996-997 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your stats here! - Page 7 - 911/Carrera GT - PistonHeads UK

All, Let's establish a ratio. All those who owned a 996 non GT3/GT2, please just reply to this thread with the year model, how many years of ownership, and whether the engine failed. I'm getting to the bottom of this! Kay

OK - here it is. 996c2 facelift 2002 36k miles 19 months ownership 3 RMS replacements 1 engine rebuild - intermediate shaft bearing failure - new blocks, piston rings, int shaft & bearings, and RMS. Otherwise original components re-installed. All the above done foc under warranty. No real complaints there except that I switched to Porsche in the first place because of their famed reliability

'98 C2 48K Intermediate drive shaft fail thingy Warranty just ran out = expensive lesson Expensive lesson = £6.5k

do you think this will give a representative sample of problems with 996 engines?

It's like groundhog day.

Excellent...good job she wasnt a bareback girl!!

I haven't found a statistics thread about this yet, Let's keep this up!

Something like this? HTH.

The Griffalo said: Something like this? HTH. Not quite, Griffalo, something slightly more thorough. Kay

xTVR said: OK - here it is. 996c2 facelift 2002 36k miles 19 months ownership 3 RMS replacements 1 engine rebuild - intermediate shaft bearing failure - new blocks, piston rings, int shaft & bearings, and RMS. Otherwise original components re-installed. All the above done foc under warranty. No real complaints there except that I switched to Porsche in the first place because of their famed reliability 2001 C2 3.612 months ownership. 30k start. 55k finish. 1xRMS No other issues

minuet noun 1 a slow formal dance with short steps in triple time, popular in the 17c and 18c. 2 a piece of music for this dance. ETYMOLOGY: 17c: from French menuet, from menu small.

All 3 996's i have looked at have had RMS done, 1 C4S claims to have a re-designed component that stops it from ever re-occuring. I guess the warranty is the only way to go when buying a 911 which either tells you allot about the car OR the fear being on this forum has instilled in me.

Wanta996 said: I guess the warranty is the only way to go when buying a 911 which either tells you allot about the car OR the fear being on this forum has instilled in me. This is what this forum has done to me too, but where I live, warranty is not an option, and plenty of 996s are wandering around getting sold and resold without one, it's strange. OPC can't reinstate expired warrantees, no 111point check around here. Kay

Wanta996 said: I guess the warranty is the only way to go when buying a 911 which either tells you allot about the car OR the fear being on this forum has instilled in me. not strictly true... have yet to buy a warranty for a porsche in over 3 years of being an owner

I ran a fleet of Porsches in Minehead (pardon the anglo-german) Well, out of 12 cars and a combined mileage of over 500,000 miles we did not have any engine failures, nor any warranty work.

Testarossa said: out of 12 cars and a combined mileage of over 500,000 miles we did not have any engine failures, nor any warranty work. sleep envy said: have yet to buy a warranty for a porsche in over 3 years of being an owner gents, are we talking about 996s? (non-GT2/GT3 at that)

sorry tonikaram I was bullshitting Edited by Testarossa on Friday 8th June 17:54

tonikaram said: Wanta996 said: I guess the warranty is the only way to go when buying a 911 which either tells you allot about the car OR the fear being on this forum has instilled in me. This is what this forum has done to me too, but where I live, warranty is not an option, and plenty of 996s are wandering around getting sold and resold without one, it's strange. OPC can't reinstate expired warrantees, no 111point check around here. Kay This is of interest to me too. But I'm not sure you'll get the stats you seek on this forum - I've tried by putting up a straw man on a previous posting, but found absolutely no takers. Here's a gentle challenge to this forum's members: There's a certain Merc UK forum that I regularly watch, with two Merc insiders who give info about this kind of thing. Merc have tidied up many of their issues and apparently raised the bar with their newly launched C Class (we shall see if this is true). We need Porsche AG to do the same, for all of our sakes! So please post numbers. If you've run fleets of cars, then let's have the total numbers of cars, duration, mileage, etc. If the stats suggest an engine failure rate of much less than 5% over a lifetime of, say, 100k miles, this might be deemed good and give some encouragement. An alternative, Tonikaram, is to contact: 1. Warranty Direct 2. Hartech 3. Autofarm 4. Others of this ilk and see if any insiders there will share some figures, confidentially of course. Then share the results, making sure you keep the data sources anonymous so they cannot be traced. Maybe an incentive for them would be to share the consolidated data with some of the smaller players. For my contribution, five out of six of the OPCs in Germany that I contacted about buying a new 987S admitted there were still problems with porkers (I mentioned RMS and intermediate shaft failures), but they would not (or could not) quantify this. Good luck!

Good idea to try and establish numbers or percentages but I don't think it will mean a lot for all the reasons stated. Previously, despite both the 911 and 944/968 range being gradually developed and modified over many years - there were still failures - but no Internet then when they were relatively new - so we didn't find out much about frequency. If we had there would have been outcries about 944 16 valve top ends, 944 big ends etc - but these are now regarded as very reliable bullet proof cars! Now the 996/Boxster is not a gradual development but whole new car and concept yet many (most) are running well right up to and over 100K - perhaps with better cylinder compressions, bore condition and valve condition than anything that preceeded it. Whether the few that fail are actually any more in number than previously we may never know - but the combination of the Internet forums and the engines being different with less people able or comfortable working on them - seems to have resulted in more focus on the problems than they deserve (in comparison to the older models). With a Porsche warranty available up to 10 years old (and plenty taking it up - to pay for the few failures anyway) solutions are availble. We have not yet come accross an engine we could not rebuild and are now doing so in whole or part for others - so if a serious problem does occurr fixing it is becoming easier. Our own warranty/maintenance plan covers the labour to repair such faults and we even offer 12 months/12K cover with the 996's we currently have for sale (and a free service at the end of it), so there seems little reason to be too concerned about running one of these superb cars especially as we have no age or upper mileage limit. It does seem to me a shame that some weak spots seem to be turning up on newer models again and again and never getting sorted but then again it is a very high performance sports car and not a family run about. I guess we will eventually be able to suggest mileage limits to replace some weak and vulnerable internal items too avoid premature failures altogether - as all specialists now do for cam belts, rollers, cam chains etc. They are great cars - enjoy and try to stop worrying too much!!!!!!!! Baz

02 996 facelift, 20K miles when bought and it had its RMS changed a few K prior. Drove it (like it should be!) for just under 10K miles over 11 months and was absolutely faultless, barely even used a drop of oil. Would have no qualms about buying another and plan to when the finances allow (likely to be a while given a recent deposit on a new house!). Would possibly go for a 996 GT3 or possibly a 997 though!

98 C2 64000 miles 2 owners full OPC service owned for 18 months not 1 bit of trouble previous owner has rms done at 55000. I know as I have all the ecipts for all work done. now being looked after by indy with NO warranty. Stop worrying and enjoy.

Deutscher said: minuet noun 1 a slow formal dance with short steps in triple time, popular in the 17c and 18c. 2 a piece of music for this dance. ETYMOLOGY: 17c: from French menuet, from menu small. Well done Still smarting from when I slagged off 993’s then? Rather than picking holes in my rubbish English, why don’t you try and post something of interest, I suppose it’s an easy way to undermine somebody without actually putting a point of view across. Makes a change from your monthly self indulgent 993 wank fest, I guess. Edited by Bumcrack on Saturday 9th June 10:38

This isn't going work, a minute percentage of Porsche 996 owner’s use this board and only the ones with problems are going to bother posting anyway. For the record my 996 was faultless Edited by Bumcrack on Saturday 9th June 10:39

hi all, sorry porkers are new to me so please put up with my dumb questions! whats a " RMS "??? cheers robin.

'99 C2 ... Ran it for 18 months , daily driver , started with 43k miles , sold last week with 56k miles. way more reliable than my previous 320ci. Had the rms done in Feb under warranty , if I hadn't had the warranty I wouldn't have bothered my arse putting a new thingy in ... Just a couple of oil drips on the driveway now , to remind me of the best car I've ever had ... Sniff...

[quote=Gazboyhe ran two threads simultaneously, ones for rebuilt sixes, and ones that have never been a problem, more people posted they hadn't had a problem. Unfortunately some people still had their fingers in their ears [/quote] An observation though: you mention that more people said they didn't have a problem, but that still leaves the odds to say 40/60. From what I have been reading for the 996, it's even less, but that doesn't mean that it's not still too high. My guess about the 996 is that about 70/80% have had no problem, and 30/20% have had a failure. In production cars language, such a percentage for engine failures (nothing less) is mindblowingly high. Kay

01 996 pre-facelift 26k miles RMS was slightly leaking once, only replaced it to get warranty More importantly for the stats, I didn't join PH because of RMS!

'99 C2 3.4 Engine replaced at 10k miles under warranty, cracked bore liner. Many more small problems before and since. Easily the most troublesome car I've owned and the worst dealer attitude I've encountered.

I asked this question what is RMS a couple of years ago and was ignored ****. Subsequently found out its the large diameter rubber seal at the back of the engine that keeps the oil in the sump but allows the crank to poke its nose out to drive the clutch, called Rear Main Seal. In cars i have owned they have always weeped a bit but these must gush out almost as fast as you put the oil in.

cheers pork and beem

Pork_n_Beem said: I asked this question what is RMS a couple of years ago and was ignored ****. Subsequently found out its the large diameter rubber seal at the back of the engine that keeps the oil in the sump but allows the crank to poke its nose out to drive the clutch, called Rear Main Seal. In cars i have owned they have always weeped a bit but these must gush out almost as fast as you put the oil in. Nope ... The most oil I've ever seen (courtesy of Wetpipe!!) coming from an RMS was a few drops a day ...An RMS leak has never been known to kill an engine , personally , I feel that Jap cars and their insanely dry seals have ruined peoples opinions on oil leaks ... Forchrissakes it's just an iddie biddie few drops of oil that folk keep bangin on about... Rabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbit And for the record , 964's got em , 993's got em , GT3's got em , Turbos got em , and they (all to a lesser extent it's true) suffer from weepy seal syndrome.

Ballcock said: Pork_n_Beem said: I asked this question what is RMS a couple of years ago and was ignored ****. Subsequently found out its the large diameter rubber seal at the back of the engine that keeps the oil in the sump but allows the crank to poke its nose out to drive the clutch, called Rear Main Seal. In cars i have owned they have always weeped a bit but these must gush out almost as fast as you put the oil in. Nope ... The most oil I've ever seen (courtesy of Wetpipe!!) coming from an RMS was a few drops a day ...An RMS leak has never been known to kill an engine , personally , I feel that Jap cars and their insanely dry seals have ruined peoples opinions on oil leaks ... Forchrissakes it's just an iddie biddie few drops of oil that folk keep bangin on about... Rabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbit And for the record , 964's got em , 993's got em , GT3's got em , Turbos got em , and they (all to a lesser extent it's true) suffer from weepy seal syndrome. hear hear just dont tell ric that this 993 may, just one day start leaking oil

Ballcock said: Pork_n_Beem said: I asked this question what is RMS a couple of years ago and was ignored ****. Subsequently found out its the large diameter rubber seal at the back of the engine that keeps the oil in the sump but allows the crank to poke its nose out to drive the clutch, called Rear Main Seal. In cars i have owned they have always weeped a bit but these must gush out almost as fast as you put the oil in. Nope ... The most oil I've ever seen (courtesy of Wetpipe!!) coming from an RMS was a few drops a day ...An RMS leak has never been known to kill an engine , personally , I feel that Jap cars and their insanely dry seals have ruined peoples opinions on oil leaks ... Forchrissakes it's just an iddie biddie few drops of oil that folk keep bangin on about... Rabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbitrabbit And for the record , 964's got em , 993's got em , GT3's got em , Turbos got em , and they (all to a lesser extent it's true) suffer from weepy seal syndrome. Japanese cars, pah. My old Nissan Primula had a leaky SMS (well the daft sods turned the engine sideways) for well over two years.

The Griffalo said: Japanese cars, pah. My old Nissan Primula had a leaky SMS (well the daft sods turned the engine sideways) for well over two years. .. And did you give a sh1t?? .. I'm guessing no , as Gruffalos are real men. I honestly think this leaky seal worry syndrome is going to die a death within a short few years when the first of the 996's can be bought for £15k and are being driven by folk who what to get in the car rather than lie under it polishing bits. If you want to stop worrying about your RMS , just park your car on a gravel drive .. Now back to the thread ... It really would be very lovely if everyone logging on with a 996 posted about their engine's reliability . The only downside to this type of thread is that folk log on to PH in the first place for advise , if their engine gives out ... There's loads of 996 owners out there who are so bored with their cars reliability , they couldn't be bothered their arses posting about it.

Ballcock said: If you want to stop worrying about your RMS , just park your car on a gravel drive .. ahh the Jaguar school of engine oil leak management .... know it well

2004 C4S Tip 25300 miles Intermediate shaft failure at 25200 miles. Brand new engine replaced FOC. Other than that no other problems in the 15 months I've had it. Brilliant OPC support.

hussar10a said: 2004 C4S Tip 25300 miles Intermediate shaft failure at 25200 miles. Brand new engine replaced FOC. Other than that no other problems in the 15 months I've had it. Brilliant OPC support. So other than ther new engine, it's been perfect then?

robinh20mrv said: hi all, sorry porkers are new to me so please put up with my dumb questions! whats a " RMS "??? cheers robin. an expensive feature on quite a number of 996's. Buy one and you'll find out...

hussar10a said: 2004 C4S Tip 25300 miles Intermediate shaft failure at 25200 miles. Brand new engine replaced FOC. Other than that no other problems in the 15 months I've had it. Brilliant OPC support. You've only done 100 miles since you got it back!!!?? 'Man ought to be taken out back and shot with a ball of his own dung'

hussar10a said: 2004 C4S Tip 25300 miles Intermediate shaft failure at 25200 miles. Brand new engine replaced FOC. Other than that no other problems in the 15 months I've had it. Brilliant OPC support. Great! Hardly any problems at all.. I should think you would get brilliant OPC support since the engine has blown up on a 3 year old car. For the record 2003 C4S manual, 25k, 3 RMS failures.

