103 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPPI is done, pass or not?
Leading reported evidence
Check leaks
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Then have the injectors checked for leaks to make sure you aren't bathing the cylinders and pistons in solvent between spirited runs.
Leading evidence: 'Check leaks' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'investigated' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check bank2 bores' (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.
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
I have just listed my 2000 C4 Cab for sale and have proof that the sump was dropped and the engine was inspected for possible damage previously AND proof that the flywheel, cluth and LNE dual row IMS upgrade kit (not the solution, unfortunately) were installed less than 6k miles ago.
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
I have just listed my 2000 C4 Cab for sale and have proof that the sump was dropped and the engine was inspected for possible damage previously AND proof that the flywheel, cluth and LNE dual row IMS upgrade kit (not the solution, unfortunately) were installed less than 6k miles ago.
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
I had mine flushed again when I replaced the coolant expansion tank.
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
Unless you're requesting some of the "sexy" stuff the shop owner is not going to be wasting his time checking paint thickness and tread depth, sorry to say.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
investigated
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
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
Also the dealer who sold it turned out to be investigated for fraud, so in the end I wouldn't be surprised if he faked the PPI or paid off the shop that did it.
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.
103 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 · 1 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T042512Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
So... looking at a 2001 C4 with 55k miles. Trying to decide if anything here is a showstopper. I knew about the first one. The brakes are not a big deal. It's items 2 and 3 I am not sure about.
Appreciate your thoughts.
Key items noted from inspection (see inspection report for full results),
(1) no knowledge of IMS, RMS, or AOS having been replaced,
(2) over-rev count high for Stage 1 (8227), none in Stage 2 or higher
(3) errors / codes for DME / ECU for O2 sensors (bank 1 and bank 2, at idle), central locking (lock position not fully reached),
(4) front brakes nearing replacement level (4mm), rear brakes at 20% remaining (6mm)
As long as you budget to replace item(s) in 1, the overevs1 In item 2 isn�t a big deal to me (particularly if they occurred several hours ago), the cels in item 3 sound manageable enough and brakes in item 4 is pricey compared to other cars.. I wouldn�t walk away
I would want a little more information....
(5) using a Durametric check camshaft deviations - must be under 6˚ between both banks
(6) using a Durametric check fuel trim values
(7) using a Manometer check the crankcase vacuum - must be at around 5 inches of water
(8) Check the color and consistency of the coolant. If it's dark or cloudy, that's a sign of intermix
(9) Check for soot on the driver's side tailpipe and listen for ticking on bank 2. That could mean cylinder bore scoring
(10) Using a bore scope, check bank2 bores for scoring
(11) Drop the sump plate and examine for any metal debris
(12) pull the filter and examine the filter media for ferro magnetic debris - this could be IMS bearing material
(13) send a sample of oil for UOA.
Those all sound great, but when it's still someone else's car, it's hard to request/justify. The durametric stuff would have been easy to request had I known.
For the 1 buyer who wants an invasive PPI, there are several others who just want to throw out an offer and take it. I'm trying to be careful, but also respectful of the seller's time before they deem me a nuisance and sell it to someone else.
Coolant was reported at 60% strength, pH 9.
Inexperience. Period. If they haven�t seen bore scored 996s, they haven�t seen enough 996s.
There are no codes for bore scoring, and until stage 4 scoring you won�t even see misfires that are logged.
Just waiting for Porsche to update their 996 ECU software to detect bore scoring and setting a CEL.(sarcasm)
Come on people.....are you willing to roll the dice and buy a 996 without sump drop and borescope?
OP - Please search all the Pcar forums about good vs inadequate PPIs. From the information you present, you got a very low caliber inspect done by an inexperienced tech. Alarms for me are: No knowledge of bore scoring (all M96/M97 engines, by design, can end up with scoring too frequently). No mention of oil inspection, ie, no sump or filter mention. What O2 codes? These can end up being a royal, expensive, hair pulling pain. Clutch condition? 55,000 may be time for some clutch work. No manometer check for crankcase vacuum. Transaxle seals on the front?
Any, and I mean any, good Porsche mechanic should be up-to-the-minute aware of the foibles of these cars. If you had a Durametric and did your own inspection (with your homemade PPI checklist gleaned from other forum posts), you�d have come up with a better picture of this car�s condition...and saved enough to pay for the Durametric cable.
