67 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPurchase decision 3.4 vs 3.6
Leading reported evidence
Replace ims bering
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Leading evidence: 'Replace ims bering' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check cam shaft deviation' (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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I wish the solution had been available when I replaced the IMSB the first time.
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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
The 2003 will be an 85k mile car, just a nice used car.
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.
Fill "one-of-everything-built" collection it must be all original
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
Mainly for the reasons stated above: could be lipstick on a pig, IOW, why and when was it changed or if I'm collector filling my "one-of-everything-built" collection it must be all original.
Fill "one-of-everything-built" collection it must be all original
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
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
Mainly for the reasons stated above: could be lipstick on a pig, IOW, why and when was it changed or if I'm collector filling my "one-of-everything-built" collection it must be all original.
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
So as long as you aren't over paying to start with (which I think you are with the current price on the MkI) you should be able to turn it around in a year or two without a significant loss between purchase and sale prices assuming nothing changes (e.g.
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
If the car was driven daily for 3 or 4 years and then put away and just let sit for ten years, then treated to an oil change, driven for a few weeks and offered for sale, I'd have nothing to do with it.
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
Don't get me wrong I have the utmost respect and admiration for all of the suppliers and inventors that have come up with solutions to help take care of these engines but I would never replace a part that has been known to last 250k+ miles with a part that needs to be replaced every few years.
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.
67 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: 20261026T172408Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hey guys, I've been on the hunt for a few months now and I've narrowed my search to two cars. Would appreciate any input you might have.
2003 C2 3.6 (55,000 miles) $22,500 (CAD)
- body is in decent shape has a few blemishes but nothing major, clear coat is flaking on bumper and mirror a bit
- PPI was decent, although they suggested the clutch felt heavy so as a precaution could replace and do IMS at same time (nothing else mechanical, no leaks)
- not many options other than the full leather package, everything else is base (even has the terrible 4 speaker stereo)
2000 C4 3.4 (15,000 miles) $33,000 (CAD)
- almost perfect C4 that has been babied its entire life, have full service history since new
- This car is optioned out with full aerokit, special order paint, mesh factory 18's, full leather interior, comfort seats, hi-fi stereo, aluminum accents
- This car is mint
Should I go with the mint C4 or buy the mk.2 C2 and put some money into it (coil overs, clutch/IMS, SSK, Fister D) and still be about $5k cheaper than the C4?
I need to make a decision ASAP so any input is appreciated!
Given the price difference and how these cars hate sitting, unless the C4 is really your dream car I'd go with the more modern 2003 any day.
Those two cars are very different though. Decide on what options you want - if you have any opinion one way or the other on some of the bigger options, (C2 vs C4, aero, etc...) you won't want to feel like you compromised later down the road.
I LOVE the C4's look and option package. Probably very similar to how I would have ordered it new if I'd done it myself.
I also like the fact that it has super low mileage but I do worry somewhat about it sitting but I know it's been well maintained.
However, there is a massive price difference and I could use the savings to make the 2003 a pretty rad ride that would handle and sounds better than the 2000 C4.
I think if the price gap were only $5k I would choose the 2000 hands down.
The C4 is a new car for less than 35% of new price. Go aero if you like the color. You won't miss that last .2L. Knock down the asking price some and write the check.
If money has no bearing I would go for the C4 Aerokit. I hate bringing the IMS into a conversation but the C4 would be a prime candidate for the upgrade. Good Luck!
The C4 is actually $35k with dealer taxes and fees... and he won't budge on price at all. Very frustrating. It was apparently a $140,000 special order at time of purchase (before tax).
I'm also considering resale value down the road. I feel as though I could get my money out of the 2003 in a few years pretty easily but might loose more cash on the C4.
Well, let me give you a nickel worth of free advice. That car is going to be there for a long, long time at that price. Get off your rush program and sit back and wait. In a few weeks it'll be down where you want it. Gar-on-teed.
Perhaps but he claims to have already turned down an offer $1,000 off of his asking price. Relative resale is all I'm considering.
I expect both to depreciate over the course of my ownership but will the C4 fall significantly more than the 2003? That's my internal debate.
I also think the 2003 would probably be more fun to drive after adding coil overs, etc.
Don't settle on the C2 if the C4 is the car that you want. Like docmirror said, you can wait out the dealer. Tell them you are interested and what price you want it at, walk out, and wait for the phone call. There are other nice examples out there.