Draft summary of the results till now: Each line below represents a car surveyed: 1 failure, (10,000 Euro fixing), No RMS, 77Km 1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km 1 failure, No RMS, 16Km 1 failure, No RMS, 40Km No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km no failure, no RMS Out of a total of 14 996's: - 29%, or 4 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km) - 71%, or 10 cases, have had RMS, which is sometimes recurring. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.4 times. Kay

Shock, horror. Buy a TVR, they're more reliable....

3.4 996 - No problems 3.6 996 - No problems (1 RMS under warranty) + 3 986s - No problems

2002 C4S 2 x RMS 2005 997S, 1 x RMS

997s have RMS?? I thought there was a re-designed component on the latter 2004 996s that fixed the problem?? You would think after all the bad press, Porsche would have got it sorted for the 997.

Wanta996 said: 997s have RMS?? I thought there was a re-designed component on the latter 2004 996s that fixed the problem?? You would think after all the bad press, Porsche would have got it sorted for the 997. ALL engines have an RMS of sorts, although it's known as the Rear Main Seal in a Porsche. It's just a lip seal between the engine and gearbox that happens to be at the rear on a Porsche.

The Griffalo said: . It's just a lip seal between the engine and gearbox that happens to be at the rear on a Porsche. I was told last week by a Porsche engineer that the problem is there is no 'lip' .. i.e. nothing to push the rubber seal against on the block , so it's very difficult to seat correctly. And as far as I know the 997 block hasn't been retro-fitted with a rim or lip , so they're going to have leaky seals too. The big question is DO 997'S SUFFER THE SAME INCIDENCE OF ENGINE FAILURE?

Wanta996 said: 997s have RMS?? I thought there was a re-designed component on the latter 2004 996s that fixed the problem?? You would think after all the bad press, Porsche would have got it sorted for the 997. You'd think so wouldn't you To be honest, I didn't even notice that one. The car was in for other work, got a call informing me that they needed it a little longer than first thought to replace the RMS which was leaking.

tonikaram said: Out of a total of 14 996's: - 29%, or 4 cases, have had engine failures ... This is pretty good news when you consider that peeps are much more likely to log an engine failure than a reliable donkey..

Geneve said: 3.4 996 - No problems 3.6 996 - No problems (1 RMS under warranty) + 3 986s - No problems Please could you state the ages/model years/mileages for each of these so that they can be properly accounted for? You may have had each car for only short spells, y'see.... Thanks. PS: Some might consider the RMS on a 3.6 996 to be a problem, else why would it be a warranty item? Just a thought, no offence meant.

Updated stats with more entries: 1 failure, No RMS, 77Km 1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km 1 failure, No RMS, 16Km 1 failure, No RMS, 40Km No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km no failure, 1 RMS no failure, 2 RMS no failure, no RMS no failure, no RMS Out of a total of 17 996's: - 24%, or 4 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km) - 71%, or 12 cases, have had RMS, which is sometimes recurring. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.4 times. RMS percentages stayed equal after the new entries. I think we can consider these accurate. Kay

Should you include Boxsters (986 and 987) as well as 996/997 in this survey - after all they're all fundamentally the same engine design. If so, for the record: 2.7 986 - 1xRMS at 10K, 1xEngine failure at 17K 3.2 986 - 1xRMS at 17K

'02 986 2.7 Manual 20k miles - no RMS, no other failures '04 996 C4S Cab Manual 11k miles - no RMS, (radiators and coolant header tank replaced under warranty)

'02 986 2.7 Manual 20k miles - no RMS, no other failures '04 996 C4S Cab Manual 11k miles - no RMS, (radiators and coolant header tank replaced under warranty)

996 1999 C2 62K 1 X RMS

If you're cynical like me you may want to reduce the RMS failures by 5% to account for OPCs doing unnecessary work.

1999 3.4 60k miles 1 x RMS at 40k 2003 3.6 25k miles 0 problems 2006 3.8 997 6.5k miles 0 problems

'00 3.4 - 7k miles no RMS '03 3.6 - 5k miles no RMS '03 3.6 - 18k miles 1 RMS '01 GT2 - 7k miles 1 RMS (if that's what it's called on a GT2?) Edited by mbutchers on Wednesday 13th June 15:59

It's pretty obvious most people who had an issue will want to vote and most of the peopl who haven't had any probs won’t even think about it, not the way to compile a meaningful and accurate survey. The only way to really find the truth is to ask every single Porsche owner. Edited by Bumcrack on Wednesday 13th June 18:31

Bumcrack said: It's pretty obvious most people who had an issue will want to vote and the ones which haven't had any problems won’t even think about it, not the way to compile a meaningful and accurate survey. The only way to really find the truth is to ask every single Porsche owner. Bumcrack, till now, I was under the impression that we were doing a fair job at that. The survey is open to all PH users, not only those with a blown enigne. If I had gone and searched for threads about blown engines and added them to the data, then only one side of the data would be in since it's impossible to search for threads about good engines because these mostly don't exist. It seems to me that owners from all sides of the fence are contributing. Kay Edited by tonikaram on Wednesday 13th June 18:35

tonikaram said: Bumcrack said: It's pretty obvious most people who had an issue will want to vote and the ones which haven't had any problems won’t even think about it, not the way to compile a meaningful and accurate survey. The only way to really find the truth is to ask every single Porsche owner. Bumcrack, till now, I was under the impression that we were doing a fair job at that. The survey is open to all PH users, not only those with a blown enigne. If I had gone and searched for threads about blown engines and added them to the data, then only one side of the data would be in since it's impossible to search for threads about good engines because these mostly don't exist. It seems to me that owners from all sides of the fence are contributing. Kay Edited by tonikaram on Wednesday 13th June 18:35 I think a bit of both is going on here ... Those that have a blown engine will definitely contribute to this thread if they log on and see it , however I know of at least 10 regular 996 posters whose engine hasn't popped but haven't posted here yet , and there must be tonnes more that I don't know .. So I do think this thread is a tad lop-sided , but if that's taken into account , then there's no reason why it can't be viewed as a useful data .

2000 C2 - RMS @ 30,000. No failures.

Whatever dude, it’s deeply flawed fairly pointless in my view. Good luck anyway

bcnrml said: Bumcrack said: I do think this thread is a tad lop-sided , but if that's taken into account , then there's no reason why it can't be viewed as a useful data . Hey!! ... Bumcrack could never be so succinct!!

Bumcrack said: It's pretty obvious most people who had an issue will want to vote and most of the peopl who haven't had any probs won’t even think about it, not the way to compile a meaningful and accurate survey. The only way to really find the truth is to ask every single Porsche owner. Edited by Bumcrack on Wednesday 13th June 18:31 With all due respect, I disagree. If the only way were to ask every single Porsche owner, then why do Porsche (and so many other companies) sample only a tiny proportion of their customers? This thread is capable of delivering a meaningful survey, albeit one with some weaknesses. There are plenty of people without problems who have stated as much, and they appear to be in the majority. So may I gently ask that you let this thread run without knocking what is an honourable attempt to shed further light on an issue that is of genuine interest to us all? When we have a higher set of numbers, we can all dissect the results ourselves and draw our own conclusions. Thanks very much. Ballcock said: I do think this thread is a tad lop-sided , but if that's taken into account , then there's no reason why it can't be viewed as a useful data . Agreed. So let's get the data, and then qualify it over time. We all benefit..... edited to give credit where it was due.... with apologies to Ballcock for erroneously ascribing his copy to Bumcrack Edited by bcnrml on Wednesday 13th June 21:17

Well if we're gathering stats.... '96 Primera, well over 100K miles, one failed RMS, but it was like that for two whole years

Porsche - of course - know pretty well all there is to know about the failings of each and every model through the intelligence of spares supply and requisition. This means they know frequency, ratios, even probably mileages etc. Baz

I never had a 996 - but will my dad did - 3 to be exact. Of them all - each car did 20k miles minimum over about 12-15 mths - not one failure or RMS problem .... The only Porsche he has had ever had problems with were his 993's .. but they were OPC related. Like when they left the oil cap off the engine the day he picked it up. The first he knew of it was when the oil blew into the engine bay half way home on the M4 leaving a lovely cloud of blue smoke everywhere! Or when they failed to check the lights worked on the PDI of the one he had after it.. both were brand new cars as well, as in just picked them up from the OPC! But otherwise he has had 30 Porsches cars over the years - all models - and they have been faultless. That must be a pretty good stat? Edited by Try5t on Thursday 14th June 17:10

Ballcock said: bcnrml said: Bumcrack said: I do think this thread is a tad lop-sided , but if that's taken into account , then there's no reason why it can't be viewed as a useful data . Hey!! ... Bumcrack could never be so succinct!! Sorry?

2000 Boxster S - No Problems 2001 996 - No Problems

Homer J said: 2000 Boxster S - No Problems 2001 996 - No Problems Homer J, from which mileage to which mileage have you kept the 996, and over which years? finally, which year model is it? Kay

Bumcrack said: Ballcock said: bcnrml said: Bumcrack said: I do think this thread is a tad lop-sided , but if that's taken into account , then there's no reason why it can't be viewed as a useful data . Hey!! ... Bumcrack could never be so succinct!! Sorry? ... Succinctly put ...

2003 996 (3.6) owned from 9K-35K miles. 2 x RMS replacements (one under warranty, one on goodwill from OPC) Maybe the following scenario contributes somewhat to the high incidence of RMS replacements: Me to OPC: "What's the damage on the service then"? OPC: "Well, there's a slight leak from the RMS - not a problem, but we could fix it for you". Me: "Bugger! What'll that cost"? OPC: "Nothing - it's covered" Me: "Well be my guest and go ahead and fix it then"! I have a feeling that if I'd have had to stump up the cash for the fix, I'd still be driving round with the original RMS and putting up with a few oil drips on the driveway! Until of course oil ingress led to a catastrophic intermediate shaft failure!

deevee said: Until of course oil ingress led to a catastrophic intermediate shaft failure! And your evidence of this ever happening before is ..... ??????? Careful ... This how b.s. rumours start ...

Ballcock said: deevee said: Until of course oil ingress led to a catastrophic intermediate shaft failure! And your evidence of this ever happening before is ..... ??????? Careful ... This how b.s. rumours start ... None at all - a tongue in cheek remark just to highlight the point I was making. People seem to associate the dreaded RMS failure with all sorts of ills from inter shaft failures to grenading engines! As the Porsche folks said to me - your RMS is leaking, it's nothing to worry about, but we'll fix it under warranty if you like . We all know how keen the OPC service folks are to point out every possible 'service' item (new pads/disks anyone? ) so if this was a serious 'engine-threatning' problem, then we can be sure that they would be telling us at service time in no uncertain terms! So, RMS problem? Well, keep it topped up and (as someone mentioned on the thread earlier) lay a gravel driveway! It's not something that keeps me awake at night!

My 02 911 (29,000 miles) has a broken intermediate shaft bearing. This is five months after the RMS failed.

Updated stats: 1 failure, No RMS, 77Km, 3.4 1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km, 3.6 1 failure, No RMS, 16Km, 3.4 1 failure, No RMS, 41Km, 3.6 1 failure, 1 RMS, 46Km, 3.6 No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km, 3.4 No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km, 3.4 No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km, 3.6 No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km, 3.4 No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 3.6 no failure, 2 RMS, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 3.4 no failure, no RMS no failure, no RMS, 18km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 99Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 8Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 64km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 40Km, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 48Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 32km, 3.4 no failure, 2 RMS, 56Km, 3.6 Out of a total of 28 996's: - 18%, or 5 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km) - 61%, or 17 cases, have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.3 times. From those that specified the engine, 10 3.4s and 11 3.6s participated so far in the survey. Kay

Hi I have been in the motor trade for 40Years a i can not think of another engine that comes close to the poor reliability of these M96 engines. They have been in production since 1996 and are still having trouble today. A company like Porsche should have least have got on top of the RMS Problem at least, as the no of the different seals are now into double figures. Years ago Honda produced a V4 engine that was fitted to the VF750 and within a year they were knocking out camshafts like sticks are breaking. The warranty work very nearly bankrupted them. They held there hands up and redesigned the whole engine replacing the camchains with gear drive and the engine became grenade proof. So when they decided to put the V-Tec system in their production cars they made certain the would be reliable. I think they have had 4 failures in 2 million units . The idea that you buy a prestige sports car then are forced into buying a £900 warranty is a joke even though it is great value for money. I do not know wether our USA cousins are offered these exstended warranties but reading some of their forums they just complain loudly have a replacement fitted free of charge. BMW have had trouble with the M3 knocking ends out and as it is a known fault they will replace any engines with this trouble free of charge regardless of age or mileage. With the the modern engineering systems that are about now more than one failure in 5000 units is unacceptable. It should not have to be left to companies like Hartec and Auto farm to show Porsche how to make these engines reliable.

Dunit said: Hi I have been in the motor trade for 40Years a i can not think of another engine that comes close to the poor reliability of these M96 engines. They have been in production since 1996 and are still having trouble today. A company like Porsche should have least have got on top of the RMS Problem at least, as the no of the different seals are now into double figures. The idea that you buy a prestige sports car then are forced into buying a £900 warranty is a joke even though it is great value for money. With the the modern engineering systems that are about now more than one failure in 5000 units is unacceptable. It should not have to be left to companies like Hartec and Auto farm to show Porsche how to make these engines reliable. Thanks for this Dunit. Good to have an informed view. Do you have any statistics you could share with us? By your benchmark (see emboldened text), the failure rate of a premium engine should be circa 0.02%. If anyone else thinks otherwise, please could we have some hard statistics in support of your views?

tonikaram said: Updated stats: 1 failure, No RMS, 77Km, 3.4 1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km, 3.6 1 failure, No RMS, 16Km, 3.4 1 failure, No RMS, 41Km, 3.6 1 failure, 1 RMS, 46Km, 3.6 No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km, 3.4 No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km, 3.4 No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km, 3.6 No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km, 3.4 No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 3.6 no failure, 2 RMS, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 3.4 no failure, no RMS no failure, no RMS, 18km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 99Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 8Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 64km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 40Km, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 48Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 32km, 3.4 no failure, 2 RMS, 56Km, 3.6 Out of a total of 28 996's: - 18%, or 5 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km) - 61%, or 17 cases, have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.3 times. From those that specified the engine, 10 3.4s and 11 3.6s participated so far in the survey. Kay km..or miles??...I cant see how this can work really. You need to carry out a census over a percentage of the total units in service. You also need to factor in..age..history..milage..owners..type of use...engine type...etc etc. Even having 50 or 100 comments it will not show a true measure of the facts. Sorry!

