Notices
996 Forum 1999-2005
Sponsored by:

Another 996 IMS failure

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-29-2008, 05:37 PM
  #16  
Paul 996
Rennlist Member
 
Paul 996's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,945
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

For me the 3.6 cost about the same $ as going the 3.4

The tradeoff was a low mileage 3.6 w/ 9K miles and only a 6mth warranty vs a 3.4 crate w/ 2years.

Car had to be transported to a shop in Altanta that has done these swaps before and lived there for about 3 months all said and done. (it shouldn't take that long normally but the shop moved to a bigger location in the middle).
Old 05-29-2008, 07:48 PM
  #17  
trackjunky
Rennlist Member
 
trackjunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The right side of Leftville
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by psperl
May I ask you about the magnitude of the extra cost of the 3.6 upgrade? My real worry is that the 3.4L motor could blow again if there is a fundamental flaw in it that has not been corrected. Does anyone have any reason to suspect that these replacement 3.4 motors have been "fixed"?
This is an oft-asked question. Search is your friend on this, but beware, not everything is factual. The safe assumption is that where possible, Porsche has made some changes to improve the longevity of the 3.4l motor, but the basic design remains the same.

Autofarm's site show's their fixes to the IMS and I'm certain Porsche has something similar. Just my 2 cents.
Old 05-31-2008, 01:41 AM
  #18  
cdaniels
Racer
 
cdaniels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I predict the 3.4 crate motor will be better than new...When Porsche rebuilds an engine I hear they go to extra effort to be sure all is ok.....my 2 cents....For the record my 3.4 engine with 56,000 miles has had zero problems.....and I run the ______ out of it.....day in...day out!
Old 05-31-2008, 01:58 AM
  #19  
phaphaphooey
Pro
 
phaphaphooey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

There was a thread on Renntech recently about a guy attempting to drop a 3.6 in his 3.4 car and he had nightmare after nightmare in attempting to make it function. As others have said, it can be a fair amount of work.
Old 05-31-2008, 09:18 AM
  #20  
Paul 996
Rennlist Member
 
Paul 996's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,945
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Yeah I remember that one... I tried to strike up a dialogue with that user since I had a shop doing my conversion at the same exact time. Funny thing is the guy would never divulge who was doing the work.. In the end I concluded based on his super detailed "how do I" questions that it was a botched DIY attempt.

Originally Posted by phaphaphooey
There was a thread on Renntech recently about a guy attempting to drop a 3.6 in his 3.4 car and he had nightmare after nightmare in attempting to make it function. As others have said, it can be a fair amount of work.
Old 05-31-2008, 09:52 AM
  #21  
Doug Donsbach
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
Doug Donsbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Paul 996
Yeah I remember that one... I tried to strike up a dialogue with that user since I had a shop doing my conversion at the same exact time. Funny thing is the guy would never divulge who was doing the work.. In the end I concluded based on his super detailed "how do I" questions that it was a botched DIY attempt.
Had to have been something like that. It is really straightforward to drop a 3.6 into an e-gas 3.4 chassis.
Old 06-08-2008, 01:24 PM
  #22  
boxhead
Intermediate
 
boxhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 37
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

From the looks of the crinkle deformation, it looks as though the tube (and I'm surprised at the thin wall) was "crushed" --like stepping on a coke can standing straight up.

Also, the stud at end of the IMS did not shear.

Curious if the IMS bearing gave out, resulting in excessive play in the IMS, which would bend and deflect many times, eventually fatiguing in the middle and then crinkling??

Lastly, from http://www.autofarm.co.uk/engines/wa...led/shaft_tech
I gather that since 02 there have been improvements to IMS, does that seem to be the case? (Autofarm never addresses what fails and causes the catastrophic engine failure)
Old 06-08-2008, 01:40 PM
  #23  
cdodkin
Drifting
 
cdodkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Another Ex pat Brit in SoCal
Posts: 2,442
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by trackjunky
This is an oft-asked question. Search is your friend on this, but beware, not everything is factual. The safe assumption is that where possible, Porsche has made some changes to improve the longevity of the 3.4l motor, but the basic design remains the same.

