Engine Replacement V

Just thought I would start a thread for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to post their BS they so believe in. No need to have supporting facts. No need to have proof. No need to have REAL data. No need to have..........well you get the picture. Just anybody with a bad taste in their mouth and just wants to preach their gospel. Have at it all you Bob's........

LOL! I knew there would be a "Engine Replacement V"

By starting "Engine Replacement V" does it officially close, lock, and finally end "Engine Replacement IV?" If so, I'll drink to that (and I don't normally drink)!

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif

Here we go!. I will just watch from the sidelines.

Oh dear! Its gonna get ugly.

Even the Rocky movies ended at V

Let me see. I have had my car for 5 1/2 years now. About 40,000 miles (wish I got to dirve it more). No RMS, no leaks, no white smoke, no blow-ups, no disintegrations, no holes in the case, etc. etc. Basically no real problems. I guess by the measure of some of our fellow members (who shall remain nameless) my engine must be defective by "Porsche Standards" because it continues to runs without problems. Think PCA will give me a new engine so I can have some problems, the dealer doesn't seem to think I have a case. I'm tired of having nothing to compalin about. Oh well!

maybe if I drove it instead of Dirved it, it wold break.

Beginning with the 2007 models, Porsche is going to completely eliminate the need for oil changes. When your car hits 20,000 miles, they will replace the engine� at no charge. Porsche figures with all of the experience their maniacs, er... make that� mechanics have gotten replacing a particular group of 84 engines (noted elsewhere), it will be cheaper to change the engines than it will be to change the oil.

These thing really are like Ferraris!

why would anyone need to replace a porsche engine? these things are bulletproof..

actually they're filming number VI i have a feeling that we can save that thread for the 997 guys when they start to complaine . I'm at 40,000kms or so....and my car has cost me less than the average mazda protege or honda civic. full stop. no seriously, the extra 15-20$ it costs to fill the tank gets me exactly the same if not more mileage because i take the highway everywhere instead of goin thru the city i don't care if i win the lottery, strike oil in my backyard, or retake iraq, iran, quatar and all the other oil sheikhdoms in a coup d'etat, no matter what level of wealth i acheive..there will be a 911 in the garage.

Ok, I will start. 997 S with broken piston rings. Defective engine. Nothing the owner did or did not due to cause this failure.

Broken intermediate shaft. Nothing the owner did wrong. Porsche went from a double to a single bearing on the end of the shaft. Bad design change.

hey Tool Pants, what's the red 993 on the lift in for? (I'm guessing it's not getting the engine replaced )

Nothing up Porsche's sleeve. Porsche took defective engine blocks and bored out the cylinders. Pressed in sleeves. That is how you keep up with production. And never admit it happened. The result. Catastrophic engine failure. Never happened. Must be the owner's fault.

And speaking of cylinders. Sometimes just one cracks. Funny how it is always just one. You drove it to hard. You did not drive it hard enough. Darn. Bore it out. Put a sleeve in. That's what Porsche did after all.

Dell - you cannot be as pompous and errogant as you sound. This is really over the top, even for you. BS we so belive in? Do you want me to fax you the $7200 in receipts I got this week for having my car repaired? Do you want Bob to fax you his $18K in receipts? What more proof are you looking for? Are you really that blind, or are you scared to admit that this happens? Maybe if it happens to you, you will believe it. I can't wait to read your posts then. This thread is not constructive at all. Just more name-calling and bashing by the stats professor. I took your crappy class when I was in school, and thinking back to my professor, Dr. Wolmer, I can see why you are so out of touch with reality. No social graces, just "this is the way it is because I say so." I have said before that I do not wish any bad will on anyone, but if I were to change my mind, you would be at the top of the list my friend.

Hey, what the heck. Dealer calls today to inform me that my wifes Boxster (second engine at 14k miles) has experienced an internal malfunction. Glad they diagnosed this one, because I had no idea since engine parts were literally pooring out the bottom while it was being loaded onto the flatbed. Dont enjoy the sounds of aluminum and steel hitting the steel bed of the tow truck.. New (reman, probably) engine is in stock in will be installed shortly. Wonder if Honda or Toyota stocks complete engines?

Have we talked about broken camshafts yet? There are 4 on each car. The first picture shows a broken camshaft. But only one of the 4 broke. The second picture is another camshaft problem. The funny thing is both of these 996s were in the shop the same day. 2 cars with the same problem in the shop the same day. But Porsche did change the design. I bet the owners use to drive Fords

So what do we have here? This was a new 986 2.7 with "zero miles" when I took the picture. Did not even have plates. Porsches must leak or you are a bad owner. For those that know this engine. Also look at the 3 bolts for the intermediate shaft flange at the bottom of the pic and in the middle you see a hole. The end of the shaft has sheared off and that is why there is a hole. Guess what comes out of that hole. Texas tea. And very fast. Now back to the usual rennlist stuff. But you are all wrong in my book for making fun of Bob. Plus I have a few thousand Porsche pictures I have collected over almost 7 years of Boxstering if you keep it up.

A Doctor can show me pictures of his cancer patients, but he still can't convince me that everyone is doomed to get cancer, even if he has been taking pics of every patient he has ever saw. I would think that if it's your job to fix engines that you probably see some broken engines . There's like a billion 996s out there so of course there is gonna be more of them failing. Anway the fact remains that noone has any numbers, no data - just a few guys on a random message board who had bad experiences with their Porsche. Based on only the internet message boards, the VAST number of 996's are treating their owners right and serve as reliable daily drivers. btw - I hope some of those carbon deposits in those pics were caused by the failure itself, and weren't there before hand.

Tool Pants you too suffer from Bob's blindness. Knowone is saying this won't happen. It is the PERCENTAGE of all cars made that are affected that is the crux of the argument. And I would put to you as I have put to Bob, ad nauseam, that overall percentage is VERY SMALL.

But how do you know that? And what constitutes very small? Man, I hate getting the Feds involved, but I don't think that it would be a bad idea if there was a requirement that each manufacturer was required to share critical repair data with the public. I believe the car buying public would like to know for example how many 996s had oil leaks and how many had their engines replaced. As a person who is in the market for either a 996 or 997, I tend to agree that the incidence of engine and seal replacements is small, but these problems are nevertheless troubling. From an anecdotal perspective, I don't see threads on the forums of other high performance cars regarding engine replacements or RMS. Also as I posted earlier, I have come across a high percentage of used 996s with engine replacements in MD but my sample size is infinitesimal. Although all of this anecdotal information hasn't turned me away from 996s, it certainly has made me a much more critical shopper.

ouch that second picture doesn't look pretty.. broken intermediate shaft sounds much better than actually seeing it in pictures :> toolpants: do you have a picture of a rod being thrown through the block? curious to compare.. joe: btw, i WISH my repair bill was only $18,000.. don't want to bring up the figure again to **** off the locals, but let's just say, i could have bought a nice new boxster "cash" with the repair costs in 1,100 miles of ownership.. ps: i love how everytime someone complains about their gripes tieh 996 engine issues ..it's automatically my fault, and my name comes up as the one to blame (after all, i am responsible for the creation of all 100,000+ 996s on the road silly).. i feel special...maybe give it a name, everytime you bring up engine failure... how does "bobitiis" sound?

Pardon my ignorance Tool Pants, but what does the intermediate shaft drive on these motors?

"Can't we all just get along" - Rodney King

Wasn't he beaten with wooden sticks?

This is about the same thing I think My brother used to live in Monroe, moved a few years ago, 160 Stage Rd, he ran for mayor up there....lost

I would suggest spend the energy on collecting specific information on engine failure VIN, YEAR, Miles, Model get some real info go on the other forums and collect all you can. until then this is just a conversation with no end Engine Replacement XXX will be awaiting

Ease up Joe. The thread was meant in jest. Just trying to have a little fun. Think of it like a SNL skit. We know that the problems exeist, we know that Porsche conveniently turns away, but we also have NO idea how pervasive the problem is. Therefore, conjecture and humor is the best medicine. Didn't mean to offend or come across as arrogant. I will tell you (not you specifically) my stance as I have said over and over. I feel for ANYBODY that has had to go through something like this. I don't wish it on ANYBODY. I want to hear others stories. But what I don't care for is preaching the gospel of bitterness and trying to drag anybody down with possible (see example of Bob). And of course the most important (to me that is) is those people liek kBob that like to extrapolate imaginary numbers from an internet post(s). As a stats professor (and there are others here on the board) it just boggles my mind that anybody can come to a conclusion like.......it must have rained since the ground is wet. Not always the case. If you do your homework and gets the facts compiled in a proper way then I will listen.

Guys, two things please. When you refer to bobporsche996, please spell it out. I don't want PCNA confusing him with me! Dell, my favorite example is a correlation which proves that turning on the seatbelt light causes turbulence in airplanes.

Dell does say some unforntunate things (we got into it about POS 350Zs once) bur he is a dedicated owner who contributes alot........I mean I never knew there was such a thing as commercials for strippers , but you are the one who goes ON & ON. Fix the car, sell it, and move on already. Actually, the pics Toolpants is posting makes the threads very interesting, fun stuff to see. All cars suffer some % of failure, unavoidable. But I haven't seen evidence that this is a widespread problem such as the M3 engine issue.

Another great one! My wife did the same thing last night. She came home and said, "there is something wrong with the car".....to which I ask what it was....her response was "when I turned on the headlights the car stalled". My response to her was, "you think that since you the car stalled at the very moment you turned the lights on, there is a problem with the lights?" Oh I just have to smile and keep loving her

Hey, I love the Z's!!!! Anyway, thanks for the compliments. Let me know if you want any of the commercials taped. I can post a sample one day so y'all can hear what I have become disensitized to.

Boy, there are some sensitive people here. I feel bad for anyone that has had to pay a lot to repair their cars - that sucks, no matter which way you cut it. However, I think that anyone that buys or drives a Porsche while it's not under warranty is exposing themselves to a certain amount of risk, and they should know that. I don't know Dell, but I perceive him as sarcastic, but not arrogant. There has seemed to be a lot of negative posts about these cars, and I think the guy was just trying to have some fun. Since 2006 seems to be the year of piling up on Dell, I'm thinking about starting a new game wherein someone starts a thread, says something silly (but masks it as true or sincere), and whoever gets the strongest reaction out of Dell wins. I'm just trying to figure out how to judge the contest and what the prize should be.

The prize? That's easy! A rebuilt 996 engine with no warranty. Obvious no?

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/roflmao.gif

LOL..too funny Dell.

I don't think anybody has piled up on me. Also, I take NOTHING personally. You have to have thick skin to take some of the crap that is posted here. As for getting the strongest reaction out of me......ain't gonna happen. As I have said before--I am done replying to the "Bob" type rants.

At the risk of annoying Dell, I have followed the engine replacement threads and I am a bit disturbed by the number of failed engines. I am also watching a thread about transmissions failures. Transmission Failure Has some of the legendary toughness been lost with the new designs? Having been on the list server for 15 years or more, I don't recall hearing about engine and transmission replacements before. The stories began with the Boxster and early 996 - improper casting of the engine case. Porsche replaced engines promptly - a good thing I thought since they had a supplier problem and acted quickly to correct it. Are those engines the ones which were rebuilt with sleeves? Sleeves which has shown a propensity to slip or fail? This is very thought provoking if not statistically valid. Rgds,

That's it, you and me out behind the schoolhouse! J/K no chance of annoying me Bob "not BobPorsche996" Rouleau

Ok Dell, you've called me out. I'll bring my six (sigma) shooter.

Watch out! I said the same thing 10K mi. ago and now I'm eating crow and paying close to $9K to get my car back on the read. Don't try to pretend there are no problems in fear it will hurt your cars value. There are real propblems, not with every car, not with most cars, but few too many based on my own personal basis. 1999 996 61K mi - Engine Toasted - Cyl # 2 failed.

May I ask a question, in all seriousness... When you have a RMS leakage problem, how much oil are we talking about? Bill

Joe - be sure to check out my new website coming soon to report your failure: 996classaction.com

I do not but there was one at my dealer a few months ago. A 1999 C4. I could not take pictures because when I was there the car had already been taken off the lift and pushed outside the shop. So how about a rod through a piston instead?

Joe, FWIW, you may want to at least put up an e-mail address on the site...

mine is.

Mine 2 I drive hard and rev high every chance I get without abusing it - just like it was made to do... every single day. 85k miles and I don't burn or drip any oil and it's as strong as ever. When my car turns 100,000miles I may put in an EVOMS supercharger.. just for because.

Toolpants, Thanks for the pictures. I've followed much of your input (especially with respect to Boxsters) for some time now - very informative. I have a question regarding engine failure in the 3.6 cars. I'm assuming this is a much more rare event than in the 3.4 model (mainly due to sleeving problems on the 3.4s). Is this an accurate assumption? Frankly, the only issues that have a hesitating (and only a small bit) are intermediate shaft and slipped sleeve issues resulting in engine failure. The RMS issue is manageable for me. TIA, Joe 1995 Porsche 993 1988 BMW E30 M3 2.5 (240HP) daily - SOLD - probably will replace with a 996 3.6 1988 BMW 325is - mine again

Porsche did not sleeve 996 engines.

jm: check the 84 engine replacements thread and you will see that the engine replacements are pretty fair distribution wise between 3.4 and 3.6.. doesn't seem to matterf.. although 00 and 01 seemed to be a good year..

Well, if and when I need a new engine, let's hope they've corrected whatever it is that's prone to failure. So far though, my engine seems pretty solid. I wonder if it has anything to do with how I 'broke it in'. I recall hardly ever shifting into sixth gear, and keeping the revs between 3,000 and 5,000. I think one of the worst things for these engines is to push them in a high gear at low revs. That, and downshfting from fifth to second at speed!

Paul I have always wondered the same thing. If you look at the engines that failed in Bob's thread you will notice that a very large percentage of them are very low mileage cars with most having somwhere between 10k-20k miles on them when the engine failed (if I remember right). I always wondered with such low mileage whether it was truly an engine/manufacturer problem or an initial break-in problem. Since it seems that many are second owners it would be difficult to ever know. However, the low mileage also be one of those situations where if it is defective then it blows more quickly similar to what they say about electronic items in that if they are going to fail they will more likely fail early vs. later if they are going to fail (abuse notwithstanding obviously).

I recall hardly ever shifting into sixth gear, and keeping the revs between 3,000 and 5,000. I think one of the worst things for these engines is to push them in a high gear at low revs. There's no evidence that driving at lower RPM ranges would cause an engine to blow. I'm very skeptical that it would. Even if it would cause engines to blow, why would it only occur on Porsche engines? It's inconceivable that only Porsche drivers would drive in a manner you believe to be dangerous to engine longevity. If you visit other car performance forums, vette, M3, viper, you won't see any threads focussing on engine replacements, at least not on the forums that I visit. I believe that it's unfair to suggest that the drivers of these cars with blown engines are somehow at fault. It's far more likely that they had defective engines. Unfortunately, we don't have any way of determing just how widespread the problem is. Only Porsche knows for sure, and they aren't talking.

I wasn't impying that drivers are to blame for their engines blowing (although a small percentage probably are due to driver error or abuse), but I was just pointing out why my engine may have been spared any problems.

Paul: Keeping the RPMs high is working for you anyway, and who knows maybe you are on to something. It can't be good for your gas mileage however.

while we're arguing about failing engines and transmissions.... the ppl in the vette forums are complaining about plastic dashes and falling off interior trim

On the boards, I notice several people stating that there is no need to do the 2,000 mile break-in, and that you can "drive it like you stole it" almost immediately. There are also several people complaining about engines. As Paul stated, I wonder if the two are related. I do know I took care to break-in the car properly, and now take in to the track extensively. Bulletproof is a term I would use for the C4S. Pushing the engine in low revs is known as lugging. There is a specific recommendation in BOLD letters in the manual to NOT do so. Again, agreeing with Paul.

Careful Palting, you're not allowed to suggest owners had anything to do with engine failures. We simply have to accept that they treated the cars absolutley perfectly. Therefore, accepting that notion, it must be a design flaw, and therefore Porsches problem. This argument, along with rejecting the statistical inevitabilty of failures, is what is giving this whole saga its oxygen.

It would be noticable on your garage floor, but it's a small amount of oil. Rob

Don't know if this has anything to do with it, but on the days the 'master techs' aren't building GT3/2/TT motors, they do the regular line 996 engines.

so if this is the case why isn't it happening to porsche twin turbos? i suppose the owners of porsche TTs are MUCH MUCH more educated on how to treat a vehicle than us measly 996 owners.. that's what you are conveying correct? as there doesn't seem to be TT engine problems, that 996 NA drivers in general just dont' know how to treat a car.. perfect logic..

How the hell would you know Bob? Are you privy to every Porsche service centre in the world? This forum is not the centre of the universe.I am sorry but out it comes....you are a complete moron.

That's true. But I don't drive as fast as often as I used to. I open it up now and then for about 20 seconds a pop, but I drive much more sedately these days. This is due to the frequency of getting ticketed for speeding around here more than anything else. My warranty ends at 100,000 miles, so I just hope that anything that's going to fail does so soon...

I am not a statistician but obviously neither are you. Did it even occur to you that the reason why there aren't as many reports of TT engines failing as much as NA engines failing is because Porsche sells significantly more NA cars than Turbos ? Just as an example, in 2004 Porsche sold 228 Turbo Coupes and 17 Turbo S Cabs versus 1245 Carreras, 126 Targas, 1107 Carrera Cabriolets, 789 Carrera 4S Coupes, 82 Carrera 4 Cabriolets, and 1387 Carrera 4S Cabriolets (plus another 1100+ 997s.) Please do some research before you make ridiculous observations like that. Yeah, Bob, perfect logic.

Paul - Why don't you admit it. The only reason that you keep your engine at the 3K+ range is that you've become addictied to the beautiful music Porsche engines play at high RPMs.

munro: i'm taking observations from both of the 996 and TT forums.. i found 84 on the 996 forum and 0 on the TT forum.. now if you want to talk non forum visitors.. nobody has any idea.. but obviously that number would extrapolate quite significantly... programm: well if you want to bring "numbers" into the situation.. i found 84 non-rms related engine replacemants on the 996 forum.. how many TT engine replacements did you find on the TT forum?

Again, Bob, this forum is not the only source of information about Porsche problems. You found 84 non-RMS related engine replacements in the 996 forum. So what?! What percentage is that, Bob, of the total number of NA cars out there? How many 996 owners are members of this forum? 1,000, 2,000, even 3,000? Back to my point about the Turbo... how many Turbo owners are members of this forum? 100? 200? How many of them actually post on a regular basis? How many of them never bothered report their engine failure? You just don't know, do you? You really are clueless about statistics. You take arbitrary numbers from posts you read and make sweeping generalizations to suit whatever you want to believe. Forget scientific principles, you just want to believe so badly you pull numbers out of you a$$. Plus, the sales numbers I quoted above are just for 2004. Multiply that by 7 (for argument's sake let's start from 1999 to present) and you get the idea. There are a hell of a lot more NAs than TTs! It just makes it that more statistically possible to have an engine failure in a NA car!

the gt1 gt2 gt3 993 993tt and the 964 all share the same block. the boxster and 996 except for the tt and gt3 use a new engine design. if you want to speculate about stats keep that in mind.

You found 84 non-RMS related engine replacements in the 996 forum. So what?! What percentage is that, Bob, of the total number of NA cars out there? How many 996 owners are members of this forum? 1,000, 2,000, even 3,000 Implicit in your observation is that all rennlist forum members with blown engines have notified Bob. My expectation is that there are other members of the forum who have had their 996 engines replaced under warranty, and don't want to volunteer that information. Porsche knows what the exact numbers are, and I wonder if a company like J D Powers would have access to that information.

Exactly my point. Thanks fast1. Who knows? Maybe there are 200 members of Rennlist who have had blown engines and just didn't bother to report it. We just don't know. We also don't know how many members of Rennlist own NA 996s and Boxsters that have not had engine problems. My point is just because Bob found 84 non-RMS related engine failures does not necessarily mean there is a manufacturing defect. Unless we get all the numbers there is really no way to tell. Bob's extrapolation is flawed.

Aside from the obvious differences in the cars themselves, there are other significant differences between the NA 911 and the TT/GT2/GT3. Bob brought up a point about the owners of these cars being different, and I actually agree! One GT2 owner I know in our PCA region sold his 3 year old GT2 for a 996, because he couldn't quite drive the GT2 like he stole it. Did he follow the break-in period for his GT2? To the last mile, and then some. Did he follow the break-in period for his C2? He drove it at DE with the temp tags still on it. The GT2 would probably never have broken, and his C2 may likely be making a few extra visits to the service dept. We can extropolate this ad infinatum ( or is it ad nauseum).

Prog, your sales data looks like monthly data. Here's what I got from the Porsche 2004 annual sales report: "Dealers' deliveries of the 911 worldwide in the review year [2004/2005] totaled 29,545 units, 21 percent more than in the 2003/04 fiscal year." FYI, 10,327 of those 911 cars were sold in North America. So, Prog, I totally agree with your logic, but my argument strengthens your point even more. Basically, there's a hell of a lot more 911s on the road than you think. How many of them have RMS and catastrophic engine failure? Who knows. At least 84, I guess....right, Bob996 (how's that Bob Rouleau?). Again, it's not disputed that cars have had some serious problems; I just don't know what percentage it represents in order to draw some more serious conclusions. Joe has the best and most constructive idea with his web site. Let's see what it reveals over time and then go from there. If it is significant, Porsche will then be forced to deal with it.

Again, it's not disputed that cars have had some serious problems; I just don't know what percentage it represents in order to draw some more serious conclusions. Joe has the best and most constructive idea with his web site. Let's see what it reveals over time and then go from there. If it is significant, Porsche will then be forced to deal with it. It would be interesting to compare the number of blown engines on '02 M3s, I was the owner of one, and the number of blown engines on 996s. BMW reacted very quicky to the problem, and did a massive recall to correct the problem. They also extended the warranty on those rebuilt engines.

fast1...you need to do a bit more than just compare differing marques. You would need to get the data on the total number of 02 M3's sold and what % of those blew. Then for a really accurate comparison (which we know CAN'T be done) obtain all NA M96 engines blown and compare that to the TOTAL number of NA M96 engines blew. My guess would be to sample the 99 specifically. I woulld actually like to see the numbers broken out across the model years of the NA M96 life cycle. Now, if you could compile ALL that info and the numbers are similar (%) then you have a good case legally against PAG/PCNA.

Hey Edward, You're right. The numbers I was looking at were for YTD October 2004. I couldn't find the numbers broken down between each of the 996 models including the Turbo for the entire FY 2004. Anyway, yes, there are a hell of a lot more NA cars than TT cars (plus, the NA has a 2 year headstart -- they didn't make the 996 TT until 2000). http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...01/147198.html

I went back to the thread with the 84 failed engines.. unfortunately over 1/2 didn't post their model year.. but for the ones that did.. including mine, joes and the european car ones that were not specifically mentioned.. this is what I found.. The 1999 (First Year of the 3.4 Has Over 10 Times as Many Failures as the Next Model Year 2000) The 2002 (First Year of the 3.6 Has Almost 5 Times as Many Failures as the Next Model Year 2003) Now one can say this is anicdotal and pure speculation, BUT from a small number of cases... it sure looks like porsche knew something was wrong with the 99s and fixed it in 2000.. same with 2002/2003.. what it was, we wouldn't know without a lawsuit with discovery and depositions... let's say they did know something was wrong with the 99 engine, (which it sure as hell looks like from the stats of 00 failures..) wouldn't one agree that they should be responsible for the costs incurred in replacing a faulty produced engine for 99 MY owners? 99 - 21 Engine Failures NON-RMS Related 00 - 2 Engine Failures NON-RMS Related 01 - 6 Engine Failures NON-RMS Related 02 - 10 Engine Failures NON-RMS Related 03 - 2 Engine Failures NON-RMS Related 04 - 1 Engine Failures NON-RMS Related

Dude you can't extrapolate anything from that data, all you have is an observation nothing more.

doug, do you think it's pure coincidence there are 21 99 failures and 2 00 failures reported on the forums? The odds of 6 to 2, coincidence maybe, 8 to 2, potentially, but 21 to 2? i question how you can simply dismiss this as absolute and proof positive coincidence.. while it may be in the end, it should make you wonder regardless...

Actually, you are probably onto something, but it cannot be proven from your sample. What you have is a relatively small number of reported failures on internet forums. An interesting, albeit scientifically anecdotal, observation that demands further study. I would guess that most 996 owners do not post on the internet car forums, and the number of p car owners who do post problems are an even smaller number. Unfortunately only Porsche knows the real numbers and they ain't talking. I personally feel the mass produced m96 engine is not nearly as "good" as the older Porsche engines, but that said mine has been very reliable and bulletproof so far.

Bob996, I don't know what we can draw from this at all, but I will commend you for spending the time going through the threads and compiling the available data. I just wish you recognized that it does not NECESSARILY provide us with any greater clarification. However, your hypothesis that something seems amiss with the first model year cars is very interesting. Indeed.

Unfortunately only Porsche knows the real numbers and they ain't talking. I personally feel the mass produced m96 engine is not nearly as "good" as the older Porsche engines, but that said mine has been very reliable and bulletproof so far. I think that is a very fair statement. Also, I don't think that I'd be going out on a limb to say that the vast majority of 996 engines have not blown. So my question would be that if there is a defect in the 996 engine design, why aren't a lot more of these engines blowing? These engines have been around for around 7 years, and I'd be surprised if more than 5% have blown. Having said that if 5% is about right, that's still a significant failure rate IMO. So the question is why did these 5% fail?

I don't think that 5% is about right... where did you get 5% from? 5% seems over excessive but then I have no concrete numbers to back up that claim either. Bob has found 84 reports of engine failures out of an average of 29,000+ 996 cars sold every year since 1999! Who knows how many went unreported. Say the number is 10 times that or 840 failures -- that is less than .4% of the 203,000+ 996 cars sold since 1999! Again, 5% is an arbitrary number with no basis in fact. We will never know unless we get official numbers. All this speculating does not prove anything one way or the other.

Bob has found 84 reports of engine failures out of an average of 29,000+ 996 cars sold every year since 1999! Who knows how many went unreported. Say the number is 10 times that or 840 failures -- that is less than .4% of the 203,000+ 996 cars sold since 1999! My 5% is a pure guess, but why multiply by 10?. About 200,000 996 owners of the 203,000 that you listed are not rennlist members. Let's assume that Bob has captured 100% of the engine failures among rennlist members, extremely unlikely but possible, so the multiple would be 200,000/3,000 or 66. This is assuming that there are about 3K rennlist members who have owned 996s. Since there are so many unknows here - how many rennlist members have owned 996s, how many have had their 996 engines replaced, how many have reported their replacements on this forum - that's it's pointless to pretend that there is some scientific method of determining the number of replaced 996 engines. Hence, I merely guessed at the 5%. Hopefully a company like J D Powers may have access to this data and would be willing to share it. I know Porsche does, but somehow I believe that they will be mum on the subject.

Finally, something we both can agree on. 0.4%, 5% even 20% -- we will never know unless we get real numbers from Porsche. All this speculating and extrapolating is useless. By the way, just because you roll a dice 10 times and you rolled a six 4 out of 10 times does not mean if you roll the dice 1,000 times that you will roll a six 400 times. It can be more. It can be less. Your notion of why not multiply the 84 failures by 66 is again just a guess. It is all about sample size and even 3,000 Rennlist members is not a statistically significant sample.

More Stats: Take these figures as you want.. (Many of the 99 Owners didn't indicate the mileage their 99 MY failed engine..) Seems pretty random.. Odd how none over 50,000 I could find for ANY model year for all 84 failures found.. interesting observation.. of course i don't have any big enough numbers to make anything out of it, than.. most people just don't drive their 996s much as other cars? Confirmed 1999 Model Year and Mileage on Engine When Failure Occured: 99 - 6k 99 - 8k 99 - 17k 99 - 27k 99 - 30k 99 - 34k 99 - 34k 99 - 35k 99 - 44k 99 - 49k 99 - 50k 99 - 50k 99 - 50k

Search through ALL NON-RMS Related Engine Failures through February 1st, 2006: Interesting.. I did the same type of search (most 996 owners once again didn't specify the year of their 996.. so I could only include the ones which indicated their MY) with the 3.6L engine 02-04 MY look at the difference in mileage when the engine failed due to a non-rms related issue vs the 99s.. 02 - 2k 02 - 3k 02 - 4k 02 - 10k 02 - 10k 02 - 11k 02 - 12k 02 - 13k 02 - 14k NO FAILURES Reported Over 14,000 Miles for MY 2002 as of 02/01/2006 03 - 8K 03 - 13k 03 - 19k NO FAILURES Reported Over 19,000 Miles for MY 2003 as of 02/01/2006 NO FAILURES Found For MY 2004 Cars as of 02/01/2006 Looks like porsche slowly found flaws and corrected them over the years... not a single engine failure for an 04 found.. --- Only 1 3.6L Engined 996 Over 14,000 Miles Confirmed Reported (19,000) --- these low mileage failures on the 3.6L do look really odd, in contrast to the mid failures with the 3.4L.. the only thing I can think of is a manufacturing defect.. ?? (i don't think 02 drivers would drive any differently vs a 99 owner) why aren't we seeing higher mileage failures than 14,000 on the 3.6L like the 3.4L?? Interesting.. 02s came out in 01.. so we are talking about 5 year old cars here, and i'm sure most all 2002 drivers have a lot more than 14,000 miles on their car.. anyone else find it odd how all the failures appear at extremely low mileage for the first batch of 3.6Ls and for the 3.4Ls it's pretty spread out? Everyone hates my opinions on the matter, so i'll leave it up to you guys to take it as you wish.. once again, these are very small number we are working with.. but it's better than nothing... all i can say is, if i was shopping for a 2002 996 with a warranty about to expire or expired, i'd probably avoid low mileage ones... keep in mind, as fast1 said, 99% of 996 owners are not rennlist members and 1/2 of the failures reported online aren't listed as the owners didn't indicate the model year... so one can't speculate how far-reaching the problem is.. or isn't, as over 99% of failures we can't even begin to speculate about..

^ you know, not everyone necessarily "hates" your opinions, as you said. I appreciate the fact that you at least seem to keep your temper in check when so many people argue with you about what you OBVIOUSLY believe so strongly in. The information you put up is interesting, and I really wish we knew more about what any of this stuff means. I wish we could do a poll of every single Porsche owner who ever lived and get the history on every piece of maintenance performed. I want to see graphs and charts all color-coded and accurate to .0001%. Until then, I don't know what to make of any of this info. All the *I* know for sure, is that *my* 99 996 runs really great except for a few rattles here and there.

Bob, once again you are drawing conclusions from a statistically insignificant sample size. Those numbers you listed are interesting but absolutely worthless at best. You cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from those numbers. You are merely guessing. I really suggest you read a basic book on statistics (is there a Statistics for Dummies book?) so you can see that what you are doing is a waste of time without real data.

programmatore, as i said over and over again, we are working with EXTREMELY low numbers and one can't come to any definitate conclusions about anything.. but I, like many others i'm sure find what little info we do have to be maybe potentially valuable... for someone looking at buying a MY 1999 or a 2002 with only a few thousand miles, I would think this information would be VERY important... it looks like once one is over the 15,000 hump for the 3.6L engine, one is out in the clear... and for the 3.4L ..the 99 has all the problems, while 00 problems seem to have been corrected... but this is of course looking at stats from way less than 1% of cars out there.. but then again, lots of polls out there, take numbers from much less than 1% of the population.. so who knows.. regardless, take the research as you want... there is no need to criticize everything i say.. take the information as you wish.. as it's less than 1% of actual numbers of what is out there.. but like has been said before, what else do we have? porsche ain't talkin.... if you don't use this information, fine, but i don't think criticizing me for doing some research that MAY be helpful to some is needed and I have to stand up for myself and think many would agree with me.. i think these posts are relevant to some potential or current porsche owners, and if you dont' find them relevant, then don't pay attention to them.. no need to criticize every thing i say, just because "i" say it... i'm just reposting data i've researched.. the results are by no means definite or an indication of anything.. take them as you wish.. you obviously have a 00 and should be very happy with the results ..that 00 only has 2 reported failures online i could find.. i like your sig btw

Bob - You have obviously put a lot of time in gathering the data that you post , and I for one am appreciative of your efforts. The fact that the '04s seen to be holding up well doesn't surprise me, since most car models have the best quality in their last year of production. The manufacturer has had many years to identify and correct problems, and of course the fewer the problems, the more profits are retained by the manufacturer. Hence, the manufacturer is highly motivated to produce a trouble free car.

Add mine to your stats. My '99 C2 is in for a new engine at 42,000 miles. Dealer thinks it's a porous block. Porsche USA are picking up the new engine leaving me $6,500 for installation, cooling system and a few odds and ends (including the coolant tank).

Fair enough, Bob. Sorry if I came off as being dismissive of your efforts. You have obviously spent a lot of time on the boards to get that data. As I have said before, the numbers aren't of enough statistical significance to come to any conclusions but they are interesting. The old adage about getting the newest car that you can afford does seem to apply in this case. Like you I am frustrated with the lack of concrete numbers from Porsche. I too would love to see a definitive answer -- either positive or negative -- to put this issue to rest. I liked the "Attention *****" emoticon in your sig. I just took it to the next level with my emoticon Bobs.

Prog, I love your emoticons. I was dying when I first saw them. Of course, all in good fun.

Are you the original owner? If so, can you remember how you drove it when it was new?

Hmm this is getting to be a sport it seems. Another survey on failed Boxster engines. Look HERE

"the results are by no means definite or an indication of anything.".-Bob Someone get me my tablets ,I need a good lie down.

yes, and what's your point? obviously engine failure is an issue with the 996s, but nobody knows to what degree and what indications there are about what is causing the failures... until porsche releases stats (not likely) one can't come to a definite conclusion about anything other than the data we have on the forums.. btw: have you ever posted a positive post? every single post i have ever seen from you is about criticizing someone else.. is your life that miserable?

My point? My point? Surely you can't be that stupid. You have spent months and months trying to say exactly what you now deny i.e. that your copious anecdotal, untested stories actually represent something DEFINITE and INDICATE SOMETHING. So that is my point! If you can't see that, I can't help you. Keep backtracking Bob, but watch out you'll eventually fall off the earth. Your cornered and you know it.

Oh and stick to the issues-I'm deleriously happy with my unexploded Porsche!

munro, i think it's the other way around.. i don't think you are that stupid to realize what this thread is about.. it is obviously clear that there are engine issues with the 996.. is that even up for debate? my posts in this thread is about the severity of the engine replacements, what causes them, what years suffered the most failures, etc.. from an extremely small percentage of data... when you have much less than 1% of data available, then one can't come to any clear and definite or indication of anything as i said previously and one has to come to their own conclusions what these figures represent in terms of engine failures... for example, one can't say.. "all 99s have 10 times the amount of engine failures as 00s, PROOF POSITIVE" it is a mere observation from the small data available... you take another 1% ..and it could be completely different.. there just aren't enough online users to make any rational conclusion to the severity of the engine failures... if you had read my posts, you would understand this.. as said before.. think before you speak...

Are you for real? You've spent post after post trying give everyone the hee bee gee bee's about their Porsche's being explosions wating to happen. Now you've changed your tune in that you now realise that your data can't support those scare- mongering assertions. Your puerile attempts to suggest I haven't noticed your back flip is patently absurd. Think before I speak? I would be very surprised that you are capable of constructing a logically plausible narrative without resorting to voluminous histrionics. And whats more it is NOT clear that there is a SIGNIFICANT problem with the 996 engine. Again, and I'm tired of this boring repitition, YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THIS! How can you say within the last couple of posts that "the results are by no means definite or an indication of anything.".and then say " it is obviously clear that there are engine issues with the 996" Can you see the non-sequitir? Probably not or more likely you don't want to. Who knows....

Bob - The information you supplied about the engine failures by year IS very interesting. As you have already mentioned a couple of times, unfortunately there are not enough data points to draw any statistically valid conclusions about the 996 engines in general, or for the years specified. I can only imagine the amount of time and effort you have had to put in to gather the data. I wanted you to know that I appreciate those efforts. While there have been times that I haven't agreed with your opinions, I do respect them. I am sure that all of us here hope that we never have to go through the process you experienced. All in all, I do admire the way you have handled the onslaught of criticism along the way, while still maintaining your sense of humor.

How can you say within the last couple of posts that "the results are by no means definite or an indication of anything.".and then say " it is obviously clear that there are engine issues with the 996" Can you see the non-sequitir? I believe what Bob was saying was that there's not enough data to form a definitive conclusion, but 85 blown engines on relatively new cars is enough evidence to suggest that there are engine issues. I just visited popular Vette and Viper forums and did a search on blown engines, and I came up with just a few threads with almost no responses from other posters. The only other forums to have lots of threads on blown engines were the M3 forums, and of course BMW initiated a recall. So I don't believe that it's a stretch to say that there's a problem with 996 engines. What we don't know is just how widespread this problem is, and unfortunately we'll probably never know .

Here's my take on this, (FWIW). 1) There is a problem with some of the M96 engines. That's not news, Porsche did not hesitate to replace some of them. I think it is also clear that the problems were more common in earlier cars (Boxster) which suffered from the faulty casting. Those problems surfaced early on and Porsche did the right thing by replacing the engines. 2) Porsche has also replaced some 996 engines - it is not apparent what went wrong. Some failed after the warranty some before. I think the question is whether the defect is isolated or related to some flaw in the manufacturing or even the design itself. If the latter, then it is suprising that PAG does not offer an extended warranty the way BMW did. OTOH engines which failed from abuse, or fasiled after being rebuilt by someone other than the factory are not eligible for warranty coverage. I cannot and will not blame Porsche for taking *that* stance. No manufacturer would. 3) It is interesting that failures have been reported with the M96 engine whereas the M64 engine (which is not without some issues of its own) has been very reliable. Note that the M64 engine is the base for all the 964's, the 993's and the 996 GT2, GT3 and Twin Turbo. That's a lot of engines since it has been in use since 1989 (964). A search for blown 3.6 liter M64 engines which fail under mysterious circumstances turns up nothing. This suggests that there is a significant difference between the newer M96 design used in the the Boxster/996/997 and the proven M64 which lives on in the 997 TT and 997GT3 and all the Cup and LeMans race cars. 4) So, engines failed. Natural causes or not? In most cases Porsche replaced the engine under warranty. If there were know defects iin certain engines only, then Porsche did the right thing. The gray area is those that were not covered. That's hard to figure out usinig any kind of anecdotal statistics. Best,

Anything after this post is beating a dead horse (or 320 horses as the case may be). Nice summary Bob. Rob

Rob: You beat me to the punch. Bob Rouleau provided a very concise and fair summary of the engine replacement issue. Although I sympathize with those who had to pay for engine replacements, it's a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.

BMW did NO T act fast on the M3 engine issue. I was also an '02 owner and watched the debacle unfold on the internet for a long time before the manufacture did anything about it.

Is that for certain the case? Here's spec's I lifted off a site about the 996 GT3 RSR - note the engine designation: General specifications Record last updated 05 / 02 / 2005 Country of origin Germany Years of production 2001 - 2003 Numbers built N/A Body design N/A Weight 1100 kilo / 2425.1 lbs Drivetrain Engine M96/70 B 6 Engine Location Rear , longitudinally mounted Displacement 3.598 liter / 219.6 cu in Valvetrain 4 valves / cylinder, DOHC Fuel feed Bosch Motronic MS 3.1 Fuel injection Aspiration Naturally Aspirated Gearbox G96/61 6 speed Manual Drive Rear wheel drive Performance figures Power 445 bhp / 332 KW @ 8250 rpm Torque 405 Nm / 299 ft lbs @ 7200 rpm BHP/Liter 124 bhp / liter Power to weight ratio 0.4 bhp / kg Top Speed N/A 0-60 mph Acceleration N/A

I had a order for a 2001 330ci (first year the 330 was introduced) they delayed this car for six months because the engines were imploding... I took my deposit back.

You know there is something to be said about avoiding new models. I bought a BMW 530i in 1975 that was full of all kinds of trouble. I was on a first name basis with the local tow company. So maybe 1999 and 2002 are years to avoid in the 996. I lurked for quite awhile on this forum gleaning lots of info and taking some posts with a grain of salt before I bought a used 996.The same old senario plays out, the new model runs have trouble and the manufacturers are caught by surprise and have a lag time in fixing the problems.You find a lot of these models on the used market and if they are not CPO'd by Porsche you ought to beware!!!

Please check back with my new websit to report 996 engine failures: 996classaction.com. It is not up yet, but will be soon. Sorry about your failure, but I spent only $1000 on labor for remove and replacement of motor. Joe

Ross - yes that is the case (literally). The designation changed when they went to liquid cooling. The true dry sump engine in the Gt2/2 and Turbo derives from the M64 engine the case is more robust and more costly than the new engine.

hi, just ad my few cents, but over 40 boxter motors have been replaced by a local dealer here in sydney and over 30 996 motors have been replaced. i know this because we know the workshop manager at this dealership very well. infact we use to work with him. he wont give me specifics on whats going on because even he doesnt know. porsche has told them not to open up the engines but just send them back. and there is no more warranty on up to 2000 model any more. pretty slack if you ask me. porsche should really bite the bullet and replace the motors because it is their fault this is happening. its all because bean counters run porsche now and any chance there is to save a few cents they will do it. really they should have thrown out all of the defected blocks they had to sleeve(it would have cost a lot of money then,but it would have saved them money now. not only with the money they are loosing with replacing these engines but also the long term customers they are loosing.) all i can say is poor effort. Sean

That's interesting because that same engine had been used in the sedan (330i) for about a year prior to the introduction of the coupe and cabriolet with absolutely no problems. Wonder why BMW was having problems with the exact same engine in the coupe/cabriolet?

JET, Does the workshop manager know how many 996s and 986s they sold in their life cycle at that dealership? That might give us some better numbers to work with as to the severity of the problem... as car buyers usually return to the same dealers they bought the car from for warranty work...

I have no clue. My sales rep kept delaying, then finally told me they stopped production until they could figure out the problem.

i will ask him when i see him next. that should give a good comparison. i do know that some of the cars that had new engines failed as well but unsure just how many. i will try find out

I'm the second owner, but have known the car since new - it was a friend of mine's mother's car - she used it to pick her daughter up from school and go to the mall. It's never been driven hard and been babied since new. I've put around 10,000 mostly highway miles on it.

>>>> It's never been driven hard and been babied since new.<<<< While we don't have the appropriate sample size to back it up it's seeming more and more that babying these cars is not a good thing.

Can't wait to try that excuse on my girlfriend when I'm trying to explain my driving!

Honey, you don't want me to replace the engine (again?) do you?

While we don't have the appropriate sample size to back it up it's seeming more and more that babying these cars is not a good thing. Couple that driving behavior with infrequent drives, and the engine is doomed.

Not so sure I buy into any of this, drive your car do the maintenance and you should be OK. As far as the engine replacement goes I think this is more of a fact that the average Porsche driver is of above average intelligence and has generally more access to complain about issues in an intelligent manner. Also the old saying goes a pleased customer tells 2 people and an unpleased customer tells 11, problem today is that one customer complaining 11 times on the web gets out to thousands of individuals. I do feel very sorry for those who have had issues but I would place my money on the 996 engine being as reliable as at least the average motor produced today and I would purchase my car again in a second.

do i sense denial...sorry that was a tad uncalled for. it is true what you are saying rountreed about the fact people have better means as to complain but i can tell you guys something. i work for my father as a porsche specialist which i have done for 6 years, my father worked for a porsche dealership here in sydney for 16 years before opening his own porsche specialist shop which has been running for 12 years. now to the point...back in the late seventies and eighties and early nineties porsche had a variety of cars availible ranging from 911(and varients of this...turbo etc) the 924/944/968(and varients) and the 928...sure these cars had a few recalls for minor things during their life but nothing as serious as the motors today...if you say the 996 engine is as reliable as any engine made today then i dont want a new car, let alone a 996. but the fact is that these 996 and boxter engines do have a problem that cannot be denied. these engines have incredible potential if only it wasnt the bean counters at porsche that wanted to save a few dollars, which has ended up costing them more. porsche will not admit to these f@#k ups because it is bad publicity. we know many people inside porsche who have told us about these problems, not in any great detail.

Amen!

but what if it was only a select few which have this problem. what would be good is data on how many have had engine falures, but how do we get such data

Unfortunately JET951 the only way we could ever get such data would be from Porsche and the likelihood of that happening goes along with the snowball in hell. I too would love for them to release this data, but if I was them I would not solely for the reason it places potential future issues with other products. I personally believe, I know opinions are like A-holes everyone has one, the findings would say that it was not a large issue and that would result in a conspiracy or cover up theory. In short it is a lose/ lose situation from a cooperate standpoint. Again for those who have had issues I wish Porsche would help you but I just do not see that happening on cars that are 6-7 years old.

JET, Are you Bob Wyhmms son?

Its funny that this post has gotten more views and logs than all the others? Is there something to be said for the topic? If this is not a big problem(engine replacement) then why is everyone so interested?

the drama.

Everybody loves to accentuate the negative.....plain and simple. This is a polarization issue like politics and people get very emotional (especially those that have had engine problems).

Yup.. Reminds me of when I had a WRX that I bought new. On the WRX message boards, it was disturbingly evident that everyone who complained about burning a quart of oil or more in between oil changes, followed the "drive like a grandma" break-in procedure. Every single one of us that drove it like we stole it from day 1 didn't burn one ounce of oil between oil changes - none! So many people think they are saving their engines by not using the rev range- but all they are doing is contributing to carbon deposits and other maladies which will eventually harm the engine and cause all sorts of issues. By not breaking the engine in and using the engine's full RPM band, the piston rings don't get sealed properly- and they will in fact NEVER get sealed if done improperly in only the first 100miles or so! This means burning/using oil, less power, lower life-span, and possible damaged cylinder walls and pistons. Read and Heed: How to Break an Engine in PROPERLY

Here's a little excerpt from that article: Q: What is the most common cause of engine problems ??? A: Failure to: Warm the engine up completely before running it hard !!! Q: What is the second most common cause of engine problems ??? A: An easy break in !!! Because, when the rings don't seal well, the blow-by gasses contaminate the oil with acids and other harmful combustion by-products !! Ironically, an "easy break in" is not at all what it seems. By trying to "protect" the engine, the exact opposite happens, as leaky rings continue to contaminate your engine oil for the rest of the life of your engine !!

munro86, nope not whymms son, i do know graig though.

Jet, Where is your dad's workshop? I have a 996. JASON

You know, every single manufacturer recommends some type of "go easy on your engine for the first xxx miles" break-in procedure. I think I'd rather follow what the engineers say than that motoman hack.

jason pm sent

About that break-in, Porsche runs each and every engine on the dyno before installing. They do the engine break-in for you. Each and every engine is run and meets or exceeds specs (by 5%) according to the tour guide. I was touring the factory). I watched the process. I suspect the recommended break-in period on Porsches is for the rest of the drive line although I'm not sure. This is a popular thread for the same reason people rubber-neck at accidents.

some blame all the failed engines on hard driving during break-in... others blame the failed engines on easy driving during break-in.. so what is it.. if one is going to criticize all these drivers at fault for having failed engnes at low miles.... make up your mind as to what they could be doing to cause these failures at 2k, 3k, 10k miles, etc.. for heavens sake.. <g>

Over the years I have picked up four cars from the factory in Germany -- 2 BMWs and 2 Mercs. (Unfortunately, I didn't take delivery of my 996 in Germany since Porsche's European Delivery Program sucks and you have to pay a premium for it.) Anyway, each of those times I asked the tech who was walking me through the car what the recommended break-in procedure is and can I drive it hard on the Autobahn. They always said -- contrary to the "low-RPM" advise on the manual -- that I can use pretty much the whole rev-range (just try not to redline it) as long as I vary the RPMs (i.e. don't drive for an extended period on a certain RPM by hitting cruise control, etc.) That advice seemed to work and I have had no major problems with any of my cars. (Knock on wood.)

Bob....I like to blame failed engines on auction purchased, multiple owner, unknown history, gotta at a steal, purchased at a Ford dealer, Porsche.

So a failed engine will result if: A) You buy the car from someonone other than a porsche dealer (as auction cars were owned by people as well, and most all private lots buy from auctions) B) How many people buy a used porsche knowing the history, CPO or not? 98%? ( i can't imagine many sellers talking about negative aspects of the car to potential buyers ) C) So one should overpay? Do you think a dealer charges less because they KNOW the engine is going to explode? D) yes i'm common with the ford dealer joke, but it was never even driven. It was bought at an auction and arrived the same day I bought it. Just like buying it at any exotic used car dealership, as they would do the same. btw, the ford dealership also has a mercedes and bmw dealership.. i suppose that adds more to the quality of the porsche? So in otherwards, 95% of purchases of 996s are prone to engine failure according to your logic.. because 95% of the purchasers fit into the criteria you specified. how do you explain all the 02s i mentioned with people that bought it new that had their engine explode at a few thousand miles then? i suppose that has to do with the driving, wouldn't it? that's why i'm asking.. should you break it in hard, or soft...

Back to your irrational, ranting mentality again Bob. And here I thought you had changed. Man you are jaded and clueless. I refuse to listen to your crap once again. Good luck getting a rise out of somebody else and responding. ps. My response was DIRECTLY aimed at you and not anybody else so don't try gain an army by insinuating that I am grouping others into your corner.

I did the work. I know every single thing a Porsche dealer ever did to the car, from day one. I even know the name of the previous owner, just in case something fish does goes down. I just did it out of a matter of caution. I looked at several cars that I couldn't get the info on, and I walked. So, in the end, if they didn't do the work, then I really don't see how its anyone's fault but their own. Also, a PPI does not count as "doing the work". I bought an Audi S4 from a Honda dealer once, and it was a disaster....

