Do you have a remanufactured engine?

I'm not posting this thread to begin to try and prove anything, and if anything, may well just add to the heaps upon heaps of speculation that dates well beyond even when my Carrera was assembled. If yes, then questions for you: -Engine size - 3.4 or 3.6 (3.6) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (13K miles/April 2003) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (34K) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (Factory) -Any problems? (None)

Ben, Excellent topic, this group is big enough that it might be able to generate a reliable statistic. I wonder if you might change it to a poll, and ask everyone to vote yes replace (with your recommended stats) or no replace. That way a proportion can be generated, and info on life. Larry

I'm pretty sure the statistics will be helplessly skewed. In any event: 00 C2 [3.4] 59,500 at failure 2,000 on new (crate) engine AM Warranty No issues yet (fingers crossed) -td edited to add MY

How about model year of car!!

past car: 2002 C2: RMS X 5 motor replaced @ 20K Porsche paid. Do not know how many miles on it now

GReat idea Ben. We need a database of materials. Maybe we could cross reference 6Speed and Renntech. Also, maybe you should start a new thread with a difference title. Perhaps, one that states - "The Official 996 Engine failure database" I really think this info would be very helpful. We might even show a trend in manufacturing. C. C.

I'm not interested in putting together any sort of poll or attempt gathering "statistics" as I feel the internet is not an appropriate forum to gather this sort of data as someone will attempt to draw some conclusions based on it (no doubt). I just don't want my name behind this type of speculative effort; we have enough of this here. However, if any of you guys want to start one, I'll have no reservations participating. To be brutally honest, this thread is somewhat self-serving as this is an attempt at getting stories of reman engines failing since I have one. I am guessing others in the sames shoes as I share this interest. I do like the idea of having engine size. Edited above. I hope you guys can understand. Best, Ben

Paging Dell.........Paging Professor Dell, Please explain to everyone why this data will be meaningless.... Here's my info just for the hell of it. - Engine size - 2.7 and 3.6 -What mileage/date was it replaced? Never -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? None, all miles on original motors -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? N/A -Any problems? None

-Engine size - 3.4 -What mileage/date was it replaced? (52K miles/Dec 2006) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (25K) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (Factory) -Any problems? (None)

yep 99 c2, replaced at 33,000 catastrophic failure (cracked cylinder or porous block). 16,000 on replaced engine in 2004. PO fought Porsche for months to get partial payment/discount on reman.

-Engine size - 3.4 or 3.6 ( 3.4 ) -What mileage/date was it replaced? ( 43k miles/Dec 06 ) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? ( 10k ) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? ( No warranty ) -Any problems? ( None )

Very worthy effort, but there's one thing you absolutely need to measure specifically, and that's why the motor was replaced. Remember, Porsche replaced many under warranty just for seal problems. And many of those were, as it turns out, replaced unnecessarily due to a flawed measurement tool. Speaking for myself, I would only really be interested in engines that were replaced because they grenaded, not because they leaked.

Cool, Bruce, but all that I want to focus on for now is that last bullet item. I know mine was replaced due to RMS, not IMS.

I, for one, am interested in hearing mileage. So far (small sampling I know) the garage queen theory doesn't hold up.

-Model year - ('99) -Engine size - (3.4) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (105K miles/Spring 2005) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (28K) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (previous owner) -Any problems? (None) -Reason for replacemnt (excessive RMS leaks(RMS replaced every 12k miles))

Thanks, guys. Keep it comin'.

-Engine size - 3.4 -What mileage/date was it replaced? (51K miles/Jan 2008) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (0 Miles I am getting one soon failed IMS and RMS.) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? My Dime -Any problems? (Well see)

2003 3.6L - 20K miles. Original Engine. I've seen this misconception written here before (Hi Ben!) that remanufactured engines > Original engines. Let's get one thing straight: Original/NEW Engines > Reman Engines

Quotes source post: 5356875

Why would you say that? All things considered, I'd rather have my 10k mile reman engine than a 53k mile engine that would otherwise be in my car. IOW, I definitely consider the reman engine in my '99 to be a PLUS.

Quotes source post: 5356952

It IS a plus for you, period, FINITO

Quotes source post: 5356952

Bro, the guy has a bone to pick with me and that's fine - I got to him, he's weak. I've clearly stated above what this post is about and not about which includes not making any sort of statement, comment, inference heretofore that one (original) is better than the other (reman). I have a good source, he who has access to Porsche people we simply do not have access to, that can provide further insight into the reman program. Carry on.

Quotes source post: 5356952

Actually, it's too hard to quantify the difference when you're comparing an original engine with higher mileage to a reman engine with lower miles. The question I would pose is whether you would rather have a brand new engine installed in the car, or an engine that has gone through the reman program?

My '99 has 53k miles on original motor.

Quotes source post: 5356983

I do not have a bone to pick with you, and in fact, would rather explore the topic through a discussion of the points rather than making it personal. Isn't that what a discussion forum is supposed to be about? I've seen you post numerous times that you consider a remanufactured engine to be superior to an original/new engine. Other than the fact that your car has a remanufactured engine, this seems counter-intuitive to me and I've asked you to substantiate your position on numerous occasions. You've never really been able to answer my question except to imply that it is 'common knowledge' or that you have a good source that has witnessed Porsche sprinkling fairy dust on reman engines to make them even better. So I ask you once again, what exactly makes reman engines better than new engines?

From a pure numbers/engineering perspective, I understand why it doesn't make sense to think that a remanufactured engine is "better" than an original engine. But we're not talking about Sony TVs or Hewlett Packard laptops here. We're talking about an engine here. We're talking about the FACT that there is a factory within the factory where all it does is remanufacture these engines. It's not a bunch of soldering robot arms controlled and timed by a cpu. It's trained humans. Trained Porsche assemblers. I don't like to spew BS as much as the next guy, in fact, I'm probably more averse to it than your avg dude here. I have a source that can speak on this in greater detail, but unless I have permission or I dig down more into it, I simply cannot share what all that is involved in the remanufacture program. But for those of us who do have a remanufactured engine, rest easy that it is a good program and you shouldn't feel bad that it's a remanufactured piece. In fact, you may actually gain some additional pride of ownershp points in it. Again, this ain't your "used" Sony LCD TV replacing your new one. But, again, this thread isn't to discuss whether the original is better than reman and vice versa. This thread wasn't created to show that remanufactured engines are perfect. I just want to see if any have failed on a Rennlist 911 and maybe be lucky enough to get the story behind it all. That's it. To those that have remanufactured engines in their 911s, please, carry on. As for you jury, don't come in here thinking your hands are clean when it's clear what the thread is asking, what the thread is intended to get at and NOT prove. You're caught red-handed, again, that I hurt your Rennlist feelings and you think you can tame my huge ego. Will never happen. I'm a cocky ****. Only the chick I choose to marry can tame it. You want to be that chick? Sorry for the side drama.

'99 tiptronic 73k -engine just replaced (04-08) with a reman due to IMS failure '99 6spd 80k -engine just replaced (04-08) with a reman due to headgasket failure When the hell are we going to get a class action suit against porsche going? How many of these crappy motors need to bust before it's a fact that intially, they were poorly made?

Quotes source post: 5357039

I am not here to criticize Porsche's remanufacturing program, I am sure that it is very stringent. But the end result will NOT and CAN NEVER be a better engine than a new engine. BTW, Ben you often point to the "factory within a factory" as a positive point in the reman program. Refurb/Reman programs are always factories within factories because they do not want to mix the old parts with the new parts or use existing production lines to refurb parts as this could potentially contaminate/compromise the quality of new engines. Further, you talk about how a single person builds each reman engine. Guess what? A single person builds each new engine too, as anyone that's been to the Porsche engine plant in Stuttgart can attest to. There is only a single benefit to a remanufacturing program and that is lower cost. If your engine is under warranty, that benefits Porsche, not the consumer. If you are a consumer and are not willing to pay the premium for a new engine, than this will benefit you also. From a quality perspective, reman engines are a nightmare to measure, but there is such a small proportion of reman engines that manufacturers do not care about achieving consistent quality. In a reman environment, you are mixing old, worn parts with new parts; hence, you cannot achieve as consistent a result as a new engine with new parts, manufactured to defined tolerances. I can go into a lot more detail, but I think I will stop right here.

Quotes source post: 5357066

And I'm not disagreeing with your general framework when it comes to a remanufactured piece v. a fresh off the assembly line piece, but when it comes to the M96, it's a unique scenario and again, I can't go into further detail and share more, but that the process involves a small sampling and it's a good thing to have a remanufactured engine where I would go so far as to say, as I've stated b4 with the M96, I'd rather have a remanufactured engine than the original especially if you've got a 3.4, but also including the 3.6. In this post, this is not to say for all you guys on original engines go and get a reman engine. not at all. enjoy your original engine and i hope it lasts you the life of the car... but for those of us who went thru an unfortunate situation... it's not bad you got a remanufactured engine...baseline to baseline it's better than the original; clearly, since it failed you! I hope your original engine which you claim is superior to a reman engine does not fail you as you'll be eating your own damn words. I'd like to ask that we stay on topic to my original question. You're free to start your own thread and I'd gladly participate.

Quotes source post: 5357078

Holy run-on! I think this is why some people have issues with you. When presented with a superior substantiated position, you stubbornly cling on to your old unsubstantiated position even when you admit you do not have any evidence, or even a hypothesis to support it. The M96 is NOT a unique scenario and the remanufacturing process would be just like any other refurb process for a piece of equipment. And just like every reman process, you end up with an inconsistent, inferior product vs. the new product. This is a breathless leap of logic. Let's assume 0.5% of new engines fail, and 5% of refurb engines fail. Your probability of having a second engine failure in the refurb scenario is 5% * 0.5% vs. 0.5% * 0.5% for having a new engine fail. You can see from the math that it is highly unlikely to witness a 2nd failure, whether you have a new/refurb engine but having a new engine is still far better. That's only referring to total failures. When we get into component failures such as alternators, water-pumps etc that may not have been replaced in the refurb example, you will see far shorter service lives for those components vs. new components. I'd expect that I'd be very unlikely to experience an engine failure. However, if I do, you'd better believe I'd be pushing for a brand new engine. Fine, go ahead and start a new topic if you want to. I don't really want to start yet another depressing thread about engine failures, and I think most members would see more value in our discussion than raw and meaningless data about who has experienced engine failures.

-Model year - ('01) -Engine size - (3.4) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (37K miles/April 2008) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (~120) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? After market warranty, purchased because of fear factor induced by Rennlist tales of exploding engines. Well founded, it appears. -Any problems? Not so far. -Reason for replacement: Cracked cylinder wall, #2 cylinder Regarding jury-ca's assertion that a new engine is better than a remanufactured engine; that is not necessarily the case. Would I want a brand new M96 engine built in 2001 and stored in a deep freeze as a replacement for the original engine that just cracked its cylinder wall? No way in hell. Porsche has some serious design problems with that engine, and it's not entirely clear that they have remedied all of them. The local dealer intimated that IMS failures were much more prevalent than cracked cylinders, but the number was not small. He also intimated that significant improvements had been incorporated into the remanufactured engines to fix problems like IMS failures and RMS failures, but there had been no changes addressing cracking cylinder walls. So my chances of an IMS failure should be lower now, but I run the same risk of another block failure. Porsche doesn't get things right the first time-trust me, I have a 944 too, but they usually get it right in the end. I'm not sure the M96 engine ever got there. Regarding the assertions that the remanufactured engines are untidy collections of worn parts, and represent poor value, I guess that is what Ben is looking to learn. Are the remanufactured engines failing too? The local dealer's service rep also asserted that the remanufactured engine used a block that had failed QC the first time, been fixed, and then was built up with new parts. Hard to say if that is true. Certainly all of the things hanging on my new engine look bright and shiny. As far as tolerances go, I assume that they would not install parts that were out of tolerance in an engine build. Absent obvious wear, an in tolerance part that is old is just part of the Great Gaussian Distribution. I guess time will tell. After my engine bit the dust, I spent a lot of time reading threads here covering this sort of thing. I found that there was always some subset of posters who felt that there was not really a problem with the engines, and that it was just a run of bad luck, and all cars had this sort of problem. They seemed devoted to the sanctity and purity of their engines. I concluded from this research that the Nile is not just a river in Egypt. Porsche is not God, they make mistakes, they are reluctant to admit it, that's life. I tend to side with Ben, that they might have fixed some of the problems in remanufactured engines, and that that might be plus. New engines built for 2001 cars with lots of new engineering are not on offer, so I'll settle for the remanufactured model, and hope that they finally got it right.

