timothymoffat

Wow, this must be the Rennlist Slugfest 2008! Entertaining anyway. Being a 3-day 996 owner, my opinion is of little value however I will say that having a "replacement" engine in the car I bought was the deal-maker. Whatever the reality of this issue is or is not, I hope I will not have to go through engine replacement again.

Cheers, Tim.

cdodkin

Hang on - you started by insisting that all remanufactured engines were old clunkers.

Then you point to a post that details how Porsche are not using 'old' engines, but are providing 'new' replacements from the factory.

Then you claim that this was your idea all along.

What a crock.

The porous block issues & cracked liner issues from my '97 and '99 986s would preclude these blocks ever being used for remanufacturing. The early life M96 failures were terminal, catastrophic, and left no remanufacturing option available to Porsche.

This is clearly born out by the post you helpfully found for us - there were no 'old' remanufactured engines, only factory 'new' replacement/remanufactured units available.

Again - the fact that you have no experience of the actual failure issues - have not taken the time to think how those manufacturing defect failures would impact any potential remanufacturing - and then carefully ignored the clear message from a post you yourself found on Rennlist - just speaks volumes.

You're a very productive troll, but that's it.

jury_ca

Strawman. I can see you obviously have difficulty admitting you were wrong.
Here's what I said from Pg 3 in this thread (i.e. from the very beginning):

"2) It is possible that they can end all production for new engines if demand for replacement engines is less than supply of remanufactured engines. However, usually this will not be the case because there will always be a fall out in cores that cannot be reused. Hence, total replacement demand will exceed re-manufactured supply and they have to build a batch of new engines from time to time."

Now follow this link and read what they say under "core requirements."

http://www.porsche.com/usa/accessori...facturedparts/

Clearly, what this all means is that when you are looking to replace your engine, depending on availability, they either replace with:
1) A remanufactured engine (made with some USED components)
2) A new engine

My point from the very beginning is that 2>1

See my point on "fall-out ratio." The post I referenced supports my argument 100%.

I'm the troll, how? Because you called me a bunch of names, said I was spouting b.s. and you put forward a counter-argument that made no sense whatsoever all the while acting like your knowledge of the issue was the gospel? It takes a big man to admit that he was wrong, and like so many other of my opponents in this thread, my guess is that you will disappear quietly into the internet-night rather than concede.

jury_ca

The guy was INSISTING that reman engines are all new engines that failed first past QC was sound because he'd "been through the loop." Ignoring the fact that's a non-sequitur, I merely had to point out contradictory evidence to show that reman engines come from re-used cores, and that they mix this in with some new engines to show that he was wrong.

jury_ca

All new parts and remanufactured parts once came off the same production processes. The difference is that some remanufactured parts were exposed to the environment and put to use. Doesn't that diminish their value?

The higher they set their tolerances, the greater the fall-out ratio, and the more new engines they'd have to add to the mix. Economically, it makes no sense to maximize the use of new components because then you're at the break-even with just replacing with a brand new engine. There are a lot of non-value added cost involved in remanufacturing they have to compensate for. The ONLY reason to reman is to save money.

Bill Pence

Mr. Jury_Ca states:

"While the statement, "a remanufactured part has to meet or exceed the standard for new parts" can be technically true it does not mean that the whole sub-assembly meets the same standard as a new subassy. If a subassy is made of part X,Y,Z and only part X is remanufactured, part x could meet the original standard but parts Y, and Z are not even tested beyond assumed guidelines. When new, all parts go through multiple quality processes at each machining/assembly step, which will not be repeated in the reman process. Further "exceed" the spec is a misnomer because every mfg process has inherent natural statistical variation. New parts exceed the spec too! They did not say they made the spec more stringent for reman parts, now did they?"

Porsche says, at the top of the page he just links to:

"There is a difference between rebuilt and remanufactured parts. Especially at Porsche. Porsche remanufactures select parts to meet or exceed strict factory specifications. So you can be assured that any potential point of wear, and not just the point that ostensibly failed, has been checked for integrity within strict tolerances. After remanufacturing, any part will be rejected if it does not meet the same standards new parts must meet when they leave the factory."

Which seems to fly in the face of what Mr. Jury_Ca has said. That would seem to say that they are pretty careful about what they put together. He has selected data points from this web page which seem to support his arguments, but ignores those which don't. In the science biz this is called sample censoring, and is roundly unethical. Integrity is required in science and engineering, as the actual goal of any argument is the truth, not one side winning. Otherwise bridges fall down, lasers don't lase, and so forth. This leads me to believe that Mr. Jury_Ca's claim to have a background in science and engineering is disingenuous at best; clearly his research advisor would have spanked him for this sort of thing. From the obtuseness of his arguments and his skillful wriggling away from the actual discussion to one that he can frame himself (mass production of straw men), I suspect an attorney (my apologies to any lawyers reading this).

