fullymatted.
Back to search
Rennlist

Possible new 996 owner

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

Discussion summary

YOUR RESEARCHPossible new 996 owner

Leading reported evidence

Check any of the more recent 27,597 posts

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

RMS is no big deal - check any of the more recent 27,597 posts on the topic.

Original post Read captured discussion
Possible new 996 owner
Read full discussion summary

Leading evidence: 'Check any of the more recent 27,597 posts' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check any of the more recent 27,597 posts' (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 · 5 captured posts examined · 0 partial discussions

Compare 1 other evidence results

Test )

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

Good luck and get PPI (and maybe compression test).

Original post Read captured discussion
Possible new 996 owner
Frequently discussed actions (2)

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

Check any of the more recent 27,597 posts

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

RMS is no big deal - check any of the more recent 27,597 posts on the topic.

Original post Read captured discussion
Possible new 996 owner

Test )

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

Good luck and get PPI (and maybe compression test).

Original post Read captured discussion
Possible new 996 owner
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.

5 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: 20261026T135432Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources

POST 1 / ORIGINAL POSTEROriginal post

Hi All, Well its appears that I am being lured by the 'Dark side' of the force (or should that be the wet side!) from my 964 to a 996 ! I looking to trade in my 1990 964 turbo bodied cab for a 996 coup, with a GT3 aero kit. So what do I need to look for, or avoid in a potential purchase? I'm looking at a 97-01 MY car. I have about �25K to spend. I've heard that some 996 have issues with the rear oil seal, which is a lot easier/cheaper to fix on a manual than a Tip, is this a real problem? The cars I've been ofered range from 35K to 70K miles. All with FPSH etc. Thanks for any advice , Rob

POST 2Original post

I'm unsure that the 996 was offered in 97, perhaps that just the UK? The RMS issues I don't believe is a large problem, but if it does leak they apparently have a new seal which seems to resolve the issue.

POST 4Original post

RMS is no big deal - check any of the more recent 27,597 posts on the topic.

POST 5Original post

agree with riad, maybe in UK they sold 996 in 98 (MY 97), but not in U.S. In British 911 mags I have seen ref to 98 models but this may be sale year, not MY. One tip I picked up in this forum is that early MY 98 and before (maybe jun 98), which are detectable by amber bottom portion of headlight cluster, have had cylinder sleeve bonding issues. Reportedly, they fixed this and to differentiate later models went to all clear headlight clusters. Of course, 1) this may not be true or 2) owner may have changed out headlights. Good luck and get PPI (and maybe compression test). But I would try to get a SY 99 or later to avoid any putative problems. RMS should not be a concern.

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