22 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHBrutally true?
Reported or suspected cause
poor service history
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Check engine condition, brittle rubber/plastic parts, replacement parts and enhancements
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Now I am in the process of going thru my checklist of checking engine condition, brittle rubber/plastic parts, replacement parts and enhancements to prepare to go back out on the track.
Leading evidence: 'poor service history' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'poor service history' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check engine condition, brittle rubber/plastic parts, replacement parts and enhancements' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
In addition, many probably never had the go-no-go test performed, nor replaced the seal around the IMS at the same time which was standard procedure.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
The 996 chassis is ridiculously good and it out handles almost everything I run into on track - the numbers don't lie, consistently hitting 1.5G of cornering force and 1.2G of braking on 100TW DOT tires is really pretty ridiculous.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Over this 14 year history of DE, I ran the last 7-10 years on Hoosiers and sport cups in the fastest run group.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Check engine condition, brittle rubber/plastic parts, replacement parts and enhancements
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Now I am in the process of going thru my checklist of checking engine condition, brittle rubber/plastic parts, replacement parts and enhancements to prepare to go back out on the track.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I for one was constantly at the dealership under warranty having then measure the go-no-go as well as replacing all seals from 2004-2007 or so during the "RMS years".
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
That is to say that an owner who suffers an engine self-destructing due to IMS bearing failure is far more likely to share his experience with a community than one whose car is running hunky-dory.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
The 996 chassis is ridiculously good and it out handles almost everything I run into on track - the numbers don't lie, consistently hitting 1.5G of cornering force and 1.2G of braking on 100TW DOT tires is really pretty ridiculous.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
22 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
For curiosity�s sake, I googled �can you race a m96.04 engine�.
This was the first hit(no pun intended but �hit� is fitting. Perhaps the first hit is when you buy this motor):
https://motoiq.com/performance-engines-that-suck-the-porsche-m96/5/
This guy is full of crap, doesn't know his stuff.
Here's an excellent reply copy and paste.
JULY 22, 2018 AT 8:46 PM
If you�re going to purport to offer some technical analysis on why the engine �sucks� you should have researched some fundamental design aspects. In the first page alone there are several glaring inaccuracies about the arrangement of the M96�s main components�it should go without saying that any analysis predicated on these errors is fallacious.
1. The intermediate shaft (what you call the �IMS shaft,� which is redundant) driving the valvetrain was in no way particular to the M96 and was in fact part of every modern Porsche flat six since at least the 964 model of the late �80s. This includes vaunted, competition proven motors like the legendary Mezger engine which formed the basis of the GT1 Cup cars. The design is proven to be quite robust.
2. The intermediate shaft is driven directly by a sprocket on the crankshaft, not by a chain as erroneously stated in the article.
3. The chains driving each camshaft are on opposite ends of the motor; one chain is toward the front of motor, nearer to the passenger compartment, the other is toward the rear, nearer to the rear bumper. Even a cursory glance of your own photos shows the intermediate shaft with a chain sprocket on either end of the shaft.
4. Where are you getting your statistics for the IMS bearing failures affecting 8-10% of cars? I�m not aware of any comprehensive database tracking IMS bearing failures�except maybe at Porsche itself.
Come to think of it, there is no statistical data supporting any of your claims about the M96. Yes, some have had IMS bearings give out; some have had cylinder liners fail; some have had cracked blocks. That�s part of mass production; there will be the occasional worm in the coke bottle. The proliferation of horror stories on internet fora is not a sound foundation for such sweeping conclusions. The nature of these aberrations tends to skew toward disproportionate reporting. That is to say that an owner who suffers an engine self-destructing due to IMS bearing failure is far more likely to share his experience with a community than one whose car is running hunky-dory.
Dried out leaky oil seals? Disintegrating plastic water impellers? These are common , age-related afflictions on any modern motor. Not design flaws.
The M96 is not perfect. But it�s hard to think of many other contemporary production engines that offer the same combination of performance/character/fuel economy/ease of maintenance as the M96.
Let�s be honest, the M96 engine does have its faults.
BUT I really don�t care what people who get excited about drifting have to say.
The synchronized swimming of motorsports.
Good reply. I was depressed after reading the linked article. Question: Didn't the 8% - 10% failure rate come from a study done for a lawsuit vs. Porsche on the IMS failures?