Hi Bcnrml Most car manufactures will pull a engine off the line and test it to destruction. The ave fig is about every 5000 units this way they can check if there is any recurring faults due to maybe casting slippage or machine tool setup or parts supplied from outside supplliers etc. When Ford wanted a high performance unit for the Puma they commisioned Yamaha to design it. Before they put it into production they ran it flat out to see how durable it was,After running for 2 weeks solid they gave up and pulled it apart to find it was perfect. The trouble in getting accurate figs is . On most cars you can go to companies like Warranty Direct and get info on what they continue to breakdown with but 95% of Porsche are on their own scheme. Also manufactures have different ways of going about fixing problems. I know Mercedes are very good at carrying out mods when you put the car in for service without owners even knowing. We put a A class in for a A service and the warranty bill came to £2000 due to their be mods to the Trailing arms ,Brake system and new steering column all of which had give us no problems what so ever. Some companies are more transparent than others.

You have proven the value of the statistics - well done. As I mentioned on a different posting about 996 engine reliability (I think) the position of the crankshaft relative to the hole that supports the seal is not guaranteed as it is not machined at the same time. It is clear to us that some seals fail at very low mileages - then continue to fail again and again whereas some seals last up to 100K and never fail. Although it need special tools and even a vernier or micrometer to check that the seal is in square to the crankshaft (as any tool that pushes the seal in does not neccessarily result in a square position because the rubber that it is made of compresses and so even if it is pushed in with a square tool it can end up out of square and needs checking) - there is nothing anyone can do to correct an out of alignment of the seal position right from the manufacturing and assembly stage. We have measured around 0.25mm out of alignment (some more - some less) and in my view this is a design/manufacturing tolerance that is unreasonable and wrong - although I would have thought a seal design could be developed that could cope with it. For example a seperate seal carrier that can be located in line and then secured in position or an extension of the original casting that holds the main bearings so it also holds the RMS instead of it being held in a seperate casting that is out of line. The size of the crank journal and the design and quality of the seal will be the same - so it must be that those that fail the most are simply those that go together with the most out of alignment. There is also some age related stress relieving of the casing that holds the seal because it is not restrained anywhere near the centre being more like a bell housing - which also contributes to the out of alignment. In my view this should be an accepted fault always repaired FOC by Porsche and I cannot believe that they have not thought out how to fix it by now. For example - if the crank carrier was extended and a stub protruded into the cylinder casting holding the seal in the crank carrier and with an o ring between that and the cylinder casting - it would be perfectly OK. Having made that point - most old Porsche's leak a little oil and you know it is not a serious problem - putting a small amount of top up oil in the engine every few weeks will not affect the reliability of anything else and a small tray left strategically on the garage floor can prevent oil staining. This and the bearing problem in the intermediate shaft, should have been sorted out years ago. Baz

9hellheaven said: tonikaram said: Updated stats: Out of a total of 28 996's: - 18%, or 5 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 48,000Km (rather early, but the span is from 16,000 to 77,000Km) - 61%, or 17 cases, have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.3 times. From those that specified the engine, 10 3.4s and 11 3.6s participated so far in the survey. Kay km..or miles??...I cant see how this can work really. You need to carry out a census over a percentage of the total units in service. You also need to factor in..age..history..milage..owners..type of use...engine type...etc etc. Even having 50 or 100 comments it will not show a true measure of the facts. Sorry! I think this is a very useful exercise Kay , and well done Toni for thinking to start this topic. We cannot hope that this 'survey' is going to be anything like 100% scientifically accurate , but using a bit of common sense does service to the thread. It does point the finger to the fact that leaky seal syndrome is all too common. But it also brings to the fore (thanks Baz Hart) that this is meerly an inconvenience and is grossly over rated in terms of it's ability to ruin the fantastic experience that is 996 ownership. The percentage engine failure that we have at the moment , though pointing to the fact that it's happening more than it should , is skewed , and if the mods were to make this thread into a 'sticky' (hint hint), the percentage engine failures would drop. It's only natural that if you've suffered an engine failure you'll be more driven to post on this topic , than if you've had an ultra reliable 996 (which I believe is the case with the vast majority of these cars). It would also be interesting to see if the percentages differ between pre and post facelift models .. If you're posting , or have posted , would you specify year , model , mileage ?? DAZREN .... STICKY???

2002 996. 48000 miles. 1 x RMS to my knowledge.

Despite now owning a TVR I'll help your stats a bit 99 Boxster and 911, both did about 55K without any RMS attention. (Mind you the 911 did need a new oil air separator and had at least four other oil minor leaks!)

Dunit said: Hi Bcnrml Most car manufactures will pull a engine off the line and test it to destruction. The ave fig is about every 5000 units this way they can check if there is any recurring faults due to maybe casting slippage or machine tool setup or parts supplied from outside supplliers etc. When Ford wanted a high performance unit for the Puma they commisioned Yamaha to design it. Before they put it into production they ran it flat out to see how durable it was,After running for 2 weeks solid they gave up and pulled it apart to find it was perfect. The trouble in getting accurate figs is . On most cars you can go to companies like Warranty Direct and get info on what they continue to breakdown with but 95% of Porsche are on their own scheme. Also manufactures have different ways of going about fixing problems. I know Mercedes are very good at carrying out mods when you put the car in for service without owners even knowing. We put a A class in for a A service and the warranty bill came to £2000 due to their be mods to the Trailing arms ,Brake system and new steering column all of which had give us no problems what so ever. Some companies are more transparent than others. Hi Dunit, Thanks again for a most informative post! Your point about Warranty Direct provokes many thoughts, and the implications are not very encouraging. For those still knocking the value of this thread, please note that only a very tiny proportion of unhappy customers bother to complain in writing. On that basis, negative postings here about reliability are still only a very small proportion of the reality. So if anyone still wants to, may I respectfully suggest that instead of knocking this thread, you go and ask Warranty Direct or Porsche for facts. Armed with said facts, please inform this forum. Until then, please add stats, or leave well alone. Thank you. I still expect the failure rate to fall, but I am now confident that we're looking at double figures in percentage terms, and not single figures as I first expected six-nine months ago. Back to Dunit: Merc took a big hit on warranty claims (and profitability), leading to significant changes for the better. Porsche do not appear to have taken a hit - maybe because so many buyers in Blighty think it is normal to write large cheques to maintain this premium product (annual warranty premiums, or big bills). The yanks have a four year warranty and they pay less for these cars than we do in the UK! Go figure.......

Its strange how RMS leaks and engines going bang, now seem to be lumped together as one and same thing One mildly annoys and the other is a freaking nightmare, but it’s all grouped together under the banner of “996 engine is unreliable” I don’t think a small leak underneath the car ever stopped anyone finishing a journey or cost a fortune to fix. Edited by Bumcrack on Monday 18th June 09:24

Hi There all, Ballcock did ask me to post my story here : I owned a Boxster 2.5 covered in 9 years 360.000km which equals to 225.000 miles. Never had any mechanical problems, except for the normal wear such as a replaced alternator, started reconditioned, fuel pump changed. Adding gas in the aircon. And a few tires and brakepads, but otherwise this car gntlemen never let me down and gave me hours and hours of pleasure. Before you want to reply, no I did not drive it like a saint, but I v kept myself to my number one rule, when cold treat her nice, when hot go for it. Now I v changed to a 996, not because the boxster was finished, no just because I could do a superb deal on this low mileage 996 Cab. Best regards ROnny Vandereydt

Just for the record 986 - 10,000 miles - dry as a bone, no problems with the engine, but the roof was another matter 97 my 996 - 19,000 miles 2000MY, not used a drop of oil, not failed, owned for 3 years

Bump Keep em comin guys ... We might eventually end up with an acceptable figure!

2000 C2 3.4 1 x RMS @ 30k miles replaced under warranty No failures Currently 68k miles - bought two and half years ago at 29k miles. Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Wednesday 20th June 19:57

no faliure, 3.4 (OPC and specialist said it was dry sump though????) 42k miles, had RMS replaced anyways as I cooked the clutch so that doesnt count.

Ballcock said: * Bump Keep em comin guys ... We might eventually end up with an acceptable figure! Highly unlikely

Bumcrack said: Highly unlikely 33 996s so far. Kay Edited by tonikaram on Friday 22 June 11:00

The incidence of RMS failures recorded is far higher than our customer base or customer records experience - I guess one car in 50 seems to have a problem during a 3 year period but not one in 5 - so I think there must be some element of posting if your car had a fault and perhaps not bothering if it hadn't. Mind you we always recomend a new seal when doing a clutch etc - so perhaps we intercept more often. (My 0.01% (in a previous posting) was sarcastic but was relating more to very serious engine problems and of course we don't actually know the figures - but Porsche do! - I was just trying to reflect the fact that it is relatively rare). However with so many having an RMS problem I have revisited the problem and spent longer analysing it and have come up with a new explanation that makes good sense and so we are going to experiment with a new solution and then - after a reasonable period of time - if it works we will inform others. Baz

hartech said: The incidence of RMS failures recorded is far higher than our customer base or customer records experience - I guess one car in 50 seems to have a problem during a 3 year period but not one in 5 - so I think there must be some element of posting if your car had a fault and perhaps not bothering if it hadn't. sarcasms turned on and set to full No really, who’d have thunk it?

98 996 no rms or engine failure issues-66000miles.

Not to steal your thunder Toni , but the percentage failure rate is reducing as the posts increase. It's at about 14% at this stage. I know there's more of you out there who contribute to PH and have or had 996's ... YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!! ... GIT POSTING!!!

996 C2 1999 95,000 miles original engine no RMS in last 3 years but can't answer for before that. Almost run in now, can't wait to be able to open her up

996 3.6 2001 45K Miles RMS replaced twice already - gone again today! (only done 3000 miles since last replacement)

2002 996 C2 - 32,000 miles, no engine or RMS problems to date.... and for the record, 1999 986 2.7 - 78,000 miles, no engine or RMS problems either. Keep up the good work! wadfa

1999 C4 Tip, 67000 miles of which i did 5000, no failures of anything (unless you count a knackered air con pipe caused by some over enthusiastic bumping up a kerb!) ...and a 986 before that (woth including Boxsters to increase the sample size?), owne from new to 20000 miles, again no failures Edited by LeeME3 on Wednesday 27th June 16:15

2004 Model Year C4S. 17,000 miles no problems. Have not even had to add a drop of oil in the last 12 months

99 996 Engine failure 86,000m (when I bought the car). No idea about RMS. Prior to that 968 for 5 yrs to 145,000m with no problems.

bumpidy bump bump bump* Hey Toni , You keepin scores any more??

1998 c2 bought at 56k, engine failure at about 70k. also had rms once. and a new gearbox, but that's another story...

Ballcock said: *bumpidy bump bump bump* Hey Toni , You keepin scores any more?? As requested : 1 failure, No RMS, 77Km, 3.4 1 failure, 3 RMS, 58Km, 3.6 1 failure, No RMS, 16Km, 3.4 1 failure, No RMS, 41Km, 3.6 1 failure, 1 RMS, 46Km, 3.6 1 failure, no RMS, 138Km, 3.4 1 failure, 1 RMS, 112Km, 3.4 No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS No failure, 1 RMS, 102Km, 3.4 No failure, 1 RMS, 42Km, 3.4 No failure, 1 RMS, 48Km, 3.6 No failure, 1 RMS, 90Km, 3.4 No failure, 3 RMS, 40Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 88Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 3.6 no failure, 2 RMS, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 3.4 no failure, no RMS no failure, no RMS, 18km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 99Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 8Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 29Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 64km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 40Km, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 48Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 32km, 3.4 no failure, 2 RMS, 56Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 77Km, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 88Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 30Km, 3.4 no failure, 1 RMS, 48km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 38Km, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 106Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 152Km, 3.4 no failure, 3 RMS, 72Km, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 51Km, 3.6 no failure, no RMS, 107Km, 3.4 no failure, no RMS, 27Km, 3.6 no failure, 1 RMS, 43km, 3.6 Out of a total of 42 996's: - 16.6%, or 7 cases, have had engine failures at an average of 70,000Km - 52%, or 22 cases, have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on an average of 1.4 times. From those that specified the engine, 19 3.4s and 19 3.6s participated so far in the survey. - 38% or 16 cases had none of these two problems, with an average of 57,000Km (9 3.4s average 80,000Km, and 6 3.6s average 30,000Km) The rate of engine failure is decreasing, although not spectacularly. Same for RMS. Kay Edited by tonikaram on Monday 2nd July 10:12

:cheers: .. Interesting to note that there's nearly as many 3.6 as 3.4 failures. I know there's a general perception that the 'facelifted' cars have more reliable engines , but I was told by an inside source a few months ago that the failures (when they did happen) were fairly even across the board. I still feel the only weakness of this thread is that peeps will be more interested in posting if they've had an engine failure... The longer we can keep the thread alive the lower the failure rates will go. Dazren , have you considered sticking the topic for a month or so??

