996 Reliability review

Hi All, I am the proud owner of lovely 996 late 2000 model Cabriolet. It has immaculate FPSH, and has been lovingly maintained. I bought it for essential stress relief and weekend jaunts with (and without) the family, plus the occasional Europe trip. It runs like a dream and I am loving it. Having read up the reliability stats on various motoring websites I was satisfied that that the 996 was a solid piece of engineering. For those of you with the time to read the review below, however, I am somewhat concerned.. Can anyone shed some light on this? Is the 2000 996 a solid piece of machinery or is this something that has been glossed over? Any thoughts much appreciated! H AutoGuide.comMotorcycle.comATV.comSnowmobile.comPersonalWatercraft.comRVguide.com The Truth About Cars » News Blog Porsche's Deadly Sin #1: 1999 Porsche 911 (996) 3.4 By Jack Baruth on August 3, 2010 Great artists steal, and I'm obviously inspired by Paul Niedermeyer's GM's Deadly Sin series here. I am currently the owner of three Porsches, as pathetic as that may be, and I've experienced firsthand the many ways in which Porsche disappoints its fans and buyers. Few companies have been as comprehensively whitewashed by the media and the corporate biographers, but the truth is available to those of us who wish to look a bit harder. We will start with the big betrayals, of course, and the unassuming fastback you see above represents perhaps the worst of Porsche's many middle fingers to the customer base. It is a 1999 Porsche 911, known to everyone in the world as the '996"³. From 1964 to 1998, the 911 evolved on an incremental basis. As with the first and last Volkswagen Beetles, there are very, very few parts which survived the thirty-four-year journey unchanged, but there's an amazing amount of interchangeability. It is possible to 'update" a 1971 911T to look just like a 1998 Carrera 2S, and it's also possible to 'backdate" a 1994 911 Carrera to look like a classic 1973 Carrera RS. Both of these offenses against human decency have occurred many times, incidentally. Take a look here to see a rather lovely example of a '964"³ turned into a 'long-hood" 911S, in a color that will be familiar to many TTAC readers. The 911 was never intended to last thirty-four years. The front-engine, water-cooled 928 was supposed to replace the 911 in the Seventies... but it didn't, so the 911's lifetime was extended another decade. The costs and inefficiencies of building a car with a Sixties architecture tortured Porsche. A complete re-engineering was necessary, and Porsche worked with Toyota to squeeze every last dollar out of the new 911's design. The list of cost-cuts in the Porsche 996 can be recited by nearly every Porschephile. Frameless doors, complete commonality with the Boxster from the door latches forward, horrifying interior trim quality, drop-in assemblies provided by the lowest bidder, and the engine... An article on the most common failures suffered by the 3.4L watercooled boxer six can be found here, but for those of you who don't click on links, the problems range from oil leakage at the rear main seal (which is more or less universal) to cylinder head failure. In nearly all cases, the 'fix" is the same: to purchase a complete rebuild from Porsche, at your expense. Figure on $15,000 or more for the 'subsidized" engine. Porsche had been 'fighting" failures of the watercooled engine, which appeared first in the 1997 Boxster, from the very first car that rolled off the line. Porous engine blocks, intermediate shaft failures... the watercooled boxers were junk. This is enough for a Deadly Sin "” knowingly equipping every naturally-aspirated Boxster and 911 they sold from 1997 to as late as 2008 with failure-prone engines "” but, as always, Porsche raised the bar in the customer-screwing department. During those years, Porsche worked with its dealers to deny warranty claims, place blame on customers, withhold knowledge of fixes, and generally burn every last bit of goodwill they had built up over years of... um... previous engine failures in air-cooled cars. Again and again during those years, owners of pampered, low-mileage cars found themselves paying five-figure bills to keep their cars on the road. For more than a decade, Porsche simultaneously denied knowledge of engine problems while claiming that their newest engine revision did not suffer from the problems that they were denying had occurred previously. While waiting for his $75,000 Porsche to experience a $15,000 engine failure, the 911 owner could at least fail to enjoy the most dismal, fragile interior ever seen in a production Porsche. Buttons wore out, dashes cracked, radios committed suicide in new and interesting ways, and every single electrical component in the car seemed prone to intermittent, untraceable failure. Naturally, the fabulously low prices Porsche paid suppliers for the jumble of garbage components in a 996 were never reflected at the parts counter. The replacement cost for the 'Litronic" headlamp assemblies is enough to make an NBA player weep. I saw brand-new 996s with cracked leather on the seats when the cars were still in dealerships. Make no mistake. Every possible corner was cut. Long-time Porsche owners found the 996 driving experience to be as bewildering as the build quality. This was a quiet, flimsy-feeling car that outhandled, outaccelerated, and outbraked the outgoing 993 while never feeling anything like as substantial as said air-cooled predecessor. The flimsy feeling came honestly "” amazingly in this modern era, Porsche actually cut weight out of the car compared to the previous model "” but it didn't satisfy. The men from Stuttgart knew they had a loser on their hands, so the 996 was freshened in 2002 with a more durable, more powerful engine, interior revisions, and a facelift. The market's opinion on these cars, however, is written in the resale values. If you had purchased two Porsches in a row "” a 1998 Carrera 2S for $75,000 and a 1999 Carrera 2 for $75,000 "” and put 50,000 miles on each, you would find that the 1998 car would command an easy $50K in PCA classifieds, but the 1999 would struggle to fetch $20K. The 1999 Porsche 911 was a failure in every way but one: the massive savings realized with the new model made it possible for the company to plan new models. And since the new model in question was the Cayenne, you could say that all the news was bad, after all. But that's a Deadly Sin for another day. Posted in News Blog Tagged as 911, 996, engine failure, ims failure, jack baruth, Porsche, rms failure :dont know: :dont know:

