15 captured repliesPartial discussion capture · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHShould the key open the frunk?
Reported or suspected cause
replacement fob
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that suspect a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suspected cause
You should only have a single button, it's probably a replacement fob
Leading evidence: 'replacement fob' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'replacement fob' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check tomorrow' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
15 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
911uk: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T200546Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Had the car for years, never really thought about the two buttons on the key, I have a 996.1, when I press the button it doesn’t do anything, on my early 986 Boxster the key opens the frunk, I presume this is the same on the 996.
Is this a key fob issue rather than a wiring/fuse issue? Any suggestions?
It doesn't do anything on a 996.1 - it's a mechanical pull from the door sill. You should only have a single button, it's probably a replacement fob
On a 996.2, it's an electro-mechanical system and hence you can open it with the second button on the remote. This is why on a .2, if the battery dies, you have to go through a process to get the boot open. On a .1, the boot always opens from the pull, assuming the mechanism isn't bust
I went from .1 to .2 !
Are you sure it's the original key..? My 99 key has just the one button. My 987.2 Boxster had 2 or 3 I think as the boot and frunk were electronic release but our early cars are manually operated.
According to Nebpor above, I think the 996.2 is different to the 996.1, you have the electronic handle pulls in the cabin, mine are cable I think, but would be great if it does pop the frunkon mine
They actually did the electro-mechanical on the 996.1 Think it was something like 1999 onwards. I'm guessing they changed it when they went to e-gas throttle from cable.
More here:
F
Thread '2000 Year changes - Pls advise'
8 May 2009
Hi all
Looking for some expertise if I may.
Could anyone confirm the differences between 1999 and 2000 model 996s please?
I have mine up for sale and people keep ringing me up offering silly money and saying that they can get a 1998/99 which "looks the same" for less money!
It would be good if I could respond with with some hard facts which might explain why they should pay a bit more for mine
I think the main ones are:
Smaller boot levers (electronic ones)
PSM?
Softer materials in the interior
New exhaust increasing power from 296 to 300
Much obliged
Funkzig
funkzig
Replies: 9
Forum:
Porsche 911 996 (1997-2005)
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