Ballcock said: :cheers: .. Interesting to note that there's nearly as many 3.6 as 3.4 failures. I know there's a general perception that the 'facelifted' cars have more reliable engines , but I was told by an inside source a few months ago that the failures (when they did happen) were fairly even across the board. I thought the same. A Porsche mechanic at the dealership here strongly believed that 2002+ models are of better quality mechanically, but the stats here don't really show that. Same numbers although these are 3 to 4 years younger. Ballcock said: The longer we can keep the thread alive the lower the failure rates will go. The failure rate was actually 14.6% when I posted , but meanwhile TheMonster entered his data prompting me to edit my post back to 16.6%.. Kay Edited by tonikaram on Monday 2nd July 10:29

tonikaram said: A Porsche mechanic at the dealership here strongly believed that 2002+ models are of better quality mechanically, but the stats here don't really show that. This may be a little cynical of me but the lads to talk to about failure rates are the indies , they don't have an axe to grind. OPC's may stop talking up the face lifters when they don't have them on their forecourts any more ... Then it'll be a case of ' the 997 has the much more reliable engine ' , even though it's been taken straight out of the 3.6 996... Cynical mode off......

Ballcock said: tonikaram said: A Porsche mechanic at the dealership here strongly believed that 2002+ models are of better quality mechanically, but the stats here don't really show that. This may be a little cynical of me but the lads to talk to about failure rates are the indies , they don't have an axe to grind. OPC's may stop talking up the face lifters when they don't have them on their forecourts any more ... Then it'll be a case of ' the 997 has the much more reliable engine ' , even though it's been taken straight out of the 3.6 996... Cynical mode off...... Good point, may as well be right on actually Kay

2003 C2 owned from new. Just had RMS fixed (noticed after service in May). Got goodwill payment from Porsche (didn't even need to ask for it) and all it cost me was £80. Other than a flat battery (from 4 weeks of non-use) hasn't cost me a penny in repairs.

fulham911club said: 2003 C2 owned from new. Just had RMS fixed (noticed after service in May). Got goodwill payment from Porsche (didn't even need to ask for it) and all it cost me was £80. Other than a flat battery (from 4 weeks of non-use) hasn't cost me a penny in repairs. fulham, what is the mileage at which the RMS was done? Kay

tonikaram said: Ballcock said: :cheers: .. Interesting to note that there's nearly as many 3.6 as 3.4 failures. I know there's a general perception that the 'facelifted' cars have more reliable engines , but I was told by an inside source a few months ago that the failures (when they did happen) were fairly even across the board. I thought the same. A Porsche mechanic at the dealership here strongly believed that 2002+ models are of better quality mechanically, but the stats here don't really show that. Same numbers although these are 3 to 4 years younger. Ballcock said: The longer we can keep the thread alive the lower the failure rates will go. The failure rate was actually 14.6% when I posted , but meanwhile TheMonster entered his data prompting me to edit my post back to 16.6%.. Kay Edited by tonikaram on Monday 2nd July 10:29 Well, IIRC, there is at least one 2004 C4S with an engine failure, posted on this forum, which has not been added to this thread. I haven't added it because I don't want to encourage any more comments further denigrating the methodology behind the thread. Like you both, I've heard the problems have not gone away, but I'm not sure any Indies will be prepared to put their names to stats of this nature and then have them posted on the forum. Let's see how this develops and hope people continue to post!

tonikaram said: fulham911club said: 2003 C2 owned from new. Just had RMS fixed (noticed after service in May). Got goodwill payment from Porsche (didn't even need to ask for it) and all it cost me was £80. Other than a flat battery (from 4 weeks of non-use) hasn't cost me a penny in repairs. fulham, what is the mileage at which the RMS was done? Kay 15k

FINALLY!!... Thanks Dazman.. Let the serious posting begin .. ya lazy shower o' shoites!!

I have just sold my 2000 986 Boxster 3.2 S with 66k on it. Looking back at the service sheets it had a RMS replaced at 39k. At 50k It had a Cracked Cylinder head replaced as a result of a holed radiator. Still on same clutch when i sold it.

Here you go: 1999 996 RMS go at +/- 11,000miles 2003 996 RMS go at +/-4,000miles 2003 996 no probs but covered less than 1,000miles!

And my contribution: 996 C2, yr2000 (3.4), original engine, replaced clutch at 52k, and RMS with it though it hadn't failed. Car is going strong and looks fresh - still impresses me with its ability to take everything in its stride - from snow covered roads in Chamonix, muddy fields at Le Mans, smoking tyres on the 'Ring, Munich to Basel at a steady 150mph, and simply getting me around the shitty, it has never missed a beat.

Mine too (although not my car, but a colleague's) 2005 987 Boxster S - terminal engine failure at c. 10k The OPC mentioned something about an intermediary bearing and the engine having no compression Edited by Thorny on Wednesday 4th July 10:15

2002 c2 52000 miles rms done when clutch went Been fitted with supercharger for last 10000 miles Touching wood now

996 C4, yr2001 (3.4), original engine, 48k miles no problems. Nurburgring, track days, never missed a beat, I love my 911 :-)

996 Carrera 2 facelift model, bought new in March 2002, covered 80K miles in 5.5 years. Original engine, RMS replaced twice, with clutch replaced on second RMS failure. Other than couple of minor problems, car's been fantastic and totally reliable.

2000 996 C2 - has done 54k miles, owned 3 years no RMS issues. Windscreen wash has just stopped working tho.... ;-)

2000 3.4 - I had it from 25-30k miles. RMS at 27k. No failure. 2002 3.6 - have it now with 12k on the clock - no failure and no RMS probs Fathers 3.2s boxster - 986 2002 car - RMS at 7k miles. No failure.

2000, 3.4, 996 C2. 49,000 miles. No RMS, No engine failures.

2003 Boxster S. No engine or RMS failures in the 3 years I had it. Collecting 1999 996 82k miles on Monday. I'll keep you posted!!

2002 C4 56,300 miles, original engine and no RMS failure that I know of.

2003 c4s 9000 miles no engine or rms problems

nxi20 said: 2002 C4 56,300 miles, original engine and no RMS failure that I know of. And what do you hope to gain from this survey?????????? Like in the garage, we only see the bad ones, the good ones far out way them. Buy your used car warrenty's, never understand people not buying them and then moaning when PCGB wont offer good will claim, epecially when they have had them serviced at none OPC garage

Porsche Tech said: And what do you hope to gain from this survey?????????? .. Thanks 'Porsche Tech' , you and your 4 posts tell me that this topic is worth something .. You wouldn't have bothered posting if it didn't touch a nerve. Now don't go wasting precious posts by replying there's a good chap. I feel very strongly that if this topic is held as a sticky for the next few months , it'll be the closest thing to date that we'll have , of real figures on 996 RMS and engine failures. Please folks , if you've not already done so , post your 996 stats ... stat!!

Hi Ballcock total agreement with your comments. If Porsche built them right in the first place i would be surprised if the OPCs had more than 1 car a year with these faults not every week. Now ten years down the line they still have not cured it. And as for having to buy a warranty because your scared every time you go out your likely to return on a Lowloader is crazy. The only reason the warranty is as cheap as it is ,Maybe Porsche subsidies this alot rather than having to having to do a recall to fix the problem for good. As my old man used to say to me ,If you let someone catch you once shame on them.Let them catch you twice shame on you.

Oh come off it. Porsche Tech is right. And he's had the balls to post his real name on his profile. Buy a high performance car without a warranty and you'll have to pay through the nose when it breaks. Simple. The warranty is insurance, nothing more. The premium reflects the claim numbers. Porsche can do a full warranty on a £100,000 GT2 for £895. A BMW M3 warranty costs £1800. Ergo, the losses on BMWs must be heavier. But a 996, enjoy it, but protect against the worst with OPC warranty. Or risk it, but as Porsceh Tech says, why should a dealer who didn't sell or service the car give a goodwill payment??

There are plenty of other threads on here discussing the merits of warranties and who should pay for what etc. Let's keep this one focussed on the stats shall we?

Porsche Tech said: nxi20 said: 2002 C4 56,300 miles, original engine and no RMS failure that I know of. And what do you hope to gain from this survey?????????? Like in the garage, we only see the bad ones, the good ones far out way them. Buy your used car warrenty's, never understand people not buying them and then moaning when PCGB wont offer good will claim, epecially when they have had them serviced at none OPC garage Regardless of the existence of solutions (warranty) and whether they are suitable or not, the point of this thread is to attempt to assess the reliability of the M96 996 engine against catastrophic failure. Each is entitled to have faith or not in the outcome of this thread, but not to wish that it stops. It has already gathered significant contribution and may already have value. Kay

fastfreddy said: There are plenty of other threads on here discussing the merits of warranties and who should pay for what etc. Let's keep this one focussed on the stats shall we? Fastfreddy, Dunit, Ballcock, Tonikaram To the others disparaging this thread, please read the numerous posts defending it (within said thread) and then please go and discuss warranty merits elsewhere. Thank you. And if you still want to argue, then consider this: It amazes me to think that so many disparagers are effectively saying it is okay for 5%, 10% or possibly more of one's favourite consumer product to have a fly (or dead animal) in it. Some also consider it a "result" that the manufacturer will exchange it for a new one (which might also have yet another fly or dead animal in it). Great! I also note some of the disparagers have not posted their reliability stats, even though they have experiences directly of relevance. So, may I gently but firmly echo the aforementioned requests: Please let's keep this firmly on topic. If you have no stats to contribute, and can do nothing but disparage, then please leave well alone. Thank you. Edited by bcnrml on Sunday 8th July 13:37

Current stats: Out of 56 996's: - 12.5% or 7 engine failures (four 3.4 and three 3.6) - 54% or 30 cases have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on average 1.3 times. - 39% or 22 cases have had none of these two problems (twelve 3.4s, nine 3.6, one unspecified). In the survey, there are twenty-six 3,6s, twenty-six 3.4s, and four unspecified RMS distribution: 1998 2 RMS out of 4 cars in survey 1999 4 RMS out of 9 cars in survey 2000 3 RMS out of 7 cars in survey 2001 3 RMS out of 4 cars in survey 2002 7 RMS out of 10 cars in survey 2003 6 RMS out of 9 cars in survey 2004 0 RMS out of 4 cars in survey 9 entries in the stats didn't specify the year. 5 were affected by RMS, 4 not. engine failure distribution: 1998 2 failures out of 4 cars in survey 1999 2 failures out of 9 cars in survey 2000 0 failures out of 7 cars in survey 2001 0 failures out of 4 cars in survey 2002 2 failures out of 10 cars in survey 2003 0 failures out of 9 cars in survey 2004 1 failure out 4 cars in survey 9 entries didn't specify the year, none with a failure. enginefailure failuremileage rms rmsmileage currentmileage enginesize year username 1 failure 3 RMS 36 3.6 2002 xTVR 1 failure No RMS 48 3.4 1998 siko no failure 1 RMS 55 3.6 2001 Wetwipe no failure no RMS Bumcrack no failure 1 RMS Wanta996 no failure 1 RMS Wanta996 no failure 1 RMS Wanta996 no failure 1 RMS 18 30 3.6 2002 steve996 no failure 1 RMS 55 64 3.4 1998 jonny996 no failure 1 RMS 53 56 3.4 1999 Ballcock no failure 1 RMS 26 3.4 2001 2something 1 failure 10 No RMS 3.4 1999 fastfreddy 1 failure 25 No RMS 25 3.6 2004 hussar10a no failure 3 RMS 25 3.6 2003 Dreammeister no failure 1 RMS 3.6 Geneve no failure no RMS 3.4 Geneve no failure 2 RMS 3.6 2002 whoami no failure no RMS 11 3.6 2004 C4SCAB no failure 1 RMS 62 3.4 1999 HONEYMON57ER no failure no RMS 7 3.4 2000 mbutchers no failure no RMS 5 3.6 2003 mbutchers no failure 1 RMS 18 3.6 2003 mbutchers no failure 1 RMS 40 60 3.4 1999 nbetts no failure no RMS 25 3.6 2003 nbetts no failure 1 RMS 30 3.4 2000 R1_JON no failure no RMS 3.4 Homer J no failure 2 RMS 35 3.6 2003 deevee 1 failure 29 1 RMS 29 3.6 2002 joelasagna no failure 1 RMS 48 3.6 2002 baptistsan no failure no RMS 55 3.4 1999 The Griffalo no failure no RMS 19 3.4 2000 Ir Baboon no failure 1 RMS 30 68 3.4 2000 Vesuvius 996 no failure 1 RMS 42 3.4 DucatiGary no failure no RMS 24 3.6 2004 andrew! no failure no RMS 66 3.4 1998 EVO575 no failure no RMS 95 3.4 1999 Ogiii no failure 3 RMS 45 3.6 2001 thepilsbury no failure no RMS 32 3.6 2002 wadfa no failure no RMS 67 3.4 1999 LeeME3 no failure no RMS 17 3.6 2004 widebody 1 failure 86 no RMS 3.4 1999 italiansummer no failure 1 RMS 27 3.6 2003 alxce 1 failure 70 1 RMS 3.4 1998 TheMonster no failure 1 RMS 15 3.6 2003 fulham911club no failure 1 RMS 11 3.4 1999 Jessica_Wabbit no failure 1 RMS 4 3.6 2003 Jessica_Wabbit no failure no RMS 52 3.4 2000 tracer.smart no failure 1 RMS 52 3.6 2002 Spid no failure no RMS 48 3.4 2001 Neilpeel59 no failure 2 RMS 80 3.6 2002 flow99 no failure no RMS 54 3.4 Fabster no failure 1 RMS 27 3.4 2000 Ragtop no failure no RMS 12 3.6 2002 Ragtop no failure no RMS 49 3.4 2000 Diesel130 no failure no RMS 56 3.6 2002 nxi20 no failure no RMS 9 3.6 2003 C4S 3.6 Kay

Just reading through that lot and I remembered that I had a RMS failure on my second engine at approx 50K miles. Please amend my details. Thnx!

fastfreddy said: Just reading through that lot and I remembered that I had a RMS failure on my second engine at approx 50K miles. Please amend my details. Thnx! Noted. Will be done at the next round. Thanks, Kay

I bet Porsche GB are loving this thread.

