How many 15-16 gt3's have engine replaced?
04-05-2016 | 08:30 AM
#346
Rennlist Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,333
Likes: 40
Was thinking the same thing. PAG cited track use specifically on the 997 coolant fittings in its response to investigation by National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations.
Last edited by brake dust; 04-05-2016 at 04:15 PM.
04-05-2016 | 10:24 AM
#347
Rennlist Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 11,298
Likes: 1,496
From: Midwest
Ever wonder why we saw THREE years of the 991.1 GT3? Pretty much everyone was shocked when they kept producing them in MY2016.
Well, given what's been going on with these engines, here's a theory (all complete conjecture on my part).
Hypothesis #1: this was a deliberate step by PAG to deflect the engine woes from sullying the GT3 name, a name which they've built up over the years and which was aligned closely with a very loyal and passionate group of owners.
Hypothesis #2: I suspect they realized very early on during 2014-2015 through ongoing testing efforts that the E and then F engines were flawed, and that even the DLC remedy wasn't cutting it.
So they needed to overhaul the oiling system (ergo G, which was originally destined for the RS), and a decision was made to allow a certain number of GT3s to get this engine too (not just the RS). This decision was made to protect the 911.1 GT3 from being tarnished by the bad lot of E and F engines (not to mention the pre-stop sale 'E' engines).
That is to say, by putting a durable G engine into even a limited run of 2016 GT3s, it allows one to separate the engine woes from the GT3 moniker. Now it's just an E and F engine problem. Not a GT3 problem.
I think this was strategic. And I'm actually quite pleased they did this. Hopefully when the faulty engines get sorted out, the 991.1 GT3 will not be remembered primarily for these flaws, but for the overall amazing car that was delivered.
Well, that's my theory anyway. We'll probably never know for sure when they discovered these wear issues, but I think it was quite a while back (maybe even as a surprising second coincidental problem when the rod bolt issues were identified), hence the ongoing evolution of the engines to correct the continued and unresolved deficiency (DLC, then oiling upgrade).
Well, given what's been going on with these engines, here's a theory (all complete conjecture on my part).
Hypothesis #1: this was a deliberate step by PAG to deflect the engine woes from sullying the GT3 name, a name which they've built up over the years and which was aligned closely with a very loyal and passionate group of owners.
Hypothesis #2: I suspect they realized very early on during 2014-2015 through ongoing testing efforts that the E and then F engines were flawed, and that even the DLC remedy wasn't cutting it.
So they needed to overhaul the oiling system (ergo G, which was originally destined for the RS), and a decision was made to allow a certain number of GT3s to get this engine too (not just the RS). This decision was made to protect the 911.1 GT3 from being tarnished by the bad lot of E and F engines (not to mention the pre-stop sale 'E' engines).
That is to say, by putting a durable G engine into even a limited run of 2016 GT3s, it allows one to separate the engine woes from the GT3 moniker. Now it's just an E and F engine problem. Not a GT3 problem.
I think this was strategic. And I'm actually quite pleased they did this. Hopefully when the faulty engines get sorted out, the 991.1 GT3 will not be remembered primarily for these flaws, but for the overall amazing car that was delivered.
Well, that's my theory anyway. We'll probably never know for sure when they discovered these wear issues, but I think it was quite a while back (maybe even as a surprising second coincidental problem when the rod bolt issues were identified), hence the ongoing evolution of the engines to correct the continued and unresolved deficiency (DLC, then oiling upgrade).
04-05-2016 | 11:13 AM
#348
Drifting
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 13
From: Canada
Thanks Jimmy. All wild guesses on my part though. But I'd like to think there is a lot more strategy and planning going on behind the scenes. Nice to be a fly on the wall. I guess I could have written it better--sorry if my ramblings were a little convoluted and hard to follow.
04-05-2016 | 02:43 PM
#352
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,485
Likes: 1,068
From: Ohio
04-07-2016 | 06:48 PM
#354
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 1,293
From: West Vancouver and San Francisco
04-07-2016 | 07:49 PM
#356
Rennlist Member
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 103
From: San Diego
Question to Macca and others that have the newly installed G. The engine says its complete, so it's drop it and slide in the new one right? They don't have to take off oil pumps and such and install on the new engine?
04-07-2016 | 08:05 PM
#359
Thread Starter
Pro
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 706
Likes: 70
Mine was installed in less than 2 todays. Arrived Monday moring to dealer, I picked up car Tues afternoon. Been running great and according to my dealer and pcna, no break in period. I've been driving it like I normally would, which is HARD, and so far so good!
04-07-2016 | 08:06 PM
#360
Rennlist Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 14,140
Likes: 14
From: New Zealand
Run in procedure stated same as before. Previously I've just taken it easy for the first few tanks of gas but as I had a 1600 mile journey a few days after the install to the beginning of our annual track tour this time it got a far more gentle break in before hitting 9000 repeatedly on the track! I didn't exceed 6500-7000 on the way down and then only briefly from time to time.
IMO much more important to these engines than the long break in is a more regular oil/filter change (every 4000 miles and 4x track days for me from now on) and an annual plug replacement. The oil is thrift blood of this engine...
The following users liked this post:
BLKMamba (09-14-2022)