Bill, If I might summarize your post, you are suggesting that a remanufactured engine > new engine since a reman engine might have "updates" a new engine was not subject to. This is highly unlikely because: 1) Manufacturers build new replacement engines JIT (Just-in-Time) and do not store 100s of them in a deep freeze when main production has ended. If you looked at the date-code for when a replacement engine was manufactured (new or reman) they'd likely be within the last 12 mts. 2) It is possible that they can end all production for new engines if demand for replacement engines is less than supply of remanufactured engines. However, usually this will not be the case because there will always be a fall out in cores that cannot be reused. Hence, total replacement demand will exceed re-manufactured supply and they have to build a batch of new engines from time to time. This is one reason a new M96 engine is much more expensive today than when it was still in production. The line set up cost has to be spread over a smaller production run. 3) Any engineering updates (ECOs) would apply to new engines first, and residual inventory of old components will not be scrapped but pushed into service parts and reman parts inventories. If anything, the reman engines get the oldest inventory of parts. Once again, this is not a huge issue because automakers don't run very high inventories, so it will work its way out. At the end of an engine's service life, engineering updates will be few and far between. The above is how manufacturing environments operate. Once again, this is comparing the scenario where you could replace your motor with a remanufactured motor or a new motor, both manufactured within a similar time-frame.

see "blueprinting". rest easy remanufactured guys, your motors are updated and likely closer to design specs than most of our originals. -Model year - ('02) -Engine size - (3.6) -What mileage/date was it replaced? N/A -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (N/A 44K on original)

^^Remanufactured engines are not "blueprinted" in the sense that they might take a few key measurements here and there for a couple of critical components in deciding whether they need to be replaced, but they will not measure the spec of all wear components vs. the original spec because this is simply too labor intensive. So you will still have a bunch of components that are out-of-spec purely due to normal wear. The point of whether a remanufactured M96 engine built in 2007, receiving the latest engineering updates (which likely would have been circa 2005) is superior to a new engine built in 2002 is a moot one since Porsche wouldn't offer a new engine built in 2002 as replacement. You'd either have an option of replacing with a remanufactured motor or a new motor built within the same period and with the same updates. In this scenario, you should ALWAYS chose the new motor. If it comes to purchasing a used car, of the same model year, one with a newer remanufactured motor and the other with an original engine...who really knows? You are purchasing a used vehicle where predicted failure cannot be reliably measured because there are too many confounding variables. Granted, I might lean toward the car with the replacement motor if they were similar mileage, but I would always wonder if the previous owner had driving tendencies that killed the original motor and whether the replacement motor was subject to the same abuse.

Quotes source post: 5357201

agreed, if choosing contemporaneous parts then of course the one that came off the new line. Do people have a choice to select a new M96 over a reman? (I'm ignorant to this) Oh and what I intended to say is that fresh remans were likely closer to spec than my 44K mi original, of course they aren't blueprinting blocks in the classic sense. However, engines of all kinds are rebuilt on plan as part of their maintenance schedule (and not just sprint racing motors, but every in-service reciprocating, radial, and rotary engine has a point at which it's to be rebuilt), so i don't think guys with reman motors need to worry any more than anybody else around here.

-Model year - ('02) -Engine size - (3.6) -What mileage/date was it replaced? 24k miles/2004 Due to RMS -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (16K miles) Reman engines have all the neccesary updates (newly designed RMS and IMS).. how can the original engine be better??

^^So would new engines built during the same period. Has anyone had to replace an X50 engine under warranty? Did Porsche offer another reman X50 engine or were you able to get a new engine with the X50? I would conjecture that reman X50 units are hard to come by so they would likely replace the motor with a brand new engine.

I agree that all the M96 engines built in 04 are the same, what I meant is that an 04 engine is better than the one my car had (2002). If your 996 is an 04, most likely it will have the same engine as my car..

jury- do you work for Porsche? How do you know everything you stated? I work in the Aerospace industry and there is non-destructive testing steps that Porsche could do to ensure an engine will not fail. You could test for cracks in the cylinder heads and intermediate shaft and so on. You could X-ray and check material thickness. Porsche can pull the sleeves and check for interference fit in the block. I myself would feel more confident with the reman. but I don't have all the info. It was stated before here that Porsche puts the remans. through stringent testing above and beyond the original testing to ensure the motor will not fail again. But, my info was from a discussion board.

jury, Might I add that you took this thread off its original intent. You should post a new thread debating reliability of reman engines. This thread is about whether you had an engine replaced or not. For the record: 77K miles yesterday after the drive. Love that third gear from 55MPH on. late '00 build 3.4L original engine.

Quotes source post: 5357496

Probably not at least in some sense. I just saw a factory replacement engine in the shop and it had no oil separator bellows which was the first time the mechanics had seen that. Apparently Porsche just came out with the new design. So it would seem that the M96 engines are still being updated.

2000 996 3.4 47000 miles original engine driven on autobahn regularly (Spring-Fall) at 150MPH+

Quotes source post: 5357496

My position is that if you're looking to replace your engine, say in 2004, you could either get a new engine off the assy line or purchase a remanufactured unit. The new engine would be better. Would a 2004 reman unit (assumed it's been updated) be better than an original 2002 engine? Perhaps the statistical chance of encountering RMS/IMS issues would be lessened due to the updates. However, components that were not replaced have finite service lives too and you have no idea what the mileage was on these components.

Quotes source post: 5357579

No, I do not work for Porsche, but I work in a similar industry, and like any profession following "best practices" what Porsche is doing today is no different from any of the major players in the industry including *gasp* GM. How Porsche manufactured cars before the early '90s nearly put them out of business until they hired former Toyota manufacturing experts to bring them up to the level of world-class automotive manufacturing standards. The Economics drives all decisions, and believe me they are not worrying about perfecting a piece of equipment because it will be far too costly...diminishing returns being what they are. Let me tell you what the difference is. In the aerospace industry if something fails, people die. Hence, they have a much stronger incentive to get things right and have 100% inspection. For Porsche, it would be cheaper to do statistical sampling because cost of failures would be less than cost of achieving 99.9999% perfection. If you were shopping used cars, I would agree with you. You should probably go for the lower mileage, newer generation reman engine than an original engine. WRT, more stringent testing beyond the original testing, this is highly unlikely. Each new engine gets run and its hp gets measured to ensure it meets the published hp number. (then they put the best engines in silver C4S, but I digress). The spec is usually designed such only >3 std. deviations would be considered a fail. There is no economic/engineering reason to increase the spec for reman over the original spec, because the 'defectives' would be too costly.

Quotes source post: 5355344

Yeah yeah yeah who gives a flying ****. One gets the factory replacement offered + warranty IF she blows. As stated multiple times by those who are interested in the OT Page one Post one.

Quotes source post: 5357659

Thank you, forum-cop. I'm not quite sure how discussion of the merits/downsides of reman engines somehow prevents other posters from keeping to the original topic if they wish to? If you find my posts a distraction because you are compiling this data for analysis and will provide us with some lovely pie charts, then I apologize. You can scroll right through the discussion if it does not interest you.

Quotes source post: 5358292

I am just not interested in reading your crap. As for the name calling, you haven't earned it.

^^Yet you can't help but comment on it? Go ahead and interpret the anecdotal data any way you see fit...those of us with scientific credentials know which part of this thread is crap. And spare me your sanctimony...I earned the right to name-call when I bought a Porsche and was immediately labelled an *******. Boo-effing-hoo!

Quotes source post: 5358364

Correlation is not the same as causation.

Jury, please, again, stay on topic. You're free to post a new thread if you'd like. you make it sound like those who have had engines fail had this option to choose between a brand new spanking engine and a remanufactured one. of course we'd all pick the new one assuming they're both using the same parts . but this is not reality. the original failed. people have to work thru the factory exchange program. these engines have been continually improved upon with updated parts. the remans get rebuilt to spec and receive the same amount if not more care in the rebuild process than those original ones that ... FAILED. ultimately, the thread is to solicit some stories about reman engines failing. that's it. nothing more, nothing less. Thx to the others for asking jury to stay on topic or post another thread.

99',41,450 miles,original 3.4 engine...fingers crossed!

'00 C2 Cab, 42k miles, original engine - runs great

Quotes source post: 5358413

Thank you. Apparently jury is not as intelligent as he thinks he is.

My old 996 had a replacement motor. Original went Kablooey at 5K miles Replaced at no cost under original warranty I sold the car and the new owner has put 30k on it without incedent.

Quotes source posts: 5358559, 5358419

Ask yourself honestly whether you've managed to draw any conclusions from the individual data points that have been posted? I bet you couldn't recall a single one except your own, which makes the original intent of this thread worthless. Meanwhile, the discussion I started exploring the engine remanufacturing process from an economic and industrial engineering perspective generated sufficient interest to get a number of informative responses from many posters with different backgrounds/perspectives which has enriched everyone's knowledge of the issue. The invisible hand has steered this thread to a more worthwhile subject. That's the democratic power of the Internet in action. :lol Lots of other threads have discussions that also move off on a related tangent, yet I don't see the 'STAY ON-TOPIC' ninny-squad (which includes you and Chao) emitting steam from your ears. You wouldn't be holding a grudge from our previous flame-fest? Naw. Did you try telling Porsche that a reman engine as a replacement was unacceptable? Sure if my original had plenty of miles, I'd accept a reman, but if I had my original engine grenade on me during the warranty period and I had low miles, I would INSIST on a brand new engine, not some rebuilt clunker. I think that's only fair. Rebuilds do NOT get more care than the original assembly process. I repeat. Rebuilds do NOT get more care than the original assembly process. Further, you can only build to the original design spec when you use new components. When you recycle components from old engines, you are clearly building to a more lax spec. Isn't it funny how in another thread you criticize me for being the type of person that is narrow-minded and conforms to rules, while you could never stay between the lines. Look where I gotcha!

Quotes source post: 5362126

You added a lot more hot air, unnecessary confusion to a thread that's here to get at one singular goal and I've stated this goal time and again. And again, stay on topic or start a new thread. Facts are facts. You drive a super low mileage C4S on its original engine. You're going to stick up for your own and that's cute/predictable. Your engine doesn't have the updates/improvements that most if not all the owners have received with their remanufactured engines here in this thread. You have never attempted to ask Porsche for a new engine (name one instance where someone received a new - not remanufactured - engine under factory warranty). Certainly facts are hard to come by and thus the reason for my disclaimer that I know you've read since it's clear to all of us here who participate in an online forum can read , though it looks like you have trouble comprehending and understanding the underlying intent/message. Worthless thread? Hey, guys, if someone posts here with a 3.6 reman that fails, would you hesitate for one second in believing that this jury kid wouldn't take a crack at the reman engines? Nah, he'd find great value in it via this "worthless thread". You, jury, have little motivation or reason to explore the remanufactured engine program at Porsche as you have no stake in the game as it's wholly clear you are supremely confident in your original engine and have never had a need to explore this path. Lucky you. As for those of us who have had issues, lucky us to get a remanufactured engine and based on my research, this is a good/better thing. Fuqin nerd. WHAHAHAHA

'03 Carrera 3.6 w/ IMS failure at 23,000 miles Replaced w/ reman engine in 10/06 under warranty Presently have 13,000 on engine. Water Pump leaked two months ago with about 10,000 on engine. Extended warranty covered $1K bill.

MY01 C4 Cab 35k miles - original engine.

MY00 C4 Millennium 28k miles - original engine

Is there any easy way to tell if you have the original engine?

'02 Carrera 3.6, failed at 48k miles, previous owner so don't know exact cause. Replaced w/ reman engine under extended warranty, got 2 years porsche warranty on the engine. Presently have 5k miles on the engine. No problems since then. "you make it sound like those who have had engines fail had this option to choose between a brand new spanking engine and a remanufactured one. of course we'd all pick the new one assuming they're both using the same parts ." ^^ I agree with the above. I think the argument is a moot point anyways. Who had gotten a new not reman engine when their original engine went kaboom? Perhaps the question should be - is a reman engine better than an original engine from those years? I would think the answer is yes.

Quotes source post: 5362801

The motor number is on the side of the bottom of the motor, near the oil pan mating surface, towards the front of the motor, visible with a flashing looking in from the driver side behind the wheel. If you have a 2002 car, the original motor number would start with 662. (according to the factory doc the numbers start with 66200501 and run up from there, but mine is 6620382) A remanufactured motor probably has an X or AT in the number. Bill

Quotes source post: 5358364

I normally stay out of these exchanges but based on your idiotic comments I have to post. Your opinion and that's all it is, is wrong. A Porsche factory reman is every bit as good as the "new" ones you think you are referring to because you obviously don't have a clue about the inner workings of Porsche. Anything they replace under warranty meets or exceeds the tolerances of the failed part(s) that came off the car and those goiing to paying customers receive nothing less themselves. Need more info? Go here http://www.porsche.com/usa/accessori...facturedparts/ What do I know? I was a partner in a Porsche exclusive motorsports facility that dealt directly with Porsche Motorsports (also our engine source) we replaced a lot of 996 motors, built our own, and also transplanted them (996 motors) in to Boxsters - not to mention stuffing a factory X-51 997 3.8L in to a Cayman S chassis. It was a reman BTW.

