Rickker

As a relative newcomer to 996s and this forum, I must say that i have been somewhat discomforted by reading so many threads about engine replacements, RMS failures, remanufactured vs "new" engines, etc. It seems that there are far too many engine failures. It also seems that low mileage 996s that sit around and are not driven very much are more likely to experience a failure than those that are driven regularly.

My 996 (1999 C4) had 153,000 km on the odometer when I purchased it several months ago. I was concerned about the high mileage, but the PPI revealed that this car had been serviced regularly by the same dealer, and all was well except for rear tires, remote lock/unlock not working and some other minor things. The engine appears to be in great shape - idles smoothly, good low speed torque and lots of high end power. It also gets excellent fuel consumption when cruising at legal highway speeds, about 8.5 liters/100km. So, I would like to believe that this is an excellent engine that will run reliably for many years to come. That is, except for what I have read on this forum.

I need some positive reinforcement. Can we hear some responses from owners who are still using their original 3.4 liter engines, and how many miles or kilometers are on the odometer?

....Rickker

befast

There's are a couple of fresh posts discussing just this and related!

https://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/426490-how-many-with-more-than-100k-miles-rant-alert.html
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/426577-do-you-have-a-remanufactured-engine.html

Rickker

Thanks, befast. I had read the 2nd thread, which was mainly about engines which had failed and were being replaced. The first thread was more reassuring, with lots of owners still going strong after 100,000 miles on the clock.
...Rickker

BruceP

From what I've read and heard from credible people, your odds of anything catastrophic going wrong are greatly reduced at that kind of mileage (before the jackals pounce, I said greatly reduced, not eliminated. Meteors can strike anywhere)

Somewhere on a thread, there is an article posted that describes one of these engines being torn down, and the writer was astonished at how negligible the wear was on reciprocating parts. They really are built to go the distance.

86,000km on an '00 C2 here.

redridge

I see that this forum is on paranoid mode... thats to bad, if we as owners cant enjoy our cars how can the 996 tainted reputation ever go away. We are writing our own history if this paranoia keeps up. Enjoy your car...

edit: I just noticed that on 6speed, that very few people post any engine replacement or blowing engine, or at least not the same frequency as Rennlist does... lighten up guys!

rmillnj

I am at 97,000 miles on a '99 C2. I wil be sure to post here if it ever goes kaboom. But lets be realisitic, nothing lasts forever.

bk12

I have seen a lot of doomsday posts on engines lately. I really don't think it is inevitable by any means....especially on the MKII cars. Like everyone else here, I have NO proof, but my OWN beliefs are that these things do very well when driven regularly. Definately doesn't seem to be certain mileage where a catastrophic becomes more likely imo.

On a related note, I was checking into an E39 M5 lately and see that the very common VANOS replacement can cost me more than a new 996 engine....not even going into what an M5 crate motor would cost...ouch. I think any modern high end car will have it's 10K problems lurking (E39 M5, E60 M5, E43 M3, etc....I am really only somewhat familiar with the problems of the BMW lines so those are what I listed).

Anyway, mine has been great, drive it and enjoy!

chsu74

I have 77K miles on my engine and have no issues about putting more on at will. If it blows up, then I will get another one perhaps a 3.6L reman like Paul966 did. Here is to buying more tires and fuel..

Tippy

Had 102k on mine when I sold it, motor was fairly smooth running, couldn't tell a difference in power from 55k miles up to the 102k

Barn996

All this recent talk of doom and gloom with 'our' motors has made me drive my 911 for 4 days in a row, and I can't wait to find more excuses to drive some more. I have a 99MY with almost 42k miles on the original 3.4 motor and am quite happy with my 20 months of 996 C2 ownership to date.

Rickker

Thanks, guys for the responses. I feel a lot better about engines that are still running strong after 100K, rather than posts about engines blowing up and being replaced. Let's keep the faith!
....Rickker

SC996

Mines not high mileage, just turned 48K this weekend but I have never seen a drop on the garage floor. I just put mine through two days of my first DE and my temp never peaked past street temp.

I had the same scare when I was on the Boxster forum for a year. I never knew any of the regulars to ever have an issue. Just use common sense (PPI or documentation of service) and really know the person or shop you are buying it from and then enjoy!!

yasuro

just to be clear, what would be considered high mileage?

blinkwatt

I think it's fair to say high mileage for a P-car is over 10k a year?!

My Dad's 01 c2 has 39k on the original engine and it's been awesome!

cdodkin

So for the record - you simply can't generalize that a low use car is at more risk of catastrophic engine failure.

Low use cars seem to have more RMS issues - probably due to the seal distorting or drying out when not used - this is an issue, but not a catastrophic failure. Early RMS issues did cause engines to be swapped out and sent back to Porsche for analysis, but that soon stopped when they worked out where they were going wrong.

Porous block, cracked lining and cracked head is a manufacturing issue - you'll eventually have a failure, and your use or lack of it doesn't add to the risk.

IMS failure is a bit of an unknown - it happens (rarely) and I'm not sure use or lack of it has been shown to be a factor.