30 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996.1 or 996.2
Reported or suspected cause
guards red headed stepchild of 911's
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
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 report identifying a cause
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.
Reported cause
When I bought my 964 it was the guards red headed stepchild of 911's.
Leading evidence: 'guards red headed stepchild of 911's' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'guards red headed stepchild of 911's' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Clean bill of health' (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
BTW, for those following my "Drop the pan at 30K" thread, my indy dropped it today and gave it a clean bill of health.
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.
30 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 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: 20261027T044418Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Don't be offended. The popcorn comes in to play because this topic has been shredded on this forum many times and there are 2 opposing schools of thought that can drag out for days and many pages about whether there even is a problem.
Trust me there is definitely a problem and I don't think it has even been resolved in the 997.
There are way too many threads about these failures for there not to be a problem...but WTF there are a hell of a lot of car fatal car accidents every day, but I still drive...and drive what I like.
BTW, for those following my "Drop the pan at 30K" thread, my indy dropped it today and gave it a clean bill of health.
Now let me add just one more thing...
Optica,
First off, Welcome to Rennlist!
I don't know of anyone that could give you good stats on IMS failures and D-chunk for the MK I versus MK II, except Porsche, and they aren't sharing that info. Good luck in your research though.
Guys, you must be getting very thirsty after eating all of that popcorn. Here is something to wash it down with.
You are welcome!
Optical, welcome to Rennlist. As I'm sure you have surmised this can be a heated topic. Much of the problem is that no one can define whether this is a potential problem for .01% or 99% of these cars.
I can tell you this, as with the RMS issue Porsche has made continuous improvements to these motors thoughout there life cycle. For example they improved the RMS seal and went froma double row to a beefed up single row bearing for the IMS.
So I would hazard an opinion that you would generally be better off with a later model than an earlier model. How much better? Who knows, but I (this is just my personal opinion) think the issues have been somewhat overblown so the real differences are probably slight.
Good luck with your choice.
OPTICAL TDI,
Welcome aboard!
We usually don't see this question pop up until about January every year when the Holidays are over and things get a little boring for the Northerners who are getting cabin fever and just want to pick a fight. LOL!
I would say that the probability is higher for the 996.1 solely because those cars are older, and as a group probably have more miles on them, than the 996.2, and thus more failures of all kinds. However, there are plenty of cars of both genre with absolutely no problems like that (like mine). And, yes, I will honestly qualify that last statement with a "YET." As stated before, the same problems continue right up through the 2008 997.1 series. The 997.2 Series has an entirely different motor (one-piece case/no IMS/DFI) than the previous 996's and 997's.
The .2 has a little higher displacement. It you are looking for a cabriolet then .2 is the way to go - glass rear window. I could not say if the problems you brought up are prevalent or more like hitting the Porsche Bad Luck Lottery. Even some of the upgraded engines have experienced failure. Just picked up a 2004 C4S Cab BTW so I am biased.
Buy a nice '99 MK1. It has the dual row bearing that is less prone to failure. This whole IMS bearing issue that generates so much noise is overblown,
in my opinion
.
Find a '99 with solid service records that verify regular maintenance and oil changes and getting a proper multipoint inspection (aka PPI) that includes an oil analysis and a through reading of the ECU codes will help you avoid problem cars. Plan to reserve $5K or so for the first two years of ownership as you will want to refresh certain wear items (shifter, suspension, engine mounts, driver's side window regulator, etc.)
By the way, every generation of 911 has it's issues. When I bought my 964 it was the guards red headed stepchild of 911's. The imminent catastrophic engine issues that are supposedly inherant never materialized. Now you can't buy one for a resonable price, they are that desirable. (Full disclosure - it has minor oil leaks.) Years ago I avoided an otherwise immaculate '75 911 that I could have bought for a song due to overblown fears of impending engine failure.
If you take your time and buy a well sorted car you will be fine.
One of the best parts of the MK1 cars is that they have the original unaltered (and unloved by the masses) headlights that the conoscienti recognize as a beautiful design element with historical precedent of the most beautiful car in the world as certified in 1997.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