Quotes source post: 5364660

Hahah. Don't be so naive as to believe marketing materials. Porsche has a clear incentive to tell you that a remanufactured part is equivalent/better than a new part. Rest assured, it is NOT, otherwise, why not swap remanufactured parts into the assembly line for new cars? They would never, never do that. While the statement, "a remanufactured part has to meet or exceed the standard for new parts" can be technically true it does not mean that the whole sub-assembly meets the same standard as a new subassy. If a subassy is made of part X,Y,Z and only part X is remanufactured, part x could meet the original standard but parts Y, and Z are not even tested beyond assumed guidelines. When new, all parts go through multiple quality processes at each machining/assembly step, which will not be repeated in the reman process. Further "exceed" the spec is a misnomer because every mfg process has inherent natural statistical variation. New parts exceed the spec too! They did not say they made the spec more stringent for reman parts, now did they? Next, we will talk about the concept of "betterment." I'll give you 2 extreme examples to illustrate: If your original 1999 engine had 55K miles and was replaced by a remanufactured engine 3 years later, yes you are better off! If they offered a new engine - bonus! If you have a 2003 3.6L that failed after 5K miles in the first 3 mts of ownership and Porsche offers you a reman engine, you are NOT better off and you should insist on getting a new motor. P.S. Your experience is anecdotal..it does not make you more credible than my "idiotic opinions."

Quotes source post: 5362249

My C4S is a late build 2003. You received your remanufactured engine in 2003. Do you really think that your remanufactured motor is superior to my new motor assuming they are built during the same time-period? The question of whether anyone gets new engines is a good one. Consider the Math. There is an inherent fall out ratio for cores that cannot be used. Assuming they are not refurbing cores for cars that have been written-off in accidents, they HAVE to build some new engines to compensate. If the fallout ratio is 10%, then 10% of customers get new engines. Now if you were Porsche, who would you give those new engines to? You give it to your best / newest customers. The guy that had an engine fail at 3K miles. Of course they are not going to publicize this or everyone will want new engines too. Whatever helps you get through your day, Benjy. Name-calling again? Didn't we cover this before? A superior opponent 1= nerd.

1999 996 C2 with 3.4 engine non e-gas 69,000 miles when struck with the intermix mystery January 07 I put about 20,000 since I have the standard Porsche warranty: 2 years unlimited miles which expires in January No issues I would love to know what improvement/changes my remanufactured engine has from the original

rleeq, read Streather's book. It'll tell you what the updates have been to the M96. IIRC, the latest update was done in 2005 which would include the same IM shaft and other parts that they're shoving into the 997 3.6s. Check it out. His book's a good resource and pretty much the only guy I know on Rennlist who has taken the time (a lot of it) to filter out the BS (jury's posts, et al) from the real RS (real ****) which leaves you with just RS.

Quotes source post: 5364822

Real convenient for you to switch up your story now. You go from your nerd equation: "Original/NEW Engines > Reman Engines" To now comparing an original engine (your engine) to a reman engine (my engine) built around the same period. I'll keep it real instead of keeping it BS (your style) by taking out the conjecture/hot air that you're full of and say we will never know which one is better: your engine or mine. How the hell are you going to even begin to prove that or anyone else? What we all have is anecdotal evidence, bits and pieces of it, with some people understanding the context or the story behind it more so than others. I attempted to reach out to some of these people to learn myself and try and begin to piece together what's going on. Surely not scientific, but with an intent to get at something to understand the reman program and what Porsche is doing. You? You got NOTHING and it's obvious with your nerd equation above, but due to MY/our ability to be patient and deal with you in a thread where I've repeatedly asked you to stay on topic or start another thread to which you the ignoramous refuse to honor, you've now come to accept the fact that your equation is an astonishingly bad one. -There is no NEW engine v. REMAN engine. Do you get it? Porsche does not give any of us this option. In fact, you can't buy a new 3.4 with all the nice updates off the shelf today. We must buy reman. -Even with that, the question is, would I want a reman v. new/original? Let's say your engine blows tomorrow, you know what you're going to do? You're going to read up on Rennlist and at the end of the day, you are going to feel just fine and dandy sitting up there in North Vancouver or wherever you may be that you're getting a reman engine. We all know this, but we also know you'd never admit it because your pride/equation is on the line. -This thread is to hear some stories about reman engines blowing up like the original/new engines that were fitted into our lovely cars. That's it. Must I state this again to you? So far, so good, but so far for you, so very bad. Again, good luck with your original engine. Seriously. This is too funny, man. Keep digging. And again, I request that you start your own thread on this subject matter as it surely is generating a lot of interest. Otherwise, to the rest of you, please continue to respond. TIA, Ben

Quotes source post: 5365419

Right. Which makes the whole debate a ridiculous waste of bandwidth. We may as well be arguing about whether we'd prefer a remanufactured motor or a flux capacitor.

LOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOL fuqin Bruce hits it outta the park again w/ but a few words

[QUOTE=jury_ca;5364822]My C4S is a late build 2003. You received your remanufactured engine in 2003. Do you really think that your remanufactured motor is superior to my new motor assuming they are built during the same time-period? The question of whether anyone gets new engines is a good one. Consider the Math. There is an inherent fall out ratio for cores that cannot be used. Assuming they are not refurbing cores for cars that have been written-off in accidents, they HAVE to build some new engines to compensate. If the fallout ratio is 10%, then 10% of customers get new engines. Now if you were Porsche, who would you give those new engines to? You give it to your best / newest customers. The guy that had an engine fail at 3K miles. Of course they are not going to publicize this or everyone will want new engines too.quote] Again, your high school level quasi scientific analysis based solely on an opinion and not 1st hand experience or fact is nothing short of comical. Reman engines do not have any used parts. Your position is absolutley false and baseless as well. As for my 1st hand experience with this process, to dismiss it clearly shows your delusions are just that, delusional. There are no "new" motors as you a are describing. You are also pulling stats of out thin air (10%...?). Where do get this #? You're one guy, a customer at that. No experience and or relationship with Porsche. You own one, but you don't build engines or have a clue about how Porsche's engine program works nor have you ever seen the reman programs guidelines or processes 1st hand. Yet, you attempt to make a completely baseless agrument because you've "figured out" that everyone else is an idiot and Porsche is not pulling a fast one on you. Wow. I'm going to post the next invite to a Porsche tech event in Vancouver so you can come down and explain your theory live to a few Porsche mechanics, a rep from PCNA, and those with Motorsports relationships (tell them their race to race engine rebuilds are never going to be as good as the 1st one) and see what happens. Bring your crayons so you can graph it out with all your scientiic formluas each based on your educated guesses. Do you have any Motorsports experience or have you figured that program out to be short changing their world wide customers (us included) also? And for the record, Porsche doesn't distinguish between customer "A" as being "best" and/or customer "b" as being 2nd class. They don't have or care to have that level of visibility. Everyone gets an engine that's a reman. When your engine "core" goes back, it's put through the same process. New engine and Reman engines are the same. Legally - when they replace an engine under warranty, they can't put a used engine in that same car. Their "reman" engines are considered new. How many time do you have to be told that?

Well flat-6, meet Mr. "A". Pleased to meet you. For the rest of you "B" beeeotches deal with your weak *** 2nd class reman engines, sucks to be you, yup I know. As some here know, I pack an all original superior 3.4l engine. Wendelin, Mr. Wiedeking to the rest of you chumps, has assured me that it if I'd ever need replacement it would be with the better than brand new 3.4l-A engine. So listen up, a little advice for you all. If I were in the "B" class I'd keep my mouth shut, stop pretending it's all good and make the best out of the reman **** card you've been dealt. That's just life, you can't win so move on

Quotes source post: 5363245

Can someone post a picture of exactly where this is? I would like to check too. This is great information to have (and to know)

Quotes source post: 5366443

Try this link: http://www.renntech.org/forums/index...e=post&id=9437 Note, the number on mine doesn't match the information in the Porsche parts counter catalog, but it's close. And numbers I've seen other people post don't come close. Bill

Quotes source post: 5365383

Please point out any inconsistencies between my posts and Adrian's book before you call my posts out as "b.s."

-Engine size - 2.5 (Boxster) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (9k miles/1998) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (30k Then sold) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (Warranty) -Any problems? (None) -Engine size - 2.5 (Boxster) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (2.5k miles/1999) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (80k) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (Warranty) -Any problems? (None) -Engine size - 3.6 (996) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (not-yet) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? () -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? () -Any problems? (None) You want me to include my buddy's 98 and my other buddy's 01 engine failures?

cdod, yes please.

Quotes source post: 5368412

sup nerd. we don't even have to compare that good book to your bs posts. even in your own posts there are inconsistencies - you/we need not look far. and i kinda feel sorry for you bud... you're gettin' spanked dog! WAHAHAHAHAH

Quotes source post: 5365419

I can see how someone of your low mental stature would consider a basic elementary school equation to be a "nerd equation." I'd better not use calculus or your brain might explode. Lol. Let's assume both our engines left the factory on the same day. Mine came off the new assembly line, yours came off the remanufacturing line. Do you really think your engine is better than mine? You've constantly implied that the remanufacturing process is more stringent and hence corrects flaws on the new assembly line, and this is absolutely wrong. You have no background in quality or manufacturing to begin to piece any of this together. I do, and I'm telling you how it works. Ben, I'm going to ask you to stop asking me to create a new thread, when 1) It's not going to happen and 2) You then spend the next 500 words going 'off topic' yourself. At this point, I'm only responding to posts. Certainly not true when these engines were still in production. I believe at least one poster here has said he has gotten a new replacement engine. However, the longer they have been out of production, the more costly it would be for Porsche to start production on a discontinued engine. Nevertheless, they still have to deal with the fall-out ratio. Hence, you would expect them to cheap out even further by trying to rebuild old engines at your local dealer rather than remanufacture them in Germany to reduce the turnaround time to repair these engines. So I'm going to add a new term to my nerd equation: New engine >> Remanufactured engine > Rebuilt engine Hope this one doesn't make your brain explode.

Quotes source post: 5364822

[QUOTE=Flat-6 Performance;5365626] 1) Remanufacturing engines do not have any used parts? Hahah. Just by that statement alone, I know I have already won the argument because you have no idea what you're talking about. The whole point of remanufacturing is to use old parts to reduce cost, and to replace certain critical components with new parts. There is no other benefit to remanufacturing other than cost. When you figure the incremental supply chain, fixed and variable cost to disassemble, diagnose and rebuild a broken engine, you can see that they are financially constrained to how much effort they expend on a reman engine before it becomes a break-even point with just replacing with a new engine. 2) Pray tell us what is your "first hand" experience with this process? Have you visited the Porsche refurb line? Have you designed the process? Do you have an industrial engineering background? No, you've just installed reman engines into cars, yet you and Ben prance about this forum pontificating about how a reman engine is just as good if not better than a new engine without being able to substantiate it in any way. My work allows me to see how these processes are done in multiple industries/companies. I have even done work in Stuttgart (lived there for 3 mts in 2007) and worked in the Porsche supply chain. Unlike you, I don't consider this experience as adding to my credibility because it is not specific to the Porsche refurb process. 3)As for "there are no new" motors, why don't you answer this question. If there are 100 vehicles requiring engine replacement, and only 80% of failures result in reusable cores, WHERE DO THE OTHER 20 engines come from? Doh! Well that diatribe doesn't prove anything for or against the original argument. If your intention is to diminish my credibility, you're going to have to do a lot better. There's a flaw in that logic that states that one is somehow getting "shortchanged" by getting a reman engine. That's not what I'm saying at all. A reman engine will WORK. Ceteris paribus, it is just not as good as a new engine from a quality perspective. Oh really? Ever heard of Customer Relationship Management (CRM)? All multinational companies do segregate customers, because it makes good business sense to do so! They are not considered new, they are considered remanufactured. Don't make up terms.

Quotes source post: 5368459

Look in the mirror! Someone like me doesn't need to take any crap from someone that looks like you. Couldn't find any references that dispute any of my points, huh? That's ok, Ben, I called you on your pitiful little bluff, and you folded. Here's another equation for you: If we disagree, I am right and you are wrong.

jury, post your resume and prove that you are credible. I bet you that we will never see it because you can't back it up.

