5 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPPI Question -- Dropping the Oil Pan
Leading reported evidence
Check metal shavings, etc
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 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
I don't know how you would check for metal shavings, etc.
Leading evidence: 'Check metal shavings, etc' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check metal shavings, etc' (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
And you can't visually inspect the timing chains, which is another weak point in these engines.
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
Not for a standard PPI, but I would recommend doing it.
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
But if someone has dropped the cover, cleaned it out and changed the oil recently, then you are probably not going to see evidence of wear metals, chain guides, etc.
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
But if someone has dropped the cover, cleaned it out and changed the oil recently, then you are probably not going to see evidence of wear metals, chain guides, etc.
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.
5 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: 20261026T122219Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Is dropping the oil pan customary for a PPI? I just talked to a high end Porsche independent and they told me they don't normally do that. I don't know how you would check for metal shavings, etc. in the oil unless you did that. The PCA video on PPIs suggest that you do that so I am a little unsure of next steps? Any experience out there with this?
Not for a standard PPI, but I would recommend doing it.
It will cost you extra, because of the time involved and the curing time before they can get the car out the door.
While it is off, I would have the bores scoped from below too.
You might as well while it is open.
This is something I've been struggling with and as someone who was bitten by a PPI that did not drop the sump cover, here are my thoughts.
For the background, I dropped the cover *after* I owned it and found parts of a timing chain roller. Fortunately, Jake Raby and the team at Flat6 came to the rescue and I have a functioning engine now that did't blow up on me.
So now for my thoughts:
It turns out on mine there was a roller missing on BOTH of the cam chains (3 chain engine). Where did the other roller go? I now suspect someone else dropped the cover and removed the parts somewhere along the way and decided that this problem should be someone else's problem.
I got lucky and found the second broken roller. So here's the problem. If you are not the first person to drop the cover, then the evidence will have already been removed.
I agree that scoping the cylinder bores from the sump side is a great step (since scoring starts at the crank end of the bore, that's the first place it will be visible.
But if someone has dropped the cover, cleaned it out and changed the oil recently, then you are probably not going to see evidence of wear metals, chain guides, etc. when you drop the cover.
So drop the cover or not, my advice to you is plan on spending a minimum of $6000 in engine repairs when you buy an M96 from an unknown party with no IMS replacement proof. I ended up spending twice that because of the timing chains and the "while the engine is out" items (clutch, AOS, water pump, coolant expansion tank). I also
I'm curious if the market will ever come up with a way of reliably vetting these M96 engines. At the moment, purchasing one is just a roll of the dice--there is definitely some inspection you can do to determine if the engine is bad, but there's nothing you can do to verify that the engine is not about to fail.
At a minimum I would have the cylinders bore scoped from the top. You can't visually inspect the IMS so I'd expect proof of IMS work (and verify it with L&N by serial number). And you can't visually inspect the timing chains, which is another weak point in these engines.
