We only recognize it as an MOF if we've seen it numerous times with the same effects. Some things are just weird incidents that we only see once and those don't count.

Like this one..

 

Ouch!

 

Yeah, that would be the DREADED POROUS PISTON failure.

 

Revisiting the statistical value of this thread, as others point out, a quick and unstructured survey such as this will contain bias or can show mis-leading results for various reasons, but whatever it is that the survey measures, it is measuring with reasonable stability -

That is, my recollection as this thread grew is that the IMS failure rate on the poll (once we had say more then 15 responses) has stayed in the 10-15% range through the present where we have > 130 responses. I don't know that this is useful information per se, but I thought the IMS failure rate response stability stood out.

 

I have kept my mouth shut on this because I don't own a 996 anymore.

But, I will say this; to date, 18 people claimed failure. That means if true, 18 engines have failed due to a design flaw of the engine.

This failure is not a simple breakdown on the side of the road, this major surgery to fix or replace the engine entirely - whichever the owner chooses.

That is why statistically small or large, the impact is immense!

If 18 'vette engines failed out of the bazillions made, there would be more bitching about it than you find here. And the LS motors are very simplistic and easy to repair (of course there is no such IMS in a LS motor).

It would simply be unacceptable.

Do I think there is denial of the severity of the issue of the IMS? Yes

So, that being said, does the M96 scare me from another? No, no way. Would I own another if I could? Yep.

 

18 failed engines that we "think" were the result of IMS failure is a design flaw that leads to catastrophic failure? If it was a design flaw that leads to failure the result (number of M96 motors failing from this) would be huge.....and that's just not the case.

While I certainly sympathize with those have lost a motor due to this, I find it comical that it is blown so far out of proportion like this. Again, if the problem (reality) was so congruent with the hype there would have been a more significant remedy to date (read PCNA recall, class action, etc).

 

Your observations are no less speculative than those you seem compelled to debunk at every opportunity (I wonder how many of your 17,000+ posts are in some way related to this issue). Fact is, Jake and others here making the counterpoint have no less of a chance statistically to be right on the money as only PCNA could say for certain.

As someone involved in a Porsche exclusive maintenance facility I can only say that we saw an inordinate amount of IMS failures on Boxters and 996's to the extent that it was a known and serious issue amongst factory trained Porsche techs working at the largest dealers in So CA (one of whom then came to my facility with this inside information that affirms the point made.....more cars than you think were affected with the problem). Think what you want and speak for yourself but stop arguing that your observations are any more credible than others and moreover, that you somehow "speak for the community" especially as to how many Porsche owners actually know about this place and/or why they are here.

 

Thanks again Jordan for your typical attacking post. Either provide this "proof" you seem to have of insider info or contribute something of worth. But your attacking gets old. I have taken a stance that explains WHY this is not a nearly a big of a problem as you and a select few think it is. I can do this through BASIC explanations of statistics. You on the other hand like to try and figure out a way to deflect from the issue by attacking me. And no, I have NEVER tried to debunk this IMS hype. Rather I have explained WHY you can't take the stance you do. Thanks again for your lovely post. Yawn..........

ps. you answered my stance for me. Your side SPECULATES. Thanks for that

 

This is my point too Dell, your statistics are no less baseless and you simply need to be politely reminded that your opinions and observations do not relfect the vast majority of Rennlist users or Porsche enthusiasts in general any more than mine do. My obeservations are mine and mine alone and I'm simply sharing them (this includes personally knowing a lot <as in a number greater than 10 locally> owners with IMS failiures and dealer techs some with 30 years experience saying to my face the problem is more widespread with early M96 cars than Porsche let's on). Statistically relevant....no...worth sharing though....I think so as at minimum I tend to trust what my 30 year Porsche tech tells me about these cars. Your modus operendi when anyone shares a similiar experience or posts a question about it is to dismiss them and the point as hysteria or hype. Of course I can't say statistically any more than you can whether the problem is with 1%, less than 1%, 10% or some other figure any more than you can. What I can say for certain though is that my own personal experience with the 1st Porsche I bought at 29 years old (a brand new 1999 996) was less than satisfactory. I spent nearly $80 grand on that car that was rife with build quality issues and it spent so much time in the shop that when it finally detonated due to an IMS failure at 20K miles I was simply stunned (this was in 2001)...and it was a big deal to me. These cars are indeed great deals now and it's not by accident or by hype that's built up by posts on Rennlist. There are books about it, businesses dedicated to it as well as similiar occurences all over the world to the extent that the values of these cars have been severely impacted by it as a result. Had I paid $20 grand for my car and had it happen it might have been a different story.

I've ultimately owned 5 911's since that 1st buy and I can say with absolutle certainty (only as it pertains to my own personal 1st hand experience) that the reliability and build quality of the 1999 996 was a distant last to the next closest example with the current 993 I own (perhaps due to the fact that it's the most evolved of the air cooled design) being the best. This is indicative of the logic 'buy the newest Porsche you can afford'.