I can't believe your still going at it Just like the tire thread all over again. Another pointless round of BS made to sound smart and superior in order to feed an ego in need. Mine is better than yours weak *** comparisons coupled w/ I'm right no matter what **** put your insecurities and ignorance in full display. A pig wearing makeup is still a pig.

If jury is legtimate; Rennlist would have known about him long before he showed up. For all we know, his "auto industry experience" involved building Yugos.

Dont give him too much credit Chao The jury is out to lunch

True. Perhaps the experience comes from pumping his own fuel.

Which tire thread?

Here you go Tippy, gets better as it goes along (you'll see what I mean) https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...=339320&page=6

Quotes source post: 5369041

thanks ls

Quotes source post: 5365626

[QUOTE=jury_ca;5368636] You have got to be the most pontificating moron I've ever encountered. Segregating customers in your CRM is not considered best practices and suggesting that some get "better" quality product new or otherwise is nothing short of preposterous. As for my "credibility" when it comes to best practices, supply chain automation, quality control and the manufacturing process in general, is all I've been doing for nearly 20 years. I said I was "a partner" in a Motorsports facility, my primary business is supply chain automation. I own an internationl supply chain automation company and have worked hand in hand with automakers the entire time. Here's a link to our web site www.infinitdata.com As for Porsche specifically. I have seen thier reman engines apart and assembled 1st hand. That is direct, hands on experience with this topic. We worked with them directly and built race engines using their "cores" which once heat cycled and tested for tolerneces, were actually MORE reliable than a new core right off the line. If you could please, remind us all again what your direct experience is with Porsche engines other than getting in your car and turning the key? Ever disassembled or built one? Do you work with Porsche motorsports at all? Because so far, every single post you've barfed out on this forum might as well begin with...."in my hopelessly uninformed opinion"? Anyone that would purport to know what "all multinational companies" unilaterally do is clearly naive or daft, or better, both. I couldn't imagine telling any of our "multinational customers" that we practice segregation and so deliver a disparate level of quality and service as a "best practice". This my last post and I appologize for the ranting to everyone else but sometimes you can't just sit by.

So the additional failure data I have is: -Engine size - 2.5 (Boxster '98) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (22k miles/2006) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (12k To date) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (Out of Warranty - Porsche covered engine but not installation - NDA signed by owner at insistence of Porsche) -Any problems? (None) -Engine size - 2.5 (Boxster '01) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (18k miles/2003) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (Not known - car sold immediately after engine replaced) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (Warranty) -Any problems? (None)

Quotes source post: 5369787

You are a breath of fresh air for all the stank **** booty smell coming out of jury's mouth/keyboard. i've had dead-thread discussions with him in another thread. he has absolutely zero credibility to speak on anything. he's never had to look at the reman program himself as he drives a 13K mile c4s with its superior original engine that is guaranteed not to fail him ever. he conveniently switches up arguments and to counter he brings up absurdly inane points. he mentioned things about his altar for his porsche gods. he makes reference to the way i look as if that has anything to do with anything porsche. and btw, ladies love my baby face. jury simply hates. and you can't hate what you don't want. he hates this thread because i started it. he hates this thread because he doesn't have a reman engine, he drives a super low mileage c4s, and he knows deep down that's not exactly the best position to be in. jury's-porsche-gods-forbid if his engine ever fails him, he's going to get a reman engine and guess what... he's going to love it based on input from me, you the qualified guy, streather, and other rennlisters who have first hand experience with engine failures and/or the reman program. but he's biting the hand that's feeding him. it's pure comedy because he doesn't realize the joke is on him. again, thx for sharing your input. i'm glad you decide to post here. it gives all of us who do have reman engines some additional peace of mind that porsche might've made one mistake with the original, but they learn and apply to try and avoid another. for those of you who have the original engine and are doing fine, that's wonderful as well.

Quotes source post: 5368636

[QUOTE=Flat-6 Performance;5369787] Would love to chew the fat with you boys, but gotta run, so I'll make this brief. If you work with Porsche motorsports and in the supply chain area, then you would also know that one of the logistics companies that Porsche uses to transport show cars and race cars is called Joker Logistics. It's a subsidiary of a larger company Porsche uses for worldwide distribution of parts, including <drumroll> the remanufactured engines. Now how would I know that?

Quotes source post: 5368880

Self-deprecating humor pwns you.

"Other than that Ms. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" I think this thread got lost in translation.

Quotes source post: 5362126

To address your points above: You clearly know ****-all about the remanufactured engines from Porsche. You refer to them as being 'old clunkers' and 'old engines' - suggesting that they are in some way recycled engines from old cars. In fact these engines are ones that failed QC at the factory - are then torn down by hand, and rebuilt (in factory) before being re-tested and passed by QC. They are brand-new engines in every way. So by definition, they have undergone more testing than a standard production line engine, having been through the QC loop twice. Ones that failed porous block-tests would be sleeved, making them potentially a better quality product than a straight production block. You say you'd insist on a 'new engine' - you can insist all you like but Porsche can use what ever engine replacement they see fit, that meets their specs - You have absolutely no say in the matter, read the small print - As it is, it's a 'new' engine that's been through the in-factory QC process as above. Seeing as you've never been through this engine replacement process, I'll put you complete ignorance down to lack of experience, rather than just being a complete ***. Next time, ask someone who's been through the loop (a few times) before spouting-off cr@p and trying to pass it off as fact.

jury, I take it you are an attorney, and as such are trying to win a logical argument, and going to some lengths. I agreed with you several pages ago that if all things were equal, two motors withthe same release date with all the same accessories and updates and warranties, no one here would rather have a rebuilt engine vs. a new one in their production car. But my point, which I made a bit more subtly in that previous post but will spell out here, is that your point, while obviously correct synthetically, is moot in all practicality or reality, as we can't go out and buy new M96 replacement motors if our current motors fail. What is the value in you and Ben arguing this point ad f*cking nauseam for so many pages if it has no bearing on reality? This is not a comment on race motors where the additional block strength inherent in an old motor that has seen a lot of heat cycles (see nascar & taxi blocks) is advantageous, I don't doubt flat-6's testimony as I've seen how strong old abused blocks can be compared to new parts in high compression applications.

Quotes source post: 5369787

[QUOTE=jury_ca;5369992] So being involved in moving pallets and cars around the world makes you an expert in Porsche engines? This is so weak.

Quotes source post: 5370305

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

Possibly he was the forklift driver? In the Physics biz we have something called proof by blatant assertion; that seems to me to be the technique he is employing. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts.

2001 3.4 23000 28000 factory none so far

Quotes source post: 5370357

If that is his resume, I am, along with everyone else on the board, just asking for clarification.

Quotes source post: 5370582

I know, it just came off like you were pokin' and proddin'

Quotes source post: 5370604

Am I poking? Perhaps. Tippy, you are one of the more knowledgable guys around because you are an engineer by trade and have worked on your cars with success. I respect your opinions. This guy, who probably has never put air in his tires before, is declaring to everyone around here that his porsche knowledge is the next best thing since sliced bread; I want to know why.

I think we should all stop looking at this thread

Quotes source post: 5369992

that's like saying i know all about the fat content and what kinda cows mcdonald's decides on for their big mac beef pattys because i know the company who hires the people to put up their big mac billboard advertisements.

Quotes source post: 5370483

Thank you. I'm trying to recall if I've ever heard of a reman failing on this forum... I think I have, I may not have... not sure.

Quotes source post: 5370737

Sorry htny, can't look away. It's like a bad accident w/Jury in the driver seat. The thread has a great topic and hope it is not ruined due to one mans display of stubborn ignorance. Did not even bother opening his BS link. Why? Could care less if he's a self proclaimed big shot (very predictable) or certified fork lift driver. He just simply has to impress, needs to feel superior, always knows best. If you don't buy into his BS he will argue on and on. Will not let it go due to his over inflated ego Agree with him and acknowledge his studliness and he will go away happy camper Otherwise he'll linger like a bad fart

Quotes source post: 5370901

i was searching for the same thing earlier out of curiosity, didn't find but wasn't too comprehensive

Quotes source post: 5371038

Yes, remanufactured engines have been replaced - more common in the early days of the M96 on the Boxster. remember, at that time, engines were being replaced because of RMS issues - when Porsche were recalling RMS plagued blocks in order to inspect them back at the factory. So a 'failed' remanufactured engine from that era, may not be a true 'failure' - just a recall to factory. There are many variables here - including the approach the Porsche has to the various issues that they have encountered with the M96 during production.

Quotes source post: 5369832

FYI, 2001 model base Boxster had a 2.7L. The 2.5L was last used in the '99 model year. FWIW, I had a 2.5L engine failure in my '98 Boxster, and it was replaced out of warranty gratis by Porsche. The reman engine felt quite a bit tighter, smoother, and stronger than the original.

Quotes source post: 5371063

My bad, 2.7 for the 01

Quotes source post: 5370733

I don't care if you were probing, I was just adding drama with the "sit back, watch how this will unfold tub of popcorn".......hahaha. I am not an Engineer, I work with and around them daily. I have been told large amounts of Engineering theories and tests over the years though.

Quotes source post: 5370215

IIRC, Porsche only did this on some early Boxster motors. They have never sleeved 996 motors to the best of my knowledge.

Quotes source post: 5356085

Quote from post number eight....... This thread is worse than meaningless (what I anticipated) as it is now filled with pure speculation and outright false info. It represents the worst possible type of "data" (data which is pulled from a biased population in a non-random fashion). My only hope is that it will die soon.

Quotes source post: 5371290

And this directly contributed to the perception that the remanufactured blocks were 'better' than factory standard - because in this respect they were an improvement. Remember, all of this happened in the Boxster domain first, due to the timeline for delivery of new models to market - so much of the M96 mythology was developed in the Boxster forums at that time.

Quotes source post: 5371491

Actually, the re-sleeved Boxster motors were a disaster for Porsche. They were much worse than the original motors (O.E. 986/996/987/997 motors do not have sleeves) as the sleeves failed at the top, then floated loose in the cylinders until the motors ultimately failed. They were certainly no "improvement" and Porsche discontinued the process after they became aware of the problems. The only "re-sleeved" motor I would even consider putting in my car is an "autofarm" motor.

wow

Quotes source post: 5370215

While _SOME_ remanufactured engines are indeed new engines that have failed first-pass QC, the VAST MAJORITY of remanufactured engines come from cars that have been on the road racking up miles. If those engines fail, and the cores are reusable, they are sent back to Porsche's remanufacturing center, checked-in (data downloaded as to engine-hrs, build-date, failure root-cause, etc) then they get torn down and rebuilt. After being rebuilt, they are kept in a first-in-first-out inventory sequence before they are put into cars like Ben's. Based on your points above, they would not be able to remanufacture anymore M96 engines because new production for them has ended. If you do not believe me, you can call a large dealer like Sunset Porsche and ask them if they send back engine cores to get rebuilt. I would also advise you to use a more civil tone of conversation because you do look rather foolish when you call me out as "ignorant and foolish" while standing around with egg on your face.

Quotes source post: 5371306

Worst than meaningless? I feel it had at the very least entertainment value. I don't believe it was ever meant for anything useful for any kind of study, statistics, or etc... I thought of it more as interesting to see how many 3.4l vs. 3.6l would post up Also some of the experiences shared w/reman motors including possibly someone having had a bad experience with one willing to post. By no means it would or could prove anything

Quotes source post: 5372009

I have yet to see a remanufactured engine which wasn't a factory QC reject, i.e. an engine that never left the factory, but was remanufactured after it failed QC. Porsche have a large US stock of engines ready for replacement - they have a huge warehouse full of them near Ontario CA, so manufacturing plays no part in their continued availability. As with all manufacturers, they have crunched the numbers, and worked out how many 'spares' they will need to have in stock once production ceases on a line. Dealerships have been sending engines back to Porsche for tear down and diagnosis, that's how they reached a conclusion on the RMS issue i.e. non critical feature rather than terminal fault. As for the tone, I was merely responding in a tone to match your own - in the hope that you'd be able to 'get it'. I'm normally a pretty tolerant fellow - but you come across as a complete troll and a waste of bandwidth. And you've got zero actual experience to back up your 'facts' - try fighting Porsche for a few engines, post failure, and you'll have a very different perspective, AND have done a lot more research into the issue before you spout-off online.