Any ticking, soot in left tail pipe? Any strange road noises? How are the gauges cold/warm. Coolant color/ oil cap. EAsy enough to check. Might be worth bringing it to a shop that can check the chain pads?
The odds are in your favor. I would do the imsb and seal though. I don�t worry about scoring personally. Good luck.
Pass, if they are not willing to let you do the invasive PPI and blood, umm, oil work.
Go if they are willing to give you your money back if 'the tick' shows up during your ownership.
Really not sure what to think and am digesting all this. This was a reputable Porsche independent that has been recommended here for PPIs, it�s not like I took it to a gas station.
I appreciate the feedback, it�s just a bit overwhelming and has me rethinking if I even want one now, and this is coming from an Alfa owner.
You're on Rennlist and these boys have seen a lot of heartache. There's some this week, even, and the topic du jour happens to be bore scoring. You're a buyer who is careful enough to do a PPI and the guys are just trying to save you the proverbial "buttload" of money. If you're risk averse, buying one of these cars can be a reality check.
For what it's worth I love mine and have zero regrets.
What Doctor StrangleLover is trying to say is... buying a Porsche 996 is like going to a bar, eyeing lots of pretty gals, getting drunk, and waking up in prison with a tattoo on your forehead, wallet stolen, and rash in a place where the sun don't shine. Now do you understand what bore scoring is?
Apologies for the brevity of the previous note. It's not terribly insightful. I wasn't sure I'd have the time to say more. I've owned my 996 for 2 years. I did the same kind of research everyone does. Watching the bore scoring vids along with all the discussion lead me to believe this is a true lifetime issue defined by many things. It also told me the point at which the failure occurs is wildly variable. But I also saw that there are real solutions to all these problems. So I found a car that was priced such that I could put money aside for when the inevitable happens. And it did. I have the tick. I have the metal in the oil filter. I'm still driving it because I can't stop driving it. Like everyone else in the group, this car makes me smile. And when it comes back with the new engine mid next year it will give me less worrisome smiles. Until it goes away for the engine, I'm planning a new suspension, maybe some 18" wheels. A little better sound system. I keep cars forever. I keep fixing them. I expect the new engine will be good for 200K, 300K, 20-30 years? Well, until I'm thrown off this mortal coil.
Good luck with your decision.
I�m out of time.
As I suspected, seller wants to know what I�m doing as there is another person interested and has made a reasonable offer (no inspection required).
I�m going to sleep on it and decide in the morning if I roll the dice, but there will be no further inspections.
I feel like I did the right things - low miles, CA car with reasonable price (despite IMS and brakes needed) from a long term owner in an expensive zipcode. And PPI from a rennlist recommended shop.
Thanks all.
100% agree that every buyer should have an invasive inspection but this thread shows the practical problems with requiring it. Most sellers aren't going to let some unknown yahoo start taking their engine apart for someone who might buy their car. Even if the mechanic is top notch and highly regarded, there is no upside for the seller. The car comes out of the PPI the same (nothing found and put back together correctly) or worse (failed inspection and/or put together wrong or something else broken). Unless
every
buyer requires an invasive PPI, it's better for the seller to just wait until an uniformed buyer comes along who doesn't require an invasive PPI. And there is no shortage of uninformed buyers.
Jake has done yeoman's work spreading the word but unless buyers offer a premium for no bore scoring (i.e. giving the seller an upside for a clean invasive PPI) this will continue to be a problem. Most sellers aren't going to let a possible buyer take their engine apart unless there's a financial incentive in doing so.
Of course I've done it. By definition, removing bolts and covers from engine is taking it apart. Let's not split hairs over semantics. Snaking a camera up into a cylinder also entails some risk (which is why it's called *invasive*) even if that risk is relatively low. There's also some risk in ensuring the pan is properly sealed and nothing else is broken in the process.
We can debate the likelihood of damage during an invasive PPI all day long and won't achieve anything. You missed the point of my comment. If you have two potential buyers offering the same amount of money, one requires an invasive PPI and the other doesn't, why would you sell to the first one? The first buyer wants to expose the car to some risk (probably low risk but risk nonetheless) and the second buyer doesn't. It's a no brainer.
It's very easy for people to say buyers should demand a laundry list of prerequisites before purchasing (and I agree with those prerequisites). My point is that there is no incentive for a seller to go along with it unless
all
buyers demand it. Most buyers do not. So unless a buyer is willing to make it worthwhile for the seller by paying a premium, it's very unlikely to happen. That is the reality of supply and demand unfortunately.
haha! Thank you. Suffering from the coronavirus in quarantine is the closest I've come to a purgatory.
21 day out since testing positive. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
The expression "new lease on life" has personally meaning now. Yes, it's good to be back on Rennlist. I just gotta make sure my kidding around doesn't get outta line with the admins or rules of RL.
Sure. But maybe, just maybe, you end up meeting a nice girl on her one crazy night out, and you discover the future mother of your children. I believe in fairy tales, don't you?
Call me crazy, but I'm moving ahead with the car. I'll keep you posted on how it goes.
Good for you!
I went out one night with no hope in hell of finding anyone cute to talk to and hang out with. Like, zero.
I was absolutely convinced the entire night was going to be a colossal waste of time, money, and energy.
Then, while I was sitting there all alone at the barstool feeling sorry for myself, from out of absolutely NOWHERE, someone whacked me in the back of the head with a pool cue and I collapsed in a heap on the floor.
The tides can turn any which way. I got a rental, drove 700 miles from OH to TN, purchased pretty much sight unseen besides pictures online, no PPI, and drove it 700 miles back the following morning. My main concern was documentation of prior service through it's small amount of mileage.
It's been a great car, and I consider myself very lucky that it had a clean bill of health before addressing some preventive maintenance measures.
Maybe this nice girl will change over the years, no different than any ex, just sell them and get a better model.
Awesome!
I do believe in fairy tales. And I've never been hit in the head with a pool cue. Maybe that's my problem.
Now drop the sump and get a camera up there and show everybody how good the cylinders are. Then have the injectors checked for leaks to make sure you aren't bathing the cylinders and pistons in solvent between spirited runs.
And try to not smile when driving it. You can't do it.
Pics coming soon and this thread will continue.
got the car home, and smelled and saw coolant. Looking at the exhaust, this leak has been there a while. It�s possible the owner didn�t know, but how the heck did this shop miss this? I�m pissed.
Looking at the color, appears to be wrong coolant as well.
check that your coolant cap is on tight. Take pic of cap, it might be the old version.
Buckle up. Get your Google search skills dialed in. 😎
Oh no... what a stinker. And quite infuriating. Fingers crossed it's a simple fix. I'll let others bring in the bar analogies, I'm not terribly good at them.
Probably just a cracked reservoir. PITA, but not the end of the world.
Don’t think too hard about the stuff that could go wrong - it will drive you crazy.
This looks exactly like what is described here:
https://www.sharkwerks.com/tech-arti...expansion-tank
The shop measured the ph and strength of the coolant. If it's the wrong coolant, they should have known that. But they absolutely should have seen this leak.
I don't think I can hope for more than their admitting fault and at least repairing this at their cost, but worse case I'm reversing the charges on that PPI.
I'm dumbfounded and disgusted that I didn't just do my own PPI, even though I know zilch about Porsches.
The coolant should be orange/pinkish red in color, definitely not the green stuff. My last 996 came with the same situation. The last owner flushed it with the wrong type. I had mine flushed again when I replaced the coolant expansion tank. Jake Raby has a video on Rennvision showing the installation procedure.
I warned you. You eye'd that crazy old chick with bladder problems didn't ya? Just be thankful you didn't end up in prison with a rash. That could cost you more than you paid for this car.
Seriously, you need to get the right coolant in this car and replace that expansion tank.
Cheers!
I’ll call the shop in the AM. Couldn’t resist detailing the car today ( but didn’t drive it).
I am very familiar with G12, I’ll make sure the right stuff gets in there.
The good news - no signs of soot on the exhaust, either side.
Discovered that the car has no spare (guess it was an option?) and does have PSM though it’s not on the options sticker. Must be a C4 standard feature.
Shop owner replied pretty quickly this morning:
So sorry for this. Yes, car was on a lift.
I had one of my junior technicians do the inspection, and yes, he absolutely should have seen this, and known to check for this.
At a minimum, happy to refund the charge for the inspection. Let us know if we can help in any other way.
Junior technician on a PPI. SMH.
If this were my shop, I'd offer to fix the leak for the cost of parts, but a) I don't trust them and b) it's over an hour drive for me.
I think I'll take the refund and figure out next steps.
well he passed the buck while refunding u bucks.
As others have and will say, just get the factory expensive resi. All other will leak. Hard to believe but there r dozens of threads out there to support this. It wouldnt be that big of a deal but they r so hard to get to and the labor adds up quick.
Sounds like a decent guy. Hope you fine an amicable solution with the shop.
And I agree with 4Driver4. Unless you're requesting some of the "sexy" stuff the shop owner is not going to be wasting his time checking paint thickness and tread depth, sorry to say.
I don't expect the owner, but I would expect anyone doing a PPI to notice something like this, no matter how junior. And I'd never let a junior do a complete PPI without having someone spot check his findings, at least cursory.
I'd say at this point, OP is not in horrible shape, in fact quite the contrary. The car seems like it has no scoring symptoms, and runs well.
Swap the coolant tank (consider a water pump and t-stat at the same time) and hit the road.
Spending a few dollars on what amounts to preventative maintenance on newly purchased used car is par for the course. All good.
I really think every PPI is a crap shoot.
I had the Porsche Dealer in Texas do a PPI when I bought my first Porsche, a 2002 C4S. The car arrived with mismatched tires, a faulty ignition switch, misfiring, smelling like a wet dog and rock chips galore. Also the dealer who sold it turned out to be investigated for fraud, so in the end I wouldn't be surprised if he faked the PPI or paid off the shop that did it. You live and you learn I guess. Ended up being an OK car after I put some money into it, but I never really felt the love with it after that.
I elected to not have an invasive, $500+ PPI - and my $189 PPI was pretty much just to affirm there were no major issues underneath the engine. Everything else on the report was the stuff I already knew about - "trunk struts are bad, windshield fluid low, delaminated rear window."
I did feel better though having them drive it and listen to the motor. They said a clutch was due, but as I mentioned, no serious leaks/warning signs underneath.
Not sure on the tank but the cap is original. U may want to get the .04 cap (last 2 digits) and see if that stops the leak. Being an mk1 our tanks r over $500.
Thanks. I think 01 was the split. I ordered a new tank based on the part number (996.106.057.01) and it supercedes to .04, about $150 for genuine. I also ordered the cap and realized after the fact that the tank probably comes with it.
L3A8, Lapis Blau.
The interior code should be EF, but I can't find a match for that anywhere. Curiously, the VIN decoder doesn't work on this one, even a friend at a dealer couldn't pull it.
I was able to get the complete option codes from Stuttcars but I'd still like to find or recreate the original window sticker.
my bet would be on the cap leaking or not put back on tight by the jr mechanic. Or he tightened the $h*t outa it and messed up the cap. . Not a bad idea to do the tank though.....
There is a coolant hose just there in that corner that have a T-junction. The junction gets heat treated from the exhaust and cracks over time. Could maybe be the culprit.I've just recently replaced all the coolant hoses on my 2000 c4, they where cracking or bulging.
I'll keep this thread going as my record of the car.
Ordered parts, dropped the sump, and since half my parts haven't arrived, decided to try scoping from the bottom (details in another thread).
I can see the value of doing this during a PPI and frankly it's not as "invasive" as people make it sound. If a seller is willing, what I'd say is something like "I would like to have the shop check the sump - you will get a free oil change out of it if I decide to pass on the car".
Very clear, only 2 little bits of plastic
Some signs of too much pan sealant, perhaps the pan has been off already.
A bit of residue.
Good approach, it's likely to work with many buyers. The issue is more perception rather than reality I think, particularly if the owner isn't an enthusiast and doesn't understand the procedure.
Hey I don�t know what you mean. I live in SF and am a newbie. No vendetta here. First time buyer would be nice to get an assist.
maybe you have me mixed up with someone else.
Lol, you must be really hurt that nobody agrees with your "bearing knowledge" eh Nick?
Edit: Your English typing skills are so well replicated this isn't a mystery. Nothing against you, just poorly executed.
Personally, I'm with you in terms of the "realities" of the process of buying/selling any car.
Dropping the sump and doing a bore scope on the engine is pretty extreme and would be very expensive.
While it is a legitimate concern w/996's, as a buyer you have to weigh the cost of paying for the extra PPI work vs the risk of their actually being any scoring in the engine. I don't know what the percentages are but I'm not sure if there are many people who would want to spend around $600+ on a PPI w/a bore scope on a car that you may or may not buy based on the reuslts of the test.
I think most would rather just use their "best judgment" based on how the car runs, sounds and the available service records than put out that much $ for a PPI. People here will, of course, say that's foolish because, given what they know, they'd never buy a car w/o making it bend over an cough BUT that's not reality.
