Many of you think rebuild 996 engines from Porsche don?t blow, wrong

In some other threads there have been discussed that rebuild engines from Porsche have the latest upgrades and don�t blow. I know cases where the second engine blow, that�s why I sold my car after the blow out. Here�s a second rebuild engine blow out

There is no such thing as an engine that NEVER fails, from Toyotas to space shuttles. But you were wise to sell your car. There is no point having fun things if you're afraid of them, or you can't afford to fix them if they break.

what year was the car that you sold? 3.6 motor?

99, 3.4L

Whew!!! It's a damn good thing you sold that grenade when you did, it WILL blow again at anytime!!! Come to think of it I will sell mine also(2000 Carrera 2), any takers out there for state of the art German artillery. IMHO you should replace the 996 with a bicycle. I have yet to hear of an engine failure on one of those.

Bad advice. I had a flat on my bike ride this morning. I've got a nice Lightspeed for sale if anyone is interested. I really can't imagine owning a Porsche if a $10k repair would be that scary. Just because these car can be purchased at a pretty reasonable price doesn't mean they are cheap to own. Jim

On my bike, I'M the engine. And I have failed many times. (Fully agree on your last comment. Depreciation has put 996s into the hands of some people that really don't have deep enough pockets to keep one on the road and therefore, I would argue, actually enjoy it.)

At least on the bicycle there is a quick fix for an engine failure. Simply pull off to the side of the road and let the "engine"(rider) cool down as you slowly add more "coolant"(Gatorade) to the "engine". P.S. Add "coolant" slowly to the hole near the top of the "engine". Look at the bright side, on a bicycle "engine" failures will become less numerous the more miles you put on the vehicle.

This has also been said of Porsches.

Money is not the question, but probably it�s not your fault for you to think that way.

I agree with Bruce. These are not cheap cars to mantain. Try owning 928's for 16 years as I did. Those cars make the 996 look cheap. Try a Jaguar next or Aston, 90's Mercedes....... If you want a more dependable car buy a Honda or Toyota (Lexus) as I did for my wife and daughter.

Thats VERY rare for it to happen twice....but I am glad you got out.....

If money is not the question then what is? I admit that the time I spend at the track taints my view of car repairs but if you're not worried about the money, drive the car like you stole it. If it breaks, fix it and drive some more. I can't imagine a better sports car bargin than a 99 996 right now. Even if you replace an engine every two or three years (which you won't) its still a bargin. Jim

Yes, you can even have a 996 for the price of two rebuilds. Incredible bargain

Not sure what your point is but I wish you well. Happy 4th all. I'm headed to a BBQ. Jim

JimB, you�ve just said "I can't imagine a better sports car bargin than a 99 996 right now"... and just after, this guy puts his 996 for sale for a bargain price. This is 15K euros, it�s impossible to get any cheaper, even needing a new engine. Answearing your question about money, in my case it was a matter of faith. Can�t see any sence of owning a car that I can�t trust. My engine blow after a big U turn getting out of a highway. Tech said it could have been oil starvation. Car had Sport Contact II which are not that sticky, but never mind, i had bad luck, anyway these 996 are a bit prone to engine failures, that�s my 02 cent.

Not sure where you are getting your info or why you are so jaded....996 rebuilds are $3500, 996 factory remans are $7,000...a good well cared for engine will last 200k miles....even if its 100k miles and you do 10k miles a year, THATS 10 YEARS....A 993 REBUILD is $15k+...A 996 is also WAY less expensive to maintain than almost ANY other sports car....Do you think an 8 year old sports car is supposed to be perfect? Or an 8 year old ANYTHING?

I wonder if you have not hit on something. I am buying a 996 and the owner, who also races, talked about oil starvation being a common problem for 996 engine Kah-blam-O! He put the baffle upgrade on the car plus some other minor upgrades to take better care of the engine. Your maneuver of being aggressive on a circle on/off ramp is not an uncommon street driving activity...one I do enjoy! I did not accept the don�t worry about it (baffle upgrade) unless your racing on slicks�

+1 I have a Honda as my daily driver. All I have to do is annual oil, air filter, valve adjustments and spark plugs. About $100/year in DIY maintenance. I never understand why people buy higher end cars but expect to pay Honda maintenance prices. I would hate it if I have to replace my engine at 84k but for ~$7k a rebuilt engine is not too bad considering I've already put in ~$4k this year.