Quotes source post: 5371509

That is not correct - the 'sleeve' you refer to in the Autofarm article, is the moulded in lining of the original M96 engine for the Boxster and 996 - not the post production refit performed during remanufacture. The M96 engine is quite different to those in earlier 911s, in that the cylinder liners are cast into the two halves of the engine block. They are made of a very hard, carbon-heavy material called Lokasil, and are positioned in the cast and then surrounded by molten aluminium. When the casting cools, the liners become an integral part of the block. Unfortunately, cracks can appear in the lining and its surrounding aluminium. �It appears to be an issue with the block�s torsional rigidity, �All engines twist to some extent,�. �And the harder you work them, the more they tend to distort. It�s like the wing of an aeroplane � it visibly moves up and down as the aircraft passes through turbulence, but if it didn�t flex it would simply snap.� Read the Autofarm article more closely and you'll see where you went wrong: http://www.autofarm.co.uk/pdf/Total911_July06.pdf

Quotes source posts: 5372068, 5372068, 5372068

I have a very good understanding of these motors and they are not "sleeved" in the traditional sense (if you consider the Lokasil process a traditional sleeve, you and I are using entirely different definitions). Furthermore, I believe you are incorrect about the sleeves that were used in a small numbers of Boxsters. Twice now you have refered to them as "improvements". These were definately "sleeves" in every sense of the word (they have no similarity to the Lockasil process) and were very prone to failure. As I stated before, to the best of my knowledge these were never used in 996 engines and the few Boxster motors they were used in produced disasterous results. As for the Autofarm process I believe you have misunderstood my post. I was in no way comparing the simple sleeve that Porsche put in a limited number of early Boxster ('98-'99) to what autofarm does. It was sloppy of me to refer to these as sleeves, as their process is much more intensive than what Porsche did with some of the early Boxster 2.5's.

Quotes source posts: 5368779, 5368912, 5368955, 5368986

You won't see it because my resume is none of your business, nor do I want to make Ben and you feel even more inadequate. You have a choice of responding to the arguments, or merely attacking the individual. You chose the latter because you clearly don't like the message and your knee-jerk reaction is to emit steam from your ears rather than attempt to process in an intellectual manner. Wow, that is a breathless leap of logic. It is almost comical to what extent the reman crowd will go to defending the sanctity of these engines when all I said was that they are not as good as new engines coming off the new assembly line. I never said that these were bad engines per se. If this was an attempt at a slam, it's pretty darn weak.

Quotes source post: 5372055

Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How many remanufactured engines have you seen? How would you be able to differentiate whether it was a QC reject, or a reused core? The notion that the new engine mfg process is so inefficient as to generate enough surplus engines to exceed replacement demand is ridiculous. Ok, now we're getting into an argument with some substance. Allow me to paraphrase your point: "Since production of the M96 engine has ended, Porsche has placed a bunch of new engines that were remanufactured after failing first pass QC in a deep freeze in Ontario, CA" 1) If they keep a large, old inventory of remanufactured engines, how do the latest updates get incorporated into reman engines? You can only incorporate the latest updates quickly if you run lean inventories. Or do you think they send the entire inventory of engines back to Germany to get reworked everytime there's an update? You can't have it both ways. 2) How can you control quality on an engine that's been sitting unused for months if not years before being installed in a customer's car? The likely scenario is that Ontario Ca, is just a normal distribution center where they keep a limited number of engines to meet normal replacement demand with short lead times and there's a constant replenishment from Germany from rebuilt cores. Really? How does that work, since you claim these engines are QC failures. Do they start serving beer to all the engine assy line workers so they can increase the failure rate to exactly the right amount they need? As I previously stated, failure data is taken as part of the remanufacturing process. If the core is reusable, they give you a credit for it. If the core is not reusable they would probably just dispose of it in the U.S. You started off with an inherently flawed premise - that remanufactured engines are ALL new engines that failed first pass QC. Your arguments have become increasingly nonsensical in trying to prove/explain how this could work. My explanations are the only ones that make perfect business sense, because gee golly, I actually HAVE experience in these types of businesses. You can either be a gentleman and concede that you might have been mistaken, or you could aggressively continue to assert that I am spouting b.s. while fabricating your own nonsensical arguments.

Quotes source post: 5368636

[QUOTE=Flat-6 Performance;5369787] I believe I already used that quip on you. Recycling your opponent's insults is not considered to be good sportsmanship. While it gives consumers a warm fuzzy feeling to know they are all treated equal, it is not reality. Do you belong to an airline or hotel loyalty program? That's fantastic. I am not going to be so crass as to criticize your achievements. However, you need to leverage that experience and refute my points if you think they are wrong. So far I have point-for-point rebutted your arguments and you haven't been able to explain 1) No used parts are used in reman engines. That is contradictory to the entire concept of a remanufacturing program. 2) How Porsche compensates for the fall-out ratio if they cannot substitute a small % of new engines into the supply mix. Your experience with race engines is not relevant because the economics in racing programs are totally different from consumer businesses. Unless you have the DATA that shows that consumer reman engines have more consistent quality than NEW engines you will not be able to dispute my point.

Quotes source posts: 5369866, 5370887

Hahah. Ben. We can always count on you to be the drama queen. It's pretty silly how you tear someone down with your strawman arguments. If I have zero credibility, you would easily be able to refute my points. Do you see how I respond to each post, point-for-point explaining why something is incorrect. But so far you've come back with NOTHING, because you often engage mouth before brain is in gear. Aww, did I hurt your little feewings? The truth hurts, don't it? I am here for the comedy! Hahah. You must have missed this part of my post: I have even done work in Stuttgart (lived there for 3 mts in 2007) and worked in the Porsche supply chain. Unlike you, I don't consider this experience as adding to my credibility because it is not specific to the Porsche refurb process. You lose again, suckah!

Quotes source post: 5370256

You are an officer and a gentleman. Ben's original assertion was that reman engines are superior to new engines because somehow the reman process was more stringent and they used updates not found on new engines. I'm not sure that he's moved away from this premise to acknowledge my following arguments: 1)Any updates will apply to new engine production BEFORE or concurrently with reman engines. So a reman engine will not have any advantage in this area. How quickly these processes work through the old part inventory will essentially become when these changes take effect. 2)The quality process, when considered through the entire upstream supply chain, will be far more stringent for new motors than remanufactured motors. Each mfg process at suppliers will have dedicated testing equipment to assess quality. This equipment/processes are not repeated in the reman environment. 3)All new parts are created in controlled manufacturing environments so you will expect consistent, predictable results, thus generally assuring quality. In the reman process some recycled parts come from uncontrolled environments with many confounding variables; hence, the end product can NEVER be a consistent result. From a quality standpoint, this is not good. I challenge anyone to dispute any of these 3 points and explain how a reman motor can be "just as good if not better" than a new engine.

I can tell some experiences from several friends in soloporsche.com site: 1) -Engine size - 3.4 or 3.6 (3.6) = 3.6 (996 Carrera 4S tiptronic) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (13K miles/April 2003) = 14.000 kms/ October 2003 -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? Don't know -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? = Factory warranty -Any problems? (none) sold out and bought a 996 GT3 Mk2

Oh ****! Just look what you've done to him. Jury has now completely lost his ****. Non stop quoting and typing as fast as his fingers can pump out the **** he believes. He's in much worse condition that I originality thought, my bad Jury, you are correct on all accounts, we're all inadequate compared to you. Your original engine is far superior to anything else. Repeat with me, I AM NOT A FUQIN NERD I AM NOT A FUQIN NERD. Re-boot jury, re-boot

Quotes source post: 5372358

How cute of you to defend your WA buddy Ben! And just like Ben, you spew a bunch of verbiage but contribute not one iota to the main discussion. One breathlessly awaits the outcome of this new intellectual collaboration. Hahaha. Now run along before I'm forced to embarrass you further.

Quotes source post: 5372188

The fact you are defending your every post signifies your lack of knowledge and understanding in this matter. Just admit it and it will go away. I have absolutely no insecurity issues. You are the one digging the deep hole. I am absolutely entertained by your attempt to convince people on topics who are obviously better informed than you. Why waste anymore effort than that on you by trying to debate this in an intellectual manner?

Quotes source post: 5372542

So predictable, you're make it way to easy for me brainiac...lololollol Please, go on big shot, embarrass some more, LOLLOLLOOLLLOLOOOL

Quotes source post: 5372544

Uh please point out how these posters are better informed than me when I was able to point out the huge logical flaws in each of their arguments and they were not able to do the same for mine? Other than _wishing_ I was wrong, you gotta admit that the record speaks for itself.

Quotes source post: 5372642

Here you go rofler: http://www.rofl.name/roflcopter/

Quotes source post: 5372645

Point out? There are 9 pages. We all went to school and are literate. What in the world are you doing up so early in Vancouver? Are these posts so important that you can't even sleep? Talk about issues....

Quotes source post: 5372652

That's it? You've made good on your dumb *** threat with that? Wahaahhahaahaa Damn I guess this time you really let me have it. Don't get me wrong, you did not disappoint. Right on par with the rest of your contributions of intellectual BS. I love it!! Dig away smarty

Quotes source post: 5372260

You do have a typing talent of digging yourself into a hole. I will admit this much. So you worked in Stuttgart on Porsche's supply chain? How did you enjoy the McDonald's over there in Stuttugart? Their beef taste the same as the beef you eat up there in North Vancouver and on Rennlist? My argument still stands. I believe the reman engines are of better quality and build than the original engines since reality dictates that you can only get a reman engine or one would go down this avenue of purchasing a reman engine when the original fails you. Again, there is no NEW engine option. Porsche doesn't hold your hand, Supply Chain Boy, and say here's our new engine shelf, pick one. Pound that into your little head. You keep coming up with non-reality based, hypothetical scenarios comparing a new engine built on X/Y date to a reman engine built on X/Y date. That comparison simply does not exist. We'll never know. NO one knows what Porsche does. Can you find one story, one owner on Rennlist who can tell you they compared part by part a reman engine v. an original/new engine built at the same time at Porsche? In the same story, how would this owner begin to prove over two, three, four, five years whether one served its purpose better than the other? If an engine works, it works. It gives you ~320hp, it revs, it takes you from point A to point B and in between. Yet you insist on groveling in the inane mud that is trying to prove that a new engine is better than a reman engine by nerding up stanky **** industry commonalities, fundamentals all devoid of the capability to grasp REAL LIFE scenarios. What we DO know through detailed accounts of owners who have experienced failures on their original engines is that the reman engines WILL have updated parts, benefit from precise assembly at the reman factory within the factory... so that at the end of the day, each reman engine owner can rest assured that they have a better engine than the original that failed them. Why do you insist on attacking their peace of mind and the good work of Porsche trying to right a wrong? You continue to bring up all these nerd stats and numbers and it's beyond nerd now. It's absolutelty, without a doubt, straight up a donkey's **** praying for good weather type of inane thinking. See how stupid that sounds? This is how you sound right now in this thread. And the funny thing is, you say to each person who tries to patiently show you the way that you've somehow won the argument with your superior intellect and typing skills... when all we see is you looking in the damn mirror looking for self-affirmation. Drop it, give me 50 if you can do that, and just shut the fuq up and start a new thread.

jury_ca - I've been through the loop twice myself, and twice assisting buddy's who have had engine failures. Each time through the loop has given me additional info from Porsche US, from other owners that have been through the same process, and the additional intel gathering I have done each time in order to ensure that the owner wins the case with Porsche, and gets a free replacement engine. As you have never been through the loop - have never had to argue with Porsche - have never had to own/drive a car with a replacement engine - you really know jack-****. I know my facts are sound - they enabled my buddy with his '98 986, which was 2 years out of warranty, and a car with a salvage title, to get a free replacement engine from Porsche. Without that research, and experience, he would have had nothing - the local dealership and Porsche regional rep had already turned down his request. So you can guess all you like about what does or doesn't happen - you can counterpoint until your fingers bleed - you've got lots of talk, but you've never walked the walk.

Quotes source post: 5373823

+1 ... well said. 1999 996 c2 3.4L /44,000 miles/original engine coming in 3 weeks---> 2003 996 turbo 3.6L/15,500 miles/original engine. Hopefully I won't have to deal with engine replacements in the future, but if it does occur, then I will have the piece of mind in getting a reman engine due to this thread. Jury_CA = Ignorant Loser who doesn't get out much.

Quotes source post: 5373823

Please. That's a non-sequitur. How does your experience "being through the loop" make you any more an expert at telling that that a new engine is not better than a reman engine, and that there are no new engines only reman? I see you chose not to respond to any of my questions which challenge the credibility of your points, and that is fine. All along I have said that Porsche has to mix some new engines with reman engines to compensate for the fall-out ratio and all of you said I was spouting b.s. Well guess what? 30 seconds of research on Rennlist and voila! https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ferrerid=23665 It gets interesting halfway down the thread.

Quotes source post: 5374149

Do you know me personally to make such off-base remarks? Idiot. How am I ignorant? I reference each one of my points and pointed out the huge logical flaws in the arguments of those who disagreed with me.