Reality is people will just just their "best judgment" and, if they like the car, they'll buy it and take the risk.
I've got my 2000 C4 Cab up for sale now and one potential buyer has asked to do a PPI on it if he likes it. Of course, I said yes but I'd want to make sure they he prepaid the PPI (so that the mechanic doesn't refuse to release the car and slap a mechanic's lien on it) AND I'd want a copy of the report. Don't know how extensive a PPI he wants to do but, as long as he's paying for it, it doesn't matter to me. I trust it will "pass" but if it doesn't I'll at leastt know why at the buyer's expense.
BTW, I never did a PPI on my 996 before I bought it and have still paid about $7k in parts/service to bring the car up to snuff w/o any evidence of any ticking time bombs in the engine.
Typically the report belongs to the person who paid for it. Buyer can say "PPI shows it needs $5k in work, let's negotiate" and substantiate with the report, but if he outright passes you won't know unless he gives you the report.
Hi, Nikos,
I'm a little apprehensive about why you sought me out to comment on your thread.
While I would normally be flattered, it would seem to make better sense to call out Jake Raby, Skip (Porschetech3), or Charles Navarro who are pretty active here on this forum.
Agreed (the prospective buyer is paying for it) but I'd ask the right to receive a copy as a condition on allowing the PPI, especially if they want to drop the sump and do a bore scope on it. Seems like a reasonable request to me.
As a buyer, not sure I'd agree. If you want a copy of the report (which benefits you) then at least split the cost. A diligent seller will handle this by having their own PPI done and addressing any issues. Splitting hairs really but again, it's all about demand. When there are 5 emails from guys asking "when can I see the car? Will you take a deposit now?" there's little room for the one that essentially says "Hi, I'd like to have someone rip your engine open so I can haggle the price down or just pass altogether"
So what's a reasonable compromise?
Buyer: I like the car and your price is fair. I'll agree to the asking price, with the provision that I would like to have a detailed PPI involving <insert list here> at my expense. If all is well, we're golden. If there are issues, we can negotiate, or if we can't reach an agreement, I'll pass on the car but you get a copy of the report. Maybe...
Well, in my current situation, I wouldn't agree to a PPI unless I got to see a copy of the report regardless of the outcome. If the buyer doesn't want to agree to that, fine.
My 2000 C4 Cab is currently for sale BUT I have records showing that the prior owner already did a major service that included dropping the sump and inspecting the engine for damage; none was found. The prior owner also replaced the flywheel, clutch and IMS. I did my own AOS presssure check and it was below 5. So, I am not really worried that there's anything wrong w/my engine.
I just had a "looker" that I showed the car too who wants to do a PPI, if we can agree on a price. We haven't gotten there yet but I told him exactly what I told you and no objection was raised to that.
Taking it in for the PPI costs me time/$ because I've got to leave the car all day and rent a car in the interim. If the buyer (any buyer) objects to sharing the PPI report for me that's his choice but it's also my choice not to agree to the PPI unless my terms are met too.
Everthing is subject to negotation and each side has the right to walk away if they don't get what they ask for.
I wouldn�t want some buyer pulling my stuff apart. I would just say �next�.
I had three ppi�s done which didn�t involve the scoping and removing the pan. 2 I bought and had zero problems. 1 failed miserably. Cam deviation issues and a bunch of other stuff. Like 9k to fix. Each inspection $120. So far, good value. Going on 5 years. I did have a coolant tank crack 5 months after my purchase which was surprising because the tank was white in color, not yellow. I probably would have bought this car on the info provided. Great color, enjoy!
If I decided to sell my car tomorrow, I would be disinclined to allow an "invasive" PPI.
What I might consider, however, is flipping the coin.
What if I, the seller, paid for a PPI that included sump, bore scoring, etc inspection. If it passed with flying colors I'd add another $1000 to the price tag, and give the buyer peace of mind as well as not having to deal with it on their own.
Seeing these arguments, I'd say that no one here is wrong... Both arguments have merit.
Almost daily I am receiving submission tickets through my site from buyers wanting help when buying these cars. Lots of these have been borderline demands. Basically, people think just because we specialize in these engines, that we should tell folks exactly how to buy a certain car. Often, I receive links saying "please go check this car out for me, does this ad sound ok?"
Really?
