16 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996 3.4 Bore Inspection question
Reported or suspected cause
due
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.
Reported cause
The factory sleeves issue was due to a fire in the factory in 1999 that cased the relocation of the casting equipment and the re-setup of the equipment caused poor castings and the subsequent sleeves.Then in the sleeving process to keep up with demand a mistake was made in the radius of the "top-hat" that secured the sleeves from slipping.
Leading evidence: 'due' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'due' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check crankcase vacuum' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
The AOS was replaced this year which I am almost suspecting is bad already.
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 suspect 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.
Suspected cause · Original poster
The New AOS might be suspect so will check that out and also check out the Vario-cam units.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
Ordered up the Manometer and going to check the crankcase vacuum.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
due
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
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.
Reported cause
The factory sleeves issue was due to a fire in the factory in 1999 that cased the relocation of the casting equipment and the re-setup of the equipment caused poor castings and the subsequent sleeves.Then in the sleeving process to keep up with demand a mistake was made in the radius of the "top-hat" that secured the sleeves from slipping.
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.
16 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T113718Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Had a buddies 3.4 M96 up on the lift the other night to inspect the bores and noticed this at the bottom of the bores. Almost looks like a sealant.
1z1xDm0.jpg
Also noticed some small green o-ring material in the pick up
VxHySbM.jpg
Cylinder 6 shows minimal score at the bottom of the cylinder
dIrs4iI.jpg
Issue he was having is some above average oil consumption/smoking. The AOS was replaced this year which I am almost suspecting is bad already. The valve covers clearly have been off as well as the pan with use of clear silicone. I am just very stuck by it almost looks like someone has been in this motor before.
n3q9Ims.jpg
Thoughts?
Looks to me like the cylinders have been previously sleeved, it's a common practice to use a bonding agent when installing sleeves.
The green rubber/o-ring material in the oil pick-up could be from the vario-cam actuators, I would be watching the vario-cam function closely...
I was thinking the same thing that it could have been sleeved. Will have to log the vario-cam angle. Does that looks like the factory sleeving that happened on some of the early 3.4's if I recall. Think the next step is to check out the AOS and boot to see if there are leaks or excessive crankcase vacuum.
@Porschetech3
- are you talking about the o-ring that goes underneath the chain pad on the 3.4 actuator? I'm trying to think where else there are green o-rings on the actuator.
No, there is a green o-ring inside of the 3.4 vario-cam actuators, you can't see them unless you cut the actuators open.
The 3.4 engine doesn't have these seals, they are only on the 3.6 with vario-cam plus...
I've never had one of those stay inside the motor when removing the spark plug tubes, but it is a possibility.
Also the original ones and many of the aftermarket replacements are black, they were changed to the green a bit later.(although the same material)..
Thanks for the insight Porschetech, I am going to clean things up and change the oil and check to see how much vacuum the motor is pulling. The New AOS might be suspect so will check that out and also check out the Vario-cam units.
I don't think this is a factory sleeve. The factory sleeves issue was due to a fire in the factory in 1999 that cased the relocation of the casting equipment and the re-setup of the equipment caused poor castings and the subsequent sleeves.Then in the sleeving process to keep up with demand a mistake was made in the radius of the "top-hat" that secured the sleeves from slipping. The radius miscalculation caused the "top-hat" to break off/crack and the sleeve would slip down. The ones I have seen didn't have a bonding agent on the sleeves, and were all Boxter engines and failed early under warranty unless they were "Garage Queens" that hadn't been driven.To my knowledge the 3.4 wasn't involved in this mess, only the 2.5 1999 Boxster. I haven't seen any 3.4 996 engines with factory sleeves, but it is possible that they were and just didn't screw up the "top-hat" machining process since it would have been different from the 2.5, maybe they are out there and haven't failed ..lol
Good idea, you mite want to think about the UAOS also. It is a "technically advanced re-design" of the crankcase vent system that eliminates and corrects the issues of the factory AOS that have plagued the M96 for two decades.
Thanks for the info! Yeah I was really surprised seeing the bonding material, with no real well known history of the car it is interesting. It really seems like there were a lot of "Fixes" done by the factory/others that you never know what you might find. Short of tearing the motor apart there most likely no way of figuring out what sort of sleeve fix was done or if it was done from the factory.
Ordered up the Manometer and going to check the crankcase vacuum. Willing to bet this new AOS after a couple months of use is bad, but want to verify rather than just throw money at parts.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
