WERA 371

Here's a statement that was made by a potential (no longer) buyer of my car. Now I agree, buy the latest and best afforded, but...? I know the motivation behind it, but can some 'experts' comment? This just seems a bit fetched. Someone on Rennlist tell him this?

Thanks.


"The more I research with the “tuners”, i.e. the independent Porsche experts who all the hard-core PCA guys go to, the more I learned….

Their combined consensus is….

Don’t buy a 99’ – as 40% of those motors have been replaced and the rest are a ? mark…

If you must, buy a late model 2000 as they sorted several of the design issues of the 99 motor…

Even better, buy an 01 as they finally sorted most of the 3.4 design issues

If you can afford an 01, seriously consider at 02 as the new 3.6 is considered close to bulletproof – same basic engine at the GT3’s"

wsp8

I've been trying to deduce the same thing ... going so far as to begin to compile a short list of cars know to have replaced engines by serial #s looking for a trend. Maybe a Registry of 996s should be created (if not already?). I'm in the market for a '99/'00 and am seriously considering one that has had the engine replaced. I'm hoping that the new engine # (W/13k miles) will help me understand it's potential longevity. Any thoughts?

Wellardmac

Ahem! Sorry, but that's BS. Only Porsche would know the number of engines replaced and they're not telling.

Quoting stuff like that is just blowing worthless and harmful hot air.

WERA 371

Well, from what I read, Porsche isn't telling. I seem to recall this having been a matter of heated debate at some point in the past. With one post claiming an informal poll, and a statistician refuting the entire exercise.

KOW, mine doesn't leak a drop, and seems fine. Hard to express that to someone about to part with $30K.

HD911

+1

Whoever says these things as facts are full of sh*t.

Wellardmac

Thank you. You said what I was thinking.

WERA 371

Totally agree! Would it be possible to get you guys to email my frightened buyer and tell him so?

Not trying to start anything, just wanted confirmation of my own thinking. (I'm the bad guy trying to sell something)

TheSpeedDemon

Tell him to visit the forum and read threads such as this

WERA 371

Dang it, Doug. Now I can't send him this thread!!!

Ray S

There is so much misinformation in this buyers statements it's not even funny. I numbered his statements above.

1) The consensus that I have read indicate that the failure rates for the earlier are higher than later cars. However, 40% seems crazy high to me. I asked the Service Director at my dealership (he's a friend of mine) about this claimed rate and he said "no f'n way is it even close to that high". The bottom line is only Porsche knows for sure, but there would be mass riots (IMHO) if the number were even close to that high.

2) As you would expect Porsche seems to have improved the motors over time. I'd recommend you buy the latest model you can afford.

3) See number 2

4) The general consensus seems to be that the MK II's are more reliable than the MK I's. However, the Mk II m96 motor (just like the m96 Mk I motor) is entirely different than the GT3 motor.

For more good information on buying 996's read the current issue of Excellence Magazine or Total 911 magazine. Both pulications are running 996 buying guide in their publications this month.

Wellardmac

Now, now, now Doug. Be nice!

Bring him here and we'll give him a good talking to.

Register him under the username newbiegonnageta911

WERA 371

Yah. Quoted him the Exellence $25,754 to $39,200. I'm asking $29K for 61 miles. Man, any auto maker that had 40% engine replacement in say, Mmmm, 20,000 cars would be front page news anywhere.

Doug Donsbach

Really...why?

Robin 993DX

Damn, I wish I had those odds with the lottos that I buy

TAILWAG

we should start a list of 99 996's that HAVE NOT had any engine issues...I will be the 1st one to post...