fullymatted.
Back to search
911uk

Ferrous/lokasil change over

Add to repair workspace
Open repair workspace
Original source
4 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW

Discussion summary

YOUR RESEARCHFerrous/lokasil change over

Leading reported evidence

Test alert

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 · Original poster

Will a standard compression test alert to bore scoring?

Original post Read captured discussion
Ferrous/lokasil change over
Read full discussion summary

Leading evidence: 'Test alert' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Test alert' (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.

Read captured replies

1 matching discussions · 4 captured posts examined · 0 partial discussions

Frequently discussed actions (1)

These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.

Test alert

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 · Original poster

Will a standard compression test alert to bore scoring?

Original post Read captured discussion
Ferrous/lokasil change over
Coverage and how to read this overview

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.

4 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 · 1 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.

0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.

Generation: 20261027T033922Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources

POST 1 / ORIGINAL POSTEROriginal post

Can anyone tell me if there's an easy way to tell if a 3.4 is the earlier ferrous pistons? I gather the production change over was around 2000 but does that mean there's a clear change as I assume some 2001 cars registered march 01 would have possibly been in production late 2000. Also, does model have any influence c2/c4? Last question. Will a standard compression test alert to bore scoring? Or better to get a borescope?

POST 2Original post

You'd need to send a pm to bazhart to get a simple answer about this or ring Hartech Engineering. I had a quick look using the 'Search Forum' function using the word lokasil and the author bazhart and it came up with dozens of posts. If you've got the time to do it you might find the answer in one of them. I can't see why a C2 would be any different to a C4. The engine is the same. Regarding borescore as I understand it the only way to know for sure is to have a borescope done by someone who knows how to analyse the resultant pictures.

POST 3 / ORIGINAL POSTEROriginal post

Thanks. I did search and spent most of the afternoon trawling through posts. It was a post Baz made on pistonheads that started me wondering as it gave rough production change over dates. I had hoped there would be a simple way to tell e.g cars built post August 2000 were the plastic ones.

POST 4 / ORIGINAL POSTEROriginal post

This is from a 2013 PistonHeads thread posted by Hartech. Probably gives as much info as I need for an informed decision. "Early engines like Boxster 2.5, 2.7, 3.2 and the early 3.4 996 were OK. Later 996 3.4 engines could fail but didn't create enough torque to do so in numbers. (and had KS or Mahle pistons with a different piston coating)."

This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.