The original point of this thread was to poll people who had had engines fail, and to see if remanufactured engines also failed. Of course this is an unscientific poll, but so what? You can still learn something from it. We have had several pages of people reporting blown engines, and a lot of pages of Mr. Jury_Ca's rantings. Dismissing his rantings as not being germane, what have we learned? Well, a lot of engines blew up. Have any of the remanufactured engines blown up? Not that anyone has reported in this thread. Have some failed? Probably, we just don't know about it. So we have 10-20 blown original engines, and the remanufactured engines seem to be holding up so far. Time will tell on that score, but indications are good. What conclusions can we draw from this self selected non-random sample of a limited population? Well, we might conclude that the remanufactured engines might actually be better than the original engines, as they don't seem to be failing. That's encouraging, as I have one. But there is insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.

So, back to Mr. Jury_Ca. This has been really entertaining. You usually only see this sort of arrogance in grad students from Harvard, and they can usually back it up. Look, saying that you know how things are done in the "industry" and therefore know exactly what Porsche is doing is ludicrous, particularly when you offer no credentials or experience base to prove that you have a clue. This is that proof by blatant assertion stuff. Your arguments concerning economic forces mandating that Porsche do things the way you insist they must do them are a little lame if you give this a little thought. Porsche is selling these remanufactured engines for about $9K with the core credit. There is a lot of new stuff on them; most of it, from what you can see. Do you seriously think Porsche is selling these things at a profit? At breakeven? Of course not. They are taking a bath on each one. Why would they do that? Because they stepped on their dick with the M96 engine and are trying to retain customer goodwill from longtime customers. As such, I suspect, but can not support this assertion, that they have taken extra care in conducting this exchange program, and that financial considerations may have taken a back seat to retaining their customer base.

Finally, and there is an end to this screed, Porsche replaces engines that have blown with remanufactured engines. New engines with all of the latest updates don't seem to be on offer. Old engines without the updates are demonstrably inferior to the remanufactured engines, in that the possibility always exists that the stud will shear and the sprocket will come off the IMS, or the cylinder wall will crack. The remanufactured engines are better than brand new engines built to the original specs and not installed, because they have the new IMS gear and chain. Late production 996 engines are probably just fine, as they have had the improvements that the reman engines get. In any event, why are you arguing that your d**k is bigger than Ben's d**k? We don't care. You are not making any original contribution here, you are just annoying people (which is probably your goal), and you seem to have nothing to offer.

jury_ca

That's because you confuse final quality with process throughput quality. Every new part goes through a cascading quality process at the end of each process step, which cannot be repeated in reman. You select the appropriate tests and only can ensure it meets the final spec. If a battery manufacturer has set specs for volts and amps, a used battery may still meet those specs but its total lifespan would be diminished compared to a new battery.

Here's another quote from the reman guidelines: "Parts that are modified, damaged or worn beyond strict tolerances don't even enter the picture."

This implies that there is *some* allowable wear which implies shortened lifespan of some components vs. new components.

Wow, that's a breathless leap of logic considering the failures as a % of the total population of new engines could be vastly lower than the failures as % of the total population of reman engines (which is a vastly smaller popn). Let me illustrate. If the new engine failure rate is 1%, that's 10 engines out of 1000 customers. If the reman failure rate is 10%, that's 1 engine out of the 10 that failed. So we might hear from some of those initial 10 customers, but not any of the reman failures EVEN with the higher failure rate. Thanks for playing.



EVEN if that were true, there is no reason to spend more money on a REMAN than it would cost them to replace with a new motor. So you are still economically constrained to the break-even cost of a new motor. I stated before there are a lot of non-value added steps in reman, such as transport of used cores back to Germany, cleaning, diagnosis, and disassembly, supporting Headcount and fixed cost in reman, which does not have to be carried out on new motors.

I've pointed to at least one example where Porsche has replaced with a new motor, so this is not true.

Correcting people's misconceptions of the remanufacturing process is "nothing to offer"? I guess the saying 'ignorance is bliss' is valid here.

ls911

THAT explains it all

Can you say insecurity issues big man?

What a pathetic Joke

How easy it was for you block out everybody that was not interested in all your non stop BS
Remember what the OT was all about smarty?

Do you have a remanufactured engine?

