22 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996.1 Fact check
Leading reported evidence
Install on my my 2000
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Leading evidence: 'Install on my my 2000' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'any more or less prevalent' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check build date' (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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Bore scoring less prone on the 3.4L, had a different cylinder liner that was changed going into the 3.6L (Alusil vs Lokasil I believe).
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
I don't think the bore scoring has been proven to be any more or less prevalent.
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.
Suggestion
You might want to do some research on replacing/repairing wood trim.
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
99's will have dual row, MY00 is when the change happened, earlier likely to have dual but I think early/mid '00 build is when it could be either dual or single.
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.
22 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T112012Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I am looking at MY99 996.1 with 33k on the clock. Lucky enough to finally find a car I could see service records for most of the history. I have however read two things in postings I am wanting to see if anyone can verify. I have read pre 2000 996 has a dual IMS bearing and less prone to failure. The second is the 3.4 engine is not prone to bore scoring. Not having found much more than postings on social media making these claims l was hoping someone may have more information on this. Appreciate any insight anyone can provide.
Be ready for many on this board to tell you you'll need to spend $500-$1k on this car before you buy it to make sure you should buy it, then have another $10k ready for all the things you'll need to do after you buy it.
Data has shown that cars with a dual row are less prone to failure. I don't think the bore scoring has been proven to be any more or less prevalent.
Edit: I from previous posts you have already done the PPI thing with another car without good results. If you were willing to spend the money on the first one I can't see why you wouldn't on the next one.
While it's true that the dual row IMS bearing used in the 1999/2000 model years is more robust and less prone to failure than the single row used in the 2001 to 2004 models, it is still a wear item and should be replaced at the same time as the clutch, around 60k miles. Also, a Pre-Purchase Inspection is highly recommended and would include inspection of the bores for any signs of scoring. Considering the consequences (read $$$) of bore scoring, due diligence is warranted. Best of luck with your buy, sounds like a strong candidate!
Thanks Weazer, yeah this is my third car I have looked at. Others were dropped, one for bore scoring on a 2005 in Scottsdale and the other was ticking pretty loudly and the pipes looked pretty black that I found in Dallas. I've spent more on PPIs then I care to admit at this point. Finally found a local car, not many where I am in eastern Iowa that I found. I am getting ready to send this one out for a PPI as soon as weather permits. The interior trim is all I have found that needs work, it has the wood trim option and most of it has cracked or peeled. Appreciate the input and information on the IMS.
Appreciate the feedback hbdunn. Yeah, I have been spending on the PPI and glad I did. Found scoring on a 2005 and one I just happened to be in Dallas and went and looked at it. Engine was ticking pretty loudly and the left pipe was pretty black so I just decided not to spend the money on the PPI for that one. This one as soon as the weather clears I'll send it out for a PPI. I spoke with one mechanic this morning who worked on the car as far back as 2000 and had the records from replacing the RMS and IMS seal on it.
Thanks for the info on the IMS. I couldn't understand why the 3.4 would be less prone, temps are what the temps are and with all the ideas on why the scoring happens I couldn't see why the slightly smaller engine would make a difference. But I am no mechanic so why I decided to go to the boards and see what those with more knowledge had to say.
Thanks again and much appreciate the info. I just want to make sure I have done everything I can to ensure I am getting as solid of a car as I can.
Dual row IMS is more robust, but when they fail they shed more metal.
They can and do fail.
The percentages “reported” in the lawsuit are out of date.
Yes, 3.4 does not bore score as easily as 3.6 M9x or 3.8 M97, but that doesn’t mean never.
99's will have dual row, MY00 is when the change happened, earlier likely to have dual but I think early/mid '00 build is when it could be either dual or single. Check the build date on the door sticker.
Bore scoring less prone on the 3.4L, had a different cylinder liner that was changed going into the 3.6L (Alusil vs Lokasil I believe). 3.4L as noted aren't invincible, but failure rate is much smaller.
Actually I recommend and did $7k+ in parts on preventive maintenance.
You can add a few thousand for labor if you�re having a shop do the work.
You might want to do some research on replacing/repairing wood trim.
Don�t have it, so I have no first hand experience dealing with it.
But everything I�ve read seems like it�s difficult problem to deal with.
Always good to plan for any fixes when buying a car. Simple answer is yes these things are less common on the 3.4 but it still happens. If a PPI checks out then its basically just bad luck if it happens at some point.
If you buy a 996 I know a guy that knows a guy that has a connection with another guy that sells a super special mix of, well you really cant call it oil but it acts like it
It will save your 996 poorly designed engine
Well at least that what I have heard
For life of me I dont why someone would consider buying a 996, ever
But if you do, start removing all the good parts that havent yet failed and replace them immediately
Lots of great threads on where to start on the list
Ive done all 51
Why would anyone do that?
The IMS bearing, AOS and water pump have been working great for last 23 years.
Preventive maintenance is a scam, just replace that stuff when it breaks.
Plus you can use that money for some wider wheels and a big wing.
And don�t buy into that �premium� gas conspiracy either.
The 3.4 has Lokasil 1 cylinders that have smaller silicon particles than Lokasil 2 which was used in 3.6 and 3.8 engines...The smaller silicon particles are small enough to wash out from between the cylinders easier than the larger particles, but the larger particles are stronger to hold the cylinder shape/roundness better..
The 3.4 has a Ferrostan plating on the skirts made of Iron, and is "plated" on, the 3.6/3.8 has a FerroPrint coating made of Iron/plastic that is coated on and much like Graphal Coating...Ferrostan is much tougher and stays on the piston better..
The 3.4 has a longer rod and shorter stroke than the 3.6/3.8 ... The longer rod equates to less leverage to side load on the thrust side of the cylinders where scoring always starts...
All of the factory m96/7 pistons have a .5mm offset on the piston pin that creates more side thrust load on bank 2 than bank 1 and makes bank 2 wore prone to scoring..
All this adds up to the 3.4 is less prone to scoring but is not immune, no engine is immune...
I had the IMS Solution installed on my MY 2000. Before sending my original OEM bearing back to LN as part of the warranty, I can confirm my bearing was a dual row. My manufacture date is 7/2000. If that helps any.
