Engine Oil Usage & Moan!!

Hi Guys Sometimes I get really fed up with reading all this guff about 996 reliability and problems that this model of our has been most unfairly (imho) been tarnished with. Sure there are problems and of course I will hold my hand up to that. But I wish all those doom and gloom merchants would get their head out of the sand and realise that the 996 model is no different that ALL previous models in the Porsche line up. They have ALL got there own faults, but with the advent and uptake of forums like these it all too easy to demolish a reputation and ensure irreparable damage. Just imagine the furore that would have occurred had the forums been active in 1989/1990 when all those problems arose with the 946 flywheel. Anyway beef over!! Time for good news. My 2000 C2 Cab has done a total of 12500 miles. It's 9000 miles since I had my last service (don't ask the year 'cos I don't support that - "It must be done every year" brigade). During that time I have used it mainly locally in the north of England, with two trips down south and nearly 3000 miles on the last PEYT to Austria etc. I can hardly believe that it has not used any oil in that time and the dipstick level is still at the max! That is despite those local runs and fast runs on the autobahn where one time I reached 150mph (indicated). And yes I do give it some welly at times and I am not afraid to show the street urchins my perfectly shaped rear end either! This just goes to show what incredibly well built cars they are and that the engine tolerances must be absolutely nigh on perfect "" at least on my car!!! For all those doubters of the 996 "" eat your hearts out. You have no idea what you are missing!!! [ ][ ][ ][ ]

You aren't alone Peter - mine's done 80000, and I never have to top up between changes (6000 miles). It might drop 1 bar on the gauge (0.25 litres), but that's about all.

Are you missing a zero there Peter, or are you saying you are surprised it's not using oil after doing less than what is an average year's milage for me? [ ]

Congratulations, Peter! It sounds like you definitely have a "Monday morning car". Unfortunately there are a lot of people who aren't quite as lucky as yourself. I can't say that my car is that bad but lets put it this way; a few weeks ago I was driving along the motorway at about 70 mph and my oil pressure indicator suddenly dropped straight to zero. To cut a long story short the sender unit had packed up - on a 996 (MY 2003) with 19,500k miles on it which someone originally paid £58,450 for. A one-off? Afraid not, old chap. RMS at 15,000 miles; new radio at 10,000 miles; a key-fob that has "issues" and sometimes decides to take the day off, I could go on but I'd be running the risk of sounding like a "doom and gloom merchant". None taken. One should never start to draw comparisons between things that we love, but we do, don't we? I'm afraid that I do too. I have a Citroen ZX 1.9 Diesel hatchback which I've owned for 15 years and has covered 155,000 miles. The car has never missed a beat and - wait for it - is STILL on it's original clutch, master cylinder, engine, gearbox and has no rust at all! An oil and filter change is all I do for her every 5k miles and she's happy. You have to be objective about car forums; people rarely report good news and will nearly always dwell on the bad. Despite the above I do love my car and continue to hope that she doesn't let me down and embarrass me. It's probably a bit like going out with an alcoholic version of Kelly Brook.

I've had two 996's and both were great.. The second one covered 24K in two years (mainly working hard abroad[ ] on the Alpine passes etc) and apart from small issues it only went to the OPC for services. Sold it needing new pads and discs, but that could be said for any sports car driven with a bit of vigour.... You do only tend to hear bad news, but thats forums for you.. a bit like pubs but you can smoke whilst visiting them [ ] garyw

Nick Not missing a zero - genuine 12500 from new and half of that is in the last year!! Going to start using it more now rather than let it go to waste in the garage.

The oil usage issue seems odd to me. My last 911 was a 1999 C4 which never used a drop of oil between services. My current 911 is a 2002 C4S which is on course to use 1 litre of oil every 3000miles So, why the difference? Can anyone explain why one engine uses no oil and the other one consumes oil at a fairly prodigious rate?

Some say it's highly dependent on the way it's initially run in. If you've done a good job running in the car to begin with, it won't use much oil thereafter. As to what's the best way to run in your engine...that's a whole topic in itself. Some say take it easy and don't over-rev for the first 1500km (Porsche guidlines). Some say all the engines are already run in at the factory and you should, once in a while, 'give it the beans' to loosen it up.

I've had my 2001 C4 for three years and 25000 miles and never had to top up the oil.

Peter - I presume you are responding to my posting in http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/tm.asp?m=321825 ? Don't get me wrong, I'm not being a doom and gloom merchant and my 996 has been (touch wood) totally reliable since I purchased it last year. BUT, look at the facts and figures, look at the number of adverts with 'replacement engine' and look at the fact that companies such as Autofarm and Hartech have invested significant amount of time and money into developing solutions for two specific problems (intermediate shaft failure and oval/cracked cylinder liners), and I don't think anyone should be advising to "... get their head out of the sand and realise the 996 model is no different that ALL previous models in the Porsche line up". If the problem didn't exist, there wouldn't be fixes for it! Yes, many cars have some specific issues, but the facts are that the early 996's do have a greater than expected (based on previous 911's reliablity/reputation) chance of _catastrophic_ engine failure. Now, mathematically that percentage is still very low, the car is brilliant in all other respects and that should not stop anyone buying one. However, because this problem is an expensive one to fix if you're unlucky enough to suffer from it, then my point was to just plan for that. Planning for it could be by getting an OPC warrantee, joining a maintenance program, (such as Hartech's) or just keeping some of the money to one side in case the worst happens. Then you can go out and enjoy driving it and love every moment. Yes, the Internet and web forums are too effective for spreading bad news and yes many people have got things out of perspective - e.g. the RMS issue - but I think, on the whole, it is still better for people to be aware of potential issues, research at the facts and figures, work out the percentages, think about how it would impact on their personal situation, and plan for it. I made my choice and changed my original plans to buy a 1998 model to buy a 2000 model which, statistically should be more reliable and for which I can get an OPC warrantee until 2010. Others may do differently. But I think it is better for the forums to be used to share information and experiences than to "assume all 996 will be bullet proof" and then be disappointed to find a shaft has gone and they need to spend 6,500 on an Autofarm rebuild plus fitting. Just because this is the PCGB and we all love our Porsches, and naturally all want our residual prices to hold up, we shouldn't pretend there is no potential problem just because you have not had a failure in 12,500 miles and mine has been totally reliable in the 52,500 it has done.