I had the same thing happen to my engine at 69K miles this past January. It had to be replaced. I never found out what caused the intermix problem. Total cost of engine replacement was just under $12K, with 10% discount for being a PCA member. The engine was a new �remanufactured� engine. It comes with a two year unlimited miles warranty. I asked what improvements and/or changes were made but got no response from Porsche. Good luck.

My numbers came from my own experience. I�ve paid 8500 euros labour included for a remanufacter engine with one year warranty. Total bill was 10.000euros cause I�ve put a new clucth and some other minor things.

If this alleged problem is "common" (according to you) how come you almost never hear about it happening? I attend track events regularly (I have seen hundreds of these cars at the track) and I have never seen an M96 engine car(any year Boxster or Carrera) go "Kah-blam-O" at the track. Strange that this "common" problem has never caused me a problem in 6 years of tracking my Boxster. Finally, how do you explain all the 996's that are running in Grand Am cup events (and no they are not GT3's)?

Regardless of the cost of ownership, if you can no longer trust the car and it has repeated failures in too short a time frame then it is time to move on. High end machines that I have been around don't tend to fail often but when they do the bill is quite high. It's part of the process....live with it or get out.

The bottom line is that a Porsche 911 should not suffer from an oil-starvation related engine failure as the result of cornering forces mixed w/ hard acceleration. It's a freaking joke. Miatas do not have this problem. If you want to believe that the engineers in Stuttgart did not fully understand this problem/limitation when they designed the car, then you are a fool. They used the other (more expensive design dry sump) engine in the GT-3 and turbo models. It was a cost consideration combined with an analysis of the typical owner of the base 911 model being *not exactly a racer*. Porsche has never done such a thing before- even the lowly 110 HP 911T of 1969 had a dry-sump. I have been involved w/ these cars for decades and owned ~half dozen air-cooled Porches, this is my first water-pumper and I'm impressed w/ the chassis but extremely weary of the engine. Mine is on motor #2, (at least), and I asked in another thread whether they fixed the other big problem, which is related to the casting of the cylinders(?). At any rate, if you are like 99% of new Porsche buyers and use the car to profile around the country club golf course or drive to get your chest hair waxed, you will not be affected by oil-starvation issues. I do not fall under that category, and therefore I'm concerned. It's unacceptable in a purported sports car, period.

Then sell the car and move on. Put your money where your mouth is. You're doing nobody any good here. Your experience is not typical, no matter how traumatic it's been for you. And you're only making yourself feel better by diminishing the people who haven't had the problem. I don't track my car much, but I don't play golf and I have all my chest hair. And I fully drive the car as it was intended to be driven. I submit to you that anyone who would take an out-of-the-box road car and track it without making appropriate modifications is, in fact, the fool. Porsche or otherwise.

That explains it. I only drive my 996 to get my chest hair waxed. What an *** hole.

You forgot to point out that you have a HUGE *****.

But if we had huge penises, we wouldn't need Porsches, right?

Yeah - I gotta disagree with that. The point of a Porsche is that you can track it out of the box, or you used to be able to anyway. That all said, there's more misinformation and conjecture floating around than cold hard facts. Intermix is caused by cracking cylinders and/or gasket failure, not oil starvation for instance.

I only use my Porsche to go trolling for *****. Do any of you think I will experience an oil starvation issue using my 996 for this purpose? WTF is up with this guy? Did he really say that 99% of newer P-Car owners use their cars for profiling around country clubs and going to get their chest hair waxed.

I believe you will find that lubrication remains an issue in this application.

Intermix is caused by porus inside the bloc. There was a problem back in 1998 on the machine that was casting the M96 blocs and many engines suffer from this. The casting machine was living small air bulbs inside the blocs. Those small air bulbs would expand with the different operating tempeartures of the bloc and will permit the oil and coolat system to mix. This was one of the maladies these engines had and it was one of the firts to be diagnosis.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out......

Where can I get my chest hair waxed (not even sure what this is?)?