Autofarm's site show's their fixes to the IMS and I'm certain Porsche has something similar. Just my 2 cents.
You need to read this Autofarm (Total 911) article which covers the IMS issue in more detail:

http://www.autofarm.co.uk/pdf/Total911_July06.pdf

Specifically:

All 996 engines have an intermediate shaft that runs
the length of the underside of the block and is chain-
driven from the crankshaft. This, in turn, drives the twin
camshafts on each bank of cylinders. At the end of this is
a sprocket which turns on a bearing. The sprocket is
retained by a small stud that can break, causing the
bearing to fail. At first, this manifests itself as a noisy
rattle, which turns into a death rattle as the cam chains
come off, leading to further internal damage.
Porsche changed the design of this shaft no less than
four times during the life of the 996; partly to solve the
bearing failure issue, and partly to reduce an annoying
rattle on start-up. Later types, therefore, have a larger
bearing and a different sprocket designed to mate with a
special toothed chain, whereas the earlier ones drove a
conventional double chain. Because of this, it is not
possible to fit the later type intermediate shaft to an early
engine without also using a later-type crankshaft.
Old 06-08-2008, 01:43 PM
  #24  
cdodkin
Drifting
 
cdodkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Another Ex pat Brit in SoCal
Posts: 2,442
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cdaniels
I predict the 3.4 crate motor will be better than new...When Porsche rebuilds an engine I hear they go to extra effort to be sure all is ok.....my 2 cents....For the record my 3.4 engine with 56,000 miles has had zero problems.....and I run the ______ out of it.....day in...day out!
Be careful what you start here - someone left and someone got banned last time this topic was 'discussed' on the forum....
Old 08-28-2011, 11:02 AM
  #25  
slashmatt
Track Day
 
slashmatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by psperl
So i blew the motor in my new 996. I did not mis-shift, and the car was inspected and the oil was changed the day before.

The consensus seems to be that that it was an IMS failure.

I took a gamble on a cheap, early model, low-mileage 996 and lost. I'm glad I didn't purchase an aftermarket warranty, as the 30-day grace period wouldn't have been over yet, and then I would have been out the money for the warranty and an engine!
So, the original poster never showed any evidence that this was an IMS failure, it just "seems to be".

I'm going to consider this 996 IMS Myth Busted #2.
Old 08-28-2011, 11:38 AM
  #26  
spender
Pro
 
spender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 526
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Sorry to hear this, and that it wasn't covered by your warranty. However a lot of jurisdictions have "lemon laws" that should get you a full refund if it dies within 30 days so so. Did you buy from an individual or a dealer??
Old 08-28-2011, 12:18 PM
  #27  
ivangene
Parts Specialist
Rennlist Member
 
ivangene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,326
Likes: 0
Received 23 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

3 year old thread revived for ?
Old 08-28-2011, 12:33 PM
  #28  
Ericginpa
Banned
 
Ericginpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northeastern Pa
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by slashmatt
So, the original poster never showed any evidence that this was an IMS failure, it just "seems to be".

I'm going to consider this 996 IMS Myth Busted #2.
Wow! Looks like someone's got an agenda!

Here's a recommendation for slashmatt,don't change yours. Nobody cares.
Old 08-28-2011, 12:52 PM
  #29  
Marc Gelefsky
Super Moderator
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
Marc Gelefsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 16,142
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by slashmatt
So, the original poster never showed any evidence that this was an IMS failure, it just "seems to be".

I'm going to consider this 996 IMS Myth Busted #2.
Troll, Busted.
Old 08-28-2011, 05:40 PM
  #30  
porsches996
Instructor
 
porsches996's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

What do you mean by...

''the consensus seams to be an IMS''.........


Did you have the engine check by a specialist or the engine.
IToo easy to say...''ho i had a problem with my engine yesterday and i PROBABLY bust my engine so i will right it up in Rennlist just to get some condolences from rennlist friends...

Please show up some pics and more explanation...otherwise it is too easy and i do not believe you at all like many other rennlister...

Bye Bye


Quick Reply: Another 996 IMS failure



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 03:27 AM.