The question is loaded. For the vast majority of 996 owners we don't care if you can race the engine, because I have no desire to do so. My poor little M96 engine in my 996 just chugs along and has now done so for 148K miles. I love my 21 year old 996 and have not the slightest desire to turn it into a race car, or race the engine to it's limit and beyond. Can you race a BMW, Merc, etc. without problems? The answer is no. So quit banging on the M96. And BTW, the original dual row IMSB had a failure rate of <1%, probably due to lack of proper maintenance, so stop banging on that on too.
I'm so tired of this bashing. The Porsche 996 M96 engine is a very decent performance engine, but taking any engine racing requires special and detailed preparation and execution.
Well the article is click baity - MotoIQ is really pretty good for technical info. Mike Kojima has been in the motorsports world for a long time and is someone I listen to, you all can take that FWIW.
The rest of the world thinks the M96 blows, that's just the way it is and I don't see anything changing it. I think that most of the complaints that are not centered around its huge rebuild / replacement cost or poor aftermarket support are all pretty trivial in comparison.
For the guys that just want to wear their Porsche hat and put around to cars and coffee, it's fine in my opinion.
Heres a video Mike did on the OS Giken diff for a 911
You Tube
haha - this is the most unsurprising news ever....haha
Thats 100% WRONG. The 996 chassis is ridiculously good and it out handles almost everything I run into on track - the numbers don't lie, consistently hitting 1.5G of cornering force and 1.2G of braking on 100TW DOT tires is really pretty ridiculous.
At least, if that what you mean by pretending to be speed racer...ya know, driving on track - cause you couldn't just say.... driving on track. I think speed racer was a show from TV from like, way before I was born - is that right ? was it good ?
You don�t have to convince me that the 996 is a great car.
I just wouldn�t take my 23 year old, 70K mile 996 to the track and not expect to have problems.
(unless FSI rebuilt the engine)
I�ve been on the track plenty of times.
But it was on a motorcycle and it was about learning to be a better rider.
Haha, and I always rented a bike from the California Superbike School because I didn�t want to blow up my Ducati.
Bahahaha - you're a funny dude !
It's also possible to learn how to be a better 4 wheel driver on track - sounds like you may want to look into a spec Miata rental to give it a go. It's not quite as fast as a sorted 996 - but saves you the worry.
Folks,
Didn't bother to read it. Same old crap. Here is the bottom line.
Every damn production car known to man has to have modifications made to it to race it. Why, because there are always issues that need to be addressed to prolong engine life. You win a race by staying in it to the end.
Don't forget, the 996 ran in the Grand Am series with our engines. Not the Mezger engine. All race teams made modifications of which many of the bolt on solutions today are derivations from what they found. AOS, deep sump, cooling, etc. More importantly, we are going thru a 996/997/986/987 solutions Renaissance today with new prototype parts being developed, that are enhancements of some of the original solutions. UIDS from Porshetech3 who developed the UAOS , LN Engineering who is developing a more powerful oil cooler, CTS who has developed a dry sump system. You get the idea.
Zbomb is right. Everyone should take the time to read his threads, in particular, the "oil pressure stability" thread which will show that their are plenty of past, present and future solutions to address engine durability.
Lastly, my 2002 is a great example of using the engine on the track without any problems. Bought mine in 02. DEd the car consistently with on average 4-8 track days a year thru 2018 without ever having a problem. BUT, I did a lot of things to the engine as precaution because I have a great Porsche shop that told me what to do.
1. Motorsports AOS. The UAOS wasn't available at the time, but everyone should replace their crappy Oem aos with the UAOS regardless if you track your car or not.
2. IMS retro kit. No brainer.
3. 2Q deep sump. More oil the better.
4. Maniacal service including oil changes after every event, as well as before the first event of the season.
Yes you also need to make sure you have a fresh water pump, spark plugs, ignition coils and fuel injectors.
Over this 14 year history of DE, I ran the last 7-10 years on Hoosiers and sport cups in the fastest run group. No oil starvation. No engine failure, no extra water or oil cooling. No problems.
Now I am in the process of going thru my checklist of checking engine condition, brittle rubber/plastic parts, replacement parts and enhancements to prepare to go back out on the track.