I am in between on the issue. I had an engine failure in my 2004 996 so I know how it feels to be a victim. Hell my car only had 5k miles on it when it occurred. No over revs, no track days, broken in properly, etc. The car was my daily driver and was driven "hard" but never abused. Porsche replaced the engine under warranty and I never had an issue with the new one. I understand engines fail. I understand that many companies now are going with engine replacement rather than break down/ repair. After lots of research and talking with many people who own different cars I was comfortable with the engine replacement process. At the same time when you drop 80k+ on a car that is supposed to have racing heritage, reliability, etc, etc, etc and you pay a damn hefty premium for all of that heritage and engineering it is not a very good feeling when you have your engine grenade for no reason other than what appears to be a faulty design that no one really wants to talk about or accept responsibility for. Ceratinly Porsche has accepted responsibility in honoring the warranty, but not so much in the form of a new engine design as of yet. You simply have higher expectations and standards because that is what Porsche has made its name on is its heritage of reliability and durability and superior engineering. Then again at the same time I have yet to drive anything other than an F430 that can come close to the 911 in terms of fun. The 911 is arguable the most iconic car ever produced. It is fun to drive, useable every day, etc. At the end of the day I am sticking with Porsche and am on my second one of probably many more. I will deal with the quirks. It is still a great car at a seemingly great value. Porsche needs to raise the bar, customers should always expect the most from Porsche and Porsche should deliver. That is afterall their heritage. Engine failure happens. The frequency with which we see it is imo alarming, but that doesn't stop me from buying the car. It is a risk worth it in driving reward. Hell imagine if you bought a Camry because it was reliable, and you had your engine replaced due to their faulty design and engine sludge issue. Well you just had to drive one of the most gutless, eunuck cars ever under the guise of reliability and yet your engine failed. Meanwhile you now have no *****. Blahahahahaha. Anyway, life is too short to worry with 911 engine failure too much. The pleasure of driving our *** engine car far outweighs the cost of replacement IMO.

In contrast this is the second 996 I've owned... my 2001 had 52,000 miles on it when I sold it in 2004 and my 2004 C4s Cab has 53,000 miles on it now... neither has ever had an engine failure. And I have a perfectly waxed chest and a HUGE *****. Now if you'll excuse me I have 18 holes of golf to play this afternoon with other men that have equal hygiene and girth.

Come on, loosen your girdles ladies. I was not referring to enthusiasts who track their cars or the typical poster here necessarily. You will have to admit that the vast majority of new 911 buyers, (maybe not 99%), have no clue what the car will do performance-wise and want a boulevard cruiser. At least that was the case 20 years ago when I sold them at a dealer in L.A. As to the comment about not expecting a car to be track-able out of the showroom, you obviously do not know your Porsches very well. Every car they ever made up until the 996 was suitable for a top-speed run on a road course right out of the box. 911s have traditionally been tracked right off the assembly line @ Weissach as a final inspection/break-in/road test. Not sure if they still do this, maybe someone can enlighten. I fully realize that internet communication is sub-optimal in terms of transmitting nuance and tone at times, but I've never seen such a thin-skinned bunch of pussies as some of you guys. ***-hole? I'm in Mpls., punk, if you want to say that in person. Use the PM function.

Dennis, Punk? I said you were an *** hole because you were being an *** hole. If you are in MN and want to meet for a beer, I'm in. If you think you're going to kick my ***, you might be in for a surprise. I really doubt you want to take the chance. Now, about 996s. You're are certainly right about some percentage of the population just wanting a car to cruise in but I suspect it's much less than 99%. There are a whole lot of owners still tracking their cars on a regular basis. The idea that a 996 is less of a track car is completely wrong. Granted giving up the dry sump was a big step backwards but the rest of the car is far more capable on the track than any 911 that came before it. That's been proven both in club racing and in Grand Am Cup (now Koni). I know a little bit about this. I club raced a 996 for four years before switching to a cup car this year. Jim

The 996 is just as capable of heading out to the track straight off the showroom floor as any 911 that preceded it. In fact the 996 will outperform any 911 that preceded it on the track (like model to like model). As others (including myself) have pointed out, hundreds (more likely thousands) of these cars have been tracked in Grand Am (Koni), Club Racing, and DE's with no apparent problems. You ignore this fact and go on to imply that these cars are blowing up regularly on the track due to oil starvation. Back it up. Show us the 986's, 987's, 996's, and 997's that are grenading at the track. I'm betting you'll be hard pressed to find even a handful of 996's that have failed on the track. If you can't back it up all we are left with is a heap of your internet BS.