I am all about helping people, but I am not in the business of selling cars, or offering PPI consulting. In my position I can't show any favoritism for any car, or state that any certain car is safe from a potential engine failure.
I queried the forum last year, when we were contemplating a PPI video to support these cars, and people were not willing to pay what I felt was a required cost for me to spend my time, and resources to create the content, then pay to have it professionally shot, and edited.
These things said, the wise seller of a 996 who wants to get top dollar for the car will use these "issues" that are popping up with newly purchased 996s, to their advantage. If I owned a nice 996 and wanted to sell it, I would ensure that every single thing on the car was functional, and all services are up to date, or even carried out early. I would then pay an independent Porsche shop to perform the invasive PPI, to include bore scope, sump inspection, and used oil analysis. I would try to video document this, and record all data. Then, market the car accordingly, and price the car at the top of the market. The wise purchasers will note this transparency, and integrity, and the price that the seller paid for the PPI will be well- rewarded with a better buyer, with a smoother purchase, and a more pleased purchaser.
This is exactly what I will do when the time comes to auction the 29K mile 996 C2 that I am fitting my R40 engine to, and using for my
www.rennvision.tv
video series "A Focus On IMS Bearing Failure". I'll take the car to one of my competitors, and pay them to be as objective as possible. This keeps everyone honest. Yes, I take my own medicine.
I have just listed my 2000 C4 Cab for sale and have proof that the sump was dropped and the engine was inspected for possible damage previously AND proof that the flywheel, cluth and LNE dual row IMS upgrade kit (not the solution, unfortunately) were installed less than 6k miles ago.
So, I would resist paying for a full invasive PPI myself in order to promote the sale (because I do not think is it necessary) but I would not resist a buyer (who is willing to pay for it) to ask for a full PPI (including dropping the sump again and bore scoping the engine) provided it is don't by a "reputable shop" that I am familiar with and (as I have mentioned elsewhere) I can get a copy of the report, in order to facilitate the sale of the car.
Nonetheless, I have had very little response to my ad and, of course, the one potential buyer who came to look at the car attempted to "low ball" me. It's human nature. You can ask the moon but whether you will get it or not, regardless how how open and transparent you try to be, someone will always try to get it for "less."
Funny that you mention that. Since you graciously spend time here answering questions for free some people probably assume you run your business like that. Or they could just be self-absorbed and think you just stand around all day waiting for their email.
You see that on these boards some time with posts titled like, "teach me how suspension works" or "help me pick my new exhaust" etc. Those posts always rub me the wrong way as they imply the rest of us have some sort of obligation to reply. Most people here are happy to share what they've learned but I don't think they like being told to. I don't know, maybe it's a generational thing.
Back to my car and what I checked. So, I did the endoscope thing (with a smaller unit I ordered off Amazon) and it looks good. I did think "hey, I should send this video to Jake and see what he says" but a reasonable person wouldn't do that
I also got back my oil analysis from Blackstone and everything looks good.
But are you willing to allow ME as a potential buyer to take the �29K mile 996 C2� to MY mechanic and let them do an invasive PPI?
Can MY mechanic partially disassemble your engine?
I think that�s the problem with the �invasive� PPI issue.
I'll post my stuff soon. In the meantime, got back from from a trip and continued the work on the car.
Sealed the oil sump plate, filled last night. Today I changed the fuel filter, and while I was doing that, I noticed how yellow the old coolant tank was, and I think I found the source of the leak.
Since I'm in here already, I'll replace it (tank is already on hand).
Hello @danix! I was also rapidly losing coolant and combined with the intermix - I assumed I was boiling it off and freaked out. But fortunately so far it seems to be 2 hoses that started to give up after 20 years. I intend to do the borescoping soon and post here - I've been putting it off since a large part of me doesnt really want to know for sure
I was thinking about buying your 997, but I would like to disassemble the engine and see if it could be damaged. Seems like a normal used car buying procedure.
@cdk4219 Not sure what that is supposed to mean? I don't have a 997, and it's not for sale. If you're making a general comment on the recommended PPI stuff, well yeah, it's a bit of a dance. To Jake's point, a seller that has had an invasive PPI done would be a good thing, and if the buyer wants to have another done, well fine. It won't be the car for sale at a bargain basement price, because as I said there will be several others in the wings. I almost lost my car because while the PPI was being done, an earlier looker came back wanting the car, but thankfully the seller honored the deal already in the works.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
