6 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHRemote PPI leak down test results
Leading reported evidence
Replace (no info yet if it eats oil)
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 · Original poster
Records show regular oil changes (no info yet if it eats oil)
Leading evidence: 'Replace (no info yet if it eats oil)' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace (no info yet if it eats oil)' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
My GT3 had a similar issue at 143K miles, but did run a little rough and was throwing a code.
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 · Original poster
The car has about 80k miles on it and seems to run smooth from videos
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
I would trust the leak down test more for this purpose.....The "blow-by test" would be even better to determine engine health....
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
I would trust the leak down test more for this purpose.....The "blow-by test" would be even better to determine engine health....
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
6 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
Hi all, I've been heavily looking at 996.2's recently and found one remotely that checks all the boxes except I just got a slightly concerning leak down result from the PPI. I've talked to my mechanic and a few contacts but was curious if you all would weigh in.
A few details:
The car has about 80k miles on it and seems to run smooth from videos
Leak down showed 25% leakage on cylinder 1
, with cylinder 2 having 5%, and the rest 10%
The compression test showed each cylinder
within 4% of each other
The well-rated shop only had a few minor items on the PPI, and gave the car a positive recommendation to buy
Minor bore scoring on cylinder 1 (not 6)
Records show regular oil changes (no info yet if it eats oil)
IMS taken care of, etc, only really concerned about this leakage result
The price is right with the options I'd like but I don't want to make an emotional decision if the leakage is cause for major concern. Conversely I don't want to pass on a deal for something that is not a big deal. I wonder how many BaT sales have engines with a similar profile that otherwise look like a decent deal.
Thank you for any feedback.
My advice would be to have the car driven up to operating temps, a few full power pulls up to 6k and then repeat the measurement.
Ask the shop whether the air is leaking into the intake plenum, exhaust or crank case.
Is the price still right if it needs a top-end rebuild?
The leak down test result may be a fluke, but could be worn valves. My GT3 had a similar issue at 143K miles, but did run a little rough and was throwing a code. That was a $20K bill in the end.
It's 21k and a targa so there's partial cushion for a valve job, rebuild, or swap.
I agree with the idea of getting the car up to temp and testing again but at this point the car is already out of the shop. I will ask today if they noted if the air was coming out the crankcase or the valves for cylinder 1. Based on the consistent compression between cylinders it sounds like the leakage is from the cylinder 1 valves, not rings. The car idles and revs smooth.
Bore Scoring doesn't always show up on a compression test......the oil in the cylinder will help seal the compression and mask the problem.....
I would trust the leak down test more for this purpose.....The "blow-by test" would be even better to determine engine health....
I think this engine is not in perfect health...use this is your determination on whether to buy or not...
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
