Mr.S

Having owned a 2G DSM and gone through the nightmare of 3 different 7 bolt motors in there, I can say without a DOUBT these are MUCH more reliable than those cars.

This thing has started easy in 0 degree weather in Colorado......runs cool now in heat/mountain work...etc.

Tough little cookies these 951's are!

manticore33

I guess I should not be surprised, but a lot of people out there have the 100,000 phobia for whatever reason. And, I have always wondered why people get so scared just because of miles. It is a car, that is what it is suppose to do! Likewise, it is a machine and always fixable (whether it makes sense to is another question altogether).

Swagger93

Yeah, but 300k is still quite a bit beyond what designers intended, particularly those in the past. Even with proper care, many will have significant, possibly life-ending (from an economic standpoint) problems before this mileage. It's just a lot of hours on parts that unavoidably wear down, corrode, so on. People who don't have intimate knowledge of how cars work have at least some reason to fear mileage over 200k.

Cole

Sounds like speculation on your part? Do you know the designers? Is Porsche's design intend for longevity published somewhere?

This was back in the 80s when some car makers were determined to design cars to theoretically last forever. (Delorean for example).

Why go to all the effort to full rust coat a car and still hand produce it when others are using robots to produce the cars if you didn't intend them to outlast cars that rust away.

Even the worst rusting cars usually lasted past 10-15 years and potentially hundreds of thousands of miles.


Sounds to me like the car was indeed designed to last that long. We as consumers come up with this silly idea that we must replace cars often. Usually for the false hood that it will somehow become unreliable when it has never proven to be.

Swagger93

I'm making reasoned assumptions. I've taken quite a few economics classes, hence my opinion on this.

New cars are a relatively cheap commodity considering their complexity because of economies of scale. This makes used cars even cheaper. Imagine being a broke college student and buying a $1300 Camry. If the transmission fails and it's a $1500 job, is it worth it to fix? Depends, but you definitely need to think about it.

You can't just fault "consumers" for this situation, because it's more complex than that; if we could point to such simple reasons we wouldn't have PhDs studying economics and getting it wrong. Because market forces (simply, obviously there are huge theoretical models dealing with supply/demand/technology/etc.) are pushing to make cars available to as many people as possible, and the price is relatively low, there is a convergence point between when it's a rational economic decision to keep a car running or whether to junk it.

Manufacturers test their parts and have statistical data that can predict the percentage failure rate at various lengths of life, assuming certain conditions. This I know. Engineers have lots of often-times conflicting demands to meet--cost, longevity, effectiveness, environmental impact, etc... I mean, working on my friend's MR2 Turbo last night, there are parts you can tell were manufactured with a strong emphasis on keeping the price down.f

Considering that, suggested maintenance schedules are probably a compromise between longevity and hassle/expense of maintenance and thorough inspection. If you pay way more attention to your car and maintain it like an aircraft, it would last longer. However, new aircraft (and used, as an effect) are much more expensive as they are less accessible for a variety of reasons, hence why there are 50-year-old Pipers still functioning as practical transportation and not just toys.

Hand-producing parts is often done out of necessity or tradition. Toyota might make a part by hand out of necessity, Ferrari might do it for tradition and brand image (reinforcing necessity, because it means low production by its own virtue). Before coating cars rusted after just a few years and it would spread quickly. You can't point to these as evidence cars are built to last indefinitely.

I'm of course speculating, but this seems like logic a manufacturer interested in growth and profit might at least be considering. I know there are numbers of E34 BMWs and Volvo 240s running around with >300k, but this is the exception (yes, an assumption, but a safe one--no?), not the rule, for these and most other cars, and the reason is not as simple as existing owners constantly wanting new cars.

Cole

I have a college degree in Economics and work as the Economist for my firm





I can certainly fault consumers for their perceptions on cars vs. the reality.

Yep. I know several engineers at Jeep. They do million mile durability testing on their parts. Some are considered to have certain service life. But the overall theme is that the whole package should be able to run a million miles if maintained.


In this particular case we know that Porsche was hand producing the bodies because the technology to machine weld the rust proof parts was not available yet. The longevity and integrity of the rust proofing was more important than the cost savings of the machine welding.

This contributes to a longer lasting quality image that can drive future growth. Sometimes current savings comes at a cost.

For *Most* consumers (my assumption) cars and their features are a more "trendy" or "fashonable" tool than purely a useful one.

Consumers *want* a newer car ever few years. They want the security to think it will run a long time, even though they change often.

Manufacturers *want* long lasting products that give the image of long lasting durability. It drives sales of newer cars.

Swagger93

Lol, we're getting pretty abstract on some of this, but I appreciate the civil debate.


Context? I said you can't just fault consumers. I suppose for clarity, you can't fault only consumers. Reality is a situation created by both the consumer and the manufacturer, the communication channels between the two and all the elements these relationships are composed of.



What does "million mile durability" mean? That 60% will still be serviceable after 1 million miles? What does "if maintained" mean? Is replacing a wheel bearing at 100k due to a seal failure maintenance? Are the shocks really designed so the majority still function effectively for 1 million miles? What about rubber bushings? Cost aside, anything's repairable.

Yes, but Porsche sells cars at prices that afford this particular exchange of cost for quality. You don't see F50-style titanium hubs on them, though. The highest-end period Ferrari was sold at a price that allows this kind of "quality" (in the sense of effectiveness in this case); a similar-period Porsche 911 Turbo did not.