Don't worry about resale value either, and just enjoy whatever car you end up with. They're not worth terribly much, are fantastic to drive, and not likely to depreciate much further (The 3 reasons why I have one) although I'm not a fan of paying anywhere near the asking prices for some of the super low mileage ones. If you're going to modify it and/or drive it, resale value on the lower mileage one will take a much more significant hit.
Yup, leave a phone number with the salesman and tell him what you might pay, and leaving advise him you have an appt with another seller with a newer C2 at a lower price(which is true). Don't call back, let them come to you.
LOL. I took this approach last week (all was true) and he was happy to leave me to purchase the 2003. This dealer is notorious for sticking to his guns.
Are you buying a car to have fun with or to baby or worry about resale value? If it's the former, buy the cheaper C2. It will be more fun and you will be less worried about putting more miles and modding it.
If you are considering resale; and expect to drive the car before the resale, the 2000 is probably better for you.
Reasoning:
1. Let's say you drive it 6k miles a year or 30k in 5 years. The 2003 will be an 85k mile car, just a nice used car. The 2000 will be a 45k mile car. A 45k 20 year old car is still in the "collectable" category although marginally. Even if not "collectable", which is very likely, still many people set an upper limit of around 50k miles for their used car purchases because it means the emmissions junk has just fallen out of warranty (actually I just remembered you are in Canada-don't know if this last one applies there or not).
2. The 2003 needs a clutch and has a single row IMSB so a sensible replacement. Bang you just added 3-5k to the price. If you really like the car the blemishes will eventually make you crazy. Add another 2-3k to set right. The 2000 most likely has the dual row IMSB. I know I run contrary to many but I would never preemptively replace the dual row IMSB. I also think that if any NA 996 becomes a "classic" it will be an unmolested series 1 with its original IMSB. If you are pretty sure of the service history, it seems like the 2000 is ready to go.
3. You clearly just plain like the 2000 more and from your description, so do I.
Good luck.
Without seeing the specifics and just going off what you provided, that 2000 is over priced, even in Canada, but not too much. I'd say it sounds like a 22-25k USD car
If the C4 is how you would have built it then that carries some value. Few people buying used ever get a shot at "their" car given how Porsche lets you customize builds so much. Another upside is that it more likely than not has a dual row IMSB, of the 3 possibilities it is the one you want.
The biggest downside of that car is the milage as that is less than 1k per year and many here would not consider it "well maintained" because of that. These cars need to be driven to stay healthy. The milage is also low enough that if there are assembly issues (RMS and/or IMS misalignments) that could still be a painful surprise. The sad reality is that low milage cars seem to cause their owners more grief than midrange cars (50-100k)
The dealer might be a hard ***, but the car is costing him money. Sooner or later he has to come down to a reasonable price unless some random sucker walks in and has no idea what they are really buying. Really with the low milage I'd want to go below the average prices (so another 3-5k below what I said above), but you'll never convince a seller that low milage is bad.
If you get it, get it to a LN certified shop to have it inspected throughly and the IMSB replaced. Hopefully their news will be good and it will be healthy, but there is a risk the news could be far less good. This would be an excellent Solution car, but you won't like the price if you aren't going to keep it long term.
As has already been said, if you are already thinking about resale, you need to move along. Look at Turbos, 997.2s, or air cooled cars. No non-GT3 NA 996 is a value proposition. Prices, however, have been pretty stable for the last few years with spring/summer being the high point and fall/winter being low. Overall MkIs have been peaking around 24k USD and non-4S MkIIs have peaked around 26k for the last few summers. So as long as you aren't over paying to start with (which I think you are with the current price on the MkI) you should be able to turn it around in a year or two without a significant loss between purchase and sale prices assuming nothing changes (e.g. accident). That doesn't account, however, for all the deferred maintenance you are likely going to need to catch up on.
Generally it seems new 996 owners have to spend in the 3-5k range for the first 1-3 years to get things caught up and have a good solid car. After that it's usually pretty smooth with tires being the biggest expense. So again, if you are already thinking about resale, then it's a losing proposition and you are fixing things for the next guy.
