7 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHVariocam plus hessitation
Leading reported evidence
Check /
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.
Leading evidence: 'Check /' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check /' (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.
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.
7 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: 20261027T053112Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hi all. I was reading (very dangerous activity) the Total 911 article on the 3.4L 996 motor (July 2006). They are talking about reliability and one of the issues that came up was the Variocam Plus solenoid that in earlier designs allowed moisture to enter causing corrision and poor engagement of the Variocam Plus.
It says the design was redone about 3-4times for the 996. It does not state if all this was just for the 996 3.4 or if it affected the 3.6. I have a late 2001 MkII 996 and often I feel the Variocam Plus shift over obtrusively.
a few quesitons:
1. Is my engine even included in the scope of this article? (it starts out about the 3.4 but often refers to 996 in general).
2. does anyone else notice issues with Variocam Plus when slowly accelerating through 3,000 RPM (it's not an issue under WOT)
3. Has anyone had the solenoid checked/replaced?
4. Where is this solenoid?
5. Am I just a paranoid hypochondriac? (reading too much can be a bad thing).
Thanks. Ican link the article if you aren't familiar with it.
Thanks,
Andy
I cannot answer questions 1 & 2. However, a fault in the solenoid or tensioner should throw the CEL. This is what happened in my 00 996 (read recent New Owner thread) The solenoid is attached to the tensioner and (I think) acts to advance the cam timing. There is one on each tensioner, thus one on each cylinder head (IIRC driver's side in front, passenger's side in rear). Replacement means dropping the engine. When my tensioner went bad on passenger's side, I decided to do the solenoid on the other side as well.
Stefan
3.6 cars tensioners are complety diffrent, and do not require dropping the engine, b ut if you had a problem you would have a cel.
the change over is pretty obvious if you accelerate slowy through 3000 rpm
n ot only is the vario cam and the lifters coming in so is the the vario intake theres a lot going on and you will feel and hear a diffrence if you looking for it
fwiw i have never heard or seen of poor engagement of the vario cam plus, but u have seen fouled hydolic valves (cel) and stuck vario lifters (fault and a cel)
Normal on the 3.6l
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...variocam+surge
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...variocam+surge
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...variocam+surge
A 3.4 doesn't have Variocam plus, it has the basic chain tensioner based variocam system (timing only). Variocam Pus introduced variable valve lift that was originally introduced on the turbo, this is why the changeover is move obvious on the variocam plus cars, it is the large change in valve lift more than the change in timing, which is actually more subtle on the Variocam plus cars. Eventhough it is a larger range of advance, it is not an all or none change in timing due to the valve timing changes being accomplished by a vane type actuator rather than a chain tensioner design.