Henry that sums up the 996 in a nutshell! :floor: :floor: :floor: Seriously dont worry, sounds the the reviewer had a bad 996 and just has a grudge................. The problems highlighted are well known, but the article suggests all cars were bad, not the case, as many very satisfied owners will tell you. And problems generally occured early on. The rear main seal can be replaced for £300 quid now all in for example, so not an issue and worth doing if yours hasnt been done. The 993 and 997 are widely recognised as better cars for varying reasons, but the 996 is a proper porsche all the same. Plus the reviewer is a yank :grin:

996 reliability review Hey Bob, CLASSIC reply..! Seriousy many thanks, good to know indeed! Henry :thumb:

I gave up when it appeared neither fact nor engineering logic would win out against some sort of bitter emotional knife job. I mean how is a frameless window cheaper to produce than presumably a framed one? The rest, although based on genuine issues with some vehicles, is overstated and almost presented as a deliberate design to screw the customer and presumably ruin the company. My favourite "conclusion" is that because the 928 was meant to replace the 911, and failed, that every subsequent model has therefore been wilfully poor to spite the customer base that refused to buy into the intended successor. As part and parcel to this thought process is that somehow the natural lifespan of the 911 has been exceeded, like some sickly relative who becomes more and more frail and less and less capable of everyday existence. Completely missing the point of the model's five decades of continuous development and evolution, both intra-series (996.1 - 996.2 etc) and series to series (996 - 997 etc). In my book, that means it is honed to perfection. In fact read most press reviews of every new 911 and the journalist always states they could never had imagined ways in which the predecessor could have been bettered, but somehow Porsche has done it again. I guess the 911's extensive history of accolades in racing, industry (press) awards and sheer volume of sales over 47 years counts for nothing. If this is genuinely the author's assessment of the best real-world sports car ever made, I don't know what that makes every other sports car out there. I guess this guy got screwed by an OPC once and this is his deluded idea of payback.

Chief, That is really interesting as I came to the same conclusion as you: the guy must have had a rotten egg for a car (and a partner) and then couldn't afford another one so he spends his time rubbishing all the other people who still drive them. As a matter of interest, the 2000 996: is this 996:1 or 996:2? Also do you see any issues leaving the cabrio out in the elements. I am watching the rain and wondering if that horrendous hardtop needs to be put on. I have no option as am London based and do not have access to a garage.. Cheers mate! H :thumbs:

Me not Chief, me GT4. Cars built between 1997 and 2001 are 996.1 (3.4 engine, Boxster lights - AKA "fried-eggs") Porsche introduced the 996.2 (ie facelift lights - AKA "teardrops" or "crying eyes", 3.6 engine, glovebox, new instruments etc) for Model Year 2002 (ie August 2001 onwards). Some 996.1 were registered late (ie after 996.2 launched). The 996/997 hood is one of the best in the business. Multilayered for warmth and sound proofing. The hardtops have heated glass rear screens. Later 996s had glass screens in the fabric hood too. The hardtop is more secure and even quieter.

Porsche were trapped in an "end game" making too good a car for what the market needed - that lasted longer than it needed to - had an engine you could almost double the output of with impunity - with outdated production methods and not making enough money to get out of that vicious circle and modernise. They were in the business of making and selling new cars and instead were making a living for all the thousands of car sellers, service centres, tuners and suppliers of fuel , insurance and tyres etc etc for decades - out of their product that nearly bankrupted them for manufacturing it - so - something had to change. Desperate measures led to a more commercial design that never the less was generally well engineered and made enough money to rescue the company and enable it to grow again, re-invest and expand sales - it suvived and energed stronger - quite an achievement. Unfortunately there were a few small but significant "weak areas" in the design that in very small numbers indeed resulted in often fairly minor failures (mainly inside the engine) that Porsche then - with their huge hourly rates etc - and worries about litigation - usually simply offered a replacement new engine for (at huge cost) and seemingly did little or nothing about technically for several years - during which they made so much profit - they seemed dissinterested in resolving. Some capable specialists realised that with their much lower overheads - there would be a lot of business, good will and indeed technical quodos from fixing the problems - which we have become a part of - finding no difficulty in repairing engines at an affordable price and with good reliability. As the cars age - there will come a point at which even an engine rebuild will cost more than can be justified - so I forsee fewer cars being preserved long term (like they used to be) but this is just a feature of our modern fashion conscious and throw away society and is not specific to Porsche. None of the above (IMHO) make the car a bad car - indeed I think that the performance, general running costs, comfort and appearance are superb and they provide a more modern Sports car with huge performance and modern attributes - that would cost so much it would only be available to a minority if it were made to the same quality as they used to be and that some people expect - for a relativley modest price compared to the rest of the same market. If the car were covered by some affordable and reliable warranty to minimise the cost of that rare engine failure (like our own Lifetime Maintenance Plan) then for a modest monthly outlay buyers can enjoy a fantastic Sports car for reasonable running costs and forget about the rare possibility of - what is under Porsche's regime - a financially catastrophic engine failure. Baz