Quotes source post: 5373545

We've covered this before when I explained "betterment." A reman engine is likely better than your old tired engine right before it exploded. It is not better than a new engine that is produced during the same period, which was my point all along. Your point is now proven wrong. Sorry. Wrong. You don't have a background in Science or Engineering so you might tend to believe that anything is possible. Any professional will tell you that practices are standardized across industries, referred nebulously as "best practices." I work with this day in and day out. Porsche has zero incentive to make the quality of reman engines more stringent than new motors.

I don't think anyone outside Porsche can product a FACT BASED conclusion that reman is better/worse then a new engine. Sure, we can all hypothesize, but that's all we are doing. To claim superior knowledge, even being involved in 10 engine swaps is still statistically irrelevant. Most large OEM assembly mfg operations don't deal with old rusty parts. It's not worth their time. If the engine is a reman, the components are in like-new condition, if not new. I would expect Porsche spec's that its reman engines meet the same reliability and performance goals of its new engines within fairly tight tolerances.

The premise in the argument against remans is that an engine is at its best when it's first built, and degrades from there. And that is simply not true.

^^You're going to have to explain that one to me in a logic that doesn't go "worn tires are better than new tires because they have more grip."

Quotes source post: 5375482

Um, jury_ca, point of order here. You can't claim that "being through the loop" gives one no credibility and then attempt to prove your point with a thread of people who have "been through the loop" That said, you guys are arguing semantics and anecdotal claims. Logically, jury_ca you have a point. But really, who cares? (BTW, this is a great thread on so many levels of ridiculousness. Keep up the good work guys.)

jury, do you think a 2008 reman is better, equal, or worse than a 1999 - 2002 original engine that haven't blown up?

Quotes source post: 5375931

First, yes, worn tires are better than new tires for grip. That's a fact, actually. They do eventually lose grip as the rubber ages and the tire wears into the harder compound near the belts. But is a 10,000 km performance tire stickier than a 500 km performance tire? Absolutely without question. This, however, is beside the point. To your question, based on the evidence in this thread, I think I'll decline your invitation to "explain that one" to you. Believe it or don't, but I've got no appetite for a bun fight with you. I am humbled by your tenacity.

Quotes source post: 5375482

I ran that same search, but concluded that it was written 7 years ago while new M96 engines were still in production. What I want to know is if should a motor blow up today in 2008 can one purchase a new engine from Porsche and get a production date and watch it roll off the line, or is the M96 out of series production as most of us assume, and only remans left? - Jury, if you could prove unequivocally that people can order a brand new M96 motor today (should be easy, call your Porsche rep or dealer and get some documentation etc), then I think you've actually won your argument, and this thread will have contributed something valuable to the forum.

Quotes source post: 5375982

Better. I said this on *numerous* occasions.

Wow, this must be the Rennlist Slugfest 2008! Entertaining anyway. Being a 3-day 996 owner, my opinion is of little value however I will say that having a "replacement" engine in the car I bought was the deal-maker. Whatever the reality of this issue is or is not, I hope I will not have to go through engine replacement again. Cheers, Tim.

Quotes source post: 5375482

Hang on - you started by insisting that all remanufactured engines were old clunkers. Then you point to a post that details how Porsche are not using 'old' engines, but are providing 'new' replacements from the factory. Then you claim that this was your idea all along. What a crock. The porous block issues & cracked liner issues from my '97 and '99 986s would preclude these blocks ever being used for remanufacturing. The early life M96 failures were terminal, catastrophic, and left no remanufacturing option available to Porsche. This is clearly born out by the post you helpfully found for us - there were no 'old' remanufactured engines, only factory 'new' replacement/remanufactured units available. Again - the fact that you have no experience of the actual failure issues - have not taken the time to think how those manufacturing defect failures would impact any potential remanufacturing - and then carefully ignored the clear message from a post you yourself found on Rennlist - just speaks volumes. You're a very productive troll, but that's it.

Quotes source post: 5376535

Strawman. I can see you obviously have difficulty admitting you were wrong. Here's what I said from Pg 3 in this thread (i.e. from the very beginning): "2) It is possible that they can end all production for new engines if demand for replacement engines is less than supply of remanufactured engines. However, usually this will not be the case because there will always be a fall out in cores that cannot be reused. Hence, total replacement demand will exceed re-manufactured supply and they have to build a batch of new engines from time to time. " Now follow this link and read what they say under "core requirements." http://www.porsche.com/usa/accessori...facturedparts/ Clearly, what this all means is that when you are looking to replace your engine, depending on availability, they either replace with: 1) A remanufactured engine (made with some USED components) 2) A new engine My point from the very beginning is that 2>1 See my point on "fall-out ratio." The post I referenced supports my argument 100%. I'm the troll, how? Because you called me a bunch of names, said I was spouting b.s. and you put forward a counter-argument that made no sense whatsoever all the while acting like your knowledge of the issue was the gospel? It takes a big man to admit that he was wrong, and like so many other of my opponents in this thread, my guess is that you will disappear quietly into the internet-night rather than concede.

Quotes source post: 5375935

The guy was INSISTING that reman engines are all new engines that failed first past QC was sound because he'd "been through the loop." Ignoring the fact that's a non-sequitur, I merely had to point out contradictory evidence to show that reman engines come from re-used cores, and that they mix this in with some new engines to show that he was wrong.

Quotes source post: 5375825

All new parts and remanufactured parts once came off the same production processes. The difference is that some remanufactured parts were exposed to the environment and put to use. Doesn't that diminish their value? The higher they set their tolerances, the greater the fall-out ratio, and the more new engines they'd have to add to the mix. Economically, it makes no sense to maximize the use of new components because then you're at the break-even with just replacing with a brand new engine. There are a lot of non-value added cost involved in remanufacturing they have to compensate for. The ONLY reason to reman is to save money.

Mr. Jury_Ca states: "While the statement, "a remanufactured part has to meet or exceed the standard for new parts" can be technically true it does not mean that the whole sub-assembly meets the same standard as a new subassy. If a subassy is made of part X,Y,Z and only part X is remanufactured, part x could meet the original standard but parts Y, and Z are not even tested beyond assumed guidelines. When new, all parts go through multiple quality processes at each machining/assembly step, which will not be repeated in the reman process. Further "exceed" the spec is a misnomer because every mfg process has inherent natural statistical variation. New parts exceed the spec too! They did not say they made the spec more stringent for reman parts, now did they?" Porsche says, at the top of the page he just links to: "There is a difference between rebuilt and remanufactured parts. Especially at Porsche. Porsche remanufactures select parts to meet or exceed strict factory specifications. So you can be assured that any potential point of wear, and not just the point that ostensibly failed, has been checked for integrity within strict tolerances. After remanufacturing, any part will be rejected if it does not meet the same standards new parts must meet when they leave the factory." Which seems to fly in the face of what Mr. Jury_Ca has said. That would seem to say that they are pretty careful about what they put together. He has selected data points from this web page which seem to support his arguments, but ignores those which don't. In the science biz this is called sample censoring, and is roundly unethical. Integrity is required in science and engineering, as the actual goal of any argument is the truth, not one side winning. Otherwise bridges fall down, lasers don't lase, and so forth. This leads me to believe that Mr. Jury_Ca's claim to have a background in science and engineering is disingenuous at best; clearly his research advisor would have spanked him for this sort of thing. From the obtuseness of his arguments and his skillful wriggling away from the actual discussion to one that he can frame himself (mass production of straw men), I suspect an attorney (my apologies to any lawyers reading this). The original point of this thread was to poll people who had had engines fail, and to see if remanufactured engines also failed. Of course this is an unscientific poll, but so what? You can still learn something from it. We have had several pages of people reporting blown engines, and a lot of pages of Mr. Jury_Ca's rantings. Dismissing his rantings as not being germane, what have we learned? Well, a lot of engines blew up. Have any of the remanufactured engines blown up? Not that anyone has reported in this thread. Have some failed? Probably, we just don't know about it. So we have 10-20 blown original engines, and the remanufactured engines seem to be holding up so far. Time will tell on that score, but indications are good. What conclusions can we draw from this self selected non-random sample of a limited population? Well, we might conclude that the remanufactured engines might actually be better than the original engines, as they don't seem to be failing. That's encouraging, as I have one. But there is insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions. So, back to Mr. Jury_Ca. This has been really entertaining. You usually only see this sort of arrogance in grad students from Harvard, and they can usually back it up. Look, saying that you know how things are done in the "industry" and therefore know exactly what Porsche is doing is ludicrous, particularly when you offer no credentials or experience base to prove that you have a clue. This is that proof by blatant assertion stuff. Your arguments concerning economic forces mandating that Porsche do things the way you insist they must do them are a little lame if you give this a little thought. Porsche is selling these remanufactured engines for about $9K with the core credit. There is a lot of new stuff on them; most of it, from what you can see. Do you seriously think Porsche is selling these things at a profit? At breakeven? Of course not. They are taking a bath on each one. Why would they do that? Because they stepped on their dick with the M96 engine and are trying to retain customer goodwill from longtime customers. As such, I suspect, but can not support this assertion, that they have taken extra care in conducting this exchange program, and that financial considerations may have taken a back seat to retaining their customer base. Finally, and there is an end to this screed, Porsche replaces engines that have blown with remanufactured engines. New engines with all of the latest updates don't seem to be on offer. Old engines without the updates are demonstrably inferior to the remanufactured engines, in that the possibility always exists that the stud will shear and the sprocket will come off the IMS, or the cylinder wall will crack. The remanufactured engines are better than brand new engines built to the original specs and not installed, because they have the new IMS gear and chain. Late production 996 engines are probably just fine, as they have had the improvements that the reman engines get. In any event, why are you arguing that your d**k is bigger than Ben's d**k? We don't care. You are not making any original contribution here, you are just annoying people (which is probably your goal), and you seem to have nothing to offer.

Quotes source post: 5377615

That's because you confuse final quality with process throughput quality. Every new part goes through a cascading quality process at the end of each process step, which cannot be repeated in reman. You select the appropriate tests and only can ensure it meets the final spec. If a battery manufacturer has set specs for volts and amps, a used battery may still meet those specs but its total lifespan would be diminished compared to a new battery. Here's another quote from the reman guidelines: "Parts that are modified, damaged or worn beyond strict tolerances don't even enter the picture." This implies that there is *some* allowable wear which implies shortened lifespan of some components vs. new components. Wow, that's a breathless leap of logic considering the failures as a % of the total population of new engines could be vastly lower than the failures as % of the total population of reman engines (which is a vastly smaller popn). Let me illustrate. If the new engine failure rate is 1%, that's 10 engines out of 1000 customers. If the reman failure rate is 10%, that's 1 engine out of the 10 that failed. So we might hear from some of those initial 10 customers, but not any of the reman failures EVEN with the higher failure rate. Thanks for playing. EVEN if that were true, there is no reason to spend more money on a REMAN than it would cost them to replace with a new motor. So you are still economically constrained to the break-even cost of a new motor. I stated before there are a lot of non-value added steps in reman, such as transport of used cores back to Germany, cleaning, diagnosis, and disassembly, supporting Headcount and fixed cost in reman, which does not have to be carried out on new motors. I've pointed to at least one example where Porsche has replaced with a new motor, so this is not true. Correcting people's misconceptions of the remanufacturing process is "nothing to offer"? I guess the saying 'ignorance is bliss' is valid here.