Gary11]artech said: "Gary, I don't like doing that" Thats fine Baz I appreciate your taking time to reply! I like you have rebuilt many engines and used to enjoy working on my own cars and motor bikes back when god was a boy,those days are long gone,however the field you work in is specialised complex and evolving I am in a mechanical Porsche orientated envioroment on a daily basis,I cannot think of many even specialist workshops capable of these rebuilds and improvements> I think you do an excellent job you will always get know all type people putting pen to paper,I wouldnt advocate putting any overheated and consequently overstressed and weakened component back in a performance engine,just the suggestion of that confirms the level of the authors expertise you dont put back "what you can get away with" with these type engines unless you want another costly failure,I wouldnt worry, we all learn new things from new people and new problems.I find threads like this very constructive,helping a lot with early symptoms diagnosis. G Edited by Gary11 on Tuesday 15th November 11:39 Phew! A full stop wouldn't kill yer! MTR

mollytherocker said: Phew! A full stop wouldn't kill yer! MTR Sorry I edited it out before repunctuating it LOL.

[quote=hartech]"Gary, I don't like doing that" Thats fine Baz I appreciate your taking time to reply! I like you have rebuilt many engines and used to enjoy working on my own cars and motor bikes back when god was a boy,those days are long gone,however the field you work in is specialised complex and evolving. I am in a mechanical Porsche orientated envioroment on a daily basis,I cannot think of many even specialist workshops capable of these rebuilds and improvements. I think you do an excellent job. You will always get know all type people putting pen to paper trying to prove a point. I wouldnt advocate putting any overheated and consequently overstressed and weakened component back in a performance engine,just the suggestion of that confirms the level of the authors expertise you dont put back "what you can get away with" with these type engines.. unless you want another costly failure.I wouldnt worry, we all learn new things from new people and new problems.I find threads like this very constructive,helping a lot with early symptoms diagnosis. G Edited by Gary11 on Tuesday 15th November 11:39 Edited by Gary11 on Tuesday 15th November 12:07

Apologies but I've jumped in this topic fairly late on. Am I right in thinking turbo and gt derivatives of both 996 and 997 are relatively immune to the issues highlighted in this topic? Ta

Yes, they are a different engine. MTR

mollytherocker said: Yes, they are a different engine. MTR Yup - the only thing I would perhaps change as routine in a Turbo/GT engine would be the camchain and water pump.

Reading another thread about how many people have OPC warranties due to the fear of these issues, I find myself wondering if, ironically, Porsche have actually profited from these failures? The revenue from the warranty, inspections, servicing, necessity for genuine parts etc must significantly exceed the cost of replacement engines? Just a thought. MTR

Well done MTR you have begun to see some of the issues we are not comfortable to expose or suggest - but also consider - just like you have. I think that it is the way the World is moving - to compensate for the huge increases in labour rates for anything needing skilled labour while mass production has reduced relative unit costs - making replacement more viable in many cases than repair. All you do is pay so much regularly into a kitty and those that need to take advantage of the cover provided are paid for by those that didn't. It is like a classic insurance situation (as we have always suggested) - likelihood of a claim remote - but the cost if it happened - too high to just ignore - so instead pay a smaller out regularly to protect your investment - just like you do for your house - your car - and more and more do for their plumbing, central heating, etc, etc. it is a sensible response to global changes in World economics and makes good sense most often. However it is still a free market enabling other alternatives to be considered - as those on our version (the Lifetime Maintenance plan) have done. What is becoming less and less viable overall - is to simply take no protection and take your chances - as more and more are regretting doing. Baz

The new section 5 of our Internet based buyers guide about cylinder scoring has now been uploaded (see www.hartech.org buyers guide). You will need a lot of time and probably a headache pill or two if you want to read the whole lot in one go. It has been written to inform anyone at any level of relevant knowledge (from a non technical owner to an experienced qualified engineer) - that is interested in the problem of cylinder scoring in 996 and 997 3.6, 3.8 and Cayman S engines - what the many contributory factors are and why. Briefly it covers why it is easy to design an engine so bullet proof that it never ever goes wrong but it would then be very expensive and heavy as a result. With pressures on profitability, low emissions and higher performance - manufacturers have been under pressure to trim designs, weights, costs, emissions and fuel economy while increasing performance - which inevitably moves their products closer to reliability or longevity limits. This section gradually explains how some systems that worked OK in air cooled 911's and the 944/968 range had small subtle differences when applied across into the M96 engines that individually seemed insignificant but actually pushed each reliability issue slightly closer towards the limit - but insufficient to cause a problem (in other words pretty well perfectly designed for the needs of the modern World). Many of the changes and weaknesses seem also to concentrate the problem on bank 2 (where most of the failures are). When the later bigger capacity and more powerful versions were built - instead of changing some of those marginal issues to compensate for the additional heat and loads - it seems that they were either left exactly the same or in one case while moving in the right direction for reducing costs - went entirely in the wrong direction for reliability - resulting in engines running so much closer to that boundary - that some - after ageing and with some wear and tear taking place and after experiencing different driving conditions and styles - simply slip over the boundary and become damaged (usually on bank 2). The scenario is typical of many other historical engines from different manufacturers that following a capacity or performance increase - search out and find the weak spots in a previously reliable design. Usually a small but significant modification eventually appears on the market to fix the problem - but more often from smaller specialist organisations (that is presently taking place with these engines). Because this initial engine range was actually so very well designed to run really close to - but still inside those "safety margins" - the increased performance applied to later models without other supporting alterations - has revealed a complex list of contributory weak spots - each even closer to the limits - such that a particular mix of sometimes different circumstances can push the engine over them. It is therefore a complex problem requiring lengthy investigation and testing, proving good well founded solutions while exposing some other inadequate ones recently coming to the market. This 25,000 word section explains each issue with both simple explanations and analogies backed up with technical and scientific facts so anyone should be able to grasp the salient points and realise that there are several issues to consider and several modifications that are beneficial during a rebuild and not one simple fix. It also includes further new developments that may help owners avoid the problem. Before readers start with responding with typical criticism – please remember that I don’t need to write this stuff for my benefit (I already understand it) and furthermore if I spent the same amount of time and effort it took to write this section on promoting our business in other advertising or marketing ways – it would certainly result in greater financial rewards. It has been written to inform others about the problem – what we know about it and what we do about it – to prevent misleading alternatives from confusing owners – empowering them to make informed decisions if they need help or advice. Although many with more experience would not need to read the whole of it to understand what it contains, I do not intend to respond to any criticism unless every word has already been read. Best regards and happy reading,

2001 996 107,000 miles. Uses very little oil. Minor repairs. Replaced rear main seal and the intermediate shaft bearing assembly with the Inengineering aftermarket bearing assembly when the clutch was replaced. Neither had failed - preventive maintenance. Change Mobile 1 at 7K miles. Put in 180 degree thermostat and my 996 seems to run a bit cooler. Am very careful to warm up engine at below 3K RPM and use my 996 as a highway commutation car. My 996 rarely gets above 5K RPM and is very very rarely above 6RPM. I work the gears to keep the RPMs at all times at or above 3K. Put in the 997 shift assembly and cables and the transmission shifts better than the stock 996 shift assembly - indeed, it shifts so much better and with a shorter throw that it was worth the cost, although there was nothing defective or worn in the factory's 996 shift assembly. My after market Porsche technician warned me that despite my care, I will need a full rebuild at around 150K, barring bad luck before that. Drove two Mercedes diesel sedans to 250,000 miles before selling them. Don't expect that performance from a high performance gas engine, but would feel cheated if I could not get 150K miles out of a Porsche. I hope that VW management surfs the Internet for Sites like Piston Heads and forces Porsche to improve the durability of its engines.

You seem to have all you can so far Sicerosecundus - and should have the best chance of anyone to keep it running. The only thing possibly to go wrong (which you can do nothing practical about with a rebuild) is that a cylinder cracks or "D" chunks - or possibly a shell wears out. So far the nearest we got was 153K and then a crack - several from 40 to 50K and a lot around 70 to 80K - but they will not be taking the care you are over oil changes or warming up etc - good luck and I hope it gets there - if it does I recommend you get someone over there to rebuild it and re-sleeve it or re-round the cylinders and cvhange to a closed deck design. I also guess the roads and speed limits in the USA may lend themselves to helping such an engine through reducing both hihg speed use and start/stop acceleration runs which lead to the sort of temperature fluctuations that speed up the "creep" that distorts the bores. Hoping to hear that you got there one day. Baz Baz

Thank you Baz for your thoughtful response. Yes, I know that the odds are against my getting to 150K without one of the engine disasters that the 996 is prone to. However, at my C4's age and mileage, my like new looking and performing C4 has but minor residual value, so I am thinking that I will just drive it until the engine breaks and then decide whether to rebuild it at a cost greater than its resale value or just donate it. I will have had by then 12 to 14 years of constant and extremely pleasurable use. My last S body Mercedes diesel reached 230,000 miles and looked and drove as new. I did not find a buyer due to the mileage, so I ended up donating it to a religious organization for a tax deduction. By the way, you refer to a "closed deck." Would you be so kind as to educate me as to what a closed deck is and why it is superior? If you have already done that in one of your messages to this Forum, just point me to your message. Many thanks for your many highly educational responses in this Forum. And yes, my driving conditions in the NYC area in which I commute an hour each way during rush hours to an office in mid-Connecticut from just outside NYC do not allow the kind of play that we Porsche owners dearly love. But, I can cruise on the Merritt Parkway, a beautifully landscaped winding highway, at a steady 80MPH and can overtake at much higher speed when I see an opening. But, it is very disciplined driving and there is no opportunity to do anything serious that would stress the 996 engine. I should point out that I am very careful to keep the RPMs between 3 and 5K and this is my fifth sports car since I was a student. I have noted that many but not all of the Porsche owners in the US that protest on the Internet that they have lost their 996 and 997 engines at low mileage bought a Porsche as their first sports car. I learned beginning at a young age on an Austin Healey Sprite, a TR3 and a TR4, a Morgan and a 912. With the British sports cars I learned the hard way to listen to the slightest change in the sound or performance of an engine and to react proactively at the slightest symptom. Cicerosecundus

Happy new year to everyone - Cicerosecundus - a quick answer may generate more qusetions - so this is more lengthy - sorry. The "closed deck" refers to the design of the top of the cylinder block. To avoid more questions from others I have provided this comprehensive explanation. The round hole that the pistons run up and down inside (the cylinder bore) used to be cast as part of the whole engine and the cylindrical bit was joined to the outside of the cylinder block in various places with small holes and cavitites to allow coolant to flow from the cylinder block up to the cylinder head. This enabled the outside of the block to partly support the round cylinders inside and keep them from moving about and this is a "closed deck design" likened to the deck on a ship being near the top and closing off the cabins underneath (or decking set over a framework) and similarly the top part of the block being closed off (like a ships deck) or open. Porsche have always been at the front of trying to build engines with good low and mid range torque and to do this the pistons need to be a tight fit inside the cylinder bore so the pumping efficiency when the cams are not running at their ideal revs - is still good. Sometimes the bits of the casting connecting the cylinder to the outside (usually where the cylinder head studds pass through) could slightly distort the cylinder from being perfectly round during thermal expansion etc and to allow for this the piston to bore clearance had to be a little larger than would be ideal if it wasn't for the distortion. The engines with iron/steel liners cast in did not distort so much as the iron/steel was strong enough to partly resist this distortion, but when all aluminium cylinder blocks with hard surface treatments were contemplated (for lighter engines and less bore wear) this distortion became more of an issue. The 944 and 968 Porsche engines had the cylinder bore cast like a tube sticking up into the block with nothing connecting it to the outside of the block - making it like a free standing tube just joined near the base or near the lower end so the "hot top" area was free to avoid any thermal stresses from distorting it and so ran tighter bore clearances successfully and this was called an "open deck design". However the aluminium used for this engine has silicon particles cast into it (to provide the hard part of the cylinder bore) which made it stiffer than ordinary alloy cylinder blocks - so when the piston pushes on the cylinder bore to drive the car along - very little distortion resulted and the design made a very stable and strong cylinder bore. Only very highly tuned special racing turbo versions ever cracked a bore and then only after very high mileages. This system was called Alusil and was very successful for a liquid cooled engine. The air cooled 911 versions also had alloy cylinders but this time with Nikasil plating on the bores. They remained very round because the fins (like a traditional motorcycle engine) formed circular rings around the bore to help keep it round and enabling tight piston clearances again to great benefit. When the M96/M97 (996, 997 and Boxster) engines were built they copied the cylinder layout of the previously successful 944/968 range but this time the cylinders were cast in alloy inside which "Lokasil" tubes were cast (rather like a cast in iron liner) but unlike cast iron the composite nature of the liner meant is was not as strong as cast iron or the Alusil blocks - and in addition the type of composite is known to suffer a relatively new phenomenon (compared to metals) of "creep" in which after repeated stress cycles and the application of heat - the material slowly distorts in the direction of the load. In these engines they distort "oval" rather like if you squeezed the sides of an open tin can so it got wider in one direction and narrower in the other. Porsche seemed to anticipate this by modifying the cylinder head gaskets to allow for some movement but eventually of course it results in large bore clearances and a fatigue crack or a piece falling out all together. I don't know if they understood that this would eventually limit the engine lifespan or not. Some aspects of the design suggest not as things like the metal inserts in the crankshaft housing are there for long life expectations but in contradiction - other aspects like crankshaft shell width and quality suggest otherwise and of course there are no oversized pistons or undersized shells listed - so replacement engines became the norm rather than rebuilding them (until businesses like ours and others found ways to rebuild them anyway). In the Generation 2 engines I believe Porsche have reverted to the Alusil system and in addition to that design from the 944/968 have closed off the top deck as well - which should result in a very good system indeed which they have published glowing reports about. What we offer as an option when we rebuild the "open deck" engines is to squeeze the "oval bores" round again and fit in a ring that connects the outside of the cylinder to the inside of the block and converts the design from an open deck to a closed deck system to keep the cylinders round while preventing them from distorting oval again. More details and pictures on our buyers guide sections 4 and 5 on www.hartech.org I hope this helps - it is a complicated subject. Baz

Hi all, happy new year! A picture is worth a thousand words Closed deck: Open deck: As Baz says you can see how well supported the cylinders are in a closed deck at the top.

