How many 15-16 gt3's have engine replaced?
03-16-2016, 08:21 PM
#181
Race Director
03-21-2016, 02:00 PM
#182
Rennlist Member
Macca and others:
Had the "Reduced engine performance possible to drive on" warning while on the track Sunday. This followed approximately 200 track mile day on Saturday followed by one or two sessions in the morning. The warning went away with restart. Scan revealed a problem with cylinder 6, it said fuel injector. It was generic Snap On scanner, so may be something else.
I did three more sessions, short shifting at 8k and no issues until I got close to 9k when the warning would return. I drive 140 miles to home with no issues. This sounds very suspicious for the cam issue, agree?
My 3 is a 2014 with a E replacement engine. Replaced coil pack of cylinder 1 and all the plugs. I have 19,000 total/2550 track miles on this engine. I run in PDK S auto and usually let it shift at 9k.
Will take car in tomorrow and see.
Had the "Reduced engine performance possible to drive on" warning while on the track Sunday. This followed approximately 200 track mile day on Saturday followed by one or two sessions in the morning. The warning went away with restart. Scan revealed a problem with cylinder 6, it said fuel injector. It was generic Snap On scanner, so may be something else.
I did three more sessions, short shifting at 8k and no issues until I got close to 9k when the warning would return. I drive 140 miles to home with no issues. This sounds very suspicious for the cam issue, agree?
My 3 is a 2014 with a E replacement engine. Replaced coil pack of cylinder 1 and all the plugs. I have 19,000 total/2550 track miles on this engine. I run in PDK S auto and usually let it shift at 9k.
Will take car in tomorrow and see.
03-21-2016, 03:56 PM
#183
Rennlist Member
Macca and others: Had the "Reduced engine performance possible to drive on" warning while on the track Sunday. This followed approximately 200 track mile day on Saturday followed by one or two sessions in the morning. The warning went away with restart. Scan revealed a problem with cylinder 6, it said fuel injector. It was generic Snap On scanner, so may be something else. I did three more sessions, short shifting at 8k and no issues until I got close to 9k when the warning would return. I drive 140 miles to home with no issues. This sounds very suspicious for the cam issue, agree? My 3 is a 2014 with a E replacement engine. Replaced coil pack of cylinder 1 and all the plugs. I have 19,000 total/2550 track miles on this engine. I run in PDK S auto and usually let it shift at 9k. Will take car in tomorrow and see.
19000/2500 miles makes yours a record for a well tracked car. The only one I've seen go further had more road miles but no track miles!
I believe you will have misfire cylinder 6 with lightly scored cam lobe/DLC rocker material missing. I know this is a PITA for you just prior to your RS arriving but best to get it sorted now with a new engine.
I have just completed 3000 road miles and 600 track miles (4 hard track days) on my new G engine. Runs like a champ, pulls hard to 9000 and uses very little oil (175ml per track day and 150ml total for 3000 road miles including some spirited driving). It was the quickest car on all but one of the tracks we ran. Really really enjoying the car even after 2.5 years! I have another 1000 road miles and 400 track miles to put on it in the next 14 days then I can report back my final conclusions....
03-21-2016, 05:13 PM
#184
Race Director
Macca, really appreciate your efforts on this, as it matters to all of us. Question. I have a 2015 (F engine). Should I have any serious concerns about this engine? I have not tracked it, and I am not really hard on it. Do you think the data you have supports the notion that the F is solid, or should I just be tracking the car to get to the inevitable boom?
What would you do if you had an F engine right now?
Thanks for the help!
Rob
What would you do if you had an F engine right now?
Thanks for the help!
Rob
03-21-2016, 07:15 PM
#186
Rennlist Member
Macca, really appreciate your efforts on this, as it matters to all of us. Question. I have a 2015 (F engine). Should I have any serious concerns about this engine? I have not tracked it, and I am not really hard on it. Do you think the data you have supports the notion that the F is solid, or should I just be tracking the car to get to the inevitable boom? What would you do if you had an F engine right now? Thanks for the help! Rob
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
03-21-2016, 07:49 PM
#187
Race Car
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The way to hell is paved by good intentions “Wenn ich Purist höre...entsichere ich meinen Browning” "Myths are fuel for marketing (and nowadays for flippers too,,,)" time to time is not sufficient to be a saint, you must be also an Hero
Posts: 4,446
Received 422 Likes
on
250 Posts
Rob. We are in this together.
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
03-21-2016, 08:28 PM
#188
Nordschleife Master
Rob. We are in this together.
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
03-21-2016, 08:35 PM
#189
Race Director
Rob. We are in this together.
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
03-21-2016, 10:08 PM
#192
Rennlist Member
Macca your data appears to be missing the G MA176 failure I mentioned pages ago. Bent valves within 1,500 miles eh, all within its *first* track outing.
03-21-2016, 11:11 PM
#193
Three Wheelin'
Rob. We are in this together.
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
I have 20 on the database all E Barr now three F engines. It's too early to tell. The F engines I've seen are failing on the rocker arms. I think they increased the DLC coating but the duress has perhaps transferred to the integrity of the cast alloy used for the finger rocket arms? Pure speculation on my part as I've got two failed rocker arms on the E engine too.
My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that an F engine broken in reasonably and used on the road should last a long time. I wouldn't stress. I'm also of the belief that PAG will honour a solution to these engines long after warranty on a goodwill basis. I'd just continue to use and enjoy.
My car is largely used on track and if I were an E Engine owner I would be inclined to double up my track time till failure in order to acquire the new G engine sooner than later (should PAG policy change). My gut feel is we are talking a lubrication issue so any remedial head work fix will be somewhat temporary, without doing bottom end work to remove and upgrade the oil pump and galleries, PAG may elect dealer replacement of drive train components in the future but if addressing root cause they are almost forced to replace the engine with a crate engine as the labour on the required bottom end work and heatwave replacement via a dealers techs is not viable.
I'm without doubt that the future will bring further improvements to the engine design by way of billet finger rockers, software changes ect can learnt from campaigning 9A1 engines and this will filter into the next production GT engine which will share Lamar identical architecture to the now upgraded G MA175 unit, but even if this is a retro fit kit on needs to fit downstream after 50 plus track days on a G engine I don't think that's a big issue myself, I didn't expect the engine to run for ever in track with no top end work, I've owned s number of 911s in he last 18!years and they all wear on the track, that work is not too hard or expensive (cans and rocker fingers) and does not scare me. After all my track 993 no doubt has scored cam loves and worn rocker faces after many track miles, only difference is the computer can't tell it's happening....
https://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3-...l#post12967509
Please see post #180
Last edited by Just in time; 03-21-2016 at 11:27 PM. Reason: Added link to original thread
03-21-2016, 11:18 PM
#194
I sincerely hope none of you need a new motor. Mine still hasn't left Germany and my car has been in the shop since the first week of February. I had a 15 911 turbo s before this and this really makes me not want to get another new porsche. I totally understand cars have issues/problems but get them resolved in a timely manner. There was a bulletin on the issue and there seems to be no urgency at all from PCNA or the dealership who keeps complaining that a lift has been tied up just as long....
Last edited by carz80am; 03-21-2016 at 11:43 PM.
03-22-2016, 05:11 AM
#195
Rennlist Member
Probably. But the 8500-9000 rev range is this cars signature and is what will differentiate it in years to come. They can't remove it now they have given it to us snd if they did they would have to buy slot of cars back including mine!