What do you think is the best Porsche motor ever made?

For use as a daily driver with 3 to 4 track days a year...and good for over 100k miles at least...from the old 356s up to and including all current engines in their sports cars (not SUVs or proto-type race cars).

You will get many different answers depending on which forum you're in. Why bother asking this? The best motor made is the one that is the most reliable in your ownership that serves your purpose and puts a smile on your face instead of a dent in your wallet.

NFS Porsche Unleashed. Play the video game and drive every Porsche up to 996. Game deceived me, as I never blew the motor on the 996 when I played the game as kid. So I bought me the last car in the game...in real life. Need for Speed 5: Porsche Unleashed - Evolution Mode - Modern Era Walkthrough FINAL #16 - YouTube

Probably all of them meet this criteria. The more modern though with higher compression ratios and tighter clearances probably not as dependable under certain conditions of cold or over heating but under moderate conditions and at least 5w oil with frequent changes could last a very long time.

Toss up between the 3 liter from the SC, or the 3.2 Carrera

A 100,000 miles is hardly a benchmark. More like 500,000 miles.

Quotes source post: 12243651

And how does the 3.6 begin to go astray?

Quotes source post: 12243560

I am asking as a 996 owner and I am also curious as to what people think based on their experiences since most 996 owners had other Porsches before. Sometimes an otherwise excellent design gets destroyed by one little mistake. Sometimes the overall package succeeds but needs one little tweak to become great. I've wondered about what role gravity might eventually play on flat six engine design compared to an up and down straight four or even a V design. Did the 3 liter flat 12 Ferraris have the same head bolt issues as the Porsche flat six? Is the modern flat six just staying alive through technological gymnastics? Porsche at one time saw the future as a watercooled V8 and inline 4. I'm asking because this is a forum where people discuss things.

The 9A1 engine series. Of course it is really too early to make that call and time will tell if this is correct. Quite a few M96/97 engines have been reported to be running strong at 200K+ miles. But, it seems a bit hit and miss with this generation of engine. The 3.0 and 3.2 that Jake notes above too has been reported to be long-lived, although perhaps not without repair and upgrading of various weak points. The 4 cylinder engines of the 944/968 series are also very long-lived and relatively trouble free. In theory the more modern the engine, the more reliable it should be. Obviously when technology marches forward sometimes a step back results and the new tech needs to be re-evaluated. Compare a Chevy, Ford, or Chrysler V-8 from the sixties to a modern equivalent V-8 from each manufacturer. I'm certain you could likewise compare European engines past and present too, but I am not as familiar with older Euro motors as I am with American iron. I remember having to constantly repair or tune-up my 318s and 440s from the sixties, and to a lesser extent those from the seventies. Modern engines simply don't require the same tinkering, run much more efficiently, and rack up incredible miles before wearing out. Improved technology, metallurgy, machining and assembly processes, and especially electronic engine controls have made these advancements possible and common. I'm not ready to go back to engine technologies from the 60s-80s on any car I count on for daily reliability. That's not to say they are not reliable (though reliability is a subjective concept), but I have greater trust in the newer technology with few exceptions.

While it might be too soon to comment on the 9A1 motors in the new 991s consider this for a moment: A 430 HP (PowerKit) motor that can deliver 30 mpg. There are no perfect cars/motors. But I have high hopes for the 991 series 911.

My 951, with proper maintenance of course, seemed pretty bullet proof. 197,000 miles when I sold it.

Quotes source post: 12243877

The 9A1 has been out for 7 yrs now and I don't think I've heard any bad thing about it (maybe except from Jake). I have high hopes for the 9a1 platform. http://www.total911.com/total-911s-t...s-of-all-time/ 7yrs of 996 was around 2006. I think RMS/IMS/D-chunk/crack heads pretty much revealed themselves already at the time.

If you asked this question on the turbo or GT2/GT3 forums, you would undoubtedly get a few votes for the Hans Mezger designed GT1 engine and all the variants found in production cars.

Quotes source post: 12243841

You're question is then either too vague or too ambiguous as it sounds like you're primary concern is the reliability of the engine which doesn't equate to "best" in my books. Camry motors are very reliable but I wouldn't call it a "best" motor. If you are questioning the boxer design, there are several 1/2 million mile Subaru/BMW boxer motors out there that has proven to go the distance. I've had 2 quarter million mile Subaru motors myself over the years.

Production car? Probably the 4.6 in the 918.

