of scoring, so make of the following what you will. But if you've got your heart set on a C4S maybe you just have to accept that bore score is one of the wear modes. And that's what it is - it's not a sudden catastrophic failure (like IMS bearing). You can live with it and drive the car or you can pay to fix it and hopefully prevent recurrence. I think it's already priced into the C4S market value to some extent, but not to the extent you can buy a car and Hartech it and still be quids in. However you do have two choices: (1) run the risk of bore score and live with it; or (2) buy a car you like and Hartech it when you can justify doing so. In many ways if I was in the market for a 3.6 (I'm not and I won't be) I'd either take one with bore score or with Hartech. But I wouldn't buy, and pay for, one with a clean boroscope because if it scores in my ownership I've lost out twice over!

I spent a few months back in 2017 looking at both 3.6 and 3.4 cars. Both variants have their potential issues, but bore score seems more likely in a 3.6 hence in the end I focused more on the earlier engine. If I were going through the same process today I definitely wouldn't consider one without checking the bores. I just don't see it as a risk worth taking. My advice, for what its worth, would be to find a nice early 3.4.

Interesting reasoning about getting a car with a clean scope Griffter. I'm debating whether to consider one with scored bores to rebuild. But the numbers are working out to be quite considerably more than even my highest budget threshold. If you can theoretically get a (bottom of the market) turbo for that, it makes you think. I don't really agree that the market has priced in the IMS/score with a C4s. They tend to be listed at least 25-35% higher than narrow body cars, which have the same issues. It's the best looking 996 by far though.

Interesting seeing people's thoughts on this issue. This is from Total 911 magazine..... "It's sad then that Porsche's saviour 911 has to put up with an unfair legacy full of hyperbolic scored bores and failed IMS bearings alike. For sure, a small proportion of 996s have suffered here, but nothing like the scale that forums will have you believe. Contrary to that, most run fine: we've even taken a drive in a 173,000-mile 996 Carrera for a recent feature and reveled in its ability to still delight – without any form of engine rebuild in sight (Total 911 issue 113)." I just bought a 996 C4S and had a PPI done but didn't go as involved as a bore scope as every specialist I spoke to told me the same thing. It's not worth it. It's such a low failure rate in the real world that it's not worth bothering with. From what I gathered, it was the from the gen 997 when they started to recommend 2yr/24k service intervals that they now know wasn't good for the engine. A regularly serviced car should be fine. I've also heard from a few company's who offer bore scope checks that the equipment used is often low resolution and even it does show some scoring, it's still not possible to say if it's "normal" for the mileage and if it's about to fail or if it'll go another 50k. I was far more concerned with having the IMS inspected which on a 54k car was found to be in perfect order. Don't be scared off perfectly good cars because forum scare stories. (I'm aware this may be an unpopular opinion so will take any backlash on the chin )

Total 911 Issue 113 would have come out some time in 2012/13. I'm not sure that they'd be saying the same thing now. :chin:

Personally, I wouldn't touch a 996.2 or 997.1 without a bore scope.

I was just like James03C4S and was not worried about bore score. I figured it was a forum scare story and three out of the four PPIs I've had done did not feature a scope check because I thought that the IMS was the bigger achilles heel. Then a low mileage, well-cared for car came up with a (badly) scored cylinder. I can't seem to find the post anymore, but there was one where Baz from Hartech argued that they will all suffer some degree of bore scoring at some point. The specialist who did the inspection on the one I looked at said he's rebuilt a 'substantial' amount of 3.6s that were scored.

See the first paragraph in this post. --> http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=134026&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Yeh this :thumb: This is what I was getting told from many people in the game. Also the fact that nobody can really quantify what "bad" scoring actually was because they will all have some signs of it and no indications of how long a scored bore will have left. And also depends on the quality and resolution of bore scope used.

Yeh that's a very fair point. But the "research" I did before buying mine seemed to agree with this as well as the guy from Hartech. It's one of those things really where people mainly share info of bad experiences rather than good. You could know 100 people who've bought a 996 C4S and only one may have had issues such as bore score. But that one is the one most people will base their opinion on because of the scare factor of it happening to another one. And in my opinion, I would be surprised if the actual failure rate was anything like 1 in 100. Don't get me wrong, I have ZERO facts to back this up. But again, from speaking to guys who service these cars and carry out repairs, they all seem to agree that the failure rates of 996 3.6 engines are very low, whether it be bore score or IMS failure. It just gets talked about lots so people think it's more common than it is. I suppose it's your appetite for risk. I was happy that the risk was low enough not to worry about but everyone's different....

Just out of interest Jackzi, did the same specialist who inspected the car also offer to do the rebuild for you if you went ahead with the car or did they say to walk away? Trouble is, I feel there's a slight conflict of interest if the guy telling you it needs a rebuild just so happens to do rebuilds if you know what I mean... If it was a well respected company that you fully trust then that's absolutely fair enough. But if it's someone you've not dealt with before and don't know loads about then I'd be a little dubious.....