As far as the motors, I haven't driven a 3.6 car, but in 15 years I have never once thought (much less said) "this car really needs a bit more power". When/if we have to rebuild our motor I'll opt for bigger bore with more power as I think it's silly not to at that point, but I'm also not rushing to get an otherwise unneeded rebuild done just to get more power.
That is true, but you have a good shot at a dual. You essentially have no chance on the 2003 (though Jake says he did open a 2003 and find a dual in it, but that was an aberration).
Yes it could. Both 2000 and 2001 were transition years for the IMSB from dual to single row. I have seen no source that can definitively tell which one a particular engine has. There are some sites that try to lump them into groups by engine case number but I seem to remember that people have even found errors in that. Basically the closer to 1999 the car was built the better the chances it has the dual row. The common assumption is that the dual row to single row was done to reduce costs. If so it would also tend to say there would have been a cleaner switch-over since part of the costs are also the assembly line. You certainly aren't going to save a lot by having the assemblers picking the right bearing for the right case. It seems to me it was more likely a parts availability issue. As they got in dual rows they used up the dual row cases until they were all gone--that took two years.
The 2000 996 was rated 300HP (unlike my poor '99 that was rated with a paltry 296). The bump to 3.6 liters make 15HP and 15 lb-ft of torque more than the 200-2001 3.4 - a measurable difference, but definitely not "huge" by any stretch of the imagination.
.2 liters might be HUGE for a car manufacturer wringing 150HP/L out of its engines, but Porsche just loves to dole out ridiculously incremental power increases to keep people on the hook year after year after year.
There are plenty of reasons to choose a C2 vs. a C4 - or the other way around depending on your preferences, and there are even different reasons you might prefer the '03 M96 to the '00 M96 (and again, perhaps the other way around) - but 15 HP and torque just isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, especially considering how the majority of people drive their 911's. I don't have a curve to add to illustrate what I'm talking about, but the M96 has a fairly predictable linear power increase all the way up to 6,500, where it flattens out for the next 700ish RPM. The difference between shifting at 6,000 and 6,500 RPM means up to 25-35 peak HP.
So as to avoid a HP-vs-TQ / "peak HP ain't nothing" argument - OP has been advised that .2 liters makes a "huge" difference; my point is that the majority 911 owners probably fall into the category of "I always shift by 4K RPM" ninnies who have probably never wrung more than 175HP out of their cars. The only time you're going to feel any difference at all is winding the car out at the top of every gear. If OP intends to spend time at the drag strip or is going to be a between-the-intersection hero, 15HP might be worth worrying about, but even during day-to-day semi-aggressive driving, it just doesn't matter all that much.
I went from a 300WHP car to my "lowly" 296 crank-horsepower 996; my Corvette too is putting down a solid 300WHP - but the 996 is more fun to drive than either of them. Being transfixed on the peak HP number at the expense of paying attention to all the other differences between the two cars is akin to choosing to marry a 105-pound crack ho simply because she weighs 15 pounds less than a 120-pound brain surgeon who models lingerie in her spare time...you will come to realize you might not have been paying attention to all of the important metrics.
OP, keep in mind that your 996 selection isn't ever really down to just two cars - there is lots of inventory. That C4, though, sounds special. I acted impulsively when I bought my 996 because it, too, was special and I couldn't bear the thought of not owning it. Terrible buying position to be in, but finding
THE
car is so much more enjoyable than finding
A
car. If you think you've found THE car...jump on it.
All great discussion points guys, seems like the consensus is that the C4 is a bit overpriced due to it's low mileage but this may actually prove to be a detriment in the end. However, if it has the dual row IMS it is probably fine to leave as-is.
I know the 2003 is the daily driver of a retired couple so I'm confident it doesn't have any hidden issues and the budget is there for a new clutch/IMS.
Given the above it seems like the safe choice is the 2003 and a new clutch/IMS. I am a sucker for looks though!
2000 C4
2003 C2
Your butt dyno must be amazingly well calibrated...the only time I can really tell a 15HP difference is:
* Creeping toward top speed in top gear;
* Making power above 7,000 feet
The original 996 turbo made 415HP - a very appreciable step up, but it's not exactly Carrera GT territory...
Since we're already off-topic and babbling about HP, did you know Nissan dropped a 600HP GT-R engine into a Juke? Damn, I would love to do some fishing with a 600HP juke. Pretty sure most Ferrari drivers would commit suicide if they got owned by a Juke. They added the -R badging and made the...Juker. *sigh*
Personally I like the 3.6 bigger engine, different headlights, updated cluster and a glove box! The glove box seals the deal haha. Both great looking cars
Meh, mine has my service wallet in it an empty savage garden cd case and torch. I should ditch the torch and the cd case to save weight. It is super handy for that extra kg though!
Definitely. Those looking for such a low-mileage example do so to find the most original car possible; they want to be the ones to make sure that the work is done perfectly, with exactly the parts they want, or believe that the lower mileage will make the car last longer.
The other big issue is that you can run into IMS bearing replacements that occurred AFTER the original failed. If the original bearing fails, the engine is disqualified from the IMS retrofit and the IMS solution due to the metal debris that gets run through the whole engine with the oil, and will subsequently destroy any new bearing that is installed.
This is the main reason. If you do it, you get to make the choices about how it is done and get to know the state of the motor. If the seller had it done you have to either do it again to be sure or trust that it's not just lipstick on a pig.
If I were buying a 996 I would take a factory bearing car over an upgraded one unless the upgrade was done by one of the certified installers and that could be verified. Either way I would be budgeting to have it replaced just the same (unless a certified installer confirmed they did it and all was good).
As far as Woodman's specific question, had I known ours was a dual before I had it opened, I would have simply done the clutch and not thought twice. I wouldn't have even had the outer seal pulled. Once we were in there that far, however, it seems silly not to just get it done. Hopefully the dual row Solution will be available by the time we need our next clutch.
Speaking of fish in the sea, a 2002 C2 was just reduced that I've kep my eye on.
Car has 90,000 Kms on it and the below is all new work
� REPLACED IMS BERING
� REAR MAIN SEAL
� NEW WATER PUMP
� NEW CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
� NEW CLUTCH DISK/ PRESS PLATE
� RELEASE BEARING/ CLUTCH FORK
� TUNEUP/ PLUGS
� TRANSMISSION SERVICE
� ALL LEAKS FIXED GASKETS AND SEALS
SOME OF THE EXTRAS INCLUDE
� V2 VORTECH ENGINEERING SUPERCHARGER 470HP ($14000.00)
� KW SUSPENSION V3 COILOVERS FRONT AND REAR SHOCKS
� HIGH PERFORMANCEADJUSTABLE COMPRESSION AND REBOUND ($6500.00)
Anyone have experience with a supercharger kit on a Porsche? Worries me a bit.
Yes. Mainly for the reasons stated above: could be lipstick on a pig, IOW, why and when was it changed or if I'm collector filling my "one-of-everything-built" collection it must be all original.
I have another reason, until a oil-feed plain bearing solution is available for the dual row engines, I believe there is a better chance of the original bearing lasting for the life of the car than any of the open/roller/home-brew fixes. Don't get me wrong I have the utmost respect and admiration for all of the suppliers and inventors that have come up with solutions to help take care of these engines but I would never replace a part that has been known to last 250k+ miles with a part that needs to be replaced every few years. I don't buy cars to take them apart, I buy them to drive them. Single rows are different. I'd replace it in a New York minute and will install the solution or some other less insanely-priced plain bearing solution if it becomes available as soon as finances allow. I wish the solution had been available when I replaced the IMSB the first time.
I also don't believe all low mileage cars are the same. Time destroys many plastic/rubber parts just as quickly regardless of mileage. The main thing, IMHO is how those miles got put on. If the car was driven daily for 3 or 4 years and then put away and just let sit for ten years, then treated to an oil change, driven for a few weeks and offered for sale, I'd have nothing to do with it. If it was driven 1 or maybe 2k per year and received regular time-based oil changes, I'd chance it.
Better at least schedule a new AOS upon purchase with this one. Also look at the records. If the turbo was done before the IMSB, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.
My '99 with ~50K miles when I bought it was worth all of $25-30K - but it had easily $20K in upgrades and extras. Previous owner put everything he could into it - and then apparently decided it still wasn't what he wanted.
It was sure as heck what I wanted, though.
It's amazing how much money someone will spend trying to make their car into something their car will never be. I have watched (and helped) guys install $20K in upgrades into a car that would never be truly fast and never be worth more than $10K...if he'd sold the car and spent that plus the upgrade money, he would have been in Viper territory instead of in a heavy FWD import making 400FWHP and snapping half-shafts every third run down the track.