996 reliability Hi Baz, So what you're saying is the car is excellent but there are certain issues that surface in certain cars of the 996 range. That all said, it is possible now to get work done by specialists at an 'affordable' price. I dont really want the car to 'fail' in any major or minor respect but I accept that performance cars will have their niggles. What I am concerned about is the likelihood of the car dying on a road trip leaving me and the family stranded. I am assuming that if this happened it would be the exception rather than the rule for the 996 - am I wrong? Thx for the comprehensive reply! :thumb:

I guess the last two years of 996 ownership can be summed up by the following: Dr. Porsche or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Hi Henry, I understand your concerns after reading that piece but as an owner of an 8 year old 996 I stay positive by noting just how many 15 year old cars (of various 'ordinary'makes) I see in daily use on British roads. Many of those cars are high mileage, averagely maintained and rarely polished but their owners just get in and drive them. The odd example you see with low mileage, fsh and 6 coats of Autoglym looks like it will go on for ever. My point is that whilst running a 996 is an expensive business compared with an 'ordinary' car its original build quality would have been far better and therefore, if properly looked after, will last proportionately better. OK, the 996 might have had more reliability issues than other 911s but major problems have usually been forecast (eg, an oil leak would normally be seen before an RMS failure) and could have been prevented. After 8 / 10 years most rogue cars would've have been sorted anyway. I'm certain that in 2018 an average 20 year old 996 will look a lot more 'tired' than a 20 year old 993 does today but I'm equally certain that it will still be running pretty sweetly and providing immense enjoyment to whoever can't afford anything newer. If this particular 'blogger' has had specific problems with his 996 then I understand his frustration and we wll all have winced at some of the parts prices Porsche charge especially for silly items but hey, that's the price of Porsche ownership and it's what keeps the things from being as 'exclusive' as they are. Enjoy your motoring. T8

Unless you are Porsche (and therefore know exactly how many engines of each model and age you are supplying and how many internal engine rebuild parts to specialists like us) - it is difficult to state reliable statistics. But if say 5% fail in their lifetime and say each car averages 8 owners - then there is a 1 in 160 chance of you getting caught during your ownership. If (at the time) you are on our Maintenance Plan and in the AA, RAC etc they will bring the car to us (because of your maintenance contract) and under the terms of the plan repair costs may be around £1000 (or a little more if you want further upgrades to improve overall reliabiliy at the same time). With our Maintenance Plan costs (that include all future service costs in full) costing about the same as services within the Main Dealer Network and bearing in mind that when you need brakes, clutch etc - whatever - you only pay for parts (not labour) there is say a 1 in 160 chance that you may have to find around £1000 for an engine rebuild - from the money already saved by being on the Plan and from being thousands better off than if you were paying the extra for a Porsche warranty and their service and repair costs instead. Great cars and affordable (particularly under our scheme) despite the very rare failure of one of those slightly weak areas that have emerged. Baz

Hi Henry Being honest i dont think your worry will leave you now. When i first went for a boxster, i worried about it mechanically all the time, with good reason, the RMS started to leak badly, the clutch went stiff and needed replacing, and there were signs of head gasket failure, all in a low miles car with full history. The first 996 i viewed had low miles, 98 car, i almost bought it, but turned out had the dreaded mayoniasse, after all manner of investigations it could of cost a fortune and i left well alone. I eventually found another and traded in the boxster, but i always had worries about the new 996, i never loved the car. Eventually i got the 993, and every drive im thinking this car is reliable as a new Audi, i never worry, he never misses a beat, hes pretty bullet proof, lets be honest the 996 was a step in the wrong direction. The 997 is everything the 996 should have been. I suspect your worry will not go away, think of possibly changing to a 997 sometime in future? or just go classic air cooled!!! Suprising what a comfortable cruiser the 993 can be I flipped out and went crazy over the last few weeks and considered a 996, im better now though, and if i changed it would be 3.2 Carerra in an air cooled stylee, or 997 in modern stylee.

Just to clarify, "Mayonnaise" is not an issue in the common occurrence in the oil filler neck of the 996/997s. It is just where oil and water vapour from the engine combustion process has combined as an emulsion from condensation. The oil filler neck is a long, cold way from the heat of the engine and this is completely normal (and harmless). It is indicative of short runs, or simply cold weather. Wipe off and go for longer runs. Of course emulsion (water) in the sump or oil in the coolant (tank) indicates a head gasket failure as with any internal combustion engine.

What? You mean like smegma :dont know:

Do behave! If you get smegma on short runs what you need is a good shower. That or ask matron for a bed bath. Everyone's a winner. :wink: