47 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHQuestion for Jake at Flat 6 Innovations
Leading reported evidence
Use 13th character in the vin
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
Porsche uses the 13th character in the VIN to describe the vehicle's body type.
Leading evidence: 'Use 13th character in the vin' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use 13th character in the vin' (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.
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.
47 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: 20261026T222516Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I'm going to guess it had to do when they started to outsource the block/head castings.
Early enough and you are likely to get the original source's stock.
Although I have seen other years with aluminum cracking issues, the 99's are said to be the worst (internet rumors)
mike
The last 4 of mine are 0694, where do I find the build date??? (I know it's an early 99 based on the tail lights and the CDR that came with it, but not sure when it was produced)
Personal preference. Today I drove home an early '99 thats #1883.
I have driven 4 different 996s this week, each of them a minimum of 83 miles and time and time again I can tell the difference in the early 99s. I have tested 57 M96 powered cars this year and definitely have learned the dynamics that create a quality vehicle.
Lots of people will argue with this, and they can. It won't matter to me.
I am not willing to state more details. If so I'll be quoted by Parrots all over the internet and these questions will pop up all the time.
As I stated, its a personal preference of mine, nothing more and nothing less. I do pay great attention to the traits between these cars, because its part of what I do.
I got your point about all of it...hence the extra parrot mention. You mentioned the 99 once and several people went off about 99 being best and assumed it was because of dual row.
Anyway...just shows your opinion has weight so i guess its a compliment to you.
Well, I guessed wrong about the dual-row - but I'm still happy to have it. I'll try not to misquote the Flat-6 guru in the future.
Cupholders? Heresy. Glove box? If it doesn't fit in the door pocket, it goes on the floor behind the passenger seat.
My # is 0446 and build completion was 05/15/1998 per the COA.
67K miles and going strong with only "normal" mntce. needs so far; i.e., coolant tank, water pump (a piece of mind expense), and some small stuff.
relinuca
Jake, surely those of us willing to pay anything for your book will get ALL the answers!
Im really surpised the Porsche guys have not tried to silence you (or buy you off), or have they?
Ok, I was just hoping for a section on you opinions and theories, with the required disclaimer of course. That would be a really cool chapter to include just from your experience and what you think. Regardless, cant wait for it to come out.
My Uncle has authored many historical books (and was even Knighted by a Queen for some) so I am a little familiar with the logistics and nightmare of publishing. Thank you again, I know its a big time consumer and headache for you.
It's all about engines.. And their assembly. I am not big on theory or opinion type stuff, just making things run is all that matters to me.
Lots of people out there to snowball you on theory and opinion, no shortage of that type thing.
If I was writing this book 20 years ago what I would cover and share would be different. People were different then, less critical and not so freakin opinionated.
Guys, it's really easy, ,look at the posts about the class action against Porsche for the IMSB issue. The early years, up to about 2000, had the double row IMSB, which according to Porsche, ,has a failure rate of less than 1 percent. The later motors, with a single row imsb, had failure rates of 6-10 percent. So look at the post, it has the vin numbers of the single and double rows, if you have a double, it's unlikely you will have a problem.
Was it that hard?
Glad I have a big-nut M97 in my 996. (warranty replacement in 2005)
From what I understand failures are quite rare - although I get that they still happen.
But here we are again -talking about the damned IMSB. Shame on us.
Jake has already said his preference has nothing to do with the confounded thing.
It's the seat of the pants he's talking about.
I had an early 78 SC for a long time - the 72nd one built according to the VIN. It was different than other SC I drove as well - hard to say why.
Porsche uses the 13th character in the VIN to describe the vehicle's body type. Mine is a "5" for Carrera Cabriolet, USA Spec.
My serial# is 3404. Not sure of the build date, but one VIN Decoder suggested it was 12/98. How can you tell the build date?
