8 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHShould I get an independent inspection?
Leading reported evidence
Replace 10k miles ago
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
It has FSH, had the IMS, clutch, exhaust parts, brake discs & pads replaced 10k miles ago.
Leading evidence: 'Replace 10k miles ago' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check who would you' (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.
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 · Original poster
If you think I should get it checked who would you use?
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
If the seller is in North London I'd probably use JZM.
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.
8 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: 20261026T130754Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hi,
My first post here.
Currently I'm driving a 2004 BMW Z4 3.0 but plan to test drive a low mileage 2003 996 C4 cabriolet later this week.
The north London independent specialist dealer has had knowledge of the car since 2010. It has FSH, had the IMS, clutch, exhaust parts, brake discs & pads replaced 10k miles ago.
If once I see the car & paperwork everything looks good would you get an independent specialist check it?
Am I just going over the top doing that?
I'm guessing different folk will have different opinions. If you think I should get it checked who would you use?
Thanks
Paul
:welcome: to 911uk Max',
General consensus on here will be to get an independent PPI including a borescope by someone who knows how to interpret the results.
If the seller is in North London I'd probably use JZM.
Good Luck :thumb:
I'd ask the specialist vendor to do a borescope and show me the results. What's the point of buying from a specialist if you don't get some measure of assurance?
I asked ePorsche about a borescope on a 997 C2S a few years ago. The response I got informed my confidence in their due diligence and the potential for a problem to surface post purchase.
Can't do any harm, particularly if you are new to the marque and the foibles of the 996... I imagine it would pay for itself as its bound to reveal a bargaining point or two at best, or at worst save you from an expensive mistake.
Can i just say .. without trying to be biased in any way what so ever ..... Get it inspected .
I actually do these inspections as part of my job , whilst im not at liberty to say some of the things i have found over the years i usually find something and sometimes the inspection is worth its weight in gold .. literally !
n=1, so take this for what it's worth, but when I bought my 996 I paid £250 to get it inspected, which revealed £4,500 worth of work that needed doing.
The vendor knocked £4,500 off the asking price, so I bought the car.