Boats... Yeah. Oh my gawd. Don't get me started on airplanes.
$10,000 will get you a 'decent' but not great radio stack. $8k for a working autopilot. Saw a guy spend $23,000 for the PAPERWORK only to upgrade an engine. Just the documentation was $23k. Gulp.
Price on the 2000 C4 is not unreasonable if the car is pristine - that is the choice I would make for sure.
if the car is the color and has the options that you are looking for particularly if you want an Aero
I looked for a long time and found a Low mileage 2000 c2 with the color and wheels that I wanted that was unmolested I had to pay for it but its cheaper in the long run to get what you want - I have been driving it every day for 2 years and still only have 41K miles on it
I did not drive as many of the MK2 cars as I would have liked so my opinion is not as valid as some but I really like the character of the MK1 cars and I like the look of them as well.
I am very glad that I ended up with the 911 that I have, my only regret is waiting so long to get one.
Buy it and enjoy it
On the 3.4L vs. 3.6L topic, I would highly recommend the 3.6. As others have pointed out, the power/torque increase isn't huge. The big difference for me is the power delivery, thanks to the later version of the Variocam.
I've had the opportunity to drive quite a few 996.1s, 996.2s, 997.1s and 997.2s, and the 996.2 with the 3.6 liter really nails it for me. I find the 3.8 in the 997S to be a tiny bit sluggish (throttle response), and the 3.4 in the 996.1 actually felt underpowered.
I've been tempted by some 996.1s in the past, mostly because in Aerokit form I think it's the best-looking 996, but I've always been disappointed in the engine.
I haven't seen where the mk2s are actually any faster than the mk1s. I know they feel faster below 3k RPMs but from what I've seen the mk1 and specifically the '99 is going to be quicker around the track.
Also keep in mind that Porsche increased the number of corners they cut as they started the road back to profitability.
When I sold my 83 SC I was out of Porsches for 10 years and just drove good-old-US iron. When I decided to buy a 996 I looked at 3.6s and 3.4s. No question the 3.6s have a little more low end grunt and the extra torque would be useful if I lived somewhere like SF. The first 3.4 I drove underwhelmed me at first, until I got it on a winding stretch of road. All of the old SC feelings with the rear end gently wagging and the almost perfect balance of power and responsiveness. To me the narrow body, 3.4, manual, 2 wheel drive 99 is the almost perfect culmination of the original Porsche 911 experience. It has no equal.
NA 911s are rarely the quickest car at a stop light but frequently the fastest at the light. If you are use to muscle cars or rice burners the 3.4 will underwhelm. If you come from older 911s or older BMWs I think you will find the 3.4 almost perfect.
I currently drive a 3.4 C4 because the C4 is a little easier for non-Porschephiles to get used to. Someday I may 5CHN3LLify my C4 as I really like the feel of the C2 and I already have the C4 unibody which is the base platform for all of the high performance variants due to its significantly increased rigidity.
Thought i would update the group, I haven't made a decision yet and both cars are still for sale... Just found a 1999 Aero kit with only 77,000 kms (or 48,000 miles) for $21,000 Canadian so might go for that if the inspection looks good. Its got a refreshed suspension and upgraded brakes but is otherwise stock.
Sounds like everyone with a 1999 aero kit really likes them and the dual row IMS seems to be solid.
He has some but not all records from previous owner(s) of which he is the 4th. Waiting for more data. Car was used as a track car for half its life. Car was likely kept in very good shape as a result. You can't just drive on to a track in canada without passing inspections.
Current owners PPI ~1.5 years ago showed nothing wrong (no over revs, etc). Gentleman selling owns a couple exotics and services his vehicles at a high end shop so seems legit but would need a PPI to verify.
Is this is the same as internal alignment that they test? Where they do a full roto on the crankshaft, check and repeat? Trying to figure out if I'm conflating "internal alignment" and "camshaft deviation" or if they are the same thing vis a vis IMS prequal inspections.
No, the camshaft deviation is a value you can find using either a Durametric or Piwis diagnostics unit. The max cam shaft deviation threshold is 6 degrees.
Not sure how I stumbled on this thread... but making it this far now feels like watching a television series that gets the axe before the story line reaches conclusion.... LOL
So, what happened? Which car got picked???