If yes, then questions for you:

-Engine size - 3.4 or 3.6 (3.6)
-What mileage/date was it replaced? (13K miles/April 2003)
-How many miles on the remanufactured engine? (34K)
-Covered by factory warranty or sourced on your dime? (Factory)
-Any problems? (None)

EVERYBODY, in case you missed it, was interested in the input and results of THOSE this question applied to.
NOBODY (that means not a one Mr. Smarty) gave a **** about all your irrelevant crap of a new engine is better than, your shipping background, business best practice, I’m Right Your Wrong, blah blah blah

DO YOU GET IT?

No need to answer.


I will thank you for the entertainment factor, at least not all was lost

Sooo, go on now big man, crank up your BS, embarrass some more, dig away, and show us all again how smarty you are.
Beat down all those opponents coming after you…loloolllolol

cdodkin

jury_ca - let's review your testimony, as you seem to like this format:

As you have no idea about the process involved, and clearly had no idea about the QC failures at the factory being rebuilt and retested, you have zero grounds to make this statement.

This is pure conjecture - you have zero facts to back this up

You make this statement, then point to a Porsche web page that completely counters this statement.

As you point out in the first line, you 'assume' a whole lot here - with absolutely zero facts - then try and argue that this makes your case - totally bogus logic.

This statement clearly shows that you know nothing about the Porsche remanufactured engines - they have all auxiliary new parts fitted - many posts on Rennlist from multiple individuals who have actually experienced an engine replacement confirm this.

Again, clearly no experience or understanding of the process, or rights of the consumer in this situation - read your small print.

This is not correct - Porsche have a warehouse of engines in Ontario California to allow the frequent requests from Porsche dealerships in the US to be met within a day or two - rather than waiting for delivery from Germany.

You have nothing to back this statement - and it is in fact contradicted by the Porsche page on remanufacturing which you later try to use to justify your arguments.

No - you just trolled the thread pure and simple - you just have a sad way of justifying it to yourself.

So you a) don't understand what your position is at the point of 'negotiation' with Porsche - b) You claim that remanufactured engines are clunkers, and this is clearly NOT the case.

Actually they do - the Porsche webpage you so willing used tells you this - "Porsche remanufactures select parts to meet or exceed strict factory specifications. So you can be assured that any potential point of wear, and not just the point that ostensibly failed, has been checked for integrity within strict tolerances. After remanufacturing, any part will be rejected if it does not meet the same standards new parts must meet when they leave the factory." - plus the engine goes through another round of QC (at a minimum) so has been tested more than a fresh production line unit.

Incorrect in two points - firstly you can include later modifications in these engines, such as the new IMS end points that can be fitted to all engines to avoid the catastrophic IMS shaft shear - secondly, you claim they rebuild to a more lax spec - again this is pure conjecture on your part, and is absolutely contradicted by the Porsche web page you so happily refer to.

You then go on to reference the very same information to back your position.

Pure conjecture on your part - you are completely ignoring the fact that a) New engines from any MY are in stock at Porsche for delivery as replacements - b) Later engines may not be compatible with earlier cars, i.e. change to fly by wire throttle on later units prevents a later MY engine being used in an older car.

This is directly contradicted by the post you kindly directed us to which clearly states that there were no remanufactured units available from Porsche.

Porsche require core returns for QA testing.



In summary - you have peddled a litany of falsehoods, and a catalogue of assertions with no data to back them up.

You have zero experience of the issue or it's resolution with Porsche.

I'll conclude you're a Troll with way to much time on his hands.

ls911

Ohhh crap cdodkin

Strap your boots on, we're now headed for many more pages of jury coated ****

Hang on

tooloud10

I really liked Ben's point with this thread, as I've always had questions regarding the reliability of the reman engines versus the original engines. Unless I missed it, it looks like nobody has stepped forward to say that their reman engine has failed, which very much reassures this reman owner that will be driving "naked" come December.

Again, good idea, Ben, and I thought you've restrained yourself pretty well in this thread. Too bad there's almost too much other bull**** to wade through to get to the good information at this point.

pete13

Is "lase" actually a word?

Wow, ya learn somethin new every day!!

roberga

No... it is like reading a transcript of the View. I bet they can get this up to 15 pages

speedyjp

Folks, I'm interested in the results of Ben's original objective before it was obviously 'hijacked' by the juror. Are there enough responses to summarize? Sorry for reaching back to the original topic.

tooloud10

I'd say that there were enough responses to say that the chances of a remanufactured engine having problems are slim to none as compared to the original engine that might have gone south in your car.

Of course, as jury says, that doesn't mean they're "better"...but it sure as hell doesn't mean they AREN'T better--I'll tell you that.