We can meet up some time. I'm not looking for a fight @ age 48, but on the other hand, no one seems to call me an *** hole to my face and I was doubting that you would. I was thinking that you would be one of the cooler people here w/ the race cars, so I was surprised at the insult. I agree that the chassis is phenomenal on these cars, but it's the first time that Porsche has ever sold a car with this level of performance that would starve for oil @ the G-forces it generates. I fell into this car and I really like it but it's a high-mileage car w/ door dings that I definitely want to take to the track. I live in Los Angeles and Willow Springs is my local track, have you been there? Turn 8 is a high-speed sweeper, (probably 130+ w/ street tires easily in this car), I have H&R coil-overs and sways so it will stick good. It would be a bummer to grenade the motor on the straight away immediately following 9 in front of all my friends and everyone else there, to say the least. I've also been told that it only comes into play when you run slicks, so if that's the case, no worries. Over on Pelican where I usually post, there are a handful of 996 haters, (and just haters in general), I have always been the one defending the car as being beautiful and of course they perform. As a street car, I love it although the interior plastic is abysmal. The design is modern and good-looking IMO, though. There seems to be an element of wash-and-shine people with these cars, and that's OK until they start trying to contribute to a technical thread w/ insults to the original poster and some remarks that are almost incredibly ignorant. The guy who said that one should not expect to drive on a track w/ a stock Porsche literally does not know the first thing about the company. Their entire reputation is based on endurance racing and the connection between the production cars and the racing cars. It is not like Nascar or drag-racing where you do not expect to be able to drive the street version of the car on a track. Porsche has the best engineers in the world, hands-down. The oil-starvation issue w/ 996s was not an error of design or some kind of *oopsie*, it was a calculated cost-cutting measure to eliminate dry-sump oiling on the base model. If you want to track your car, buy the GT-3 or turbo, according to Porsche. For the first time ever, they announced that your warranty would be void if you tracked the car, including DEs & auto-X. This is no small deal. Obviously, people still take them to the track and have fun, but I'm trying to learn as much as possible about the issue up-front. All of the defensive remarks and insults along the line of who can or cannot afford the car are unnecessary. It's about endurance.

Dude, (and anyone else), I'm trying to learn about the issue. Apparently it is a real problem, but if it's all a big myth, that's certainly better for me. Don't take it as a threat to your masculinity if the car has a design flaw. And I agree about the performance, but ironically that's part of the problem. The car will corner @ 1.4G+ w/ track rubber and the engine will lose OP. Like I said, I'd love to find out different but I'm doubting it. I'd love to hear from some fast guys who track a regular 996 w/ sticky rubber. Anyone else can sit this out and learn something.

And you don't think it's reasonable to have to do the baffle mod. You think that Porsche should have anticipated you and overbuilt the car so that someone could increase its lateral adhesion WITHOUT concomitantly improving its ability to handle the g forces. Sorry, but that's just you refusing to take responsibility for yourself. Add me to your fight list. I would never half-mod a car I planned to drive under those conditions, Porsche, Ferrari or anything else. Amateur hour.

Enough chest pounding. Here's what I know for sure. M96 engines have had more problems than they should including a very occasional grenade. It doesn't seem to be related to track use though. Most engine problems identified here seem to happen to cars that are primarily used on the street. In four years of club racing I have only seen one 996 blow on the track and that was three years ago. I say drive the cars and have fun.

Wha...? They've always "overbuilt" their cars. That's why they're so expensive. You thought it was because of the Corinthian leather? Actually, all previous 911s, and definitely Ferraris + Alfas and other real sports cars are designed to have full oil pressure @ maximum cornering force. "Baffle mods" are new territory for Porsche. But it is what it is. They are awesome chassis and the performance is definitely there. It's definitely a great street car and Grand Tourer, mine has 192k miles and is pretty tight. Engine and trans have been replaced, but I do not know maintenance history so the user might have been to blame. So how much is the baffle mod going to run me? Is it the one w/ the deeper sump that I've heard about? That could suck on the street. Learn me up, guys.

