BruceP

Actually, the horse was not only dead but buried about eight pages deep in this site. Judging from the date stamp on your post, I'd say you were the one who dug it up for a fresh beating. Have a look, and you'll see that this was over back in May until you helpfully resurrected it.

I don't know how they do things at bimmerforums, but I suspect that here, when you call anybody "tiresome", you'll probably get a little defensiveness.

mkaresh

I was accused of being defensive earlier, with the implication that this was somehow wrong, and wondered what might justify being defensive, since clearly none of the invective directed at me was sufficient justification.

Now I know what justifies becoming defensive--being called (without singling anyone out by name) "a little tiresome."

On a more serious note, in response to lml999, the people who sign up to participate in this research do not, by and large, feel strongly about it. I can understand why you'd make this assumption, but the reality does not support the assumption.

Steve2112 and supark are more engaged than most participants--the average participant simply wouldn't post in this thread--yet if you read what they posted it's clear that they have no agenda, or interest in the results coming out one way or the other. They're just somewhat interested in having an additional source of reliability information and are just trying to do their part to make this information possible.

I've long noticed that, for various reasons, people with strong opinions are actually less likely to sign up and participate. Part of the reason is that people with strong opinions already know what they know--they don't need further information.

I feel that the reality of who participates and the usefulness of the information they provide is evident in the latest results for the Boxster. Here's what I've been reporting in Boxster forums:


We have updated reliability stats for the Boxster and Cayman that include owner experiences through March 31, 2010. In terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year:

2008: 31, better than average

2006: 14, better than average, small sample size

2005: 71, about average

2003: 95, about average, small sample size

2002: 120, about average

2001: 129, about average

2000: 101, about average

1999: 129, about average

Fairly consistent results from year to year, with a clear improvement from 2005 to 2006. The results for the 2000 and 2006 might be a bit lower than they should be, judging from the results for other model years.

I'd like to report specifically on the IMS failure rate, but we will need more participants to do this. So far, with 180 986s participating for an average of about six months, only two IMS failures have been reported, and none since last August.

The page on the site, which includes additional details:

Porsche Boxster reliability comparisons

BruceP

Now look what you've done, supark. The beast is risen.

supark

Relax Bruce, like I said I agree with some aspects of what you've said - your response is out of proportion to my post. The figurative "dead horse" I was speaking to was the somewhat black and white appraisal of the survey. I agree that the survey data collection methodology is flawed, however I think it's still better than what exists to date, which I'm sure everyone would agree is a somewhat overblown and controversial mix of actual experiences and secondhand stories. I've seen similar surveys (with similar methodology) on e46 focused sites to collect data on subframe mount issues, as well as mini focused sites regarding strut tower mushrooming and they do yield some interesting results. Though not conclusive, they are useful in the very least to identify some general best practices when buying/maintaining the respective cars. That and reading through this thread, Makresh seems to be demonized as a swindler, cheat, liar, and most likely responsible for the sinking of Atlantis. Can't we all just get along?

BruceP

As an 18 post veteran of Rennlist, who does not own a Porsche and was not part of the original discussion, I respectfully decline your counsel.

mkaresh

I don't think anyone accused me of sinking Atlantis, only of the rest of the list and, most lately, of being "the beast."

Sorry you had to receive a bit of the same, supark. Some people here are interested in a reasonable discussion, but they tend not to post in this thread.

supark

Thanks for the warm welcome and I guess I am part of the discussion now And that's 19 posts my friend

BruceP

You're welcome.

Bob Rouleau

To the nay-sayers, ... I endorsed this study because in spite of the weaknesses in the stats (pointed out over and over) any half decent set of stats is better than what we have now .. i.e. the perception that the early 986 and 996 are bound to fail. Most of the reports on this site are from people who complain of engine failures - IMS, D-Chunk etc.

The silent majority are not often heard from. I hoped (and am encouraged) that the majority of owners of these cars are now engaged and the statistics are getting better. Perfect? No. As Dell pointed out, only PCNA and PAG have enough data and they aren't talking. Still with enough owners reporting we can get a reasonable idea of how reliable our cars are. It beats the doom and gloom notions currently prevailing does it not?

To those who vilify Michael for operating a business, I admit to being puzzled. Contribute to the data and get the results for free. Sounds like a fair deal to me. I have been participating in his surveys for years and his stats influenced my buying decisions.

Regards,

JM993

Michael,

I spoken with a few Porsche techs who have yet to see IMS failures with 2006 or later 911/Cayman/Boxster (M97) engines. While this is hardly conclusive, I am curious as to whether anyone in your survey with a 2006-up 911/Cayman/Boxster has reported an IMS failure.

Thanks,
Joe

mkaresh

No year of the 911 is in the main survey yet, though some years are getting close, so we have very little repair information for it.

We don't have nearly as many 987 owners as 986 owners, but none had reported an IMS failure when I last checked a few weeks ago.

I should add, for those who might be interested in helping to get the 911 into the survey, that additional details and links to the enrollment form can be found here:

Car reliability research

BruceP

This is really disappointing, Bob. I have repeatedly said that I don't begrudge Karesh's business model, or that it is a business, or even the concept of user generated content being used to generate traffic for advertising... and I made my initial comments from a position of having some pretty decent bona fides in this area. I made my issues clear so many times, and kept getting words put in my mouth rather than reasoned responses. Now, I get it (albeit by inference) from an Admin?

mkaresh

We'll have updated stats for many years of the Boxster in about two weeks.

A couple years of the 996 are now 3/4 of the way to getting started, and two more are close behind them.

To help get your year started:

Car reliability research

johnnyreb2010

here, now move over.

johnnyreb2010

since bob started this, where did he go, haven't seen any other admin's comment on this, whats their take, on any other thread they would have shut it down already.