Bob, here's the way I see it (and I've said this before). Porsches are owned, for the most part, by enthusiasts. Most of these enthusiasts are of the street races mentality. They buy the car and the next phone call is to the tuner of choice who sells them a plug in ECU or something like it. Then they go out on the roads and beat the living crap out of the car. The engines are so good, they hold up to this onslaught of some basement engineer's mapping. Then a newer, faster model comes out and now they unbolt all their goodies and bring it back to the dealer who wants to sell them a car. The dealer decides to either sell the car or wholesale it off. You can imagine which cars they auction. Those are the cars with questionable histories, like an ECU download that shows some prior manipulation. Now here you come into the dealer and buy this previously chipped and beat to crap car and wonder why the engine fails.

A porous block isn't from a chip from a previous owner - it's a manufacturing or design fault. I've known my car since the day it was new and nothing myself or the previous owner did could possibly require a new engine.

I wasn't trying to make the claim that every case was due to my above suggestion, just that many of them probably are. I am sorry that you had a bad experience. Every auto manufacturer suffers from the occasional glitch. I find it hard to believe that Porsche would continue to manufacture an engine that has a serious design flaw when they already have other engines to choose from. And they don't keep many parts on hand so you can't say that they are still clearing their inventory.

you honestly think that many 996 c2 and c4 drivers have upgraded the performance of their vehicle? come now, that number can't be higher than 1-2%.. how many rennlisters, major enthusiasts, even have an ECU or mechanical upgrade of any kind? and what amount of private, third party dealers even think, let alone, do any kind of research on the vehicle to disqualify it.. maybe 1-2%? porsche, yes, that's one thing.. but i'm talking about the 98% of other cars not purchased at a porsche dealer... if anything, they will band-aid it and give it to another "less" than trustworthy dealer, who will put it up for sale if anything appears wrong upon inspection that could backlash most al of the time.. for other model years, yes.. but the 996 was the first porsche for the masses bought by yuppies and businessmen primarily that don't know the first thing about tracking a car.. alot can be told by the inner appointments as well.. for example, my car was a cab, with burlwood interior and full leather.. what are the odds of it being a track car? and even if it was, what would result in a rod coming through the block randomly when driving at 65mph on cruise control? trying to justify "why" certain engine fails is as big a mystery as how many have failed.. we just don't know.. that's why i'm asking.. some people blame "bad break-ins" as the culprate, others have other reasons.. if bad-breakins are the cause of engine failure, then potentially that may help future owners out.. yet when p-car advocates are saying.. drive "soft" or you will ruin the engine.. or drive 'hard" or you will ruin the engine... (during break-in) it leaves quite a contradicting statement to those concerned about their vehicle.. in terms of the belief about porsche continuing to produce engines that are prone to failure.. just look at RMS.. it's a big issue, BUT it's a cheap one.. and what does porsche do? put the same engine in the 997 that caused RMS.. so the statement about porsche not fixing the problem if it was such an epidemic is left at a pure example with RMS.. while 45% of people in the polls reported RMS, I think that number is highly skewed, it does give indiction that RMS "is" an issue, and that the engine was manufactured off-spec to cause this.. thus, a non perfect working engine.. while the consequences of rms are negligble.. porsche obviously didn't care enough to do anything about it with the 997 and put the same thing in there, with the same problems.. all in the name of saving more money to line the execs pockets.. so if porsche doesn't care or even offer a free replacement for RMS, why would they spend hundreds of millions developing a new engine to fix "known" problems..? they wouldn't, they haven't, they didn't, and they don't... otherwise the 997 wouldn't still have RMS.. my vehicle has had it's issues, but i'm still concerned about getting down to the root of the problem to the best i can.. while yes my porsche is for sale.. it will not be the end of the situation for me.. like with joe, i have future plans, but am not going to discuss them in this forum... what this comes down to, is the whole situation changes when you just bought a brand new $110,000 C4S and your engine needs to be replaced at 4,000 miles.. personally that didn't happen to me, but i'd be a pretty upset owner... knowing that my brand new $110,000 car just took a sh*t on me.. and i'd never trust it again.. even if porsche does pay for it.. and having to pay out of pocket, when the porsche dealer says "it was an internal failure.. nothing you or anyone else did could have caused or prevented it" and then gives you a bill.. you are damn right, you have some upset people... put yourself in these peoples shoes.. porsche outweights the diminished customer return with the cost... pure economics, and obviously for them, they make more money making the customers pay for their faults, than them, even if they lose them for a lifetime.. hell they are making more money than they ever have in their lives.. why make huge changes because of a few thousand upset customers, i'm sure they have equated... all i can say is, the feeling changes when one is betrayed by the car company they loved as a child, that they trusted, and believed in.. when they get treated like crap when a catastrophic failure happens.. it's more than monetary for some.. it's just a plain feeling of being let down by their childhood marque icon.. for all those that had the red turbo speedster on their wall in the 80s.. and then being sh*t on.. by the marque they once loved.. porsche isn't the same, and never will be, which is a damn shame.. but just like anything in life, one can't relate until they go through it themselves...

I was cruzing through the 987 forums earlier. There is an idiot who wanted to know if redling his car in first gear and driving at 6000 rpms for a considerable period of time/distance (no load situation) would be harmful to his engine!! He has accumulated over 350 miles driving in this manner. He says he likes the engine sound at 6000 rpms. I sometimes wonder how people like that function in society.

They don't.

Bobporsche - while we know that some engines have failed due to some defect or other, Porsche replaced those engines. Some engines might fail due to abuse - see the post above. There are a lot of ways to kill an engine - no oil, miss a downshift and hit 1st instead of 5th for instance. The ECU records these events and makes it pretty easy to determine if a failure is due to a defect or a mistake by the driver. You made a good point in your post above, many of the people buying the 996 and 997 are new to the brand. Perhaps coming over from an automatic MB or Jag. This makes me wonder if a certain percentage of them have 'oops' resulting in damage. Elsewhere there is a post about a guy who is upset because he bought a CPO car and had to replace the clutch after 300 miles. Neither driver could drive a manual tranny.

Bob, you say that "porsche" replaced those engines.. but what happens when an engine goes out and porsche does replace them, and then it goes out again after the warranty period? Or what about garage queens? Like that 99 that has 6k miles on it that was for sale.. what's a sufficient amount of time to say when or if the defective engines have or haven't gone out, and if the replacement is going to go out either? that is the question.. my replacement had 8k miles on it and it went out on me, and that was from a remanned engine from '04 sent from germany..

Please, oh pluuuuuueeeze some one shoot me or this thread!!! [Disclaimer: I understand all sides being presented here, I just think it's been beaten to death!]

bobporsche996: After reading the posts on this forum for the past couple of years, I'm impressed with the loyalty that Porsche owners have for the marque. The willingness of Porsche owners to dismiss serious design issues like RMS or to rationalize blown engines is truly amazing. Nevertheless, I believe even the emotional attachment that many Porsche owners have to the marque has its limits. Either Porsche will engineer fixes that prevent a recurrence of many of the 996 problems or even the most loyal Porsche owners will look elsewhere. In other words market forces will prevail. Although the 997 has been out for less than two years, early signs regarding Porsche quality are very encouraging. Let's hope this trend continues.

Time for you to go Bob. As the starter of this thread I think I can close it. Find someplace else to regurgitate your tiresome, beat to death, crap.