9 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHDe code door jam sticker
Leading reported evidence
Run report here
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
If you want the exact date you could run a report here for a few dollars:
Leading evidence: 'Run report here' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Run report here' (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.
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.
9 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
Curious if anyone knows how to decode the door jam sticker ?
does 98/14 refer to the build date ?
Car was registered December 1999
Any Info greatly received..
The WP0ZZZ99....... is the cars VIN Number.
After that
The Z denotes it's a Rest of the World car ie (not for the US market)
Y denotes it was a Model year 2000 car
S confirms it was made in Stuttgart
6 denotes it's a 99
6
01790 is the serial number for the specific car
Thanks for the replies, great, so the Y means year 2000.
The car was registered late 1999 so I’d always assumed it had the early engine, dual row IMS and iron piston coating.
There’s no details of the engine number anywhere in the paperwork and not stated on the V5.
It was intact, if a little hard to read, Under 24 years of grime.
I decoded that with details on the web from PCGB site showing a year 2000 engine code 4 ?
Cross reference that with the spreadsheet from Jayem Hartech piece and it appears that engine code doesn’t have either Dual Row IMS or Iron Coated Pistons!
So there you go, now at least I know what’s in it.
Many thanks
Based on your VIN I would guess the car was built late Sept/early Oct 1999. If you want the exact date you could run a report here for a few dollars:
https://vinanalytics.com/
I would also suggest it does have the dual row IMSB as well as Ferrostan coated pistons.
see
Post in thread 'M96 engine revisions'
27 Apr 2012
My apologies, I was working from memory.
The M96.04 was the last short-lived 3.4 engine designation brought into being to comply with the most aggressive US emissions standard applied to the 3.4.
I knew it wasn't allowed the X51 PowerKit in the US due to these stringent emissions characteristics applied to the engine's performance envelope.
Although that is true (M96.04 not being X51 PowerKit compatible in the US), in fact M96.04 was never offered in any jurisdiction with the X51 PowerKit upgrade (which is probably where my interest ended :sleepy: - sorry
)
Because of the small...
GT4
