Boomers despise the 996 I don't see them hanging out. One "GT1 headlights that won LeMans!!" quote from Magnus is typically enough to shoo them away

 

maybe you should go over there and argue that the merits and comparably unicorn level of rarity of the 99-00 FRC make them more valuable than the z06

my car had single zone manual HVAC, cementing it as the true driver's spec

 

And the $3 GM parts bin rattling interior to keep the driver awake

 

Are you saying you had a rotary-dial climate control 996?? I have not seen one stateside ever

 

I enjoyed my 94 C4 for the time I had it but wow the interior was just....no. I found the whole "fall in" "climb out" experience to be horrific and I was only 22 when I bought it. I dunno how these old dudes do it. Super uncomfortable.

 

He's talking about C5 Corvettes

 

85MPH

 

A picture of one of those working had to come from a time machine. 99.9% of them broke immediately. Same percentage of 3.4s that don't experience bore scoring

 

The rotary-dial manual 996's exist somewhere I've seen pictures. That would be a dream to shoehorn one into an early '99 stripper

 

haha thats exactly what I felt like the first time I sat in my C5 (I hadn't driven one at all until I went to buy it)

just imagine being 65 with a belly full of golden corral

 

"YOU ARE NOT BUYING AN ITEM"

 

Guys, you and Glenn are both right: Bore scoring can happen on all these M96 engines, regardless of year, even if it’s less common on the 3.4 engines, it can still happen and certainly does happen. Plenty of 3.4’s have had it, enough to say that it’s not immune at all, just like an IMSB failure is less common, it’s not something to spend sleepless nights over. However, since it can and does happen, any prospective buyer should not skip a PPI that includes a bore scope check just because it’s less common on a 3.4.

 

^^^^ Good advice!!

I personally calculate threat of bore scoring on 3.4 as certainly enough to remain fanatically vigilant on proper warm-up and maintenance, and to investigate for at pre-purchase; but not enough for me personally to bore scope (IE invasive PPI)
IE, personally I would only bore-scope 3.6+

Just my opinion, or perhaps good fortune of owning multiple 3.4's over the past two decades (one with very high mileage) and no hint of any so-called "mode of failure". And the exhaustive Hartech research, and Jake Raby's guidance, has confirmed my (admittedly biased) experience with sticking to the 996 3.4 as a "haven" from a lot of these water-cooled woes that crept increasingly in over the years, and seeming to culminate with 997, and sadly beyond (remember: DFI also suffers from bore scoring!)

Truth is there is often very little time to "strike" on a highly desirable Classic 911; especially a unicorn variant (color, options, etc.). Sometimes you just have to rely on gut instincts, and with Type 996 the 3.4 affords the greatest possible error margin when operating in that unseen realm (Mezger notwithstanding, of course)

Just personal opinion; and I would never, ever advise someone else against an invasive PPI (which is of course always ideal), it's just that when hunting down elusive 911 unicorns in a frothy market the luxury of time is not always (and typically these days never) an option; unless one is willing to also (foolishly??) risk non-refundable deposits which I am not.

YMMV!!!!

 

The bloviating over bore scoring in a price thread is annoying at best.

 

I don't think the last sentence (in bold) about this happening with other manufacturers is correct. The problem in the M96/M97 is that the cylinder sleeves are not encased/surrounded by the block -- most other engines have the sleeves surrounded by the block giving them relatively infinite strength in terms of staying perfectly round. Without the surrounding block support, the M96/97 cylinders can go out of round when they experience excess heat. Once they are out of round , the scoring happens and it is a quick demise.

Please note that I am "internet educated" on this topic -- no first hand experience -- so I'm happy to be corrected if wrong, but I believe the above is accurate.

.