19 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996 technical buyer's due diligence
Reported or suspected cause
number 1 mode of failure
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
Flat 6 Innovations has maintained that the cylinder bore scoring problem is the number 1 mode of failure.
Leading evidence: 'number 1 mode of failure' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'number 1 mode of failure' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check bore scoring' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I respectfully disagree that a PPI is worthless unless you check for bore scoring
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
It�s doubtful that most people have access to a lift to really inspect a car/ knowledge of a mechanic who works on them every day.
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
#1 - Most if not all the people who find their way here are able to do a rudimentary PPI #2 - The single biggest liability of these cars is the engine - this is where 9 out of 10 people get burned when buying - the best way to judge engine health is through an invasive engine inspection (drop sump, filter, scope the bores from top and bottom, do an oil analysis etc.) #3 - Everything else (except maybe the transaxle - but they're pretty tough...) is fairly easy to inspect visually or by driving.
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
#1 - Most if not all the people who find their way here are able to do a rudimentary PPI #2 - The single biggest liability of these cars is the engine - this is where 9 out of 10 people get burned when buying - the best way to judge engine health is through an invasive engine inspection (drop sump, filter, scope the bores from top and bottom, do an oil analysis etc.) #3 - Everything else (except maybe the transaxle - but they're pretty tough...) is fairly easy to inspect visually or by driving.
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.
19 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: 20261026T074343Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I'm a (hopeful) first-time porsche buyer and planning to start with a lower cost 996. Would greatly appreciate any advice on pre-purchase due diligence and model selection. I've narrowed down my preference to an early-year 996 as a good model to start with. I know this is pretty open-ended and really any advice would be great.
thanks
If you have a specific question about a specific car I'm happy to answer. General answer for your general question is go slow, don't get emotionally attached to a car you don't own, money spent before purchase is money saved after purchase. That is to say - get a good inspection. I happen to know a gentleman I was helping privately spent $1,200 for his invasive PPI.
Happy hunting.
Get a pre-purchase inspection from an independent shop that specializes in Porsche.
Research and find the best shop that�s close to the 996 you�re thinking about buying.
Find out if the seller will allow the colonoscopy most people in this forum recommend.
Start your search by obtaining the
2020-2021 Porsche Buyer's Guide
published by
Excellence
magazine. I think you get the buyer's guide with a new subscription to
Excellence
. Another resource recently available is the Porsche 996 "Market Dashboard" found in the September 2020 issue of
Panorama
magazine, published and included with your membership to PCA. /X3
A PPI that isn't "invasive" (i.e. - remove sump plate and borescope from bottom of cylinders) is just false security. You can do everything else yourself. The problem is getting the seller to agree to it... Good Luck with your search
It�s doubtful that most people have access to a lift to really inspect a car/ knowledge of a mechanic who works on them every day.
Even less have the ability to generate a DME report
I respectfully disagree that a PPI is worthless unless you check for bore scoring
There are a few reasons that a general type PPI is "worthless" for these cars ( My Opinion - maybe not worthless, but you get what you pay for...). #1 - Most if not all the people who find their way here are able to do a rudimentary PPI #2 - The single biggest liability of these cars is the engine - this is where 9 out of 10 people get burned when buying - the best way to judge engine health is through an invasive engine inspection (drop sump, filter, scope the bores from top and bottom, do an oil analysis etc.) #3 - Everything else (except maybe the transaxle - but they're pretty tough...) is fairly easy to inspect visually or by driving. #4 - A DME report is great for looking at what has gone on with the engine according to it's sensors. It can't and doesn't extrapolate that data and tell you what's likely to happen down the road. Only an experienced mechanic who knows how to "read the tea leaves" can do this - that's why a good PPI has to be thorough and will cost close to a grand... Again, maybe the $200 job isn't "worthless", but to me it's just a false sense of security...
^An invasive PPI only provides a false sense of security because bore scoring can begin to develop the second the inspection is over.
Even the leading expert doesn�t know how to prevent it.
It just seems to me that people are continually to try to find some "fault" w/the 996 in order diminish the worthiness of the car.
That's not to say that bore scoring isn't a real problem w/some 996 engines but the extent of the problem seems exaggerated (like the IMS problem is/was). The question for any potential buyer is whether there is any "real" reason to be worried enough to pay +$600 or more to do an invasive PPI in order to determine if there is any bore scoring or not.
IMO, it is NOT worth doing that for any potential purchase of a 1999-2004 996 at around $20k BUT a careful examination of the car and going thru the FREE "check list" of the symptoms of bore scoring as presented by LNE in the link below (none of which require dropping the sump and scoping the cylinders) would be the better approach to assess if there is any possibility of bore scoring or not and, if there is any suggestion that there is, to just pass on the car. Fortunately for me, my 2000 C4 Cab does not have any of the listed symptoms.
See:
Bore Scoring Symptoms
Best solution is to buy a $5K roller or car with a blown engine that can be rebuilt. Do this by getting to know all the Porsche mechanics and ask them. Then spend the $20K for a good engine that removes at least most of the faults. There is someone on this forum pushing this, you can message him for more details.
Flat 6 Innovations has maintained that the cylinder bore scoring problem is the number 1 mode of failure. Unfortunately, the IMS bearing fiasco overshadowed the bore scoring problem. But now that these cars are over 20 years old, the amount of scoring with these cars is on the rise.
Yep, watched it. Nope, haven't borescoped it. Not worried about it (yet). NO symptoms of bore scoring whatsoever.
The car is listed for sale and will be sold "as is."
Buyer is welcome to pay for an invasive PPI if they like as long as I get a copy of the report.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