I plan on tracking my 996. If I ever upgrade to slicks, here is the solution: http://e-partssales.com/Merchant2/me..._Code=996sport This information was shared with me by someone who regularly races a 996. The cost of $239. does not seem like a lot of money for peace of mind if you are worried about oil starvation.

That's all I need? Sheeeit, consider it done! I'd thought that it was a lot more expensive. Thanks a lot, Mark!

You are very welcome.

when I did this x51 oil pan mod, I compared the 2 design. There are rubber gates on them one gate would open to fill the baffle with oil and the opposite gate would close (to keep the oil in the baffle) on high cornering. Upon removing the original pan, I found black abs plastic, the broken plastic came from the **** that hold the gates in place (there are 4 ****). If you loose 2 or 3 of these **** the gates would fail and will not hold the oil in place. These broken plastic pieces maybe an indication of where the failures of the sump may be. Notice that the x51 pan is rivetted to hold the rubber gates, much better build than the plastic stocker. The x51 also uses the inner walls of the intgrated sump as the enclosure (notice the gaskets on the edges of the baffles). When I finished the mod, I was surprised that I had to put an extra quart. The pan on the left is stock, right is x51... you can read more here: http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=74222

Man, I got in on this thread too late. Everyone seems to be calming down. For what it's worth, my chest is still hairy, I don't belong to a country club, I never "cruise the boulevards" and I blew my engine. So I guess I'm "cool". I'm going to go and tell my wife how lucky she is.

Hey that looks like an easy install - is it?

If you believe a single $10k repair is "normal," you obviously own the wrong model Porsche. You'd better dump your 996 and buy a 993 fast.

The previous owner of my car tracked it frequently with RA1s (at Summit Point and VIR). He even participated in the 1 lap with the car. Granted the car when it was totaled in a wreck, only had 47K it ran beautifully. No transmission issues or engine and my MY99 was the one that was supposed to have issues. I autocrossed it when I got it and never had an issue when I had the car. Pete

I have a new/remanufactured 3.4 engine in my 99 996. The word on the street (not from Porsche) is that these engines have been improved to address some of the failure issues. My questions is does anyone know if the new 3.4 come with the improved oil pan?

No...even the 997 doesnt come with this to my knowledge....

The new oil pan is part of the x51 package

The pan is only part of the motorsports oiling upgrade (aka X51), there is also an additional scavenger pump and some minor machine work required.

So what does it cost to reseal your case through bolts? Or have the heads sent out for the secondary air ports to be cleaned?

Uh, the motorsports oiling upgrade is NOT also known as X51, though it is included in that kit.

ok, now I'm completely confused. I just pulled the original sticker from my 2000 Cabriolet, and at the top of the technical/mechanical section it says "integrated dry sump lubrication". What am I missing (other than oil when pulling 1.5g's on racing slicks)?

My wife lunched my 997 engine after 7500 miles. Anyone want to fight her?

Yeah - ummm - as I understand it, the "dry sump" tank is integral to the crankcase. The oil is still in the engine, but the crank doesn't splash around in the oil resevoir. Also, the used oil goes through a oil/air seperator before being returned to the "tank". It's kind of a hybrid. Not a true dry sump, but not a wet sump either. In any case, the oil pick up at the bottom of the "tank" can be starved during high cornering. In the old 911, the tank was external and it gravity fed the pump pickup, which was in the engine. It would be difficult if not impossible to starve the pickup of oil, not with proper oil levels anyway. My way of thinking is that maintaining an oil level near the top of the "tank" in the 996 would go some way to avoiding starvation. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Sorry your engine blew

wow, I thought I was on a Honda board for a second with all the playground antics. Then again with all the blown engine talk I should have known better :O J/King

Post was resurrected by our very own cyber-terrorist, RS 197. Undeterred by facts or decency, and apparently undistracted by a job or responsibilities, he has done his best to keep things nasty around here for the last few days.

I like that denis guy. I think he brings some real points and can point to salient faults of the engine design without having it affect his ego. We need more of that here instead of all this posturing and cheerleading on behalf of a freeqin' hunk of metal and plastic bits. Porsche made some mistakes and some owners are paying for it. That sucks, but it happens to all cars, even very nice ones.