True, and I mostly agree with you. But don't you argue it's consumers' fashion-based desire to own a particular/new car, or their own false perceptions, that creates this "need" for a new car?

Is owning a Porsche for the street even a very useful idea for most people in most areas? On very rare days you'll use the performance, but on all days you must live with the sacrifices that performance requires.

They do, however, offer warranties as a type of insurance for buyers of new models. If the vehicle can make it through the warranty period without breaking, it's a success in the minds of people who matter most, the people who buy the new cars. This is an assumption, but I think most individuals who buy a car new do not drive it the entire life of the vehicle.

I will agree the whole system is one based on perception. I also completely agree that most modern cars can make it 300k. The cost effectiveness of keeping a car going depends on the resources available to those who own the vehicle and their perceptions and beliefs. For my sister, a nurse often on call, having every part be new means a higher chance her car will make it to the hospital, something critical enough that the premiums paid in the form of new purchase price and initial depreciation are worth it.

I maintain my 951 almost as if it were an aircraft, and if I didn't womp on it so hard it would probably make it there. So I agree with you for the most part, but I always like to argue an opposing perspective. Thanks for the time of day.

Cole

Which really was the point of the thread.

Hmmmm. Cayenne.

Matt Sheppard

Yeah, I used to wrench 4G63T engines too. You will appreciate the better build quality of the parts on 944's. I had a motor I rebuilt @ 270K miles - still going strong in my grey car, w/ somewhat more mileage on it now.

Mr.S

Haha, I went through 3 7 bolt 4g63's until I finally built a 6 bolt myself.

It is amazing how much better the parts are on the 944....I find the accessories are uncomparable along with lots of other stuff.

deckerh

Gentlemen, great debate that I really enjoyed reading. Both of you had valid points and opinions. Nice to see that points can actually be argued in a civil manner these days. And, congrats to the owner of the 86 on keeping the car running for 300K.
HLD

George D

High end manufacturers build cars to last, and hope that their newer models sell. Most high end manufacturers love knowing their cars are still being enjoyed after many years. PCA is supported by Porsche, and anytime I go to one of their car shows, I notice that there are few new cars.

You have to keep the money coming in to pay for the R&D, sales, etc. Porsche and their engineers, within financial limits, build the best car they can within the budgets they are given. I have friends with engineering degrees going back to school to bet their MBA's so they understand the business side of making money building and eventually selling their companies products.

A well maintained Porsche will last as long as you want it. But so will most cars.

I have clients that only lease so they don't have to change their oil unless the light comes on. Then they have dealer cars available for loan while their cars are being serviced under part of the 3 year service plan. Audi, BMW, and a few other companies do this for their new car service warranties.

I drive older stuff, and maintain them well. My primary mechanic has been in service to me for about 25 years. He also provides me cars if I need a loaner. I do some of my work, but most is done by folks that I hire to provide service. I also have friends that are willing to pay sticker, mod the car, and have something that is new. Something for everyone.

If it wern't for new car buyers, I wouldn't have such great cars personalized to my tastes. Since I mod my cars, I've got new car money in them, but I love driving a well set up ride, personalized to me.



Fun read.

carlege

Im not sure if this has been said but..... Porsche's are know to last and percentage wise have more cars on the road / produced then the other guys.

George D

I just got up to put some ice in my drink. Looked out into my garage and realized that my partner needed my SUV, so we switched cars. He drove his 997 911C4 to work today. I like this car, but I don't get shivers when I'm on it. It nicely pulls, handles fine, and goes like a 80K + car should. I picked up my daughter at school in it, and she said she liked it better than my 951. I asked why, and she said it's quieter. That was it, quieter.

My partner gets scared driving my 951. He thinks it's posessed. He lets me drive hard with him in the car, but he won't. It scares him. Funny, but I believe him.

My car is 20 years old, and looks as new with everything updated. I've got as much money in this car as his, but it's 70% more fun.

OT I suppose, but folks like my partner like the new stuff, and buy it so us second hand car guys get great platforms to build upon to suite our tastes. This C4 is built with speed in mind, but it's for anyone to enjoy it without knowing how to drive all that well. Just not fun enough for me to own one. I'm more comfortable with a great Jap sedan to putter in as a daily. A sports car to me needs to give me chills and keep my attention when driving.

Eric_Oz_S2

Cars today are all built to a minimum cost. Volkswagen for example assemble (some of) their cars in Germany, but a lot of the components are manufactured in China. Although the cars are well engineered, they are often let down by some of the hundreds of components suppliers quality. From my perspective, my 1989 S2 is of better quality than my 3 year old 2.0T Passatt. My S2 doesn't get computer faults, coil failures, steering column failures, suspension groans, window motor failures, brake switch failures, cruise failures or eat through brake rotors every 30,000km. The Passatt (as per most modern cars) may be more refined (if that is how you perceive quality) but it certainly spends more time at the mechanic.

It may be the manufacturer's goal to provide a durable product at the outset of the design process, but that certainly doesn't seem to be reality. I suspect large companies struggle to maintain quality control will so many parts suppliers contributing to each car model. I am certainly concerned now that VW has a major interest on Porsche that quality in the future will suffer.