7 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHingition problem inquiry again, I know!!
Leading reported evidence
Replace second time last year
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Part is 4A0905849B when mine was replaced for a second time last year.
Leading evidence: 'Replace second time last year' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace second time last year' (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
When I took this picture last week a my dealer I thought they were replacing a switch, but it was taken out for a squeek.
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: 20261027T154520Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I am going to do my ignition lock probably myself but I remember a few people have had it done by the dealer at a decent cost around 200. I am curious if the problem was solved with the same solution each time- most probably, and if so what was replaced. If anyone can take the time and look at the service record and part number I would greatly appreciate it. I hate dealing with it and started to check it out today but it looks like a lot of work to get started and not finish in one swoop. Tool pants? Loren? Thanks all. Knowlege is power- man that was lame, but Beck's is good on #4 now sorry
Part is 4A0905849B when mine was replaced for a second time last year. <a href="http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97416." target="_blank">Instructions</a>
cool! Thanks This was from the indication where it seems like the spring that returns the cylinder is broken or something and doesn't return it after you start it and when you go to take and put the key in creates a PITO?
I have never replaced the switch on my 1997 Boxster since the first replacement was in 1998 under warranty, and the second last year under a 1999 recall. Yeah, I waited 2 years to have the recall done since there was nothing wrong with the switch put in in 1998. I have been told Porsche has changed the switch several times since it is plastic and now there is a metal ring on the end of it, and there are still problems. The key will not spring back, lights don't work, a/c does not work, and stuff like that happens. Hope it is your switch since I hate working under a dash.
I like the vent idea to get to the screws that hold the switch in place. When I took this picture last week a my dealer I thought they were replacing a switch, but it was taken out for a squeek.
<img src="http://www.986host.com/albums/ToolPants/vent_side.sized.jpg" alt=" - " />
yeah it's mine. I am also going to have my new clutch with lightened fvd flywheel put in soon at a nice labour expense so maybe I can coax them to do it for free on a recall issue?
I am a Boxster guy, not 996 so I do not know if there was ever a recall on the early 996s. The switch on the Boxster fails for 97-99. But the recall was only for 3,718 1997 Boxsters. This is bs since is fails on other 1997 Boxsters, and continued to fail for the following model years.
I bet they will not do it for free since they cannot bill it back to PCNA. The early Boxster owners I know with the problem have had no luck if their car was not on the recall list.