Quotes source post: 5377530

THAT explains it all Can you say insecurity issues big man? What a pathetic Joke How easy it was for you block out everybody that was not interested in all your non stop BS Remember what the OT was all about smarty? Do you have a remanufactured engine? If yes, then questions for you: -Engine size - 3.4 or 3.6 (3.6) -What mileage/date was it replaced? (13K miles/April 2003) -How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (34K) -Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (Factory) -Any problems? (None) EVERYBODY, in case you missed it, was interested in the input and results of THOSE this question applied to. NOBODY (that means not a one Mr. Smarty) gave a **** about all your irrelevant crap of a new engine is better than, your shipping background, business best practice, I�m Right Your Wrong, blah blah blah DO YOU GET IT? No need to answer. I will thank you for the entertainment factor, at least not all was lost Sooo, go on now big man, crank up your BS, embarrass some more, dig away, and show us all again how smarty you are. Beat down all those opponents coming after you�loloolllolol

jury_ca - let's review your testimony, as you seem to like this format: As you have no idea about the process involved, and clearly had no idea about the QC failures at the factory being rebuilt and retested, you have zero grounds to make this statement. This is pure conjecture - you have zero facts to back this up You make this statement, then point to a Porsche web page that completely counters this statement. As you point out in the first line, you 'assume' a whole lot here - with absolutely zero facts - then try and argue that this makes your case - totally bogus logic. This statement clearly shows that you know nothing about the Porsche remanufactured engines - they have all auxiliary new parts fitted - many posts on Rennlist from multiple individuals who have actually experienced an engine replacement confirm this. Again, clearly no experience or understanding of the process, or rights of the consumer in this situation - read your small print. This is not correct - Porsche have a warehouse of engines in Ontario California to allow the frequent requests from Porsche dealerships in the US to be met within a day or two - rather than waiting for delivery from Germany. You have nothing to back this statement - and it is in fact contradicted by the Porsche page on remanufacturing which you later try to use to justify your arguments. No - you just trolled the thread pure and simple - you just have a sad way of justifying it to yourself. So you a) don't understand what your position is at the point of 'negotiation' with Porsche - b) You claim that remanufactured engines are clunkers, and this is clearly NOT the case. Actually they do - the Porsche webpage you so willing used tells you this - "Porsche remanufactures select parts to meet or exceed strict factory specifications. So you can be assured that any potential point of wear, and not just the point that ostensibly failed, has been checked for integrity within strict tolerances. After remanufacturing, any part will be rejected if it does not meet the same standards new parts must meet when they leave the factory." - plus the engine goes through another round of QC (at a minimum) so has been tested more than a fresh production line unit. Incorrect in two points - firstly you can include later modifications in these engines, such as the new IMS end points that can be fitted to all engines to avoid the catastrophic IMS shaft shear - secondly, you claim they rebuild to a more lax spec - again this is pure conjecture on your part, and is absolutely contradicted by the Porsche web page you so happily refer to. You then go on to reference the very same information to back your position. Pure conjecture on your part - you are completely ignoring the fact that a) New engines from any MY are in stock at Porsche for delivery as replacements - b) Later engines may not be compatible with earlier cars, i.e. change to fly by wire throttle on later units prevents a later MY engine being used in an older car. This is directly contradicted by the post you kindly directed us to which clearly states that there were no remanufactured units available from Porsche. Porsche require core returns for QA testing. In summary - you have peddled a litany of falsehoods, and a catalogue of assertions with no data to back them up. You have zero experience of the issue or it's resolution with Porsche. I'll conclude you're a Troll with way to much time on his hands.

Ohhh crap cdodkin Strap your boots on, we're now headed for many more pages of jury coated **** Hang on

I really liked Ben's point with this thread, as I've always had questions regarding the reliability of the reman engines versus the original engines. Unless I missed it, it looks like nobody has stepped forward to say that their reman engine has failed, which very much reassures this reman owner that will be driving "naked" come December. Again, good idea, Ben, and I thought you've restrained yourself pretty well in this thread. Too bad there's almost too much other bull**** to wade through to get to the good information at this point.

Is "lase" actually a word? Wow, ya learn somethin new every day!!

No... it is like reading a transcript of the View. I bet they can get this up to 15 pages

Folks, I'm interested in the results of Ben's original objective before it was obviously 'hijacked' by the juror. Are there enough responses to summarize? Sorry for reaching back to the original topic.

Quotes source post: 5378559

I'd say that there were enough responses to say that the chances of a remanufactured engine having problems are slim to none as compared to the original engine that might have gone south in your car. Of course, as jury says, that doesn't mean they're "better"...but it sure as hell doesn't mean they AREN'T better--I'll tell you that.

man i love you guys i'll have a summary for y'all later. threw a party at my place last nite and haven't started the clean-up of the mess that was made. the nerd is tenacious like that chick in jurassic park

Quotes source post: 5378260

The chance of having a 2nd failure on a reman motor is extremely rare, but not impossible: https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ferrerid=23665

Quotes source post: 5379857

It's certainly less likely than you turning up spouting doom and gloom - but that's not saying much is it!

Quotes source post: 5379857

OK, let's count 'em. I'll start: "1"

Quotes source post: 5379889

Ooooo you're soooo wicked!

Quotes source posts: 5379876, 5379889

Where do you guys get the idea that I'm spouting doom and gloom on reman motors? I'm with everyone else in hoping that any engine (reman or new) from Porsche will be ultra-reliable. If you have an early M96 motor, I agree that getting an updated M96 motor (even if it was remanufactured) is likely a superior motor. My whole point has been that a remanufactured motor is not better than a new motor made with the same updates. You'd be lucky to get a new motor if Porsche happens to run out of inventory to replace with a reman.

Quotes source post: 5379901

ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZ .............

Quotes source posts: 5379889, 5379896

This is really just a function of mathematical odds vs. being able to conclude that remans have a lower failure rate than new motors.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............................

Quotes source post: 5379901

WAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you'd better go back and edit your posts playa cuz you a damn fool (charles barkley)

DANG! jury_ca, STFU!!!!!!!

Quotes source post: 5379907

All right, I'm sucked in again. Jury_ca, et al, you are arguing based upon assumptions and limited or no knowledge. Are replacement engines better than the original? maybe. Are new engines better than remanufactured? maybe. Are the failure rates the same with original vs. reman vs. new replacement? None of you know. So, why are you arguing what none of you know? The only facts that have been presented thus far are irrelevant. Even the majority of those who have had engine failure don't know why their engine failed. They may know what someone told them about their failure but considering the various agendas and misinformation can any of this be considered relevant? Maybe you guys want some comfort about engine failure, maybe you believe Dewey defeated Truman.

Quotes source post: 5379972

That's great and everything, please go explain your stats to othomasjr https://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/428211-it-s-official-my-engine-is-blown.html

hee hee this is better than the sopranos!!!!

Quotes source post: 5379985

Which stats? And, how does that relate?

Quotes source post: 5380003

I'm sure othomasjr would appreciate your view on how statistically useless this discussion has been - He's probably in need of some comfort about engine failure right now. 800 miles - now that sucks!

Quotes source post: 5380025

Agreed it sucks. It seems a big jump from finding this discussion baseless and being indifferent to someone's misfortune.

Quotes source post: 5380074

Not really - If you're in that position, you want as much information from the community as possible. The stats don't come into play - you want to hear what happened to other people, and how their personal experience has played out. So discounting the open discussion seems a little heartless when you consider his current position.

Guys can you order these remanufactured engines direct from porsche??I live in HK and may want to buy one>Sunset imports were going to ship me one from the US but i need a ROW engine and am wondering if there is an easier way of getting it other than via US.I live in HK.The price Sunset quoted me was about 11K US$?? that included shipping .they also required my core engine that i had to ship back to them an i got my 2500 deposit back.

Quotes source post: 5380080

Um... it's not me, this discussion already does not consider his position. It is an argument about the merits of replacement engines which started as an attempt to gain information from biased anecdotal evidence. There's nothing wrong with the intent of the thread, but the information doesn't mean much. Nothing personal, I just have nothing else to do but to participate in the hijacking of this thread. I guess, if you don't see the inherent flaws of the sort of conjecture herein, then there's nothing else to say.

Quotes source post: 5380099

Have you tried Autofarm in the UK? www.autofarm.co.uk

yeah there unit was quite expensive about 15k US + shipping and the warranty wasnt as long.I kinda preferred an engine that was supplied by Porsche themselves going thru this remanufacturing process that has been discussed so much on this thread!!!! Sunset said they have never had any comecack on there reman units!!They have an order time 4-5 weeks for one.

[QUOTE=cdodkin;5378234]jury_ca - let's review your testimony, as you seem to like this format:] Cdodkin, I guess since this is the first time you have actually attempted to respond to my points, I should praise you, but the attempt was so amateurish, I simply can't. :P Please explain how you can get a more consistent and hence higher quality result by re-using certain components that have been in cars that have been on the road for xxx miles vs. all new components coming off standardized processes. An alternator with 4000 hrs is not going to be the same in the long run as one with 9000 hrs, or one that has 0 hrs. Yet they can all be tested to meet & exceed the final quality spec if all 3 are in working condition. Inconsistent quality is a FACT when you are using parts which have different usage histories. This is no conjecture. You seem to cling on to the notion that reman engines have no used parts that came off cars that have been on the road before. This is not true. Not sure how you can dispute the mathematical fact that finding a customer who has experienced 2 failures is more difficult than finding one that has experienced one failure. They might be mistaken because reman engines are cleaned thoroughly for that lemony-fresh look. If the check-in on a returned core indicates that the engine had a low amt of hrs, they will likely just reuse the alternator without remanufacturing it. I said I would be pushing for a new engine, I did not say I was going to be successful in getting one. You would still have a small amt of inventory close to your customer even if you're building these engines JIT. You began with the premise that all reman are new m96 engines failing QC. When I pointed out that since M96 production has ended for many years and they could not possibly keep up with demand, you stated that they don't need to manufacture anymore because they already have a warehouse full of them in Ca. Nope, that's just a fact in manufacturing and remanufacturing. The Porsche page does not contradict this. I'm sorry if it came across like I was calling remanufactured engines clunkers. I meant to call the engines that blew up clunkers. See alternator example above. 1) Any engine modifications would apply to new engines then to reman engines or concurrently, so this point is moot. If you mean to compare the reman to the old engine being replaced, of course it is better. 2) I've addressed this point already. An inconsistent result from one engine to the next (due to recycling of components from different environments) makes them lower quality then new engines where the variances will be smaller. Context matters. Irrelevant since they can build older generation engines at any time because the engine line is very flexible. Uh not at all. It supports my fall-out ratio point 100%. You don't think that any component that has ever been out on the road before makes it back into a remanufactured engine. Am I right? Each core undergoes rudimentary diagnosis for a single data point on root cause of failure. Then the core makes its way to get remanufactured. It must bother you that the evidence seems to back up what I say and doesn't corraborate your version "remanufacturing".

Quotes source post: 5379972

Salayc, all your points are accurate, and I'm glad there's someone else in this thread with a scientific-based mindset. When I talk about quality, I'm not referring to individual reman engine vs. a new engine. There could be a defect on the new engine which causes failure after 10K miles, and your reman might go 100K miles. I'm referring to the Gaussian distribution aka bell-curve of the popn of reman vs. new motors. 1) New engines using new components will be consistent from one engine to the next (smaller variance). 2) Remanufactured engines which use a mix of new and old components from cars with different environmental histories will not be consistent from one engine to the next (larger variance). 3) Due to the fact that certain components on a reman engine will have more wear than a new engine, the bell-curve of reman engines will lie to the left of the bell-curve for new engines. Taken together, these differences imply that new engines > reman engines. It's kinda comical that the reman crowd would try to dispute these points and keep the discussion going, what 13 pages now? :lol:

Quotes source post: 5380117

You should give Gert at Carnewal a call, he seems to be able to source OE components in Europe at lower than NA dealer prices. When I lived in Stuttgart, I was able to pick up parts for my 911 at lower cost than in N.America. You also would get a VAT refund when you export the motor. If you can't get an engine from Gert, try calling the parts dept of the dealer that's right next to the factory. If you need their name, just PM me.

Jury, for one so steeped in logic, it seems to me that you make a number of what appear to be unfounded assumptions. The alternator for example. Is it possible that Porsche wants the core back for examination and probaby to assess guilt? PAG does not manufacture the component parts in the engine. On examination, failures would result in corrective action requests to the supplier of failed components. I speculate that it is probably cheaper for Porsche to simply supply an engine with new parts (all of them) built on the normal engine assembly line. This might (note all of this thread is speculation) result in reusing a case which has been fitted with all new parts. Sorting through the returned components to see which meet spec is very likely to be a more expensive and labor intensive process than using all new parts. FWIW as a manufacturer, that's how it works in my plant. Regards,

We have an electronic board reman facility in our manufacturing environment. By reman, its usually a board that might have gained an extremely minor defect - such as a bad component - that is either easily replaced or the entire unit is scrapped. When complete through the reman, the board is essentially identical to a brand new unit, and it would be difficult to measure its performance to be inferior to a new unit. Its ridiculous to think that Porsche is sitting there sorting through Alternator's with 4000 hours. It's not worth their time. No large mfg operation would bother with it. Making the case that a mix mash of used and new parts goes into a reman just shows the posters lack of understanding of large mfg operations.

jury_ca - your doublethink is Orwellian in it's misinformation, denial of truth and manipulation of the facts. 'To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies' Describes you to a tee.

Just making an observation I think both sides is so fixated on the fine points that the bigger picture is lost. What I think jury is trying to argue is that an engine with all new parts is superior to a reman engine with mostly new parts. I think there is no way to proof this argument one way or another. I would think all engines must meet minimum spec before leaving the factory. But then perhaps there is an optimal spec. A new engine that meets all specs to begin with may be closer to the optimal spec. A reman engine that uses mostly new parts but been through more QC may be closer to the optimal spec. There is no way of knowing. Common sense would suggest at least to me that something with all new parts is probably better than something with mostly new parts. But that's not the point is it? The original question is whether a reman engine is better than an original engine. I think everybody agrees that the answer is yes. Even jury agreed to that before taking the discussion to an theoretical exercise of whether a new engine is better than a reman engine manufactured at the same time. That may be a worthy discussion if Porsche provides that as an option, but they don't. If I am a buyer, I will 1) buy a 99 - 01 996 with reman engine over one with original engine; 2) perhaps buy a 02 - 04 996 with reman engine over one with original engine; 3) if a car has a replacement engine, I will probably prefer it to be new raher than reman - if the choice is available. 4) if my car grenades on me and I need a replacement engine, I probably request a new engine from Porsche. After Porsche tells me to go f myself, I will take a reman. The end.