The outcome of Zbombs "Oil Pressure Stability" thread and the development of Porschetech3's UIDS and LN engineering's oil cooler will be included with the enhancements after testing and being fully ready.
Just like many of you, I am sick and tired of the BS surrounding the engine and model. All it takes is a little prevention like any other engine and you have a damn good dependable and fast car on and off the track.
The true problem with the engine is that most folks have not properly serviced their cars. When someone buys it, the **** hits the fan and we all hear about it on RL and then begin to believe it's a common problem. The TRUE common problem is poor service history. Hello.
Long live the 996.
add/edit: One final note, my comments are pertaining to using our 996 engines in Grand Am, PCA Club racing, and DE. My comments are not to say that our engine is better than a Mezger engine for racing. It's not. However, past and current history shows that our engines can be used successfully on the track, if you take the proper precautions.
Chicky's response to the author that you quoted is not correct either.
The intermediate shaft (is) driven off the crankshaft by a chain. (Notice the picture I've attached for those interested.) This comes from a video I produced with Jake Raby.
I went through the same criticism on my 88 E30 M3 when I bought it on eBay over 22yrs ago it has a buzzy engine the car made a lot of mechanical noise wasn’t fast off the stoplight and the kicker it has such low hp for a race car BUT man we’re critics wrong my $3500 initial investment puts a smile every time but now my weekend is complete with the 99 AERO style and speed …….mic drop……
Mike
Thank you, well put.
For the folks who say, "Tracking a 996 is horrible for the car and ruins it forever, the black mark on a car's history", BS, what percentage of those owner's cars could never pass a PCA Tech Inspection to even get on a track.
BTW, thanks to LN, FSI, Porschetech and all the others that continue to make innovative products to improve the durability and performance of our 996s
My head wanted to explode when I read that. At first I didn't think that reading "IMS shaft" would bother me, but after three or four hundred times, the redundancy made the hair stand up on my neck. You know darn well that this guy gets his cash from an ATM machine.
The part of the "massive" oil leaks really bothered me too, especially this gem:
"One of the main leaking points was, you guessed it, the IMS shaft. When the bearings would start to die, the free play and whip of the shaft would trash the seal. The oil leak was often a precursor to catastrophic IMS shaft bearing failure."
I'll be annoying literal and point out that a shaft doesn't leak unless it's a porous casting.
But essentially what he is saying this that play in the IMSB shaft bearing (sorry, couldn't resist), the "free play and whip" would somehow manage to damage the IMS cover plate seal and allow a massive oil leak. What? I guess I could see that a failing bearing would cause damage the bearing seals, but it would have to be pretty bad at the point, so the seals wouldn't really be relevant, but the cover seal? How?
Does he have a technical editor?
Hah. In this day and age, any idiot can have a social media presence and discuss their opinion on anything. Accurate or not. Crazy as it sounds, this is where RL can help to set the record straight. I ended up reading it and found that he had a lot of truths surrounding issues. He just overplayed the drama and underplayed the ease in applying solutions. One thing is certain, I will not take his analysis seriously going forward.
I personally think the IMS flange has gotten blamed for many oil leaks that really started at the RMS level. Since there was quite a bit of stir surrounding IMS bearing failure, it was easy to point fingers to the flange.
Like the teacher demanding to know who was throwing erasers and the kids reluctantly point the blame to the nerd on the front row. All the chalk dust points back to the bully, but the nerd gets the blame.
Porsche admittedly had trouble with RMS leaks on the 996 and went through several versions until the Polytertrafluoroethylene (i.e. PTFE) version solved the problem. In many cases, you'll notice that a trail of oil can be traced back up to the RMS.
Gotta agree with you.
To add insult to injury, I suspect that there are a good number of original 996 owners who have long since sold their cars, who never properly updated their RMS with all of the variations that were released in the early years under warranty. In addition, many probably never had the go-no-go test performed, nor replaced the seal around the IMS at the same time which was standard procedure. I for one was constantly at the dealership under warranty having then measure the go-no-go as well as replacing all seals from 2004-2007 or so during the "RMS years". They did it without a problem.
Obviously any Ims risk went away with the IMS retro or solution. But by then, folks had forgotten about the RMS early on issues.
And garage queens sat in the garage without proper service and procedures. But they looked good doing it.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
