prof. dell data are here!

https://rennlist.com/forums/boxster-and-boxster-s-986-forum/321506-boxster-failure-survey-results-are-in.html comments please.

I posted my response in that thread. I can't wait to see the hate responses that come flooding in. This very thing happened here on the 996 forum some time back and the same thing came back to those of us that actually teach stats, or understand stats, etc. when we tried to explain how worthless the "results obtained" were.

I just stopped by a local cemetery and conducted a survey as to the physical condition of its occupants. I concluded, based on the sound and verifiable statistics, that, chances are, I am, in fact, not alive, but am among the walking dead.

Good one!

Also, some of the interpretations posted in that thread are just plain wrong, as a matter of simple logic, let alone statistics. If the underlying data are flawed, there's nothing to be gained by discussing them, and nothing-times-two to be gained by discussing improper conclusions drawn from them. On a barely-related note, while walking to work this morning, I was pondering Professor Dell's prolific posting. I recalled that he had about 7500 posts here in about 5 years. Turns out it's 8000 posts in about 3.2 years. That's about 2500 a year, or about 7 a day if he posted every day. What's odder, that much posting, or the fact that I was thinking about it on the way to work this morning?

However, mathematically, wouldn't the rule "2 negatives equal a positive" mean that we can assume that if 2 engines have a problem, that it is a GOOD thing?

Actually it's 6.8 but who's counting Besdies, I work out of my home office when I am not lecturing and have my computer/email on while working so I can often takes "breaks" from work to visit the blokes at Rennlist!

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't criticizing. I was admiring . This place is addictive - it's a substitute for being in my car.

I know. I know Heck, if my wife didn't know what Rennlist was she would swear I was having an affair with a stripper named Rennlist from the number of email from "Rennlist" that appear on my inbox.

Since I am a equity trader, I am currently looking at 7 computer screens and 2 television screens as I sit in my home office. Once computer is for surfing while I wait to pounce on a stock.

Holy crap! My brain would melt from all that visual noise.

Fantastic! LOL.

Dude, it's too funny you mention that. My girlfriend knows exactly what Rennlist is and still thinks it's odd that I'll be reading and writing in the forum at home, particularly when I laugh out loud at some of the wittier things you all say. She thinks I'm nuts, and oh yeah, a total nerd: "I mean, who reads about Porsches online?" If she only knew.....

It's a well known fact that 87% of all surveys contain 72% incorrect data based on a 90% confidence level. I'm just happy that the survey was done on the boxster, and not on the thread on choosing between a 993 or 996. My, that was fun. Michael

Michael, please tell me you just pulled that one from your @ss

Oh no Professor...I have heard that one many times before also, Sir

That's it Steve! You forced the issue, so I have to ask.....WHAT IN THE BLUE HELL IS GOING ON IN HERE?!?!?!?!?

Chain jerking...it's fun

Steve? I didn't know. Why don't you type with a lisp, then?

Great, I just spit Diet Coke through my nose!

I am not even going to dignify that .....

After spending too long reading about M3 vs. 911 (no "carrera"), this thread is why I joined Rennlist. You guys are too funny.

Look, 85% of all statistics are made up anyways, so why pay attention to any of them. (PS, the other 15% or just plain wrong)

lies, damn lies and statistics...B. Disraeli

Alright guys, I give up

Dell, outside of the discussion over the validity of the various 'surveys' - do you personally believe that Porsche have experienced any unusual levels of engine failure in the 986 and 996 models? Have you experienced any engine failures directly yourself? Just interested.

interested in my opinion? Fine. Do I think there is a design flaw in the RMS seal? Yes. Do I think it's a PITA to have to get the new one put in (even under warranty)? Yes. But.....do I think there are unusal high levels of engine failure in the M96 motor based cars? Not at all. I would bet the incidence is less than 1% of all cars produced in the line.

I'm trying to get away from the RMS issue here, as this is not a catastrophic failure, as you mentioned. People have been confused because PCNA did replace engines based on repeated RMS issues, but that can't be classed as an engine failure. I'm more interested in the catastrophic failures, slipped cylinder lining, porous blocks / intermix, and intermediate shaft failure. There are the documented failures, including cases where Porsche have been pressured into providing replacement engines for such failures, way outside of warranty. Porsche have then insisted that the owners sign non-disclosure documents regarding those engine replacements. have you ever experienced anything of that sort?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course. Since we have digressed off into the massive engine failure thread, it reminds me of troubles that I've had with other makes. For instance, the late-80's problem with BMW V8 nakasil engines... BMW had to replace many many engine short blocks because of this problem (my car included). I found out later that Jaguar had the same problem. Then, the C5 Corvette Z06 engines (of which I also had one) had a real oil burning issue because of a piston ring problem. And then of course, all of the Chevy V8 engines had an issue with piston slap, because the skirts were so short. Chevy didn't really address either problem real well, although if the engine did burn more than a quart every 500 miles or so, they would pay for new rings. I think the piston slap problem was considered a design feature, and "they all do that". I'll probably get blasted and ridiculed for even mentioning a Corvette on this esteemed forum, especially considering my board name (hey, I was young and foolish when I joined) but I thought it worth mentioning, maybe. Point is, every manufacturer at one time or another has issues with something. Personally I'm amazed that they have as few problems as they do. Consider, if you will, two "typical" 911 owners. Dude #1 bought his pristine cabriolet and drives it only on warm sunny weekends, washes it 2 times a week and puts an average of 2700 miles per year on the car. Dude #2 bought his stripped coupe, ripped out the interior and put in a full cage. He takes it to the track almost every weekend and drives the **** out of it. He also averages only 2700 miles per year on the car, but most of those miles are between 6 and 7000 RPM. He has gone through 7 sets of race tires and 4 sets of brake pads. The car was last washed when his tow rig was splashed by a passing 18 wheeler. But yet Porsche has to build and guarantee an engine that can withstand both extremes of use - neglect and abuse. And generally speaking, the engines do very well under both conditions. Michael

So clearly you and I have different experiences regarding the 1st generation water-cooled engines from Porsche. And logically, you can understand how those divergent starting positions might effect our views of any anecdotal data on engine failures. I have been party to a number of discussions with PCNA representatives regarding actual failures, and have taken away information from those discussions regarding the manufacturers view on their culpability. So while you are absolutely correct to apply rigorous statistical standards to the 'surveys' and show how they can in no way be proved to be statistically reliable - that equally doesn't prove that these problems don't exist in significant numbers. That's probably where people have become upset in the past - your postings could be interpreted as implying that these are non-issues , perhaps even just owner hype .

I never said they were no-issues and I never said they were hype. As for your statement that there are SIGNIFICANT numbers of this problem you seek to highlight, I really don't think you understand what significant really means in the world of cause/effect and chance. I am not going to argue with you nor am I going to continue down this road with you. As I said in the other thread. I am now bored with this. Have fun, I'm outta here never to return to this thread.

Thanks Dell - appreciate the discussion.