Quotes source post: 5380338

Bob, you're correct, the example of what they do with the alternator is pure speculation, but I believe they are constrained by economics - replace too many $$ parts and you might as well just build a new engine. Consider the following: -If all they need to do is diagnose the failure of the engine, they would not ship back to Germany. They would hire a 3rd party inspection center in the U.S. to diagnose for them (there are plenty around). A couple of examples might get sent back to Germany, but they do not need to study every single one. They want the core back to convert into a remanufactured engine. -Porsche is not in the business of rebuilding alternators. To send a perfectly good alternator back to the OE to get rebuilt is a waste of $. To put a new alternator is a bigger waste of $, when the core works just fine. -I would conjecture they have set some general guidelines about which parts to replace with new parts depending on the engine hrs on the old engine. Engines with more hrs on them will get rebuilt more extensively. -All the internal stuff that's consumable, and fairly cheap will get replaced, such as gaskets, spark plugs, pistons etc, etc. They will reuse the expensive OE components that are not in any way affected by the damage to the engine (such as the alternator). -Once everything is rebuilt it gets tested and if performs equivalent to a new engine, it's good to go. Also pure speculation but I do have experience working with the cost/benefit tradeoff in the reman business.

Galun, your 4 points detail the perfect strategy. I would deal the same way.

Quotes source post: 5380571

Cdodkin, the irony here is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Aren't you still in denial that some parts in a remanufactured engine have come from a car that's been on the road before? How you continue to think that these engines are all brand new but failed first pass QC is beyond me.

Jury - to continue the speculation, I would be that defective engine cases (there were some early on, porus, misaligned - which caused some RMS problems) are returned to the supplier for credit and perhaps penalty charges. Perhaps all the cases are sent to the casting house for inspection and some of them come back to be reused. I don't know, fact is nobody posting here knows the facts. In my plant, labor is costly and repair time is often more expensive than replacing with new. This theme was echoed by another above. All parts subject to wear are likely replaced. Certain parts like air filter housings which do not wear out are perhaps reused. Considering the labor costs to dismantle and then rebuild, I am not sure whether reuse is less costly than simply building with new. What I like is that should my engine fail, I can get a replacement which carries a factory warranty and be on my way in days as opposed to waiting weeks for a dealer to rebuild. I also believe the factory does a better job of assembling an engine than the vast majority of technicians at a dealers. I am not sure that this thread is meaningful except in its original intent - which has been hijacked by exercises in logic - Aristotelean methods and a lack of real facts. Regards,

Quotes source post: 5380732

Galun, Nothing against you and really to clarify more so than rebuff... If you're referring to this thread, that was not the original question. Read the name of this thread that I created for the original question. Your boy jury disagreed. Hethen hijacked it with his comparo and statement below and I quote: Jury said: "Original/NEW Engines > Reman Engines" Jury hijacked: "The question I would pose is whether you would rather have a brand new engine installed in the car, or an engine that has gone through the reman program?" To which I've asked him to start a thread, but here we are many pages of posts later that is absolutely full of speculation backed by zero credibility on his part. Let's focus on the marrow of all this: Jury's never looked into the reman program as he has no reason to and I'm assuming he has a life outside of Rennlist (speculative) where he'd rather be driving on his original engine on his super low mileage C4S than dig into this as deeply as possible (someone like cdodkin). Thus, we get his blinders-on question above since it's not based on real life scenario. Would we? Sure. Of course. WTF not? Now, can we? No. Porsche does not offer a new engine through warranty. Can you buy a new engine? Not sure. Even if we could, would an owner spend the extra $ to get a new engine over a reman? Maybe, but that'd be silly. Why? Because a reman engine is just as good if not better than a new engine and this is the point he's NOW arguing since he's switched up >. This is a point he's wasted a lot of time trying to disprove, but it's a losing battle because NO ONE can begin to refute or make it true and the fact that he's working so hard to convince us of this is why this thread has become the comedy that it is. The reman pro party at least has anecdotal evidence of worth since we do have owners who went from an original to reman. Nobody and I mean nobody received a brand new engine from Porsche so anything supporting the new > reman argument... is for nerds to split hairs on. So to continue to the best of what we have based on real life stories... Most if not all anecdotal notes and owner stories lead us to believe that reman engines are preferable to an original engine especially if you have the 3.4. We also know that the 3.6s aren't bulletproof either. I know of 3 40th Anniversary engines blowing up from IMS on this very site. I know of one local '04 C4S that blew up with IMS maybe a month ago. Yes, it is a crazy small sampling, but unless we all came on Rennlist due to an engine failure, that's a scary common story we share, is it not? Think about it. We also know that rarely if ever have any owners who experienced engine failure received a brand new engine from Porsche. This is simply NOT an option we have. Do we fret? Should we? Not in the least because my point has always been and so shall remain even after having read most of jury's vapid posts is that a reman engine is more desireable than the original engine. Many of you agree with me because this statement is founded on real examples of issues/resolutions shared between owner, Porsche dealership, and Porsche. But this was not what the thread was about... but oh well, please carry on to those who want to add to the list by responding to the original question of the thread.

Quotes source post: 5380895

Thanks, again, for bringing clarity to the thread and to the others who echo Bob's statement above. It's an if --> then thread. Simple. Let's share some stories. If/then.

-Bob, you're right the labour and OH rates are the most costly aspect, and you'd minimize the labor time on non value-added activities such as inspection/diagnosis/testing. -How you'd treat and deal with the supplier for the case issue is spot-on from what I've seen. -If you consider a casted metal part such as the exhaust/intake manifold, you'd reuse this part rather than replace with a brand new part because they aren't subject to damage when the engine fails. - Every part you can reuse is essentially free. Every new part you use has its own built in labor and conversion cost. That's the economics behind remanufacturing.

Quotes source post: 5380935

Wow Ben, you seem to be in a rather sedate mood today, so I'll just correct one part in your post that is not accurate. P.S. Cdodkin might be an expert in dealing with Porsche in getting these engines replaced, but that does not make him an expert in the process of how these engines get remanufactured. His perception continues to be that reman engines are all new engines and that is not true. This is not true. I pointed out a thread where at least one poster has received a brand new engine from Porsche and not a reman unit (because they were out of inventory for reman units as you would expect to happen from time to time due to the fallout ratio). Another individual that had an aftermarket warranty that had a contract that stated repairs would be made with new parts got away with getting a new engine as well. If you go through the Porsche warranty they are not OBLIGATED to give you a new engine. Do new engines exist? Yes, they have to because there is a % of cores that cannot be re-used. From Porsche's perspective they need to put you in a better position than before (a remanufactured motor vs. your used motor before it failed.) Getting a brand new motor is the ultimate solution but also the most costly. Does this mean that you can get new engines anytime? No. They will only resort to building a batch of new motors when their reman inventory falls below a certain critical level. If you put an order in at a dealer and you're willing to wait months, my bet is that you will be able to get a brand new M96 engine made.

I have only 2 comments for you guys..... 1) How many 996/986s had their original engine fail.... only PAG knows the exact number! 2) How many cars with "replaced" engines had catastrofic failure?? I haven heard of 1 yet (maybe I am wrong) Based on that, make your own conclusions....

Quotes source post: 5380935

Ben you are correct. The discussion had gotten to the point where I got confused about the original intent of the thread. I do have a reman engine and I posted my own experience earlier in this thread. https://rennlist.com/forums/showpost...1&postcount=60 As someone who has a reman engine, I care about the resale value of my car in the future. In most cases, a car with a non-original engine will hurt resale value. In the 996s, it can be argued that a car with a reman engine should not hurt, or even help, resale value. Buyers do educate themselves on places like rennlist. I think most here will agree that a reman is better than an original engine, and I think that should be the clear message we want when a future buyer searches the rennlist 996 forum. Jury is not my boy What jury had started was a theoretical question that would probably never apply in real life. I think the question that he started was not necessarily a bad one to begin with, but I do not agree with his subsequent arguments. Since we have little to no information from Porsche, we have to work off assumptions - and I trust assumptiosn from people who had been through the loop or race teams who work closely with Porsche more than someone who had never been through the loop and implied that they have links to Porsche. But as the old chinese saying goes, it takes two hands to clap (or something like that). Feeding the troll and arguing an irrelevant point will probably confuse the potential future buyer during their research - which I care about. Heck I had been following this thread and even I got confused about the original intent.

Quotes source post: 5381078

-When I first carfaxed my current car, I was like oh **** it's got an engine replacement this sux. Little did I know. I'm very happy that my car has a reman engine now. -The fact that this thing got hijacked to prove/add absolutely NOTHING is what pisses me off (relatively speaking) as I've asked your not-boy Jury to start a new thread or stfu Oh, well. Life goes on. -Interesting tidbit is, you guys can thank or tank me for bringing jury's daily post count avg up by magnitudes - all eyez on me.

Quotes source post: 5381032

Yup and Sunset Porsche has stated per this thread... they haven't taken ONE reman engine back yet.

Quotes source post: 5381003

Pure conjecture, can't and won't be proven. I even have my doubts whether that user/owner actually got a new engine. How can you tell since a reman looks brand spanking new anyways (clean, spic and span)? Put in an order at the dealer? WHAAHAHAHAHHAHA wait months? Yea. Who? Who's done this and through what special request is this made? More bs. And you seriously need to drop this new engine is better than reman deal. You know those nice 40th Anniversary cars I was telling you about that experienced IMS kaboom - all 3 of them that I know of? Those engines were built new/original later than my '02/'03 reman engine. Putting any sort of value to this statement I just made is as valid of an act as your updated/edited claim that new/original engines built around the same time period > reman engines built around the same time period. Whooo wheeeeee oohhhhhhhh

Quotes source post: 5381105

Yeah...thanks Don't do us any more favors pls

LOL

Yup. Golf clap for Ben on this.....

Quotes source post: 5381134

Nice Porsche engine **** Ben! This one yours or someone else's?

Quotes source post: 5381078

Point taken - I'll reserve my replies for the non-trolls

Quotes source post: 5381725

I pulled it off of a member's reman engine install post on Loren's good site. looks good huh? spic and span and perfectly remanufactured.

Quotes source post: 5376166

Here's a recent post that shows that new M96 engines are still available if they run out of inventory/cores of blown engines to remanufacture: https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...=428211&page=2 The quote in question: "Also, they said the last motor they replaced was BRAND new because Porsche didn't have an reman. ones in stock." That is EXACTLY what I hypothesized Porsche would have to do. Don't need to go through the so-called "loop" to figure that one out.

saw that thread and thought of you and the epic battle on this thread. This was the white elephant I was hunting. I was hoping someone would get inspired to call their PCNA regional rep, and it's a shame that we found this out through our Rennlist brother's current misfortune, but that's a silver lining if I ever saw one. Let's hope he gets a new one too. Let's also hope that the recent increase in quoted replacement engine prices reflects a move to more new engines, and that the unavailability of reman inventory speaks to a quality driven decrease in the availability of late model cores! That would be great news! Ahh more conjecture. I'm a man of my word. In my opinion, you've got the win here jury, on what I feel is the crux of your argument. If for whatever reason my motor went, I would absolutely prefer breaking in a new replacement motor. Unless they offered to transplant a warrantable M97/01S (x51)! That might take the sting out.

Quotes source post: 5381134

They have a different serial number. I would think a dealer would be able to identify a new from a reman engine. Denial isn't a river in Egypt. Be a man, and admit you were wrong. Looks like I'm accurate. You lose. That's the uneducated way to look at things. In order to dispute what I say about manufacturing variances and standardized environments, you'd have to dispute about 50 years of quality theory. Take it up with Deming and Juran.

Quotes source post: 5381739

I figured you'd weasel out of this rather than accept a good old fashioned defeat. Answer the following questions: 1)Was your premise, 'all remanufactured engines are new engines that failed first pass QC' accurate/inaccurate? 2)Was your statement 'Porsche does not need to build/remanufacture any more M96 engines because they already have a warehouse full of them in Ontario, Ca' accurate/inaccurate?

Quotes source post: 5381078

Oh you mean the same people I showed to be fabricating information as they went along? At this point all the evidence is lining up on my side - availability of new engines, use of used parts on reman engines, etc. So Ben, who's your daddy? :P