Porkers.co.uk - Porsche discussion forum



Forum Home > 996-997 WET-SUMP ENGINE RELIABILITY: ENTER YOUR STATS HERE! < Post ReplyReport Abuse
1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 40 41 42

Author

Discussion

Dreammeister
110 posts
41 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
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.


tonikaram
324 posts
47 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
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



The Griffalo
43213 posts
76 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
Shock, horror. Buy a TVR, they're more reliable....


Geneve
2054 posts
56 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
3.4 996 - No problems
3.6 996 - No problems (1 RMS under warranty)

+ 3 986s - No problems


whoami
2878 posts
77 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
2002 C4S 2 x RMS
2005 997S, 1 x RMS


Wanta996
4822 posts
44 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
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.


The Griffalo
43213 posts
76 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
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.


Advertisement
Ballcock
3823 posts
56 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
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?


whoami
2878 posts
77 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
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 smile

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.




Ballcock
3823 posts
56 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
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..


bcnrml
1907 posts
47 months
 Monday 11th June 2007  Reply with quote
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. smile


tonikaram
324 posts
47 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
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


GreigM
2556 posts
86 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
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


C4SCAB
32 posts
64 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
'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)




C4SCAB
32 posts
64 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
'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)




HONEYMON57ER
506 posts
47 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
996 1999 C2 62K 1 X RMS


Dreammeister
110 posts
41 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
If you're cynical like me you may want to reduce the RMS failures by 5% to account for OPCs doing unnecessary work.


mbutchers
651 posts
57 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
'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 eek (if that's what it's called on a GT2?)



Edited by mbutchers on Wednesday 13th June 15:59



nbetts
1040 posts
66 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
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


Bumcrack
977 posts
102 months
 Wednesday 13th June 2007  Reply with quote
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



1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 40 41 42
Forum Home > 996-997 WET-SUMP ENGINE RELIABILITY: ENTER YOUR STATS HERE! < Post Reply

Porkers.co.uk is part of the PistonHeads network