96redLT4

I read many posts on this forum about the new higher revving P motors, eg the 3.4 L motor and how you have to really rev it into the 7000+ range to see the benefit. I was in my now quite dated 997.1 C2S yesterday, spinning the engine at about 6000 rpms and wondering how well even a Porsche engine could do revving this way through 50, 70 or 100K miles. And we wont't even talk about the GT3 motor! Thoughts??
J

chuck911

Hard to believe nobody has touched this. Porsche has such a long history of building for longevity that maybe it goes without saying, but the quote back in the day was that Porsche builds engines to run a full tank of gas at redline. Just to put that in perspective, a tank of gas is like 300-400 miles, a couple hours, while redline is reached and held for but a fraction of a second. Even race cars spend but a tiny percent of time at redline, while for street cars you may as well forget it altogether.

Comments like you have to rev it to 7k+ to see the benefit simply do not stand up. Even on track. But it still comes back to the deeply ingrained commitment of Porsche to build cars that can stand up to good hard use for a very long time. The marque has always emphasized endurance racing, always built the car you can commute to work and race weekends.

In fact when I read your post and think about everything I know from my 40 years love affair with the 911 the thing that sticks out to me is you're asking about 50, 70 or 100k miles, when in my mind that's nothing. You should be thinking 100, 150, 200k.

solomonschris

People don't get rid of any car, let alone a 911, because the engine wears out. The tranny goes up, the heater core leaks, the blower motor fails, the headliner droops down. The CV joint replacement cost is great than the car's value. In the case of MB, one can get tired of replacing window controllers and other electrical tidbits. My girlfriend's poorly maintained Toyota Matrix has way north of 200K miles and still burns no oil . Occasionally an engine makes it to market with a flaw. Early chrome bore BMW V8s come to mind. Except for these few exceptions, people get rid of their cars because they are tired of looking at them and dealing with all the small crap that fails, not because the engine is worn out .

mtbscott

One of the enduring beauties of Porsche I think is how many vintage ones you still see on the road. In my car happy town, I daily see 911's ranging from 80's versions, 993's, 996's, 997's, and now 991's. Most of them in pristine condition regardless of mileage and age. I have no doubt that my 911 engine will most likely outlast my interest in the car...unless for the first time ever it becomes a keeper.

chuck911

But I'm sure this is only the case because everyone is following their factory recommended break-in's.

991Dreamer

Agitator.

chuckbdc

And changing oil 3 times more than recommended?

barihunk

I read "Aligator" which may not be too different.

Come on now let's not go back into the break in/oil change flame wars. I too wonder what the reliability of the 911/991 engines are. I have very often seen SCs, 964s, 993s with rebuilt engines - the large numbers of 911s still on the road may not be because the engines are bulletproof, but that the owners love the cars so much that they actually spend the time and money to fix em.

hockeyguy

With DFI engines, the issue is carbon build-up. It will take many more years to see how the majority of these engines hold up over 100K miles.

chuckbdc

Aligator? Uh oh that will rekindle the Cayman thread!

Dyim

I think I am more concerned about the PDK crapping out before the engine. But those downshifts sound so damn good!

96redLT4

This is one of the things to think about. How do you remove this carbon?
J

Noah Fect

Is it still an issue with dry-sump configurations like Porsche's? I don't know if the PCV system works the same way in their engines. If no oil normally comes into the intake, then there should be little/no coking near the intake valves.