This slides away from the motor question...and yet maybe it doesn't. Somewhere on RL is a Japanese Porsche promotional video and it ends with a race (all Japanese drivers) between a Carerra, Carerra S, Turbo, some Ferrari, a FairLady 350Z and an old (but light weight) Accura NSX. Five laps...and in the end the Carerra S barely...barely...holds on for the win...half a lap more and the Accura would have passed and won. So here we have the latest engine technology being beaten by older engine technology in a light weight package. All the other cars, for all their horsepower and modern technology faded and the stone they all tried to roll up hill was the weight. So I wonder what Porsche street package could have beaten the NSX. The 3.6 in the light weight 964 RS package?

Quotes source post: 12244733

I don't where the hell you're going with this but you are all over the place. Engines by themselves don't win races and the ones that win races aren't necessarily "the best".

My 2.7l Boxster engine has been pretty darn good. N track days but it has gone way past the 100K mile marker. It is up to 290K+ miles and counting. Or will resume counting as soon as I get the car back from having the air bag light dealt with. Anyhow, is it the best Porsche engine ever made? Put me down for a Hell yeah. (The engine in my 2003 Turbo is a 2nd place finisher, with over 133K miles.)

Any Mezger developed Engine

Quotes source post: 12244989

I'm going all over the place...this is an open discussion, free to roam wherever people want to go with it. One idea leads to another, something written tomorrow could be a new beginning. Join in and have fun.

Quotes source post: 12245340

Well the credentials are impressive. Thank you for the education. So the 3.6 in the 9964 and 993 are Mezger engines. Am I correct they are the basis for the 996 turbos as well? If so, do you know why they didn't stay with this 3.6 for the 996 normally aspirated?

My 930 motor was as tough as hell. I flogged that car relentlessly and she never failed. Was running an exhaust and 1.0Bar of pressure. Loved it.

Mezger GT1..996 Turbo, GT3...

Can't speak for the 911 engines (don't own one) but my 944 turbo has been bullet proof. Guys track 944's season after season and they just keep taking the punishment.

Quotes source post: 12245393

I believe the reason the Metzer 3.6l engine used in the Turbo (and other models before the Turbo) was not used in the N/A 996 911 models was the engine was too expensive.

Quotes source post: 12245340

+901

Quotes source post: 12245393

Porsche realized that they were pushing the air cooled engines just about as far as they could go in terms of horsepower and emissions. They realized that they would need to utilize water cooling to gain more power and keep emissions low (or improve emissions). Macster noted the cost of the old 3.6 which I had never heard of, but that does make sense too and fits with the new 986/996 series cars and factory assembly changes Porsche went thru in the late nineties. I've read in a couple of places that Porsche had initially planned a water cooled engine for the 993, but development was not far enough along when decision time rolled around.

So if the 3 liter and 3.2 and 3.6 air cooled have the best record...what other technology could have kept them alive? Certainly less weight in the cars would increase fuel economy. As for multiple valves for higher rpms, my '58 Alfa did 8000 rpm out of the box. What about dropping cams and going with valve systems such as in F1? Its the heads that really need the water cooling, if I am correct. Whatever one says about the old cars being more expensive to make I don't see any savings in the prices of the new ones. $70k for a new 993...$90k to $100k for a new 991? I guess I'm still looking for the progress in progress.

Quotes source post: 12245393

Yes, all of the Turbo and GT engines are Mezger designs. After the end of line for the air-cooled 964 and 993, the Mezger was used only for the high performance turbos and race engines due to high cost. The new 996 and 997 normally aspirated were an all new design and were not deemed robust enough for racing programs ... no further comment needed on the IMS design for this thread.

I would like to throw the 928 motor into the mix. mine was of the 4.5L SOHC. Changed a water pump and did the belt. only time I ever touched the engine. the rest of the car???? not so much.

m96! I see tons of 996's and boxsters with over 100K on ebay.

+1 on 3.0L in the SC

Quotes source post: 12246684

Exactly. About 383,000 m96 normally aspirated engines were put into cars that now have between 10 and 15 yrs on the road - many of them clocking past 100K miles. 90+% : 345,000 of them are doing great - still running strong. How many of those 345,000 owners do you think are on Rennlist griping about their car? Just something to think about.

Just looked up "Porsche and Me" by Mezger on Amazon...least expensive used copy is $441. Anyone have a copy they'd like to sell for less?