Thanks Globs that's a great idea. I am not as good as you with photos - but will try picture of a 996 block with a pice missing and one after we have fixed the top with support rings. I have got better ohotos in the files somewhere but not time to find them - but these show the basics that combined with your support the explanations above (I hope). Baz

Baz this is incredible effort and real dedication to improve the standard of knowledge amongst the Porsche owners here, thanks for all your support. One small, hopefully easy question for you: I have a C2.1 3.4l with a full Hartech rebuild 7000miles ago (previously owned by Henry Ward) and am contemplating buying one of these: http://www.design911.co.uk/fu/pt697_1663_-cma81-cm... One thing that I am now slightly concerned with now, having read your previous few posts here is that, as the water cooled engine has been pushed so close/over the limits, would fitting the above item once again jeopardise the reliability of my engine (still under warranty). Also do you have any experience with these IPD plenums, they claim a 25bhp gain, is this the case or would you recommend not going down this route? Edited by Richie200 on Wednesday 4th January 14:50

Richie200 said: Baz this is incredible effort and real dedication to improve the standard of knowledge amongst the Porsche owners here, thanks for all your support. One small, hopefully easy question for you: I have a C2.1 3.4l with a full Hartech rebuild 7000miles ago (previously owned by Henry Ward) and am contemplating buying one of these: http://www.design911.co.uk/fu/pt697_1663_-cma81-cm... One thing that I am now slightly concerned with now, having read your previous few posts here is that, as the water cooled engine has been pushed so close/over the limits, would fitting the above item once again jeopardise the reliability of my engine (still under warranty). Also do you have any experience with these IPD plenums, they claim a 25bhp gain, is this the case or would you recommend not going down this route? Edited by Richie200 on Wednesday 4th January 14:50 I would be supprised if this would give a 25bhp gain in my experiance its more like 8bhp if your lucky.

It depends a lot of where in the rev band the claimed improvement occurs. To make a comment I would need to see a before and after torque or bhp graph - but I am guessing it will mainly be at the top end - and if so find it hard to believe - but best to see the power graphs first and then think about a response afterwards. Baz

If you scroll down to the 4th model on this site " 996 Carrera 2 3.4L (1998-1999) Cable Throttle " you will see 2x Dyno graphs: http://www.ipdplenums.com/index.php?option=com_con... The IPD "Y" designed Cable plenum is a direct factory replacement of the OE "T" style air distributor. The IPD Plenum provides impressive max horsepower gains of 28 in the mid range and an additional 12 horsepower on top Edited by Richie200 on Thursday 5th January 11:42 Edited by Richie200 on Thursday 5th January 11:46 Edited by Richie200 on Thursday 5th January 11:47

Thanks Ritchie, on the basis of those graphs I would expect it to be OK prociding the engine etc was in general good condition and a good quality oil was in use, radiators all clean etc. Baz

Hello, I love my 1999 996 C2 (72k) for its balance of performance and practicality but just wish the mechanicals were something to be interested in rather than worry about! The key jobs to address the common issues seem to be: LN IMS (with clutch and flywheel if req) Low Temp thermostat (or/and third rad?) Full suspension re-bush (OEM or polybush) Engine rebuild (preventative or failure) Suspension refresh (bilsteins?) Gearbox / Diff rebuild (as and when) What I am not clear on is whether all of this work (particularly the engine rebuild) makes the 996 a modified, but still ultimately compromised, design or turns it in to the robust and reliable high performance vehicle we expect a Porsche to be. I would not expect, if I made all these changes to be worrying about back road acceleration / temp fluctuation and high rev gear shifts. Your thougths would be appreciated.

Torque is good (it is what propels the car) and torque at high revs can also be good (if it is reliable as well and does not spin up the rear wheels). However while it is relatively easy to think up ways to pump more air into an engine - it is not as easy to get the extra exhaust out again - so many engines (without massive alterations to valve sizes and exhaust systems) strangle bigger turbos anyway and there seems to be a limit beyond which it can become impossible to go - whereas at the bottom end the exhaust system is easily able to cope and this is yet another reason why torque at lower revs can be so beneficial. Although I wrote it many years ago (and it is a little out of date now) page 75 onwards of part 3 of our buyers guide on www.hartech.org - goes some way to explain the issues. Furthermore the pictures below (sorry for the poor clarity) show the improvement that can be made by concentrating on the bottom end torque (as this 3 litre turbo was otherwise just the same as a 2.5 (turbo, exhaust, boost pressure etc etc) and was both easy to drive and extremely fast. What I have not managed to do is to get a spreadsheet file to create a graph showing the rear wheel torque in each gear (as a vertical scale) and road speed (on the horizontal scale) as this is what propels the car along and the area underneath this graph is a reasonable picture of the thrust available in each gear and when to change gear. The difficulty is that the graphs generate automatically and of course while you can record details of engine speed and output - they apply to different road speeds and the system (or my lack of computer skills) has so far prevented me from displaying this nicely. I have a scan of such a graph but it will not upload for some reason. Baz Edited by hartech on Friday 6th January 13:05

Sorry guys - this was meant for a different web site forum - but generally still relevant to much of what we discuss on here - for those interested - sorry! Baz

996 C2 3.6L facelifted 2002 car owned 3 years. 52k -65k miles RMS needed done, small engine sensor needed sorted £700 other than that never let me down.

It can be difficult to differentiate between a lifter and piston slap - but if at tickover you look at the second hand of your watch and count the knocks - say for 5 seconds - then multiply by 12 - the answer will either be near 360 to 400 or 720 to 800 - the former being connected to a tappet and the latter to the piston or crank bearings. If at camshaft speed (the slower one) it can be the lifter failed - a broken valve spring - a lose valve seat - a bent valve - etc. Oil pressure falls at tickover when the engine is hot and hence if any bearings or tappets are worn that is when there may be too little hydraulic pressure to make them work properly. There are also hydraulic tensioners on all 5 chains and they can get weak causing chain slap at low revs. even with a test rig (that we made) it is still not easy to identify which lifter is the problem - best isolate the area by sound and change all in that area. Remember the hole in the housing that the tappet slides in may also be worn and may need checking. Baz

hartech said: It can be difficult to differentiate between a lifter and piston slap - but if at tickover you look at the second hand of your watch and count the knocks - say for 5 seconds - then multiply by 12 - the answer will either be near 360 to 400 or 720 to 800 - the former being connected to a tappet and the latter to the piston or crank bearings. If at camshaft speed (the slower one) it can be the lifter failed - a broken valve spring - a lose valve seat - a bent valve - etc. Oil pressure falls at tickover when the engine is hot and hence if any bearings or tappets are worn that is when there may be too little hydraulic pressure to make them work properly. There are also hydraulic tensioners on all 5 chains and they can get weak causing chain slap at low revs. even with a test rig (that we made) it is still not easy to identify which lifter is the problem - best isolate the area by sound and change all in that area. Remember the hole in the housing that the tappet slides in may also be worn and may need checking. Baz Thanks very much Baz especially on a Sunday!

At this time my 2001 C4 996 has 110,000 miles and no serious problems. As I have explained earlier in this thread, I had the LN Engineering after market double race intermediate shaft bearing installed when I had the clutch replaced at 94,000 miles - the first clutch replacement, and it was at 94K miles still working and was not slipping. I recently purchased a 2005 997 C2 Cabriolet with PASM and Sport Chrono, full leather, Nav, Bose, etc. It has a very different feel than the 996. It is a very late production 2005 and has the 2006 improved bearing which is not retrofittable with the LN Engineering version. It is more refined and comfortable than my 996 in standard setting, i.e., with the "Sport" button not engaged. But, engage the Sport button and refinement and ease turns into brute force. WIth that button, it has two very different personalities; it is bipolar. The 996 feels and is simpler, direct and easy to drive. But, I truly prefer the 997, but only with PASM and Sport Chrono. The 996 is for sale only because I wanted a Cab and a perfect one was offered to me in Southern Florida. Cicerosecundus - New York. My 997 is so loaded with electronics that I am sure that I will have more trouble with it than I had with the 996.

Car now with Hartech awaiting full diagnosis though the symptoms point to the standard failure mode for 997 C2S. I wish I had read this thread before buying, I'd have a lovely e93 M3 (or maybe a CSL) instead. The question is of course is, do I now keep the 997 or sell on post repair? Answers on the back of a £50 note to my address please.

Keep! This is rotten luck but Hartech will do a belt and braces job. Have everything done you can afford and enjoy driving a great car!

It turns out that it was an air/oil separator and that my bores are all shiney after all. Decided to mod the thermostat as a precaution against future wallet rape. Thanks guys and good luck tomorrow at Oulton.

'02 996 C4s Guards red. AOS replaced 55k miles 3 yrs ownership 9k miles Slightly leaky RMS (if left sitting but fine if run daily) Door window microswitches Nav DVD repaired (New lazer) Autochanger repaired due to water ingress (Silly place to fit it IMHO) Otherwise spot on!

3 x 997 C2S (1 x 05 plate, 1 x 55 plate, 1 x 57 plate) Cumulatively (to date) 85K miles Faults: 1 x Clutch (thrust bearing or sommat failure) 1 x MAF sensor on 2nd Car they kindly replaced ALL coil packs, which proved not to be the cause of the fault)

996 Targa C2 3.6 manual, late 2002, 83,000 miles. Bought it in June, 6 weeks later the engine went phut. Took it to Brookspeed in Southampton who diagnosed IMS bearing failure and sent it to Hartech for an engine rebuild, currently underway with various partly-worn bits being replaced in the hope that I'll get a few years of reliable motoring out of it for the (substantial) rebuild investment.

I have been considering buying a 996 as its been a while since anythind rear engined has graced the drive . After reading this thread I know I'm not as brave or rich as you boys. I think I will stick to the old "44 turbo", makes me smile when I drive it not worry about new rattles I can hear. Thanks for making my mind up and good luck with those engines.

997 C2S 2005 purchased at Porsche Guildford last Sept. 4k miles in a year and oil level has not changed and no drips in the garage. Warranty repair on gear box and front suspension in the first couple of months of ownership and doesn't need a service for another year. Nothing noted on MOT the other week either. In comparison my E46 M3 cost £3.5k a year in the last 3 years on maintenance.

98 996 c2 60,000 miles when sold, one RMS when clutch replaced @50,000 2001 boxster 2.7 no evidence of either a failure or RMS change 105,000 mls 1997 boxster 2.5, 87,000 mls no evidence if engine or RMS 2000 996 c2 90,000 miles, no failures and no evidence of RMS change, has a full OPC history from new and had extended warranty so could well have been done. The engine is as dry as a bone Seems to me the troubled cars gave trouble within the first 40,000 miles though there are probably exceptions, makes me sleep better!

I sold my 2003 996 C4 in July with 61000 miles on the clock. In 35 months of ownership I had no issues. I topped up with around 200ml of oil between annual servicing.

1998 C2 Cab Engine blew at 18k - my dad owned it at that point and I am unsure what it was but I don't believe it was IMS. Porsche replaced the engine for free despite it not even being within warranty at that point (yes, shock horror indeed!) Since then I have now done just over 103k on the clock with no IMS issues and we have had it in the family since 1999. Had the RMS done at about 85k because the garage figured they might as well get it sorted whilst the clutch was being done. Should have had the IMS looked at at this point but didn't....read forums, panicked and then got that done too about 4 weeks ago although I wasn't experiencing any problems. All in all since I bought the car off my old man with 53k on it I have had to replace the water pump, clutch, master-cylinder and the exhaust...that's pretty much it I think apart from the usual stuff like tyres and accidentally buggering up the window mechanism when unwinding frozen windows! Never had to put any oil in between services and the water has only been slightly topped up once since new. Used every day as a daily driver covering over a 100 miles a day. Drove it all round France with no bother apart from getting dirty looks off the locals for not driving a renault and also having english plates. .....now let's compare with an MGF I had previously (from new and looked after "carefully") 2 new radiators 5 head gasket repairs 3 new stereos engine mounts breaking twice suspension snapping twice on potholes Spent the majority of the first year back in the dealership being fixed Sold to me at the time as "a sports car" then after breaking it several times the same sales guy said to me "look, you cant drive it like a sports car and have to be more careful with it!" This is in the space of 4 years and 25k miles. It never ceases to amaze me when I see some 2nd hand car sales magazine or car programme say buy an MGF its a bargain for summer yet then hear bad press about the 996. Sure my 996 isn't a looker and it's a bit of a cruiser but it costs me the same to insure as my old CTR, less to tax, less to maintain, less for tyres, doesn't look like a chavved out breadvan and if the bugger goes bang I can probably buy another one for 10k. Bargain!

Mr Ping said: Real world stuff Great stuff

Mr Ping said: 1998 C2 Cab Engine blew at 18k - my dad owned it at that point and I am unsure what it was but I don't believe it was IMS. Should have had the IMS looked at at this point but didn't....read forums, panicked and then got that done too about 4 weeks ago although I wasn't experiencing any problems. Thanks for some actual long term experience, I'm curious , do you know what state the IMS bearing was in when it was replaced ?

I initially told the garage that I wanted to keep the replaced bearing as I wanted to know what state it was in but I never got it - they just did the work and told me it was an absolute bugger to get out but otherwise there wasn't anything obviously wrong at the time. I was a tiny bit peeved but didn't want to be awkward about it but I trust them based on the work they have done for me over the years - As well as the fact that when I bring it in for stupid things that I should really know how to do myself they just go ahead and sometimes do it for free.