I think the 996 is the best value buy for the money out there likely becuase of what "can" happen. To what % is largely irrelevant because as long as we can all agree it happens to a number greater than zero it's possible - therefore it should be factored in to your decision as that's measurable risk.

I have nothing against you or anyone else personally and sincerely appologize if that's your inference from my posts now or in the past. We should all stick to personal experiences and not attacks anyway as this is the spirit of Rennlist is it not?

 

I've been watching this kind of thread for a while now. I fully expected Dell to jump in.

From a party who has no skin in the game I make only the following observations:

1) There is no use arguing statistics since only PAG and PCNA know for sure. Irrespective of our knowledge of stats - there isn't enough info to draw any valid statistical conclusions.

2) Porsche has a long history of burying problems - the 993 wiring harness defect comes to mind here.

3) Too many people have suffered premature engine failures to suit my taste. Are there more of them than say, M3 BMWs? Who knows? We do know that there are thousands and thousands of owners who have not suffered catastrophic engine failures.

4) Porsche has redesigned the engine for the 98 and 99x cars. DFI is certainly part of it but the redesign went far beyond that.

5) Since Jake and friends have invested time and money to come up with fixes and preventative measures, rather than denigrate them, I prefer to thank them for supporting the community.

Best,

 

Dell, it's not the statistics of failure that concerns me, it's the fact the motor may become scrap metal after the bearing fails.

Such a simple thing Porsche could of done by using the proven friction bearing of the past or open ball or roller bearing for the IMS could of saved some (whatever the number) of these engines.

Now the RMS, thats something that is made a big deal of when it is a simple seal that is relatively cheap minus labor cost to replace. DIY is almost nothing and you are on your way.

Like I said, it would be on my mind if I owned another but it wouldn't stop me from owning another.

 

Agree 100%. If you please stop attacking me or my post count then I wouldn't have to retort. And yes, my personal experience is statistics. Yours is working in a shop that sees people come in with problems. See where the problem lies for both of us? You have my word that I will not send a personal jab toward you from this day forward.

Sorry Bob, but nobody is denigrating anybody for working on upgrades for these cars. We all appreciate what the guys in shops like Jake et al are doing. It's the hype that gets old (see Jake's last ad campaign). Is there a problem with the M96? Sure, we can call a failure a problem. Is it as prevalent as those want it to be? NO WAY TO TELL. That's why you CAN argue statistics. Since there are NONE you can't make the claims you do. That's all and that the POINT that I have been trying to make. Did you miss that?

What concerns you is valid...I agree. What concerns me is that people IGNORE basic statistics and make assumptions WITHOUT any way to support it.

 

Dell, I did not make any CLAIMS, nor was my post as strident as yours. I suggest we all chill a little.

As the CI of a very active region I have seen half dozen catastrophic failures of 98x and 996 engines. It strikes me as odd that there have been zero failures of the old 3.0, 3.2 and 3.6 litre engines in the 993. When you figure that the newest engine in the 993 is now 12 years it does make me wonder.

A lack of accurate statistics is not a valid reason to dismiss the fact that early 996 engines are somewhat suspect. In Panorama, or Excellence, not sure which, the tech columnist speculates that the odds of failure are one in five. How this was derived, I don't know, since an appropriate data set exists only at Porsche.

So I agree that no accurate statistics are available. On the other hand your posts seem to imply that the problem is insignificant. There are no stats to support that position either are there?

Regards,

 

Bob, you are totally not reading my posts. I never said it was insignificant (or properly stated not significant) but rather that you CANNOT state there is a significant problem. That's all, so don't IMPLY what I have said. I have been very clear. I have NEVER said there was no problem. However, I agree, there is something at play. But the hype and hysteria get old.

FYI....there is zero chance (I can say that with statistically certainty ) that this is something that everybody will chill from.

 

In the early 1980's I was a dealer Service Rep for Toyota -- looked after about 40 dealerships and helped with all sort of mechanical issues -- training, warranty, customer complaints etc'.

About then Toyota was "cornered" with the Corona because to meet the local content import rules they had to use a 4 cyl GM engine -- it was branded Toyota and sold as "all Toyota", the engine was one problem after another -- but everybody at Toyota said "fix em properly and never say no -- keep the customer happy -- Toyota's reputation is more valuable than the cost of repairs.

There were other examples of that "fix it at any cost" to protect the reputation way of thinking.

Why is Porsche different? I don't know but I can say that if there has been 1000 engine grenading episodes worldwide in Boxters and 996's then Porsche should be roasted and humiliated and front up and be honest and trustwothy members of this global community and admit and fix -- why they don't is something someone more in tune with German commercial ethics will have to answer.

And when those of you who belong to Porsce clubs are meeting and spending good PR time with Porsche exec's you should be repeatedly bringing to their attention the loss of trust we have in them for not admiting fault and fixing the problem.