Quotes source post: 4612469

If any such discussion can bring something new to the table, or offer concrete ways to prevent or fix the problems, I'm all for that. But this is trolling. Remind me how chilled you are about the whole thing when you find out how much your car has depreciated because of this crap.

i bought mine used sir bruce

Quotes source post: 4612692

Uh-huh. Me too. But, um, I hate to break it to you... depreciation doesn't stop with the first owner. And pissing and moaning on the internet now has the power to make the curve a lot less predictable. Ask the man who drives an immaculate, exclusively dealer serviced, absolutely reliable, never breaks, nothing-but-oil-changes Land Rover that's now worth less than he spent on his last bicycle.

but depreciation isn't a surprise right sir bruce? we all know cars, mass produced ones like the 911s... fall in value so it's not a big deal to me. it's a toy. it's an expense. so long as it's running, clean, reliable, does it what it was designed to do i'm happy. rennlist is way too niche/small/nil to make an impact.

Quotes source post: 4612800

Re your first point, no, I'd have to say that the extent of depreciation is widely variable. I've owned a few Toyotas, for example. Different story, there, in terms of the percentage of original value lost in depreciation. My daughter's used Echo, for example, lost $700 in value in two years of driving. In the case of the Rover, there was a predictable inflection when the last of the series came off warranty, but then another one as the older trucks started to fall into the hands of people who really couldn't afford to maintain them and kicked up an almighty stink online because they aren't mindless appliances like their mom's Civic. You have to take care of them. I'm happy for you that you can shrug off the cost. I, alas, am not a dotcom billionaire, so I actually try to avoid getting spanked by capital depreciation wherever I can. Which brings me to your second point. Sorry, old friend, but the mighty internets knows all. Search is so good, now, that you don't even have to try and you can get page one hits from blogs and web forums when you search things like 'reliability + whatevermobile'. The consumer has a lot of power. The risk in this is that only the vocal ones use it, and only the unhappy are vocal. Here's the top page of a "Porsche 996 reliability" search from a couple of minutes ago. Check the first hit.

is your daughter 5'5" w/ dimples wife potential? j/k my reality here in MS/Boeing/Amazon $ infused seattle is... no one cares that i drive a 5 year old car. all they hear is the bass, the big wheels and the huge spoiler and know it's a porsche.

Quotes source post: 4612865

Im sure they are thinking something that begins with P, but it ait Porsche

My Gawd Bruce, is that a 32" MAC? That screeen is huge! Sorry, back to the reason why our cars are depreciating.

Quotes source post: 4612976

lol

I don't rely on internet statisticians and don't agree with most of the bs spread about the net. I would agree with some that no manufacturer is infallible (especially toyota). Strange how post 21 indicates only a 1 year warranty on a rebuilt engine...must not have been from Porsche since they have 2 year unlimited mileage on their rebuilds.

I'll throw some data around, just for personal amusement.... Personally 2 Boxsters (to date) '97 & '99 both needed new engines before 9,000 miles (Sold the '97 - '99 now has over 80,000 on engine #2) Buddy with a 98 986 - new engine at 18,000 Buddy with an 01 986 - new engine at 21,000 Buddy with a 98 986, original engine, 140,000 miles, RMS leaks Hence, When I bought my 996 I went for post facelift and therefore re-engineered block (MY03) - I'd had enough of dead early M96 blocks in my 'hood.

Quotes source post: 4613724

Sorry don�t mean to be rude but 3.6L facelift models also blow. Here�s a story of two long term test cars that were being tested by a magazine and both blown their engines.

Quotes source post: 4613839

Yes aware of that - but they are orders of magnitude better than early M96 blocks, which had both manufacturing and design issues - many of which were resolved over the years of production. So I like gambling, but I also like to stack my odds a little.

Quotes source post: 4613009

Cinema display for my MacBook Pro. Sweeet...

Quotes source post: 4613646

That makes you a smart, empowered consumer. It also makes you a member of a minority.

Quotes source post: 4612865

She's cute, but I'm having a hard time with the idea that a son-in-law would have a better car than me. Can't see it.