[Sorry O/T] Hi Martin can u PM me, just wanted to ask you usomething and your email address is hidden...thanks!

sorry - not sure how to do that - can't you can put your question here?

Oil usage is not unusual to most manufactures engines and is not limited to Porsches. VW engines - espeically the 1.8 turbo engines used in the TT's, GTi's etc. seems to drink the stuff. Having said that turbo charged cars will consume more oil due to the turbo anyway. My brothers A4 2.0ltr TDi also consumes it. My 944 on the other hand hardly consumes any!! Sure on a track day it'll use almost a litre, but for normal road use it uses it at such a slow rate I hardly ever have to top up between services. Not bad for a 20yr old 117k engine. Has anyone got any independant and official figures to prove the reliability (or lack of) of the 996/Boxster/997 engines? Yes Autofarm and Hartech seem to believe they have spotted a need and business case to develop a solution but how many do they sell? Is it something that has to be done before a failure or can you carry out the work once you've had a failure. If it is preventative then unfortunately due to the nature of the product we'll never know how many engines that received their work-over would have gone on to have failures. It could be that the majority of their customers have been scared into doing some sort of pre-emptive strike on the engine when in fact in all liklihood they would have been fine. I'm sure the product that Autofarm and Hartech is a superb technical solution and an improvement over the original design, afterall the excellent reputation of both of these specialists precedes them, but I can't imagine they are churning out these engine rebuilds day after day after day so you can't put the lack of engines blowing up down to them. Yes there have been failures, and yes they have been very very well documented and publicised (I personally suspect there have only been relatively a handful of failures that have been continualy recycled), however BMW's had an epidemic of failing engines not so long ago and so have other car manufactures. I'd like to put things into context and understand what the true stats say. Like i've said in a previous thread, between friends and collegues of mine I know of at least 12 or so 996/Boxster owners and none of them have had so much of an RMS problem, or any problem for that matter, let alone an engine failing. They have all experienced 100% reliability. I know that is not statistically representative, but if it was such an epidemic I would have expecting something.

Just click the Email button below Rodney's avatar. It's nothing sinister I can assure you! [ ]

Hi Deisal130 No I wasn't referring to anyone's post about 996 reliability, rather it was just my thoughts after such a great time I have had over the summer with my 996 and wanted to share my thoughts with you all. In particular I really enjoyed the long distance and high speed runs on the recent PEYT and my wife will confirm that I had a grin on my face the whole week through the sheer enjoyment and delight of the fantastic driving experience in my 996. Even after more than 4 years ownership I am so pleased with this car that I was merely sharing my thoughts with everyone. Especially for those who may be sitting on the fence of a purchase decision and would, for once, hear something positive about these great 911's. I am not naive to believe that I will not have some problems in the future if I still own the car, but that, as I said, is the future and I will deal with that when and if it arises. In the meantime I won't fret or worry about something which may never happen "" that is a sure recipe for personal disater!!

One would imagine that Porsche have the figures for early failures (e.g. whilst most cars were under warrantee) and no doubt Autofarm and Hartech have some ideas. I am very dubious of the reliablity of statistics gathering though ... the article in one of the mags (can't remember which one) around spring 2006, suggested a 5% failure (we're talking engine failure here due to intermediate shaft and/or cylinder liners, not RMS). When I was researching purchasing an early 996 last year, my findings where about one car in 30 advertised (within the 24 to 30K price range) stated an engine replacement - suggesting a percentage of around 3%, but then some people won't mention that in an advert, so maybe the 5% figure is about right. The straw poll on pistonheads (see 996 wet-sump engine reliability: enter your statistics here! http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=48&t=400915&i=0 ) is showing a much higher figure - see summary on P12, if you don't want to wade through everything .. Quote: " Out of 73 996's: - 13.7% or 10 engine failures (six 3.4 and four 3.6) - 52% or 38 cases have had RMS. When you have it, you get it on average 1.3 times. - 41% or 30 cases have had none of these two problems (seventeen 3.4s, twelve 3.6, one unspecified). In the survey, there are 30 3,6s, 39 3.4s, and four unspecified. " The problem here, though is that mostly those people with problems will post (I added my totally reliable one, though) and those that don't have a problem won't bother, so I'm convinced this is NOT accurate whatsoeve - it does, however indicate there is an engine issue for real. Onto a brighter note, like Peter's summer trip, I enjoyed my 996 all the way to Norway and back this summer, including a 1100 mile dash back the long way (via Sweden), due to an engine failure ... of the ferry, not the 996!!! and it didn't miss a beat. Wonderful car, wonderful experience and wouldn't have missed in for the world.

Thanks Diesal130 You seem to have done a great deal of reserarch and am really pleased the your car has proved as fun to own and drive as my own. Maybe we, and thousands like us are the lucky owners, who knows. Whatever the outcome lets continue to enjoy and tell other that cars are FANTASTIC!!! [ ][ ][ ] PS when the time comes for me to report a fault on mine - fingers crossed it will be small and inexpensive