My '99 C4 is now on 60k with no major rebuilds. my feeling is the problem although real is easy to get out of proportion. It would make sense to change the bearing if it was likely to fail , it seems difficult to get a definitive mileage or age at which they should be changed. But appreciate the info !

Personally I'd say it's worth doing the bearing / IMS upgrade if you intend to rack up worry free mileage over a number of years - otherwise it will always be niggling at the back of your mind (especially if you read these forums) and will dampen the fun! In fact if you're at 60k then you will prolly need some work doing in the nearish future at which point getting the IMS done at the same time would be a no-brainer.

the only real problem I had with my 996 C2 was when I took it to the local OPC once to have the clutch replaced they said they would replace the RMS also and then 2 weeks later RMS leak of doom was leaving nice little puddles everywhere . . . . they also must have got the YTS lad to fit a new alternator and didn't screw it on properly, leaving me in smoke in the middle of town and refused all responsibility. after that ive never taken either that or my 997 to a OPC and never will. also never had any issues "touch wood" had the 996 for 2 years and 50k miles, would recommend another to anyone but only if it has specialist service history, NOT OPC rubbish. also had a elise mk1 head gasket blew on it costing a small fortune, and I bought a freelander for the missus ages ago, that had the head gasket replaced 3 times in 4 years, amongst lots of other problems, and was by far the most expensive car I have owned for service/maintenence etc.

Most expensive and unreliable car I ever owned was an MGF from new (yes noddys car). Head gasket blew every year and sometimes twice a year. I believe it is the same K series in a Mk1 elise and in the landrover hence the same issue? Spent most of the first year in the garage and kept falling to pieces, was the biggest bag of s te I have ever owned. Funny how the so-called 2nd hand bargain suggestions often overlook this and recommend it as a cheap toy car yet the 996 / 997 gets so much grief. Regarding OPC, I recently had my own lovely experience of one. Walked in and the sales guy walked straight past me completely ignoring me and served the guy behind me who was looking at 2nd hand boxsters. The guy behind me had that corporate look whereas I was in T shirt and trainers as i had been cleaning my car. Anyway trotted off to look at a 997 and a few mins later same salesman comes over and asks what I am doing. "I am thinking of getting one of these at some point in the nearish future" "What? ....a 911?...." (sarcastic salesman voice) "Yes, a 911" "Oh right, what do you drive now then?" "That 911 over there" I personally found this extremely rude even when he suddenly changed his tune and started being really "helpful". I then made him show me around the car, give me numerous brochures and show me around some of the 997s outside (even though I had decided I would buy one from my local specialist for sure now) then eventually I said to him; "So why when I expressed that I want a 911 did you act so surprised about it and why did you ask me that question in the first place?" "erm um erm um erm" "Is it because it isn't selling very well?" "erm um erm oh, no it was erm, because I thought you might not like the colour" "hmm but why would you assume I wouldnt like the colour? I never said what colours i like" "erm um erm um erm" Anyway this carried on with me verbally torturing him for another five or ten minutes Whilst I enjoyed baiting him for being a complete arrogant tool I do tend to avoid even speaking to their sales guys now and find the people in the Aston Martin garage far friendlier and more professional as I have been a couple of times to pick up things for my brother who has a vantage. I told them the story and they said well, you can never tell who has money so we don't judge people by appearances.

X reg C2 on 49k not had any problems. TX.

996 Turbo S remapped 510 bhp 2005. But only 22,300 km on it in Beirut. No problem whatsoever. Edited by Shortshifter on Saturday 19th January 17:35

Shortshifter said: 996 Turbo S remapped 510 bhp 2005. But only 22,300 km on it in Beirut. No problem whatsoever. That's not a wet sump engine (see thread title).

Globs said: That's not a wet sump engine (see thread title). True you're right mate. Sorry!

2002 3.6 C2 85k miles Went into Nelson Porsche for the IMS to be replaced with the Pelican Parts one, ended up needing £4k of engine work due to timing chain problem.

2003 996 C2, owned since new, 75000 miles, no engine issues of any sort, still on original RMS.

986S facelift Oct 2002, (my third Boxster from new) 42,000 miles (hardly used once I got a GT3, sadly now replaced by an X3). RMS replaced early under warranty, since then no drive train issues, tiny RMS leak which I ignore, but had to replace the a/c radiators at last service (expensive) and of course, the disks twice. Original clutch still. Completely reliable, and a keeper (I specced it well) till something major blows then scrap.

Paddy_N_Murphy said: Perhaps wishful thinking but I am told that 997's from 2007 have an uprated / non prone IMS. Can anyone comment / confirm ? I think it was for the 07 model range released mid 06, but others may know better.

Mr Ping said: 1998 C2 Cab Engine blew at 18k - my dad owned it at that point and I am unsure what it was but I don't believe it was IMS. Porsche replaced the engine for free despite it not even being within warranty at that point (yes, shock horror indeed!) Since then I have now done just over 103k on the clock with no IMS issues and we have had it in the family since 1999. Had the RMS done at about 85k because the garage figured they might as well get it sorted whilst the clutch was being done. Should have had the IMS looked at at this point but didn't....read forums, panicked and then got that done too about 4 weeks ago although I wasn't experiencing any problems. All in all since I bought the car off my old man with 53k on it I have had to replace the water pump, clutch, master-cylinder and the exhaust...that's pretty much it I think apart from the usual stuff like tyres and accidentally buggering up the window mechanism when unwinding frozen windows! Never had to put any oil in between services and the water has only been slightly topped up once since new. Used every day as a daily driver covering over a 100 miles a day. Drove it all round France with no bother apart from getting dirty looks off the locals for not driving a renault and also having english plates. .....now let's compare with an MGF I had previously (from new and looked after "carefully") 2 new radiators 5 head gasket repairs 3 new stereos engine mounts breaking twice suspension snapping twice on potholes Spent the majority of the first year back in the dealership being fixed Sold to me at the time as "a sports car" then after breaking it several times the same sales guy said to me "look, you cant drive it like a sports car and have to be more careful with it!" This is in the space of 4 years and 25k miles. It never ceases to amaze me when I see some 2nd hand car sales magazine or car programme say buy an MGF its a bargain for summer yet then hear bad press about the 996. Sure my 996 isn't a looker and it's a bit of a cruiser but it costs me the same to insure as my old CTR, less to tax, less to maintain, less for tyres, doesn't look like a chavved out breadvan and if the bugger goes bang I can probably buy another one for 10k. Bargain! You left out the those friggin sun visors. I recall that the fell off after 1 hour of getting the car..... On the strength of your experience, I promised to myself that I wouldn't buy a British car.......

'02 reg facelifted 996 C2 bought in 2007 with 21k miles. Ran for 2 1/2 years. Sold at 50k miles. No problems whatsoever (except battery being flat whenever I wanted to drive it!)....

'02 Plate 986 Boxster S now on 72k - owned for 4 months and had an RMS replacement in November last year before I bought the car. There was a chirping sound coming from the engine compartment which started a few weeks back. Had it checked out and it turned out to be the IMS bearing which was still intact but running very tightly and showing signs of pitting e.t.c. Just had it replaced under warranty from the garage I bought it from, so all in all, not bad considering it's an 11 year old car

edcs said: '02 Plate 986 Boxster S now on 72k - owned for 4 months and had an RMS replacement in November last year before I bought the car. There was a chirping sound coming from the engine compartment which started a few weeks back. Had it checked out and it turned out to be the IMS bearing which was still intact but running very tightly and showing signs of pitting e.t.c. Just had it replaced under warranty from the garage I bought it from, so all in all, not bad considering it's an 11 year old car That must have been a great warranty to get an 02 ims replaced! Who was the warranty with?

It's underwritten by Warranties 2000 and was included with the car when I bought it from PCT in Coventry

They even gave me the bearing as a souvenir:

2001 3.6 Carrera 2 bought a month ago with 87k on the clock. 911virgin had the RMS and IMS done and there's no engine trouble in the history. They do a year's warranty on the drivetrain for £400 (parts and labour) so expensive failures can't be *that* common. Loving the car even though everyone thinks I must have won the lottery or something.

The first gen2 to suffer bore scoring! http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?p=866965#866965

Martian O said: The first gen2 to suffer bore scoring! http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?p=866965#866965 Not quite. Mine was in March.

Quite sad to see the first of these,cylinders 5 and 6 Ill wager.

You lose.

i wager it is a 2008(or early car) and with pdk and it has had hose/pump failure!

You also lose.

so what year is it then? i still put my money on early 08 or 58 plate(2008/9 model year) with pdk

He has a manual according to the thread.

but is it an early production model?which like the early 991 have build quality issues hence i always wait 18-24 months into production before i buy a new model!

itsybitsy said: but is it an early production model?which like the early 991 have build quality issues hence i always wait 18-24 months into production before i buy a new model! The 996 had its problems throughout its 7 year production and the bore scoring actually got worse! The 997 had engine issues for 4+ years. Edited by mollytherocker on Monday 3rd June 21:00

mollytherocker said: itsybitsy said: but is it an early production model?which like the early 991 have build quality issues hence i always wait 18-24 months into production before i buy a new model! The 996 had its problems throughout its production and the bore scoring actually got worse! The 997 had engine issues for 4+ years. but i am talking early production build quality,there is someone who posts on here who bought an early 991s and replaced it with a later build because of build issues and is not alone!hence i bet the failure is more to do with build quality issues than actual bore scoring of m96/7 engine

itsybitsy said: ....i still put my money on early 08 or 58 plate(2008/9 model year) with pdk That's how bookies stay in business! 2009 C2S manual, 30K miles!

got the box wrong but although 2009 still could be an early car or 58 plate

I have a 2003 996 Carrera 2. It had a replacement engine fitted sometime in 2005/2006 which was 46,630 units later than the original engine. The engine has the stamp "AT" which I understand is an abbreviation for "Austauschmotor" meaning exchange motor. The change took place before my ownership.

This is terrifying reading.... I've always wanted a 911, and thinking about trading an E46 M3 for one, was wondering why the water cooled ones were tending to be cheaper than the air cooled ones? Options:- a) get an air cooled one? b) ensure the main shaft bearing has been done previously? c) obtain or even buy a no quibble warranty Reassurance please.... Jay

The only safe options are (a and (c. If you go the 'no quibble' warranty route it needs to be a Porsche warranty as the others are far less comprehensive when it comes to making claims.

Trev450 said: The only safe options are (a and (c. If you go the 'no quibble' warranty route it needs to be a Porsche warranty as the others are far less comprehensive when it comes to making claims. Porsche doesn't exactly have an enviable track record when it comes to warranty claims either. A quick search on here will unearth some of the cynical, underhanded ways Porsche has found to deny legitimate claims. (False over-rev logs, caused by ECU glitches, being a current 'favourite')!

Trev450 said: The only safe options are (a and (c. If you go the 'no quibble' warranty route it needs to be a Porsche warranty as the others are far less comprehensive when it comes to making claims. Specialist Cars of Malton will cover it properly for 12 months (but their prices aren't bargain basement) and I think Paragon do good in-house cover too. Both without the OPC-only for any work stipulation of course.

itsybitsy said: but is it an early production model?which like the early 991 have build quality issues hence i always wait 18-24 months into production before i buy a new model! I had the first cayman S out of my opc back in the day, it pretty much fell apart over the first two months, I rejected the car and replaced it with a c4s. I revisited a cayman S a few years later and that one was fine. Just bought a 996.1 C4S and debating what to do about warranty. Although this is my 13th Porsche and all I've ever had is a couple of rms (one of these I'm pretty sure was just the dealer looking for a payday) This forum doesn't help though!

2001 996.1 3.4 C4, from new, engine failed @ ~32000 miles (gear box also died 2 weeks after new!)

Help!!!!!!!!!! HI I am in a bit of a dilemma and asking around for help Here is the short story my engine number is 66108196 and Vin car is WPOZZZ99Z1S602589 my cylinder diameter is 96 MM which clearly states is a 3.4 the one i bought on ebay is not very clear but reads 04032090 maybe but vin WPOCA29971S651915 ,I manage to get the Heads PN 996104227OR which also clearly states is a 3.4 both written on the heads Vario CAM F1 Head old and new engine BUt the only difference is the harness for the engine differences Mine original engine has 6 wires going in to the throttle The one I bought has 3 wires in to the throttle (C4 Coupe manual Originally that I was told by seller same as tipronic interchangable ) here details stated when I bough it on ebay 01 Porsche C4 AWD 911 Carrera 4 996 ENGINE MOTOR Manual M96.04 3.4 M96/04 3.4L 76k You are purchasing the used 3.4L M96.04 Engine -removed from a 2001 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 Convertible 6 Speed Manual AWD(All Wheel Drive) 3.4 DOHC 24V VIN# WPOCA29971S651915 with ONLY 76k MILES This are my thoughts something along the way is wrong the ebay engine is in my car, it turn but no fire maybe the engine that is now in my car the ebay one needs an adjustment to start I put my old wire harness in the ebay engine to fit My throttle but I have missing cables tiptronic probably needs more sensors then manual Is there something i am missing Maybe in the ebay engine which is manual I have to fit the older heads? the car has no battery for 4 months too going nuts can any one help?

2005/55 997 C2S 51,000 miles Burns a lot of oil (~2L every 1000 miles) but runs fine otherwise. It's been looked at and there's nothing untoward about the engine, it just likes a drink. Update after selling the car. Misfire started at 59k miles. Continued heavy oil consumption, in ~10,000 miles it went through just under two gallons. Not including a service. The oil indicator was flashing below the minimum on the display far more than it should have been. Never had the oil light come on though. I would say I got shot before something expensive happened. Consider my engine another knock against Porsche reliability. Edited by sebhaque on Thursday 22 May 20:32

For your survey .... My 2000 996 C4 has the 3.4 engine. It has completed 121,000 miles - at least 50k with myself at the wheel No record of any engine repairs and it's still running smoothly

Update for mine... 2000, 3.4, manual Now at 150k miles, 93k in the last 7 years, still runs sweetly.

Hopefully the huge differences in mileages covered by various cars explains how difficult it can be for specialists like us to advise on likely lifespans and internal conditions. We have had engine failures under 20K and others nearer 150K and the quality of some internal components, the way it has been driven, the quality of maintenance etc must all contribute to the outcome although of all these I think the statistics mean there must be a random small number that simply will fail despite the best maintenance and driver care possible and that in some cases there was nothing anyone could do to avoid it. In other cases (those that fail nearer 60 to 80K) I guess one of the several owners probably didn't apply the same degree of warm up or maintenance care as others while some manage to plod on to very high mileages but probably have never been abused. It is worth pointing out that quite a lot of high mileage cars have a different engine number to the original which was replaced. Baz

[quote=hartech We have had engine failures under 20K and others nearer 150K Baz [/quote] At 150k it could be argued that the engine has come to the end of its expected lifespan.

Yes it could but not if you were discussing a 944, 968, 3.0 911SC, 3.2 Carrera 964 or 993 - for example. Baz

911wise said: At 150k it could be argued that the engine has come to the end of its expected lifespan. I hope not, as I expect to use mine for years to come!

Baz said "It is worth pointing out that quite a lot of high mileage cars have a different engine number to the original which was replaced." Does this mean that it's most likely that you would need to do a rebuild? Was the cause of this IMS or other mode of failures such as D-chunking, scored bores?

128,000 miles in 1998 996 C2, owned last 7 years and 65,000 miles by myself and used as my only car. Apart from a blocked fuel tank breather, routine servicing only has been required (and hoping things stay that way!)

128K miles / 70K by me in last 8 years - 1998 Carrera 2 tiptronic with GT3 bodykit Total engine rebuild by hartech 15k miles ago - cylinder fault usual thing on first car out the factory. - Expensive cost at 7k Gearbox rebuild at 100k - seemed ok, had the oil changed then the thing fell apart - 2.5K Just about to move the car on as needs Torque convertor replacing, wheels redoing and bodywork tidying up so if anyone looking for a project that has a rebuilt hartech engine, gearbox and needs about 2.5k spending to make it beautiful again let me know, looking for 7k. All receipts for every piece of work done to it which in total is over 30K-40K. Full GT3 bodykit factory fitted with wheels, red interior, original phone still in there !!!

996 c4, 2001: 96k. Original engine. No internal work. RMS, clutch and IMS bearing just replaced by me. Bearing was in perfect condition. Apart from the elective work, I've only paid for consumables since owning it. These are lovely, sweet cars.

1998 c2. 80k miles on it. Originally a Uk car, now in South Africa. So it's been on the road and off the road at times. No special treatment. Runs like a dream as it always did and laughs AT&T the official Porsche performance numbers. It's far quicker?

Guys your expert knowledge is sought here please, been looking at 996's and 997's and am unsure which to go for, i only do about 4000 miles a year with maybe 6 miles a week and 3-4 long runs from London to Scotland every year. i was looking at the convertible carrera that 911 virgin had but someone has a deposit on it, now have spotted this 997 http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/p... now that is right at the very top of my budget, with it having a rebulid would that give me peice of mind,?? the other one was a bargain 13995 in my eyes and i would have spare money to put away for any mishaps etc. your advice is appreciated Thanks

The ad suggests that they are undertaking the rebuild themselves. If so, I would want to know if they are fitting OE liners and pistons and hown many cylinders they are doing. If they are refitting OE parts, then the problem could arise again in the future. Likewise if they are not replacing all three cylinders on the r/h bank.

March '98 996 C2 3.4 manual 131k on the clock with a Hartech top end rebuild at 85k due to broken valve spring Have only owned it for 2 months but have done 500 miles in that time & generally explored the full rev range, after gently warming it up first. Only use it for proper runs, as opposed to short trips. Had full new MO30 suspension replacement in last 18 months & mechanically is very sweet & responsive to drive. Have changed gearbox oil & will be flushing & replacing the brake fluid with some decent stuff. Interior in lovely condition & after careful cleaning the leather has gone back to a lovely supple matt finish. Love the analogue feel of the car, much like the earlier 911s - mine has cable throttle & doesn't even have ESP, just a LSD! So much 911 for the money & such a rewarding car to drive, belying its 17yrs

Just to correct a slight inaccuracy, these engines don't have OE liners - the Lokasil is cast into the cylinder block. You can replace these with new ones but it is not cheap and the combination of Lokasil and the newer plastic coated pistons is a solution now superseded by Porsche themselves in the Gen 2 engines to improve lifespan. You can also fit a new bottom end (but with the self same Lokasil/plastic coated piston combination and likely outcome although we can improve the situation if the customer prefers by fitting support rings to convert to a closed deck and increase coolant flow). Or you can have our Nikasil alloy cylinders fitted that also convert the engine to a closed deck design (as also adopted in the Gen 2 engines that also have increased cylinder block coolant flow - another modification we can carry out to either Porsche cylinder blocks, Porsche bottom ends and of course our own Nikasil cylinder conversions). overall there has never been anything found better than a closed deck Nikasil alloy cylinder in either Porsche's history (or most other high performance engines). Baz

For the survey: 2000 996C2 3.4 manual, currently with 71k miles. Owned for nearly 12 years and 32k miles. No engine work - routine maintenance only, with oil changes every 18-24 months and 3-5k miles. Nothing really ever gone wrong other than wear items - will shortly need 3rd new set of rear tyres, still on 1st set of replacement fronts, has had front and rear brake rotors and pads, oil and brake fluid. Clutch / gearbox etc still fine. Occasional trouble with O2 sensor - I imported car from US and it seems slightly sensitive to the different fuel here in NZ, with the check engine light occasionally coming on and off. Love it!

For the survey: 02 C2 3.6 manual. 72k miles, no engine work. No oil leaks. Always serviced on the dot. Does need new back boxes though

AlasdairB10 said: For the survey: 02 C2 3.6 manual. 72k miles, no engine work. No oil leaks. Always serviced on the dot. Does need new back boxes though I can highly recommend Cargraphic

Seeing as I Just got my car back from an engine rebuild I thought I would contribute. 2000 996 C4, purchased with a little over 100K Miles, Engine Rebuilt on 144K Miles Bore Score on Cylinders 2 and 5 I think, Rebuilt Engine and though the IMS was solid on inspection I had it replaced seeing as engine was already out. Hoping the Engine will keep going for another 144K Miles

1999 3.4 C2, 88K miles, no issues

1998 C2 3.4. The original engine waved the little white flag at 87k miles. Hartech then spun their spanners around the oily bits (in the form of a complete rebuild). Almost 40k miles later, the engine has proved to be bombproof and the car is as reliable as daylight.

Jivaldinho said: Seeing as I Just got my car back from an engine rebuild I thought I would contribute. 2000 996 C4, purchased with a little over 100K Miles, Engine Rebuilt on 144K Miles Bore Score on Cylinders 2 and 5 I think, Rebuilt Engine and though the IMS was solid on inspection I had it replaced seeing as engine was already out. Hoping the Engine will keep going for another 144K Miles I thought bore score on the 3.4's was virtually unheard of - did you just get very unlucky?

06 MY 997 C2S - no engine work or oil leaks 76k

They can be reasonably reliable. When they were first used for racing in the UK (Boxster 3.2 and later 3.4 and 996 3.4) they were quite unreliable - but things have improved since and we built several race engines (standard Hartech spec) last winter for the 2017 season and they won all 3 Championships they were entered into and were 100% reliable (Mark McAleer PCGB Class1, Jake McAleer PCGB class2, Mark McAleer PCGB Overall championship, Mark and Jake PCGB Team award, Ed Hayes BRSCC TOYO Tires Championship only being beaten occasionally at the end of the season by James Coleman (after having a Hartech engine rebuild) and another engine obtained a 2nd in a Spa endurance event. Ed (who won the BRSCC Championship) also finished all 22 races on the podium as well with 15 wins, 4 seconds and 3 thirds. This reliability under severe strain was achieved as a result of continually trying to solve problems over many years, testing solutions and persevering with ideas finally achieving the desired result. Incidentally we also put something back into the sport by allowing those customers with Hartech built engines and displaying our "Hartech powered" decals to be rewarded by a podium based points system that has overall earned them over £8000 and will enable all three to have their engines rebuilt free of any labour costs this winter while some other competitors with Hartech engines have earned a contribution. However the PCGB class in introducing the 3.8 engine next season and we expect this to have particular and specific additional problems (not the least of which relates to crankshaft flexure) which we are currently working on and will shortly be testing a solution for. Generally the Boxster 3.2 engines are acceptably reliable, the 996 3.4 with ferrous coated pistons can suffer cylinder ovality, cracking and "D" chunking while the pater versions with plastic coated pistons, the 3.6, 3.8 and Cayman S versions - can score bores. Crankshafts and shell bearings are usually worn out by 80-100K and if the crankshaft fails as a result it can wreck the engines but most are looked after better and driven more carefully as they get new owners (as the cars age) and can push on to over 150K. Variations in the casting quality of the Lokasil preforms can influence longevity (and there is little anyone can do about that until they fail) and prevous owners can thrash the cars and use the thinner oil for too long and this also shortens longevity. They are still brilliant cars and with a properly rebuilt engine (addressing many of the weak spots) at the right time or after a mild failure - they seem to be exceptionally reliable once again. Baz

1999 996 C4 98K Head crack Cyl. 1 Head repaired & I am in the process of rebuilding Bores are clean above piston crown at least.

Recently sold 2002 996 C2 facelift owned for 10 years with 75,000 miles from 19,000. No problem.

1999 Boxster, 2.5L, 98k Miles, No engine work what so ever. 1999 Carrera 4, 3.4, 75k Miles - RMS Replaced @ 68,000, no other major issues in it's history, i'm new to this car. My friend who will never post on here has a 1998 C2 3.4 - 150k miles, no engine work what so ever. Edited by Porka986 on Thursday 28th March 14:35 Edited by Porka986 on Thursday 28th March 14:36

2002 996 Targa purchased at 63k miles in 2011, so now in 9th year of my ownership. Engine failed at 93k miles last July, diagnosed as a value seat cylinder 3 letting go. Just completed running in period post a full Hartech rebuild. Went for a full rebuild of all 6 cylinders & the works as car is a keeper. Guess I was unlucky as this valve seat issue is as I understand it, a rarer failure in these engines.

Jan 2000 c2. Manual. 177k miles. Original Engine.

2002 Boxster 2.7 sold last year on 149k miles, no engine work and almost zero oil consumption over the 50k I drove it.

996 3.4. C2. 1999. 56000 miles. No oil leaks, no oil consumption. No rebuild.

911 997.1 C2S 89K Now going in for a rebuild due to bore scoring (cylinder 6 confirmed, will know how bad the rest are after its apart) . This is the 2nd time the engine has been apart in its history (although the 1st time was not bore scoring). For anyone interested in symptoms, it was pretty clear my car had an issue - I didn't know what to look for but it started to smoke on startup if left for a few days, this got worse and worse over a few thousand miles. Then the oil consumption got worse, and finally when idling you could tell there was an issue with a knocking noise from the engine. I did google this and there are a lot of people claiming its common for the cars smoke on startup however mine never did previously badly enough to notice it. I followed all the advise about driving style (no standing starts etc, changing the oil very regularly, making sure the cooling was working etc) and still had the issue. Its been used as a motorway car for me - 85% of the miles over the last 30k have been motorway cruise at 70 ish so its had a very gentle life. Pretty disappointed its had the issue, as I had dismissed the issue as unlikely to happen given the age of the car and my usage.

MGR said: 911 997.1 C2S 89K This is the 2nd time the engine has been apart in its history (although the 1st time was not bore scoring). ... 85% of the miles over the last 30k have been motorway cruise at 70 ish so its had a very gentle life. Pretty disappointed its had the issue, as I had dismissed the issue as unlikely to happen given the age of the car and my usage. Sorry to hear that. Abjectly bad that it's going onto it's third engine in 89k miles of gentle use. It makes you wonder how many engines it would be on if it was used in a harder fashion...

996 3.6, 146k miles, recent Millers oil report had nothing of interest in it, a bit smoky. Maybe i'll rebuild it in a year or two and likely do a 3.9.

Is there an established pecking order of most to least reliable for these engines?

General consensus from worst to least worse. 3.8 (997.1 S models) - pretty likely it'll need a rebuild due to borescoring eventually 3.6 (996.2 and 997.1 non S models) - Could suffer borescoring and the 996 versions could suffer IMS failure 3.4 (996.1) - Rarely suffer borescoring, most have dual row IMS, can suffer cracked heads. When it comes to things like IMS failure and cracked heads a lot of people say if it was going to happen it would have happened by now as many of the cars are 20+ years old (talking about the 3.4). The difference with borescoring is that it's a cumulative issue so the older the car gets the more likely it becomes an issue. They are all getting on in age and mileage now and there's lots of other bits that can go wrong same as any other mechanical thing. If you buy knowing the potential then you can only be surprised if it never happens.

I owned 3 x 996’s from new to 50k miles, no bore scoring but one lost 2nd gear synchro and had a new gearbox.

Only just spotted this thread, and see it is pretty old and possibly long forgotten, but FWIW: 996 C2 1999. Owned since 2003, regular use as only or mail car including some years of daily commute, in recent years mostly weekends only. c.80k miles when bought in 2003, now 160k miles. Still the original engine, no surprise issues in my 20 years (i.e. just usual age-related/wear issues). Cheers.

996 C4S 3.6 manual. 03 reg, 124,000 miles. Mine since early 2015. Original IMS as far as I know. Slight RMS misting. Bit smoky on start up, but no untoward knocks or taps, oil consumption around 250ml every 1000 miles. Am mentally amortising for some attention as and when it needs it, which would be fair enough as its a high performance engine and its done a lot of miles now.